Poll: Obama Leading Romney 49% To 46% Ahead Of Second Debate

[Ulysses G.]

For those who want to politicize the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi, and try to put blame on Obama and/or Sec. Clinton, here's something you can put in your pipe and smoke:

1983: 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured in one horendous terrorist attack, ....in Lebanon. You know who was president at the time. You want to blame R.Reagan for those deaths? I didn't think so.

I don't remember Reagan trying to cover it up to get reelected. The cover up is the problem and a bunch of US government emails have just been exposed that prove that the highest levels of the government knew from the very first day that Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack and a video had nothing to do with it. They claimed responsibility during the attack.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

I gues that Candy Crowley doesn't see it either or she recognizes that it was not referring to the attack in Benghazi.

It wasn't? How do you figure?

Because she SAID so after the debate.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

The Real Clear Politics average has Romney slightly ahead nationwide and Obama slightly ahead in Ohio. Most pundits agree that yesterdays debate will make no difference one way or the other. I disagree, I think that Obama's rude behavior will hurt him with women and independents. The reason that Romney won the first debate so decisively was he was polite and respectful to his rival while tearing apart his policies. Obama has once again damaged his likeability and he does not have much time to repair his image.

[uptheos]

The Real Clear Politics average has Romney slightly ahead nationwide and Obama slightly ahead in Ohio. Most pundits agree that yesterdays debate will make no difference one way or the other. I disagree, I think that Obama's rude behavior will hurt him with women and independents. The reason that Romney won the first debate so decisively was he was polite and respectful to his rival while tearing apart his policies. Obama has once again damaged his likeability and he does not have much time to repair his image.

Obama has become arrogant and this was demonstrated quite clearly, when he decided the first debate wasn't worthwhile.

[SteeleJoe]

I gues that Candy Crowley doesn't see it either or she recognizes that it was not referring to the attack in Benghazi.

It wasn't? How do you figure?

Because she SAID so after the debate.

She SAID so so that means it is so? Keep in mind you say "She recognizes that it was not...", so that means it's fact. According to whom? You and Candy? (I'd be interested in seeing what she said -- can you show me?)

EDIT TO ADD:

It's rather odd that in the middle of a speech prompted by and specifically about the attack in Benghazi, Obama made a statement about acts of terror that somehow you and Candy (allegedly) can discern as being not related to that act of terror (even though, as far as I know, the President wasn't heard to say, "but I don't mean the attack in Benghazi -- now let me continue the rest of my speech that is entriely about that attack except for that one sentence">)

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited October 24, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[chuckd]

The day after the attack in Libya, this excerpt from the president's speech:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,...."

Where in that sentence do you see the word 'terror'? I see it. Do Republican attack dogs see it?

To quote your own post..."No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,...."

The word "acts" is plural and might or might not include the Benghazi act. It is generic and not specific and we will never know what was in Obama's mind.

Obama's speech writers should have put these words in his mouth..."THIS act of terror will never shake the resolve of this great nation".

It still took him 12 days or so to be specific. Simple enough, really.

[SteeleJoe]

The day after the attack in Libya, this excerpt from the president's speech:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,...."

Where in that sentence do you see the word 'terror'? I see it. Do Republican attack dogs see it?

To quote your own post..."No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,...."

The word "acts" is plural and might or might not include the Benghazi act. It is generic and not specific and we will never know what was in Obama's mind.

Obama's speech writers should have put these words in his mouth..."THIS act of terror will never shake the resolve of this great nation".

It still took him 12 days or so to be specific. Simple enough, really.

Sure. You aren't claiming it is a fact so I can't argue with you much: he could possibly have been, in his mind, excluding Benghazi in his speech about Benghazi.

If you really want to be so absurdly partisan that you need to rely on that sort of semantic game: "This act of terror" won't shake us -- means that others possibly will. Is that what you want? Or would you rather a President declare that the America will NEVER be deterred by ANY act of terror?

I am absolutely certain if it had been say, Bush or Romney who had said "No acts" and someone said it wasn't specific enough, you'd not accept that for a second.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[geriatrickid]

Have you been paying attention? How do you think Obama won the election in 2008?

By claiming that he would cut the deficit in half during his first - and hopefully only - term?

The most noticeable action that the Republican-led congress has portrayed in the past 4 years is No. No. and No.

Both houses of congress were run by the Democrats for Obama's first two years and he got everything that he wanted including wasting 831 billion on a failed "stimulus" plan. The Republicans were not responsible for Obama's failed policies.

The stimulus plan that you denigrate was successful. Let's look at what its goals were;

- Create and save jobs: Yes, it did that reversing the massive job losses that that took hold during the Bush administration. Could it be better? Sure, but when you are over the edge of a cliff, the first thing is to climb back up before you can step back.

-• Spur economic activity and invest in long-term growth by providing $288 billion in tax cuts and benefits; $224 billion to increase funding for entitlement programs; and $275 in contract, grant, and loan awards: Well, the tax cuts should have made you happy. The extra funding for those that had lost jobs or that needed retraining or that required medical care might disappoint you, but I reckon that for those in need of the benefits, they were helpful. The contract, grant and loan awards went mosty to the states and municipalities helping to plug the hole those governments found themselves in, when they could not raise the revenues themselves.

The single largest receipients of recovery funding were State/local governments. Then universities and other research institutions received money. Considering the fact that more innovation comes out of these entities than does the private sector, it was money well spent. You do realize that almost every cutting age medical treatment comes out of this sector don't you? Did you actually think that big pharma conducts the R&D itself? They actually fund the R&D at universities and public sector research facilities. Big pharma is not alone. Oil companies, petrochemical automobile manufacturers all do the same. You know all those nifty safety gadgets on cars, who do you think developed most of them? Do you actually believe it was the manufacturers? The initial R&D came out of the government funded R&D. These institutions provided valuable jobs to skilled Americans and they helped protect the nation's intellectual capital.

Non-profit organizations were big receipients too. Ok, sure, you might complain why groups like the Salvation Army and the Catholic Community Services NPOs received money. Well, if you recall, former President Reagan got the ball rolling when he said community asisstance should be provided by groups like this. He was of the view the government shouldb't be involved. The U.S. government relies on private groups to deliver assistance to the unemployed, the destitute and people that fall beween the cracks. There are not enough resources within the federal government to provide these services. Unless, you were in favour of allowing these people to starve or not get back on their feet, I don't know why you would target such groups.

And oh yes, many private companies received loans and grants. These were mostly small firms, the firms Mr. Romney claims he will help. Just ask Paul Ryan about the value of this funding, as he lobbied for payments to some of his constituents.

Edited October 24, 2012 by geriatrickid

[theslime]

I watched the Latest Debate, and thought how do I get a Script Writers Job for Obama, as that piece about AirCraft Carriers was Pathetic. But Rommey scares me and I hope as I,m Middle aged I wont be called up to Fight Syria/Iran. Should focus on the real Enemy,The Wahabbi Sect in Saudi for starters.

[geriatrickid]

I watched the Latest Debate, and thought how do I get a Script Writers Job for Obama, as that piece about AirCraft Carriers was Pathetic. But Rommey scares me and I hope as I,m Middle aged I wont be called up to Fight Syria/Iran. Should focus on the real Enemy,The Wahabbi Sect in Saudi for starters.

Mr. Romney stated that the USA should rely on its ally Saudi Arabia when responding to Syria. He also advocated working through Turkey. I don't know if he has an absent mind, but up until the Syrian crisis, Turkey's PM was lashing out at the USA for picking on Turkey's friend, Iran. The USA has only only reliable ally in the middle east and it isn't one of these two countries.

[chuckd]

The trouble is, if it was Romney, he'd invade Canada thinking he was invading Mexico or something. This cock up from Mitt the Twitt is beyond incredible:

""Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world," he said. "It's their route to the sea."

Er.... what?

Aside from the fact Iraq is now quite chummy with Syria, what with their governments sharing the same muslim sect and all, perhaps someone needs to get a globe and show Romney the Arabian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Caspian Sea - and which country borders all three.

Strewth, that's right up there with "aircraft need windows that open".

Talking about aircraft with windows, you might want to consider this simple fact. No country borders all three of your mentioned bodies of water.

Iran borders on the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Caspian Sea, but not the Arabian Sea

However the Caspian Sea is actually not a sea. It is the largest lake in the world which means it is landlocked. It provides no access to the world's seas and oceans.

You might want to refer to your own globe, unless you have already sent it to Romney.

Edited October 24, 2012 by chuckd

[samran]

Interesting article from an Australian online newspaper I subscribe to about why polling methodolgies might be artificially skewing the results to Romney.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2012/10/24/presidential-election-minus-13-days/

Given that it isn't from the US - more likely to be really 'fair and balanced'.

But as they say, the only poll that counts....

[SteeleJoe]

,The Wahabbi Sect in Saudi for starters.

Errr...you mean the entire ruling structure of that country, yes?

I share your sentiment to a degree but I think referring to it as a sect in this context somewhat diminishes the scale of what you propose.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[chuckd]

The day after the attack in Libya, this excerpt from the president's speech:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,...."

Where in that sentence do you see the word 'terror'? I see it. Do Republican attack dogs see it?

To quote your own post..."No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,...."

The word "acts" is plural and might or might not include the Benghazi act. It is generic and not specific and we will never know what was in Obama's mind.

Obama's speech writers should have put these words in his mouth..."THIS act of terror will never shake the resolve of this great nation".

It still took him 12 days or so to be specific. Simple enough, really.

Sure. You aren't claiming it is a fact so I can't argue with you much: he could possibly have been, in his mind, excluding Benghazi in his speech about Benghazi.

If you really want to be so absurdly partisan that you need to rely on that sort of semantic game: "This act of terror" won't shake us -- means that others possibly will. Is that what you want? Or would you rather a President declare that the America will NEVER be deterred by ANY act of terror?

I am absolutely certain if it had been say, Bush or Romney who had said "No acts" and someone said it wasn't specific enough, you'd not accept that for a second.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I accepted Obama's words until he started trying to cover his administration's rear end with the "Intelligence told us", Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton's weak attempts at a cover up came out.

Actually when I found out the lack of secured facilities the State Department had in Benghazi was such a total failure, my suspicions werer aroused.

Again...where does that proverbial buck stop?

PS: The world of politics is nothing but a game of semantics.

[chuckd]

Interesting article from an Australian online newspaper I subscribe to about why polling methodolgies might be artificially skewing the results to Romney.

http://blogs.crikey....-minus-13-days/

Given that it isn't from the US - more likely to be really 'fair and balanced'.

But as they say, the only poll that counts....

With 67% of Australians supporting Obama, that would hardly represent a "fair and balanced" approach..

"Of all the countries polled, France is currently the most strongly pro-Obama, with 72 per cent wanting him to be re-elected and just 2 per cent preferring Romney. Australia (67%), Canada (66%), Nigeria (66%), and the UK (65%) are among the other countries with large majorities favouring Obama."

http://globescan.com...-to-romney.html

[SteeleJoe]

The day after the attack in Libya, this excerpt from the president's speech:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,...."

Where in that sentence do you see the word 'terror'? I see it. Do Republican attack dogs see it?

To quote your own post..."No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,...."

The word "acts" is plural and might or might not include the Benghazi act. It is generic and not specific and we will never know what was in Obama's mind.

Obama's speech writers should have put these words in his mouth..."THIS act of terror will never shake the resolve of this great nation".

It still took him 12 days or so to be specific. Simple enough, really.

Sure. You aren't claiming it is a fact so I can't argue with you much: he could possibly have been, in his mind, excluding Benghazi in his speech about Benghazi.

If you really want to be so absurdly partisan that you need to rely on that sort of semantic game: "This act of terror" won't shake us -- means that others possibly will. Is that what you want? Or would you rather a President declare that the America will NEVER be deterred by ANY act of terror?

I am absolutely certain if it had been say, Bush or Romney who had said "No acts" and someone said it wasn't specific enough, you'd not accept that for a second.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I accepted Obama's words until he started trying to cover his administration's rear end with the "Intelligence told us", Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton's weak attempts at a cover up came out.

Actually when I found out the lack of secured facilities the State Department had in Benghazi was such a total failure, my suspicions werer aroused.

Again...where does that proverbial buck stop?

PS: The world of politics is nothing but a game of semantics.

Oops, was typing and didn't see this.

Closer still!

But what suspicions were aroused? Can you be more specific?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[samran]

Interesting article from an Australian online newspaper I subscribe to about why polling methodolgies might be artificially skewing the results to Romney.

http://blogs.crikey....-minus-13-days/

Given that it isn't from the US - more likely to be really 'fair and balanced'.

But as they say, the only poll that counts....

With 67% of Australians supporting Obama, that would hardly represent a "fair and balanced" approach..

"Of all the countries polled, France is currently the most strongly pro-Obama, with 72 per cent wanting him to be re-elected and just 2 per cent preferring Romney. Australia (67%), Canada (66%), Nigeria (66%), and the UK (65%) are among the other countries with large majorities favouring Obama."

http://globescan.com...-to-romney.html

In the same way, does the fact only 5% of Americans have passports make them any more/less insular than other countries? No. Does the fact gun ownership is 88 per 100 people in the US mean that 88% of Americans are a bunch of hillbilly rednecks? Again no.

Throwing around numbers thinking they back up an argument is plain silly without proper justification. And to be honest, people have been doing that far to liberally on this thread. A bit like saying 'oh its cold today, thus global warming isn't real'.

The economist in me thinks this article is one of the more balanced things I've read of late concerning polls. Goes to the heart of the statistical methods of data collection, and not just random numbers which people on this thread have thrown aroudn thinking they back up an argument.

[uptheos]

The USA has only only reliable ally in the middle east and it isn't one of these two countries.

I did like the moderators question; " would you consider an attack on Israel the same as an attack on USA?"

[SteeleJoe]

Interesting article from an Australian online newspaper I subscribe to about why polling methodolgies might be artificially skewing the results to Romney.

http://blogs.crikey....-minus-13-days/

Given that it isn't from the US - more likely to be really 'fair and balanced'.

But as they say, the only poll that counts....

With 67% of Australians supporting Obama, that would hardly represent a "fair and balanced" approach..

"Of all the countries polled, France is currently the most strongly pro-Obama, with 72 per cent wanting him to be re-elected and just 2 per cent preferring Romney. Australia (67%), Canada (66%), Nigeria (66%), and the UK (65%) are among the other countries with large majorities favouring Obama."

http://globescan.com...-to-romney.html

In the same way, does the fact only 5% of Americans have passports make them any more/less insular than other countries? No. Does the fact gun ownership is 88 per 100 people in the US mean that 88% of Americans are a bunch of hillbilly rednecks? Again no.

Throwing around numbers thinking they back up an argument is plain silly without proper justification. And to be honest, people have been doing that far to liberally on this thread. A bit like saying 'oh its cold today, thus global warming isn't real'.

The economist in me thinks this article is one of the more balanced things I've read of late concerning polls. Goes to the heart of the statistical methods of data collection, and not just random numbers which people on this thread have thrown aroudn thinking they back up an argument.

Nice one.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[keemapoot]

The USA has only only reliable ally in the middle east and it isn't one of these two countries.

I did like the moderators question; " would you consider an attack on Israel the same as an attack on USA?"

I think the answer was a resounding, but qualified yes from both candidates, provided Israel didn't go off half-cocked and do it without America's blessing. Romney couched it in slightly less qualified terms saying he "had Israel's back," but also adding there would never be any surprise attack under his admin.

[uptheos]

The USA has only only reliable ally in the middle east and it isn't one of these two countries.

I did like the moderators question; " would you consider an attack on Israel the same as an attack on USA?"

I think the answer was a resounding, but qualified yes from both candidates, provided Israel didn't go off half-cocked and do it without America's blessing. Romney couched it in slightly less qualified terms saying he "had Israel's back," but also adding there would never be any surprise attack under his admin.

Yes I liked that bit...........probably because he would talk to Nethanyahu when possible.

Obama has become too arrogant for me.

[chuckd]

To quote your own post..."No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,...."

The word "acts" is plural and might or might not include the Benghazi act. It is generic and not specific and we will never know what was in Obama's mind.

Obama's speech writers should have put these words in his mouth..."THIS act of terror will never shake the resolve of this great nation".

It still took him 12 days or so to be specific. Simple enough, really.

Sure. You aren't claiming it is a fact so I can't argue with you much: he could possibly have been, in his mind, excluding Benghazi in his speech about Benghazi.

If you really want to be so absurdly partisan that you need to rely on that sort of semantic game: "This act of terror" won't shake us -- means that others possibly will. Is that what you want? Or would you rather a President declare that the America will NEVER be deterred by ANY act of terror?

I am absolutely certain if it had been say, Bush or Romney who had said "No acts" and someone said it wasn't specific enough, you'd not accept that for a second.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I accepted Obama's words until he started trying to cover his administration's rear end with the "Intelligence told us", Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton's weak attempts at a cover up came out.

Actually when I found out the lack of secured facilities the State Department had in Benghazi was such a total failure, my suspicions werer aroused.

Again...where does that proverbial buck stop?

PS: The world of politics is nothing but a game of semantics.

Oops, was typing and didn't see this.

Closer still!

But what suspicions were aroused? Can you be more specific?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Have you ever been to a US Embassy or Consulate? If you had you would notice bulletproof glass, fortified exterior walls 3-4 meters high with concertina on top, fully armed guards at the entrances, fortified building walls, heavily reinforced concrete barriers to prevent suicide car bombs...and most importantly a US Marine detachment to protect an Ambassador with at least two 20 mm cannons.

I lived in five different housing compounds in Saudi Arabia after the Khobar Towers bombing that all had better security than the Consulate in Benghazi.

I played regularly at two golf courses outside of Riyadh that had better security than Benghazi. They all had Saudi Special Forces guarding them and four of them had the aforementioned cannons. I frequently played with US military members and they were required to travel by armored vehicles, which were better protected than the Benghazi Consulate. When the Ambassador came to play golf, he traveled with two additional armored Suburbans with fully armed security personnel.

When I saw what facilities were available in Benghazi, my immediate reaction was the entire slaughter was due to a massive mishandling by the State Department, If Hillary didn't know what the facilities were then her leadership should be questioned. If she didn't bring any potential flaws in the security system to Obama's attention then both of their leadership qualities should be questioned.

[Chicog]

The Real Clear Politics average has Romney slightly ahead nationwide and Obama slightly ahead in Ohio. Most pundits agree that yesterdays debate will make no difference one way or the other. I disagree, I think that Obama's rude behavior will hurt him with women and independents. The reason that Romney won the first debate so decisively was he was polite and respectful to his rival while tearing apart his policies. Obama has once again damaged his likeability and he does not have much time to repair his image.

Yes, I saw a similar and equally pointless non-sequitur on Fox as well.

[keemapoot]

The USA has only only reliable ally in the middle east and it isn't one of these two countries.

I did like the moderators question; " would you consider an attack on Israel the same as an attack on USA?"

I think the answer was a resounding, but qualified yes from both candidates, provided Israel didn't go off half-cocked and do it without America's blessing. Romney couched it in slightly less qualified terms saying he "had Israel's back," but also adding there would never be any surprise attack under his admin.

Yes I liked that bit...........probably because he would talk to Nethanyahu when possible.

Obama has become too arrogant for me.

Yes, that was reassuring, especially considering that Bibi looks to be around for awhile longer. But I also think the relationship goes much deeper than 2 people, so I expect there's not a huge difference on this issue.

[uptheos]

Bottom line Obama stated he's responsible for the lack of security, despite Hilary taking a bullet for him.

He should have done the honourable thing and handed the country over to Joe.

[SteeleJoe]

Have you ever been to a US Embassy or Consulate? If you had you would notice bulletproof glass, fortified exterior walls 3-4 meters high with concertina on top, fully armed guards at the entrances, fortified building walls, heavily reinforced concrete barriers to prevent suicide car bombs...and most importantly a US Marine detachment to protect an Ambassador with at least two 20 mm cannons.

I lived in five different housing compounds in Saudi Arabia after the Khobar Towers bombing that all had better security than the Consulate in Benghazi.

I played regularly at two golf courses outside of Riyadh that had better security than Benghazi. They all had Saudi Special Forces guarding them and four of them had the aforementioned cannons. I frequently played with US military members and they were required to travel by armored vehicles, which were better protected than the Benghazi Consulate. When the Ambassador came to play golf, he traveled with two additional armored Suburbans with fully armed security personnel.

If Hillary didn't know what the facilities were then her leadership should be questioned. If she didn't bring any potential flaws in the security system to Obama's attention then both of their leadership qualities should be questioned.

No. I have lived outside the US for 30 years and travelled abroad even longer but I have never been to a US Embassy or Consulate. (SNIDE SARCASM ALERT) Thanks for your description: sounds awesome.

"When I saw what facilities were available in Benghazi, my immediate reaction was the entire slaughter was due to a massive mishandling by the State Department"

Personally I'd prefer to rely on a far more in depth, balanced, nuanced and fact based analysis conducted with sufficient time, rather than your "immediate reaction".

"If Hillary didn't know what the facilities were then her leadership should be questioned. "

Absolutely.

"If she didn't bring any potential flaws in the security system to Obama's attention then both of their leadership qualities should be questioned."

By all means, question his leadership qualities -- but why do so based on a (hypothetical) failure of Secretary Clinton?

Oh, and you didn't answer my questions or responded to my refutation of your posit. (Just a reminder -- you're obviously not obliged to and I shan't hector you to do so).

Edit to add sarcasm alert

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited October 24, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[chuckd]

Interesting article from an Australian online newspaper I subscribe to about why polling methodolgies might be artificially skewing the results to Romney.

http://blogs.crikey....-minus-13-days/

Given that it isn't from the US - more likely to be really 'fair and balanced'.

But as they say, the only poll that counts....

With 67% of Australians supporting Obama, that would hardly represent a "fair and balanced" approach..

"Of all the countries polled, France is currently the most strongly pro-Obama, with 72 per cent wanting him to be re-elected and just 2 per cent preferring Romney. Australia (67%), Canada (66%), Nigeria (66%), and the UK (65%) are among the other countries with large majorities favouring Obama."

http://globescan.com...-to-romney.html

In the same way, does the fact only 5% of Americans have passports make them any more/less insular than other countries? No. Does the fact gun ownership is 88 per 100 people in the US mean that 88% of Americans are a bunch of hillbilly rednecks? Again no.

Throwing around numbers thinking they back up an argument is plain silly without proper justification. And to be honest, people have been doing that far to liberally on this thread. A bit like saying 'oh its cold today, thus global warming isn't real'.

The economist in me thinks this article is one of the more balanced things I've read of late concerning polls. Goes to the heart of the statistical methods of data collection, and not just random numbers which people on this thread have thrown aroudn thinking they back up an argument.

Your two examples have nothing to do with this thread and are really rather silly.

This is about political opinions written by an Australian talking head knowing full well that 67% of his potential readers will lap up any criticism of the man they do not favor.

Please provide the name of a political opinion piece author that doesn't cater to his readership. They all do.

[Chicog]

The average price of Regular Gas today is $3.687 per Gallon according to http://www.eia.gov/p...leum/gasdiesel/

So where did you get your "$4 a gallon" price from,

Do you really not understand the word ABOUT? The average price of gas has been hovering at about $4.00.

One gallon of gasoline is about an average of $4.00 today.

Also:

However, What I didn't know was that until the collapse of Lehmann Brothers, it was virtually the same price it is now. The price collapsed when the economies collapsed.

Gas was about $4.00 for only a few months until Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling in the summer of 2008. Then, in Sept 2008, the congressional moratorium on drilling expired. These two events were the primary reason for the huge drop in gas prices and had little to do with the "economy collapsing".

President Obama reinstated the drilling ban in February 2009. He also reversed several other policies that had allowed for new drilling on federal lands. The reversal in Feb 2009 squelched the optimism of the market over anticipation of an increase in domestic supplies from Bush's policies and began the sharp, steady rise in prices once again.

Firstly, the oil price has only got close to $4.00 twice - I published the graph showing you exactly this.So it is not "hovering" at about $4.00 a gallon as you say. Another bit of Romnesia.

Secondly, your last paragraph is about the most hilarious attempt at spin I've seen on this thread. As I've already revealed, the amount of crude from federal land has actually increased under Obama, Gas has declined ONLY on Federal land because most of the accessible resources are not on Federal land.

You are going to have to try and match Hans Christian Andersen to try and succeed with a fairy story like that!

The gas price crashed because of the economic collapse, simple as. (I should clarify: In 2008 oil dropped from $144 per barrel to $37 dollars per barrel, due to a crash in world demand, not due to a bit of extra pumping on American soil).

And more to the point it shows the frequently reported (here) untruth about Obama "Doubling Gas" prices, because he has never got them as high as Bush did ($4.1050).

Another Republican Lie. They will come out with anything to get their greedy snouts back in the trough.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Chicog

[samran]

Interesting article from an Australian online newspaper I subscribe to about why polling methodolgies might be artificially skewing the results to Romney.

http://blogs.crikey....-minus-13-days/

Given that it isn't from the US - more likely to be really 'fair and balanced'.

But as they say, the only poll that counts....

With 67% of Australians supporting Obama, that would hardly represent a "fair and balanced" approach..

"Of all the countries polled, France is currently the most strongly pro-Obama, with 72 per cent wanting him to be re-elected and just 2 per cent preferring Romney. Australia (67%), Canada (66%), Nigeria (66%), and the UK (65%) are among the other countries with large majorities favouring Obama."

http://globescan.com...-to-romney.html

In the same way, does the fact only 5% of Americans have passports make them any more/less insular than other countries? No. Does the fact gun ownership is 88 per 100 people in the US mean that 88% of Americans are a bunch of hillbilly rednecks? Again no.

Throwing around numbers thinking they back up an argument is plain silly without proper justification. And to be honest, people have been doing that far to liberally on this thread. A bit like saying 'oh its cold today, thus global warming isn't real'.

The economist in me thinks this article is one of the more balanced things I've read of late concerning polls. Goes to the heart of the statistical methods of data collection, and not just random numbers which people on this thread have thrown aroudn thinking they back up an argument.

Your two examples have nothing to do with this thread and are really rather silly.

This is about political opinions written by an Australian talking head knowing full well that 67% of his potential readers will lap up any criticism of the man they do not favor.

Please provide the name of a political opinion piece author that doesn't cater to his readership. They all do.

My 'rather silly' example was intentional - to show that your '67% of Australian's like Obama' factoid was rather silly and pointless as well (not to mention the fact that at Australians are generally a conservative bunch and are about to elect in droves a conservative federal government next year having elected them in most states already...).

But as you say, this is a side issue.

So, okay then, instead of dancing around the issue, why don't you critique the actual article? Better than us chucking around useless statistics? No?

[chuckd]

No. I have lived outside the US for 30 years and travelled abroad even longer but I have never been to a US Embassy or Consulate. Thanks for your description: sounds awesome.

"When I saw what facilities were available in Benghazi, my immediate reaction was the entire slaughter was due to a massive mishandling by the State Department"

Personally I'd prefer to rely on a far more in depth, balanced, nuanced and fact based analysis conducted with sufficient time, rather than your "immediate reaction".

"If Hillary didn't know what the facilities were then her leadership should be questioned. "

Absolutely.

"If she didn't bring any potential flaws in the security system to Obama's attention then both of their leadership qualities should be questioned."

By all means, question his leadership qualities -- but why do so based on a (hypothetical) failure of Secretary Clinton?

Oh, and you didn't answer my questions or responded to my refutation of your posit. (Just a reminder -- you're obviously not obliged to and I shan't hector you to do so).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I am not certain which questions I failed to address unless you are talking about this from one of your earlier posts:

"If you really want to be so absurdly partisan that you need to rely on that sort of semantic game: "This act of terror" won't shake us -- means that others possibly will. Is that what you want? Or would you rather a President declare that the America will NEVER be deterred by ANY act of terror?"

I want any US President to be somewhat truthful. He was addressing the Benghazi incident in his Rose Garden speech and not the attack on the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon.

What his speech writers should have ordered him to say was..."This and any other act of terror".

That would have covered it rather nicely.

Edit in to change the word "attack" to "act".

Edited October 24, 2012 by chuckd