Why are Republicans so silent about Gas Prices?

[pocketfullofshells]

bla bla bla..not one republican willing to admit attacking the president for gas prices going up, and then down 2 months later...is a douche bag move.

 

[dogtowner]

Liberals are the parents who set rules for there kids
Conservatives say think Lord of the Flies is the way to a better future.

Businesses are responsible for one thing, making money for stock holders. Someone needs to be there to make sure what they are doing is not harmful to the rest of the people.

People like you would say let the fucking kids have lead paint on there toys, I am sure the parents can figure it out for themselfs. And to stop them would be hurting that poor buisness. PS feel free to put cancer causing chemicals in the water and air...I don't want to stand in the way of your profits and say you can't do that,

not quite

that someone has an abysmal track record at thismainly because they employ a model that cannot work (which is why businesses support pols who perpetuate this).

instead of saying "you cannot do X" say instead "if your actions cause harm, the penalties WILL BE draconian". they do X because they know the cost of getting caught is trivial from a risk management perspective. if those dog food companies knew that selling dogfood that kills dogs would result in their assets being seized (all of them and I mean personal and applicable to all senior management) and put them in prison forever do you think they would exercise more care ? we saw the result of attempting to ban.

sometimes trhe stick is better than the carrot.

 

[dogtowner]

bla bla bla..not one republican willing to admit attacking the president for gas prices going up, and then down 2 months later...is a douche bag move.

why would anyone admit a false accusation ? cause and effect P, cause and effect.

 

[TheJPRD]

bla bla bla..not one republican willing to admit attacking the president for gas prices going up, and then down 2 months later...is a douche bag move.

This ONE Republican specifically said in my post #3 of THIS thread, "I didn't blame Obama for gas prices when they were higher...... I blamed him for not allowing the exploration and exploitation of more and more oil and natural gas.” POS even quoted that comment in his post #8 of THIS thread! In my post #38 of THIS thread, I said, "Read my earlier posts, lefty! I clearly stated that I DON'T blame the ups and downs in oil prices on ANY President. I blame this worthless President for obstructing the full exploration and exploitation of our nation's energy resources.”

edited for personal attacks. please don't do this as its a violation of forum rules.

 

[TheJPRD]

My above post #79 was edited for "personal attacks". I bow to the judgment of the moderator who edited my post. However, I'd like the opinions of others here regarding this question: "If an unpleasant claim is made about a poster, and if the claim is supported by facts; is it wiser to consider it "the truth" or a "personal attack"?" Had I called Adolph Hitler "a racist" and "a murderer", and had I provided facts that supported the claim, should my post have been edited to protect Adolf from the truth?

Prior to posting my comments in post #79, the "target" of my alleged "personal attack" had accused me and other Conservatives here of stupidity, and had purposefully lied about our position on the issue. He accused us of being "douche bags", and accused us of lying. At the same time, that accuser CLEARLY lied about our stated position on the issue at hand, and I quoted our position in my post. There were very few conclusions that could be drawn from my "target's" posts. I simply stated each of those conslusions, and they were considered "personal attacks". Is it a "personal attack" to speak the truth?

 

[dogtowner]

My above post #79 was edited for "personal attacks". I bow to the judgment of the moderator who edited my post. However, I'd like the opinions of others here regarding this question: "If an unpleasant claim is made about a poster, and if the claim is supported by facts; is it wiser to consider it "the truth" or a "personal attack"?" Had I called Adolph Hitler "a racist" and "a murderer", and had I provided facts that supported the claim, should my post have been edited to protect Adolf from the truth?

Prior to posting my comments in post #79, the "target" of my alleged "personal attack" had accused me and other Conservatives here of stupidity, and had purposefully lied about our position on the issue. He accused us of being "douche bags", and accused us of lying. At the same time, that accuser CLEARLY lied about our stated position on the issue at hand, and I quoted our position in my post. There were very few conclusions that could be drawn from my "target's" posts. I simply stated each of those conslusions, and they were considered "personal attacks". Is it a "personal attack" to speak the truth?

if the attacks are general then its n ot a personal attack. are other posts close to the line ? sure but calling a poster out by name is clearly over the line.

next time you want an explanation, PM is more appropriate.

 

[Cruella]

I have noticed there are few people here who stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to hear the other side or acknowledge when their drive-by accusations have been debunked with linked facts. In these cases it's probably just a waste of time to respond, because your only going to get the same answer, which is usually "your stupid" "your an idiot". They won't change, it's the way they are programmed, and they probably get a kick out of riling up those that will play their sick game. texas tea has it right.

 

[dogtowner]

I have noticed there are few people here who stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to hear the other side or acknowledge when their drive-by accusations have been debunked with linked facts. In these cases it's probably just a waste of time to respond, because your only going to get the same answer, which is usually "your stupid" "your an idiot". They won't change, it's the way they are programmed, and they probably get a kick out of riling up those that will play their sick game. texas tea has it right.

on a chitter chatter board all you have to be judged by are your words. so you either care about that or you dont. just follow the three rules though and the rest takes care of itself.

 

[Gipper]

My above post #79 was edited for "personal attacks". I bow to the judgment of the moderator who edited my post. However, I'd like the opinions of others here regarding this question: "If an unpleasant claim is made about a poster, and if the claim is supported by facts; is it wiser to consider it "the truth" or a "personal attack"?" Had I called Adolph Hitler "a racist" and "a murderer", and had I provided facts that supported the claim, should my post have been edited to protect Adolf from the truth?

Prior to posting my comments in post #79, the "target" of my alleged "personal attack" had accused me and other Conservatives here of stupidity, and had purposefully lied about our position on the issue. He accused us of being "douche bags", and accused us of lying. At the same time, that accuser CLEARLY lied about our stated position on the issue at hand, and I quoted our position in my post. There were very few conclusions that could be drawn from my "target's" posts. I simply stated each of those conslusions, and they were considered "personal attacks". Is it a "personal attack" to speak the truth?

Don't worry about it JP. Pockets consistently gets away with insulting members and making absurd troll posts.

Apparently my favorite moderator (you know, the one who uses the gonge too much) likes and protects him.

At any rate, we need Pockets on this forum so that we can see into the 'mind' of the left and for lots of laughs.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

This ONE Republican specifically said in my post #3 of THIS thread, "I didn't blame Obama for gas prices when they were higher...... I blamed him for not allowing the exploration and exploitation of more and more oil and natural gas.” POS even quoted that comment in his post #8 of THIS thread! In my post #38 of THIS thread, I said, "Read my earlier posts, lefty! I clearly stated that I DON'T blame the ups and downs in oil prices on ANY President. I blame this worthless President for obstructing the full exploration and exploitation of our nation's energy resources.”

edited for personal attacks. please don't do this as its a violation of forum rules.

Notice you still say nothing about the Hypocrites attacking for both...Thread was not about your personal views...it was about Fox News and the Republican base as a group.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

why would anyone admit a false accusation ? cause and effect P, cause and effect.

why would I expect you see something to clear as day?

 

[TheJPRD]

Notice you still say nothing about the Hypocrites attacking for both...Thread was not about your personal views...it was about Fox News and the Republican base as a group.

Oh, this thread wasn't about the hypocrisy of individual posters in this Forum, it was about the hypocrisy of "Fox News and the Republican base" was it? Funny that the original poster didn't mention that in his initial post. The post #1 is the first post in a thread, isn't it? Let's take a look at that first post

What come on, just a month or 2 ago it was all Obamas Fault...so now that is low, any credit for him? what? none?? Its almost like Hypocrisy!

I see NO mention whatever of either Fox News or the Republican base? The original poster seemed to be speaking about the "personal views" of posters in this Forum. You must have misunderstood his intent?..... Oh, YOU were the original poster? How come you forgot your topic? Strange too, that you changed the topic only after having your argument torn to shreds with facts? Did you really think that a slap on my wrist for telling the truth about you would stop me?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I guess in your word the word Republicans...only refers to this board?

The Hypocrisy of this board was that the same people who bitched about Obama for prices going up, sit in silence as they go down.

all the blame but no credit.

I don't give him credit or blame...But some on here do...but only one way.

 

[BigRob]

I guess in your word the word Republicans...only refers to this board?

The Hypocrisy of this board was that the same people who bitched about Obama for prices going up, sit in silence as they go down.

all the blame but no credit.

I don't give him credit or blame...But some on here do...but only one way.

Politics is politics -- there is ad after ad of Democrats going after Bush for gas prices that were lower than what we see today -- not a peep from them now.

This is simply the way it goes.

 

[Cruella]

Politics is politics -- there is ad after ad of Democrats going after Bush for gas prices that were lower than what we see today -- not a peep from them now.

This is simply the way it goes.

Thank you