Unfortunately,
<.... the oceans will continue to rise.>>

Maybe the magic hand he’s supposed to wave is sprained or something?

Our visionary leftward Media presents a hopeful wish in pictures...

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/...

A world without people....

* sigh *

During the 2008 debates, Senator Obama was quite clear that a major foreign policy objective was to "kill Bin Laden" - not contain, or undermine, or eliminate, but kill. Period.

I believe President Obama should get all the credit for rescuing the stock market. Back in 2008, people were ready to jump out the window, and his policies calmed them down. I also believe he will take all the blame for the debt problem, which has reached insane levels. The debt/deficit plus Obamacare may well cost him this election, and if his opponent presents a rational plan to solve those two problems (short of appointing any Supercommittee) then I will vote for them instead.

<diceman:>

http://www.bbg.org/discover/cherries/

As I said, worth a trip from anywhere.

I had sex education, because ‘real’ teachers didn’t want to do it, a gym teacher was made our sexpert.

Everyday he carried in cross-sections of the male/female anatomy, put it in the corner and discussed sports.

As kids we wondered why he didn’t do anything?

As an adult I now know he was just “going thru the motions.”

Sex education is just a nice phrase so folks like you can go blissfully on their merry way, patting yourself on the back because you saved the world.

This is why Great Societies turn into ghettos.
Nothing ever goes wrong in the land of make-believe.

From what I understand, you aint lived till you put a condom on a banana.

By the way its probably been in schools 25 years or so, interesting it seems to be viewed as a thinking outside-the-box.

<it is a no-brainer>

National news will not report these facts, because they would directly contradict all of Obama's lies at the last 4 community colleges he has delivered stump speeches from.

<Obama on the campaign trail now, telling lies over and over, to college students.>

http://news.investors.com/article/6...

Read the facts, and get smart about his lies "2% of the world's oil reserves, but we consume 20%" ---this is an insidious lie because it compares two totally different percentages, as though they affected each other, with some kind of apparent real disparity. We have more than 2%, and if we were freed up to use it, we would NOT be consuming "20%" of the produced oil around the world.

First of all, the 2% is "proved reserves" which is far smaller than "recoverable reserves."

<A separate Rand Corp. study found that about 800 billion barrels of oil shale in Wyoming and neighboring states is "technically recoverable," which means it could be extracted using existing technology. That's more than triple the known reserves in Saudi Arabia.

All told, the U.S. has access to 400 billion barrels of crude that could be recovered using existing drilling technologies, according to a 2006 Energy Department report.

When you include oil shale, the U.S. has 1.4 trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil, according to the Institute for Energy Research, <<<>enough to meet all U.S. oil needs for about the next 200 years, without any imports.>>>

http://news.investors.com/article/6...

Lying to college kids, at the expense of the American Taxpayer--ME!!--politicking as viciously as any dictatorial potentate of any third world country has ever done. Propaganda in every breath--his political opponents founding members of the flat earth society. He tells side splitters, doesn't he. This man in NOT PRESIDENTIAL and he is A LIAR.

And the National media dead asleep.

--- ---- ---- ----

Yesterday in another speech, another lie: <we gave you a $40 tax cut because we anticipated the gas price increase>.

This alone is a lie on so many levels.

Tax Cut? The social security deduction from your check is supposed to be a payment into your retirement account.

"We gave you" What? Congress passed the law...and did anyone hear Obama saying "Gas increases are around the corner, you must pass this now!" during the debates? Of course not.

Lies on Lies, and I am paying his "taxi fare" to appear all over to spread them.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/>...

From the link: <Joe Romm: Poor Barack Obama, he opens up the country to a drilling spree.... >

Marmot, thanks for highlighting yet another lie. Do you see the wording: "Obama presides over"

That's because HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for the drilling. Obama caugth in another attempt to take credit where none is due. And the media happy to follow along with the myth.

Those leases were granted by the Bush administration. The increase is not, as Romm wants you to believe, owing to anything the Obama administration has done. New drilling permits on Fed lands has shrunk with Obama, and private land is where the growth has occurred, on permits from 2008 and earlier. Just look at the graph a little further down the page in your link to doublecheck my facts.

His facts are selective and wrong, his conclusions biased and often completely distorted. He is the poster child for GIGO.

Krugman: "For the truth is that we’re already having a hydrocarbon boom, with U.S. oil and gas production rising and U.S. fuel imports dropping. If there were any truth to drill-here-drill-now, this boom should have yielded substantially lower gasoline prices and lots of new jobs. Predictably, however, it has done neither. " Wrong. N. Dakota has an extremely low unemployment rate, as does Wyoming...why? because of the use of new technology to drill, and the drilling being done. But that drilling and production is still only a small fraction of what we could do.

We are not having a hydrocarbon boom; we are out of refinery capacity because the stone age green earthers in the Obama administration have prevented new refineries and extensions to existing.

Krugman: "Given this expansion, it’s hard to claim that excessive regulation has crippled energy production. Indeed, reporting in The Times makes it clear that U.S. policy has been seriously negligent — that the environmental costs of fracking have been underplayed and ignored. "

Lie on Lie, <aw>. Fracking has been around and used since the 70s. Its effects are studied and well-known. It is being blamed for things it hasn't caused, and regulations certainly are cutting into profits, into production, into refinery space, into the whole industry. Krugman is just out to lunch, offbase, sitting on the left field fence, and playing with himself in public.

http://fracfocus.org/hydraulic-frac...

This site is funded by a group of independent oil companies who believe in what they are doing--providing energy to America--and being open about what they do, and how their methods DO NOT harm the environment in any way.

He is short of knowledge. Much of the drilling has been for NATURAL GAS WELLS and very definitely the PRICE HAS DROPPED to the lowest it has been in years.

http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekl...

Here, from ClearView Energy partners, an independent consultancy researching oil and petroleum products (Research@CVEnergy.com), is some analysis dated March 7 of the reasons for the rise in gasoline prices:

Target #1: Blame politicians. [...] Democrats largely blame oil companies and speculators. By contrast, most Republicans point fingers at Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s easy money policies. [...] Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have proposed legislation to limit the President’s ability to conduct a second sale of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) unless one or several energy policy conditions are met.

Target #2: Blame the Fed. In theory, monetary policy changes could have tangible and direct implications for asset valuations and currencies and particularly for the globally-traded assets dominated in U.S. currency, like oil. Among friends, we might argue that the link between dollar depreciation and oil price increases isn’t a causal relationship so much as a mathematical tautology (the product of two constants is a constant, and a falling dollar implies a rising barrel, excepting frictional impacts to producer-state investment capabilities). On the other hand, that sort of argument doesn’t matter to elected officials who want to point to the inverse correlation between dollars and barrels. [...] Hill Republicans may score political points, but blaming the Fed appears unlikely to bring significant change.

Target #4: Blame speculators. [...] Blaming speculators may be easier for elected officials today than it was in 2008, now that the financial crisis has given many voters a reason to blame Wall Street for everything, but proving causality hasn’t gotten much easier. Limited data quality and granularity and limited transparency into international government purchases (think: China) can make it difficult for the world’s best researchers to retrospectively identify speculative impacts on fundamental prices, to say nothing of seeing them in real-time. Data management is another problem. Energy is too big and too widely-dispersed to enable cost-effective metering at every commercial junction. Moreover, oil data can be particularly erratic because international cargoes largely transit the open seas, where weather events, pirates and labor disputes at ports can all impact the reporting of otherwise-routine deliveries.

Recent experience – especially the 3Q 2008 crude price plunge – suggests to us that speculators can contribute to price volatility and may even provide short-term inflationary impacts, but we have seen little evidence that financial premiums can be sustained when lower-priced physical deliveries undercut them. The issue has brought no obvious consensus among experts, either, including dissent among different branches of the U.S. Federal Reserve. An October 2011 publication by the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank put the blame on fundamentals, arguing that “the tripling of oil prices from early 2007 to mid-2008 is consistent with several market fundamentals, including increased demand from emerging markets, low elasticities of demand and reduced OPEC excess capacity. A contemporaneous paper published by the St. Louis Fed acknowledged that fundamentals play a principal role, but stated that “financial speculation played a significant role in the oil price increase between 2004 and 2008, and its subsequent collapse.” Given the challenges associated with seeing the oil market and difficulties with isolating the roles of noncommercial traders, we would suggest that regulating the behaviors of noncommercial oil traders would be more difficult and challenging besides. In spite of that, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act required the CFTC to impose position limits for energy commodities. The Commission’s effort took longer than the Dodd-Frank bill anticipated and may have come up short relative to the hopes of lawmakers who believe speculative activity has inflated oil prices. CFTC’s challenges go deeper than merely seeing or quantifying the international swaps and derivatives that lie outside their regulatory purview – the Commission is still wrestling with defining them.[...] Even if the Commission’s data tell only one side of a multifaceted story, the coincidence of high prices and expanding noncommercial long interest could (a) give the President a reason to require a new rulemaking from the CFTC; or (b) give Congress political reasons to require one.

Target #5: Blame OPEC. 80% of global crude oil reserves belong to national oil companies, a fact that often surfaces in oil companies’ arguments for expanded access to U.S. resources. Past Congresses haven’t materially expanded access, but they have responded to pump prices by pointing the finger at the producers’ group. The “No Oil Producing Exporting Cartels” (NOPEC) bill has appeared frequently on the Hill. NOPEC would declare OPEC to be in violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act, potentially exposing individual and corporate holdings here in the U.S. to seizure as part of an antitrust proceeding. [...] NOPEC also has potential to turn currently cooperative relationships between U.S. oil companies and the sovereign nations that granted them producing concessions into litigious confrontations. [...] OPEC has failed to function much like a cartel at all and, at this point, the producers’ group has fragmented into splinter alliances with, and against, the coalition of “like-minded nations” convened to sanction Iran on a bottom-up, country-level basis. If the oil price blame game reflected logical conclusions under sober circumstances, we would expect Congress to care more about the anticompetitive implications of “soft nationalizations” taking place in Brazil, but history does not support that outcome.

http://fracfocus.org/water-protecti...

The information that you have been living for.