Wow RL. Flowing with the fear and hate. Be careful, someone may want to see your 'Brown Shirt'.

That's called diversity, RL, and it's what has Obama up six points over Romney so far.

@RL
Who panders to angry former Dixiecrats?The last time I checked it was Republicans.Who is pandering to the jewish hawks on Iran? The last time I checked it was Republicans.

Ah, the Dixiecrats!

http://www.themindisaterriblething.com/2011/10/rewriting-history.html

@Jack McClure
The Republicans with the right wing in Israel are planning our next war.
Netanyahu's attempt to interfere in the U.S. Presidential election is stupid and repugnant and it will seriously compromise Israeli image and influence in the U.S. Netanyahu is profoundly ignorant of the attitudes of American voters if he thinks he can blackmail the President and dictate U.S. foreign and defense policy. When I was young and naive I thought Israel was a beacon of freedom and tolerance in the Middle East. No longer. Israel is an apartheid state. It brutally mistreats the Palestinians within its borders. The Israeli government tolerates, even encourages, the worst sort of discrimination and violence against Palestinians trapped within the conquered territories. Freedom to own property, educate your children, have access to health care, even to move about the country freely are all seriously compromised by official Israeli government policy. We hand over to Israel every year three billion dollars. If there is one government program that should be privatized, foreign aid to Israel is it. Maybe Sheldon Adelson,a big contributor to Republicans, would like to pick up the tab.

@ George
Netanyahu may not in fact be trying to interfere with our elections at all but simply trying to get factual policy statements with timelines. To tell the truth so would many of us, the President has no problem with providing timetables to the public on other security matters.

Our foreign policy right now apparently is in shambles just based on existing embassy security. I can’t get my head around news reports that state our embassy based Marines were carrying weapons without ANY ammunition – not even of the rubber bullet variety.

I hope with all my heart that this tidbit ISN’t really factual. Ordering people into positions where they can’t defend themselves as ROE is a base violation of common sense. You can take to the airways and say “I support the troops” as much as you like, but when you accept operations where you disarm them in routine service this PROVES your total lack of respect.

As to the brutal treatment of rocket based groups in territories, your claims ring shrew and hollow.

@RL
I don't like the current government and policy in Israel. My view point is shared by many jews in Israel.Don't let the powerful jewish lobby in Ameica fool you.

Phil - you are right. Sorry for the oversight. I was thinking of Reagan v. Carter 1980.
Thanks for the correction.

George - the Jewish lobby is strong. No doubt. I'm not a huge fan of our policy with Israel. Can't leave them withering on the vine at this point.

George- I don't know what fantasy world you live, but I don't know anybody who is better off. Gasoline costs more now than it did when the price of a barrel of oil was almost $50.00 higher. That's a direct consequence of Obama's failed fiscal policy. Unemployment is higher now than it was four years ago. that's a direct result of Obama's failed fiscal policies. The debt has increased 60% in less than four years. That's a direct result of Obama's failed fiscal policies. Have Democrats in the Senate passed a budget in over three years? No. Has Obama submitted a budget that was approved by the Senate No. Are Obama's actions in Libya any different than Bush's in Iraq? No
Now here's where your rose-colored glasses become blinders-- you criticize Bush for his Medicare drug plan, yet you rally behind Obamacare. So if a Republican initiates a plan to make medical care more affordable he's a scoundrel, but if a Democrat does the same thing he's a hero?
I know all this is falling on deaf ears and blind eyes. The Republicans are neither all good nor all bad. The Democrats are neither all good nor all bad. But Obama is a disaster. He didn't spend money to stabilize the economy, he simply redistributed funds and pandered to unions and people living on entitlements. All for the mere cost of $6 trillion in new debt. I wouldn't call that being on the right path.

Dave...we all know that Presidents and our Government do not affect gas prices...that is set by our free market approach. (and of course lies about hurricanes, refinery fires and volitity in the middle east)

Saying the President affects prices...is a Republican lie.....

Unemployment is higher because of deregulation and jobs going overseas. (Manufacturing in this country is down...but up in china) Obamas actions in Lybia are different. Bush went to full blown war...Obama sent planes and no ground troops. Lasted what two weeks?

Mittens is a disaster....you just to know it...

Believe what you want Greg. Although the president may not affect gas prices directly, his fiscal policies certainly do. If prices were strictly the result of the free market, they would be strongly tied to the price of crude oil. Gas costs more now than it did when Bush was in office and crude was almost $50 a barrel higher. At that time, the liberals blamed Bush for what was clearly free market activity driven by speculation. The current high price of gas is a consequence of the value of a dollar which has been reduced by Obama's failed economic policies.
You may dislike "Mittens", as you call him, but he can't possibly be as destructive to our country as Obozo.

@ George

I thought airliners flying into buildings and fields were responsible for at least one of the 2 wars you mention …

Really Dave? Then his fiscal policies were responsible for bringing down the price of gas under 3 dollars (I believe at one point earlier this year I paid $2.89).

Come on Dave! Crude is high because market demand in emerging countries are high. The oil companies say...(the price is higher because of increased demands and the technology used to get that oil.)

So which is it...Obama and his policies or free market greed?

I think its the latter....All companies do is protect the bottom line. As more folks become shareholders in Oil the greater the greed as they have to satisfy these folks.

Bread use to be a buck. Its now two bucks. Prices never go down they only go up.

Greg-
You're ignoring the facts. Crude is now cheaper than it was when gas was selling for less. When Bush was in office, liberals blamed him for high gas prices. After Obama was in office, the song changed to "the president can't control the price of gas". You can't have it both ways-- at least not if you're being honest. Speculators drove the price of crude oil to $150/barrel when demand was high a few years ago. When the world economic condition took a dive, demand dropped, which brought prices down. The reduced demand also made oil less attractive as a speculative investment, so prices dropped even further.
Obama's fiscal [policies have led to a national debt of $16 trillion and a downgrade in the US credit rating. As a consequence, the value of the dollar has declined so expenses in international trade has increased. For a myriad of reasons, gasoline costs more now, with oil selling for +/-$100 a barrel than it did when oil was +/- $150 a barrel. Yet another Obama failure.

One point of correction Dave. Gasoline prices peaked in July 2008 at $4.16 a gallon. Today's national average is $3.91 or 25 cents a gallon less. Gas prices today are virtually unchanged from where they were 4 years ago when they stood at $3.89 on Sept 15, 2008. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPM0_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W

Brian- You're correct about the price of gas being virtually unchanged for the specific time periods you mentioned. BUT- (you had to know that was coming) for the weeks ending September 19 and 26, 2008 a barrel of crude oil was priced at $104.55 and $106.89 respectively. For the weeks ending August 31, and September 7, 2012, a barrel of crude oil was priced at $96.47 and $96.42 respectively. So crude oil is approximately 10% cheaper, but gasoline is more expensive. Also, for the week ending April 25, 2008, crude oil was priced at $118.52 a barrel, yet gasoline was only $3.63 a gallon.
There's always some amount of lag between the price of crude oil and the pump price of gasoline, so comparing prices for specific dates may or may not be truly representative. However, the trend over a broader time frame is absolutely indicative of the relevant economics. Obama's policies have simply made the price of gasoline more expensive that it should be based on the cost of crude oil. Ironically, the people that this hurts the most are the ones Obama alleges he's trying to help.

RE: "Obama's policies have simply made the price of gasoline more expensive that it should be based on the cost of crude oil."

Hi Dave,

I'm jumping in to ask for some clarification.

You seem to acknowledge that the price of crude is lower today than when it peaked in 2008. You're also highlighting that, at least for today, the prices at the pump are higher, relative to the cost of crude.

So, you seem to give the President's policies no credit whatsoever for reducing the cost of crude, but you simultaneously appear to blame President Obama, exclusively, for the today's high prices at the pump (subject to change) relative to the cost of crude. In other words, President Obama is responsible for the higher gains for oil companies (which would seem to defy the notion by some he is some kind of socialist).

Am I understanding you correctly? If so, specifically which policies are you referring to that, while have no bearing on reductions in the price of crude, lead to higher prices at the pump?

CJ- From discussions here and elsewhere, it appears that a president's influence on the prices of crude oil and gasoline depend on his political affiliation and those of people commenting. Liberals blamed George Bush for the high price of oil and gas in 2008. After Obama took office, liberals claimed that the president didn't have any control over prices because oil trades in an international market. Increased demand created by emerging economies is now cited as the driver of current gas prices-- even though a barrel of oil is cheaper than it was when gasoline was either the same price as it is now, or lower.
Your position is that the disparity between the prices of oil and gasoline are a result of increased oil company profits. We don't know that to be true, because we don't know the amount of profit oil companies make on a gallon of gas. As for Obama's policies driving down the price of crude oil, you're saying that the president can control or influence the price of a commodity that's traded world-wide. On the other hand, you're saying that because the costs associated with transporting and refining crude oil as well as the costs of storing, marketing and distributing gasoline have no bearing on crude oil prices, they do not influence the price of gas at the pump. I think you'll find that the costs imposed by needless and redundant regulation play a big part in driving up the costs gasoline and a host of other products.

RE: "Your position is that the disparity between the prices of oil and gasoline are a result of increased oil company profits."

Dave,

Thanks for your response.

To be clear, I didn't say or imply ANY of the things that you inferred from my comments. For example, you claimed that my position is that an increase in the disparity between the price of crude and gas prices would be the result of higher oil profits. To the contrary, all else being equal, higher profits would result from increases in such disparity. Also, I did not say or imply that Obama is responsible for driving down the price of crude. To the contrary, your seem to be implying that Obama should receive no credit for positive developments in crude prices but should get the all the blame for negative developments in gasoline prices. That's incomprehensible to me, but nevertheless.

Getting back to my original question, you first wrote, "Obama's policies have simply made the price of gasoline more expensive that it should be based on the cost of crude oil." I asked you to specifically to identify the policies that you're referring to. Your response to my question comes down to "the costs imposed by needless and redundant regulation play a big part in driving up the costs gasoline."

I'll rephrase the question. SPECIFICALLY, what needless and redundant regulation are your referring to that has played a big part in driving up gasoline costs?

I don't know where you're getting your data Dave but West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude, the best benchmark for petroleum production, was $95.52 a barrel on 09/15/2008 and $97.03 on Tuesday. Not much difference there. Even if your supposition was correct I'm not sure what it would prove other than maybe the oil companies were gouging us for gasoline. http://tinyurl.com/6owxn4t

Brian-
The source of the data I posted is http://www.nyse.tv/crude-oil-price-history.htm Those are the prices listed by the New York Mercantile Exchange I'm not trying to prove anything, the statistics speak for themselves. But it is apparent from your closing statement that irrespective of any data, your position is that private industry is a villain that's responsible for anything that impacts our lives negatively, and government is responsible for everything positive.
Without having any data upon which to base your statement, and while ignoring the costs associated with all the steps required to convert crude oil into gasoline, you suggest that the reason for high gas prices is oil company price gouging. Such a statement completely ignores the economic realities of the costs involved in bringing a product to market.

Dave Emanuel: "Obama's policies have simply made the price of gasoline more expensive that it should be based on the cost of crude oil...the costs imposed by needless and redundant regulation play a big part in driving up the costs gasoline."

I'm still curious to learn which of Obama's policies, specifically which needless and redundant regulations, have played a big part in driving up gasoline prices. It seems to me that if somebody is going to make this assertion that they would be prepared to support it with specifics.

No offense Dave but I'll stick with the Energy Information Administration's data over some fly-by-night outfit I've never heard of. You also put a bunch of words in my mouth that I never said. You might want to go back and reread my comment.

Wow Brian, a division of the Dept. of Energy with "370 federal employees" (from their website) must produce unbiased, objective information. You really trust and love government, don't you?

Doesn't matter to you. However, it does matter to most voters. Now I'm predicting an Obama landslide in November, which will solidify his existing achievements (like healthcare) and provide him with a mandate for his second term. Here's hoping he'll stop acting like a moderate Republican and really veer left.

@Jeff
Landslide? In CA maybe, but elsewhere not so much …

I was referring to NYSE.TV Dave and the disclaimer on their web page: "This NYSE.TV website is not owned by or affiliated with The New York Stock Exchange®, Inc."

Forgive me, Dave, but one can't help but get the impression that you're ducking my question (see above at 11:47, 1:06, and 3:36).

You have repeatedly asserted that Obama's policies--"needless and redundant regulation"--are responsible for today's gas prices. Unfortunately, despite my requests, you've refused to support these assertions with specifics. Please feel free to get back when you figure out why you believe what you believe. I'll stay tuned.

RE: "...you really don't carry about my opinions..."

In my defense, I'm interested in any opinion than can be supported by evidence. In this case, it appears that you were parroting a talk-radio meme without having checked it out first. If you want to absorb unsupported opinions directly into the bloodstream, then that's your prerogative. But you can't reasonably fault others for being more discriminating about what they choose to accept as truth.

Make it a great weekend, Dave!