I thought that was weird.

Okay.  If you accept the premise that there were real signs of the impending attack, then it would be that desperate, and it would be incumbent on Clinton to have closed down the embassy, since the State Department runs the embassies.

Thanks for conceding Flint's point. 

Yes, because Border's is definitely a company that kept entirely up to date with technology. 

Alright, time to get some argumentation going in this forum!

2) Bill and his legacy hangs about her neck.

That's about the best thing going for her.  *cough*surplus*cough*

Yes, you can say "It was due to the Republican Congress," but that doesn't matter.  Hell, that's the point.  Think about it.  Split government in place... and it was actually able to get shit done an pass a surplus.  Compare that to 2008-2016 when a divided government was unable to pass a budget or even remotely cooperate.  When debt issues are such a salient issue in politics... this is a game-winner.

7) Her rooting for Obamacare will be in 15% of all ads against her.

Too close to call... yet (not necessarily in 2 years).  You're evaluating that this will be not only a salient issue, but an issue that people will overwhelmingly vote one side based upon.  Making that judgment call during the opening phases of the  program is probably not the best point to measure efficiency.  Not that you'll be wrong, but it's not something you can make a prediction on just yet.

8) US relations dropped considerably under her watch at the State Dept.

I do find it amusing that this is something Democrats (Obama included) cited against the Republicans.  Which forces me to beg a question... is a realignment a "drop"?  Hypothetical scenario: The US signs a series of agreements with Pakistan largely similar to those the US has with India, including nuclear dealings.  India, in response, steps back its relations with the US.  So we increased relations with Pakistan, which in turn caused harm to US relations with India.  Is that a loss?

Remember, much of international relations is purely zero-sum.  You can rarely engage in diplomacy with an Islamic nation without pissing off Israel (unless the diplomacy is specifically meant to reinforce a position in line with Israeli objectives... such as US arms sales to Saudi Arabia during the Bush era).  Every action we conduct with Pakistan causes India to become uneasy.  We can't depose a possible threat in Iraq, and subsequently gain a new ally in the Middle East, without Europeans thinking less of the US.  This is true in any region of the world where there's significant regional disputes (which is to say, most every region of the world where issues of US relations are pertinent enough to be an issue in an election).

9) Crying

I'm going to address this in the bottom, but I just want to add here, because this is by far the worst offender of what I'm about to argue there:

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x47 … cepalm.png

11) Not publically attacking Obama ties her to Obama

This one's tricky... because most Republicans may have this same problem.  I'll let Genesis indulge on all the ways that would create problems.  Suffice to say, though, it would be a wash.

Although this is probably your best argument... 2008 is good at reinforcing this one.  McCain made a career out of being an independent Republican, freely opposing Bush on issues when he thought it mattered.  However, the major attack against him (an attack that actually gained traction) was a categorization of McCain with Bush.  Did it make the least bit of sense?  Nope.  Did it work?  Yup.

13) Popularity of Democrats dropping hard, or should I say Fast and Furious?

Popularity's dropping with booth parties.  That means nothing.

And on all the ones I didn't specifically address (plus #9 because  it's probably the worst offender of some of these):

1: Linkie on issues of fact, specifically 4, 5, 10, 12, 14?  Not just as a fact check, but to articulate the issue you're actually addressing for debate.

2: Issue salience.  Just because you can find something bad about a person, it doesn't mean that issue is going to manifest as important enough to voters to warrant a no vote for the candidate.  The worst offender of this was #9.  I saw that, and thought "so?".  Even if it's something you think is bad, it's not something I think is bad, and even if I think it's bad, it's not something I think is so bad that it would overwhelm other issues of importance (i.e., I think things like the budget are more important than Clinton's emotional restraint).

This is the same reason why civil rights issues don't automatically decide every election every year.  Even if an issue is important enough and bipartisan enough to get a vast majority of the population on one side of the issue, there's no guarantee that said population will vote in one big happy "civil rights" voting bloc.

EDIT: I forgot about one of yours, so I should clarify.  I'll definitely concede that Benghazi is a salient enough issue to significantly harm Clinton.  #2 wasn't directed at that one.

When one begins to live by habit and by quotation, one has begun to stop living.
James A. Baldwin

Because it's financial predictions.  Financial news, unlike every other type of news, is uniquely dangerous for the news company because if I read that story and say "Wow, I should invest my life savings in Krazy Karl's Kazoo Kompany because MSN Money says they'll do good," if that disclaimer wasn't there, I could claim that the news company had a fiduciary duty to me (a duty which is normally only taken by businesses when they're representing individual clients in those matters).  That means I could sue the company because their predictions weren't accurate if Krazy Karl's Kazoo Kompany turned out to be krap.

Simple question for you, Key.  Take on the role of a business news forecaster.

Pretend you can't use the disclaimer cited above.  So if you ever make a prediction wrong... you can be sued for any losses anyone incurs as a result of you being wrong.  So if you say "This company is going to do good" and the stock value drops, you lose.  If you get a prediction right, however... you're not being paid by clients to provide that advice, so you get paid the value of a news person.

Why would you ever want to be in that job?  You've got all the disadvantages of being someone's stock broker without any of the benefits.  Moreover, you can't manage the risk.  You have to be flawless, or every person who read your article (which circulates on either a city or national level, depending on your company) and ended up wrong can come back to bite you.

How would you manage that?

Incorrect.

First, the paragraph in question:

"All statements contained in this press release regarding potential results and future plans and objectives of the Company are forward-looking statements that involve various risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. The Company undertakes no obligation to update or review any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from our expectations include, but are not limited to, those factors that are disclosed under the heading "Risk Factors" and elsewhere in our documents filed from time to time with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory authorities. Statements regarding our ability to complete transactions, successfully apply technology applications in the re-development of oil and gas fields, realize future production volumes, realize success in our drilling and development activity and forecasts of legal claims, prices, future revenues and income and cash flows and other statements that are not historical facts contain predictions, estimates and other forward-looking statements. Although the Company believes that its expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that its goals will be achieved and these statements will prove to be accurate. Important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those included in the forward-looking statements."

That paragraph is actually fairly common in business forecasts, and for good reason.  If I told someone to tell me how their financial future would be over the next year, they could probably give me a good idea.  However, unexpected results or unforeseen circumstances can throw that prediction into a tailspin.  Without a waiver like what you cited, if I relied on a person's forecast, they'd be held liable.  That's unreasonable because so many outside factors can influence a "prediction" that, really, the only legitimate "prediction" should be "well, shit, I dunno.  Go ask a fortune teller."

It's a fairly solid "take this statement with a grain of salt" disclaimer.  Seriously, go watch most any show that gives financial predictions.  That same style of disclaimer will probably show up on the bottom of the screen. 

Godwin's Law!

*walks away winning the debate*

I asked it because, in order to engage in these debates, we have to make sure everyone is on the same page on what the issue is.  If, for example, I were to ask you 50 posts into the debate "What is peak oil," and you replied "squirrel pee," it would be clear you and I wasted 50 posts.

FOR EXAMPLE... looking at your 3 links...  I see one link that actually provides the definition of "peak oil," one that provides mappings of world oil supply/demand... and one that points out what "peak oil" is, simply by pointing it out on the graph.

Would you like to know which one of those defined peak oil?  Oh, this is going to be fun!!!!

"Peak oil, according to M. King Hubbert's Hubbert peak theory, is the point in time when the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production is expected to enter terminal decline."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Your link that points out "peak oil" on a graph simply pointed out the point where oil production maxed out... a definition which would fit both your claim of what "peak oil" is and what your link which actually defines "peak oil" says.

So yes... out of 3 links... your ONLY LINK that provides a definition for "peak oil" provides a definition which is in direct conflict with your definition (under your definition, if production increased 1% and demand increased 2%, we would have reached peak oil.  That's not the case with the Hubbert theory you cited).

Oh, I should add that your second link clearly looks like it hasn't been updated since 2009 (so its projections of production completely missed all the new production Flint is pointing out).  How can I tell?  Because the site graphs say "and predicted to..." and they all have a point (around 2009) in the graph where the graph flattens out (i.e., the graph stops including short-term shifts up and down because it can't predict short-term changes).

Explain the 1990s, then.  Oil prices were steady at around $20 per barrel... and yet... we had perpetual (sometimes relatively high) inflation.

Totally not blowing another hour and a half in another movie like that.  Pass.

So currency doesn't matter anymore?  You were the one that posted that whole hour and a half long video about currency manipulation by banks causing inflation. 

3: Xeno oversimplifying economics again.

Remember, no sane person is saying the petroleum market is the model perfectly competitive market.  There are both legal and practical barriers to entry.  Oil extraction can be prohibited by national law (think ANWR) or international dispute (the South China Seas may have more oil than the Middle East, but international disputes over water rights have stalled any development).  Practically, extraction of oil requires ownership of the petroleum (so not everyone can just wake up one morning and decide they want to be an oil tycoon) and the existence of the extraction technology.

Moreover, although those new extractions are occurring, they still have to deal with extraction costs.  For the past 100 years, the world has been basically running on the simplest, easiest oil that can be drilled, because it's the most profitable.  Why would you drill for 1 million barrels of oil you were going to sell for $20 a barrel if the cost of research and extraction is $30 a barrel?  Particularly when your competitors are extracting the same end resource, but at only $8 a barrel?  Anyway, once the price of oil begins to increase, it gives incentives to begin researching those more expensive extraction methods.  When oil creeps up to $90 a barrel, suddenly extraction at $30 a barrel becomes profitable.  (Note: These numbers are being pulled out of nowhere.  Just using it as a demonstration).  Supply increases.  It may not return to the original point because if extraction costs the business $30 a barrel, that business would again have no reason to keep manufacturing if the price dropped to $25 a barrel.

Long story short, the oil market is VERY nuanced in its inherent political and geographic limitations on entry into the market.  The market does what it can to shift in the direction of a competitive market (i.e., the United States researching and releasing new oil, as described in the OP, which is inherently a market competitive activity), but there's limitations.  However, this in no way means the oil market is an example of the success or failure of market economics.  OPEC is the exception, not the norm.