The GOP are ignorant hypocrites for blaming gas prices on Obama

The resolution is indefensible partisan nonsense. Pro has not made a prima facie case. Pro claims that Republicans are ignorant, which claims that they don't know the facts. At the same time he claims they are hypocrites, which means that theyknow the facts, but conceal their knowledge to curry public favor. Pro's principle evidence is the opinion of biased bloggers and ideologues who repeat Pro's claims without proof. All but but three of the people claimed to be "ignorant hypocrites" are not identified as Republicans. Far from being "ignorant hypocrites" critics maintain the consistent position that expectations of future supplies of oil drive prices, and that policies that that discourage future supplies therefore drive up prices. "Ignorant" v. "hypocrite" Pro says hypocrisy is "a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude." Okay. Republicans say that they believe policies that diminish future supplies raise oil prices, Pro must establish that saying that is just a pretense, and that Republicans really believe that policies affecting supply have no significant effect on oil prices. Pro made no arguments to support that position. Pro claims that failure to acknowledge other causes of price increases at evey opportunity is hypocrisy. Pro must also prove that Republicans are "ignorant." Ignorant means "lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact:" [1. http://dictionary.reference.com...] Of what exactly is it that Pro claims Republicans are ignorant? The truth is that oil prices are affected by US policies on exploration, and Republicans know it, That's what they say so they are neither ignorant nor hypocrites. Republicans frequently add the disclaimer hat other things affects prices as well, but, big surprise, leftist bloggers don't quote that.Pro makes few direct arguments. He asserts the resolution is true then invites me to read his list of references and figure out what the supporting arguments might be. The most direct way Pro might make his case would be to cite concurrent polls that show Republicans believe US policies on development do not affect prices, and at the same time they believe President Obama's policies do affect prices. Pro didn't attempt that. Another, less-convincing, way Pro could try to make a case is to cite prominent Republicans X, Y, and Z as saying under President Bush that US development of oil resources has no effect on oil prices, then cite X, Y, Z as saying that under President Obama that they do have an effect. No only did Pro fail to do that, he didn't even try. Pro mainly cited a bunch of left-wing loggers and ideologues who repeated Pro's unsupported claims. The quotations from critics of present policies were, with two exceptions, not identified as Republicans, and nothing was presented to show any had changed their position on the importance of production is pricing.We cannot assume that everyone who opposes policies of reduced exploration are Republicans. You'll find a lot of Democrats in Texas, Alaska, and the Midwest who are every bit as upset as Republicans over the Obama Administrations bans n resource development.. Critics also include independents, libertarians, conservatives, Hillary-Democrats, and independents who treat issues one-by-one. Many who follow oil markets and comment are not even U.S. citizens. The two identifiable Republicans actually quoted where Gingrich and Romney, and that was buried in Pro's random collection of hit pieces. All those Republicans said was that they thought the President's policies were increasing prices. That's not evidence of hypocrisy. that's logical. Republicans have always claimed prices are tied to production Pro's attempted to prove the generality the the Republicans who where alleged to be ignorant and hypocritical were typical used the claim that all Republicans are hypocrites all he time. He made that accusation without evidence of a single identifiable Republican having done so. The guy in the video Pro cited included the disclaimer that the President's policies were not the only thing that affected prices.Pro's argument is that because he cannot find any criticism by Republicans of high oil prices under Bush, he assumes their are none. There were in fact criticism from Republicans that Bush had delayed opening off shore drilling for too long. Newt Gingrich wrote a whole book "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." criticizing Republicans and Democrats alike for failure to do more to open up resource development. The reliably leftist Wikipedia summarized, "Also in 2008, [Gingrich's] American Solutions launched a widely noted campaign, The group began circulating an online petition calling for the government to authorize new drilling onshore and offshore in an effort to lower gas and diesel prices. The petition drew over 1,450,000 signatures. In September 2008, the group tookDrill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis, credit for helping to influence Congress' decision to lift its 25-year ban on offshore drilling."\ [2. http://en.wikipedia.org...] That was under Bush. In 2006, Romney was as adamant about expanding resource development as he is now. Romney said, "I'm not just talking about symbolic measures. I mean that we must finally take the actual steps that will produce as much energy as we use. This could take 20 years or more. Of course we're going continue buying fuels from our friends even after that time, but we'll buy and sell." [3. http://2012.republican-candidates.org...] However, the issue is not "president's have no responsibility for oil prices" versus "president's are always responsible for oil prices." The present issue is whether it's likely that oil prices would drop if the government pursued resource development aggressively and whether Republicans have consistently taken that position. Actually, we only need to establish if Republicans consistently believed such to be the case. Pro's claimed evidence I will will refer to Pro's referenced links by number in the order cited. Thus P1 is the definition of hypocrite. P2 is blog post that cites a Republican PAC that claims Obama's anti-oil policies raise prices. the writer then falsely claims that Obama's policies are not inhibiting production. I believe Pro has granted the policies are inhibiting production. P3 is a blog post that cites Gingrich and Romney as claiming that Obama wants higher prices. There is no evidence that either are insincere. The claims are reasonable in view of President Obama's past statement. P4 is a blog post that cites an MSNBC interview with a guy who says that Obama's policies on production haven't affect prices very much. Nothing is relevant to our debate. P5 quotes George Will as saying that gas prices are not a good campaign issue. That's irrelevant to our debate. He didn't address whether the claims are true. P6 is a blog post claiming, "US Presidents do not control the price of oil and Barack Obama is no exception." We agree they do have a major influence. "Control" is a strawman. P7 quotes a Republican Congressman in 2006 that ANWR production would have lowered oil prices. That's consistent with believing production is related to price. P8 is a blog post asking readers if they blame Presidents for gas prices. That's irrelevant. P9 is Jon Stewart saying Republicans would have made a big deal over kill bin Laden. What is a comedian's hypothetical supposed to prove? P10 is a video of guy from a libertarian think tank saying Obama policies are "the key reason, not the only reason" for rising oil prices. There is no hypocriy. Pro demands is that all criticisms of the anti-development policies be accompanied by a lengthy lecture on all the cases of price fluctuations. That's not the Republican's job. Pro's source provided scant acknowledge of the role of development bans. Each side is only oblied to present it's own case.