Democrats
This letter has not been edited.
Right. The Democrats. We should have known they were behind all this.
Posted by anderson on May 12, 2007 12:33 PM
David Cook actually signed his name on to the above stupid rant.
Wow. It's amazing to think that someone thought that would help public discourse.
Yet another example of incredibly stupid conservatives yelling at the world, blaming other Americans.
Posted by Con Mor on May 12, 2007 01:02 PMDavid Cook,you are totally right,liberals before you show how stupid you are do research on what it takes to open a refinery,who is taking the oil off the Florida coast and because who is taking this oil what impact it could have environmently on the U.S.What the true environment impact in Alaska.Check to see why there policy's give funds to countries that support terrorist.I can tell you the facts but you without researching or thinking you will say these are republican lies.
Posted by Keith on May 12, 2007 01:29 PM
Keith -
That is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on this incredibly stupid board. Tip o the cap. Can anyone here top that sheer idiocy?
That's an ongoing bet. I don't even think that KW could do it. Maybe Richard Grimes. I doubt it though.
moron is now Con Mor
Posted by Con Mor on May 12, 2007 01:36 PMenvironMENTAList are one of the main reasonsbehind rising fuel prices, oil has actually gone down but gas goes up due to maintenance at the refineries due to "clean air act" laws in place, a new refinery has not been built in almost 25 years, therefore when anything breaks down at a refinery production control goes down, if we had a few more refineries in America gas would plummet to a low like the good old days....also the government does not have much control over the prices of fuel seeing how it is a publicly traded commodity. wall street investors are the ones who control what and how we pay for fuel more than anyone else
Posted by hoimaha on May 12, 2007 02:37 PMhoimaha,obviously you took at least 5 minutes out of your life to find out the reason gas prices go up and down.This way you were able to give a educated response to the post.You have the class to research the facts before you come up with a dribble like con mor.Thank You.
Posted by Keith on May 12, 2007 03:02 PMhoimaha,obviously you took at least 5 minutes out of your life to find out the reason gas prices go up and down.This way you were able to give a educated response to the post.You have the class to research the facts before you come up with a dribble like con mor.Thank You.
Posted by Keith on May 12, 2007 03:02 PM
Keith -
You will notice that hoimaha wrote something that disagrees with the original letter. You agree with both.
That's why you're special: you can agree with two incongruent theories at the same time.
However, hoimaha's post is internally inconsistent. 1) Nixon signed the clean air act, hardly an "environMENTAL"ist. 2) If wall street controls the market, then wouldn't they invest in a new refinery if the ROI were appropriate? Or are the oil barons part of your liberal/environmentalist conspiracy?
For a conservative point of view that doesn't ignore facts/reality/logic regarding the Clean Air Act, I'd suggest this for a start:
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0605/ijge/holmstead.htm
Consistent with all conservative posts, you have to blame half of all Americans (the dems) for something you can't control or understand.
Posted by Con Mor on May 12, 2007 03:20 PMCon Mor- So it is conservatives that are responsible for laws prohibiting domestic oil exploration,drilling,and building refineries?
If you believe that you are an idiot-end of story.
You have refuted absolutly NOTHING the letter writer stated.
He made a lot of points,dont you think you could factually contest one?
Thats what I thought.
The same goes for Anderson.
Posted by [MORON PATROL] is GET REAL on May 12, 2007 03:46 PMRight on Dave.......before the democrats took over controll of congress the price of gasoline was over $1.00 less a gallon, and those donkeys still want us to believe they are for americans. hahahahahahaha
Posted by Tim on May 12, 2007 04:13 PMPATROL -
Simply: no, I don't believe in your straw man.
Since you recognized that I criticized without giving my own analysis: I frankly think the price of gasoline is artificially low, based on the security our armed forces provide the industry all over the globe. Without this market distortion, gas prices would be much higher, more than that of bottled water. Further, the costly effects of the pollution are not figured into the price of gas. A true market-oriented conservative would agree.
Feel free to think that's idiotic.
All I am here to point out is that the post was incredibly stupid, and rather than understanding the issue at all wants to scream at democrats. hoimaha presents a better analysis but again wants to scream at environmentalists/democrats.
There are numerous factual allegations easy to overthrow: only democrats make the rules about processing, drilling, and additives to fuel. As pointed out before, Nixon signed the Clean Air Act. Most of the ethanol is made from corn grown in red states, numerous senators and congressmen with an R before their names sponsored that legislation. I will concede that primarily people concerned about the environment stopped drilling off the coasts of FL and CA; however many R's were in on that regulation to preseve beaches and gazillion dollar views.
Posted by Con Mor on May 12, 2007 04:23 PMCM
One simple question-
Which political party is consistently For domestic oil exploration,drilling,and building new refineries and which party is consistently AGAINST these initiatives?
Posted by [MORON PATROL] is GET REAL on May 12, 2007 04:34 PMMORON PATROL: "You have refuted absolutly NOTHING the letter writer stated.
He made a lot of points,dont you think you could factually contest one?
Thats what I thought."
It sounds like you answered your own question, MORON. But you're absolutely right, I cannot refute anything the letter writer says. Therefore, I concede "the Democrats" (or as Con Mor points out, half of America), are entirely at fault for this state of affairs. It's so simple, and so insightful, I don't know how I could have possibly thought otherwise.
MP, I can answer that one easily. The leader in the fight against offshore drilling in Florida is some dude named Jeb Bush. What party is he a part of?
Most of the oil we currently recover in Alaska is sold to Japan. Simple economics to Big Oil. Much cheaper to transport oil to Japan than to the lower US; i.e., much larger profits.
The sensible, moderate Republicans in Congress (yes, there are a few) tried to pass legislation that would assure that oil from the ANWR would be kept in this country. They were shot down by members of their own party.
When the Repubs were in majority, they still couldn't pass a bill to allow drilling in the ANWR. Too many in both parties are against it.
Big Oil has no interest in spending millions, perhaps billions, on a new refinery that will help lower prices. The higher the prices, the bigger the profits. Basic economics. They know we'll pay.
Posted by JB on May 12, 2007 05:21 PMIsnt this the EXACT same argument that people used against Conservatives and the Republicans? it is quite amusing how they react to the same accusations.
Posted by Nick on May 13, 2007 03:28 AMMORON PATROL -
Is that really KW in there?
You wrote: "Which political party is consistently For domestic oil exploration,drilling,and building new refineries and which party is consistently AGAINST these initiatives?"
The answer is that depends on geography. Asa JB pointed out, in Florida, almost everyone, including Republicans are against it. In CA, almost everyone, including Republicans are against it. I'd concede that I know jack about Alaskans, so they might be for it; that's irrelevant to the National Wildlife Preserve. Typically, though, I think it has alot more to do with NIMBY than with political affiliation.
However, I'd still suggest you read this interview and this book for insight about the gasoline market:
http://alternet.org/envirohealth/51758/
I am not a supporter of any political party. I chose this stance for pure defensive reasons. I refuse to subject myself to the rantings and ravings that the more juvenile members of both major parties indulge in. My God, can't anyone state their opinion without employing it's your fault tactics. The arguments on this issue published here remind me of third grade school yard yes, you are- no, i'm not inanity. Just one truth is needed to be understood then all will be clear. The gas price issue is a product of GREED, no less, no more.
Posted by Allen Campbell on May 13, 2007 07:58 AM[ ]
Posted by Keith on May 13, 2007 08:05 AMA few years ago, gov Jeb Bush signed a bill restricting off shore drilling south of the Florida panhandle. Last time I looked, ol Jeb was a Republican.
Jebs friends live on that panhandle and their view is sacrosant.
There is a lot of oil off shore, since most of my friends are in the oil business, alas as mud loggers and drillers, not owners, we know where the oil is and who keeps it there.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 13, 2007 10:00 AMI agree with Campbell......he hit the nail on the head pure GREED!
Posted by A on May 13, 2007 10:02 AMI laugh at you political party followers. If you truly believe either the Republican or Democratic party gives one iota about you and the gas prices, then you are the suckers they believe you to be. If you think the rise in gas prices is due to a shortage of new refineries then again, you are the fools the oil companies believe you to be. I have read and heard over the last several years every ridiculous excuse you can imagine as to why the cost of petroleum has risen....except one....because they can. I've heard of mysterious refinery fires that were never reported in the news and then it was Katrina, then just last week I read that a muskrat entered a Texas refinery and caused a fire...these people know "you" the public don't follow the stories close enough to know when they are playing you like P.T. Barnum. What’s most interesting is that your elected officials are quietly saying nothing while the oil industry is slowly driving this economy into a recession. I think you can easily answer the question of why neither party is addressing this issue. You can play the patsy to the two major political parties....I choose otherwise.
Posted by I'm not fooled on May 13, 2007 11:05 AMDave im a republican and i dont even beleive you.... you give republicans a bad name
Posted by Rich M on May 13, 2007 11:55 AMWooheee. The nutjobs are at full throttle today.
How did Cheney's 2001 Energy Task force work out for you Kiethie boy? Record profits for the oil companies and oil stocks are an all time high. What a real visionary old Elmer Fudd turned out to be.
No mention from the morons regarding fuel efficiency standards for automobles. No mention of subsidies for oil companies but not for alternative energy development. No mention of how our disastrous foreign policies in the Middle East has created worldwide instability in oil prices. No mention of the fact that we are running out of this fossil fuel and may have already hit the tipping point of peak oil discovery.
More of the same old same old "blame Democrats " even though Republicans had total control over the government for six years and control of Congress for the previous twelve.
If you like unrestricted drilling boys, head up to Rifle and see first hand what the oil companies are doing to our Colorado outdoors. It would probably bring a tear to your face to see how oil drilling tears up the land. It brings a tear too my face to but for a different reason. Why is it that rampant consumers who have no consciousness for this planet refuse to face their own complicity in the destruction of our fragile planet.
If you don't want to pay the high price of gasoline quit driving that Ford F350. Learn how to ride a bike.
Posted by Wes on May 13, 2007 11:56 AMThe wells around Rifle are natural gas, not oil. Some oil wells but mostly gas. When all signs of the wells are gone in the future most of the land will revert to sage-brush.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 13, 2007 05:13 PMHey Con Mor I have read on other threads that you think these boards are "incredibly stupid" soooooo, what the hell are YOU doing posting on these "incredibly stupid" boards???
Posted by stupid boards on May 13, 2007 06:12 PMcon mor is the product of the lying liberal media.
Posted by Keith on May 14, 2007 08:31 AMMr Cambell,
You said:
"The gas price issue is a product of GREED, no less, no more."
Greed on the part of whom? Big Oil? Big Oil represents a set of corporations whose sole goal is to make a profit. Just like Starbucks, Apple, Dell, GM, and Whole Foods.
Corporations are greedy by definition. So what? How do they get their money? Do they rob you? Or do you freely give it to them?
If you want to talk about greed, let's talk about Big Consumer. Does anyone know what the best-selling automobile of 2006 was? The Ford F-Series. Ford sold 796,039 F-Series trucks in 2006. Anyone know what the second best-selling automobile of 2006 was? The Chevy Silverado. GM sold 636,069 Silverados.
The combined MPG for a 2006 F-150 is 15. The average cost to fill the tank: $71-98. Average annual fuel cost: $3052
The 10th best-selling car in 2006: The Chevy Cobalt. Units sold: 211,449. Combined MPG: 29. Average fill-up cost: $35.69. Annual fuel cost: $1578.
Big Consumer loves Big Oil.
Posted by John II on May 14, 2007 09:47 AMOil prices are tricky to figure out. Here's some weird stuff that has gone on recently: in 2001, when W took office, gas prices were $1.50 per gallon. After 6 years of Rebup congress and Repub prez, gas prices reached $3.08 per gallon in August 2006. The price fell through September and October 2006 to $2.24 in November, and then they began rising again to where they are now, $3.09 per gallon.
So it looks like throughout the Bush presidency, gas prices have risen dramatically without fail with the exception of September and October of 2006. The only question is what was going on that could explain this drop just before November 2006? Whatever happened, it didn't seem to affect prices after November, when prices began returning to their previous levels.
Can anybody think of anything? I'm up a tree.
Posted by Grog on May 14, 2007 11:29 AMBTW, here is the table of average gas prices since 1993 that I drew my information from. I believe the source is pretty reputable. It's the official energy statistics table from the Department of Energy. It's one of the few things you'll see posted here that ends in a .gov.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mg_tt_usw.htm
Posted by Grog on May 14, 2007 11:31 AMPickup sales will always be pretty healthy, because some businesses depend on them- you can't haul sheets of plywood or fertilizer in the back of a Civic. But in 2006, SUVs vanished from the top 10 list:
1) Ford F-series (15 combined MPG)
2) Chevy Silverado (18)
3) Toyota Camry (36)
4) Toyota Corolla (28)
5) Honda Accord (30)
6) Dodge Ram (16)
7) Honda Civic (28)
8) Chevy Impala (26)
9) Chevy Cobalt (29)
10) Nissan Altima (30)
CMoron - I'm almost flattered by your infatuation with my opinions but you're bordering on psychotic obsession when you mention me multiple time in a thread where I haven't even posted a comment.
Do I need an order of protection against you or will you keep a safe distance from me on your own?
Posted by KW on May 14, 2007 11:58 AMGrog,
You're right. The price of crude was around $63 a barrel when W was selected . It's now $61, but the price at the pump has doubled. The cons have been in control for the last 6 years. To blame Democrats is idiotic.
It makes as much sense to say that the reason republics are fat is because they DON'T ride bikes, as Wes suggested.
(Have you been to an RNC meeting? They DO tend to be soft and fat.)
On the Other Hand,
"Pickup sales will always be pretty healthy, because some businesses depend on them- you can't haul sheets of plywood or fertilizer in the back of a Civic."
Is that so? Of course some businesses depend on trucks. Some businesses depend on cars too.
Hertz and Enterprise combined maintain fleets of over one million cars. Many of which are Camrys, Corollas, Impalas, Cobalts, and Altimas.
You're right about SUV's dropping from the list. That's ok. Consumers will eventually adjust when Big Oil becomes a Big Pain.
It's that adjustment that many Big Oil critics fail to acknowledge. Big Oil is making big profits now, but at what cost? High gas prices give incentives to automakers to build more fuel efficient motors. More fuel efficient cars means less fuel sales for Big Oil.
Does anyone believe the Prius would be as popular as it now if gas prices were still $1.10 a gallon?
dmz,
You said:
"The price of crude was around $63 a barrel when W was selected ."
$63? What date are you using for W's election? The price per barrel hovered in the high 20's during most of 2001.
Where did you get $63?
Posted by John II on May 14, 2007 01:18 PMI have a friend of mine who finally explained "economics" to me.
The price of wheat goes up; and the price of bread goes up as well.
The price of wheat goes down; and the price of bread goes up again.
The bottom falls out of the wheat market; and it takes a wheelbarrow load of paper money to buy bread.
It's called, "Free Enterprise".
Best explanation of "economics" I've ever heard.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 14, 2007 02:45 PMOld Grouch,
Didn't you just scold me for bringing school choice on a thread about teachers?
And now you're posting pointless "economics" stories about wheat and bread?
What was the point of that post?
Posted by John II on May 14, 2007 02:49 PMI answered your question concerning "school choice" on a line at the time dealing with Teachers in DPS. If you found that to be "scolding" that's your problem. Not mine.
Start with: The price of oil goes up. The price of gasoline goes up. And follow through to: The bottom drops out of crude oil; and it takes a trunkload of money to fill up your gas tank.. It's still the best economics lesson I've ever had. My contribution to the discussion over oil prices and "greed". And expression of such interest as I have in the topic.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 14, 2007 06:15 PMOld Grouch,
"The bottom drops out of crude oil"
What do you mean by saying the "bottom drops out of crude oil"?
6:57,old grouch does not have the mental capacity to comsume knowledge.Just read one of his ignorant,errational,base on non fact what so ever post.I believe he is a senile old man committed to a old folks home who sneeks on to a computer to spread his mental retarted ignorance.His kids should be responsible for him,but again if his kids are liberal they should also be committed
Posted by Keith on May 14, 2007 09:36 PM6:57,old grouch does not have the mental capacity to comsume knowledge.Just read one of his ignorant,errational,base on non fact what so ever post.I believe he is a senile old man committed to a old folks home who sneeks on to a computer to spread his mental retarted ignorance.His kids should be responsible for him,but again if his kids are liberal they should also be committed
Posted by Keith on May 14, 2007 09:36 PMI forgot to sign that 6:57 post...
Posted by John II on May 14, 2007 09:42 PMAh, but we knew it was from. No one can find and pick nits like JohnII.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 15, 2007 04:12 AMI'm still waiting to hear what "the bottoms drops out" means.
Posted by John II on May 15, 2007 06:43 AMSharon B.,
Do you know what the term means? What was Old Grouch talking about?
Posted by John II on May 15, 2007 02:51 PM