# $5 GAS BY MEMORIAL DAY: So how many think that the voters will forgive this



## Robert

administration by the time elections role around.....Think maybe this administration should have listen to the calls for energy Independence a couple of years back?


----------



## Baruch Menachem

On what basis will gas be that expensive?


----------



## LibocalypseNow

This Administration seems completely lost at this point. A rudderless ship for sure. The One heads over to Brazil and promises their Oil Companies loans for them to drill for Oil yet at the same time sits around calling American Oil Companies "Evil" and wont let them drill. It really is an awful Anti-American policy. To answer your question though,the usual suspects will forgive this but most Independent Voters will not. And they'll decide the 2012 Elections. $5 Gas will be catastrophic for the Economy. Lets hope it doesn't get that bad.


----------



## WillowTree

The higher the better, cause the higer it is the better the chance he's a one term asswipe.


----------



## blastoff

They think high prices for gas and other energy is the ticket to developing alternatives.  And maybe they're right, but it's gonna bite 'em in the balls long before anything viable comes along.


----------



## Robert

We're already seeing a large drop off in demand, which means less demand, less money being spent less, products being moved, less money being made, less tax's being paid few new jobs created....This is the house that Obama Built


----------



## edthecynic

Thank You Crybaby Boner.
Gas is up more than a dollar since the GOP took over the House!!!!


----------



## Mr. H.

If the world oil/supply demand equation were as it is today, and if the U.S. were somehow magically energy independent... gasoline would still approach $5/gallon by Mem Day.


----------



## uscitizen

Baruch Menachem said:


> On what basis will gas be that expensive?



We have to have a recovery don't we?

Everyone pretty much already spends all they amke so the only way is to increase prices on things they already buy.


----------



## Dr.House

edthecynic said:


> Thank You Crybaby Boner.
> Gas is up more than a dollar since the GOP took over the House!!!!



How much is it up since your 0ssiah took office?


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Lefty Wingers just love demonizing those big bad American Oil Companies,yet seem to love Brazilian Oil Companies. These Wingers really are completely clueless and are Anti-American at heart. Yikes!


----------



## Intense

Oil prices soared to the highest level in more than two years as violence spread in Libya and Moammar Gadhafi's grip weakened. Only a small amount of Libya's oil production appeared to have been affected, though analysts fear revolts will spread to OPEC heavyweights like Iran.

Benchmark West Texas Intermediate for April delivery jumped $4.59, or 5% to $94.30 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The last time oil traded at that level was Oct. 2, 2008. The April contract traded as high as $98.48 per barrel.

"If this thing escalates and there's a good chance that there'd be a shift in supplies, $5 gas isn't out of the question," says Darin Newsom, senior analyst at energy tracker DTN.

The average price of regular gasoline is expected to rise to $3.25 within a few days, says Tom Kloza, chief analyst at the Oil Price Information Service. That's 2.5% above Tuesday's $3.17 national average.



Spanish oil company Repsol-YPF said Tuesday that it suspended operations in Libya, which produced 34,777 barrels of oil equivalent per day last year. Other oil companies, including Italy's Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, U.K.-based BP and Germany's Wintershall, started pulling out employees. Meanwhile, key Libyan officials resigned and air force pilots defected amid a bloody crackdown on the protests.

Libya holds the most oil reserves in Africa and is the world's 15th-largest crude exporter at 1.2 million barrels per day, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Any production losses out of Libya could be quickly absorbed by other countries like Saudi Arabia, which can ramp up production as much as another five million barrels per day. The main concern stalking markets is that revolts in the Middle East and North Africa will spread to OPEC heavyweights, particularly Iran, the group's second-largest producer.

Top oil exporters
Country Exports, barrels per day 

1. Saudi Arabia 6.4 million 

2. Russia 5.4 million 

3. Iran 2.2 million 

4. Nigeria 2.1 million 

5. United Arab Emirates 2.0 million 

6. Iraq 1.9 million 

7. Angola 1.8 million 

8. Norway 1.8 million 

9. Canada 1.5 million 

10. Kazakhstan 1.4 million 

11. Kuwait 1.4 million 

12. Mexico 1.3 million 

13. Venezuela 1.3 million 

14. Algeria 1.3 million 

15. Libya 1.2 million 

16. Qatar 975 thousand 

17. United Kingdom 775 thousand 

18. Azerbaijan 597 thousand 

19. Oman 584 thousand 

20. Brazil 505 thousand 

Source: U.S. Energy Information Admin.
2009 statistics  




If Libyan unrest spreads, gas could reach $5 - USATODAY.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> Thank You Crybaby Boner.
> Gas is up more than a dollar since the GOP took over the House!!!!



Lest we forget those no drill zones presidental order by obama since 2009


----------



## Mr. H.

And here we are... exporting ethanol.


----------



## uscitizen

So who is feeding the unrest in north africa to boost profits?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

uscitizen said:


> So who is feeding the unrest in north africa to boost profits?



George Soros


----------



## Big Fitz

edthecynic said:


> Thank You Crybaby Boner.
> Gas is up more than a dollar since the GOP took over the House!!!!


Try since P-BO imposed a moratorium on drilling.  It got worse with the islamofascists disrupting the arab world.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Robert said:


> administration by the time elections role around.....Think maybe this administration should have listen to the calls for energy Independence a couple of years back?



You mean like 32 years back? Gosh, 28 years of corporate presidency before this one, and nothing changed then either.

The price is rising due to basic supply/demand shortfall due to Chindia and dying existing capacity. Not partisan agenda.

Perhaps if some of you stopped lying to yourselves the past 32 years, we'd be a lot closer to mitigating this problem. But no.... the only mantra some people can accept is "drill baby drill." 

Yet, when you ask them how much is even here, they either can't/won't answer, or provide laughable proven reserve totals.


----------



## edthecynic

LibocalypseNow said:


> Lefty Wingers just love demonizing those big bad American Oil Companies,yet seem to love Brazilian Oil Companies. These Wingers really are completely clueless and are Anti-American at heart. Yikes!


Righty Wingers just love those big bad American oil monopolies who cap their new oil finds to limit the supply and drive the prices ever higher, yet seem to hate any oil producer like Brazil who puts their new oil finds on the world market.
These Righty Wingers really are completely clueless and are Anti-American at heart.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who is feeding the unrest in north africa to boost profits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Soros
Click to expand...

Soros Derangement Syndrome


----------



## uscitizen

Demand for Gas dropped 3% in the USA recently.


----------



## Mr. H.

uscitizen said:


> Demand for Gas dropped 3% in the USA recently.



And oil prices recently fell 3%.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Mr. H. said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demand for Gas dropped 3% in the USA recently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And oil prices recently fell 3%.
Click to expand...


When? The IMF just told the world otherwise.


----------



## Flopper

Robert said:


> administration by the time elections role around.....Think maybe this administration should have listen to the calls for energy Independence a couple of years back?


Spikes in gas prices rarely last more than a year.  Most spikes play out in 4 to 6 months.

Not that voters would understand or care, but drilling wells in the US would have little impact on the price gas unless we drilled a lot of them.  A barrel of oil produced in the US will sell at approximately the same price as oil produced elsewhere, adjusted for transpiration, taxes and fees.  For the US to seriously lower oil prices we would have to produce enough oil so we could increase supply enough to lower world oil prices.  Even then the decision to increase supply would rest with the individual producers, not the government.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Flopper said:


> For the US to seriously lower oil prices we would have to produce enough oil so we could increase supply enough to lower world oil prices.  Even then the decision to increase supply would rest with the individual producers, not the government.



Finally, someone gets it.

And produce enough to not only meet new global demand, but enough to ALSO offset existing capacity that is rapidly dying.

What we have left here is a drop in the bucket, far more expensive that we're used to, environmentally risky, and won't make a bit of difference in global price points.


----------



## Zona

WillowTree said:


> The higher the better, cause the higer it is the better the chance he's a one term asswipe.



So are you finally saying it?  Are you saying Obama will be a one and done guy?

Say it...say it.....

YOu cant.  Thats why all these type threads are useless. 

We win again in 2012!


----------



## Baruch Menachem

There seems to be no real threat to the house of Saud, or to the Iranian kleptocrats.      Until they start getting restless, $5 oil is paranoid fantasy.

Khadaffi seems to be getting control back.  He has a huge bank account.  He can shut things down from spite and still keep things going there.   Prices go up high enough, folks will become rational again.


----------



## Jroc

Flopper said:


> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> administration by the time elections role around.....Think maybe this administration should have listen to the calls for energy Independence a couple of years back?
> 
> 
> 
> Spikes in gas prices rarely last more than a year.  Most spikes play out in 4 to 6 months.
> 
> Not that voters would understand or care, but drilling wells in the US would have little impact on the price gas unless we drilled a lot of them.  A barrel of oil produced in the US will sell at approximately the same price as oil produced elsewhere, adjusted for transpiration, taxes and fees.  For the US to seriously lower oil prices we would have to produce enough oil so we could increase supply enough to lower world oil prices.  Even then the decision to increase supply would rest with the individual producers, not the government.
Click to expand...


umm... Natural gas and Coal also facture into it, we need to use all our resources. *Gas prices plummeted after Bush annouced expanded oil drilling in 08.* What happend?


----------



## xsited1

Robert said:


> administration by the time elections role around.....Think maybe this administration should have listen to the calls for energy Independence a couple of years back?



As long as I get my government cheese, all is forgiven.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who is feeding the unrest in north africa to boost profits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Soros
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Soros Derangement Syndrome
Click to expand...


sadly you are just a puppet


----------



## Flopper

Jroc said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> administration by the time elections role around.....Think maybe this administration should have listen to the calls for energy Independence a couple of years back?
> 
> 
> 
> Spikes in gas prices rarely last more than a year.  Most spikes play out in 4 to 6 months.
> 
> Not that voters would understand or care, but drilling wells in the US would have little impact on the price gas unless we drilled a lot of them.  A barrel of oil produced in the US will sell at approximately the same price as oil produced elsewhere, adjusted for transpiration, taxes and fees.  For the US to seriously lower oil prices we would have to produce enough oil so we could increase supply enough to lower world oil prices.  Even then the decision to increase supply would rest with the individual producers, not the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> umm... Natural gas and Coal also facture into it, we need to use all our resources. *Gas prices plummeted after Bush annouced expanded oil drilling in 08.* What happend?
Click to expand...

By the summer of 2008, speculators had bid the price of oil up $147/barrel.  Crude oil was way overpriced in relation to demand.  It wasn&#8217;t an announcement of increased drilling that brought prices down.  The great recession which started several months earlier made it&#8217;s present known in unmistaken events in Sept of 2008.

 Unemployment rate in the United States rises to its highest level since December 2003 

 GMAC announces downsizing it&#8217;s business with 5,000 job cuts.

 US government plans to take control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a takeover plan.

 Washington Mutual, the largest savings and loan in the United States, ousts Chief Executive as a result of losses

 The American International Group seeks an emergency $40 billion loan from the United States Federal Reserve

 The United States Federal Reserve announces several initiatives to expand emergency lending to combat the crisis

 Lehman Brothers files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy 

 The Dow Jones industrial average falls by over 500 points

 United States Federal Reserve agrees to lend the American International Group $85 billion

 Dow Jones Industrial Average falls by 440 points

 Trading is suspended for the second day in succession on Russia's two main stock exchanges 

 Russia's government lends the country's three biggest banks 1.13 trillion rubles

 The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and United Kingdom Financial Services Authority take emergency action to temporarily ban short-selling of financial companies stock.

 The United States Department of the Treasury guarantees money market mutual funds up to an amount of $50 billion

 Bush administration asks the United States Congress for $700 billion to buy mortgage-related assets

 Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the two last remaining independent investment banks on Wall Street, become bank holding companies as a result of the subprime mortgage crisis

 The Dow Jones Industrial Average falls by 370 points

 President Bush invites Senator McCain, Senator Barack Obama the Democratic Partyand leaders of the United States Congress to a meeting at the White House tomorrow to discuss the crisis.

*Oil Prices plummet in anticipation of world wide cut in demand due to the economic crisis*


----------



## Article 15

Dr.House said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You Crybaby Boner.
> Gas is up more than a dollar since the GOP took over the House!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much is it up since your 0ssiah took office?
Click to expand...


A lot.

It's almost like oil prices plummeted for some strange reason just before Obama took office.

Oh wait.  They did.






Care to explain what was going on in the world's economy in the last quarter of 2008?


----------



## uscitizen

Mr. H. said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demand for Gas dropped 3% in the USA recently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And oil prices recently fell 3%.
Click to expand...

And the price of gas went up again around here yesterday.


----------



## edthecynic

Jroc said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> administration by the time elections role around.....Think maybe this administration should have listen to the calls for energy Independence a couple of years back?
> 
> 
> 
> Spikes in gas prices rarely last more than a year.  Most spikes play out in 4 to 6 months.
> 
> Not that voters would understand or care, but drilling wells in the US would have little impact on the price gas unless we drilled a lot of them.  A barrel of oil produced in the US will sell at approximately the same price as oil produced elsewhere, adjusted for transpiration, taxes and fees.  For the US to seriously lower oil prices we would have to produce enough oil so we could increase supply enough to lower world oil prices.  Even then the decision to increase supply would rest with the individual producers, not the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> umm... Natural gas and Coal also facture into it, we need to use all our resources. *Gas prices plummeted after Bush annouced expanded oil drilling in 08.* What happend?
Click to expand...

Actually, the price of oil was falling BEFORE Bush made his announcement, but CON$ never let the facts get in the way of their spin.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

I have warned you people that prices would keep going up and that people would not be able to afford the price of food. People joked about it. 






$4.44 a gallon? Seriously? | Blogging.la


----------



## editec

Robert said:


> administration by the time elections role around.....Think maybe this administration should have listen to the calls for energy Independence a couple of years back?


 
@While I agree that this is a problem, I of course cannot agree with you that the problem can be laid at the current POTUS's feet.

If anything I'm blaming CHEYNEY, but I think the majority of the problem is market driven, not politically driven.

Yeah that's right, the market, not politics is at the heart of this problem.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

editec said:


> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> administration by the time elections role around.....Think maybe this administration should have listen to the calls for energy Independence a couple of years back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @While I agree that this is a problem, I of course cannot agree with you that the problem can be laid at the current POTUS's feet.
> 
> If anything I'm blaming CHEYNEY, but I think the majority of the problem is market driven, not politically driven.
> 
> Yeah that's right, the market, not politics is at the heart of this problem.
Click to expand...


Yes it can be laid at the feet of the current president.
When Bush lifted the offshore drilling ban what happen to gas prices? Was it a dream or did they start to drop?


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> administration by the time elections role around.....Think maybe this administration should have listen to the calls for energy Independence a couple of years back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @While I agree that this is a problem, I of course cannot agree with you that the problem can be laid at the current POTUS's feet.
> 
> If anything I'm blaming CHEYNEY, but I think the majority of the problem is market driven, not politically driven.
> 
> Yeah that's right, the market, not politics is at the heart of this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it can be laid at the feet of the current president.
> When Bush lifted the offshore drilling ban what happen to gas prices? Was it a dream or did they start to drop?
Click to expand...

Oil started to drop BEFORE Bush lifted the ban, which did not produce a single additional drop of oil, so yes it was a complete fantasy.

Again, none of the new oil found by the oil monopoly ever goes on the market. The new wells are capped. Remember the BP Deepwater Horizon well? A huge oil find was made, but was the oil put on the market? No, the well was capped. The capping was bad and it exploded and it was recapped. Still to this day the well is not producing any oil to put on the market.

The only increase in oil production that ends up on the market is coming from small INDEPENDENT oil companies leasing private land. The way you get more oil on the market is to threaten to nationalize all CAPPED wells and lease them to the independents. If that happens, you can be sure BP and the others will immediately tap their capped wells and put the oil on the market rather than lose them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> @While I agree that this is a problem, I of course cannot agree with you that the problem can be laid at the current POTUS's feet.
> 
> If anything I'm blaming CHEYNEY, but I think the majority of the problem is market driven, not politically driven.
> 
> Yeah that's right, the market, not politics is at the heart of this problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it can be laid at the feet of the current president.
> When Bush lifted the offshore drilling ban what happen to gas prices? Was it a dream or did they start to drop?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oil started to drop BEFORE Bush lifted the ban, which did not produce a single additional drop of oil, so yes it was a complete fantasy.
> 
> Again, none of the new oil found by the oil monopoly ever goes on the market. The new wells are capped. Remember the BP Deepwater Horizon well? A huge oil find was made, but was the oil put on the market? No, the well was capped. The capping was bad and it exploded and it was recapped. Still to this day the well is not producing any oil to put on the market.
> 
> The only increase in oil production that ends up on the market is coming from small INDEPENDENT oil companies leasing private land. The way you get more oil on the market is to threaten to nationalize all CAPPED wells and lease them to the independents. If that happens, you can be sure BP and the others will immediately tap their capped wells and put the oil on the market rather than lose them.
Click to expand...




> Oil started to drop BEFORE Bush lifted the ban, which did not produce a single additional drop of oil, so yes it was a complete fantasy.



Give a valid credible source.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it can be laid at the feet of the current president.
> When Bush lifted the offshore drilling ban what happen to gas prices? Was it a dream or did they start to drop?
> 
> 
> 
> Oil started to drop BEFORE Bush lifted the ban, which did not produce a single additional drop of oil, so yes it was a complete fantasy.
> 
> Again, none of the new oil found by the oil monopoly ever goes on the market. The new wells are capped. Remember the BP Deepwater Horizon well? A huge oil find was made, but was the oil put on the market? No, the well was capped. The capping was bad and it exploded and it was recapped. Still to this day the well is not producing any oil to put on the market.
> 
> The only increase in oil production that ends up on the market is coming from small INDEPENDENT oil companies leasing private land. The way you get more oil on the market is to threaten to nationalize all CAPPED wells and lease them to the independents. If that happens, you can be sure BP and the others will immediately tap their capped wells and put the oil on the market rather than lose them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oil started to drop BEFORE Bush lifted the ban, which did not produce a single additional drop of oil, so yes it was a complete fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give a valid credible source.
Click to expand...

You gave no "valid credible source" for your Bush crap, so:
'That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.'
- Christopher Hitchens

Please show with a "valid credible source" how Bush's decree put more oil on the market in time to drive down oil prices.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it can be laid at the feet of the current president.
> When Bush lifted the offshore drilling ban what happen to gas prices? Was it a dream or did they start to drop?
> 
> 
> 
> Oil started to drop BEFORE Bush lifted the ban, which did not produce a single additional drop of oil, so yes it was a complete fantasy.
> 
> Again, none of the new oil found by the oil monopoly ever goes on the market. The new wells are capped. Remember the BP Deepwater Horizon well? A huge oil find was made, but was the oil put on the market? No, the well was capped. The capping was bad and it exploded and it was recapped. Still to this day the well is not producing any oil to put on the market.
> 
> The only increase in oil production that ends up on the market is coming from small INDEPENDENT oil companies leasing private land. The way you get more oil on the market is to threaten to nationalize all CAPPED wells and lease them to the independents. If that happens, you can be sure BP and the others will immediately tap their capped wells and put the oil on the market rather than lose them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oil started to drop BEFORE Bush lifted the ban, which did not produce a single additional drop of oil, so yes it was a complete fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give a valid credible source.
Click to expand...

Notice how he carefully avoids the fact that new oil discoveries do not make it onto the market from anyone other than the small independent oil companies!!!!!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oil started to drop BEFORE Bush lifted the ban, which did not produce a single additional drop of oil, so yes it was a complete fantasy.
> 
> Again, none of the new oil found by the oil monopoly ever goes on the market. The new wells are capped. Remember the BP Deepwater Horizon well? A huge oil find was made, but was the oil put on the market? No, the well was capped. The capping was bad and it exploded and it was recapped. Still to this day the well is not producing any oil to put on the market.
> 
> The only increase in oil production that ends up on the market is coming from small INDEPENDENT oil companies leasing private land. The way you get more oil on the market is to threaten to nationalize all CAPPED wells and lease them to the independents. If that happens, you can be sure BP and the others will immediately tap their capped wells and put the oil on the market rather than lose them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oil started to drop BEFORE Bush lifted the ban, which did not produce a single additional drop of oil, so yes it was a complete fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give a valid credible source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gave no "valid credible source" for your Bush crap, so:
> 'That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.'
> - Christopher Hitchens
> 
> Please show with a "valid credible source" how Bush's decree put more oil on the market in time to drive down oil prices.
Click to expand...


Why is the media spinning how Bush making oil prices drop today?

So yesterday Bush lifts the exectutive ban on off-shore drilling, and before you Democrats go getting your panties in a wad, he readily admits that this wont help in the short term much. He said its not going to produce a drop pf oil tomorrow. But it does make OPEC and the oil speculators think twice about what the future might hold.


Yet maybe it did do something with immediate results..today oil prices fell $ 10 a barrel. Yet the media wants to credit the fall in price to the bad economy. But isnt that what they were blaming for the rise in oil prices in the first place?
Why is the media &#8220;spinning&#8221; how Bush making oil prices drop today? | Current Oil Price


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give a valid credible source.
> 
> 
> 
> You gave no "valid credible source" for your Bush crap, so:
> 'That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.'
> - Christopher Hitchens
> 
> Please show with a "valid credible source" how Bush's decree put more oil on the market in time to drive down oil prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is the media spinning how Bush making oil prices drop today?
> 
> So yesterday Bush lifts the exectutive ban on off-shore drilling, and before you Democrats go getting your panties in a wad, he readily admits that this wont help in the short term much. He said its not going to produce a drop pf oil tomorrow. But it does make OPEC and the oil speculators think twice about what the future might hold.
> 
> 
> Yet maybe it did do something with immediate results..today oil prices fell $ 10 a barrel. Yet the media wants to credit the fall in price to *the bad economy. But isnt that what they were blaming for the rise in oil prices in the first place?*
> Why is the media spinning how Bush making oil prices drop today? | Current Oil Price
Click to expand...

Amazing what passes for a "valid credible source" to CON$. Some unknown schlub asks a loaded question with false information and that is a "valid credible source."  At least your source points out that even Bush admitted that his decree will not put any new oil on the market immediately.

Oil was falling before Bush spoke, then spiked when there was SPECULATION that Israel was going to attack Iran, and then started falling again when that threat passed before Bush's decree.

Again you carefully avoid the fact that all the new drilling by big oil puts no new oil on the market!!! The only new oil finding its way onto the market is coming from small independent oil companies drilling on private land.


----------



## signelect

Most of the increases are coming at the hands of the traders.  Gas in my area jumped $.20 in two days, oil did not go up, the traders are making the money on the backs of the consumer.  I hate to say it but if $5.00 gas will get POTUS out of office it is OK with me.  By the way it effect the left with the same degree of difficulty as the right.  Yall need to get your heads into some sunlight


----------



## Big Fitz

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oil started to drop BEFORE Bush lifted the ban, which did not produce a single additional drop of oil, so yes it was a complete fantasy.
> 
> Again, none of the new oil found by the oil monopoly ever goes on the market. The new wells are capped. Remember the BP Deepwater Horizon well? A huge oil find was made, but was the oil put on the market? No, the well was capped. The capping was bad and it exploded and it was recapped. Still to this day the well is not producing any oil to put on the market.
> 
> The only increase in oil production that ends up on the market is coming from small INDEPENDENT oil companies leasing private land. The way you get more oil on the market is to threaten to nationalize all CAPPED wells and lease them to the independents. If that happens, you can be sure BP and the others will immediately tap their capped wells and put the oil on the market rather than lose them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oil started to drop BEFORE Bush lifted the ban, which did not produce a single additional drop of oil, so yes it was a complete fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give a valid credible source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gave no "valid credible source" for your Bush crap, so:
> 'That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.'
> - Christopher Hitchens
> 
> Please show with a "valid credible source" how Bush's decree put more oil on the market in time to drive down oil prices.
Click to expand...

"To a believer, no proof is necessary.  To a skeptic, no proof is enough." 
Me

When any source can be considered without credit because it disagrees with you, there can be no validity in demanding sources.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You gave no "valid credible source" for your Bush crap, so:
> 'That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.'
> - Christopher Hitchens
> 
> Please show with a "valid credible source" how Bush's decree put more oil on the market in time to drive down oil prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the media spinning how Bush making oil prices drop today?
> 
> So yesterday Bush lifts the exectutive ban on off-shore drilling, and before you Democrats go getting your panties in a wad, he readily admits that this wont help in the short term much. He said its not going to produce a drop pf oil tomorrow. But it does make OPEC and the oil speculators think twice about what the future might hold.
> 
> 
> Yet maybe it did do something with immediate results..today oil prices fell $ 10 a barrel. Yet the media wants to credit the fall in price to *the bad economy. But isnt that what they were blaming for the rise in oil prices in the first place?*
> Why is the media spinning how Bush making oil prices drop today? | Current Oil Price
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing what passes for a "valid credible source" to CON$. Some unknown schlub asks a loaded question with false information and that is a "valid credible source."  At least your source points out that even Bush admitted that his decree will not put any new oil on the market immediately.
> 
> Oil was falling before Bush spoke, then spiked when there was SPECULATION that Israel was going to attack Iran, and then started falling again when that threat passed before Bush's decree.
> 
> Again you carefully avoid the fact that all the new drilling by big oil puts no new oil on the market!!! The only new oil finding its way onto the market is coming from small independent oil companies drilling on private land.
Click to expand...


Oil on July 14 th 2008 145.00 a barrel that was the date bush lifted the ban

Dtae of the CNN article July 15 2008
Biggest oil price drop in 17 years

Oil falls amid concerns economic woes will cut demand - Jul. 15, 2008

You were saying?


----------



## signelect

I don't understand the argument that any new drilling won't won't bring immediate relief, that is true but it will bring relief in time.  We don't need foreign oil if we drill and convert our own, don't you libs get it.  What is your problem.  I am beginning to think you were dropped on your heads at birth and can't help it.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the media spinning how Bush making oil prices drop today?
> 
> So yesterday Bush lifts the exectutive ban on off-shore drilling, and before you Democrats go getting your panties in a wad, he readily admits that this wont help in the short term much. He said its not going to produce a drop pf oil tomorrow. But it does make OPEC and the oil speculators think twice about what the future might hold.
> 
> 
> Yet maybe it did do something with immediate results..today oil prices fell $ 10 a barrel. Yet the media wants to credit the fall in price to *the bad economy. But isnt that what they were blaming for the rise in oil prices in the first place?*
> Why is the media spinning how Bush making oil prices drop today? | Current Oil Price
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing what passes for a "valid credible source" to CON$. Some unknown schlub asks a loaded question with false information and that is a "valid credible source."  At least your source points out that even Bush admitted that his decree will not put any new oil on the market immediately.
> 
> Oil was falling before Bush spoke, then spiked when there was SPECULATION that Israel was going to attack Iran, and then started falling again when that threat passed before Bush's decree.
> 
> Again you carefully avoid the fact that all the new drilling by big oil puts no new oil on the market!!! The only new oil finding its way onto the market is coming from small independent oil companies drilling on private land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oil on July 14 th 2008 145.00 a barrel that was the date bush lifted the ban
> 
> Dtae of the CNN article July 15 2008
> Biggest oil price drop in 17 years
> 
> Oil falls amid concerns economic woes will cut demand - Jul. 15, 2008
> 
> You were saying?
Click to expand...

First of all, your own link contradicts you!!! 
From your link:


> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- *Oil prices plummeted* by the second-largest  margin on record Tuesday as investors feared a further decline in U.S.  demand* after hearing comments from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben  Bernanke.*
> 
> On Tuesday morning, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned  that high energy prices have helped to limit the purchasing power of  U.S. households. High energy costs will remain a drag on the U.S.  economy for the rest of the year, Bernanke told the Senate Banking  Committee Tuesday.
> That could result in businesses pushing a  greater percentage of their high fuel and commodity costs through to  consumers, he warned.
> *Immediately following Bernanke's speech, prices dropped more than $9, sinking below $136 a barrel,* before recovering some.


Is Threat of Iran Attack Raising Oil Prices? - Newsweek
June 28, 2008
*The War Premium On Oil*

*Speculators may be assuming that Israel and the United States will 'take out' Iranian nuclear facilities.*

                          (Page 1 of 2)
                    There are two questions being asked around the  global water cooler these days, and no one seems to have a very good  answer for them. First, why does the price of oil keep rising, even if  the world economy is slowing down and the Saudis appear to be willing to  raise production? Second, why do so many analysts and governments think  that the United States or Israel, or both, will attempt to destroy or  set back the Iranian nuclear program sometime before George W. Bush's  departure from the White House early next year? 



Obviously there is no single explanation for the astonishing and  persistent rise in oil prices, recently hitting more than $140 per  barrel. But one explanation may well be that energy traders and even  real consumers, including refiners, companies and governments, are  betting on an American-Israeli intervention against Iran in the near  future, and logically believing that such an act would drive oil prices  sky-high.


What would happen if such an intervention were to occur? To begin with,  Iran would almost certainly suspend most or all of its oil sales abroad  in retaliation; that would remove a couple of million barrels from the  current worldwide supply of roughly 85 million barrels per day. Thenand  this is crucialTehran's increasingly close ally, Hugo Chávez in  Caracas, would in all likelihood at least stop sales to the United  States and possibly declare a general suspension of sales. There go  another 1.5 million barrels per day, though PDVSA, the Venezuelan state  oil company, claims it is exporting substantially more today (showing,  by the way, that in today's global economy, it is not that easy to know  exactly how much each producer is placing on the world market). Finally,  it would not be impossible for other exporters, out of tongue-in-cheek  solidarity with Iran (applauding the American-Israeli move in private  while giving lip service to international law in public), to remove an  additional million or so barrels per day from the global market. Prices  would in all likelihood break through the $200 ceiling, and maybe go  much higher.


----------



## edthecynic

signelect said:


> *I don't understand the argument that any new drilling won't won't bring immediate relief, that is true but it will bring relief in time.*  We don't need foreign oil if we drill and convert our own, don't you libs get it.  What is your problem.  I am beginning to think you were dropped on your heads at birth and can't help it.


Again, any new oil that is found by the big oil monopolies does not make it on to the market, to keep supply artificially low and prices artificially high. Giving them more access to drilling sites will only lead to them controlling more of the supply they keep off the market.

We must get them to tap the wells they have capped, not give them leases to more drilling sites. You do this by threatening to take back the leases on the capped wells and leasing them to independent oil companies who will put the oil on the market. Big oil will put the oil from the capped wells on the market rather than lose the leases.
Problem solved.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing what passes for a "valid credible source" to CON$. Some unknown schlub asks a loaded question with false information and that is a "valid credible source."  At least your source points out that even Bush admitted that his decree will not put any new oil on the market immediately.
> 
> Oil was falling before Bush spoke, then spiked when there was SPECULATION that Israel was going to attack Iran, and then started falling again when that threat passed before Bush's decree.
> 
> Again you carefully avoid the fact that all the new drilling by big oil puts no new oil on the market!!! The only new oil finding its way onto the market is coming from small independent oil companies drilling on private land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oil on July 14 th 2008 145.00 a barrel that was the date bush lifted the ban
> 
> Dtae of the CNN article July 15 2008
> Biggest oil price drop in 17 years
> 
> Oil falls amid concerns economic woes will cut demand - Jul. 15, 2008
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, your own link contradicts you!!!
> From your link:
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- *Oil prices plummeted* by the second-largest  margin on record Tuesday as investors feared a further decline in U.S.  demand* after hearing comments from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben  Bernanke.*
> 
> On Tuesday morning, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned  that high energy prices have helped to limit the purchasing power of  U.S. households. High energy costs will remain a drag on the U.S.  economy for the rest of the year, Bernanke told the Senate Banking  Committee Tuesday.
> That could result in businesses pushing a  greater percentage of their high fuel and commodity costs through to  consumers, he warned.
> *Immediately following Bernanke's speech, prices dropped more than $9, sinking below $136 a barrel,* before recovering some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Threat of Iran Attack Raising Oil Prices? - Newsweek
> June 28, 2008
> *The War Premium On Oil*
> 
> *Speculators may be assuming that Israel and the United States will 'take out' Iranian nuclear facilities.*
> 
> (Page 1 of 2)
> There are two questions being asked around the  global water cooler these days, and no one seems to have a very good  answer for them. First, why does the price of oil keep rising, even if  the world economy is slowing down and the Saudis appear to be willing to  raise production? Second, why do so many analysts and governments think  that the United States or Israel, or both, will attempt to destroy or  set back the Iranian nuclear program sometime before George W. Bush's  departure from the White House early next year?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously there is no single explanation for the astonishing and  persistent rise in oil prices, recently hitting more than $140 per  barrel. But one explanation may well be that energy traders and even  real consumers, including refiners, companies and governments, are  betting on an American-Israeli intervention against Iran in the near  future, and logically believing that such an act would drive oil prices  sky-high.
> 
> 
> What would happen if such an intervention were to occur? To begin with,  Iran would almost certainly suspend most or all of its oil sales abroad  in retaliation; that would remove a couple of million barrels from the  current worldwide supply of roughly 85 million barrels per day. Thenand  this is crucialTehran's increasingly close ally, Hugo Chávez in  Caracas, would in all likelihood at least stop sales to the United  States and possibly declare a general suspension of sales. There go  another 1.5 million barrels per day, though PDVSA, the Venezuelan state  oil company, claims it is exporting substantially more today (showing,  by the way, that in today's global economy, it is not that easy to know  exactly how much each producer is placing on the world market). Finally,  it would not be impossible for other exporters, out of tongue-in-cheek  solidarity with Iran (applauding the American-Israeli move in private  while giving lip service to international law in public), to remove an  additional million or so barrels per day from the global market. Prices  would in all likelihood break through the $200 ceiling, and maybe go  much higher.
Click to expand...


Nope my link does not. oil prices on july 14th was at 145.00 a barrel.
 on the 15th the prices drop at a 17 year low, doesn't matter how the media spinned it. Oil drop come back after class is over  and I will quiz you again.


----------



## Mr. H.

edthecynic said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't understand the argument that any new drilling won't won't bring immediate relief, that is true but it will bring relief in time.*  We don't need foreign oil if we drill and convert our own, don't you libs get it.  What is your problem.  I am beginning to think you were dropped on your heads at birth and can't help it.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, any new oil that is found by the big oil monopolies does not make it on to the market, to keep supply artificially low and prices artificially high. Giving them more access to drilling sites will only lead to them controlling more of the supply they keep off the market.
> 
> We must get them to tap the wells they have capped, not give them leases to more drilling sites. You do this by threatening to take back the leases on the capped wells and leasing them to independent oil companies who will put the oil on the market. Big oil will put the oil from the capped wells on the market rather than lose the leases.
> Problem solved.
Click to expand...


Firstly, there is no "monopoly" in the oil industry.

As for "big oil"- it's all but non-existent in this country.
The independents are doing 90% of the drilling, and produce the vast majority of oil and gas in the U.S. 

I'd like to learn more from you about these "capped" wells.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oil on July 14 th 2008 145.00 a barrel that was the date bush lifted the ban
> 
> Dtae of the CNN article July 15 2008
> Biggest oil price drop in 17 years
> 
> Oil falls amid concerns economic woes will cut demand - Jul. 15, 2008
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, your own link contradicts you!!!
> From your link:
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- *Oil prices plummeted* by the second-largest  margin on record Tuesday as investors feared a further decline in U.S.  demand* after hearing comments from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben  Bernanke.*
> 
> On Tuesday morning, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned  that high energy prices have helped to limit the purchasing power of  U.S. households. High energy costs will remain a drag on the U.S.  economy for the rest of the year, Bernanke told the Senate Banking  Committee Tuesday.
> That could result in businesses pushing a  greater percentage of their high fuel and commodity costs through to  consumers, he warned.
> *Immediately following Bernanke's speech, prices dropped more than $9, sinking below $136 a barrel,* before recovering some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Threat of Iran Attack Raising Oil Prices? - Newsweek
> June 28, 2008
> *The War Premium On Oil*
> 
> *Speculators may be assuming that Israel and the United States will 'take out' Iranian nuclear facilities.*
> 
> (Page 1 of 2)
> There are two questions being asked around the  global water cooler these days, and no one seems to have a very good  answer for them. First, why does the price of oil keep rising, even if  the world economy is slowing down and the Saudis appear to be willing to  raise production? Second, why do so many analysts and governments think  that the United States or Israel, or both, will attempt to destroy or  set back the Iranian nuclear program sometime before George W. Bush's  departure from the White House early next year?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously there is no single explanation for the astonishing and  persistent rise in oil prices, recently hitting more than $140 per  barrel. But one explanation may well be that energy traders and even  real consumers, including refiners, companies and governments, are  betting on an American-Israeli intervention against Iran in the near  future, and logically believing that such an act would drive oil prices  sky-high.
> 
> 
> What would happen if such an intervention were to occur? To begin with,  Iran would almost certainly suspend most or all of its oil sales abroad  in retaliation; that would remove a couple of million barrels from the  current worldwide supply of roughly 85 million barrels per day. Thenand  this is crucialTehran's increasingly close ally, Hugo Chávez in  Caracas, would in all likelihood at least stop sales to the United  States and possibly declare a general suspension of sales. There go  another 1.5 million barrels per day, though PDVSA, the Venezuelan state  oil company, claims it is exporting substantially more today (showing,  by the way, that in today's global economy, it is not that easy to know  exactly how much each producer is placing on the world market). Finally,  it would not be impossible for other exporters, out of tongue-in-cheek  solidarity with Iran (applauding the American-Israeli move in private  while giving lip service to international law in public), to remove an  additional million or so barrels per day from the global market. Prices  would in all likelihood break through the $200 ceiling, and maybe go  much higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope my link does not.* oil prices on july 14th was at 145.00 a barrel.*
> on the 15th the prices drop at a 17 year low, doesn't matter how the media spinned it. Oil drop come back after class is over  and I will quiz you again.
Click to expand...

DOWN, before Bush said two sylables, from the high of $147 a barrel on the 12th after Iran tested a new missile increasing the threat of an Israeli, US attack on Iran!!! The prices had nothing to do with supply, so it is illogical to argue that a speech about supply would affect prices.

Fuel prices: Iran missile launches send oil to $147 a barrel record | Business | The Guardian

*Fuel prices: Iran missile launches send oil to $147 a barrel record*





 Saturday 12 July 2008				                   		 	 		 		 	<li class="history">Article history         		         	      	    Oil prices surged to a new record of $147 a barrel yesterday on increasing tension between the west and Iran. 
Brent crude rose to $147.02 in London, while in the US light sweet crude was up by more than $3 to $146.90.
Iran  this week tested missiles capable of reaching Israel, leading US  secretary of state Condoleezza Rice to warn that America would defend  its allies. Iran, second largest producer in the oil cartel Opec,  responded with another missile launch. 
Neither the US nor Israel  has ruled out a military strike on Iran. Traders fear the oil-producing  nation could retaliate by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which  40% of the world's tanker traffic passes. 
"There's always a fear  premium in pricing," said Jeff Brown, managing director of Facts Global  Energy. "The tensions in Iran and the threat of supply disruption will  help support oil prices."


----------



## edthecynic

Mr. H. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> signelect said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't understand the argument that any new drilling won't won't bring immediate relief, that is true but it will bring relief in time.*  We don't need foreign oil if we drill and convert our own, don't you libs get it.  What is your problem.  I am beginning to think you were dropped on your heads at birth and can't help it.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, any new oil that is found by the big oil monopolies does not make it on to the market, to keep supply artificially low and prices artificially high. Giving them more access to drilling sites will only lead to them controlling more of the supply they keep off the market.
> 
> We must get them to tap the wells they have capped, not give them leases to more drilling sites. You do this by threatening to take back the leases on the capped wells and leasing them to independent oil companies who will put the oil on the market. Big oil will put the oil from the capped wells on the market rather than lose the leases.
> Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Firstly, there is no "monopoly" in the oil industry.*
> 
> As for "big oil"- it's all but non-existent in this country.
> The independents are doing 90% of the drilling, and produce the vast majority of oil and gas in the U.S.
> 
> I'd like to learn more from you about these "capped" wells.
Click to expand...

The Rockefeller Family has controlled the oil monopoly for about 100 years and your claim is a testament to your complete ignorance of how the world works.


----------



## edthecynic

Mr. H. said:


> I'd like to learn more from you about these "capped" wells.


Again, let's use BP as an example. BP uses a different size pipe in digging its exploratory wells. Others use a small size pipe for exploration and then enlarge the well if they find oil.
BP uses a larger pipe for exploration so they can use the same well they explore with for production. But when BP found a massive oil pocket at the Deepwater Horizon site did they then go into production with the well??? Hell no, they capped it and kept the new found oil off the market.


----------



## Mr. H.

edthecynic said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, any new oil that is found by the big oil monopolies does not make it on to the market, to keep supply artificially low and prices artificially high. Giving them more access to drilling sites will only lead to them controlling more of the supply they keep off the market.
> 
> We must get them to tap the wells they have capped, not give them leases to more drilling sites. You do this by threatening to take back the leases on the capped wells and leasing them to independent oil companies who will put the oil on the market. Big oil will put the oil from the capped wells on the market rather than lose the leases.
> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Firstly, there is no "monopoly" in the oil industry.*
> 
> As for "big oil"- it's all but non-existent in this country.
> The independents are doing 90% of the drilling, and produce the vast majority of oil and gas in the U.S.
> 
> I'd like to learn more from you about these "capped" wells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Rockefeller Family has controlled the oil monopoly for about 100 years and your claim is a testament to your complete ignorance of how the world works.
Click to expand...


Well maybe you can help me out here with some current background info that would shed some light on this monopoly. In my 34 years in the industry, I've not seen evidence of it.

Thanking you in advance....


----------



## Mr. H.

edthecynic said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to learn more from you about these "capped" wells.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, let's use BP as an example. BP uses a different size pipe in digging its exploratory wells. Others use a small size pipe for exploration and then enlarge the well if they find oil.
> BP uses a larger pipe for exploration so they can use the same well they explore with for production. But when BP found a massive oil pocket at the Deepwater Horizon site did they then go into production with the well??? Hell no, they capped it and kept the new found oil off the market.
Click to expand...


Wells are drilled, not "dug". But that's just semantics. 

Initial well bore size is determined by a number of parameters, the most important being the targeted depth of the formation. This is because the deeper the well, the more intermediate strings of casing that need to be cemented into place. Successively smaller strings are cemented into the wellbore as drilling progresses. 

Often times the initial well is an "appraisal" well, and is temporarily sealed. The drillstring is retrieved and then deliniated through the existing well bore in order to assess the extent of a formation. This might be done several times. A number of deliniations can be kicked off from a single well bore. 

As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, your own link contradicts you!!!
> From your link:
> Is Threat of Iran Attack Raising Oil Prices? - Newsweek
> June 28, 2008
> *The War Premium On Oil*
> 
> *Speculators may be assuming that Israel and the United States will 'take out' Iranian nuclear facilities.*
> 
> (Page 1 of 2)
> There are two questions being asked around the  global water cooler these days, and no one seems to have a very good  answer for them. First, why does the price of oil keep rising, even if  the world economy is slowing down and the Saudis appear to be willing to  raise production? Second, why do so many analysts and governments think  that the United States or Israel, or both, will attempt to destroy or  set back the Iranian nuclear program sometime before George W. Bush's  departure from the White House early next year?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously there is no single explanation for the astonishing and  persistent rise in oil prices, recently hitting more than $140 per  barrel. But one explanation may well be that energy traders and even  real consumers, including refiners, companies and governments, are  betting on an American-Israeli intervention against Iran in the near  future, and logically believing that such an act would drive oil prices  sky-high.
> 
> 
> What would happen if such an intervention were to occur? To begin with,  Iran would almost certainly suspend most or all of its oil sales abroad  in retaliation; that would remove a couple of million barrels from the  current worldwide supply of roughly 85 million barrels per day. Thenand  this is crucialTehran's increasingly close ally, Hugo Chávez in  Caracas, would in all likelihood at least stop sales to the United  States and possibly declare a general suspension of sales. There go  another 1.5 million barrels per day, though PDVSA, the Venezuelan state  oil company, claims it is exporting substantially more today (showing,  by the way, that in today's global economy, it is not that easy to know  exactly how much each producer is placing on the world market). Finally,  it would not be impossible for other exporters, out of tongue-in-cheek  solidarity with Iran (applauding the American-Israeli move in private  while giving lip service to international law in public), to remove an  additional million or so barrels per day from the global market. Prices  would in all likelihood break through the $200 ceiling, and maybe go  much higher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope my link does not.* oil prices on july 14th was at 145.00 a barrel.*
> on the 15th the prices drop at a 17 year low, doesn't matter how the media spinned it. Oil drop come back after class is over  and I will quiz you again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DOWN, before Bush said two sylables, from the high of $147 a barrel on the 12th after Iran tested a new missile increasing the threat of an Israeli, US attack on Iran!!! The prices had nothing to do with supply, so it is illogical to argue that a speech about supply would affect prices.
> 
> Fuel prices: Iran missile launches send oil to $147 a barrel record | Business | The Guardian
> 
> *Fuel prices: Iran missile launches send oil to $147 a barrel record*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saturday 12 July 2008				                   		 	 		 		 	<li class="history">Article history         		         	      	    Oil prices surged to a new record of $147 a barrel yesterday on increasing tension between the west and Iran.
> Brent crude rose to $147.02 in London, while in the US light sweet crude was up by more than $3 to $146.90.
> Iran  this week tested missiles capable of reaching Israel, leading US  secretary of state Condoleezza Rice to warn that America would defend  its allies. Iran, second largest producer in the oil cartel Opec,  responded with another missile launch.
> Neither the US nor Israel  has ruled out a military strike on Iran. Traders fear the oil-producing  nation could retaliate by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which  40% of the world's tanker traffic passes.
> "There's always a fear  premium in pricing," said Jeff Brown, managing director of Facts Global  Energy. "The tensions in Iran and the threat of supply disruption will  help support oil prices."
Click to expand...


one more time for stupid on july 14th 2008 crude oil prices per barrel was 145.00
On the July 15th 2008 the day after Bush lifted the ban oil prices droped. Deal with it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. H. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to learn more from you about these "capped" wells.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, let's use BP as an example. BP uses a different size pipe in digging its exploratory wells. Others use a small size pipe for exploration and then enlarge the well if they find oil.
> BP uses a larger pipe for exploration so they can use the same well they explore with for production. But when BP found a massive oil pocket at the Deepwater Horizon site did they then go into production with the well??? Hell no, they capped it and kept the new found oil off the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wells are drilled, not "dug". But that's just semantics.
> 
> Initial well bore size is determined by a number of parameters, the most important being the targeted depth of the formation. This is because the deeper the well, the more intermediate strings of casing that need to be cemented into place. Successively smaller strings are cemented into the wellbore as drilling progresses.
> 
> Often times the initial well is an "appraisal" well, and is temporarily sealed. The drillstring is retrieved and then deliniated through the existing well bore in order to assess the extent of a formation. This might be done several times. A number of deliniations can be kicked off from a single well bore.
> 
> As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive.
Click to expand...




> As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive



You must remember who you're dealing with. In the mind of a liberal it would make perfect sense.


----------



## edthecynic

Mr. H. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to learn more from you about these "capped" wells.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, let's use BP as an example. BP uses a different size pipe in digging its exploratory wells. Others use a small size pipe for exploration and then enlarge the well if they find oil.
> BP uses a larger pipe for exploration so they can use the same well they explore with for production. But when BP found a massive oil pocket at the Deepwater Horizon site did they then go into production with the well??? Hell no, they capped it and kept the new found oil off the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wells are drilled, not "dug". But that's just semantics.
> 
> Initial well bore size is determined by a number of parameters, the most important being the targeted depth of the formation. This is because the deeper the well, the more intermediate strings of casing that need to be cemented into place. Successively smaller strings are cemented into the wellbore as drilling progresses.
> 
> Often times the initial well is an "appraisal" well, and is temporarily sealed. The drillstring is retrieved and then deliniated through the existing well bore in order to assess the extent of a formation. This might be done several times. A number of deliniations can be kicked off from a single well bore.
> 
> *As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive.*
Click to expand...

It makes less sense, in terms of dollars and cents, to put the oil on the market and glut the supply bringing the price down. The cost of drilling is more than offset by the higher prices from limiting supply. The goal is to control the drill sites to keep others who might put the oil on the market from access to the oil.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope my link does not.* oil prices on july 14th was at 145.00 a barrel.*
> on the 15th the prices drop at a 17 year low, doesn't matter how the media spinned it. Oil drop come back after class is over  and I will quiz you again.
> 
> 
> 
> DOWN, before Bush said two sylables, from the high of $147 a barrel on the 12th after Iran tested a new missile increasing the threat of an Israeli, US attack on Iran!!! The prices had nothing to do with supply, so it is illogical to argue that a speech about supply would affect prices.
> 
> Fuel prices: Iran missile launches send oil to $147 a barrel record | Business | The Guardian
> 
> *Fuel prices: Iran missile launches send oil to $147 a barrel record*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saturday 12 July 2008                                                                       <li class="history">Article history                                            Oil prices surged to a new record of $147 a barrel yesterday on increasing tension between the west and Iran.
> Brent crude rose to $147.02 in London, while in the US light sweet crude was up by more than $3 to $146.90.
> Iran  this week tested missiles capable of reaching Israel, leading US  secretary of state Condoleezza Rice to warn that America would defend  its allies. Iran, second largest producer in the oil cartel Opec,  responded with another missile launch.
> Neither the US nor Israel  has ruled out a military strike on Iran. Traders fear the oil-producing  nation could retaliate by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which  40% of the world's tanker traffic passes.
> "There's always a fear  premium in pricing," said Jeff Brown, managing director of Facts Global  Energy. "The tensions in Iran and the threat of supply disruption will  help support oil prices."
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> one more time for stupid on july 14th 2008 crude oil prices per barrel was 145.00
> On the July 15th 2008 the day after Bush lifted the ban oil prices droped. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

One more time for the moronic, prices were higher before July 14th and were down from the $147 record high to $145 before Bush spoke on the 14th. Prices rose to $146 after Bush spoke. Then Bernanke spoke on the 15th and IMMEDIATELY prices fell. Bush was ignored, Bernanke was listened to according to YOUR own link.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, let's use BP as an example. BP uses a different size pipe in digging its exploratory wells. Others use a small size pipe for exploration and then enlarge the well if they find oil.
> BP uses a larger pipe for exploration so they can use the same well they explore with for production. But when BP found a massive oil pocket at the Deepwater Horizon site did they then go into production with the well??? Hell no, they capped it and kept the new found oil off the market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wells are drilled, not "dug". But that's just semantics.
> 
> Initial well bore size is determined by a number of parameters, the most important being the targeted depth of the formation. This is because the deeper the well, the more intermediate strings of casing that need to be cemented into place. Successively smaller strings are cemented into the wellbore as drilling progresses.
> 
> Often times the initial well is an "appraisal" well, and is temporarily sealed. The drillstring is retrieved and then deliniated through the existing well bore in order to assess the extent of a formation. This might be done several times. A number of deliniations can be kicked off from a single well bore.
> 
> As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for "keeping oil off the market",* it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must remember who you're dealing with. *In the mind of a liberal it would make perfect sense.*
Click to expand...

And it makes dollars and cents in the mind of a monopolist!!!
But CON$ refuse to accept the fact that monopolies still exist, so ignorance is their bliss.


----------



## tigerbob

Just paid $92 to fill my truck with 87.  Ouch.


----------



## boedicca

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wells are drilled, not "dug". But that's just semantics.
> 
> Initial well bore size is determined by a number of parameters, the most important being the targeted depth of the formation. This is because the deeper the well, the more intermediate strings of casing that need to be cemented into place. Successively smaller strings are cemented into the wellbore as drilling progresses.
> 
> Often times the initial well is an "appraisal" well, and is temporarily sealed. The drillstring is retrieved and then deliniated through the existing well bore in order to assess the extent of a formation. This might be done several times. A number of deliniations can be kicked off from a single well bore.
> 
> As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for "keeping oil off the market",* it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must remember who you're dealing with. *In the mind of a liberal it would make perfect sense.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it makes dollars and cents in the mind of a monopolist!!!
> But CON$ refuse to accept the fact that monopolies still exist, so ignorance is their bliss.
Click to expand...



No it doesn't you sad little booby.  A real monopolist would tie up the rights via political connections without spending anything on development.


----------



## Mr. H.

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, let's use BP as an example. BP uses a different size pipe in digging its exploratory wells. Others use a small size pipe for exploration and then enlarge the well if they find oil.
> BP uses a larger pipe for exploration so they can use the same well they explore with for production. But when BP found a massive oil pocket at the Deepwater Horizon site did they then go into production with the well??? Hell no, they capped it and kept the new found oil off the market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wells are drilled, not "dug". But that's just semantics.
> 
> Initial well bore size is determined by a number of parameters, the most important being the targeted depth of the formation. This is because the deeper the well, the more intermediate strings of casing that need to be cemented into place. Successively smaller strings are cemented into the wellbore as drilling progresses.
> 
> Often times the initial well is an "appraisal" well, and is temporarily sealed. The drillstring is retrieved and then deliniated through the existing well bore in order to assess the extent of a formation. This might be done several times. A number of deliniations can be kicked off from a single well bore.
> 
> As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must remember who you're dealing with. In the mind of a liberal it would make perfect sense.
Click to expand...


Liberal? Nah- more like conspiracy theorist.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> DOWN, before Bush said two sylables, from the high of $147 a barrel on the 12th after Iran tested a new missile increasing the threat of an Israeli, US attack on Iran!!! The prices had nothing to do with supply, so it is illogical to argue that a speech about supply would affect prices.
> 
> Fuel prices: Iran missile launches send oil to $147 a barrel record | Business | The Guardian
> 
> *Fuel prices: Iran missile launches send oil to $147 a barrel record*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saturday 12 July 2008                                                                       <li class="history">Article history                                            Oil prices surged to a new record of $147 a barrel yesterday on increasing tension between the west and Iran.
> Brent crude rose to $147.02 in London, while in the US light sweet crude was up by more than $3 to $146.90.
> Iran  this week tested missiles capable of reaching Israel, leading US  secretary of state Condoleezza Rice to warn that America would defend  its allies. Iran, second largest producer in the oil cartel Opec,  responded with another missile launch.
> Neither the US nor Israel  has ruled out a military strike on Iran. Traders fear the oil-producing  nation could retaliate by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which  40% of the world's tanker traffic passes.
> "There's always a fear  premium in pricing," said Jeff Brown, managing director of Facts Global  Energy. "The tensions in Iran and the threat of supply disruption will  help support oil prices."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one more time for stupid on july 14th 2008 crude oil prices per barrel was 145.00
> On the July 15th 2008 the day after Bush lifted the ban oil prices droped. Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One more time for the moronic, prices were higher before July 14th and were down from the $147 record high to $145 before Bush spoke on the 14th. Prices rose to $146 after Bush spoke. Then Bernanke spoke on the 15th and IMMEDIATELY prices fell. Bush was ignored, Bernanke was listened to according to YOUR own link.
Click to expand...


Stupid from your link 146.34 is not 147.00. and the spin your making does not matter. Bush lifted the ban and the next day prices droped. Good timing on Bushes part? maybe but it does not change anything prices dropped. Have fun with that stupid.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> one more time for stupid on july 14th 2008 crude oil prices per barrel was 145.00
> On the July 15th 2008 the day after Bush lifted the ban oil prices droped. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> One more time for the moronic, prices were higher before July 14th and were down from the $147 record high to $145 before Bush spoke on the 14th. Prices rose to $146 after Bush spoke. Then Bernanke spoke on the 15th and IMMEDIATELY prices fell. Bush was ignored, Bernanke was listened to according to YOUR own link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid from your link 146.34 is not 147.00. and the spin your making does not matter. Bush lifted the ban and the next day prices droped. Good timing on Bushes part? maybe but it does not change anything prices dropped. Have fun with that stupid.
Click to expand...

Hey dumbass, the chart from your link is the oil price on the 15th. The price started the day up from the $145 the day Bush spoke. Bernenke spoke in the morning of the 15th and the price dropped IMMEDIATELY.

The $147 price was from the 12th after Iran tested a new longer range missile, which I linked to earlier in this thread, so the price was down from $147 to $145 before Bush spoke on the 14th, up to $146 at the start of the 15th after Bush spoke on the 14th, and down IMMEDIATELY after Bernanke spoke in the morning of the 15th. Have fun with that moron.


----------



## Mr. H.

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wells are drilled, not "dug". But that's just semantics.
> 
> Initial well bore size is determined by a number of parameters, the most important being the targeted depth of the formation. This is because the deeper the well, the more intermediate strings of casing that need to be cemented into place. Successively smaller strings are cemented into the wellbore as drilling progresses.
> 
> Often times the initial well is an "appraisal" well, and is temporarily sealed. The drillstring is retrieved and then deliniated through the existing well bore in order to assess the extent of a formation. This might be done several times. A number of deliniations can be kicked off from a single well bore.
> 
> As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for "keeping oil off the market",* it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must remember who you're dealing with. *In the mind of a liberal it would make perfect sense.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it makes dollars and cents in the mind of a monopolist!!!
> But CON$ refuse to accept the fact that monopolies still exist, so ignorance is their bliss.
Click to expand...


As I requested in an earlier reply, I'd appreciate some information on the alleged oil monopoly.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time for the moronic, prices were higher before July 14th and were down from the $147 record high to $145 before Bush spoke on the 14th. Prices rose to $146 after Bush spoke. Then Bernanke spoke on the 15th and IMMEDIATELY prices fell. Bush was ignored, Bernanke was listened to according to YOUR own link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid from your link 146.34 is not 147.00. and the spin your making does not matter. Bush lifted the ban and the next day prices droped. Good timing on Bushes part? maybe but it does not change anything prices dropped. Have fun with that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dumbass, the chart from your link is the oil price on the 15th. The price started the day up from the $145 the day Bush spoke. Bernenke spoke in the morning of the 15th and the price dropped IMMEDIATELY.
> 
> The $147 price was from the 12th after Iran tested a new longer range missile, which I linked to earlier in this thread, so the price was down from $147 to $145 before Bush spoke on the 14th, up to $146 at the start of the 15th after Bush spoke on the 14th, and down IMMEDIATELY after Bernanke spoke in the morning of the 15th. Have fun with that moron.
Click to expand...


I see so the oil prices did drop the day after Bush lifted the ban. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## edthecynic

Mr. H. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must remember who you're dealing with. *In the mind of a liberal it would make perfect sense.*
> 
> 
> 
> And it makes dollars and cents in the mind of a monopolist!!!
> But CON$ refuse to accept the fact that monopolies still exist, so ignorance is their bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I requested in an earlier reply, I'd appreciate some information on the alleged oil monopoly.
Click to expand...

There is no alledged about it.
I don't understand your problem with the Rockefeller oil monopoly. Do you deny that John D had a monopoly 100 years ago? If not, what do you think made him or his family give up their monopoly?


----------



## Big Fitz

boedicca said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must remember who you're dealing with. *In the mind of a liberal it would make perfect sense.*
> 
> 
> 
> And it makes dollars and cents in the mind of a monopolist!!!
> But CON$ refuse to accept the fact that monopolies still exist, so ignorance is their bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't you sad little booby.  A real monopolist would tie up the rights via political connections without spending anything on development.
Click to expand...

"The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
"Forget it... he's rolling."


----------



## edthecynic

boedicca said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must remember who you're dealing with. *In the mind of a liberal it would make perfect sense.*
> 
> 
> 
> And it makes dollars and cents in the mind of a monopolist!!!
> But CON$ refuse to accept the fact that monopolies still exist, so ignorance is their bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't you sad little booby.*  A real monopolist would tie up the rights via political connections* without spending anything on development.
Click to expand...

The monopolists are doing that too!!! One does not exclude the other. 

The monopolists are trying to get more leases from the government even though they haven't developed the leases they already have. They continue to explore because wells go dry, but they will not put any new oil finds on the market until an old well becomes unproductive.


----------



## Mr. H.

edthecynic said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it makes dollars and cents in the mind of a monopolist!!!
> But CON$ refuse to accept the fact that monopolies still exist, so ignorance is their bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I requested in an earlier reply, I'd appreciate some information on the alleged oil monopoly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no alledged about it.
> I don't understand your problem with the Rockefeller oil monopoly. Do you deny that John D had a monopoly 100 years ago? If not, what do you think made him or his family give up their monopoly?
Click to expand...


I'm referring to this:



edthecynic said:


> Again, any new oil that is found by the big oil monopolies does not make it on to the market, to keep supply artificially low and prices artificially high. Giving them more access to drilling sites will only lead to them controlling more of the supply they keep off the market.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

A lot of that price differential might be because we are using winter gas.   Winter gas has ethenol blends dependent on each areas air pollution requirements.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

How bout not giving Brazilian Oil Companies $Millions in American Tax Dollars to drill for Oil? What's wrong with American Oil Companies? I know the usual suspects love to demonize them but at least with them we would create some more American Jobs. We should not be creating more Brazilian Jobs. We should be creating more American Jobs. I don't understand any of this President's policies. They just don't add up.


----------



## uscitizen

bigrebnc1775 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> administration by the time elections role around.....Think maybe this administration should have listen to the calls for energy Independence a couple of years back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @While I agree that this is a problem, I of course cannot agree with you that the problem can be laid at the current POTUS's feet.
> 
> If anything I'm blaming CHEYNEY, but I think the majority of the problem is market driven, not politically driven.
> 
> Yeah that's right, the market, not politics is at the heart of this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it can be laid at the feet of the current president.
> When Bush lifted the offshore drilling ban what happen to gas prices? Was it a dream or did they start to drop?
Click to expand...


LMAO, Bush did NOT lift the offshore drilling ban.  Well maybe in an area or two.  However Bush endorsed most of the offshore drilling ban areas.  Rich people do not want to have oil on their beaches.


----------



## uscitizen

LibocalypseNow said:


> How bout not giving Brazilian Oil Companies $Millions in American Tax Dollars to drill for Oil? What's wrong with American Oil Companies? I know the usual suspects love to demonize them but at least with them we would create some more American Jobs. We should not be creating more Brazilian Jobs. We should be creating more American Jobs. I don't understand any of this President's policies. They just don't add up.



American oil companies?
BP?  Shell?  who?


----------



## Mr. H.

uscitizen said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> How bout not giving Brazilian Oil Companies $Millions in American Tax Dollars to drill for Oil? What's wrong with American Oil Companies? I know the usual suspects love to demonize them but at least with them we would create some more American Jobs. We should not be creating more Brazilian Jobs. We should be creating more American Jobs. I don't understand any of this President's policies. They just don't add up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American oil companies?
> BP?  Shell?  who?
Click to expand...


How about the folks who drill 90% of the wells in this country - the _Independents_.


----------



## uscitizen

Mr. H. said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> How bout not giving Brazilian Oil Companies $Millions in American Tax Dollars to drill for Oil? What's wrong with American Oil Companies? I know the usual suspects love to demonize them but at least with them we would create some more American Jobs. We should not be creating more Brazilian Jobs. We should be creating more American Jobs. I don't understand any of this President's policies. They just don't add up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American oil companies?
> BP?  Shell?  who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about the folks who drill 90% of the wells in this country - the _Independents_.
Click to expand...


only VERY BIG "independents" drill offshore.  And often with foreign labor.


----------



## edthecynic

Mr. H. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I requested in an earlier reply, I'd appreciate some information on the alleged oil monopoly.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no alledged about it.
> I don't understand your problem with the Rockefeller oil monopoly. Do you deny that John D had a monopoly 100 years ago? If not, what do you think made him or his family give up their monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, any new oil that is found by the big oil monopolies does not make it on to the market, to keep supply artificially low and prices artificially high. Giving them more access to drilling sites will only lead to them controlling more of the supply they keep off the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

OK, so you are not denying that the Rockefeller family controls the oil monopoly still. You are objecting to the fact that the oil monopoly desires to control the oil leases without producing oil on the leased land.

Here is a link to an interactive map that lists the number of oil leases for each state you click on and the % of non-producing leased acreage.
For example 76.7% of the land leased in Texas is non-producing.

Big oil claims there is no oil on the non-producing land, but when the government offered to release them from the remainder of the non-productive leases in exchange for new leases, the oil monopoly refused. The want to keep paying for the non-productive leases as well as acquire new leases. 

Now why do you think the oil monopoly would be willing to keep paying on non-productive leases when they could get out of the non-productive leases in exchange for new potentially productive leases???? Three guesses, and the first two don't count.

oilgas


----------



## edthecynic

LibocalypseNow said:


> *How bout not giving Brazilian Oil Companies $Millions in American Tax Dollars *to drill for Oil? What's wrong with American Oil Companies? I know the usual suspects love to demonize them but at least with them we would create some more American Jobs. We should not be creating more Brazilian Jobs. We should be creating more American Jobs. I don't understand any of this President's policies. They just don't add up.


Once the CON$ervative Brotherhood latches onto a lie from GOP hate radio they can't stop themselves from parroting it as programmed.

http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2...he-petrobras-loan-myth-as-obama-heads-to-rio/

*Dispelling the Brazil Oil Loan Myth as Obama Heads to Rio*

              	Mar. 17 					2011 
The rumor started back in the summer of 2010, when Fox News&#8217; controversial conspiracy theorist  Glenn Beck said  that Obama had lent Petrobras $2 billion for its deep ocean oil  drilling off the Atlantic Coast of Espirito Santo and Rio de Janeiro  states.
 For many, the name Petrobras suddenly became a new, foreign oil name,  with ties to liberal investor George Soros to boot. Beck doesn&#8217;t like  Soros. And Soros likes Petrobras.  And maybe Obama. The takeaway? Obama  is helping Petrobras shareholders, like Soros, by giving them a loan at  the same time he is (was) banning drilling in the Gulf of Mexico because  of the BP Plc oil spill.
 Here&#8217;s what is really going on with that $2 billion loan. Petrobras  declined to comment on it, but a spokesperson at the Export-Import Bank,  which offered Petrobras $2 billion in a preliminary commitment in April  2009, did comment. (And after some due diligence all my own, here are  the the &#8220;known-knowns&#8221;.)
 The Export Import Bank is a government run bank. It made a  preliminary commitment to offer Petrobras $2 billion in April 2009. What  that means is, *Petrobras could take out a loan from the Bank and use  that money* not to enrich Soros or shareholders, per se, but *to enrich US  companies in the energy space, mainly businesses in the oil, natural  gas, and oil rig space. The money would in fact come back to the US and,  hopefully, even create jobs due to demand for goods and services* from  Petrobras, one of the biggest oil companies in the Americas.
 What&#8217;s become of that $2 billion? On February 4, 2010, the Bank  entered into a medium-term credit guarantee facility with Petrobras for  $308 million. That means *if Petrobras wants, it can go to a bank &#8212; in  this case it is JP Morgan &#8212; and take out a loan for $308 million to buy  goods and services from US companies.* The Export Import Bank then would  guarantee that loan from default, which in turn makes JP Morgan happy  because it will not lose money and will make interest on the loan; make  Petrobras happy because the loan guarantee means low interest rates on  the loan; and it makes the Export Import Bank happy because they can  collect fees (undisclosed) and *provide a boost to the companies in the  US* in which Petrobras will do business.
 Although the Bank has agreed to guarantee the loan to be made by JP  Morgan, the transaction is not operative. That&#8217;s a legal term that means  no legal documents have been signed by JP Morgan or Petrobras saying  that the loan is active. The Bank approved it, but Petrobras has not  acted on it for more than one year later.
 In other words, the $308 million is part of the $2 billion offer. Petrobras has not yet tapped a single dime of it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

It seems as if gas started going up after obama was sworn into office





http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It seems as if gas started going up after obama was sworn into office
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices


Actually, the price was fairly flat for the year and a half before the GOP took congress and then went straight up after they took over!!!!!
Thanks a lot, Crybaby Boner!!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems as if gas started going up after obama was sworn into office
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the price was fairly flat for the year and a half before the GOP took congress and then went straight up after they took over!!!!!
> Thanks a lot, Crybaby Boner!!!
Click to expand...




> fairly flat for the year and a half before the GOP took congress



There's the graph calling you a liar.

The price went 1.60 a gallon to  2.70 in less than a year in 2009 and that's fairly flat to you?


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems as if gas started going up after obama was sworn into office
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the price was fairly flat for the year and a half before the GOP took congress and then went straight up after they took over!!!!!
> Thanks a lot, Crybaby Boner!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fairly flat for the year and a half before the GOP took congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's the graph calling you a liar.
Click to expand...

No, the graph says from June 2009 to Dec 2010 the price of gas was fairly flat, then the GOP took over in the beginning of January and gas has been skyrocketing ever since. Gas has gone up about as much in the 3.5 months the GOP controlled the house as it did in the first 2 years of Obama.

Thanks GOP and the Teabaggers.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems as if gas started going up after obama was sworn into office
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the price was fairly flat for the year and a half before the GOP took congress and then went straight up after they took over!!!!!
> Thanks a lot, Crybaby Boner!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fairly flat for the year and a half before the GOP took congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's the graph calling you a liar.
> 
> The price went 1.60 a gallon to  2.70 in less than a year in 2009 and that's fairly flat to you?
Click to expand...

Except I said a YEAR AND A HALF before the GOP took over!!! 
Gas has gone from about $3 to over $4.50 in the less than 4 months since the GOP took the House!!!!


----------



## strollingbones

what american voters will do will depend on prices in nov of 2012

americans vote their wallets at the time of elections


----------



## editec

strollingbones said:


> what american voters will do will depend on prices in nov of 2012
> 
> americans vote their wallets at the time of elections


 
Yup.

When economic times are hard, the economy is the key to elections.

Its only when times are not hard that minor social issues have as much sway in outcomes.

Why is that?

Because when times are good the independent votes do not go to the polls set on their mission to vote out the current regime.

Elections are mostly decided not by the partisans but by the non-partisans.


----------



## uscitizen

I just do not understand why America does not want a recovery?

Ohh you want someone else to habve to pay for it?

Damn whiners wanting a nanny state driven recovery I suppose.

We are a 70% consumer spending based economy.  How do you think it is going to recover if we do not spend more?

It is called economic growth and growth in efficiencies.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the price was fairly flat for the year and a half before the GOP took congress and then went straight up after they took over!!!!!
> Thanks a lot, Crybaby Boner!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fairly flat for the year and a half before the GOP took congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's the graph calling you a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the graph says from June 2009 to Dec 2010 the price of gas was fairly flat, then the GOP took over in the beginning of January and gas has been skyrocketing ever since. Gas has gone up about as much in the 3.5 months the GOP controlled the house as it did in the first 2 years of Obama.
> 
> Thanks GOP and the Teabaggers.
Click to expand...


The price went 1.60 a gallon to 2.70 in 6 months in 2009 and that's fairly flat to you? It hasn't went down and is continuing going up with short drops but makes up for the drop with higher prices


----------



## uscitizen

Lmao!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the price was fairly flat for the year and a half before the GOP took congress and then went straight up after they took over!!!!!
> Thanks a lot, Crybaby Boner!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fairly flat for the year and a half before the GOP took congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's the graph calling you a liar.
> 
> The price went 1.60 a gallon to  2.70 in less than a year in 2009 and that's fairly flat to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except I said a YEAR AND A HALF before the GOP took over!!!
> Gas has gone from about $3 to over $4.50 in the less than 4 months since the GOP took the House!!!!
Click to expand...


Thats horseshit fairly fllat is level and does not rise
from 6/6/09 until 6/6/10 gas prices rose 20 cent's a gallon
That is not defined as flat 
And no where on the graph did the price show 3 to 4.50 price jump. that is a lie.


----------



## Modbert

Baruch Menachem said:


> On what basis will gas be that expensive?



Although they are not the only reason, you can thank Wall Street. You can also thank them for the commodities bubble.

From the last time that gas was so high: (CBS Article from Jan 2009)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/08/60minutes/main4707770.shtml



> To understand what happened to the price of oil, you first have to understand the way it's traded. For years it has been bought and sold on something called the commodities futures market. At the New York Mercantile Exchange, it's traded alongside cotton and coffee, copper and steel by brokers who buy and sell contracts to deliver those goods at a certain price at some date in the future.
> 
> It was created so that farmers could gauge what their unharvested crops would be worth months in advance, so that factories could lock in the best price for raw materials, and airlines could manage their fuel costs. But more than a year ago those markets started to behave erratically. And when oil doubled to more than $147 a barrel, no one was more suspicious than Dan Gilligan.





> When 60 Minutes talked to him last summer, his members were getting blamed for gouging the public, even though their costs had also gone through the roof. He told Kroft the problem was in the commodities markets, which had been invaded by a new breed of investor.
> 
> *"Approximately 60 to 70 percent of the oil contracts in the futures markets are now held by speculative entities.* Not by companies that need oil, not by the airlines, not by the oil companies. But by investors that are looking to make money from their speculative positions," Gilligan explained.





> About the same time, hedge fund manager Michael Masters reached the same conclusion. Masters' expertise is in tracking the flow of investments into and out of financial markets and he noticed huge amounts of money leaving stocks for commodities and oil futures, most of it going into index funds, betting the price of oil was going to go up.
> 
> Asked who was buying this "paper oil," Masters told Kroft, "The California pension fund. Harvard Endowment. Lots of large institutional investors. And, by the way, other investors, hedge funds, Wall Street trading desks were following right behind them, putting money - sovereign wealth funds were putting money in the futures markets as well. So you had all these investors putting money in the futures markets. And that was driving the price up."





> As it turns out, not *even J.P. Morgan's chief global investment officer agreed with him. *The same that day Eagles testified, an e-mail went out to clients saying "an enormous amount of speculation"* ran up the price" and "140 dollars in July was ridiculous."*





> A recent report out of MIT, analyzing world oil production and consumption, also concluded that the basic fundamentals of supply and demand could not have been responsible for last year's run-up in oil prices. And Michael Masters says the U.S. Department of Energy's own statistics show that if the markets had been working properly, the price of oil should have been going down, not up.





> It's impossible to tell exactly who was buying and selling all those oil contracts because most of the trading is now conducted in secret, with no public scrutiny or government oversight. Over time, the big Wall Street banks were allowed to buy and sell as many oil contracts as they wanted for their clients, circumventing regulations intended to limit speculation. And in 2000, Congress effectively deregulated the futures market, granting exemptions for complicated derivative investments called oil swaps, as well as electronic trading on private exchanges.



In the Commodities market, prices really go only one way, up.


----------



## Big Fitz

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems as if gas started going up after obama was sworn into office
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the price was fairly flat for the year and a half before the GOP took congress and then went straight up after they took over!!!!!
> Thanks a lot, Crybaby Boner!!!
Click to expand...

Strange how the current spike coincides almost precisely with the Deepwater drilling disaster spawned drilling moratorium and the first rigs leaving the Gulf to go to Egypt and Brazil.  Whoopsie!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Big Fitz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems as if gas started going up after obama was sworn into office
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the price was fairly flat for the year and a half before the GOP took congress and then went straight up after they took over!!!!!
> Thanks a lot, Crybaby Boner!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strange how the current spike coincides almost precisely with the Deepwater drilling disaster spawned drilling moratorium and the first rigs leaving the Gulf to go to Egypt and Brazil.  Whoopsie!
Click to expand...


Good call I didn't think about that


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's the graph calling you a liar.
> 
> The price went 1.60 a gallon to  2.70 in less than a year in 2009 and that's fairly flat to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Except I said a YEAR AND A HALF before the GOP took over!!!
> Gas has gone from about $3 to over $4.50 in the less than 4 months since the GOP took the House!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats horseshit fairly fllat is level and does not rise
> from 6/6/09 until 6/6/10 gas prices rose 20 cent's a gallon
> That is not defined as flat
> And no where on the graph did the price show 3 to 4.50 price jump. that is a lie.
Click to expand...

20 cents over a full year is a lot flatter than $1.50 in 4 months. And the chart is not up to date. In many places across the country gas in over $4.50 a gallon today. 
Try to keep up!


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the price was fairly flat for the year and a half before the GOP took congress and then went straight up after they took over!!!!!
> Thanks a lot, Crybaby Boner!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Strange how *the current spike coincides almost precisely with the Deepwater drilling disaster spawned drilling moratorium* and the first rigs leaving the Gulf to go to Egypt and Brazil.  Whoopsie!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good call* I didn't think *about that
Click to expand...

Obviously neither of you gave that crap much thought. The Deepwater spill and ban was a year ago and lifted in October, during the flat period.

If you really were honest, the spike at the end of the graph more closely corresponds to the first deep water permit being approved in Feb 2011.
WOOPSIE!!!!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except I said a YEAR AND A HALF before the GOP took over!!!
> Gas has gone from about $3 to over $4.50 in the less than 4 months since the GOP took the House!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats horseshit fairly fllat is level and does not rise
> from 6/6/09 until 6/6/10 gas prices rose 20 cent's a gallon
> That is not defined as flat
> And no where on the graph did the price show 3 to 4.50 price jump. that is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 20 cents over a full year is a lot flatter than $1.50 in 4 months. And the chart is not up to date. In many places across the country gas in over $4.50 a gallon today.
> Try to keep up!
Click to expand...


You lied when you said gas Gas has gone from about $3 to over $4.50 in the less than 4 months since the GOP took the House!!!! according to the graph what is the highest gas has went to?



> In many places across the country gas in over $4.50 a gallon today.



Link or the only reply you will get from me is liar


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats horseshit fairly fllat is level and does not rise
> from 6/6/09 until 6/6/10 gas prices rose 20 cent's a gallon
> That is not defined as flat
> And no where on the graph did the price show 3 to 4.50 price jump. that is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 20 cents over a full year is a lot flatter than $1.50 in 4 months. And the chart is not up to date. In many places across the country gas in over $4.50 a gallon today.
> Try to keep up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lied when you said gas Gas has gone from about $3 to over $4.50 in the less than 4 months since the GOP took the House!!!! according to the graph what is the highest gas has went to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In many places across the country gas in over $4.50 a gallon today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link or the only reply you will get from me is liar
Click to expand...

Too lazy to google, so typical.
It was all over the local news here that regular gas was over $4.50 in NYC. They reported it was even higher in Connecticut.

Price- $4.66
                                                                              Station-                                                                                                                     Mobil 
Area-                                                                                                                                                     70 10th Ave & W 14th St
Manhattan 
                                                              19 hours ago


----------



## Dot Com

No wonder the President called for R&D and made investments to get us off of our addiction to oil. Your point?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20 cents over a full year is a lot flatter than $1.50 in 4 months. And the chart is not up to date. In many places across the country gas in over $4.50 a gallon today.
> Try to keep up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lied when you said gas Gas has gone from about $3 to over $4.50 in the less than 4 months since the GOP took the House!!!! according to the graph what is the highest gas has went to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In many places across the country gas in over $4.50 a gallon today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link or the only reply you will get from me is liar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too lazy to google, so typical.
> It was all over the local news here that regular gas was over $4.50 in NYC. They reported it was even higher in Connecticut.
> 
> Price- $4.66
> Station-                                                                                                                     Mobil
> Area-                                                                                                                                                     70 10th Ave & W 14th St
> Manhattan
> 19 hours ago
Click to expand...

Since when is one place many places?


> In many places across the country gas in over $4.50 a gallon today.



OH and Manhatta isn't it located in the over taxed state of New York? Yes I think it is a large protion of that gas is taxed way to much but do try again.


----------



## Big Fitz

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange how *the current spike coincides almost precisely with the Deepwater drilling disaster spawned drilling moratorium* and the first rigs leaving the Gulf to go to Egypt and Brazil.  Whoopsie!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good call* I didn't think *about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously neither of you gave that crap much thought. The Deepwater spill and ban was a year ago and lifted in October, during the flat period.
> 
> If you really were honest, the spike at the end of the graph more closely corresponds to the first deep water permit being approved in Feb 2011.
> WOOPSIE!!!!!
Click to expand...

Really?  lifted eh?  Before or after the drill rigs left and won't come back for years?  Of course we're not to notice that means any lifted ban is useless if the equipment is already gone to more amenable areas.  All those rigs are offline and in transit in many cases, drilling for new wells in the Mediterranean and off the cost of Brazil making money for George Soros and Petrobras.

And like most things out of this administration, it's a partial lie.

Gulf drilling ban lifted



> WASHINGTON &#8212; The Obama administration on  Tuesday lifted the moratorium on deepwater exploratory oil drilling in  the Gulf of Mexico &#8212; provided companies follow new safety rules.


So it's 'lifted' but here's the new rules to play with and cost you lots of money and time to implement.



> Interior had earlier warned that even when the ban is lifted,  drilling is unlikely to resume quickly because of the need for more  inspections and compliance with new regulations.
> Michael Bromwich, head of Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy  Management, said it would take "at least a couple of weeks" before  permits are approved.


And we know how fast this government moves to take care of evil energy  capitalists.  Never waste a crisis, after all.  A federal judge ordered it lifted in June.  It took till October for "Brackets" Obama to obey.

And the steep spike corresponds nearly exactly with middle east unrest.


----------



## Mr Liberty

uscitizen said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> On what basis will gas be that expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have to have a recovery don't we?
> 
> Everyone pretty much already spends all they amke so the only way is to increase prices on things they already buy.
Click to expand...


Why do you think there will be a recovery?  Do you know something we don't? Please share.

I thing the worse is yet to come.  I haven't seen one thing that points to any "real" improvement in the economy.  I think gas will be eight dollars per gallon by November of 2012.  The effects of the falling dollar and energy cost will destroy this economy.  How long was the Great Depression?  This one is going to be worst and going to last longer.


----------



## Big Fitz

Mr Liberty said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> On what basis will gas be that expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have to have a recovery don't we?
> 
> Everyone pretty much already spends all they amke so the only way is to increase prices on things they already buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think there will be a recovery?  Do you know something we don't? Please share.
> 
> I thing the worse is yet to come.  I haven't seen one thing that points to any "real" improvement in the economy.  I think gas will be eight dollars per gallon by November of 2012.  The effects of the falling dollar and energy cost will destroy this economy.  How long was the Great Depression?  This one is going to be worst and going to last longer.
Click to expand...

now now... it's not assured to last longer.  It all depends what the next administration is going to do.  Will they help the conservative house bust the entitlement society, rolling back the New Deal and Great Society, finally?  Or play more Paygo to the Weimar Republic?

The depression of 1920 was short and sharp.  It would have been worse if not for the Harding/Coolidge administrations cutting government spending by 50% across the board.  We make similar sacrifices and we will recover faster than you can say 'Ding Dong Socialism's Dead".


----------



## Mr Liberty

Big Fitz said:


> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to have a recovery don't we?
> 
> Everyone pretty much already spends all they amke so the only way is to increase prices on things they already buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think there will be a recovery?  Do you know something we don't? Please share.
> 
> I thing the worse is yet to come.  I haven't seen one thing that points to any "real" improvement in the economy.  I think gas will be eight dollars per gallon by November of 2012.  The effects of the falling dollar and energy cost will destroy this economy.  How long was the Great Depression?  This one is going to be worst and going to last longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now now... it's not assured to last longer.  It all depends what the next administration is going to do.  Will they help the conservative house bust the entitlement society, rolling back the New Deal and Great Society, finally?  Or play more Paygo to the Weimar Republic?
> 
> The depression of 1920 was short and sharp.  It would have been worse if not for the Harding/Coolidge administrations cutting government spending by 50% across the board.  We make similar sacrifices and we will recover faster than you can say 'Ding Dong Socialism's Dead".
Click to expand...


I agree; however I don't see the will to change anything in Washington.  They fought for a measly 30B.  If they are going to fight over funds for Planned Parenthood, how do you expect them to make the massive cuts necessary to save us.  The debasing of our currency continues without concern.  The criminal Bernanke lies when he says inflation is not an immediate threat.   When they print money they are stealing from all of us.
I hate being on the side of doom and gloom; however, I see nothing to be optimistic about.
I think gas will rise to eight dollars by November of 2012.  The market may crash this summer and will crash by Christmas.


----------



## Jroc

edthecynic said:


> Obviously neither of you gave that crap much thought. The Deepwater spill and ban was a year ago and *lifted in October,* during the flat period.
> 
> If you really were honest, the spike at the end of the graph more closely corresponds to the first deep water permit being approved in Feb 2011.
> WOOPSIE!!!!!



Lifted? If you only knew what you are talking about.

*Drilling Delays Inspire New Proposal to Reform Permitting Process*

Two Republican lawmakers have developed a plan they hope will put pressure on the Obama administration to speed up the permitting process for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Reps. Bill Flores (R-TX) and Jeff Landry (R-LA) introduced legislation to codify timeliness of permitting process by establishing stringent deadlines and clear requirements on drilling applications. Leaseholders would even be able to request a refund on their bonus bid if the Department of Interior rejects an application.

*The goal is to finally end the de facto drilling moratorium, which was the subject of Wednesdays hearing of the House Natural Resources Committee.*

The Expedited Offshore Permitting Act aims to increase American energy production and reverse the Obama administrations reckless anti-energy policies that are costing thousands of jobs, driving up gasoline prices and increasing uncertainty in the marketplace, Flores said.

The legislation comes on the heels of conflicting information from the Obama administration on the number of permits currently pending. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar testified that seven deepwater permits and 47 shallow-water permits have been submitted in the past nine months.

But in a recent court filing, the Department of Justice produced much larger numbers: 57 deepwater applications and 270 shallow-water drilling permits.

By establishing a timeline for drilling permits, Congress would force an end to the bureaucratic quagmire at the Department of Interior. Administration officials have defended the delays as a safety measure in the wake of last years oil spill.

Yesterdays hearing featured Scott Angelle, secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Angelle spoke about the hardships his state has witnessed due to the delays. He called for regulation without strangulation and related how the uncertainty fostered by the Obama administration has dire economic effects for the Gulf of Mexico region

Drilling Delays Inspire New Proposal to Reform Permitting Process | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.


----------



## Dot Com

Robert said:


> administration by the time elections role around.....Think maybe this administration should have listen to the calls for energy Independence a couple of years back?



So you're saying the Presidents campaign promise and subsequent legislation relating to getting off of our addiction to fossil fuels & diversifying is a good thing? Bravo.


----------



## Big Fitz

Mr Liberty said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think there will be a recovery?  Do you know something we don't? Please share.
> 
> I thing the worse is yet to come.  I haven't seen one thing that points to any "real" improvement in the economy.  I think gas will be eight dollars per gallon by November of 2012.  The effects of the falling dollar and energy cost will destroy this economy.  How long was the Great Depression?  This one is going to be worst and going to last longer.
> 
> 
> 
> now now... it's not assured to last longer.  It all depends what the next administration is going to do.  Will they help the conservative house bust the entitlement society, rolling back the New Deal and Great Society, finally?  Or play more Paygo to the Weimar Republic?
> 
> The depression of 1920 was short and sharp.  It would have been worse if not for the Harding/Coolidge administrations cutting government spending by 50% across the board.  We make similar sacrifices and we will recover faster than you can say 'Ding Dong Socialism's Dead".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree; however I don't see the will to change anything in Washington.  They fought for a measly 30B.  If they are going to fight over funds for Planned Parenthood, how do you expect them to make the massive cuts necessary to save us.  The debasing of our currency continues without concern.  The criminal Bernanke lies when he says inflation is not an immediate threat.   When they print money they are stealing from all of us.
> I hate being on the side of doom and gloom; however, I see nothing to be optimistic about.
> I think gas will rise to eight dollars by November of 2012.  The market may crash this summer and will crash by Christmas.
Click to expand...

What must happen is the flushing of the old 'ruling class' republicans.  Once that is done and you put actual conservatives in charge there, then you can start seeing some changes.  The ruling class doesn't want to rock the boat TOO hard and make the hard choices because their eyes are firmly planted on lifetime power and careers.

[yoda]...And that is why they fail[/yoda]


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr Liberty said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> On what basis will gas be that expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have to have a recovery don't we?
> 
> Everyone pretty much already spends all they amke so the only way is to increase prices on things they already buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think there will be a recovery?  Do you know something we don't? Please share.
> 
> I thing the worse is yet to come.  I haven't seen one thing that points to any "real" improvement in the economy.  I think gas will be eight dollars per gallon by November of 2012.  The effects of the falling dollar and energy cost will destroy this economy.  How long was the Great Depression?  This one is going to be worst and going to last longer.
Click to expand...


The thing about the people that went through the great depression could genrally provide for themself, at least those who did not live in a city enviorment. No phone no electricity, most lived in rual areas and new how to grow their own food. We have lost most of those people now, and have been modernized beyound repair.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

The usual suspect butt sniffers will but most American Voters will not forgive.


----------



## Big Fitz

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to have a recovery don't we?
> 
> Everyone pretty much already spends all they amke so the only way is to increase prices on things they already buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think there will be a recovery?  Do you know something we don't? Please share.
> 
> I thing the worse is yet to come.  I haven't seen one thing that points to any "real" improvement in the economy.  I think gas will be eight dollars per gallon by November of 2012.  The effects of the falling dollar and energy cost will destroy this economy.  How long was the Great Depression?  This one is going to be worst and going to last longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing about the people that went through the great depression could genrally provide for themself, at least those who did not live in a city enviorment. No phone no electricity, most lived in rual areas and new how to grow their own food. We have lost most of those people now, and have been modernized beyound repair.
Click to expand...

You watch though.  Depending when the bovine excrement hits the rotary atmospheric oscillator, in 12-24 months, people will become much more self sufficient.  They will have no choice, and it will be one of the best things that ever happened to the nation in 50 years.

But those 12-24 months will be raw hell with a flaming hades on top and gehenna as a side dish.


----------



## jeffrockit

edthecynic said:


> Thank You Crybaby Boner.
> Gas is up more than a dollar since the GOP took over the House!!!!



Here are the facts:
Since Obama took office (with a democrat majority house and senate) gas prices have risen 67%.
Now I don't believe the president actually has control of gas prices (Bush either though he was blamed) but wanted to be factual and not partisan.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Big Fitz said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think there will be a recovery?  Do you know something we don't? Please share.
> 
> I thing the worse is yet to come.  I haven't seen one thing that points to any "real" improvement in the economy.  I think gas will be eight dollars per gallon by November of 2012.  The effects of the falling dollar and energy cost will destroy this economy.  How long was the Great Depression?  This one is going to be worst and going to last longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about the people that went through the great depression could genrally provide for themself, at least those who did not live in a city enviorment. No phone no electricity, most lived in rual areas and new how to grow their own food. We have lost most of those people now, and have been modernized beyound repair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You watch though.  Depending when the bovine excrement hits the rotary atmospheric oscillator, in 12-24 months, people will become much more self sufficient.  They will have no choice, and it will be one of the best things that ever happened to the nation in 50 years.
> 
> But those 12-24 months will be raw hell with a flaming hades on top and gehenna as a side dish.
Click to expand...


Those living in the city won't have a chance their biggest need will be land to grow crops, and potible water to drink, and to insure that you have a fresh supply of potible water you will need a well.


----------



## edthecynic

jeffrockit said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You Crybaby Boner.
> Gas is up more than a dollar since the GOP took over the House!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the facts:
> Since Obama took office (with a democrat majority house and senate) gas prices have risen 67%.
> Now I don't believe the president actually has control of gas prices (Bush either though he was blamed) but wanted to be factual and not partisan.
Click to expand...

And in the less than 4 months since Boner's GOP took over the House prices have risen half of that 67%. 
Now I don't believe the House actually has control of gas prices  (Obama either though he was blamed) but wanted to be factual and not  partisan.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You Crybaby Boner.
> Gas is up more than a dollar since the GOP took over the House!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the facts:
> Since Obama took office (with a democrat majority house and senate) gas prices have risen 67%.
> Now I don't believe the president actually has control of gas prices (Bush either though he was blamed) but wanted to be factual and not partisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in the less than 4 months since Boner's GOP took over the House prices have risen half of that 67%.
> Now I don't believe the House actually has control of gas prices  (Obama either though he was blamed) but wanted to be factual and not  partisan.
Click to expand...

You don't think that anything obama and the democrats did had any effect on the rise in fuel prices? Imposed drilling bans?


Let's write down a few facts that have happen
Clinton leaves office the economy tanks bush is blamed 
Bush leaves office with a democrt controlled congress the economy tanks Bush is blamed.
Four years later  Democrats kick out of the house the in coming newly elected republicans are blamed for the rise of fuel prices.

Is this correct?


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the facts:
> Since Obama took office (with a democrat majority house and senate) gas prices have risen 67%.
> Now I don't believe the president actually has control of gas prices (Bush either though he was blamed) but wanted to be factual and not partisan.
> 
> 
> 
> And in the less than 4 months since Boner's GOP took over the House prices have risen half of that 67%.
> Now I don't believe the House actually has control of gas prices  (Obama either though he was blamed) but wanted to be factual and not  partisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that anything obama and the democrats did had any effect on the rise in fuel prices? Imposed drilling bans?
Click to expand...

There is no drilling ban and domestic oil production is up. The oil monopoly is keeping the oil off the market to inflate the price. They know they have the House to block anything Obama and the Senate can try to remedy the situation.


----------



## editec

Just purchased 100 gallons of heating fuel #2.

It costs* $378.*

Between the rising price of fuel and food, my personal economy is already suffering.

Americans caught in this squeeze are NOT going to be forgiving of the man in the oval office.

They never are kind to PsOTUS if the economy is in the crapper on his watch.

I expect, unless the GOP runs a total loser, that O is in trouble next time around.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the less than 4 months since Boner's GOP took over the House prices have risen half of that 67%.
> Now I don't believe the House actually has control of gas prices  (Obama either though he was blamed) but wanted to be factual and not  partisan.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that anything obama and the democrats did had any effect on the rise in fuel prices? Imposed drilling bans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no drilling ban and domestic oil production is up. The oil monopoly is keeping the oil off the market to inflate the price. They know they have the House to block anything Obama and the Senate can try to remedy the situation.
Click to expand...

Forgot this part


> Let's write down a few facts that have happen
> Clinton leaves office the economy tanks bush is blamed
> Bush leaves office with a democrt controlled congress the economy tanks Bush is blamed.
> Four years later Democrats kick out of the house the in coming newly elected republicans are blamed for the rise of fuel prices.
> 
> Is this correct?


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that anything obama and the democrats did had any effect on the rise in fuel prices? Imposed drilling bans?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no drilling ban and domestic oil production is up. The oil monopoly is keeping the oil off the market to inflate the price. They know they have the House to block anything Obama and the Senate can try to remedy the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forgot this part
> 
> 
> 
> Let's write down a few facts that have happen
> Clinton leaves office the economy tanks bush is blamed
> *Bush leaves office with a democrt controlled congress the economy tanks *Bush is blamed.
> Four years later Democrats kick out of the house the in coming newly elected republicans are blamed for the rise of fuel prices.
> 
> Is this correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Of course not, nothing you post is ever correct. 
The economy tanked well BEFORE Bush left office. The Bush Depression began Dec 2007.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no drilling ban and domestic oil production is up. The oil monopoly is keeping the oil off the market to inflate the price. They know they have the House to block anything Obama and the Senate can try to remedy the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot this part
> 
> 
> 
> Let's write down a few facts that have happen
> Clinton leaves office the economy tanks bush is blamed
> *Bush leaves office with a democrt controlled congress the economy tanks *Bush is blamed.
> Four years later Democrats kick out of the house the in coming newly elected republicans are blamed for the rise of fuel prices.
> 
> Is this correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course not, nothing you post is ever correct.
> The economy tanked well BEFORE Bush left office. The Bush Depression began Dec 2007.
Click to expand...


So bush wasn't blamed for the bad so called economy in 2001 and Bush wasn't blamed for the bad Economy in 2008 2009 and 2010? and you aren't blaming the republicans for the high gas prices now? What type of drugs are you taking? How can you lie so easly?
Weren't democrats controling congress in 2007? With obama as senator?


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot this part
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, nothing you post is ever correct.
> The economy tanked well BEFORE Bush left office. The Bush Depression began Dec 2007.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So bush wasn't blamed for the bad so called economy in 2001 and Bush wasn't blamed for the bad Economy in 2008 2009 and 2010? and you aren't blaming the republicans for the high gas prices now? What type of drugs are you taking? How can you lie so easly?
> Weren't democrats controling congress in 2007? With obama as senator?
Click to expand...

CON$ blamed Clinton for the Bush recession of 2001.
CON$ blamed Clinton for 9/11.
CON$ blamed Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Bush housing bubble bursting.
CONS blamed the Democratic Congress for Bush signing deficit budgets rather than vetoing them.
CON$ blamed Pelosi for all the deficit spending Bush did from the first day Pelosi became speaker of the House without passing a single bill over the record number of GOP filibusters.
So blaming Boner for the rise in gas prices from the first day he became speaker is in the CON$ervative tradition.


----------



## Big Fitz

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about the people that went through the great depression could genrally provide for themself, at least those who did not live in a city enviorment. No phone no electricity, most lived in rual areas and new how to grow their own food. We have lost most of those people now, and have been modernized beyound repair.
> 
> 
> 
> You watch though.  Depending when the bovine excrement hits the rotary atmospheric oscillator, in 12-24 months, people will become much more self sufficient.  They will have no choice, and it will be one of the best things that ever happened to the nation in 50 years.
> 
> But those 12-24 months will be raw hell with a flaming hades on top and gehenna as a side dish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those living in the city won't have a chance their biggest need will be land to grow crops, and potible water to drink, and to insure that you have a fresh supply of potible water you will need a well.
Click to expand...

Inter-connectivity my friend, inter-connectivity.  Even those in cities often have connections and family to those who are outside of it, and will be able to survive if they are smart enough to leave the potential death trap a city could become.  That said, de-urbanization will occur, and it will be much harder on those who do not have land to go to.  Those who have lived for generations in urban settings like New York or other major metropolitan environs would be hardest hit.

I don't think it'll become the wasteland that you may envision.  Some places, maybe.  Most will bounce back quickly as the space opens up as people flee.  Like Detroit is busy bulldozing vacant blocks for greenspace, those areas can be returned to agricultural duty rather quickly from community gardens to hobby farms.  Things like this are possible.

But as I said, it's going to be very hard indeed.  Potable water will be difficult for any place without a pump run by something other than electricity.  But here we're talking a level of collapse I am not prepared to entertain as possible yet.  Mad Max?  No.  Book of Eli?  Nope.  Soylent Green?  Maybe.  Grapes of Wrath?  Most likely at worst.


----------



## Big Fitz

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, nothing you post is ever correct.
> The economy tanked well BEFORE Bush left office. The Bush Depression began Dec 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So bush wasn't blamed for the bad so called economy in 2001 and Bush wasn't blamed for the bad Economy in 2008 2009 and 2010? and you aren't blaming the republicans for the high gas prices now? What type of drugs are you taking? How can you lie so easly?
> Weren't democrats controling congress in 2007? With obama as senator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for the Bush recession of 2001.
> CON$ blamed Clinton for 9/11.
> CON$ blamed Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Bush housing bubble bursting.
> CONS blamed the Democratic Congress for Bush signing deficit budgets rather than vetoing them.
> CON$ blamed Pelosi for all the deficit spending Bush did from the first day Pelosi became speaker of the House without passing a single bill over the record number of GOP filibusters.
> So blaming Boner for the rise in gas prices from the first day he became speaker is in the CON$ervative tradition.
Click to expand...

So, Edthecretin...  Are you saying that they were wrong to blame these people for their supposed mistakes?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, nothing you post is ever correct.
> The economy tanked well BEFORE Bush left office. The Bush Depression began Dec 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So bush wasn't blamed for the bad so called economy in 2001 and Bush wasn't blamed for the bad Economy in 2008 2009 and 2010? and you aren't blaming the republicans for the high gas prices now? What type of drugs are you taking? How can you lie so easly?
> Weren't democrats controling congress in 2007? With obama as senator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for the Bush recession of 2001.
> CON$ blamed Clinton for 9/11.
> CON$ blamed Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Bush housing bubble bursting.
> CONS blamed the Democratic Congress for Bush signing deficit budgets rather than vetoing them.
> CON$ blamed Pelosi for all the deficit spending Bush did from the first day Pelosi became speaker of the House without passing a single bill over the record number of GOP filibusters.
> So blaming Boner for the rise in gas prices from the first day he became speaker is in the CON$ervative tradition.
Click to expand...


Really?
CON$ blamed Clinton for the Bush recession of 2001.
Cowardly Bush Blames China For Bad Economy
"The Bush administration has run out of options when it comes to the economy," said Doug Usher, a senior analyst with the Mellman Group, a Democratic political consulting firm in Washington. "Clearly they don't have a plan, so they're trying to claim things are not that bad. But people see right through that, so they're going to plan C, which is blame somebody else." 
Bush says he inherited recession - Aug. 7, 2002

CON$ blamed Clinton for 9/11.
9/11: Bush's Greatest Failure
MSNBC Keith Olberman: 9/11 was George Bushs Fault
» MSNBC Keith Olberman: 9/11 was George Bush&#8217;s Fault Cristy Li
CON$ blamed Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Bush housing bubble bursting.
crouch - Google Search

CON$ blamed Pelosi for all the deficit spending Bush did from the first day Pelosi became speaker of the House without passing a single bill over the record number of GOP filibusters.

She was speaker of the house for 4 years wild spending habits was what she did. Beohner has been speaker for 43 months not much spending yet.

You really need to grasp the truth for once.


----------



## edthecynic

Big Fitz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So bush wasn't blamed for the bad so called economy in 2001 and Bush wasn't blamed for the bad Economy in 2008 2009 and 2010? and you aren't blaming the republicans for the high gas prices now? What type of drugs are you taking? How can you lie so easly?
> Weren't democrats controling congress in 2007? With obama as senator?
> 
> 
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for the Bush recession of 2001.
> CON$ blamed Clinton for 9/11.
> CON$ blamed Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Bush housing bubble bursting.
> CONS blamed the Democratic Congress for Bush signing deficit budgets rather than vetoing them.
> CON$ blamed Pelosi for all the deficit spending Bush did from the first day Pelosi became speaker of the House without passing a single bill over the record number of GOP filibusters.
> So blaming Boner for the rise in gas prices from the first day he became speaker is in the CON$ervative tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, Edthecretin...  Are you saying that they were wrong to blame these people for their supposed mistakes?
Click to expand...

I'm saying, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I'm merely applying the exact same "logic" CON$ use, and low and behold, CON$ suddenly squeal like stuck pigs at their own "logic."


----------



## Mr Liberty

Big Fitz said:


> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> now now... it's not assured to last longer.  It all depends what the next administration is going to do.  Will they help the conservative house bust the entitlement society, rolling back the New Deal and Great Society, finally?  Or play more Paygo to the Weimar Republic?
> 
> The depression of 1920 was short and sharp.  It would have been worse if not for the Harding/Coolidge administrations cutting government spending by 50% across the board.  We make similar sacrifices and we will recover faster than you can say 'Ding Dong Socialism's Dead".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree; however I don't see the will to change anything in Washington.  They fought for a measly 30B.  If they are going to fight over funds for Planned Parenthood, how do you expect them to make the massive cuts necessary to save us.  The debasing of our currency continues without concern.  The criminal Bernanke lies when he says inflation is not an immediate threat.   When they print money they are stealing from all of us.
> I hate being on the side of doom and gloom; however, I see nothing to be optimistic about.
> I think gas will rise to eight dollars by November of 2012.  The market may crash this summer and will crash by Christmas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What must happen is the flushing of the old 'ruling class' republicans.  Once that is done and you put actual conservatives in charge there, then you can start seeing some changes.  The ruling class doesn't want to rock the boat TOO hard and make the hard choices because their eyes are firmly planted on lifetime power and careers.
> 
> [yoda]...And that is why they fail[/yoda]
Click to expand...


Yes. There are progressives in both parties.  They should merge and rename themselves the Federalist party.  I think John Adams would strongly approve of the this America, that has been force upon us.  The Patriot Act is the worse thing to happen to the American people since his Sedition Act.  What we need is a Thomas Jefferson to remind us, we are different, liberty is our most cherished of values. We are not a Socialist Democracy,  We are a Republic of individuals, having unalienable rights.
This is a moral issue.  The *end justifies the means* is exactly how the government operates.  Most of us reject this route to problem solving.  We must insist our elected representatives take the *moral route* to solving the problems of our country, even if the solution is to leave it in the hands of the individual.


----------



## boedicca

It's already $5 in DC.  I expect we'll see this price in CA before long.

Thanks Obama!


----------



## Big Fitz

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for the Bush recession of 2001.
> CON$ blamed Clinton for 9/11.
> CON$ blamed Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Bush housing bubble bursting.
> CONS blamed the Democratic Congress for Bush signing deficit budgets rather than vetoing them.
> CON$ blamed Pelosi for all the deficit spending Bush did from the first day Pelosi became speaker of the House without passing a single bill over the record number of GOP filibusters.
> So blaming Boner for the rise in gas prices from the first day he became speaker is in the CON$ervative tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> So, Edthecretin...  Are you saying that they were wrong to blame these people for their supposed mistakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
> I'm merely applying the exact same "logic" CON$ use, and low and behold, CON$ suddenly squeal like stuck pigs at their own "logic."
Click to expand...

Oh good!  Then the current economic collapse IS Obama's fault, not Bush's like he keeps blaming.  Thanks for concurring.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So bush wasn't blamed for the bad so called economy in 2001 and Bush wasn't blamed for the bad Economy in 2008 2009 and 2010? and you aren't blaming the republicans for the high gas prices now? What type of drugs are you taking? How can you lie so easly?
> Weren't democrats controling congress in 2007? With obama as senator?
> 
> 
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for the Bush recession of 2001.
> CON$ blamed Clinton for 9/11.
> CON$ blamed Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Bush housing bubble bursting.
> CONS blamed the Democratic Congress for Bush signing deficit budgets rather than vetoing them.
> CON$ blamed Pelosi for all the deficit spending Bush did from the first day Pelosi became speaker of the House without passing a single bill over the record number of GOP filibusters.
> So blaming Boner for the rise in gas prices from the first day he became speaker is in the CON$ervative tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> CON$ blamed Clinton for the Bush recession of 2001.
> Cowardly Bush Blames China For Bad Economy
> "The Bush administration has run out of options when it comes to the economy," said Doug Usher, a senior analyst with the Mellman Group, a Democratic political consulting firm in Washington. "Clearly they don't have a plan, so they're trying to claim things are not that bad. But people see right through that, so they're going to plan C, which is blame somebody else."
> Bush says he inherited recession - Aug. 7, 2002
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for 9/11.
> 9/11: Bush's Greatest Failure
> MSNBC Keith Olberman: 9/11 was George Bushs Fault
> » MSNBC Keith Olberman: 9/11 was George Bushs Fault Cristy Li
> CON$ blamed Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Bush housing bubble bursting.
> crouch - Google Search
> 
> CON$ blamed Pelosi for all the deficit spending Bush did from the first day Pelosi became speaker of the House without passing a single bill over the record number of GOP filibusters.
> 
> She was speaker of the house for 4 years wild spending habits was what she did. Beohner has been speaker for 43 months not much spending yet.
> 
> *You really need to grasp the truth for once.*
Click to expand...

You first!

CON$ blamed Clinton for the Bush recession of 2001.


> Clinton Recession: 'Bill' Comes Due for 8 Years of Corruption
> 
> [FONT=arial,helvetica] *Clinton Recession: 'Bill' Comes Due for 8 Years of Corruption*[/FONT] [FONT=arial,helvetica]*Charles R. Smith*[/FONT]
> [FONT=arial,helvetica]*Wednesday, March 21, 2001*[/FONT]​ Despite the media effort to pin the 2001 recession on President Bush,  the fact remains that he had little to do with the last  eight years of economic policy from the White House. The  infamous miracle bubble of Bill Clinton's economy burst last  summer when OPEC oil price increases rocked the world economy.


Notice the CON$ blame Clinton and not the GOP controlled Congress.

CON$ blamed Clinton for 9/11.


> Posner: Clintons Negligence Led to 9/11
> 
> [FONT=arial,helvetica] *Posner: Clintons Negligence Led to 9/11*[/FONT] [FONT=arial,helvetica]*Dave Eberhart and NewsMax.com Staff*[/FONT]
> [FONT=arial,helvetica]*Thursday, Sept. 4, 2003*[/FONT]​ Best-selling author Gerald Posner says much of the blame for 9/11 and  the U.S. governments negligence falls squarely on the shoulders of Bill  Clinton and his administration.



CON$ blamed Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Bush housing bubble bursting.


> Roger
> 
> The Community Reinvestment Act (see here for more).​ * The original Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law in 1977  by Jimmy Carter. Its purpose, in a nutshell, was to require banks to  provide credit to under-served populations, i.e., those with poor  credit.
> The buzz word was affordable mortgages,  e.g., mortgages with low teaser-rates, which required the borrower to  put no money down, which required the borrower to pay only the interest  for a set number of years, etc.
> * In 1995, Bill Clintons administration made various changes to the  CRA, increasing access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed  rural communities, i.e., it provided for the securitization, i.e. public underwriting, of what everyone now calls sub-prime mortgages.
> Bottom line? It forced banks to issue $1 trillion in sub-prime mortgages.
> _$1 trillion_, i.e., a thousand billion dollars  in sub-prime,i.e., risky, mortgages, in order to push this latest  example of social engineering.​



CON$ blamed Pelosi for all the deficit spending Bush did from the first  day Pelosi became speaker of the House without passing a single bill  over the record number of GOP filibusters.


> Final Tab for Pelosi
> 
> *(CNSNews.com)* - In the 1,461 days that Rep. Nancy  Pelosi (D.-Calif.) served as speaker of the House, the national debt  increased by a total of $5.343 trillion ($5,343,452,800,321.37) or $3.66  billion per day ($3.657,394,113.84), according to official debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.



CON$ were actually blaming Obama for the stock market decline from the day Obama was nominated!!!!!



> I Want Every American to Succeed. What Does President Obama Want?
> March 2, 2009
> RUSH:  Well, here's some truth for you. President Obama campaigned for two years. His policies were announced that long ago. *He won the Democrat nomination last August, six months ago.* Every smart money guy, every smart money woman on Wall Street and around the world knew Obama was a shoe-in to be president six months ago.
> 
> RUSH:  So the economy stopped. The stock market started tanking. They knew Obama was going to win.
> 
> RUSH:   *To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.*


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Big Fitz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Edthecretin...  Are you saying that they were wrong to blame these people for their supposed mistakes?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
> I'm merely applying the exact same "logic" CON$ use, and low and behold, CON$ suddenly squeal like stuck pigs at their own "logic."
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh good!  Then the current economic collapse IS Obama's fault, not Bush's like he keeps blaming.  Thanks for concurring.
Click to expand...


 he'll blow it off with another CON$ blame game


----------



## Big Fitz

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
> I'm merely applying the exact same "logic" CON$ use, and low and behold, CON$ suddenly squeal like stuck pigs at their own "logic."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good!  Then the current economic collapse IS Obama's fault, not Bush's like he keeps blaming.  Thanks for concurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he'll blow it off with another CON$ blame game
Click to expand...

Of course he will.  Edthecretin is nothing but dishonest and hypocritical.


----------



## Cuyo

edthecynic said:


> Thank You Crybaby Boner.
> Gas is up more than a dollar since the GOP took over the House!!!!



Ain't it funny how carefully chosen time frames and political events can seem to blame high gas prices on either party?


----------



## Cuyo

boedicca said:


> It's already $5 in DC.  I expect we'll see this price in CA before long.
> 
> Thanks Obama!



See what I mean?  Simply retarded.


----------



## edthecynic

boedicca said:


> It's already $5 in DC.  I expect we'll see this price in CA before long.
> 
> Thanks Obama!


You mean, thanks Crybaby Boner!

Using "Limbaugh Logic" everybody knew the GOP was a shoe in to take control of the House for more than a year ago. Therefore the GOP House has been the controlling political authority on the economy for more than a year. 

March 2, 2009
RUSH:  Well, here's some truth for you. President Obama campaigned for two years. His policies were announced that long ago. He won the Democrat nomination last August, six months ago. *Every smart money guy, every smart money woman on Wall Street and around the world knew Obama was a shoe-in to be president six months ago.*

RUSH:  So the economy stopped. The stock market started tanking. They knew Obama was going to win. 

RUSH:   To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. *Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.*


----------



## Big Fitz

edthecynic said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already $5 in DC.  I expect we'll see this price in CA before long.
> 
> Thanks Obama!
> 
> 
> 
> You mean, thanks Crybaby Boner!
> 
> Using "Limbaugh Logic" everybody knew the GOP was a shoe in to take control of the House for more than a year ago. Therefore the GOP House has been the controlling political authority on the economy for more than a year.
> 
> March 2, 2009
> RUSH:  Well, here's some truth for you. President Obama campaigned for two years. His policies were announced that long ago. He won the Democrat nomination last August, six months ago. *Every smart money guy, every smart money woman on Wall Street and around the world knew Obama was a shoe-in to be president six months ago.*
> 
> RUSH:  So the economy stopped. The stock market started tanking. They knew Obama was going to win.
> 
> RUSH:   To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. *Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.*
Click to expand...

It's like watching a bunch of retards trying to hump a doorknob.


----------



## edthecynic

Big Fitz said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good!  Then the current economic collapse IS Obama's fault, not Bush's like he keeps blaming.  Thanks for concurring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he'll blow it off with another CON$ blame game
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course he will.  Edthecretin is nothing but *dishonest and hypocritical.*
Click to expand...

I love it!!!
When I use the exact same rationalizations CON$ have already used, suddenly CON$ervative "logic" is "dishonest and hypocritical."
Perfect!


----------



## Big Fitz

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> he'll blow it off with another CON$ blame game
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he will.  Edthecretin is nothing but *dishonest and hypocritical.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love it!!!
> When I use the exact same rationalizations CON$ have already used, suddenly CON$ervative "logic" is "dishonest and hypocritical."
> Perfect!
Click to expand...

Might I add oblivious to reality too.  I've rarely seen someone who loved slamming a door in his own face so often.






I do believe you need to flip off your 'retarder'.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for the Bush recession of 2001.
> CON$ blamed Clinton for 9/11.
> CON$ blamed Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Bush housing bubble bursting.
> CONS blamed the Democratic Congress for Bush signing deficit budgets rather than vetoing them.
> CON$ blamed Pelosi for all the deficit spending Bush did from the first day Pelosi became speaker of the House without passing a single bill over the record number of GOP filibusters.
> So blaming Boner for the rise in gas prices from the first day he became speaker is in the CON$ervative tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> CON$ blamed Clinton for the Bush recession of 2001.
> Cowardly Bush Blames China For Bad Economy
> "The Bush administration has run out of options when it comes to the economy," said Doug Usher, a senior analyst with the Mellman Group, a Democratic political consulting firm in Washington. "Clearly they don't have a plan, so they're trying to claim things are not that bad. But people see right through that, so they're going to plan C, which is blame somebody else."
> Bush says he inherited recession - Aug. 7, 2002
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for 9/11.
> 9/11: Bush's Greatest Failure
> MSNBC Keith Olberman: 9/11 was George Bushs Fault
> » MSNBC Keith Olberman: 9/11 was George Bushs Fault Cristy Li
> CON$ blamed Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Bush housing bubble bursting.
> crouch - Google Search
> 
> CON$ blamed Pelosi for all the deficit spending Bush did from the first day Pelosi became speaker of the House without passing a single bill over the record number of GOP filibusters.
> 
> She was speaker of the house for 4 years wild spending habits was what she did. Beohner has been speaker for 43 months not much spending yet.
> 
> *You really need to grasp the truth for once.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You first!
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for the Bush recession of 2001.
> 
> Notice the CON$ blame Clinton and not the GOP controlled Congress.
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for 9/11.
> 
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Bush housing bubble bursting.
> 
> 
> CON$ blamed Pelosi for all the deficit spending Bush did from the first  day Pelosi became speaker of the House without passing a single bill  over the record number of GOP filibusters.
> 
> 
> 
> Final Tab for Pelosi
> 
> *(CNSNews.com)* - In the 1,461 days that Rep. Nancy  Pelosi (D.-Calif.) served as speaker of the House, the national debt  increased by a total of $5.343 trillion ($5,343,452,800,321.37) or $3.66  billion per day ($3.657,394,113.84), according to official debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CON$ were actually blaming Obama for the stock market decline from the day Obama was nominated!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Want Every American to Succeed. What Does President Obama Want?
> March 2, 2009
> RUSH:  Well, here's some truth for you. President Obama campaigned for two years. His policies were announced that long ago. *He won the Democrat nomination last August, six months ago.* Every smart money guy, every smart money woman on Wall Street and around the world knew Obama was a shoe-in to be president six months ago.
> 
> RUSH:  So the economy stopped. The stock market started tanking. They knew Obama was going to win.
> 
> RUSH:   *To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


All this proves is one side blames the other side for it's incompatance. It doesn't provewho is or was to blame. I did not see any changes in the dirction of the country when obama and the democrats took control of the government. The only thing differant is that it's gotten a lot worse


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> CON$ blamed Clinton for the Bush recession of 2001.
> Cowardly Bush Blames China For Bad Economy
> "The Bush administration has run out of options when it comes to the economy," said Doug Usher, a senior analyst with the Mellman Group, a Democratic political consulting firm in Washington. "Clearly they don't have a plan, so they're trying to claim things are not that bad. But people see right through that, so they're going to plan C, which is blame somebody else."
> Bush says he inherited recession - Aug. 7, 2002
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for 9/11.
> 9/11: Bush's Greatest Failure
> MSNBC Keith Olberman: 9/11 was George Bushs Fault
> » MSNBC Keith Olberman: 9/11 was George Bushs Fault Cristy Li
> CON$ blamed Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Bush housing bubble bursting.
> crouch - Google Search
> 
> CON$ blamed Pelosi for all the deficit spending Bush did from the first day Pelosi became speaker of the House without passing a single bill over the record number of GOP filibusters.
> 
> She was speaker of the house for 4 years wild spending habits was what she did. Beohner has been speaker for 43 months not much spending yet.
> 
> *You really need to grasp the truth for once.*
> 
> 
> 
> You first!
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for the Bush recession of 2001.
> 
> Notice the CON$ blame Clinton and not the GOP controlled Congress.
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for 9/11.
> 
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Bush housing bubble bursting.
> 
> 
> CON$ blamed Pelosi for all the deficit spending Bush did from the first  day Pelosi became speaker of the House without passing a single bill  over the record number of GOP filibusters.
> 
> 
> CON$ were actually blaming Obama for the stock market decline from the day Obama was nominated!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Want Every American to Succeed. What Does President Obama Want?
> March 2, 2009
> RUSH:  Well, here's some truth for you. President Obama campaigned for two years. His policies were announced that long ago. *He won the Democrat nomination last August, six months ago.* Every smart money guy, every smart money woman on Wall Street and around the world knew Obama was a shoe-in to be president six months ago.
> 
> RUSH:  So the economy stopped. The stock market started tanking. They knew Obama was going to win.
> 
> RUSH:   *To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All this proves is one side blames the other side for it's incompatance. It doesn't provewho is or was to blame.* I did not see any changes in the dirction of the country* when obama and the democrats took control of the government. *The only thing differant is that it's gotten a lot worse*
Click to expand...

That's just your worthless opinion.
Anyone who expects something different from one corporate Party or the other is a FOOL!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You first!
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for the Bush recession of 2001.
> 
> Notice the CON$ blame Clinton and not the GOP controlled Congress.
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for 9/11.
> 
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Bush housing bubble bursting.
> 
> 
> CON$ blamed Pelosi for all the deficit spending Bush did from the first  day Pelosi became speaker of the House without passing a single bill  over the record number of GOP filibusters.
> 
> 
> CON$ were actually blaming Obama for the stock market decline from the day Obama was nominated!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All this proves is one side blames the other side for it's incompatance. It doesn't provewho is or was to blame.* I did not see any changes in the dirction of the country* when obama and the democrats took control of the government. *The only thing differant is that it's gotten a lot worse*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just your worthless opinion.
> Anyone who expects something different from one corporate Party or the other is a FOOL!
Click to expand...


My opinion? Example of a mindless sheeple^^^^^^^^


----------



## Big Fitz

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You first!
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for the Bush recession of 2001.
> 
> Notice the CON$ blame Clinton and not the GOP controlled Congress.
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton for 9/11.
> 
> 
> CON$ blamed Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Bush housing bubble bursting.
> 
> 
> CON$ blamed Pelosi for all the deficit spending Bush did from the first  day Pelosi became speaker of the House without passing a single bill  over the record number of GOP filibusters.
> 
> 
> CON$ were actually blaming Obama for the stock market decline from the day Obama was nominated!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All this proves is one side blames the other side for it's incompatance. It doesn't provewho is or was to blame.* I did not see any changes in the dirction of the country* when obama and the democrats took control of the government. *The only thing differant is that it's gotten a lot worse*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just your worthless opinion.
> Anyone who expects something different from one corporate Party or the other is a FOOL!
Click to expand...

and as the posterchild for worthless opinions...

you oughta know.


----------



## Robert

Gas Prices Reach Five Dollars a Gallon in the Nation's Capital
Gas prices reach five dollars per gallon at a gas station in Washington, DC on April 19, 2011. Unrest in the Middle East and price speculation have steadily led to higher oil prices and consequently higher gas prices throughout the year so far. UPI/Roger L. Wollenberg

Read more: Gas prices reach five dollars in Washington, D.C. - UPI.com


Well what do you know... the rest of the Nation will follow suit fairly soon. So again how do you think this is going to play out even thou the election a is a bit over a year away. hmmm?


----------



## Big Fitz

Robert said:


> Gas Prices Reach Five Dollars a Gallon in the Nation's Capital
> Gas prices reach five dollars per gallon at a gas station in Washington, DC on April 19, 2011. Unrest in the Middle East and price speculation have steadily led to higher oil prices and consequently higher gas prices throughout the year so far. UPI/Roger L. Wollenberg
> 
> Read more: Gas prices reach five dollars in Washington, D.C. - UPI.com
> 
> 
> Well what do you know... the rest of the Nation will follow suit fairly soon. So again how do you think this is going to play out even thou the election a is a bit over a year away. hmmm?


Carter didn't survive this.  Nor will P-BO.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Big Fitz said:


> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gas Prices Reach Five Dollars a Gallon in the Nation's Capital
> Gas prices reach five dollars per gallon at a gas station in Washington, DC on April 19, 2011. Unrest in the Middle East and price speculation have steadily led to higher oil prices and consequently higher gas prices throughout the year so far. UPI/Roger L. Wollenberg
> 
> Read more: Gas prices reach five dollars in Washington, D.C. - UPI.com
> 
> 
> Well what do you know... the rest of the Nation will follow suit fairly soon. So again how do you think this is going to play out even thou the election a is a bit over a year away. hmmm?
> 
> 
> 
> Carter didn't survive this.  Nor will P-BO.
Click to expand...


Didn't obama say he would whether be a good president and have one term than to be a bad president and serve two terms?

Thing is he's a shity president that I hope only has one term.


----------



## Jroc

Do you think they'll change the name of the Obama stations? this price was a month ago maybe when it hits $5.00 a gal


----------



## jeffrockit

edthecynic said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You Crybaby Boner.
> Gas is up more than a dollar since the GOP took over the House!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the facts:
> Since Obama took office (with a democrat majority house and senate) gas prices have risen 67%.
> Now I don't believe the president actually has control of gas prices (Bush either though he was blamed) but wanted to be factual and not partisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in the less than 4 months since Boner's GOP took over the House prices have risen half of that 67%.
> Now I don't believe the House actually has control of gas prices  (Obama either though he was blamed) but wanted to be factual and not  partisan.
Click to expand...


Then why blame the speaker? Obama is blamed just as Bush was. Gas prices are not a partisan issue however, you chose to make it one.


----------



## Jroc

jeffrockit said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the facts:
> Since Obama took office (with a democrat majority house and senate) gas prices have risen 67%.
> Now I don't believe the president actually has control of gas prices (Bush either though he was blamed) but wanted to be factual and not partisan.
> 
> 
> 
> And in the less than 4 months since Boner's GOP took over the House prices have risen half of that 67%.
> Now I don't believe the House actually has control of gas prices  (Obama either though he was blamed) but wanted to be factual and not  partisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why blame the speaker? Obama is blamed just as Bush was. Gas prices are not a partisan issue however, you chose to make it one.
Click to expand...


Energy is a "partisan issue" Conservatives want to explore and produce more of our own energy sources libs want to focus on only on unviable "green energy" limit "green house" emissions on.. and.. on a bunch of loons.


----------



## edthecynic

jeffrockit said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the facts:
> Since Obama took office (with a democrat majority house and senate) gas prices have risen 67%.
> Now I don't believe the president actually has control of gas prices (Bush either though he was blamed) but wanted to be factual and not partisan.
> 
> 
> 
> And in the less than 4 months since Boner's GOP took over the House prices have risen half of that 67%.
> Now I don't believe the House actually has control of gas prices  (Obama either though he was blamed) but wanted to be factual and not  partisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Then why blame the speaker?* Obama is blamed just as Bush was. Gas prices are not a partisan issue however, you chose to make it one.
Click to expand...

Because the CON$ blamed Pelosi for everything that happened after she was sworn in, and by blaming Crybaby Boner the same way I knew the same CON$ would now say it's stupid to blame the Speaker of the House for what happened after they were sworn in.

Rather than being partisan, I'm a lifelong registered independent who votes third Party or write-in, I just like making pompous CON$ eat their words.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the less than 4 months since Boner's GOP took over the House prices have risen half of that 67%.
> Now I don't believe the House actually has control of gas prices  (Obama either though he was blamed) but wanted to be factual and not  partisan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Then why blame the speaker?* Obama is blamed just as Bush was. Gas prices are not a partisan issue however, you chose to make it one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the CON$ blamed Pelosi for everything that happened after she was sworn in, and by blaming Crybaby Boner the same way I knew the same CON$ would now say it's stupid to blame the Speaker of the House for what happened after they were sworn in.
> 
> Rather than being partisan, I'm a lifelong registered independent who votes third Party or write-in, I just like making pompous CON$ eat their words.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot nobody that I know of blamed pudden face for anything 4 months after she came speaker of the house.


----------



## Stephanie

edthecynic said:


> Thank You Crybaby Boner.
> Gas is up more than a dollar since the GOP took over the House!!!!



LOL, let's see if you all can sell that lie.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Stephanie said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You Crybaby Boner.
> Gas is up more than a dollar since the GOP took over the House!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, let's see if you all can sell that lie.
Click to expand...


 epic fail fail on his part but if there was a republican president you can betthe speaker of the house would not have his attention. and the blame would be given to the president.


----------



## Stephanie

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You Crybaby Boner.
> Gas is up more than a dollar since the GOP took over the House!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, let's see if you all can sell that lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> epic fail fail on his part but if there was a republican president you can betthe speaker of the house would not have his attention. and the blame would be given to the president.
Click to expand...


 he just thought he was being cute. I just laughed.


----------



## editec

Modbert said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> On what basis will gas be that expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although they are not the only reason, you can thank Wall Street. You can also thank them for the commodities bubble.
> 
> From the last time that gas was so high: (CBS Article from Jan 2009)
> 
> Did Speculation Fuel Oil Price Swings? - 60 Minutes - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To understand what happened to the price of oil, you first have to understand the way it's traded. For years it has been bought and sold on something called the commodities futures market. At the New York Mercantile Exchange, it's traded alongside cotton and coffee, copper and steel by brokers who buy and sell contracts to deliver those goods at a certain price at some date in the future.
> 
> It was created so that farmers could gauge what their unharvested crops would be worth months in advance, so that factories could lock in the best price for raw materials, and airlines could manage their fuel costs. But more than a year ago those markets started to behave erratically. And when oil doubled to more than $147 a barrel, no one was more suspicious than Dan Gilligan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A recent report out of MIT, analyzing world oil production and consumption, also concluded that the basic fundamentals of supply and demand could not have been responsible for last year's run-up in oil prices. And Michael Masters says the U.S. Department of Energy's own statistics show that if the markets had been working properly, the price of oil should have been going down, not up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's impossible to tell exactly who was buying and selling all those oil contracts because most of the trading is now conducted in secret, with no public scrutiny or government oversight. Over time, the big Wall Street banks were allowed to buy and sell as many oil contracts as they wanted for their clients, circumventing regulations intended to limit speculation. And in 2000, Congress effectively deregulated the futures market, granting exemptions for complicated derivative investments called oil swaps, as well as electronic trading on private exchanges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the Commodities market, prices really go only one way, up.
Click to expand...

 
That would certainly make that market easier to play, wouldn't it?

Sadly for the bulls that is not the case.

The current high prices on oil are the result of speculation and not supply demand.

Is the market overreacting?

Probably.  

But markets can get it wrong and keep it wrong for years, so timing is the issue.

Does this bubble (assuming it is a bubble) burst in time to save the current administration's relection bid?

In the world of public opinion it's a long long way from April 2011 to November 2012.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Then why blame the speaker?* Obama is blamed just as Bush was. Gas prices are not a partisan issue however, you chose to make it one.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the CON$ blamed Pelosi for everything that happened after she was sworn in, and by blaming Crybaby Boner the same way I knew the same CON$ would now say it's stupid to blame the Speaker of the House for what happened after they were sworn in.
> 
> Rather than being partisan, I'm a lifelong registered independent who votes third Party or write-in, I just like making pompous CON$ eat their words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot nobody that I know of *blamed pudden face for anything 4 months after she came speaker of the house.*
Click to expand...




bigrebnc1775 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You Crybaby Boner.
> Gas is up more than a dollar since the GOP took over the House!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, let's see if you all can sell that lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> epic fail fail on his part but* if there was a republican president* you can betthe speaker of the house would not have his attention. and* the blame would be given to the president.*
Click to expand...

Again, if there was a GOP president, using already established CON$ervative rationalizations, I could blame the President from the time elected, hell even from the time the nomination was won!!!! 

Obama Recession in Full Swing
*November 6, 2008*
RUSH: The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen.  Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come.  This is an Obama recession.  Might turn into a depression. * He hasn't done anything yet but his ideas are killing the economy.*  His ideas are killing Wall Street. 

March 2, 2009
RUSH:  Well, here's some truth for you. President Obama campaigned for two years. His policies were announced that long ago.* He won the Democrat nomination last August, six months ago.* Every smart money guy, every smart money woman on Wall Street and around the world knew Obama was a shoe-in to be president six months ago.

RUSH:  So the economy stopped. The stock market started tanking. They knew Obama was going to win. 

RUSH:   To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. *Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.*


----------



## peach174

Obama said in his Nov. 2008 campaign that his cap and trade policies would make gas and energy prices rise dramatically.
He sure has kept this campaign promise hasn't he.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the CON$ blamed Pelosi for everything that happened after she was sworn in, and by blaming Crybaby Boner the same way I knew the same CON$ would now say it's stupid to blame the Speaker of the House for what happened after they were sworn in.
> 
> Rather than being partisan, I'm a lifelong registered independent who votes third Party or write-in, I just like making pompous CON$ eat their words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot nobody that I know of *blamed pudden face for anything 4 months after she came speaker of the house.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, let's see if you all can sell that lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> epic fail fail on his part but* if there was a republican president* you can betthe speaker of the house would not have his attention. and* the blame would be given to the president.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, if there was a GOP president, using already established CON$ervative rationalizations, I could blame the President from the time elected, hell even from the time the nomination was won!!!!
> 
> Obama Recession in Full Swing
> *November 6, 2008*
> RUSH: The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen.  Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come.  This is an Obama recession.  Might turn into a depression. * He hasn't done anything yet but his ideas are killing the economy.*  His ideas are killing Wall Street.
> 
> March 2, 2009
> RUSH:  Well, here's some truth for you. President Obama campaigned for two years. His policies were announced that long ago.* He won the Democrat nomination last August, six months ago.* Every smart money guy, every smart money woman on Wall Street and around the world knew Obama was a shoe-in to be president six months ago.
> 
> RUSH:  So the economy stopped. The stock market started tanking. They knew Obama was going to win.
> 
> RUSH:   To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. *Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.*
Click to expand...


flip floping? First you go after the speaker of the house then when you can't prove that anyone condemn puddin face within 4 months of becoming speaker of the house you spin it to the president.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot nobody that I know of *blamed pudden face for anything 4 months after she came speaker of the house.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> epic fail fail on his part but* if there was a republican president* you can betthe speaker of the house would not have his attention. and* the blame would be given to the president.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, if there was a GOP president, using already established CON$ervative rationalizations, I could blame the President from the time elected, hell even from the time the nomination was won!!!!
> 
> Obama Recession in Full Swing
> *November 6, 2008*
> RUSH: The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen.  Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come.  This is an Obama recession.  Might turn into a depression. * He hasn't done anything yet but his ideas are killing the economy.*  His ideas are killing Wall Street.
> 
> March 2, 2009
> RUSH:  Well, here's some truth for you. President Obama campaigned for two years. His policies were announced that long ago.* He won the Democrat nomination last August, six months ago.* Every smart money guy, every smart money woman on Wall Street and around the world knew Obama was a shoe-in to be president six months ago.
> 
> RUSH:  So the economy stopped. The stock market started tanking. They knew Obama was going to win.
> 
> RUSH:   To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. *Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> flip floping? First you go after the speaker of the house then when you can't prove that anyone condemn puddin face within 4 months of becoming speaker of the house you spin it to the president.
Click to expand...

YOU brought up the president, I merely pointed out that by CON$ervative tradition I could blame everything that happened from the day a GOP president won the nomination.

And CON$ have, for example, blamed the debt on Pelosi accumulated from the day she was sworn in.

Under Pelosi, national debt has increased $5 trillion | KETK
*Under Pelosi, national debt has increased $5 trillion*


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if there was a GOP president, using already established CON$ervative rationalizations, I could blame the President from the time elected, hell even from the time the nomination was won!!!!
> 
> Obama Recession in Full Swing
> *November 6, 2008*
> RUSH: The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen.  Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come.  This is an Obama recession.  Might turn into a depression. * He hasn't done anything yet but his ideas are killing the economy.*  His ideas are killing Wall Street.
> 
> March 2, 2009
> RUSH:  Well, here's some truth for you. President Obama campaigned for two years. His policies were announced that long ago.* He won the Democrat nomination last August, six months ago.* Every smart money guy, every smart money woman on Wall Street and around the world knew Obama was a shoe-in to be president six months ago.
> 
> RUSH:  So the economy stopped. The stock market started tanking. They knew Obama was going to win.
> 
> RUSH:   To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. *Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flip floping? First you go after the speaker of the house then when you can't prove that anyone condemn puddin face within 4 months of becoming speaker of the house you spin it to the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU brought up the president, I merely pointed out that by CON$ervative tradition I could blame everything that happened from the day a GOP president won the nomination.
> 
> And CON$ have, for example, blamed the debt on Pelosi accumulated from the day she was sworn in.
> 
> Under Pelosi, national debt has increased $5 trillion | KETK
> *Under Pelosi, national debt has increased $5 trillion*
Click to expand...


what I said was that if we had a republican p[resident you would be blaming the president, all you have is bonher. If the senate was controled by republicans would you also be blaming the senate? or do they get a pass because the democrats have a small majority?

Date of you link is Monday, October 25, 2010 she was speaker of the house in 2007 well past your 4 months


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> flip floping? First you go after the speaker of the house then when you can't prove that anyone condemn puddin face within 4 months of becoming speaker of the house you spin it to the president.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU brought up the president, I merely pointed out that by CON$ervative tradition I could blame everything that happened from the day a GOP president won the nomination.
> 
> And CON$ have, for example, blamed the debt on Pelosi accumulated from the day she was sworn in.
> 
> Under Pelosi, national debt has increased $5 trillion | KETK
> *Under Pelosi, national debt has increased $5 trillion*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what I said was that if we had a republican p[resident you would be blaming the president, all you have is bonher. If the senate was controled by republicans would you also be blaming the senate? or do they get a pass because the democrats have a small majority?
> 
> Date of you link is Monday, October 25, 2010 she was speaker of the house in 2007 well past *your* 4 months
Click to expand...

No, that was YOUR 4 months. 

CON$ set the precedent that the Speaker of the House is blameworthy from the DAY they are sworn in BEFORE Crybaby Boner was speaker, I'm merely applying that already established precedent!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU brought up the president, I merely pointed out that by CON$ervative tradition I could blame everything that happened from the day a GOP president won the nomination.
> 
> And CON$ have, for example, blamed the debt on Pelosi accumulated from the day she was sworn in.
> 
> Under Pelosi, national debt has increased $5 trillion | KETK
> *Under Pelosi, national debt has increased $5 trillion*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what I said was that if we had a republican p[resident you would be blaming the president, all you have is bonher. If the senate was controled by republicans would you also be blaming the senate? or do they get a pass because the democrats have a small majority?
> 
> Date of you link is Monday, October 25, 2010 she was speaker of the house in 2007 well past *your* 4 months
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that was YOUR 4 months.
> 
> CON$ set the precedent that the Speaker of the House is blameworthy from the DAY they are sworn in BEFORE Crybaby Boner was speaker, I'm merely applying that already established precedent!!
Click to expand...

No that was your 4 months


edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the price was fairly flat for the year and a half before the GOP took congress and then went straight up after they took over!!!!!
> Thanks a lot, Crybaby Boner!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fairly flat for the year and a half before the GOP took congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's the graph calling you a liar.
> 
> The price went 1.60 a gallon to  2.70 in less than a year in 2009 and that's fairly flat to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except I said a YEAR AND A HALF before the GOP took over!!!
> Gas has gone from about $3 to over $4.50 in the less than 4 months since the GOP took the House!!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what I said was that if we had a republican p[resident you would be blaming the president, all you have is bonher. If the senate was controled by republicans would you also be blaming the senate? or do they get a pass because the democrats have a small majority?
> 
> Date of you link is Monday, October 25, 2010 she was speaker of the house in 2007 well past *your* 4 months
> 
> 
> 
> No, that was YOUR 4 months.
> 
> CON$ set the precedent that the Speaker of the House is blameworthy from the DAY they are sworn in BEFORE Crybaby Boner was speaker, I'm merely applying that already established precedent!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No that was your 4 months
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's the graph calling you a liar.
> 
> The price went 1.60 a gallon to  2.70 in less than a year in 2009 and that's fairly flat to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except I said a YEAR AND A HALF before the GOP took over!!!
> Gas has gone from about $3 to over $4.50 in the less than 4 months since the GOP took the House!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

No, YOU were the one who claims the precedent had to be set in 4 months. I said the precedent has been set BEFORE Crybaby Boner became Speaker and I'm merely applying the already established CON$ervative precedent.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that was YOUR 4 months.
> 
> CON$ set the precedent that the Speaker of the House is blameworthy from the DAY they are sworn in BEFORE Crybaby Boner was speaker, I'm merely applying that already established precedent!!
> 
> 
> 
> No that was your 4 months
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except I said a YEAR AND A HALF before the GOP took over!!!
> Gas has gone from about $3 to over $4.50 in the less than 4 months since the GOP took the House!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, YOU were the one who claims the precedent had to be set in 4 months. I said the precedent has been set BEFORE Crybaby Boner became Speaker and I'm merely applying the already established CON$ervative precedent.
Click to expand...


You're the one that made the claim it's your post.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No that was your 4 months
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU were the one who claims the precedent had to be set in 4 months. I said the precedent has been set BEFORE Crybaby Boner became Speaker and I'm merely applying the already established CON$ervative precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one that made the claim it's your post.
Click to expand...

Nowhere does that post claim that the CON$ervative precedent was set in 4 months, that's your creation. My post is merely applying the already established CON$ervative precedent of blaming the Speaker of the House from the day they are sworn in which was 4 months ago.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU were the one who claims the precedent had to be set in 4 months. I said the precedent has been set BEFORE Crybaby Boner became Speaker and I'm merely applying the already established CON$ervative precedent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one that made the claim it's your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nowhere does that post claim that the CON$ervative precedent was set in 4 months, that's your creation. My post is merely applying the already established CON$ervative precedent of blaming the Speaker of the House from the day they are sworn in which was 4 months ago.
Click to expand...


You said in less than 4 months setting the precedence.



> Gas has gone from about $3 to over $4.50 in the less than 4 months since the GOP took the House!!!!


----------



## signelect

A lot of this is old news.  In fact it is all old news, Obama does not like the US , does not know what to do about the old way of life.  He just wants to change it.  Give Brazil money for oil and today they announced a 2.84 billion $ loan for oil refinery in Columbia, but for heaven sake don't drill in the Gulf or in the shale or in Alaska, get the point.

We don't have a leader, just a fool  and the fools who believed him.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one that made the claim it's your post.
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere does that post claim that the CON$ervative precedent was set in 4 months, that's your creation. My post is merely applying the already established CON$ervative precedent of blaming the Speaker of the House from the day they are sworn in which was 4 months ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said in less than 4 months setting the precedence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gas has gone from about $3 to over $4.50 in the less than 4 months since the GOP took the House!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

No, 4 months is the elapsed time in the already established CON$ervative precedent.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere does that post claim that the CON$ervative precedent was set in 4 months, that's your creation. My post is merely applying the already established CON$ervative precedent of blaming the Speaker of the House from the day they are sworn in which was 4 months ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said in less than 4 months setting the precedence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gas has gone from about $3 to over $4.50 in the less than 4 months since the GOP took the House!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, 4 months is the elapsed time in the already established CON$ervative precedent.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot. thats all.
If the discussion doesn't go your way you spin to fit your current argument and then when that changes you spin it again.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said in less than 4 months setting the precedence.
> 
> 
> 
> No, 4 months is the elapsed time in the already established CON$ervative precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. thats all.
> If the discussion doesn't go your way you spin to fit your current argument and then when that changes you spin it again.
Click to expand...

YOU don't get to say what my words mean!
YOU spun my words and now you accuse me of spinning. See the first quote in my sig.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, 4 months is the elapsed time in the already established CON$ervative precedent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. thats all.
> If the discussion doesn't go your way you spin to fit your current argument and then when that changes you spin it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU don't get to say what my words mean!
> YOU spun my words and now you accuse me of spinning. See the first quote in my sig.
Click to expand...


No your words speak for you.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. thats all.
> If the discussion doesn't go your way you spin to fit your current argument and then when that changes you spin it again.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU don't get to say what my words mean!
> YOU spun my words and now you accuse me of spinning. See the first quote in my sig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No your words speak for you.
Click to expand...

That's right, and MY words APPLIED the already established CON$ervative precedent of blaming the Speaker of the House from the day they are sworn in and Crybaby Boner was sworn in 4 months ago. YOUR words changed that to the precedent had to be set in the first 4 months of Pelosi's Speakership.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU don't get to say what my words mean!
> YOU spun my words and now you accuse me of spinning. See the first quote in my sig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No your words speak for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, and MY words APPLIED the already established CON$ervative precedent of blaming the Speaker of the House from the day they are sworn in and Crybaby Boner was sworn in 4 months ago. YOUR words changed that to the precedent had to be set in the first 4 months of Pelosi's Speakership.
Click to expand...


And the economy collasped when puddin face became speaker of the house.


----------



## Big Fitz

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if there was a GOP president, using already established CON$ervative rationalizations, I could blame the President from the time elected, hell even from the time the nomination was won!!!!
> 
> Obama Recession in Full Swing
> *November 6, 2008*
> RUSH: The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen.  Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come.  This is an Obama recession.  Might turn into a depression. * He hasn't done anything yet but his ideas are killing the economy.*  His ideas are killing Wall Street.
> 
> March 2, 2009
> RUSH:  Well, here's some truth for you. President Obama campaigned for two years. His policies were announced that long ago.* He won the Democrat nomination last August, six months ago.* Every smart money guy, every smart money woman on Wall Street and around the world knew Obama was a shoe-in to be president six months ago.
> 
> RUSH:  So the economy stopped. The stock market started tanking. They knew Obama was going to win.
> 
> RUSH:   To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. *Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flip floping? First you go after the speaker of the house then when you can't prove that anyone condemn puddin face within 4 months of becoming speaker of the house you spin it to the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU brought up the president, I merely pointed out that by CON$ervative tradition I could blame everything that happened from the day a GOP president won the nomination.
> 
> And CON$ have, for example, blamed the debt on Pelosi accumulated from the day she was sworn in.
> 
> Under Pelosi, national debt has increased $5 trillion | KETK
> *Under Pelosi, national debt has increased $5 trillion*
Click to expand...

And by gum!  It has!  How dare we point out the truth!  Bastardo!


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No your words speak for you.
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, and MY words APPLIED the already established CON$ervative precedent of blaming the Speaker of the House from the day they are sworn in and Crybaby Boner was sworn in 4 months ago. YOUR words changed that to the precedent had to be set in the first 4 months of Pelosi's Speakership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the economy collasped when puddin face became speaker of the house.
Click to expand...

And the price of gas skyrocketed when Crybaby Boner became Speaker.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, and MY words APPLIED the already established CON$ervative precedent of blaming the Speaker of the House from the day they are sworn in and Crybaby Boner was sworn in 4 months ago. YOUR words changed that to the precedent had to be set in the first 4 months of Pelosi's Speakership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the economy collasped when puddin face became speaker of the house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the price of gas skyrocketed when Crybaby Boner became Speaker.
Click to expand...


Will you make your point and stop your fucking whining?


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the economy collasped when puddin face became speaker of the house.
> 
> 
> 
> And the price of gas skyrocketed when Crybaby Boner became Speaker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you make your point and stop your fucking whining?
Click to expand...

My point has been made, and you're the one whining because of it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the price of gas skyrocketed when Crybaby Boner became Speaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you make your point and stop your fucking whining?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point has been made, and you're the one whining because of it.
Click to expand...


You have no point the economy was in the tank anditkept falling because of you and the democrats.


----------



## edthecynic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you make your point and stop your fucking whining?
> 
> 
> 
> My point has been made, and you're the one whining because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no point the economy was in the tank anditkept falling because of you and the democrats.
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that.


----------



## Dr.House

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point has been made, and you're the one whining because of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no point the economy was in the tank anditkept falling because of you and the democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep telling yourself that.
Click to expand...


The voters told you that last November, dumba$$.....


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dr.House said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no point the economy was in the tank anditkept falling because of you and the democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The voters told you that last November, dumba$$.....
Click to expand...

Looks like junior needs a timeout.


----------



## Big Fitz

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The voters told you that last November, dumba$$.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like junior needs a timeout.
Click to expand...

He just shit his cranial transmission on the pavement.


----------

