# The Republicans filibuster for Big Oil



## Chris

Is there anything more symbolic than Republican politicians debating in the dark for Big Oil?

Since they have been in the dark for most of there lives....


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> Is there anything more symbolic than Republican politicians debating in the dark for Big Oil?
> 
> Since they have been in the dark for most of there lives....



How about debating for cheaper gas prices? How about debating for lessening our dependacy on foreign oil? How about debating for reducing our trade deficit?


Pelosi's response....
Pelosi, in an interview published Tuesday in Politico.com, defended her efforts to stall spending bills, saying as speaker she decides which bills will make it to the House floor.

*"I'm trying to save the planet*. ... I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy," Pelosi said. When you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.

FOXNews.com - As Pelosi Tries to 'Save the Planet,' Republicans Criticize Offshore Drilling Ban - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> How about debating for cheaper gas prices? How about debating for lessening our dependacy on foreign oil? How about debating for reducing our trade deficit?
> 
> 
> Pelosi's response....
> Pelosi, in an interview published Tuesday in Politico.com, defended her efforts to stall spending bills, saying as speaker she decides which bills will make it to the House floor.
> 
> *"I'm trying to save the planet*. ... I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy," Pelosi said. When you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and *I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.*FOXNews.com - As Pelosi Tries to 'Save the Planet,' Republicans Criticize Offshore Drilling Ban - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum



That would include giving her gavel to millions of Americans suffering from gas prices...


----------



## Chris

jreeves said:


> That would include giving her gavel to millions of Americans suffering from gas prices...



Obama had the real and immediate solution to high gas prices....conservation. 

And how did the asshole Republicans react to that? They made fun of conservation! They made fun of the only real and immediate solution to our problem. They are the biggest bunch of fucking assholes I have ever seen.

The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke - TIME


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> Obama had the real and immediate solution to high gas prices....conservation.
> 
> And what how the asshole Republicans react to that? They made fun of it! They made fun of the only real and immediate solution to our problem. They are the biggest bunch of fucking assholes I have ever seen.
> 
> The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke - TIME



This is just silly, come on get real....
I can see pregnant women everywhere bending over to check their tire pressure.

Isn't he the candidate that said, that the gas tax holiday was gimmick? What the hell is this then? A gimmick, to deflect from providing real solutions, so that he can appeal to his base the enviromentalist. Like drilling, which would decrease prices, decrease our dependacy on foriegn oil and reduce our huge trade deficits.


----------



## Chris

jreeves said:


> This is just silly, come on get real....
> I can see pregnant women everywhere bending over to check their tire pressure.
> 
> Isn't he the candidate that said, that the gas tax holiday was gimmick? What the hell is this then? A gimmick, to deflect from providing real solutions, so that he can appeal to his base the enviromentalist. Like drilling, which would decrease prices, decrease our dependacy on foriegn oil and reduce our huge trade deficits.



No, conservation is the immediate solution to our problem, and it is already working. Demand for gasoline is down, and the price has dropped as a result. Drilling will produce more oil 10 years down the road by which time we could have switched to alternatives if we had Democratic leadership.


----------



## Chris

jreeves said:


> This is just silly, come on get real....
> I can see pregnant women everywhere bending over to check their tire pressure.
> 
> Isn't he the candidate that said, that the gas tax holiday was gimmick? What the hell is this then? A gimmick, to deflect from providing real solutions, so that he can appeal to his base the enviromentalist. Like drilling, which would decrease prices, decrease our dependacy on foriegn oil and reduce our huge trade deficits.



Pregnant women?

That's an old bullshit argument.....I remember when they were debating women in the military some dumb Senator got us and said he was against it because, "They'll be pregnant women fighting in the trenches." Some things never change.


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> No, conservation is the immediate solution to our problem, and it is already working. Demand for gasoline is down, and the price has dropped as a result. Drilling will produce more oil 10 years down the road by which time we could have switched to alternatives if we had Democratic leadership.



It seems that the price of oil has been dropping steadily since Bush announced that he was lifting the executive ban on offshore drilling. It started dropping the next day and has been on a steady downward trend since. Our gas is priced on futures. If futures traders feel there is going to be an increasing supply, oil prices drop. Demand has also helped in this downward trend too as well. But thinking that all or a vast majority of Americans are going to check their tire pressure and get tune ups is just silly.


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> Pregnant women?
> 
> That's an old bullshit argument.....I remember when they were debating women in the military some dumb Senator got us and said he was against it because, "They'll be pregnant women fighting in the trenches." Some things never change.



No a realist, there are women that are pregnant no? There are the disabled and etc....


----------



## Chris

jreeves said:


> It seems that the price of oil has been dropping steadily since Bush announced that he was lifting the executive ban on offshore drilling. It started dropping the next day and has been on a steady downward trend since. Our gas is priced on futures. If futures traders feel there is going to be an increasing supply, oil prices drop. Demand has also helped in this downward trend too as well. But thinking that all or a vast majority of Americans are going to check their tire pressure and get tune ups is just silly.



No, it is not silly to tell Americans to conserve gas. It is practical. Debating in the dark for Big Oil is silly.

And yes, there is this thing called demand that effects the price. Americans drove 10 billion miles less last month. Just our way of saying, "Fuck you, Big Oil."


----------



## Chris

How smart is Obama? He comes up with a solution to the problem that doesn't cost any money and has an immediate effect. 

Beats the hell out of waiting 10 years to give Big Oil more money, which is the Republican solution.


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> No, it is not silly to tell Americans to conserve gas. It is practical. Debating in the dark for Big Oil is silly.
> 
> And yes, there is this thing called demand that effects the price. Americans drove 10 billion miles less last month. *Just our way of saying, "Fuck you, Big Oil."*



There is another side to demand its called supply, which we could effect by allowing drilling. 

Another way to say it is, our economy shrunk. While gas prices effected Americans so much that they didn't go on vacations, stayed at home more instead of going to the mall and buying this and that.....Our economy had less activity.


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> How smart is Obama? He comes up with a solution to the problem that doesn't cost any money and has an immediate effect.
> 
> Beats the hell out of waiting 10 years to give Big Oil more money, which is the Republican solution.


BTW didn't you say you were for more drilling in another thread. 10 years is just a flat out lie, no way. I could post links if you would like? Also the promise of more drilling would have an immediate effect on futures prices. Which would in turn effect present day prices.


----------



## Chris

jreeves said:


> There is another side to demand its called supply, which we could effect by allowing drilling.
> 
> Another way to say it is, our economy shrunk. While gas prices effected Americans so much that they didn't go on vacations, stayed at home more instead of going to the mall and buying this and that.....Our economy had less activity.



Oh, no! Americans are saving gas! Fewer profits for Exxon! 
What's a Republican to do? I know! We'll filibuster for coastal drilling that won't have an effect for 10 years at the earliest! And we'll make fun of conservation! Which could help the problem right now today and have an immediate impact! That's what we'll do! Because we are only interested in more profit for Big Oil!


----------



## Chris

jreeves said:


> BTW didn't you say you were for more drilling in another thread. 10 years is just a flat out lie, no way. I could post links if you would like? Also the promise of more drilling would have an immediate effect on futures prices. Which would in turn effect present day prices.



Yes, I am for coastal drilling, and solar power, and wind power, and conservation. You know why? Because all of those things work. 

But the best long term solution is alternative energy because it is 100% American, and it will never run out.


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> *Oh, no! Americans are saving gas! Fewer profits for Exxon! *What's a Republican to do? I know! We'll filibuster for coastal drilling that won't have an effect for 10 years at the earliest! And we'll make fun of conservation! Which could help the problem right now today and have an immediate impact! That's what we'll do! Because we are only interested in more profit for Big Oil!


You think I want Exxon to have larger profits....lmao
All you have to do is read. It will reduce prices immediately cause gas is priced a great deal by what futures prices of oil are, it would reduce our dependacy on foreign oil and reduce our trade deficits. Not to mention increase tax revenues....


----------



## Chris

jreeves said:


> You think I want Exxon to have larger profits....lmao
> All you have to do is read. It will reduce prices immediately cause gas is priced a great deal by what futures prices of oil are, it would reduce our dependacy on foreign oil and reduce our trade deficits. Not to mention increase tax revenues....



Sorry, supply and demand fixes the price of oil because it is a homogeneous good. Of course when the supply is in the hands of a few large companies it tips the scale in one direction. Now it is time for the American consumer to tip it back. And the new president should move the country to clean energy. That is if a Democrat is elected. If not, we will see more of the same.


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> Oh, no! Americans are saving gas! Fewer profits for Exxon!
> What's a Republican to do? I know! We'll filibuster for coastal drilling that won't have an effect for 10 years at the earliest! And we'll make fun of conservation! Which could help the problem right now today and have an immediate impact! That's what we'll do! Because we are only interested in more profit for Big Oil!



BTW didn't you say you were for more drilling in another thread? Are you ignoring this on purpose?


----------



## Ravi

Kirk said:


> Is there anything more symbolic than Republican politicians debating in the dark for Big Oil?



Yes. Them getting into their hummers and SUVs to drive back to their homes.


----------



## editec

While Nancy is busy saving the planet, and the Republicans are crying crocodile tears for the people, the state of Maine is trying to figure out what in hell to do for the people here in Maine.  the people who are collectively, _the most heavily dependent on home heating oil people in AMERICA _

*They're talking about creating day time HEAT SHELTERS, folks.*

That's how serious the coming crises in home heating fuel prices is here in Maine, people. Heating season really starts in late August and early Septermber here in Maine, usually, BTW.

Mainers are mostly po' White folk. (think the pre-bubbling crude Jeb Clampet, and you're not so far off the beam) 

No state in the union has lost (percentage-wise I mean) more industrial jobs to FREE TRADE, than Maine

The fishing industry is bust; the timber industry is bust, the paper industry is bust, and the garment and small manufacturing industries are bust, too.

And the more than doubling prices for home heating fuel in the last year is apt to kill many of my fellow Mainers, if something isn't done.

Cut down the woods you say?

Sorry folks, most of the vast woods in Maine are owned by South African Corporations.

Maine has the smallest proportion of publically owned lands in the nation.


----------



## Ravi

I wonder, can a state request the federal government declare a Federal disaster area over this issue and receive Federal aid?


----------



## DiamondDave

Kirk said:


> Obama had the real and immediate solution to high gas prices....conservation.
> 
> And how did the asshole Republicans react to that? They made fun of conservation! They made fun of the only real and immediate solution to our problem. They are the biggest bunch of fucking assholes I have ever seen.
> 
> The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke - TIME



Is Gore, or Clinton, or Obama conserving? No... they would love to dictate to you to ride bikes or wear sweaters or use hand fans, all the while they use energy like Wilma Flintstone used her charge card... those are the biggest assholes that can be seen.. well, besides those that sheepishly follow them like messiahs

Conservation is NOT the total solution.... research and advancement into efficiency needs to be put in combination with more drilling and refining for short and near term relief and long term efforts into making the alternative fuels and energies viable in the vast scope that they need to be for the future


----------



## Chris

DiamondDave said:


> Is Gore, or Clinton, or Obama conserving? No... they would love to dictate to you to ride bikes or wear sweaters or use hand fans, all the while they use energy like Wilma Flintstone used her charge card... those are the biggest assholes that can be seen.. well, besides those that sheepishly follow them like messiahs
> 
> Conservation is NOT the total solution.... research and advancement into efficiency needs to be put in combination with more drilling and refining for short and near term relief and long term efforts into making the alternative fuels and energies viable in the vast scope that they need to be for the future



No, conservation is the immediate solution, not the total one. We waste an enormous amount of energy. Obama was smart to suggest that, and he was correct. The Republicans fear conservation because it effects their oil company masters.

Here is a quote from CNN this morning...

"Oil prices have fallen sharply in recent weeks on worries that high prices are starting to cut into demand."


----------



## DiamondDave

No... conservation is NOT the immediate solution.. it is part of future solutions... and forced conservation is not going to happen unless you get your forms of totalitarian rule... you going to check to make sure every house does not have windows open a crack, and whisk away the conservation violators? You going to force someone who likes their house temp at 75 in the winter to comply to whatever standard you set?

Give me a break...



> Here is a quote from CNN this morning...
> 
> "Oil prices have fallen sharply in recent weeks on worries that high prices are starting to cut into demand."



And whom from CNN...???

because by all means... if we had a $0.10 drop in gas prices, it had to be because of what you wish it to be, and not a combination of factors 

Republicans or Conservatives do not fear conservation... just hypocritical mandates and gestapo enforceable hindrances on a person's freedom


----------



## sealybobo

Kirk said:


> Is there anything more symbolic than Republican politicians debating in the dark for Big Oil?
> 
> Since they have been in the dark for most of there lives....



The Democrats have proposed 4 solutions that would lower gas prices.  The GOP said NO to every one.

Oh, and Obama saying he would consider drilling offshore?  I love it!  He said what I said yesterday.  He would consider it, IF they share it with America and not sell it on the world market.

The Dems tried to pass a bill that dealt with speculation.  The GOP said NO!

The dems wanted to give Americans the oil companies windfall profits.  The GOP said NO!

Their only solution is to give the oil companies what they want and HOPE they share.  LOL.


----------



## Ravi

Forced conservation?

Obama should sell it like a patriotic duty, just like Bush sold fear of going boom as a reason to invade Iraq.


----------



## Ravi

sealybobo said:


> IF they share it with America and not sell it on the world market.



This wouldn't work. It would just cause the world market to raise their prices.


----------



## sealybobo

Ravi said:


> This wouldn't work. It would just cause the world market to raise their prices.



No it would not.  American Oil companies sell on the world market what they have right now.  If we give them NEW oil fields, they can take some of it of the world market and just sell it at home for cheap.

Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Iran sell their oil cheap to their citizens and sell the rest on the world market.

Yes we can!


----------



## Ravi

sealybobo said:


> No it would not.  American Oil companies sell on the world market what they have right now.  If we give them NEW oil fields, they can take some of it of the world market and just sell it at home for cheap.
> 
> Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Iran sell their oil cheap to their citizens and sell the rest on the world market.
> 
> Yes we can!



Sorry, if our demand goes down from the world market, the other oil sellers aren't going to twiddle their thumbs and accept a lower profit.


----------



## sealybobo

Ravi said:


> Sorry, if our demand goes down from the world market, the other oil sellers aren't going to twiddle their thumbs and accept a lower profit.



What?  If demand goes down, won't prices too?  

Thanks for the idea.  Yes, this will have a double positive affect.  

If we are buying less, then supply will go up!


----------



## DiamondDave

sealybobo said:


> The Democrats have proposed 4 solutions that would lower gas prices.  The GOP said NO to every one.
> 
> Oh, and Obama saying he would consider drilling offshore?  I love it!  He said what I said yesterday.  He would consider it, IF they share it with America and not sell it on the world market.
> 
> The Dems tried to pass a bill that dealt with speculation.  The GOP said NO!
> 
> The dems wanted to give Americans the oil companies windfall profits.  The GOP said NO!
> 
> Their only solution is to give the oil companies what they want and HOPE they share.  LOL.



1) How is Obama going to change the world market for oil?
2) The government is going to control how things are bought and sold... hmmm... what is that called again??
3) Wealth redistribution is part of what government control system that is not based on freedom and liberty.... what is that called again?


Obama is not presenting solutions for a free society....


----------



## editec

Ravi said:


> I wonder, can a state request the federal government declare a Federal disaster area over this issue and receive Federal aid?


 
Perhaps, if Congress find the time, they might look into it.

I'm told that of the 50,000 households in Maine likely to be eligible for home heating assistance, and that _perhaps_ there's enough money to help 10,000 households IF congress increases the amount of help they're willing to send to Maine.

And those households, if they're lucky enough to get any aid at all, will get _$417_ to offset the rising price of oil, _for the year._

My heating bill in *2006 (oil at $1.39) was about $970*

In* 2007 it was about $2,023 (oil at $2.89)*

I'm told that I can expect to pay about *$4.50* a gallon *this season* meaning that my annual cost for heat and hot water will be about *$3,150*

All this assumes an average winter, of course. 

A bad winter could change the amount of fuel needed by 25%, and bear in mind that if it is a particularly cold winter, and more people need more fuel to stay alive, the cost of home heating oil naturally rises.

Pray for a warm winter, folks.

$417 dollars is about what it cost me to keep my house warm for three weeks in January last year when oil was about $2.89 a gallon.


----------



## Ravi

If demand goes up, prices will go down, as we've seen. But the reason demand is down is because we can't afford to buy gas, not because we are supplying ourselves. It'd be a totally different thing. It could only work if we could supply ourselves totally, like the Saudis are able to do for their country.

Also, what makes you think oil companies would agree to sell something to us cheaper than they could elsewhere? As things are right now, they break profit records every quarter...they have no need to be altruistic.


----------



## DiamondDave

sealybobo said:


> What?  If demand goes down, won't prices too?
> 
> Thanks for the idea.  Yes, this will have a double positive affect.
> 
> If we are buying less, then supply will go up!



Except OPEC controls how much is released to artificially control supply and prices


but nice try


----------



## Ravi

Editec, I was thinking about a different route for relief. Congress isn't even involved. Your gov can ask the president to declare a federal disaster area, just like every other state does when there is a disaster. 

I'm just not sure if it would work.


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> 1) How is Obama going to change the world market for oil?
> 2) The government is going to control how things are bought and sold... hmmm... what is that called again??
> 3) Wealth redistribution is part of what government control system that is not based on freedom and liberty.... what is that called again?
> 
> 
> Obama is not presenting solutions for a free society....



So just keep taking it in the ass for capitalism so you can feel good about yourself stupid.  

I can't explain anything to a rock.


----------



## Chris

DiamondDave said:


> No... conservation is NOT the immediate solution.. it is part of future solutions... and forced conservation is not going to happen unless you get your forms of totalitarian rule... you going to check to make sure every house does not have windows open a crack, and whisk away the conservation violators? You going to force someone who likes their house temp at 75 in the winter to comply to whatever standard you set?
> 
> Give me a break...
> 
> 
> 
> And whom from CNN...???
> 
> because by all means... if we had a $0.10 drop in gas prices, it had to be because of what you wish it to be, and not a combination of factors
> 
> Republicans or Conservatives do not fear conservation... just hypocritical mandates and gestapo enforceable hindrances on a person's freedom



Oh! I'm afraid! Someone is going to force me to turn my thermostat down! Honestly, where do you get this shit?

We are in a national emergency. The President should have gone on televsion with a multifaced plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil which included immediate conservation measures. Obama has such a plan. Bush has none. 

Gas prices have dropped .35 a gallon on falling demand, I don't know where you made up that .10 a gallon from.


CNNMoney.com Pre-Market Report - Aug. 5, 2008


----------



## Chris

DiamondDave said:


> 1) How is Obama going to change the world market for oil?
> 2) The government is going to control how things are bought and sold... hmmm... what is that called again??
> 3) Wealth redistribution is part of what government control system that is not based on freedom and liberty.... what is that called again?
> 
> 
> Obama is not presenting solutions for a free society....



Why do you lie?

Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Energy


----------



## DiamondDave

So just keep taking it in the ass for socialism so you can feel good about yourself stupid.  

I can't explain anything to a rock.


wow... I see how easy it is for your simplistic mind to come up with such great rational retorts... so much easier than dealing with reality and logical thinking...

on second thought... I'll stick with reality and continue to let you look stupid


----------



## DiamondDave

Kirk said:


> Why do you lie?
> 
> Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Energy



He is not presenting any solutions for a free society... he is presenting forms of control... which is based on what kind of government???


----------



## DiamondDave

Kirk said:


> Oh! I'm afraid! Someone is going to force me to turn my thermostat down! Honestly, where do you get this shit?
> 
> We are in a national emergency. The President should have gone on televsion with a multifaced plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil which included immediate conservation measures. Obama has such a plan. Bush has none.
> 
> Gas prices have dropped .35 a gallon on falling demand, I don't know where you made up that .10 a gallon from.
> 
> 
> CNNMoney.com Pre-Market Report - Aug. 5, 2008



In my area.. down $0.10... simple observation

And again... how are you or Obama going to FORCE your energy compliance... and who is going to ensure Obama and the rest of his ilk are held to the same standards?

Get real


----------



## sealybobo

Ravi said:


> If demand goes up, prices will go down, as we've seen. But the reason demand is down is because we can't afford to buy gas, not because we are supplying ourselves. It'd be a totally different thing. It could only work if we could supply ourselves totally, like the Saudis are able to do for their country.
> 
> Also, what makes you think oil companies would agree to sell something to us cheaper than they could elsewhere? As things are right now, they break profit records every quarter...they have no need to be altruistic.



They can't have our offshores unless they give SOME of it to us.  The rest they can sell on the world market.  Win Win.  

Boy, you are making it sound like the oil companies are in control, not us.  I say we are in control.  If they don't work with us, I'm sure we can find someone else that will.  But they won't, not when they have McCain backing them and not us.  They just gave McCain a couple million dollars for his campaign by the way.

So are you saying that if we move to partially ethonol, battery, solar, wind, etc.  are you saying that if we aren't TOTALLY supplying ourselves with energy, then the world oil market will jack up prices to make up for what we no longer buy from them?  I don't buy that for a minute.  

And if they do, even more reason why we should socialize our oil and say fuck the world market.


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> He is not presenting any solutions for a free society... he is presenting forms of control... which is based on what kind of government???



Our government is in control dave, not the oil companies.  Our founding fathers didn't start this country so companies could have free reign. 

You want free markets, even if they aren't fair.  You think the oil companies can fuck Americans because it's a free market!  What a house slave you are.  What kind of bitch are you???

America isn't anything goes.  Someone else already told you before that America has some bits of socialism incorporated into how our government operates and some capitalism.  Why do I have to tell you again?  Did you not believe that person?  

Do you not understand that????  Why are you so anti socialism?  Probably because you didn't get anything out of your school system, clearly.


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> Except OPEC controls how much is released to artificially control supply and prices
> 
> 
> but nice try



So then supply and demand is a lie and you are a liar??  

So Opec is in the drivers seat?

So then we should just give them anwar and offshore for cheap, hell, for free?

And just hope this lowers gas prices?

But based on everything you guys have just said, the only thing they go by when determining gas prices is HOW MUCH DO YOU HAVE IN YOUR MOTHER FUCKING POCKETS!!!!

You absolutely make zero sense.  But nice try.  This is why you guys make me angry.  You are so full of shit.  It's like talking to the insane.  Try making sense to them is like trying with you, idiots.


----------



## sealybobo

Kirk said:


> Why do you lie?
> 
> Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Energy



Dave wants the oil companies to be free.....to enslave us.  LOL.


----------



## Chris

DiamondDave said:


> In my area.. down $0.10... simple observation
> 
> And again... how are you or Obama going to FORCE your energy compliance... and who is going to ensure Obama and the rest of his ilk are held to the same standards?
> 
> Get real



The solution to the problem is simple. You develop solar power, wind power, conservation, and domestic oil production. That's it. Other countries like Denmark and Israel are doing it, we can do it too. We just need new leadership.


----------



## Ravi

sealybobo said:


> are you saying that if we aren't TOTALLY supplying ourselves with energy, then the world oil market will jack up prices to make up for what we no longer buy from them?



Yes


----------



## DiamondDave

sealybobo said:


> Our government is in control dave, not the oil companies.  Our founding fathers didn't start this country so companies could have free reign.
> 
> You want free markets, even if they aren't fair.  You think the oil companies can fuck Americans because it's a free market!  What a house slave you are.  What kind of bitch are you???
> 
> America isn't anything goes.  Someone else already told you before that America has some bits of socialism incorporated into how our government operates and some capitalism.  Why do I have to tell you again?  Did you not believe that person?
> 
> Do you not understand that????  Why are you so anti socialism?  Probably because you didn't get anything out of your school system, clearly.




neither is "in control"

I want free markets with opportunities... with that freedom comes the right and ability to succeed, as well as the right and the ability to fail.... the positives come with the negatives... but it is upon the individual to make the best of his or her abilities and decisions...

Why am I so anti-socialism??... because it is an unrealistic control based system that in no way will work with human nature.. human nature where one likes to reap the benefits of their efforts.... where incentive to succeed drives progress... where success breeds generosity, VOLUNTARY generosity for people to help and not FORCED generosity of socialist control of wealth redistribution... because we are not a hive full of mindless drones with no better existence than to serve the elite leader... because socialist government will only work with the controllable. Because it will only work with slaves, robots, and prisoners, since they are the ones that can be easily controlled and kept without the incentive to do better for one's self and one's family


----------



## sealybobo

Ravi said:


> Yes



Then don't ever tell me about supply and demand again.

They will raise the prices to as much as they think they can get away with.

And giving them Anwar and Offshore won't lower gas prices.  But NOT giving them those things will raise prices.

I'm done talking with you guys about this.  Bitches.  Fools.  

If this is true, then yes, I am a socialist.  Now don't come lock me up like you did the Commys.


----------



## DiamondDave

Kirk said:


> The solution to the problem is simple. You develop solar power, wind power, conservation, and domestic oil production. That's it. Other countries like Denmark and Israel are doing it, we can do it too. We just need new leadership.



And that development in the scale that we need and the efficiency that we need is not currently there... so while we continue those strides to get there, we also have to deal with the near term and that is to use the oil resources we have in front of us to make this the best that we can until the point where we can build more nuke plants, wind plants, wave energy plants, etc in a quantity of supply that will be sufficient for decades and centuries to come


----------



## DiamondDave

sealybobo said:


> yes, I am a socialist. .



Finally.. a rational and correct statement by bobo the clown


----------



## Ravi

sealybobo said:


> Then don't ever tell me about supply and demand again.
> 
> They will raise the prices to as much as they think they can get away with.
> 
> And giving them Anwar and Offshore won't lower gas prices.  But NOT giving them those things will raise prices.
> 
> I'm done talking with you guys about this.  Bitches.  Fools.
> 
> If this is true, then yes, I am a socialist.  Now don't come lock me up like you did the Commys.



sigh

I'm just trying to be realistic, Bobo. The only way it might possibly work is if the government itself drills for oil and gives it to us. Even then, there still wouldn't be enough to slake our thirst and we'd still have to buy the rest on the world market at prices THEY get to set.

IMO, the best thing to do is use solar and wind as much as possible and use oil as a back up when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. And encourage companies to develop alternatives.


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> neither is "in control"
> 
> I want free markets with opportunities... with that freedom comes the right and ability to succeed, as well as the right and the ability to fail.... the positives come with the negatives... but it is upon the individual to make the best of his or her abilities and decisions...
> 
> Why am I so anti-socialism??... because it is an unrealistic control based system that in no way will work with human nature.. human nature where one likes to reap the benefits of their efforts.... where incentive to succeed drives progress... where success breeds generosity, VOLUNTARY generosity for people to help and not FORCED generosity of socialist control of wealth redistribution... because we are not a hive full of mindless drones with no better existence than to serve the elite leader... because socialist government will only work with the controllable. Because it will only work with slaves, robots, and prisoners, since they are the ones that can be easily controlled and kept without the incentive to do better for one's self and one's family


----------



## DiamondDave

sealybobo said:


>



yes.. you have shown you are...

Keep dealing with your socialist and marxist pipe dreams... keep dealing with manipulated statistics from biased sources... much easier than dealing with facts and reality


----------



## busara

DiamondDave said:


> yes.. you have shown you are...
> 
> Keep dealing with your socialist and marxist pipe dreams... keep dealing with manipulated statistics from biased sources... much easier than dealing with facts and reality



hehe, the 'i know you are, but what i am?' comeback.

anyway, i feel we should drill more here, provided that the companies have to sell it in the country. i dont want to go all out and tap every source to the fullest, just to get the ball rolling so in 10 years they'll be ready for use. i want this done in conjunction with moving heavily toward alternative fuels and cutting consumption. more solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear power. biofuels/electric for cars, better mass transit. then we can use our own oil for whatever we still need it for


----------



## AllieBaba

But the environmentalists and hand wringers don't like nuclear power...or we'd already be oil-independent. Nor do they like us managing forests....


----------



## AllieBaba

And biofuels are not going to step up to the plate, period. You have to have huge amounts of roughage, which we don't, and processing it pollutes ground water.


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> yes.. you have shown you are...
> 
> Keep dealing with your socialist and marxist pipe dreams... keep dealing with manipulated statistics from biased sources... much easier than dealing with facts and reality



If you don't listen to Air America or Nova M Radio, you don't even know the facts.  The fact is, you are being lied to and manipulated.  

They are very clever about it too.  Sometimes you guys even stump me.  But then I go home and on the ride I listen to how exactly you have distorted the facts to spin them the way you want.

Oh, and don't let me give you credit.  You are just a mouth piece.  

The fact is, I don't want socialism.  I want government controls on Corporations who have purchased our politicians.  That means voting in Obama, because he isn't completely tainted yet.  

And remember, the media are Corporate owned too.


----------



## AllieBaba

That post is so scary.......


----------



## DiamondDave

sealybobo said:


> If you don't listen to Air America or Nova M Radio, you don't even know the facts.  The fact is, you are being lied to and manipulated.
> 
> They are very clever about it too.  Sometimes you guys even stump me.  But then I go home and on the ride I listen to how exactly you have distorted the facts to spin them the way you want.
> 
> Oh, and don't let me give you credit.  You are just a mouth piece.
> 
> The fact is, I don't want socialism.  I want government controls on Corporations who have purchased our politicians.  That means voting in Obama, because he isn't completely tainted yet.
> 
> And remember, the media are Corporate owned too.



Air America etc dealing in FACTS??? Oh... that is RICH 

You are indeed turning into one of the robots that socialism needs


----------



## chopcrazy

Kirk said:


> Why do you lie?
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Why doesn't Obamma list the energy legislation he proposed or sponsored when he was a politician in Illinois? California has been trying to legislate increased energy efficiency standards. If he did nothing for his home state, why will he be succesful for the country?


----------



## sealybobo

AllieBaba said:


> That post is so scary.......



Example, you retards posted, "obama flipped on offshore drilling".  I had to hear it from Randi that he only would agree to it if the oil companies agreed to sell some of it directly to America and not on the world market.

That would have given us substantial relief.  The GOP shot that idea down.

They only want Exxon to sell it on the world market and that would lower prices a few PENNIES!!!  

They got you where they want you Allie.  Dumbich.


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> Air America etc dealing in FACTS??? Oh... that is RICH
> 
> You are indeed turning into one of the robots that socialism needs



Tell me what lies they say PLEASE!!! fucnlier.


----------



## AllieBaba

sealybobo said:


> Example, you retards posted, "obama flipped on offshore drilling".  I had to hear it from Randi that he only would agree to it if the oil companies agreed to sell some of it directly to America and not on the world market.
> 
> That would have given us substantial relief.  The GOP shot that idea down.
> 
> They only want Exxon to sell it on the world market and that would lower prices a few PENNIES!!!
> 
> They got you where they want you Allie.  Dumbich.



Where's the proof that this is true, stupido?


----------



## sealybobo

AllieBaba said:


> Where's the proof that this is true, stupido?



I watch CSPAN stupid.  Do you?  

You'll just tell me I'm showing you a liberal source so piss off.  All of you.

I love it when all your buddies come on and you all sound like Rush got you worked up today.  etadik


----------



## sealybobo

And I listen to Air America and Nova M Radio.  Do you?  Where is the proof I'm wrong?


----------



## AllieBaba

I don't have to prove you're wrong when you make wild accusations, dipshit. It's up to you to prove that what you're saying is true.

And you can't. They're lies, and you know it, and you're too lazy and stupid to even make the most nominal effort to legitimize your crazy leftist loon rhetoric.


----------



## sealybobo

AllieBaba said:


> I don't have to prove you're wrong when you make wild accusations, dipshit. It's up to you to prove that what you're saying is true.
> 
> And you can't. They're lies, and you know it, and you're too lazy and stupid to even make the most nominal effort to legitimize your crazy leftist loon rhetoric.



God I'm trying to wake you up.  Can you explain to even yourself how Exxon went from $8 billion to $41 billion?  

They said they buy oil at $140 a barrel and passed the increased costs on to the consumer.  That doesn't account for why gas doubled.  So I know that they went from making 8 cents on every dollar to making 9 cents on every dollar.  You are ok with that, and that's fine with me.

But then you don't know how much they pay the government for oil they pump out of the ground?  One of your buddies admitted yesterday that the contract was probably signed years ago, before oil prices went up.  So he understands what I'm saying.  You don't.

So this is why it is not a good idea to give the oil companies more land.  At least not at $56 dollars a barrel.  

And I'm sure you googled your fat ass off and you can't find the answers either.  Rush never explained this?  Well Randi Rhodes did.  I dare you to call her.  She will drink your milkshake!


----------



## sealybobo

chopcrazy said:


> Kirk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you lie?
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Why doesn't Obamma list the energy legislation he proposed or sponsored when he was a politician in Illinois? California has been trying to legislate increased energy efficiency standards. If he did nothing for his home state, why will he be succesful for the country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has Chaney done?  How much power does a State Senator have?  How good has Chaney been for the last 60 years?
> 
> How much was oil when Obama was a State Legislature?
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

AllieBaba said:


> I don't have to prove you're wrong when you make wild accusations, dipshit. It's up to you to prove that what you're saying is true.
> 
> And you can't. They're lies, and you know it, and you're too lazy and stupid to even make the most nominal effort to legitimize your crazy leftist loon rhetoric.



I heard it on NPR.


----------



## AllieBaba

That's not proof, ding dong.


----------



## sealybobo

AllieBaba said:


> That's not proof, ding dong.



Ha!  They lie too?  Forget about me stupid.  Find out for yourself what they pay per barrel.  Save yourself!  Leave me behind!!!

LOL.

Hey, I work for "the man".  One of the worlds Billionaires.  And I'm about to call Atlantic Oil Company and try to sell something to them.

I don't know if any of you are in sales, but ever notice the oil companies never buy shit?  They probably don't employ a lot of people either.  Just executives and field workers.  I wonder how much the field workers make.  I bet not that much.  And they work their asses off.  But it's the exec's who deserve the $20billion salaries, right?  LOL.


----------



## sealybobo

omg I asked for the person in charge and a lady named Allie answered the phone.  I  just hung up!!!


----------



## AllieBaba

You need help, little fellow.

And no, saying "I heard it on NPR" does not suffice as evidence. You would know this if your brain was just a few centimeters bigger.


----------



## Ravi

Bobo, do the oil companies pay the US anything for the oil they pump out of the ground? I understand that they lease the mineral rights and are free to sell them as they please as long as they pay for the lease and pay their tax on profit.


----------



## Ravi

Heh, they also must pay oil royalties if profits go above a certain threshold. I might have to rethink my position on windfall taxes...it almost is beginning to sound like a phrase made up by the pc crowd to help corporations avoid paying their fair share.



> *TEXT OF STORY*
> 
> *Bob Moon: *Big oil stands to make billions of dollars in windfall profits from the royalty concessions it gets from the federal government -- read that "the American taxpayers." That's the bottom line of a report released today by the Government Accountability Office.
> 
> During the 1990's Congress gave oil companies a pass on royalty payments in order to encourage deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and many in Congress regret it.
> 
> Marketplace's Sarah Gardner reports.
> *Sarah Gardner: *Drilling for oil in deep water is expensive and risky, so back in 1995, Congress waived royalty fees on Gulf of Mexico drilling to encourage it. Those fees would kick in if oil prices rose above a certain threshold.
> 
> But for two straight years in the late 90s, the Interior Department mistakenly omitted the price trigger clause from a thousand offshore leases, and now, an oil company lawsuit is challenging the government's authority to impose price triggers at all.
> 
> Frank Rusco led the GAO report and says the omissions and litigation could add up to big losses for taxpayers.


Marketplace: U.S. could lose billions in oil royalties


----------



## sealybobo

Ravi said:


> Bobo, do the oil companies pay the US anything for the oil they pump out of the ground? I understand that they lease the mineral rights and are free to sell them as they please as long as they pay for the lease and pay their tax on profit.



There are laws that the GOP Congress passed between 2002-2005 (forgot the year) that gave them guarantees.   

Can I find the links?  No.  Is that a problem that none of us know exactly what they pay?  I say it is.   

You understand or you know?  

Now you are making me want to find the facts.  I'll find them for you.  Not these other people who drive me insane.


----------



## Ravi

sealybobo said:


> There are laws that the GOP Congress passed between 2002-2005 (forgot the year) that gave them guarantees.
> 
> Can I find the links?  No.  Is that a problem that none of us know exactly what they pay?  I say it is.
> 
> You understand or you know?
> 
> Now you are making me want to find the facts.  I'll find them for you.  Not these other people who drive me insane.


Read my next post...apparently, Congress gave them a pass in the 90s and now the Dems are trying to take that pass away...and we as a country lose billions of dollars in royalty payments. Plus, the freaking Republicans want to give the oil companies the option to screw us out of even more money.


----------



## Article 15

Why don't we just let them drill and clear that argument from the table?


----------



## sealybobo

Ravi said:


> Read my next post...apparently, Congress gave them a pass in the 90s and now the Dems are trying to take that pass away...and we as a country lose billions of dollars in royalty payments. Plus, the freaking Republicans want to give the oil companies the option to screw us out of even more money.



Where is your post?


----------



## AllieBaba

sealybobo said:


> There are laws that the GOP Congress passed between 2002-2005 (forgot the year) that gave them guarantees.
> 
> Can I find the links?  No.  Is that a problem that none of us know exactly what they pay?  I say it is.
> 
> You understand or you know?
> 
> Now you are making me want to find the facts.  I'll find them for you.  Not these other people who drive me insane.



You are an ignorant swabbie.


----------



## sealybobo

AllieBaba said:


> You are an ignorant swabbie.



	Exxon owns 29 billion barrels of oil, and at $100 per barrel, with an inventory value of $2.9 trillion. That oil cost costs Exxon a measly $5.45 per barrel. Chevron's estimated oil inventory is worth an estimated $2.2 trillion at a cost of $5.34 per barrel and Royal Dutch Shell's inventory is valued at $2.6 trillion billion only cost them $5.77 a barrel. And those are trillions with a capital T. Those companies have a profit of over $95 a barrel and they'll fight to maintain that margin and the favorable tax treatments on their enormous profit per barrel.

What do oil companies actually pay for a barrel of oil? - Democratic Underground


----------



## Ravi

sealybobo said:


> Where is your post?



http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/56233-the-republicans-filibuster-for-big-oil-4.html#post737469


----------



## Ravi

Article 15 said:


> Why don't we just let them drill and clear that argument from the table?


It's in their best interests to keep oil above $100 a barrel...because they don't have to pay the royalties and make lots more money.


----------



## Article 15

Ravi said:


> It's in their best interests to keep oil above $100 a barrel...because they don't have to pay the royalties and make lots more money.



Right ...

So then when we open up drilling and no significant change in fuel prices occur the argument is squashed and we can move on and hear no more of it ...


----------



## chopcrazy

sealybobo said:


> chopcrazy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has Chaney done?  How much power does a State Senator have?  How good has Chaney been for the last 60 years?
> 
> How much was oil when Obama was a State Legislature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you implying that Obamma did not have enough power in his state legislature to effect change within his state? California is not waiting on the U.S. Government.
> 
> I am unclear as to the link you are trying to make with Chaney and Obama. If oil was low when Obama was in the State legislature, are you saying nothing needed to be done? If so, than why would Chaney need to have done anything since oil was even lower than before Obama came into politics.
> 
> What leadership in the State Legislature did Obama provide? That is where the power would be....leadership. If he could not work together and lead the state legislature, how will he lead the U.S. Congress and the Nation?
Click to expand...


----------



## AllieBaba

sealybobo said:


> 	Exxon owns 29 billion barrels of oil, and at $100 per barrel, with an inventory value of $2.9 trillion. That oil cost costs Exxon a measly $5.45 per barrel. Chevron's estimated oil inventory is worth an estimated $2.2 trillion at a cost of $5.34 per barrel and Royal Dutch Shell's inventory is valued at $2.6 trillion billion only cost them $5.77 a barrel. And those are trillions with a capital T. Those companies have a profit of over $95 a barrel and they'll fight to maintain that margin and the favorable tax treatments on their enormous profit per barrel.
> 
> What do oil companies actually pay for a barrel of oil? - Democratic Underground



Do you ever go to unbiased sources for information? Ever? Ever think about trying to look at things objectively? Just as an experiment?


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> Sorry, supply and demand fixes the price of oil because it is a homogeneous good. Of course when the supply is in the hands of a few large companies it tips the scale in one direction. Now it is time for the American consumer to tip it back. And the new president should move the country to clean energy. That is if a Democrat is elected. If not, we will see more of the same.



Alternatives are good, but until they can compete with gas powered cars in price they are not going to sell. The best way to get us to alternative energy sources and allow time to develop them is to increase our domestic supply. Which entails more drilling.......


----------



## jreeves

Article 15 said:


> Right ...
> 
> So then when we open up drilling and no significant change in fuel prices occur the argument is squashed and we can move on and hear no more of it ...



I'll go along with that, then when prices do in fact drop. We can open up more drilling and allow development of oil shale in the Rockies. Which has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia....


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> 	Exxon owns 29 billion barrels of oil, and at $100 per barrel, with an inventory value of $2.9 trillion. That oil cost costs Exxon a measly $5.45 per barrel. Chevron's estimated oil inventory is worth an estimated $2.2 trillion at a cost of $5.34 per barrel and Royal Dutch Shell's inventory is valued at $2.6 trillion billion only cost them $5.77 a barrel. And those are trillions with a capital T. Those companies have a profit of over $95 a barrel and they'll fight to maintain that margin and the favorable tax treatments on their enormous profit per barrel.
> 
> What do oil companies actually pay for a barrel of oil? - Democratic Underground



That's amazing how that works Bobo, you post a link for a democratic undergroud message board. Then when you try and click on the link in the message board it gives you an error message....


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> Is there anything more symbolic than Republican politicians debating in the dark for Big Oil?
> 
> Since they have been in the dark for most of there lives....



The reason Kirk supports Obama because he is so much like him. 
See here...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/55804-t-boone-pickens-changes-his-tune.html

Its post #3


----------



## Charles_Main

Ravi said:


> Yes. Them getting into their hummers and SUVs to drive back to their homes.




Sure, because the Democrats and Liberals screaming for us all not to drive SUV's would never do that right? Oh wait they do.


----------



## Ravi

Charles_Main said:


> Sure, because the Democrats and Liberals screaming for us all not to drive SUV's would never do that right? Oh wait they do.


Not being a Democrat, I can't speak for them. Me, I drive a silly Civic hybrid.


----------



## Charles_Main

Ravi said:


> Not being a Democrat, I can't speak for them. Me, I drive a silly Civic hybrid.




No hybrid here, just a nice small fuel efficient Saturn


----------



## Chris

Charles_Main said:


> No hybrid here, just a nice small fuel efficient Saturn



I drive a Camry. 

I am going to another one for my GF next week.

There are already 4 Camrys in my family.


----------



## busara

me, i got a 96 tacoma. 26 mpg isnt the best, but not killing me. right now my $$ is better spent going to student loans than a new car


----------



## Tech_Esq

Charles_Main said:


> Sure, because the Democrats and Liberals screaming for us all not to drive SUV's would never do that right? Oh wait they do.



Dude, the hypocrisy is even worse than you think. I'm a consultant so I get to see and know all manner of folks in the DC area. You would think the at least environmental groups would recycle right? Nah, too much trouble for some of them (I ain't outing my clients so don't ask). You would think that the top staff in environmental organization would at least buy into what they are selling us right? Nah, driving SUVs or two or three, jetting back and forth across the country like it was a million mile race. I couldn't catch up with some of their carbon footprints if I made a concerted effort the rest of my life. 

At some point, people will catch on that these people are just like the poverty pimps. It isn't about what they do. It's just insuring that everyone is buying into the need for them and their group so they can keep making the money.


----------



## Tech_Esq

sealybobo said:


> 	Exxon owns 29 billion barrels of oil, and at $100 per barrel, with an inventory value of $2.9 trillion. That oil cost costs Exxon a measly $5.45 per barrel. Chevron's estimated oil inventory is worth an estimated $2.2 trillion at a cost of $5.34 per barrel and Royal Dutch Shell's inventory is valued at $2.6 trillion billion only cost them $5.77 a barrel. And those are trillions with a capital T. Those companies have a profit of over $95 a barrel and they'll fight to maintain that margin and the favorable tax treatments on their enormous profit per barrel.
> 
> What do oil companies actually pay for a barrel of oil? - Democratic Underground



Could you be more intellectually dishonest? First, your link goes to Democraticunderground FORUMS at that. Ok, well that's not a source. On the forum there was a link, but that just went to dead page of a dubious source. So basically you have no backing for the prices you list there.


----------



## AllieBaba

His numbers change from post to post.


----------



## dilloduck

busara said:


> me, i got a 96 tacoma. 26 mpg isnt the best, but not killing me. right now my $$ is better spent going to student loans than a new car



I drive a truck and wind up hauling everyone elses crap around so they OWE me carbon credits .


----------



## Zoomie1980

Tech_Esq said:


> Dude, the hypocrisy is even worse than you think. I'm a consultant so I get to see and know all manner of folks in the DC area. You would think the at least environmental groups would recycle right? Nah, too much trouble for some of them (I ain't outing my clients so don't ask). You would think that the top staff in environmental organization would at least buy into what they are selling us right? Nah, driving SUVs or two or three, jetting back and forth across the country like it was a million mile race. I couldn't catch up with some of their carbon footprints if I made a concerted effort the rest of my life.
> 
> At some point, people will catch on that these people are just like the poverty pimps. It isn't about what they do. It's just insuring that everyone is buying into the need for them and their group so they can keep making the money.



That's another common trait among all liberal, leftist elitists.  They are almost all a do as I say, not as I do type person.  It would take ten of me to equal Al Gore's carbon footprint.  John Edwards as a champion of the poor with $400 haircuts and 25,000 sq ft house with a 4000 sq ft beach house????  No surprise there, the head of Greenpeace owns a Land Rover....his wife probably has a sealskin coat...


----------



## Zoomie1980

Kirk said:


> I drive a Camry.
> 
> I am going to another one for my GF next week.
> 
> There are already 4 Camrys in my family.



I have a 4cyl Toyota Highlander and a Toyota Sienna.  But I drive 2.5 miles to work and the wife is walking distance, so a tank of gas lasts us well over a month.


----------



## Chris

Zoomie1980 said:


> I have a 4cyl Toyota Highlander and a Toyota Sienna.  But I drive 2.5 miles to work and the wife is walking distance, so a tank of gas lasts us well over a month.



The Highlander is a Camry station wagon on steroids.


----------



## sealybobo

Zoomie1980 said:


> That's another common trait among all liberal, leftist elitists.  They are almost all a do as I say, not as I do type person.  It would take ten of me to equal Al Gore's carbon footprint.  John Edwards as a champion of the poor with $400 haircuts and 25,000 sq ft house with a 4000 sq ft beach house????  No surprise there, the head of Greenpeace owns a Land Rover....his wife probably has a sealskin coat...



First off, it would take 1000 of you to make one gore.  but he should have a green home yes.

Mccain wears $500 shoes.  I assume you don't approve if you mind edwards haircut. 

Edward is dead to me.  Hypocrite!


----------



## Zoomie1980

sealybobo said:


> First off, it would take 1000 of you to make one gore.  but he should have a green home yes.
> 
> Mccain wears $500 shoes.  I assume you don't approve if you mind edwards haircut.
> 
> Edward is dead to me.  Hypocrite!



McCain has never professed to a "Champion of the Poor".  ALL the so called champions of the poor and working class in Congress are very wealthy and live opulent lifestyles and virtual all the clean alternative energy advocates in Congress have a Carbon footprint many times the average American.

There's a reason why Americans have on an 11% approval rating of Congress.  A Nuclear bomb could hit the Capital building during a joint session and no one outside their immediate families would mourn the loss of a single one of them...


----------



## Charles_Main

Kirk said:


> I drive a Camry.
> 
> I am going to another one for my GF next week.
> 
> There are already 4 Camrys in my family.




Well then I am one up on you  see my car is fuel efficient, and AMERICAN MADE 

MUHAHAHAHAHA

JK!!


----------



## HomeInspect

It has been the Dems and environmentalist whackos fighting wind machines off the coast, more drilling, pipelines etc...  If it wasn't for the last 30 years of Liberal fools, we may be totally independent by now.


----------



## RGR

Charles_Main said:


> Kirk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I drive a Camry.
> 
> I am going to another one for my GF next week.
> 
> There are already 4 Camrys in my family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then I am one up on you  see my car is fuel efficient, and AMERICAN MADE
> 
> MUHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> JK!!
Click to expand...


I have owned 3 Camrys, a 2005, 2007 and a 2009. All were American made. My Ford Fiesta, on the other hand, was made in Mexico. Go figure.


----------



## HomeInspect

A giant turd is blocking the pipeline. He has big ears and his name starts with "O"


----------



## HomeInspect

Blame ??  :
Eric Allie Political Cartoons


----------



## HomeInspect

Don't even think of drilling:
cartoons/chipbok


----------



## HomeInspect

Michael Ramirez Political Cartoons


----------



## HomeInspect

solar powered truth dospenser:
Michael Ramirez Political Cartoons


----------



## Old Rocks

jreeves said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about debating for cheaper gas prices? How about debating for lessening our dependacy on foreign oil? How about debating for reducing our trade deficit?
> 
> 
> Pelosi's response....
> Pelosi, in an interview published Tuesday in Politico.com, defended her efforts to stall spending bills, saying as speaker she decides which bills will make it to the House floor.
> 
> *"I'm trying to save the planet*. ... I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy," Pelosi said. When you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and *I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.*FOXNews.com - As Pelosi Tries to 'Save the Planet,' Republicans Criticize Offshore Drilling Ban - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would include giving her gavel to millions of Americans suffering from gas prices...
Click to expand...



And your 'Conservative solution'. A cut in taxes for the very wealthy becoming even more so off of the increased prices. 

We are exporting gasoline by the tanker load. So what is your solution? Are you suggesting stopping the exports? Aren't you the same people that were mewling and puking over the fact that we have not been building any new refineries? How is it then that with our 'lack' of refining capacity that we are not only supplying gasoline for the US but exporting enough that refined petroleum products are now our biggest export?

You bunch of suckers are puckering up and kissing the asses that shitting in your faces. The President does not set the price of oil or gasoline. That is done by the world market and the energy corps.


----------



## HomeInspect

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NEu98L7_2c]Ezra Levant: Keystone Calamity - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## HomeInspect

The president doesn't set gas prices, but denying pipelines, limiting drilling, and 30 years of stonewalling by Liberals sure have made the dependency and cost what it is today.


----------

