Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, of course it costs that currently, dumbass. If we were growing it in huge amounts, the price would go down.Well, I'm against ethanol. It only raises the price of groceries.
We should be using hemp oil. Hemp actually gives back to the soil, renewing it.
Fracking has caused a bunch of minor earthquakes, notably in Arkansas.
You can use Hemp oil, and I won't stop you
It costs a mere $1260/bbl......that's $30/gallon
I'll continue to experience a rare "minor earthquake" and pay < $3/gallon
Why do us Liberals always have to explain supply and demand to conservatives?
Not yet, the GOP had not done the dirty yet!What ought to be better is you rationalizing how the link is too Liberal.What? Ok....you have a link to this, yes?
This ought to be good.
Oh.....When the price of oil was over $140 per barrel, you libs were screaming from the roof tops, "regulate the speculators!!!!!!"....You people were incensed over the fact that your dear friends in Washington, those geniuses like Maxine Waters who once said during a hearing that "we will nationalize your business", speaking to oil company representatives.
Now, you claim commodity speculation adds just 40 to 80 cents per gallon of gas.....
Your opposition to Keystone is based not in logic, but solely on emotion.
How Wall Street Is Raising the Price of Gas - ABC News
Chilton obtained an energy research report from Goldman Sachs spelling out how much the Wall Street firm estimated speculators had pushed up the real price of oil sold to make gas, due to large bets in the markets.
Using the numbers from in the Goldman Sachs report, combined with current information from the CFTC, Chilton calculated how much speculation is driving up the price at the pump for the average consumer.
He shared calculations with ABC News for the first time.
By Chiltons calculation, if you drive a car like a Honda Civic, youre paying $7.30 more than you should every time you fill up to Wall Street speculators. If your car is a Ford Explorer youre paying an extra $10.41.
For a Ford F150, he says owners pay an additional $14.56 per fill up -or more than $750 a year.
In 1999, when gasoline was selling for $1.00 (60 cents before taxes) was it also speculators?
Well, of course it costs that currently, dumbass. If we were growing it in huge amounts, the price would go down.You can use Hemp oil, and I won't stop you
It costs a mere $1260/bbl......that's $30/gallon
I'll continue to experience a rare "minor earthquake" and pay < $3/gallon
Why do us Liberals always have to explain supply and demand to conservatives?
"dumbass?"
If we could drink bubble-up and eat rainbow stew, the world would be a better place.
Resorting to juvenile name calling is the resort of anyone's ridiculous suggestion who has just been torpedoed with common sence.
Hemp oil costs something to be processed: Ever tried to process it? Any idea how big the fucking refinery would be? Where would you build it? Have you begun the environmental impact studies?
"Dumbass," indeed.
He APPEARED to be promoting it, but before he promoted it, he was against it. His whole presidency has been one of deception, playing both sides. The "accident" was just too convenient, putting him in a position of being able to say "I WANT to drill offshore but it's not safe" I expect a similar scenario with the pipeline at some point, that's how he operates.I expect another "accident" like the convenient explosion in the gulf, which gave the POTUS an excuse to cancel all offshore drilling permits.Wonder what the next line of bullshit is going to be from the White House to delay the pipeline?
Actually before the blowout, Obama Admin was actively trying to promote offshore activity. Most interesting outcome of the BP Rig Leak was the mysterious disappearance of the Fed's Regulatory Agency that was supposed to be providing oversight to prevent such occurances. Obama Admin. reorganized the agency, making accountability a shell game so it is impossible to follow evidence of government corruption. Don't expect Michael Moore to produce a documentary about it anytime soon.
Well, of course it costs that currently, dumbass. If we were growing it in huge amounts, the price would go down.
Why do us Liberals always have to explain supply and demand to conservatives?
"dumbass?"
If we could drink bubble-up and eat rainbow stew, the world would be a better place.
Resorting to juvenile name calling is the resort of anyone's ridiculous suggestion who has just been torpedoed with common sence.
Hemp oil costs something to be processed: Ever tried to process it? Any idea how big the fucking refinery would be? Where would you build it? Have you begun the environmental impact studies?
"Dumbass," indeed.
How else would you describe someone who tries to use the example of an illegal, unexploited resource's current price per barrel?
Dishonest? OK, that works, too.
He APPEARED to be promoting it, but before he promoted it, he was against it. His whole presidency has been one of deception, playing both sides. The "accident" was just too convenient, putting him in a position of being able to say "I WANT to drill offshore but it's not safe" I expect a similar scenario with the pipeline at some point, that's how he operates.I expect another "accident" like the convenient explosion in the gulf, which gave the POTUS an excuse to cancel all offshore drilling permits.
Actually before the blowout, Obama Admin was actively trying to promote offshore activity. Most interesting outcome of the BP Rig Leak was the mysterious disappearance of the Fed's Regulatory Agency that was supposed to be providing oversight to prevent such occurances. Obama Admin. reorganized the agency, making accountability a shell game so it is impossible to follow evidence of government corruption. Don't expect Michael Moore to produce a documentary about it anytime soon.
I don't think you grasped what I was saying. Yes, he was promoting it (verbally) but did he DO it? No. You're assuming by "saying" he was going to do it means that he "intended" to do it. I don't think he intended to allow any offshore oil drilling in the first place. You do.He APPEARED to be promoting it, but before he promoted it, he was against it. His whole presidency has been one of deception, playing both sides. The "accident" was just too convenient, putting him in a position of being able to say "I WANT to drill offshore but it's not safe" I expect a similar scenario with the pipeline at some point, that's how he operates.Actually before the blowout, Obama Admin was actively trying to promote offshore activity. Most interesting outcome of the BP Rig Leak was the mysterious disappearance of the Fed's Regulatory Agency that was supposed to be providing oversight to prevent such occurances. Obama Admin. reorganized the agency, making accountability a shell game so it is impossible to follow evidence of government corruption. Don't expect Michael Moore to produce a documentary about it anytime soon.
If I trouble myself to find a link to support THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS TRYING TO OPEN OFFSHORE LEASES BEFORE THE BP SPILL will you admit you are wrong?
Frankly, I doubt it: My guess is you'll find the source "bias" regardless of whoever it is. Meanwhile, you'll give no shread of evidence to support whatever conspiracy theory supports "appearances."
I don't think you grasped what I was saying. Yes, he was promoting it (verbally) but did he DO it? No. You're assuming by "saying" he was going to do it means that he "intended" to do it. I don't think he intended to allow any offshore oil drilling in the first place. You do.He APPEARED to be promoting it, but before he promoted it, he was against it. His whole presidency has been one of deception, playing both sides. The "accident" was just too convenient, putting him in a position of being able to say "I WANT to drill offshore but it's not safe" I expect a similar scenario with the pipeline at some point, that's how he operates.
If I trouble myself to find a link to support THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS TRYING TO OPEN OFFSHORE LEASES BEFORE THE BP SPILL will you admit you are wrong?
Frankly, I doubt it: My guess is you'll find the source "bias" regardless of whoever it is. Meanwhile, you'll give no shread of evidence to support whatever conspiracy theory supports "appearances."
January 27, 2010 -
President Obama mentions offshore drilling in his State of the Union address leading many to believe he is open to expanding drilling in the OCS.
February 1, 2010 - President Obama releases his FY 2011 budget proposal that shows revenue from new Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing declining from $1.5 billion in 2009 to only $413 million in 2015. The only way revenue would decline is if less of the OCS is offered for leasing for energy production.
"dumbass?"
If we could drink bubble-up and eat rainbow stew, the world would be a better place.
Resorting to juvenile name calling is the resort of anyone's ridiculous suggestion who has just been torpedoed with common sence.
Hemp oil costs something to be processed: Ever tried to process it? Any idea how big the fucking refinery would be? Where would you build it? Have you begun the environmental impact studies?
"Dumbass," indeed.
How else would you describe someone who tries to use the example of an illegal, unexploited resource's current price per barrel?
Dishonest? OK, that works, too.
Dishonest is suggesting something about which the costs are so enormous they can only be described by your vivid imagination.
When you get a clue, join the adults in conversation.
Until then, continue coloring in your SiFi Mag.
Is Petrobas also endangering American water supplies and ecosystem with a pipeline?I always found it remarkable that no leftie, left winger progressive had a problem with Obama underwriting Petrobas.
Fucking hypocrites.
You lefties kill me.
It's a discussion forum, not a court of law. Nothing anyone says here is going to change anything or anyone's mind. It's about opinions. If you don't like mine, I don't give a shit.I don't think you grasped what I was saying. Yes, he was promoting it (verbally) but did he DO it? No. You're assuming by "saying" he was going to do it means that he "intended" to do it. I don't think he intended to allow any offshore oil drilling in the first place. You do.If I trouble myself to find a link to support THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS TRYING TO OPEN OFFSHORE LEASES BEFORE THE BP SPILL will you admit you are wrong?
Frankly, I doubt it: My guess is you'll find the source "bias" regardless of whoever it is. Meanwhile, you'll give no shread of evidence to support whatever conspiracy theory supports "appearances."
No, I do not, and you have missed MY point: Throwing allegations without any substantive, or even any circumstantial evidence only detracts from the credability of opinions that are actually based on reality.
Keep up the great work for Obama's minions.
Here is the correct way to support an allegation:
January 27, 2010 -
President Obama mentions offshore drilling in his State of the Union address leading many to believe he is open to expanding drilling in the OCS.
February 1, 2010 - President Obama releases his FY 2011 budget proposal that shows revenue from new Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing declining from $1.5 billion in 2009 to only $413 million in 2015. The only way revenue would decline is if less of the OCS is offered for leasing for energy production.
Is Petrobas also endangering American water supplies and ecosystem with a pipeline?I always found it remarkable that no leftie, left winger progressive had a problem with Obama underwriting Petrobas.
Fucking hypocrites.
You lefties kill me.
I really can. But I bet you can't. So get off the net for starters. See ya!
It's a discussion forum, not a court of law. Nothing anyone says here is going to change anything or anyone's mind. It's about opinions. If you don't like mine, I don't give a shit.I don't think you grasped what I was saying. Yes, he was promoting it (verbally) but did he DO it? No. You're assuming by "saying" he was going to do it means that he "intended" to do it. I don't think he intended to allow any offshore oil drilling in the first place. You do.
No, I do not, and you have missed MY point: Throwing allegations without any substantive, or even any circumstantial evidence only detracts from the credability of opinions that are actually based on reality.
Keep up the great work for Obama's minions.
Here is the correct way to support an allegation:
January 27, 2010 -
President Obama mentions offshore drilling in his State of the Union address – leading many to believe he is open to expanding drilling in the OCS.
February 1, 2010 - President Obama releases his FY 2011 budget proposal that shows revenue from new Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing declining from $1.5 billion in 2009 to only $413 million in 2015. The only way revenue would decline is if less of the OCS is offered for leasing for energy production.
I always found it remarkable that no leftie, left winger progressive had a problem with Obama underwriting Petrobas.
Fucking hypocrites.
You lefties kill me.
How else would you describe someone who tries to use the example of an illegal, unexploited resource's current price per barrel?
Dishonest? OK, that works, too.
Dishonest is suggesting something about which the costs are so enormous they can only be described by your vivid imagination.
When you get a clue, join the adults in conversation.
Until then, continue coloring in your SiFi Mag.
If it was illegal to pump oil, like it's illegal to grow hemp, how much would a barrel of oil cost?
Maybe 'dishonest dumbass' is most accurate.
Where were the enviro weenies and enviro whackos when all of these were built?
Dishonest is suggesting something about which the costs are so enormous they can only be described by your vivid imagination.
When you get a clue, join the adults in conversation.
Until then, continue coloring in your SiFi Mag.
If it was illegal to pump oil, like it's illegal to grow hemp, how much would a barrel of oil cost?
Maybe 'dishonest dumbass' is most accurate.
Speaking of dishonest dumbasses; Hemp oil is for sale,
Organic Hemp Oil Liquid from NUTIVA on sale. Find information about NUTIVA
Add to Cart.
Try again, genius. Hemp Oil is not produced because it would be more expensive that fossil fuel. The fact that this simple concept is beyond the reach of the coloring book croud is no surprise.
If it was illegal to pump oil, like it's illegal to grow hemp, how much would a barrel of oil cost?
Maybe 'dishonest dumbass' is most accurate.
Speaking of dishonest dumbasses; Hemp oil is for sale,
Organic Hemp Oil Liquid from NUTIVA on sale. Find information about NUTIVA
Add to Cart.
Try again, genius. Hemp Oil is not produced because it would be more expensive that fossil fuel. The fact that this simple concept is beyond the reach of the coloring book croud is no surprise.
Tell me where we are growing industrial hemp in numbers that rival corn, wheat, or soybeans.
If we were, it would be harvested and converted for many purposes, including oil, which could become cheap to process with mass production.
You don't seem to understand supply and demand.
