Stephanie Cutter: Whoring It Up

[edthecynic]

We are not talking 100 years ago fool.

There was more than one refinery....there have been six on the east coast plus the one in St. Croix. They were shut down because they can't process the cheaper heavier stuff. The east coast has always been a tough market especially with the export refineries in the middle east coming on line. A couple of those refineries are being restarted by investors who know that hydrocracking is what will keep them going....not standard gasoline production.

Bitumen based crudes are already semi refined (coked and hydroprocessed). You know nothing about refining....that is clear. The crudes tend to produce more gas oils and will carry more refractive sulfur and nitrogen. The yields depend on what form they arrive in. But regardless, the price is set by what the Canadians are willing to give them up for in order to sell the stuff.

This whole "conspiracy theory of yours and the lefts is just stupid.

Oil companies won't produce if it is not economical. And they have to weigh an element of risk. Quoting the O administration on oil is like quoting Romper Room.

Come back when you have some idea of what you are talking about.

BTW: This thread is about Stephanie Cutter, deputy campaign manager for Obama in 2012, being shown as a huge liar, spin doctor, and whore. Her felon comment was absoulutely in line with the liar in chiefs strategy that goes against everything he said he would do when elected.

If you want to debate (after you do a little reading) oil, I'll be happy to educate you more in that regard.

Stay on topic.

Do you support Cutter's claims made in the OP. Yes or No or Qualified ? Nobody else here seems willing to do so.

Your surrender is accepted.

Thanks for the laugh, Ed.

You can't address anything I said and you won't get behind Cutter's comments.

And you think I surrendered !

I pointed out that the Rockefeller family has controlled the oil monopoly for OVER 100 years and the best you could come back with is your patented dumb act that over 100 years does not include today, and then you try to run away from your stupidity. If that isn't an unconditional surrender then nothing is.

The Rockefeller family never gave up control of their oil monopoly, all they did was switch control from a holding company to a bank. Banks are immune from anti-trust laws. For example, let's say a state, union, corporation etc., deposits their pension fund in the bank, the bank invests the fund in oil stock let's say. The pension fund owns the stock, but the bank VOTES the proxies.

Now back to Rockefeller, after his "divestment" in Standard Oil some stockholders tried to oust him from the board. He only OWNED 25% on paper, but he VOTED 60% of the proxies. He obviously NEVER gave up control of his oil monopoly, but he depends on useless idiots like you, who think they know it all, to believe he did.

 

[Listening]

Strike Three: Cutter Lies Again About 'Cancer' Ad - Guy Benson

Ah yes,

And there was this winner.....

**********************************

Let's review the timeline, shall we? After the Obama campaign pioneered a nasty and non-factual attack linking Mitt Romney to the death of a cancer-stricken woman, the president's officially-endorsed SuperPAC (operated by a former White House spokesman) repeated the transcendently false story in a television ad. The spot is running in swing-states as part of a $20 million buy. Despite universal criticism from media outlets and fact-checkers, the Obama campaign refused to condemn the hit, as numerous surrogates denied knowledge of -- and ducked responsibility for -- the smear. Chief among the 'don't-blame-us' crowd was Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter, who told CNN that she didn't know any specifics about the family tragedy featured in the ad. She lied. It soon emerged that she'd hosted an official campaign conference call with the woman's husband, Joe Soptic, in May -- during which he relayed the account of his wife's passing. Audio of the call, complete with Cutter thanking Soptic for sharing his story, provided open-and-shut evidence of Cutter's falsehood. On ABC News' This Week yesterday morning, host Jake Tapper confronted Cutter on this -- shall we say -- honesty disconnect:

***********************

Maybe she should look into the way she gets her information.

It wasn't an Obama campaign ad. Lie right outta the gate.

Don't go confusing Listening with actual facts. The man's on a rant, let him rant.

Oh, now, don't be upset just because I haven't let you derail the thread.

I understand that people like you can only think in one dimension. Just look at Ed's conspiracy theory about the Rockefellers. I am still laughing.

It is clearly demonstrated that she was in the middle of it and that she did nothing to discourage it's use....this, of course, after the failed lie about GST Steel (right here in my backyard).

So, keep drooling and posting. A good fail always provides perspective.

 

[Trajan]

Speaking of Fail:

Answer this: Why is the author's benchmark Reagan's 2nd recession? and why does the author use Household Survey figures to discuss job creation numbers?

Why don't you e-mail the author and find out ?

Because I know the answer. I'm surmising you're too uneducated to know the answer.

This thread is about what a liar Cutter is.

I
But the claim she is a "liar" is based on false and fraudulent information. Of COURSE you believe it. That's how hacks roll.

Let's try again:
Why is the author's benchmark Reagan's 2nd recession? and why does the author use Household Survey figures to discuss job creation numbers?

Hint: the Household Survey doesn't track job creation.

why don't you post the numbers we should use....have at it.

 

[Listening]

I pointed out that the Rockefeller family has controlled the oil monopoly for OVER 100 years and the best you could come back with is your patented dumb act that over 100 years does not include today, and then you try to run away from your stupidity. If that isn't an unconditional surrender then nothing is.

I stand corrected.

You are not a fool.

You are completely insane.

What, in your life does somebody not control ?

The Rockefeller family never gave up control of their oil monopoly, all they did was switch control from a holding company to a bank. Banks are immune from anti-trust laws. For example, let's say a state, union, corporation etc., deposits their pension fund in the bank, the bank invests the fund in oil stock let's say. The pension fund owns the stock, but the bank VOTES the proxies.

Now back to Rockefeller, after his "divestment" in Standard Oil some stockholders tried to oust him from the board. He only OWNED 25% on paper, but he VOTED 60% of the proxies. He obviously NEVER gave up control of his oil monopoly, but he depends on useless idiots like you, who think they know it all, to believe he did.

I'll start another thread on the economics board. You can share your craziness there.

This is about the political whore Stephanie Cutter.

 

[edthecynic]

I pointed out that the Rockefeller family has controlled the oil monopoly for OVER 100 years and the best you could come back with is your patented dumb act that over 100 years does not include today, and then you try to run away from your stupidity. If that isn't an unconditional surrender then nothing is.

I stand corrected.

You are not a fool.

You are completely insane.

What, in your life does somebody not control ?

The Rockefeller family never gave up control of their oil monopoly, all they did was switch control from a holding company to a bank. Banks are immune from anti-trust laws. For example, let's say a state, union, corporation etc., deposits their pension fund in the bank, the bank invests the fund in oil stock let's say. The pension fund owns the stock, but the bank VOTES the proxies.

Now back to Rockefeller, after his "divestment" in Standard Oil some stockholders tried to oust him from the board. He only OWNED 25% on paper, but he VOTED 60% of the proxies. He obviously NEVER gave up control of his oil monopoly, but he depends on useless idiots like you, who think they know it all, to believe he did.

I'll start another thread on the economics board. You can share your craziness there.

This is about the political whore Stephanie Cutter.

Your second surrender is also accepted.

 

[8537]

I'm pretty sure that dosn't explain the 4.3 million difference.

That's why I said I don't think her numbers add up any better than the person who used household data.

Who used household data? Where?

The article attempting to debunk her comments is based on household data.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's why I said I don't think her numbers add up any better than the person who used household data.

Who used household data? Where?

The article attempting to debunk her comments is based on household data.

She didn't use household data? What data should she have used?
Did she pull her data from an orifice?

 

[Peach]

Why does the author use the end of the 2nd 1980's recession as the benchmark? It would be a more apt comparison to use the first recession that Reagan experienced, much like Obama.

and why the heck are they relying on the Household Survey to measure job creation?

As a campaign manager, she is doing her JOB. This irritates the extremist right for some unknown reason.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why does the author use the end of the 2nd 1980's recession as the benchmark? It would be a more apt comparison to use the first recession that Reagan experienced, much like Obama.

and why the heck are they relying on the Household Survey to measure job creation?

As a campaign manager, she is doing her JOB. This irritates the extremist right for some unknown reason.

As a campaign manager, she is doing her JOB.

Lying is her job?

This irritates the extremist right for some unknown reason.

Her lies don't irritate the right, they amuse us.

 

[Trajan]

Why does the author use the end of the 2nd 1980's recession as the benchmark? It would be a more apt comparison to use the first recession that Reagan experienced, much like Obama.

and why the heck are they relying on the Household Survey to measure job creation?

As a campaign manager, she is doing her JOB. This irritates the extremist right for some unknown reason.

so you're a karl rove fan?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's why I said I don't think her numbers add up any better than the person who used household data.

Who used household data? Where?

The article attempting to debunk her comments is based on household data.

She didn't use household data? What data should she have used?
Did she pull her data from an orifice?

 

[Listening]

I pointed out that the Rockefeller family has controlled the oil monopoly for OVER 100 years and the best you could come back with is your patented dumb act that over 100 years does not include today, and then you try to run away from your stupidity. If that isn't an unconditional surrender then nothing is.

I stand corrected.

You are not a fool.

You are completely insane.

What, in your life does somebody not control ?

The Rockefeller family never gave up control of their oil monopoly, all they did was switch control from a holding company to a bank. Banks are immune from anti-trust laws. For example, let's say a state, union, corporation etc., deposits their pension fund in the bank, the bank invests the fund in oil stock let's say. The pension fund owns the stock, but the bank VOTES the proxies.

Now back to Rockefeller, after his "divestment" in Standard Oil some stockholders tried to oust him from the board. He only OWNED 25% on paper, but he VOTED 60% of the proxies. He obviously NEVER gave up control of his oil monopoly, but he depends on useless idiots like you, who think they know it all, to believe he did.

I'll start another thread on the economics board. You can share your craziness there.

This is about the political whore Stephanie Cutter.

Your second surrender is also accepted.

You'll be standing there a long long time.

And come up empty handed.

You've said nothing to back up your points and you've said nothing to discredit the information I have provided. You seem to live in some fantasy world where a single big brother controls the price of your gasoline.

I hope they get your meds straightened out.

Shut down the refinery to keep prices high...

You bet.

 

[8537]

What data should she have used?

Establishment data.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What data should she have used?

Establishment data.

Does the establishment data prove her claim?

 

[8537]

What data should she have used?

Establishment data.

Does the establishment data prove her claim?

Do you read what I write, or only what you wish I was writing?

I don't think her numbers add up any better than the person who used household data.

Please try reading what I wrote before responding.

 

[edthecynic]

I stand corrected.

You are not a fool.

You are completely insane.

What, in your life does somebody not control ?



I'll start another thread on the economics board. You can share your craziness there.

This is about the political whore Stephanie Cutter.

Your second surrender is also accepted.

You'll be standing there a long long time.

And come up empty handed.

You've said nothing to back up your points and you've said nothing to discredit the information I have provided. You seem to live in some fantasy world where a single big brother controls the price of your gasoline.

I hope they get your meds straightened out.

Shut down the refinery to keep prices high...

You bet.

Spewing personal insults and offering to run to another board hardly passes as "information" but it does pass as complete and total surrender.
Thank you.

The Raw Story | Group: Internal memos show oil companies limited refineries to drive up prices

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) today exposed internal oil company memos that show how the industry intentionally reduced domestic refining capacity to drive up profits, RAW STORY has learned.

The three internal memos from Mobil, Chevron and Texaco illustrate how the oil juggernauts reduced refining capacity and drove independent refiners out of business in an effort to increase prices. The highly confidential memos reveal a nationwide effort by American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying and research arm of the oil industry, to encourage major refiners to close their refineries in the mid-1990s.

 

[Listening]

Your second surrender is also accepted.

You'll be standing there a long long time.

And come up empty handed.

You've said nothing to back up your points and you've said nothing to discredit the information I have provided. You seem to live in some fantasy world where a single big brother controls the price of your gasoline.

I hope they get your meds straightened out.

Shut down the refinery to keep prices high...

You bet.

Spewing personal insults and offering to run to another board hardly passes as "information" but it does pass as complete and total surrender.
Thank you.

The Raw Story | Group: Internal memos show oil companies limited refineries to drive up prices

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) today exposed internal oil company memos that show how the industry intentionally reduced domestic refining capacity to drive up profits, RAW STORY has learned.

The three internal memos from Mobil, Chevron and Texaco illustrate how the oil juggernauts reduced refining capacity and drove independent refiners out of business in an effort to increase prices. The highly confidential memos reveal a nationwide effort by American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying and research arm of the oil industry, to encourage major refiners to close their refineries in the mid-1990s.

It's over on the economics board.

BTW: your post is stupid.

How do you drive indpendents out of business by cutting capacity ?

Higly confidential ? Pure drama. Chevron and others were very open about the imbalance in capacity.

 

[edthecynic]

You'll be standing there a long long time.

And come up empty handed.

You've said nothing to back up your points and you've said nothing to discredit the information I have provided. You seem to live in some fantasy world where a single big brother controls the price of your gasoline.

I hope they get your meds straightened out.

Shut down the refinery to keep prices high...

You bet.

Spewing personal insults and offering to run to another board hardly passes as "information" but it does pass as complete and total surrender.
Thank you.

The Raw Story | Group: Internal memos show oil companies limited refineries to drive up prices

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) today exposed internal oil company memos that show how the industry intentionally reduced domestic refining capacity to drive up profits, RAW STORY has learned.

The three internal memos from Mobil, Chevron and Texaco illustrate how the oil juggernauts reduced refining capacity and drove independent refiners out of business in an effort to increase prices. The highly confidential memos reveal a nationwide effort by American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying and research arm of the oil industry, to encourage major refiners to close their refineries in the mid-1990s.

It's over on the economics board.

BTW: your post is stupid.

How do you drive indpendents out of business by cutting capacity ?

Higly confidential ? Pure drama. Chevron and others were very open about the imbalance in capacity.

The perpetual dumb act again, you don't drive independents out BY cutting capacity , you drive independents out TO cut capacity. You were obviously too lazy to read the link, after all, you already know it all, what could you possibly learn?

 

[Listening]

Spewing personal insults and offering to run to another board hardly passes as "information" but it does pass as complete and total surrender.
Thank you.

The Raw Story | Group: Internal memos show oil companies limited refineries to drive up prices

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) today exposed internal oil company memos that show how the industry intentionally reduced domestic refining capacity to drive up profits, RAW STORY has learned.

The three internal memos from Mobil, Chevron and Texaco illustrate how the oil juggernauts reduced refining capacity and drove independent refiners out of business in an effort to increase prices. The highly confidential memos reveal a nationwide effort by American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying and research arm of the oil industry, to encourage major refiners to close their refineries in the mid-1990s.

It's over on the economics board.

BTW: your post is stupid.

How do you drive indpendents out of business by cutting capacity ?

Higly confidential ? Pure drama. Chevron and others were very open about the imbalance in capacity.

The perpetual dumb act again, you don't drive independents out BY cutting capacity , you drive independents out TO cut capacity. You were obviously too lazy to read the link, after all, you already know it all, what could you possibly learn?

As I said, this entire post is over on the economics forum.

I'll be waiting.

 

[Listening]

Back to the liar/whore Stephanie Cutter and her partner in whoring Debbie Wasserman Shultz.

Anderson Cooper owned Shultz the other day when she openly admitted it was O.K. to lie in order to achieve an end.

I noticed all you libs just jumped her right there....NOT.