RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
Columnists » Clayson
Article rated a 4
by 12
users |
Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:37 AM CDT
Why does gas cost so much?
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
Why does gas cost so much?
By DENNIS CLAYSON
Why does gasoline cost so much? The price has reached a point where the consequences are being felt by almost everyone.
It is not just the shock of putting $50 to $90 out for a single tank of gas; the price of energy is beginning to cycle through the economy.
It takes fuel to raise crops. It takes fuel to deliver food. It takes fuel to heat and air condition our homes. The real bad news is that these prices have not yet fully been borne by the American public. The burden on our economy has not yet been fully felt.
Everyone seems to have their favorite theory as to why the price of gasoline is so high. The left in America have gone back to their knee-jerk conspiracy nonsense. You see, "big" business is out to steal all it can from the poor and the "hard working" people like you and me.
The Bush-blew-up-the-levee-and-is-destroying-the-country crowd blames Bush. He and his "big business buddies" are out to destroy the nation for their own benefit. I'll be the first to admit that we essentially have no functioning federal government, but blaming politicians is problematic.
Compare the price of gold, the dollar, and gasoline from the time Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took power, with the six years of the Bush presidency before that. If you are a Bush hater and think the Democrats are going to save us, you may not want to do this little exercise.
So why does gas cost so much?
There are numerous reasons. First, the world has changed. People across the globe are getting richer, which we always thought would be a good thing, and they can demand more oil.
Second, oil is getting more expensive to develop. Third, we have no national will to develop our own energy sources. Those who have turned environmentalism into a religion, those who believe that the world is dying because of excessive human consumption, utopians, those who fear alternative energy, busybodies, and those who believe in Santa Claus economics all have one thing in common: They all would prefer that we live differently, which makes them actively hostile to cheap gas, or ambivalent enough to do nothing.
This will change when the full impact of energy inflation hits Americans hard.
There is a fourth reason, probably the most important in the short run.
The American dollar's value has fallen through the floor. If we adjusted the value of the dollar, relative to the Euro, to its value in January 2002, the national cost of gasoline this week would be $2.25. Today, the average is $4.08.
If you used gold to buy gasoline, the current price of gasoline compared to 2002 would be about $1.30
The historical price of gas adjusted for inflation has been consistent for decades at about $2 a gallon in 2002 dollars. Our current price is the impact of allowing the dollar to become close to worthless.
Why has the dollar's value dropped? Traders around the world have become worried about the health of our economy. Part is due to the subprime rate "crisis," and other problems, but most is due to governmental policy.
The feds have dropped interest rates relative to other countries, which has made it more costly to hold American dollars. The federal debt is now close to $9 billion, and that number is more propaganda than reality. Our national debt is roughly equal to the entire GDP of Germany. Oh, plus Great Britain, France, and Canada all combined.
Our national debt is larger than the entire GDP of China. In other words, if you took everything that is "Made in China," all their development costs, everything they spend on their military, and added it all up, the value would not pay off our national debt.
Our dollar is based on nothing but the federal government's ability to pay its debts. Dropping the value of the dollar increases exports, and creates inflation, both of which are very good if you are very much in debt. It is very bad if you want to buy gasoline or retire someday.
So the price of gasoline is largely the tax we all have to pay for bad attitudes and bad management.
It is not just the shock of putting $50 to $90 out for a single tank of gas; the price of energy is beginning to cycle through the economy.
It takes fuel to raise crops. It takes fuel to deliver food. It takes fuel to heat and air condition our homes. The real bad news is that these prices have not yet fully been borne by the American public. The burden on our economy has not yet been fully felt.
Everyone seems to have their favorite theory as to why the price of gasoline is so high. The left in America have gone back to their knee-jerk conspiracy nonsense. You see, "big" business is out to steal all it can from the poor and the "hard working" people like you and me.
The Bush-blew-up-the-levee-and-is-destroying-the-country crowd blames Bush. He and his "big business buddies" are out to destroy the nation for their own benefit. I'll be the first to admit that we essentially have no functioning federal government, but blaming politicians is problematic.
Compare the price of gold, the dollar, and gasoline from the time Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took power, with the six years of the Bush presidency before that. If you are a Bush hater and think the Democrats are going to save us, you may not want to do this little exercise.
So why does gas cost so much?
There are numerous reasons. First, the world has changed. People across the globe are getting richer, which we always thought would be a good thing, and they can demand more oil.
Second, oil is getting more expensive to develop. Third, we have no national will to develop our own energy sources. Those who have turned environmentalism into a religion, those who believe that the world is dying because of excessive human consumption, utopians, those who fear alternative energy, busybodies, and those who believe in Santa Claus economics all have one thing in common: They all would prefer that we live differently, which makes them actively hostile to cheap gas, or ambivalent enough to do nothing.
This will change when the full impact of energy inflation hits Americans hard.
There is a fourth reason, probably the most important in the short run.
The American dollar's value has fallen through the floor. If we adjusted the value of the dollar, relative to the Euro, to its value in January 2002, the national cost of gasoline this week would be $2.25. Today, the average is $4.08.
If you used gold to buy gasoline, the current price of gasoline compared to 2002 would be about $1.30
The historical price of gas adjusted for inflation has been consistent for decades at about $2 a gallon in 2002 dollars. Our current price is the impact of allowing the dollar to become close to worthless.
Why has the dollar's value dropped? Traders around the world have become worried about the health of our economy. Part is due to the subprime rate "crisis," and other problems, but most is due to governmental policy.
The feds have dropped interest rates relative to other countries, which has made it more costly to hold American dollars. The federal debt is now close to $9 billion, and that number is more propaganda than reality. Our national debt is roughly equal to the entire GDP of Germany. Oh, plus Great Britain, France, and Canada all combined.
Our national debt is larger than the entire GDP of China. In other words, if you took everything that is "Made in China," all their development costs, everything they spend on their military, and added it all up, the value would not pay off our national debt.
Our dollar is based on nothing but the federal government's ability to pay its debts. Dropping the value of the dollar increases exports, and creates inflation, both of which are very good if you are very much in debt. It is very bad if you want to buy gasoline or retire someday.
So the price of gasoline is largely the tax we all have to pay for bad attitudes and bad management.
More Stories from Columnists » Clayson
cross1242 wrote on Jun 29, 2008 11:35 AM:
" This week, Prof. Clayson asks a good question: “What’s the cause of the steep rise in oil prices?” Unfortunately, he fails to provide and equally good answer.
He considers a variety of answers that mostly consist of his usual suspects.
He considers the answers of the “left” – or, at least, what he imagines that lefties would say had he really asked any before divining what their collective response would be. He imagines that the “left” blame either big business or the Bush Administration before dismissing those reasons. I’ll settle with his dismissals but not for the same reason. My reason is that the “left” isn’t assigning the reasons he claims they do in his imagination.
He then considers whether the Democrats are responsible since they “took power” two years ago and the exchange rate of the dollar has fallen steadily since then. He does allow that maybe Bush is responsible since he was in power for the six years before that. (The sharp-eyed will notice that Bush is still president. They may also notice that Prof. Clayson dismissed Bush as a reason in the prior paragraph.) That asserted cause he leaves unexamined for truth or falsity except to say that the Democrats won’t be able to fix it.
Prof. Clayson then goes into what he sees as the real reason for high oil and gas prices. Among his reasons are those fussbudget environmentalists who insist that if we’re going to develop new sources of oil that we shouldn’t despoil the earth to get it. Frankly, I just don’t understand how those on the hard right always want their oil no matter what it might do to the environment.
He also associates the price of oil now to, “The American dollar's value has fallen through the floor.” Whether or not this is really a cause depends on where in Prof. Clayson’s article that you look. Several paragraphs above he mentions, “the price of gold [and] the dollar” before apparently dismissing it as a cause that either the Republicans or Democrats can do anything about. So, Prof. Clayson believes that international currency transactions both IS and IS NOT a cause. It must be wonderful to be a columnist.
I’d say that the price of oil and gas is more likely due to a cause that Prof. Clayson doesn’t even mention.
And, “what might that be,” you ask.
Why it’s nothing other that the vaunted “free market system.” You remember that. It’s the economic system that miraculously provides for all our needs at fair prices. Prof. Clayson has frequently written about the wonders of the free market. He usually deplores how government puts limits on the free market. If government would just get out of the way on regulating the free market, everything would be hunky-dory.
But, now we have an international free market in oil and Prof. Clayson doesn’t even mention it.
I suspect that one reason he doesn’t mention it is that the current price of oil puts the lie to the argument that the free market is an unfettered good. From now on, any time Prof. Clayson goes into ecstasy about the unalloyed good of the unfettered free market, I’m going to remind him of oil prices and suggest that maybe there is a problem with free markets. "
He considers a variety of answers that mostly consist of his usual suspects.
He considers the answers of the “left” – or, at least, what he imagines that lefties would say had he really asked any before divining what their collective response would be. He imagines that the “left” blame either big business or the Bush Administration before dismissing those reasons. I’ll settle with his dismissals but not for the same reason. My reason is that the “left” isn’t assigning the reasons he claims they do in his imagination.
He then considers whether the Democrats are responsible since they “took power” two years ago and the exchange rate of the dollar has fallen steadily since then. He does allow that maybe Bush is responsible since he was in power for the six years before that. (The sharp-eyed will notice that Bush is still president. They may also notice that Prof. Clayson dismissed Bush as a reason in the prior paragraph.) That asserted cause he leaves unexamined for truth or falsity except to say that the Democrats won’t be able to fix it.
Prof. Clayson then goes into what he sees as the real reason for high oil and gas prices. Among his reasons are those fussbudget environmentalists who insist that if we’re going to develop new sources of oil that we shouldn’t despoil the earth to get it. Frankly, I just don’t understand how those on the hard right always want their oil no matter what it might do to the environment.
He also associates the price of oil now to, “The American dollar's value has fallen through the floor.” Whether or not this is really a cause depends on where in Prof. Clayson’s article that you look. Several paragraphs above he mentions, “the price of gold [and] the dollar” before apparently dismissing it as a cause that either the Republicans or Democrats can do anything about. So, Prof. Clayson believes that international currency transactions both IS and IS NOT a cause. It must be wonderful to be a columnist.
I’d say that the price of oil and gas is more likely due to a cause that Prof. Clayson doesn’t even mention.
And, “what might that be,” you ask.
Why it’s nothing other that the vaunted “free market system.” You remember that. It’s the economic system that miraculously provides for all our needs at fair prices. Prof. Clayson has frequently written about the wonders of the free market. He usually deplores how government puts limits on the free market. If government would just get out of the way on regulating the free market, everything would be hunky-dory.
But, now we have an international free market in oil and Prof. Clayson doesn’t even mention it.
I suspect that one reason he doesn’t mention it is that the current price of oil puts the lie to the argument that the free market is an unfettered good. From now on, any time Prof. Clayson goes into ecstasy about the unalloyed good of the unfettered free market, I’m going to remind him of oil prices and suggest that maybe there is a problem with free markets. "
eswloo wrote on Jun 29, 2008 12:58 PM:
" "Why it’s nothing other that the vaunted 'free market system.'"
The free market is a construct for setting price, not a cause of high prices. Comments like that make you look as blinded by your ideology as you accuse Clayton of being. If the free market is the cause, as you assign it to be, what is the solution? "
The free market is a construct for setting price, not a cause of high prices. Comments like that make you look as blinded by your ideology as you accuse Clayton of being. If the free market is the cause, as you assign it to be, what is the solution? "
hetfield wrote on Jun 29, 2008 8:30 PM:
" Cross, the problem with the free market system in this case is this; the liberals and green machine lovers have created constraints to the market. When government raises its audacious hand and says 'No, you can not drill here' it automatically effects the market.
In our case it is simple. We can NOT lower prices by only limiting our demand, as the good barack hussein obama rails us to do. This is an impractical suggestion and it only shows his lack of experience and knowledge. World demand will do nothing but increase, including US demand.
Since this is fact, the only thing we can do is prepare. We should have been doing this for 20 years now. The right has allowed the lefty, liberal green machine to bully their way into this fiasco and it is time to change(wow, even BHO would love that idea.)
We must ease our reliance on the middle east by supplying our own oil. We should open up ANWR and offshore drilling. The effects are obvious. We rely less on the middle east. We create thousands of US jobs. We build refineries to further create more jobs.
We also must increase our nuclear energy power plants.
We must stop our teary eyed arguments about the red eyed frog and the polar bear and prepare for our future now.
Obama can not be elected because he lacks this basic knowledge and will continue to rant the anti-red white and blue philosophy for the green mean machine utopia.
Time to drill, boys, time to drill. "
In our case it is simple. We can NOT lower prices by only limiting our demand, as the good barack hussein obama rails us to do. This is an impractical suggestion and it only shows his lack of experience and knowledge. World demand will do nothing but increase, including US demand.
Since this is fact, the only thing we can do is prepare. We should have been doing this for 20 years now. The right has allowed the lefty, liberal green machine to bully their way into this fiasco and it is time to change(wow, even BHO would love that idea.)
We must ease our reliance on the middle east by supplying our own oil. We should open up ANWR and offshore drilling. The effects are obvious. We rely less on the middle east. We create thousands of US jobs. We build refineries to further create more jobs.
We also must increase our nuclear energy power plants.
We must stop our teary eyed arguments about the red eyed frog and the polar bear and prepare for our future now.
Obama can not be elected because he lacks this basic knowledge and will continue to rant the anti-red white and blue philosophy for the green mean machine utopia.
Time to drill, boys, time to drill. "
chester11 wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:04 PM:
" "Compare the price of gold, the dollar, and gasoline from the time Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took power, with the six years of the Bush presidency before that. If you are a Bush hater and think the Democrats are going to save us, you may not want to do this little exercise."
This kind of stuff here is so mindblowingly disingenuous it's embarrassing. This mantra will be played out for the next few years. Apparently Clayson doesn't understand cause and effect, or continuity, or he's just out and out lying. I'm going with the latter.
And I'm not defending Reid and Pelosi, who are both an utter joke, but we are in this decline because of some of the decisions made by the current administration over the past 7 years, war, unregulated energy conglomerates, the mortgage crisis, and even the residual effects still of 9/11.
As if the one-two punch of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have had any effect on pretty much anything. "
This kind of stuff here is so mindblowingly disingenuous it's embarrassing. This mantra will be played out for the next few years. Apparently Clayson doesn't understand cause and effect, or continuity, or he's just out and out lying. I'm going with the latter.
And I'm not defending Reid and Pelosi, who are both an utter joke, but we are in this decline because of some of the decisions made by the current administration over the past 7 years, war, unregulated energy conglomerates, the mortgage crisis, and even the residual effects still of 9/11.
As if the one-two punch of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have had any effect on pretty much anything. "
Independent wrote on Jun 29, 2008 11:26 PM:
" I can't articulate on the same level as cross1242, but I can, see the baloney Clayson offers readers just as well.
Clayson has become so predictable that I think I can guess his topic (including his arguements) before his next essay hits the press.
In the near future look for an article that will polish McCain and prove to the ignorant reader how dumb it would be NOT to vote for McCain.
Or, look for the anti-Barrack Hussien Obama essay. It will prolly show up at least a half dozen times before NOV.
Here is what you will not find in future aritcles from Prof. Clayson.
1. Logic
2. Accountability
3. Reason
4. Honesty
5. Truth "
Clayson has become so predictable that I think I can guess his topic (including his arguements) before his next essay hits the press.
In the near future look for an article that will polish McCain and prove to the ignorant reader how dumb it would be NOT to vote for McCain.
Or, look for the anti-Barrack Hussien Obama essay. It will prolly show up at least a half dozen times before NOV.
Here is what you will not find in future aritcles from Prof. Clayson.
1. Logic
2. Accountability
3. Reason
4. Honesty
5. Truth "
jeroze wrote on Jun 29, 2008 11:41 PM:
" Help me!! Help me !! I want real names, please, of the people in the crowd that Professor Clayson describes as "The Bush-blew-up-the-levee-and-is-destroying-the-country crowd"
It sounds like a "ditto head" quote from one of Rush Limbaugh's tirades against his imaginary "straw" enemies that no one has ever seen or met.
And help me again please!! Professor Clayson writes "If you used gold to buy gasoline, the current price of gasoline compared to 2002 would be about $1.30" Is he saying that gold was $300 an ounce in 2002 and $930 in 2008 so that if you purchased gold in 2002 you could cash it in now and you would still get the same amount of gas for the ounce of gold in 2008 as you did in 2002? Who dares to risk putting all investments into gold? Investment counselors have written articles that tell us that 10% of a portfolio invested in gold is plenty risky. So far this statement strikes me as a silly obfuscation that makes me want say "Duh". Can anyone help me make some marketing sense out of it?
After reading the Professor Clayson columns I often say, "Is this 'Marketingese language' which requires an interpreter?" or is it just the thoughts of a conservative who likes to confuse people by using erudite sounding words and phrases that give little help to those who really want the plain straightforward truth of the matter? If the second suggestion be true doesn't that qualify Professor Clayson for the "Wise guy Award" for the Smart Aleck club?
Conservatives do not like change. How painful it must be for Professor Clayson that the first reason he must give for the high price of gasoline is that the world has changed!!! And all this change comes because Pelosi and her liberal colleagues now rule the legislature. Professor Clayson should give her and her progressive colleagues a break. Afterall President George W continues to rewrite their laws with his signing statements and nullifies the good work that they do with his vetoes that the senate and house do not have a large enough majority to overide. Remember that King George is still on the thrown destroying the Constitution that calls for balancing of powers. "
It sounds like a "ditto head" quote from one of Rush Limbaugh's tirades against his imaginary "straw" enemies that no one has ever seen or met.
And help me again please!! Professor Clayson writes "If you used gold to buy gasoline, the current price of gasoline compared to 2002 would be about $1.30" Is he saying that gold was $300 an ounce in 2002 and $930 in 2008 so that if you purchased gold in 2002 you could cash it in now and you would still get the same amount of gas for the ounce of gold in 2008 as you did in 2002? Who dares to risk putting all investments into gold? Investment counselors have written articles that tell us that 10% of a portfolio invested in gold is plenty risky. So far this statement strikes me as a silly obfuscation that makes me want say "Duh". Can anyone help me make some marketing sense out of it?
After reading the Professor Clayson columns I often say, "Is this 'Marketingese language' which requires an interpreter?" or is it just the thoughts of a conservative who likes to confuse people by using erudite sounding words and phrases that give little help to those who really want the plain straightforward truth of the matter? If the second suggestion be true doesn't that qualify Professor Clayson for the "Wise guy Award" for the Smart Aleck club?
Conservatives do not like change. How painful it must be for Professor Clayson that the first reason he must give for the high price of gasoline is that the world has changed!!! And all this change comes because Pelosi and her liberal colleagues now rule the legislature. Professor Clayson should give her and her progressive colleagues a break. Afterall President George W continues to rewrite their laws with his signing statements and nullifies the good work that they do with his vetoes that the senate and house do not have a large enough majority to overide. Remember that King George is still on the thrown destroying the Constitution that calls for balancing of powers. "
Phil wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:28 AM:
" First, let's dispense with the ridiculous - studies have shown that ANWR drilling would lower the price of gasoline by - are you ready for this - a penny. Associated arguments made by anyone who advocates that are just as crazy and do not merit further review.
Second, let's lay the blame for our current energy problems where it really belongs - at the feet of Ronald Reagan. President Carter started this nation on the path it needed to be on to break our dependence on oil - but Reagan quickly reversed those plans once he took office.
Third, Mr. Clayson does have a legitimate point regarding the value of the American dollar and its affect on the price of oil. This is part of the issue, but again who controlled the purse strings and turned our surplus into incredible deficits? Bush and his Republican Congress. He also has some valid points regarding the increased demand worldwide by China and other developing countries - but the demand issue is more than outweighed by these other causes.
Fourth the war and the instability in the Middle East caused by Bush adds about 10-15% onto the price of oil.
Finally the "free market" issue. A few years ago the "Enron loophole" was created by the Bushies so that Ken Lay could take over the California energy market. This loophole has now been applied to energy items such as oil and allows for widespread speculation in these markets which add somewhere between 20-35% to the price of oil. This is the price of "free markets" - those with the money and ability to create market swings in price will do so - they always have and always will - and the rest of us pay for their greed. Free markets are never "free" - someone pays for the "freedom" of the greedy to get rich on the backs of the rest of us. Regulated markets are always more equitable and better for the economic interests of the average citizen. "
Second, let's lay the blame for our current energy problems where it really belongs - at the feet of Ronald Reagan. President Carter started this nation on the path it needed to be on to break our dependence on oil - but Reagan quickly reversed those plans once he took office.
Third, Mr. Clayson does have a legitimate point regarding the value of the American dollar and its affect on the price of oil. This is part of the issue, but again who controlled the purse strings and turned our surplus into incredible deficits? Bush and his Republican Congress. He also has some valid points regarding the increased demand worldwide by China and other developing countries - but the demand issue is more than outweighed by these other causes.
Fourth the war and the instability in the Middle East caused by Bush adds about 10-15% onto the price of oil.
Finally the "free market" issue. A few years ago the "Enron loophole" was created by the Bushies so that Ken Lay could take over the California energy market. This loophole has now been applied to energy items such as oil and allows for widespread speculation in these markets which add somewhere between 20-35% to the price of oil. This is the price of "free markets" - those with the money and ability to create market swings in price will do so - they always have and always will - and the rest of us pay for their greed. Free markets are never "free" - someone pays for the "freedom" of the greedy to get rich on the backs of the rest of us. Regulated markets are always more equitable and better for the economic interests of the average citizen. "
(return of) joe wrote on Jun 30, 2008 10:38 AM:
" Everyone on here must see the film "Who Killed The Electric Car?" It is very angering, as you will learn about how we had a fully functioning electric car in the 90's that got literally (and I mean literally)squashed by special interests. It can be viewed for free on youtube.com, and can be learned about at www.ev1.org. "
gordy1 wrote on Jun 30, 2008 10:53 AM:
" It is unfortunate the many Americans are being hurt financially by the higher costs of all energy. According to recent reports, those who use heating oil in the NE region of the country are going to experience dramatic increases in the cost of heating oil this winter. In addition, the cost of generating electricity is going to increase dramatically, too. Finally, the cost of gas has skyrocketed due to tremendous global demand. However, it is a fact that oil and natural gas are going to be critical to our energy needs for the next few decades, even though other forms of energy could come on line. And with all due respect to the hurting consumers, we must conserve more for it is not our birthright to have cheap energy as we have been spoiled in thinking we do. The government should encourage more production in natural gas. According to reports, there is so much more of this than oil and many power plants generate electricity with this now. And it is clean and plentiful. Buses and city vehicles can run on it, too. We need to invent a super battery that has long lasting generating potential, yet can be recharged quickly. And unfortunately, we will need to continue to purchase oil from the Middle East. There is no way out of this. Iragi oil reserves, according to reports, are ten times greater than Saudi Arabia's. If they can increase their production to the potential of the Saudis, it would help ease demand for a glut would occur. Both political parties have not done much to solve this problem. No partisan attack here, It is a fact that this issue is now truly heating Americans in the face and in the pocketbooks. We must conserve and drive less. According to a recent transportation report, we are driving less and conserving. More people are buying hybrids and perhaps we will convert over to cars that offer better mileage. The government should offer tax incentives and help people of less socioeconomic status to purchase energy savings cars or materials that help houses become more green. But the bottom line is, we, as a nation, must conserve more energy. We use way too much and have been spoiled by low energy costs. Gone are the days of cheap gasoline and heating oil and natural gas. But our thirst for these commodities are a given, so we must try to convert over to other forms over the next 25 to 50 years so that we help the planet, we plan for the future, and we become more energy interdependent. But I can guarantee everybody one thing. If we don't purchase OPEC oil, other countries will. So, we might as well accept the fact that for now, we are dependent on oil purchasing. And this is not going away easily. "
hetfield wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:15 AM:
" I'm glad to see the lefy lallapaloosa out in force. Incredibly people have no sense of economics. Are you telling me that with the monopoly in the middle east, the ever growing, never stopping demand on oil, and the supply having to be shipped half way across the world, that the US drilling their own oil will cost more and have no effect on price?
Are you trying to say that the big bad business wolf in the US will take more of a profit then the oil big boys in Saudi arabia?
Are you trying to spew the same lefty, barack hussein obama, socialist, green-crazy, rhetoric that has caused this crisis to begin with?
Give me a break. It's time to drill, invest in our own future, and grow our economy now before it is too late. this wont happen overnight.
Think of it this way; this will definately increase the tax base in the US, something the left do-nothings, spend everything, Kennedy/Clinton/BHO conglomerate should be chomping at the bit over. this will allow them to spend more on handouts and guarantee jobs for hundreds of do-nothings in Washington.
Time to drill boys, time to drill. "
Are you trying to say that the big bad business wolf in the US will take more of a profit then the oil big boys in Saudi arabia?
Are you trying to spew the same lefty, barack hussein obama, socialist, green-crazy, rhetoric that has caused this crisis to begin with?
Give me a break. It's time to drill, invest in our own future, and grow our economy now before it is too late. this wont happen overnight.
Think of it this way; this will definately increase the tax base in the US, something the left do-nothings, spend everything, Kennedy/Clinton/BHO conglomerate should be chomping at the bit over. this will allow them to spend more on handouts and guarantee jobs for hundreds of do-nothings in Washington.
Time to drill boys, time to drill. "
xdfred wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:54 PM:
" " First, let's dispense with the ridiculous - studies have shown that ANWR drilling would lower the price of gasoline by - are you ready for this - a penny. Associated arguments made by anyone who advocates that are just as crazy and do not merit further review.
Studies have shown? By whom? If ANWR and the coasts were opened up, OPEC would drop the price to keep our oil companies from drilling there. And even if what you wrote is correct, it still reduces our dependecy on imported oil.
Drill everywhere to improve domestic supply. Position tree huggers in out of the way places to watch for spills and such instead of having them stop everything. Then impose a 10$ tariff per barrel on imported oil and chop capital gains and income taxes. "
Studies have shown? By whom? If ANWR and the coasts were opened up, OPEC would drop the price to keep our oil companies from drilling there. And even if what you wrote is correct, it still reduces our dependecy on imported oil.
Drill everywhere to improve domestic supply. Position tree huggers in out of the way places to watch for spills and such instead of having them stop everything. Then impose a 10$ tariff per barrel on imported oil and chop capital gains and income taxes. "
xdfred wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:55 PM:
" Wow. A fully functioning electric car? And where would the electricity for these electric cars come from? In a country that won't build new power plants? Especially nukes? "
xdfred wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:56 PM:
" Phil, are you sure the Bushies created the Enron loophole? I wouldn't bet on it. Look at the timeline. And who busted Enron? The market did. "
jcollins wrote on Jun 30, 2008 1:27 PM:
" Phil, correct me if I'm wrong but you're talking about commodities trading right? How is the commodities market NOT regulated? The CFTC & NFA are the regulatory bodies. The thing about speculation in the futures market is that it's a zero-sum game. At the end of the day there is a buyer to every seller and vice-versa. The futures markets NEEDS speculators in the market to provide liquidity. "
Phil wrote on Jun 30, 2008 2:04 PM:
" Recent testimony before Congress by regulators - not consumer groups - estimated that speculation is adding 25-40% to the cost of oil.
I don't have the exact date the loophole was created - but it was first exploited by Ken Lay and Enron who convinced regulators that electronic trading markets didn't need regulation. Millions of Californians were forced to pay for Enron's greed and then thousands of Enron employees and stockholders were lied to and lost their life savings while Enron lied to the FTC.
Watch the movie (return of)joe lists - then talk about drilling for more oil. That's just what the Exxon's of the world want - more "tools" doing their groundwork for them.
The majority of the US citizens must be "lefties", cause this is what they prefer. The 28%'ers prefer more blood for oil. "
I don't have the exact date the loophole was created - but it was first exploited by Ken Lay and Enron who convinced regulators that electronic trading markets didn't need regulation. Millions of Californians were forced to pay for Enron's greed and then thousands of Enron employees and stockholders were lied to and lost their life savings while Enron lied to the FTC.
Watch the movie (return of)joe lists - then talk about drilling for more oil. That's just what the Exxon's of the world want - more "tools" doing their groundwork for them.
The majority of the US citizens must be "lefties", cause this is what they prefer. The 28%'ers prefer more blood for oil. "
cire wrote on Jun 30, 2008 2:12 PM:
" Joe, electric cars are nothing new...they had cars running on electricity more than 150 years ago (first models built in 1832 according to several sources, before gasoline-powered cars even existed). You imply that electric cars are some "high-tech" thing spawned in the 1990's...
A century ago, they also had hydrogen & steam-powered cars. Problem was (as it's always been) that using gasoline-powered internal combustion engines were less expensive. So there's your Economics lesson for today. "
A century ago, they also had hydrogen & steam-powered cars. Problem was (as it's always been) that using gasoline-powered internal combustion engines were less expensive. So there's your Economics lesson for today. "
Phil wrote on Jun 30, 2008 2:52 PM:
" In addition, go to this article - NOTE - it will be considered a "lefty" article. But go to it and click on the links in it to the US Govt documents which descible how futile the claims of Bush, McCain and others for additional drilling are. Read about how there is no infrastructure to support doing this.
Yes there is opinion included in the article - fine - ignore those sentences - and read the facts, go to links, etc. to see what a foolish and shortsighted idea this is.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/drilling_deep.html "
Yes there is opinion included in the article - fine - ignore those sentences - and read the facts, go to links, etc. to see what a foolish and shortsighted idea this is.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/drilling_deep.html "
rcwelsh wrote on Jun 30, 2008 3:17 PM:
" The current federal debt is close to $9.4 Trillion dollars. Not $9 bilion - simple typo - but factor of 1000 bigger. And yes the cheap US dollar is to blame for lots of things. "
hetfield wrote on Jun 30, 2008 3:53 PM:
" Phil must be quoting polls from the barack hussein obama election campaign. 7 out of 10 americans demand drilling now! 9 out of 10 americans are being hurt by high oil prices the dems and lefty tree crazies are causing.
Wake up Phil, and join the rest of the nation when it comes to overcoming our dependance on oil. Why does the left hate this idea? "
Wake up Phil, and join the rest of the nation when it comes to overcoming our dependance on oil. Why does the left hate this idea? "
gordy1 wrote on Jun 30, 2008 4:01 PM:
" Hetfield,
I find it quite interesting that you think I am a Obama supporter just because I speak of our need to conserve and it is not our birthright to have cheap energy. Let me clear something for you Hetfield. I am not an Obama supporter. I am a supporter of realism and it is a fact that we depend on the Middle East for energy commodities. You speak little of the money that American companies make off of imports to the Middle East and the jobs that are created by the interdependence between our nation and others. We ship commodities to them, and them to us in the form of oil. According to reports, the oil companies have plenty of leases already, but don't drill. So, maybe you should peddle back on the sarcasm and assumptions that I am liberal. I am not a liberal. Instead of assuming, you might venture into increasing your knowledge of the situation by perusing a book called Gushers of Lies. You will get a real feel for the situation. And don't forget Hetfield. We, as a nation, need for energy because we are consuming tons more of energy due to the DVDs, computers, appliances, bigger houses, standards of living that we all want. Spare me the accusation of liberal. This has nothing to do with a political ideology, and with all due respect, Hetfield, it is a pretty weak argument and an accusation offered without substantiated fact. I support your call for increased drilling, but it seems that nobody wants to do it offshore until the oil companies explore the regions they have leased. In addition, I think you should look at some of the information about Irag having ten times the potential to produce oil. And you must agree the China and India are now thirsting for the energy they have been without for years. They are going to continue to consume more oil. I still think we need to conserve more. I don't feel the oil companies have much to do with this. I acknowledge they are making record profits, but so are a lot of companies that employ Americans that sell imports to the Middle Eastern countries, especially Saudi Arabia. But I can assure you, Hetfield, I am not a liberal. I'd like to believe I am pragmatic about the situation. "
I find it quite interesting that you think I am a Obama supporter just because I speak of our need to conserve and it is not our birthright to have cheap energy. Let me clear something for you Hetfield. I am not an Obama supporter. I am a supporter of realism and it is a fact that we depend on the Middle East for energy commodities. You speak little of the money that American companies make off of imports to the Middle East and the jobs that are created by the interdependence between our nation and others. We ship commodities to them, and them to us in the form of oil. According to reports, the oil companies have plenty of leases already, but don't drill. So, maybe you should peddle back on the sarcasm and assumptions that I am liberal. I am not a liberal. Instead of assuming, you might venture into increasing your knowledge of the situation by perusing a book called Gushers of Lies. You will get a real feel for the situation. And don't forget Hetfield. We, as a nation, need for energy because we are consuming tons more of energy due to the DVDs, computers, appliances, bigger houses, standards of living that we all want. Spare me the accusation of liberal. This has nothing to do with a political ideology, and with all due respect, Hetfield, it is a pretty weak argument and an accusation offered without substantiated fact. I support your call for increased drilling, but it seems that nobody wants to do it offshore until the oil companies explore the regions they have leased. In addition, I think you should look at some of the information about Irag having ten times the potential to produce oil. And you must agree the China and India are now thirsting for the energy they have been without for years. They are going to continue to consume more oil. I still think we need to conserve more. I don't feel the oil companies have much to do with this. I acknowledge they are making record profits, but so are a lot of companies that employ Americans that sell imports to the Middle Eastern countries, especially Saudi Arabia. But I can assure you, Hetfield, I am not a liberal. I'd like to believe I am pragmatic about the situation. "
gordy1 wrote on Jun 30, 2008 4:20 PM:
" Hetfield, also, it is assuming of you that a common layperson would not have some basics in economics. Even if you, Hetfield, have a degree in it, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to acknowledge certain economic principles. First of all, it is an economic fact that China, India, and the U.S. are all consuming more oil. Secondly, the cost of gas in this country certainly hasn't stopped people from driving. We continue to drive a lot and vehicles that consume a lot of gas. Third, I offered some alternatives to the problem. So, I am certainly not a do nothing. But let's peddle back on the accusation that someone lacks knowledge of economics or that I am spewing left wing rhetoric. You offer many opinions in your assessment of my opinions, but I don't see any offerings of credible information to back up what you are saying about me lacking some background knowledge on the basic economic principles, or that I don't take the oil companies record profits into account, or that a moderate to a conservative thinker wouldn't support more drilling, innovativeness, etc. I would support your suggestion that oil companies be required to start drilling on leased land or lose the lease to a company that wants to do so. "
Oboy wrote on Jun 30, 2008 4:26 PM:
" Just a question, has "Big Oil" used all the land/areas that they can drill on at this time? Or are they just sitting on areas that could be producing? "
hetfield wrote on Jun 30, 2008 5:16 PM:
" Gordy, sorry man but the courier has a delay in posts. I had not even read your comments prior to my post. Not that it would have changed but just in case. The lefty's here are mainly cross, phil, and Joe, but others stop in time to time.
Oboy, I dont beleive they have drilled, mainly to the continued constraints that the green machine and leftys put on their efforts. We must take back our resources from the greenies before the red eyed frog isnt the only thing we will be losing. "
Oboy, I dont beleive they have drilled, mainly to the continued constraints that the green machine and leftys put on their efforts. We must take back our resources from the greenies before the red eyed frog isnt the only thing we will be losing. "
xdfred wrote on Jun 30, 2008 5:57 PM:
" Oboy, Does it really matter if when someone tries to drill for more oil, some leftwinger is there with a lawsuit and an injunction? To save the spotted owl groundsquirrel, of course. Same deal with refineries. No new ones for decades. Yet gas prices are at an all time high, and so is crude. That would be the driver to produce more in a free market economy, but the left wing, in it's zeal to destroy our economy, just says no to everything that would help. Power plants, refineries, etc. And the disaster stories about what will happen if. Yet these clowns are never held accountable when they are wrong like the Alaskan pipeline. The caribou will be extinct, they claimed. Always prefaced with "studies show....". Same deal with the global warming hoax/scam. "
xdfred wrote on Jun 30, 2008 6:14 PM:
" Earth to Cross. Are you up there? We do not have a free market in oil. If we did, we wouldn't have this problem. We are dealing with the OPEC monopoly. I guess having just landed from your extended, all expense paid, stay on Mars, you wouldn't know that. Breaking the OPEC monopoly should be part of our energy policy, but there are too many feds bought and paid for by OPEC in Washington, on both sides of the aisle. But you hurt America types must love this. People losing purchasing power because of the inflated price of energy. What are typical left wing solutions? Tax the oil companies. There you go! That's the way!. How about nationalizing the U.S. oil industry? Think about it! The Soviet economic system all over again. Carter gas lines. Rationing. Shortages. Sorry to make you drool. Then there's my favorite. We must conserve. That is what we must do. Translation: Economic activity must be curtailled. Which is, after all, the main left wing goal. Treasonous? You bet!
You, of course, have a solution to this problem, besides increasing supply? What, pray tell, would it be? "
You, of course, have a solution to this problem, besides increasing supply? What, pray tell, would it be? "
gordy1 wrote on Jun 30, 2008 6:31 PM:
" Hetfield, I totally see your point and agree with the need for more drilling. I think we could drill more in the Gulf regions, but I would agree with you the a large portion of the majority in Congress, both House and Senate, seem to not want to drill. I bet if they started drilling onshore or off on leased lands, that could help the price drop. You are certainly justified in your concerns about being too green. For all he wells drilled in the Gulf, there has never been a recorded spill. And studies by the oil companies have shown there is a huge natural gas deposit off the coast of Florida and possibly 85 billion barrels of oil that could be tapped. I think we have the technology to go after these resources without leaving a huge environmental footprint. Those committed to staying green will protest, but we should go after oil here, too. Even if we don't put it on the market, we could set it aside in the strategic reserve should we need it later on. "
hillbillytea wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:14 PM:
" conserve as in no joy riding ay 80-plus miles per hour.over the last holoday weekend I was hovering around the speed limit and trafic was flying by me like I as standing still.one joker realy stands out though.this monster pick up truck goes flying by me faster than everybody else hauling a 20 foot inboard boat.that in its self goes maybe 40 miles on a large tank of gas.let face it easy oil is gettin harder to come by and drilling in the extreme cold temps of alaska is no where as easy as drilling down in texas.those far offshor platforms are no picnic either.its no secret that we don't care for opec,but on the flip side over the last 90 years the british and american oil companys,with alot of help from the CIA did alot of damage over there that cost millions of people their lives.nixon and the shah of iran did alot of damage to our reputation over there that lead those people to what they are today.intervention in the venasualan goverment and its oil industry did not help the price either.those people over ther learned a painfull lesson back in the 70s.now rather than cut us off and neally starve to death,they simply raise the price which they can do in a free market scociety,do you realy think that those people will step up production so we can expand the war on their continant? "
Whyonearth wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:31 PM:
" Part of the reason that we are in a gas crisis is because people don't want to explore ANY alternatives. There is an abundance of coal right here in the USA, but the NIMBYS are doing everything to block the construction of a brand new plant right here in the Cedar Valley. Because the NIMBYS are not in favor of creating more coal powered energy, we must rely on gas powered energy. I am more than a little shocked that none of the bloggers so far have made this connection. So if you want lower prices at the pump, please drop your opposition to the coal plant so that our economy can grow and prosper and more folks can afford the high gas prices. "
Oboy wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:32 PM:
" O silly me, I wasn't aware "Big Oil" had no where drill but "Brand New Areas" and not, well yes, we have some areas we could "Drill" on, but it would so much easier to drill on your property. Besides then I could sit on my oil for when it really gets expensive. "
gordy wrote on Jun 30, 2008 10:18 PM:
" Hetfield, I totally see your point and agree with the need for more drilling. I think we could drill more in the Gulf regions, but I would agree with you the a large portion of the majority in Congress, both House and Senate, seem to not want to drill. I bet if they started drilling onshore or off on leased lands, that could help the price drop. You are certainly justified in your concerns about being too green. For all he wells drilled in the Gulf, there has never been a recorded spill. And studies by the oil companies have shown there is a huge natural gas deposit off the coast of Florida and possibly 85 billion barrels of oil that could be tapped. I think we have the technology to go after these resources without leaving a huge environmental footprint. Those committed to staying green will protest, but we should go after oil here, too. Even if we don't put it on the market, we could set it aside in the strategic reserve should we need it later on. "
hillbillytea wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:58 AM:
" whyonearth,in case you noticed the marshalltown plant is nearing the final stages of approval.traditional coal technology is dirty and marshalltown is a replacement for two older ones.the waterloo plant which is gona be no where near as clean as the counsilbluffs plant is not a replacement plant for any of those olderplants.also we have alternative ways to produce electricity and cut down our use on natrual gas as well as energy efficiancy.transportation is a whole different ballgame. "
Out-of-towner wrote on Jul 1, 2008 6:59 AM:
" We didn't come out of the Stone Age because we ran out of STONES. The technology is here NOW for 100+ mpg cars but not allowed to develop worldwide by Big Oil and our own government (i.e. EPA regs). Its all about supply and demand. "
shouldbemayor wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:27 AM:
" Gas crisis? What gas crisis?
There is gas at every gas station. There is no shortage. NO SHORTAGE OF GAS. We have plenty and can get as much as we want. OPEC could increase production whenever they wanted.
People who want to drill more want everyone to believe there is a shortage. It just isn't true. If I am wrong and there is a shortage please point me to one gas pump that says "no gas" or let me know the government's plan to ration fuel.
Once drilling begins in ANWR or the Gulf or off the coast of California, do you really believe that these companies will happily sell it below market price? Mind you, these are not new oil companies, these are the SAME oil companies currently enjoying record profits.
The speculators that are driving up the cost of oil will continue to speculate as two facts will remain:
Oil will eventually run out, no matter how many holes you drill.
IF the price of gas goes down because of more drilling (which it won't), Americans will use more and continue to be slaves to the black gold.
We have gotten away from our conservative base and our mistakes have made the dollar very weak. This combined with our willingness to pay and a global economy that is passing us by is causing problems that drilling a million new holes won't fix. "
There is gas at every gas station. There is no shortage. NO SHORTAGE OF GAS. We have plenty and can get as much as we want. OPEC could increase production whenever they wanted.
People who want to drill more want everyone to believe there is a shortage. It just isn't true. If I am wrong and there is a shortage please point me to one gas pump that says "no gas" or let me know the government's plan to ration fuel.
Once drilling begins in ANWR or the Gulf or off the coast of California, do you really believe that these companies will happily sell it below market price? Mind you, these are not new oil companies, these are the SAME oil companies currently enjoying record profits.
The speculators that are driving up the cost of oil will continue to speculate as two facts will remain:
Oil will eventually run out, no matter how many holes you drill.
IF the price of gas goes down because of more drilling (which it won't), Americans will use more and continue to be slaves to the black gold.
We have gotten away from our conservative base and our mistakes have made the dollar very weak. This combined with our willingness to pay and a global economy that is passing us by is causing problems that drilling a million new holes won't fix. "
Phil wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:35 AM:
" As others have pointed out - NOTHING is stopping the oil companies from drilling RIGHT NOW - and they are. They have barely tapped the leases they have right now. Their drilling equipment, etc. is already booked for the next five years. There are no additional refineries set to produce more gasoline.
These are all crocodile tears and political games. The oil companies just want to tie up more future leases and Bush & Co. are happy to let them. Would it result in a single drop of additional oil or gasoline in the next 7 years? No.
Do some of you want to LEARN something or just continue to spew right wing ignorance? Watch the movie talked about earlier - go to the article I linked to. Disagree with them all you want - but if you are willing to LEARN there is information there to broaden your knowledge of this topic.
We are not going to produce our way out of this anytime soon - or probably ever. "
These are all crocodile tears and political games. The oil companies just want to tie up more future leases and Bush & Co. are happy to let them. Would it result in a single drop of additional oil or gasoline in the next 7 years? No.
Do some of you want to LEARN something or just continue to spew right wing ignorance? Watch the movie talked about earlier - go to the article I linked to. Disagree with them all you want - but if you are willing to LEARN there is information there to broaden your knowledge of this topic.
We are not going to produce our way out of this anytime soon - or probably ever. "
Phil wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:43 AM:
" hetfield - you are so funny - you keep throwing the term "lefty" out there like it is something to be fearful or ashamed of - just like Clayson does. Or you use Obama's full name - like it is supposed to be scary or something - as if he chose that name himself - and his parents had nothing to do with it. How childish, small and petty it makes you look every time you do that in your posts.
This country was started by leftist radicals. The greatest leaders and politicians were lefties or took positions that were considered radical or leftist in their day.
The biggest losers in our country have been on the right - Bush, Hoover, Nixon. Stick with them and their ideas hetfield - its the company you and Clayson belong with. "
This country was started by leftist radicals. The greatest leaders and politicians were lefties or took positions that were considered radical or leftist in their day.
The biggest losers in our country have been on the right - Bush, Hoover, Nixon. Stick with them and their ideas hetfield - its the company you and Clayson belong with. "
cross1242 wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:07 AM:
" xdfred @ Jun 30, 2008 6:14 PM said, "Earth to Cross. Are you up there? We do not have a free market in oil. If we did, we wouldn't have this problem. We are dealing with the OPEC monopoly."
Did you ever hear of "Commodity Futures Exchanges." The same places where corn and soybeans are sold also sell oil. (Yeah, some of it is paper oil and some physical oil.) The oil producing companies sell on those exchanges and the oil using countries buy on the exchanges. And thew whole earth is buying. Buying directly from OPEC died many years back. Your information is very old.
Oboy @ Jun 30, 2008 4:26 PM asked, "Just a question, has "Big Oil" used all the land/areas that they can drill on at this time? Or are they just sitting on areas that could be producing?"
As I understand it, only the areas of the Gulf off New Orleans are open now to oil drilling on the continental shelf. But something like 90% of that area is unexplored for oil. Who knows whether there is more oil there.
And, as far as I know, it's the politicians who are proposing to do more off-shore drilling in areas off the Gulf at New Orleans. I don't think the oil companies are begging to do it. (Not that they won't drill there too if give the opportunity.) The oil companies probably know that they've got all the exploration areas that they can handle right now. The politicians are just trying to offer magic solutions that won't really do much of anything on the price. "
Did you ever hear of "Commodity Futures Exchanges." The same places where corn and soybeans are sold also sell oil. (Yeah, some of it is paper oil and some physical oil.) The oil producing companies sell on those exchanges and the oil using countries buy on the exchanges. And thew whole earth is buying. Buying directly from OPEC died many years back. Your information is very old.
Oboy @ Jun 30, 2008 4:26 PM asked, "Just a question, has "Big Oil" used all the land/areas that they can drill on at this time? Or are they just sitting on areas that could be producing?"
As I understand it, only the areas of the Gulf off New Orleans are open now to oil drilling on the continental shelf. But something like 90% of that area is unexplored for oil. Who knows whether there is more oil there.
And, as far as I know, it's the politicians who are proposing to do more off-shore drilling in areas off the Gulf at New Orleans. I don't think the oil companies are begging to do it. (Not that they won't drill there too if give the opportunity.) The oil companies probably know that they've got all the exploration areas that they can handle right now. The politicians are just trying to offer magic solutions that won't really do much of anything on the price. "
SH71 wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:51 AM:
" To hillbilly tea - where is your proof that the Waterloo plant won't be as clean as Marshalltown or Council Bluffs? The law is the law and every new plant will have to abide by it. They can't be grandfathered in like Cedar Falls and others. I'm looking for your proof hillbilly - where is it? You spout about things you know nothing about - so I tend to ignore what you say. "
Whyonearth wrote on Jul 1, 2008 11:10 AM:
" Hillbilly--If "we have alternative ways to produce electricity and cut down our use on natrual gas as well as energy efficiancy.transportation is a whole different ballgame. " as you state, Why don't we explore them?
Oh yeah, I forgot. The environmentalists don't want any new exploration that may endanger any tree, animal or mineral that they want full protection for. If any company wants to explore a new technology, there are protests, lawsuits, and organized opposition. And heaven forbid that a company that is willing to explore, invest billions, and follow the rules seek to make any profit. That makes them "greedy" and "only in it for the money." I'm sorry hillbilly, but it is these profits that encourage the pursuit of alternative means for energy, and any attempt by the tree huggers to make them stop will only discourage further investigation into these "alternative ways to produce energy." "
Oh yeah, I forgot. The environmentalists don't want any new exploration that may endanger any tree, animal or mineral that they want full protection for. If any company wants to explore a new technology, there are protests, lawsuits, and organized opposition. And heaven forbid that a company that is willing to explore, invest billions, and follow the rules seek to make any profit. That makes them "greedy" and "only in it for the money." I'm sorry hillbilly, but it is these profits that encourage the pursuit of alternative means for energy, and any attempt by the tree huggers to make them stop will only discourage further investigation into these "alternative ways to produce energy." "
hetfield wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:01 PM:
" ShouldbeMayor wrote 'People who want to drill more want everyone to believe there is a shortage. It just isn't true. If I am wrong and there is a shortage please point me to one gas pump that says "no gas" or let me know the government's plan to ration fuel.'
Whoever said their was a shortage except Barack Hussein Obama? You know, we must conserve, yada-yada. Their is not shortage. Our problem is we are not allowed to be competitive in this market. Competition will drive the price down. Of course to do that we must drill now! The green machine and the 'change now but no plan whatsoever' libbies our holding the reigns of progress.
Mayor, you remind me of all those 'vote no' Cedar Falls residents during the gambling vote in the early 90's. You didnt want gambling because the good natives in Tama already had it. They of course didnt pay taxes on it. We then win the right to gamble and we instantly have increased taxes in our coffers.
I have no idea why the libbies, leftists, socialists, greenies, and their guy, the inexperienced state senator from Chicago doesnt like this idea. The only answer I can come up with is they really dont want to better America.
Time to drill, boys, time to drill. "
Whoever said their was a shortage except Barack Hussein Obama? You know, we must conserve, yada-yada. Their is not shortage. Our problem is we are not allowed to be competitive in this market. Competition will drive the price down. Of course to do that we must drill now! The green machine and the 'change now but no plan whatsoever' libbies our holding the reigns of progress.
Mayor, you remind me of all those 'vote no' Cedar Falls residents during the gambling vote in the early 90's. You didnt want gambling because the good natives in Tama already had it. They of course didnt pay taxes on it. We then win the right to gamble and we instantly have increased taxes in our coffers.
I have no idea why the libbies, leftists, socialists, greenies, and their guy, the inexperienced state senator from Chicago doesnt like this idea. The only answer I can come up with is they really dont want to better America.
Time to drill, boys, time to drill. "
cire wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:16 PM:
" i find it humorous that some people here actually think that the army of environmentalist groups are not a MAJOR road block to our energy problems here in the U.S.
Many people/groups who are opposed to more drilling & refining are ALSO against building more nuclear power plants...which is absurd because it's as safe & clean as anything we have right now.
They're also against "clean coal", exploring for natural gas, hydroelectric plants, you name it.. Unless it's solar or wind power, you might as well cross it off the list because these groups don't want the United States to pursue anything else.
So if you can manufacture a car or a lightbulb that can run on smiles & sunshine, I'll be first in line to buy them...but until then, we need to be realistic about our energy concerns. "
Many people/groups who are opposed to more drilling & refining are ALSO against building more nuclear power plants...which is absurd because it's as safe & clean as anything we have right now.
They're also against "clean coal", exploring for natural gas, hydroelectric plants, you name it.. Unless it's solar or wind power, you might as well cross it off the list because these groups don't want the United States to pursue anything else.
So if you can manufacture a car or a lightbulb that can run on smiles & sunshine, I'll be first in line to buy them...but until then, we need to be realistic about our energy concerns. "
cross wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:43 PM:
" On the price of oil, I'll add a nightmare to think about. Let's suppose that Bush/Cheney bomb Iran as a parting gift to the American people. As a response, the Iranians will find one (1) oil transport ship in the Strait Hormuz and send it to the bottom. This is easy to do since Iran has a modern Air Force and even a US carrier task force can't protect them all.
What's the effect?
The insurance rates on oil transports goes to about a bazillion dollars a day. So, all transport of oil out of the Gulf stops.
The effect on oil prices would instantly send it to something like $20 to $30 a gallon and it would be rationed severely. (Maybe 5 gallons a week??)
Beyond that, it would probably bring our economy to its knees.
So, what's the chance of our bombing Iran? See: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
Hersh says that it's for sure if Obama wins the election and will happen at a time of McCain's choosing if he wins. Everyone should re-sole all their shoes now because it looks as if we're going to be doing a lot of walking by Christmas. "
What's the effect?
The insurance rates on oil transports goes to about a bazillion dollars a day. So, all transport of oil out of the Gulf stops.
The effect on oil prices would instantly send it to something like $20 to $30 a gallon and it would be rationed severely. (Maybe 5 gallons a week??)
Beyond that, it would probably bring our economy to its knees.
So, what's the chance of our bombing Iran? See: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
Hersh says that it's for sure if Obama wins the election and will happen at a time of McCain's choosing if he wins. Everyone should re-sole all their shoes now because it looks as if we're going to be doing a lot of walking by Christmas. "
cross1242 wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:53 PM:
" cire @ Jul 1, 2008 12:16 PM commented on the opposition to all forms of alternative energy.
I have to admit general agreement with cire. I'm not so sure that it's the same people that object to everything. However, even if each kind of alternative power has its own group of "anti-" activists, the result is the same.
Personally, I tend to favor more nuclear energy. Even with the problem of disposing of nuclear waste, I think that is a manageable problem. Depositing CO2 into the atmosphere isn't. Even "clean coal" isn't really "clean." It's just not as dirty as the stuff fresh out of the ground.
I've heard of people objecting to wind power. The basis is that the wind farms are a blight on the landscape. On that one, I rather like the windmills. Watching them is peaceful and almost hypnotic. If someone wants to put one in my backyard, it's fine with me. "
I have to admit general agreement with cire. I'm not so sure that it's the same people that object to everything. However, even if each kind of alternative power has its own group of "anti-" activists, the result is the same.
Personally, I tend to favor more nuclear energy. Even with the problem of disposing of nuclear waste, I think that is a manageable problem. Depositing CO2 into the atmosphere isn't. Even "clean coal" isn't really "clean." It's just not as dirty as the stuff fresh out of the ground.
I've heard of people objecting to wind power. The basis is that the wind farms are a blight on the landscape. On that one, I rather like the windmills. Watching them is peaceful and almost hypnotic. If someone wants to put one in my backyard, it's fine with me. "
xdfred wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:02 PM:
" Even better Cire. Ted Kennedy, who owns a small oil company, small enough to be exempt from tax laws he writes, has fought tooth and nail against the building of a windmill farm 11 miles off the coast from Kennedyville. Might affect his view, you see. "
hetfield wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:42 PM:
" Cross, you bitter little man. You are now spreading fear about Bush bombing someone? Congress would have to vote for this to occur and if they do, then Iran deserves it, just as Iraq did.
Who gives a bit what Hersh says besides the fear mongerers?
You just keep hoping your flip flopping(lying) Barack Hussein Obama wins the office. This wont occur however because most Americans can see through the web of lies, flips, terrorist friends of BHO's, Clinton administration democratic party.
Time to drill, boys, time to drill. "
Who gives a bit what Hersh says besides the fear mongerers?
You just keep hoping your flip flopping(lying) Barack Hussein Obama wins the office. This wont occur however because most Americans can see through the web of lies, flips, terrorist friends of BHO's, Clinton administration democratic party.
Time to drill, boys, time to drill. "
50674 wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:00 PM:
" oh yeah hetfield...like they voted for our invasion of Iraq? Your ignorance and misspoken "facts" are ludicrous! ANd when did Congress sign the required bill to wage this present day war? It USED to take an act of Congress to declare war ..... until Bush decided his wisdom and word alone was enough. WHy don't you volunteer and head on over to Iraq and "drill boy drill"? "
hillbillytea wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:03 PM:
" I had the opertunity so sit down with a professor from UNI and compare the air quality permit from the proposed waterloo plant and the operating data from counsil bluffs even though counsil bluff is a bigger plant the data showed it to be much cleaner than what LS power wanted to put out. I don,t have the air quality permit from marshalltown but I understand that permit is even stricter yet. "
gordy1 wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:43 PM:
" cross, I might suggest to you that the Israelis are far more concerned about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons than we are. They certainly are justified for Iran doesn't seem to make friendly overtures to the Israeli government and often threaten them with annihilation. Cross, Iran is a situation that affects so much of the world. What is your position on their wanting nuclear power? Iran is a rogue nation and seems to pride itself in its independence and increasing its power and stature in the world and especially the Middle East. Diplomacy is the first step, yet this situation is extremely precarious for as you note, they threaten to bomb the Strait of Hormuz. I do not fear the people of Iran, but I am think their government is extremely radical and its people seem to support it. But not many countries stand up to Iran's goal of acquiring nuclear power and possibly the bomb. But I would rather walk a lot by Christmas with gas $10 a gallon then submit to the power of a rogue nation. We should stand for something greater than that and come from a position of strength when it comes to Iran's threats. You write about the need for people to LEARN and I agree with your comments that information is valuable. So many times people blog an opinion without credible information to prove or back up what they are writing about. Or they complain but don't offer solutions to the problem. They just call the whaaaambulance. As for your comment about the politicians just paying lip service - you are right on track. So many of them are tied to big oil and it just ain't the Republicans. A lot of southern, conservative DEMOS are in the pockets of that industry, too. Sometimes politicians just want to go on record with lip service, but don't do much to really solve the problem. As I have written earlier, to think that we will not depend on the Middle East to provide us with the commodities of oil and natural gas is folly. But they depend on us for much, too. Especially food, water, and stupid consumer devices that make them a part of the material world. So, no matter what you or others might think, there is an interdependency and they know it,too. Fifty years ago we wouldn't have even thought about the stopping of drilling. I would like to see more drilling on leased lands, first. Get the oil companies off their rear ends and tell them do it, or lose the lease. However, I would rather see us drill in the Gulf and the shelf. It has a proven safety record, it is closer to refineries, and would protect the arctic region so many regard as off limits. On this situation, we can either support more exploration or just buy our oil from OPEC. I would especially like to see production for the airline industry. It is such a critical element of our infrastructure and our economy. Look how the loss of airline revenues devastated our economy after 9/11. Airline fuel is tremendously high, so I am especially concerned for that industry. So many people depend on that element for survival. Just some thoughts, Cross. Not seeking any conflict. I am neither conservative nor liberal. Just an independent voter that has voted for both parties. "
knightfan wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:00 PM:
" Aren't we between a rock and a hard place as far as oil goes? We open up the off shore sites and the North Slope and guess what, OPEC comes in and cuts production. Prices don't change. Fair trade can't compete fairly with a cartel, that's why cartels are illegal in this country.
Maybe we should form a grain cartel with Brazil and put the squeeze on the oil producing nations. I bet they can't grow much food in the sand. On second thought, that would probably just start WW III but then there wouldn't be anything left of the planet or the people to worry about. Problem solved. "
Maybe we should form a grain cartel with Brazil and put the squeeze on the oil producing nations. I bet they can't grow much food in the sand. On second thought, that would probably just start WW III but then there wouldn't be anything left of the planet or the people to worry about. Problem solved. "
jeroze wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:46 PM:
" hetfield writes " You just keep hoping your flip flopping(lying) Barack Hussein Obama wins the office. This wont occur however because most Americans can see through the web of lies, flips, terrorist friends of BHO's, Clinton administration democratic party." Hummmm!! And the people believed Bush!!! And like George Washington he always told the truth!!!! "
xdfred wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:56 PM:
" So, we're back on the Bush lied routine? Did Clinton lie, too, in '98?
Prove a lie. Please prove a lie. Any Bush hater out here. Please . Just prove the President lied about anything. "
Prove a lie. Please prove a lie. Any Bush hater out here. Please . Just prove the President lied about anything. "
hillbillytea wrote on Jul 1, 2008 6:20 PM:
" actually one of the oldest treehugger organizations in america[the seirra club]is investing a considerable amount of money into an energy efficiancy assessment and training program.waverly electric is also operating an energy efficiancy rebate program.alliant energy does alot of wind power and they are agressivly persuing a biomass program using cowdungh.tyson uses their own sewer gas to fire their boilers and this spring there was a new breakthrough in solar panel technology.we can also turn garbage into methane gas which is being done out west. oh and you know that clean coal technology.guess what the bush administration cut the funding for the future gen program which by the way plays a role in the production of the hydrogen fuel cell.but what do you expect from the cheny energy polocy board made primarily of members of big oil and coal.they don't like the idea of giving a rebate to people who generate their own electricity or do the right thing and cut their usage.they fight the power by back program tooth and nail even though its the law in this state that they have to purchase surplus electricity produced by the home owner.and another thing they don't wana see is llegislation that requires whole sale power producers to charge a flat rate on all power purchases rather than charging more for purchasing smalleramounts.this works for the smaller utilities who produce their own electricity which means they won't have to pay extra on top of the other guys markup.whyonearth did you pay any attention to the city counsil meetings on the coal plant?did you not see all the stacks and stacks of documented research evidance bought forth by the opposition in regaurds to energy efficancy,renewablefuels.and surplus supply?or were you to busy texting your stockbrokes to check up on your pebody coal stock? "
hillbillytea wrote on Jul 1, 2008 6:47 PM:
" one more thing,the republicans in favor of big coal claim that the laws will protect us from potential harm caused by coal fired powerplants.but then they push for smaller goverment and less restrictions letting the ax fall on the very people that that enforce the laws that are there to protect us leaving the fox to gaurd the henhouse.great plan guys "
gordy wrote on Jul 1, 2008 6:49 PM:
" That is why, knightfan, that OPEC would think twice about an embargo or cutting production because they depend on us for some many other commodities. I think it would put a squeeze on them, big time. I still think I would rather put a dent in our imports and cut back on some of the billions they earn if it meant we were more energy independent. Between a roack and a hard spot is a very applicable idiom in this case. "
chester11 wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:06 PM:
" I agree with cire about expanding nuclear energy. And as much as it pains me, with hetfield, who I honestly believe has the IQ of margarine, about at least offshore drilling, in the Gulf, and tapping into the already leased OPEC reserves in ANWR. And probably expanding from there. I'm sick as well of being at the mercy of the Middle East supply.
And I'm not a tree hugger but it does pain me greatly, as someone that wants to see my children have generations of children, to see how badly we are scarring this planet. No, you're not gonna see the most extreme effects in this century, but they will be felt by others. You don't believe that? Well, I hope your ridiculous petulant hate for Al Gore makes for a lasting legacy tied to your name.
And, before some chump calls me a hippie, I'm a fisherman, and an outdoorsman and it hurts to know that humans have polluted our rivers and lakes so horribly and are now moving our operation up to the Arctic.
It's heartbreaking but it's an inevitability at this point.
Also, cire, it's not just environmentalists obstructing expansion. Cities put these things to a vote and because of past nuclear scares many have voted "no way!" to reactors being built in their locales. For decades. There just aren't that many "nay" hippies to support your presumptions about this. "
And I'm not a tree hugger but it does pain me greatly, as someone that wants to see my children have generations of children, to see how badly we are scarring this planet. No, you're not gonna see the most extreme effects in this century, but they will be felt by others. You don't believe that? Well, I hope your ridiculous petulant hate for Al Gore makes for a lasting legacy tied to your name.
And, before some chump calls me a hippie, I'm a fisherman, and an outdoorsman and it hurts to know that humans have polluted our rivers and lakes so horribly and are now moving our operation up to the Arctic.
It's heartbreaking but it's an inevitability at this point.
Also, cire, it's not just environmentalists obstructing expansion. Cities put these things to a vote and because of past nuclear scares many have voted "no way!" to reactors being built in their locales. For decades. There just aren't that many "nay" hippies to support your presumptions about this. "
a362966 wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:08 PM:
" 50674-dont waste your breathe on hetfield, it is a lost cause. Hetfield forgets the millions of dollars that the Bush family has received from the country that provide most of the "9/11 terrorists"-the Saudi's.
Who "owns" the Bush's? The Saudi's. As they say, once an oilman, always an oilman.
50% of the price of gas right now is just "fear" speculation. If the US had not been stomping around in the Middle East, disrupting supplies, and trying to colonize Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran, at the insistence of another foreign country, Israel, gas would be much cheaper.
Another large part of the price of gas is the value of what we use to pay for it-the dollar. The private bank that sets interest rates and controls our money, the Federal Reserve, has lowered rates of interest in an effort to prop up the Real Estate bubble, and has ruined the dollar. It is now almost worthless.
Clayson and his Neocon buddies would like to blame the destruction on the democrats, but it wont fly.
Bush takes office, gas = 1.43/gallon
Bush takes office, we run a surplus
Bush ran his private companies into the ground, (bailed out by the Saudi's) why would he do any different with the country? "
Who "owns" the Bush's? The Saudi's. As they say, once an oilman, always an oilman.
50% of the price of gas right now is just "fear" speculation. If the US had not been stomping around in the Middle East, disrupting supplies, and trying to colonize Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran, at the insistence of another foreign country, Israel, gas would be much cheaper.
Another large part of the price of gas is the value of what we use to pay for it-the dollar. The private bank that sets interest rates and controls our money, the Federal Reserve, has lowered rates of interest in an effort to prop up the Real Estate bubble, and has ruined the dollar. It is now almost worthless.
Clayson and his Neocon buddies would like to blame the destruction on the democrats, but it wont fly.
Bush takes office, gas = 1.43/gallon
Bush takes office, we run a surplus
Bush ran his private companies into the ground, (bailed out by the Saudi's) why would he do any different with the country? "
chester wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:35 PM:
" I agree with cire about expanding nuclear energy. And as much as it pains me, with hetfield... about at least offshore drilling, in the Gulf, and tapping into the already leased OPEC reserves in ANWR. And probably expanding from there. I'm sick as well of being at the mercy of the Middle East supply.
And I'm not a tree hugger but it does pain me greatly, as someone that wants to see my children have generations of children, to see how badly we are scarring this planet. No, you're not gonna see the most extreme effects in this century, but they will be felt by others. You don't believe that? Well, I hope your ridiculous petulant hate for Al Gore makes for a lasting legacy tied to your name.
And, before some chump calls me a hippie, I'm a fisherman, and an outdoorsman and it hurts to know that humans have polluted our rivers and lakes so horribly and are now moving our operation up to the Arctic.
It's heartbreaking but it's an inevitability at this point.
Also, cire, it's not just environmentalists obstructing expansion. Cities put these things to a vote and because of past nuclear scares many have voted "no way!" to reactors being built in their locales. For decades. There just aren't that many "nay" hippies to support your presumptions about this. "
And I'm not a tree hugger but it does pain me greatly, as someone that wants to see my children have generations of children, to see how badly we are scarring this planet. No, you're not gonna see the most extreme effects in this century, but they will be felt by others. You don't believe that? Well, I hope your ridiculous petulant hate for Al Gore makes for a lasting legacy tied to your name.
And, before some chump calls me a hippie, I'm a fisherman, and an outdoorsman and it hurts to know that humans have polluted our rivers and lakes so horribly and are now moving our operation up to the Arctic.
It's heartbreaking but it's an inevitability at this point.
Also, cire, it's not just environmentalists obstructing expansion. Cities put these things to a vote and because of past nuclear scares many have voted "no way!" to reactors being built in their locales. For decades. There just aren't that many "nay" hippies to support your presumptions about this. "
hetfield wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:25 PM:
" 50674, I cant beleive in this day and age with the access to the internet, with constant liberal news medium on TV and in newsprint, that you just went along with the lefty belief that this was Bush's war. From Wikipedia:
With the support of large bipartisan majorities, the US Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The resolution asserts the authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
I cant beleive you know how to log on to the internet and then try to offer a meaningful opinion on any topic.
Now onto other topics that do not require your thoughts.
a362966 thinks a private bank, the federal reserve is responsible for the dollars value. This is ridiculous on several fronts. First the Federal Reserve system sets Monetary policy for the US banking system. it is comprised of presidentially appointed governors and regional federal reserve banks throughout the US. Second, while the governors set rates charged by member banks to private lenders, the value of the dollar is a factor of the nations trade and budget defictis.
Now stop trying to blame bush for all the woes we are currently under. Some of you people should really look things up before posting. You look ignorant when you just spout off liberal dogma. "
With the support of large bipartisan majorities, the US Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The resolution asserts the authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
I cant beleive you know how to log on to the internet and then try to offer a meaningful opinion on any topic.
Now onto other topics that do not require your thoughts.
a362966 thinks a private bank, the federal reserve is responsible for the dollars value. This is ridiculous on several fronts. First the Federal Reserve system sets Monetary policy for the US banking system. it is comprised of presidentially appointed governors and regional federal reserve banks throughout the US. Second, while the governors set rates charged by member banks to private lenders, the value of the dollar is a factor of the nations trade and budget defictis.
Now stop trying to blame bush for all the woes we are currently under. Some of you people should really look things up before posting. You look ignorant when you just spout off liberal dogma. "
jeroze wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:27 PM:
" xdfred
wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:56 PM:
" Did Clinton lie, too, in '98?
Yes he did, and it led to his impeachment. "
wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:56 PM:
" Did Clinton lie, too, in '98?
Yes he did, and it led to his impeachment. "
cross1242 wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:34 AM:
" hetfield @ Jul 1, 2008 8:25 PM said, "I cant believe in this day and age with the access to the internet, with constant liberal news medium on TV and in newsprint, that you just went along with the lefty belief that this was Bush's war."
Oh, come on hetfield, Bush's lies to get us into war are a matter of open and notorious record. Failure to acknowledge the facts suggests that you still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Elves with pots of gold. Get real! "
Oh, come on hetfield, Bush's lies to get us into war are a matter of open and notorious record. Failure to acknowledge the facts suggests that you still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Elves with pots of gold. Get real! "
cire wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:50 AM:
" jeroze, it's possible your comment was entirely sarcastic..as I assume you are aware that he was impeached on perjury & obstruction of justice charges stemming from his adulterous sex trysts in the White House...not because of any national security or intelligence issues.
xdfred also asked you to prove Bush lied about anything, which I must point out that you have still not done. "
xdfred also asked you to prove Bush lied about anything, which I must point out that you have still not done. "
jeroze wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:49 AM:
" In reply to Hetfield's demand to prove that Bush lied, no one can easily do that because Bush just doesn't lie out loud very often. He just withholds the truth. For example: Bush was asked about insider trading and his Harken Energy Stock at the time of Martha Stewart's prosecution for lying. He replied, "they didn't have a case". but he did not say that he got a letter from the FEC saying they were dropping his case but that he should not take this as an exoneration. Actually I believe the case against Bush was stronger than against Martha but she was not convicted of insider trading but of lying. Bush never got a chance to lie. He was not called in to testify. The evidence against him seems very clear. Why was he not indicted?
Or take this example. In his 2000 campaign he said twice, "When I become President I will use the armed forces for what they are intended. I won't use them for nation building." The second time he said this he added, the main purpose of the armed forces is to KEEP THE PEACE. Now if you check out the Project for New American Century web site, you will find that a letter written to President Clinton in 1998 to urge Bill Clinton to use his state of the union address to ready the people of the USA to get rid of Sadaam by what ever means necessary, because he was going to produce WMDs and become a threat to the entire region so that we needed to have a "regime change". (did not Weapons of Mass Destruction and the regime change language not come into common use after Bush started his presidency and it was already in the letter of 1998? And seven of the eighteen signers of the letter were appointed to high positions in the Bush Administration is that just a coincidence, Hetfield ? or was Bush intending to do this all along to improve on his father's handling of the Iraq situation in his term of office. Boy did he make his Father look good (Time Magazine in January 2008 ended their Bush legacy article with this quip)
What went on in the Secret Energy Meeting before we went into the War?
Bush won't tell so he doesn't need to lie about it.
He also let his cohorts do the lying. (Cheney)(Collin Powell) (Scott McClellan) Do words and phrases like "cakewalk", "It will only cost $5 billion" and then much later a video of Cheney defending not going after Sadaam in Desert Storm not show us all the when we begin to lie and deceive we find the axiom of the poet is true, "O what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive?"
And the destruction of the innocence of Collin Powell with his testimony at the United Nations with George Tennant and his "slam dunk" presence behind him to back it up.
It is probably difficult for the people to catch Bush in his deceit becuase he is silent rather than telling the whole truth. He even use truth to decieve the 53 million gullibe people who vote for him a second term of office. His telling half truths of deceit are hard to prove to gullible people who think that George W has the same track record of George Washington. And did you notice that Arie Fleisher did not say that Scott McClellan was lying in his book. He was just surprised that McClelland had changed. Yes Scott and Collin Powell resigned and not being a military person, like Collin Powell Scott felt compelled to tell the truth about how he was used by the Bush Administration.
"That is my final answer for now, but there is much more." "
Or take this example. In his 2000 campaign he said twice, "When I become President I will use the armed forces for what they are intended. I won't use them for nation building." The second time he said this he added, the main purpose of the armed forces is to KEEP THE PEACE. Now if you check out the Project for New American Century web site, you will find that a letter written to President Clinton in 1998 to urge Bill Clinton to use his state of the union address to ready the people of the USA to get rid of Sadaam by what ever means necessary, because he was going to produce WMDs and become a threat to the entire region so that we needed to have a "regime change". (did not Weapons of Mass Destruction and the regime change language not come into common use after Bush started his presidency and it was already in the letter of 1998? And seven of the eighteen signers of the letter were appointed to high positions in the Bush Administration is that just a coincidence, Hetfield ? or was Bush intending to do this all along to improve on his father's handling of the Iraq situation in his term of office. Boy did he make his Father look good (Time Magazine in January 2008 ended their Bush legacy article with this quip)
What went on in the Secret Energy Meeting before we went into the War?
Bush won't tell so he doesn't need to lie about it.
He also let his cohorts do the lying. (Cheney)(Collin Powell) (Scott McClellan) Do words and phrases like "cakewalk", "It will only cost $5 billion" and then much later a video of Cheney defending not going after Sadaam in Desert Storm not show us all the when we begin to lie and deceive we find the axiom of the poet is true, "O what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive?"
And the destruction of the innocence of Collin Powell with his testimony at the United Nations with George Tennant and his "slam dunk" presence behind him to back it up.
It is probably difficult for the people to catch Bush in his deceit becuase he is silent rather than telling the whole truth. He even use truth to decieve the 53 million gullibe people who vote for him a second term of office. His telling half truths of deceit are hard to prove to gullible people who think that George W has the same track record of George Washington. And did you notice that Arie Fleisher did not say that Scott McClellan was lying in his book. He was just surprised that McClelland had changed. Yes Scott and Collin Powell resigned and not being a military person, like Collin Powell Scott felt compelled to tell the truth about how he was used by the Bush Administration.
"That is my final answer for now, but there is much more." "
xdfred wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:51 AM:
" jeroze, I meant did Clinton lie about Iraq. His statements against Iraq are well documented. "
jeroze wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:53 AM:
" Thank you for your notation cire. Also Martha Stewart was convicted of perjury which G W B was not given a chance to do because he was not called in to testify. "
jeroze wrote on Jul 2, 2008 2:19 PM:
" If Bill Clinton lied about the war then so did George Bush. Right? "
jeroze wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:07 PM:
" Hallelujah, Praise the Lord, I can't believe this.
I went to Google to search the Website of the Project for New American Century. To my suprise they have not paid their fee for use of the Website and apparently now unavailable. But I have the print outs of their letter to Clinton, in January 1998, and similar letters to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott and I think I can find hard copy of their Principles on the Website before they discontintue to pay their fees. Wilkepedia is now a website to find out more. I checked it and I think it is fairly accurate. The reason it is important is that it seemed that the policies it promoted were those that were being used by George W Bush in running the country.
I am tempted to go out door and shout out loud " HURRAH THE NEOCONS CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY FOR THEIR WEBSITE. GOOD RIDDANCE"
But now who will now pay for their war and indiscreet spending??????? "
I went to Google to search the Website of the Project for New American Century. To my suprise they have not paid their fee for use of the Website and apparently now unavailable. But I have the print outs of their letter to Clinton, in January 1998, and similar letters to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott and I think I can find hard copy of their Principles on the Website before they discontintue to pay their fees. Wilkepedia is now a website to find out more. I checked it and I think it is fairly accurate. The reason it is important is that it seemed that the policies it promoted were those that were being used by George W Bush in running the country.
I am tempted to go out door and shout out loud " HURRAH THE NEOCONS CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY FOR THEIR WEBSITE. GOOD RIDDANCE"
But now who will now pay for their war and indiscreet spending??????? "
xdfred wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:21 PM:
" Thanks, Jeroze, for putting to bed the Bush lied myth.
Now, Bush's cohorts, were they lying, or just wrong about the "cakewalk". And yes, if Clinton lied about Iraq, then Bush did too, because they both said the same thing. But, to lie, there has to be intent to deceive, as in denying messing with an intern in the oval office when you did in fact do so.
So thanks again. "
Now, Bush's cohorts, were they lying, or just wrong about the "cakewalk". And yes, if Clinton lied about Iraq, then Bush did too, because they both said the same thing. But, to lie, there has to be intent to deceive, as in denying messing with an intern in the oval office when you did in fact do so.
So thanks again. "
cire wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:28 PM:
" John Kerry: "If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
Bill Clinton: "Mark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq is a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
Al Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the security of the world."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."
Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."
Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."
wow, Dems actually had some sense a few years back. But I guess it's easy to throw blame at the guy sitting in the command chair now rather than admit YOU were wrong. "
Bill Clinton: "Mark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq is a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
Al Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the security of the world."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."
Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."
Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."
wow, Dems actually had some sense a few years back. But I guess it's easy to throw blame at the guy sitting in the command chair now rather than admit YOU were wrong. "
Kramerica wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:40 PM:
" cire, warning, you're about to get attacked. They don't like being reminded of all that history. They'll tell you it doesn't matter what what said back then, only what the OTHER guy did (after saying the same things). Yet one lied, the people in the list cited were "simply mistaken". No point beating a dead horse. "
a362966 wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:56 PM:
" Hetfield-Logical thought encompasses more than cutting and pasting of web site materials that you don't understand the meaning of and then trying to make rational conclusions. You just proved my point about Bush and the value of the dollar:...
You said "This is ridiculous on several fronts. First the Federal Reserve system sets Monetary policy for the US banking system..."
I say... The currency markets are much like the market for any other goods. If the supply of one currency rises relative to the demand for that currency, then its price will fall.
"The supply of U.S. dollars is controlled to a major extent by the U.S. Federal Reserve" (it's Monetary Policy).
Taken from Econ 101 at: (http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2007/20071107113119.aspx)
So yes, we have a privately owned bank, the Federal Reserve (there is no "federal to it, only in name) setting the nations monetary policy. Hetfield, here is another "stumper" for you...see what the web has to say about, ...If the Federal (sic) Reserve is private, who owns it? It is NOT a government agency or any part of the government. "
You said "This is ridiculous on several fronts. First the Federal Reserve system sets Monetary policy for the US banking system..."
I say... The currency markets are much like the market for any other goods. If the supply of one currency rises relative to the demand for that currency, then its price will fall.
"The supply of U.S. dollars is controlled to a major extent by the U.S. Federal Reserve" (it's Monetary Policy).
Taken from Econ 101 at: (http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2007/20071107113119.aspx)
So yes, we have a privately owned bank, the Federal Reserve (there is no "federal to it, only in name) setting the nations monetary policy. Hetfield, here is another "stumper" for you...see what the web has to say about, ...If the Federal (sic) Reserve is private, who owns it? It is NOT a government agency or any part of the government. "
hetfield wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:00 PM:
" jeroze, it was not I who demanded you prove when Bush lied. That being said, you still have not proven anything. Congress gave Bush the power to attack our terrorist enemies and attack he will.
Does anyone other than me remember Bush's post 9-11 speech 'we will go after terrorists and any country who harbours them.'
And we are. While Bush has made some mistakes, he is defending our country, which is the top priority of the commander in chief.
I'd have loved to see how Billary would have handled 9-11. (not really) Remember Mogadishu? "
Does anyone other than me remember Bush's post 9-11 speech 'we will go after terrorists and any country who harbours them.'
And we are. While Bush has made some mistakes, he is defending our country, which is the top priority of the commander in chief.
I'd have loved to see how Billary would have handled 9-11. (not really) Remember Mogadishu? "
xdfred wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:59 PM:
" Cire, I would tend to believe liberals are all gobble and no bite. The examples you showed were nothing but posturing, since, when a guy comes along to do something about what they themselves were saying, they jump all over him for doing it. Like this gas issue. The leftwingers go after the oil companies. How many congressional hearings have we had where the good senators bluster at oil company executives, yet no wrong doing is found? But will Reid or Pelosi ever think about going after OPEC? All gobble and no bite. The turkey party. "
jeroze wrote on Jul 2, 2008 5:02 PM:
" Thanks Cire and Hetfield for putting things in perspective. As my Greek friend who sees things with the eyes of those who live in the Middle East said, Bill Clinton was preparing the U S for war and had made a lot of preparations with the people in the countries around Iraq. Apparently Clinton was having some of the same difficulties as Bush was in getting our allies to be as eager to act as the USA was.
Clinton has maintained that the right way to go to war was with allies. He would not have gone to war without a united effort of our allies. That is where the neocons and Bush decided to part company with the other USA leaders who wanted to go to war but insisted on UN blessing and with a united front of the allies.
So the UN restarted the inspections to find the places where Sadaam was disobeying the UN resolutions. With stealth they inspected and searched but were unable to find them.
Bush couldn't wait. And his impatience has proved to be very costly.
So who is lying. It seems to me that Bush's intent was to get Sadaam and to cherry pick the evidence that pointed to the need to have a regime change. It is hard to say that is lying but it is not really being forthright and completely truthful either.
Some of the Congress were not fooled and voted against the war. Jim Leach and Dennis Kucinich come to mind but there were others.
I think maybe the lying business evidence is not as clear as the evidence that the Bush administration was very incompetent. I believe Clinton had the right approach and would have been in keeping with Bush I who went with UN backing and got out when the UN war objectives were accomplished.
So thank you, cire and hetfield to bring us to the real issue which is competence on the war issue.
On the Martha Stewart-George Bush insider trading issue, Bushes reply to the reporters was a lying issue with an intent to mislead the public. I also think lying under oath by Clinton was an impeachable offence, (but I don't know if a stupid sexual experience with an intern is an impeachable offense). The chance for Bush and his cohorts to lie under oath is very limited because Bush hesitates to consent to testify under oath and has kept some of his staff from doing so. That way they don't perjure themselves or have to take the fifth amendment.
But bringing up another issue, I think that denying detainies their habeus corpus rights in Gitmo and trying to make waterboarding something other than torture are impeachable offences and against the Geneva Convention which the USA wanted so badly to be made law.
Oh well, when in doubt, fly the American Flag, keep your mouth shut, and be a good patriotic American. Do as Obama does, who even wears his flag pin in the shower and recites the pledge to the flag with Michelle until they get to sleep at night. (Rumors that bear repeating but cannot yet be checked out on urban legends)
And gas is so expensive Professor Clayson because the person from the Arab country who was there at the White House when the Bush people decided to war only promised to keep crude oil down until the 2004 election was over. (See Woodward's book BUSH AT WAR.) "
Clinton has maintained that the right way to go to war was with allies. He would not have gone to war without a united effort of our allies. That is where the neocons and Bush decided to part company with the other USA leaders who wanted to go to war but insisted on UN blessing and with a united front of the allies.
So the UN restarted the inspections to find the places where Sadaam was disobeying the UN resolutions. With stealth they inspected and searched but were unable to find them.
Bush couldn't wait. And his impatience has proved to be very costly.
So who is lying. It seems to me that Bush's intent was to get Sadaam and to cherry pick the evidence that pointed to the need to have a regime change. It is hard to say that is lying but it is not really being forthright and completely truthful either.
Some of the Congress were not fooled and voted against the war. Jim Leach and Dennis Kucinich come to mind but there were others.
I think maybe the lying business evidence is not as clear as the evidence that the Bush administration was very incompetent. I believe Clinton had the right approach and would have been in keeping with Bush I who went with UN backing and got out when the UN war objectives were accomplished.
So thank you, cire and hetfield to bring us to the real issue which is competence on the war issue.
On the Martha Stewart-George Bush insider trading issue, Bushes reply to the reporters was a lying issue with an intent to mislead the public. I also think lying under oath by Clinton was an impeachable offence, (but I don't know if a stupid sexual experience with an intern is an impeachable offense). The chance for Bush and his cohorts to lie under oath is very limited because Bush hesitates to consent to testify under oath and has kept some of his staff from doing so. That way they don't perjure themselves or have to take the fifth amendment.
But bringing up another issue, I think that denying detainies their habeus corpus rights in Gitmo and trying to make waterboarding something other than torture are impeachable offences and against the Geneva Convention which the USA wanted so badly to be made law.
Oh well, when in doubt, fly the American Flag, keep your mouth shut, and be a good patriotic American. Do as Obama does, who even wears his flag pin in the shower and recites the pledge to the flag with Michelle until they get to sleep at night. (Rumors that bear repeating but cannot yet be checked out on urban legends)
And gas is so expensive Professor Clayson because the person from the Arab country who was there at the White House when the Bush people decided to war only promised to keep crude oil down until the 2004 election was over. (See Woodward's book BUSH AT WAR.) "
jeroze wrote on Jul 2, 2008 5:09 PM:
" It was xdfred that wanted someone to prove that Bush lied, I apologize to you hetfield for my mistake. "
hillbillytea wrote on Jul 2, 2008 5:49 PM:
" polotics and diplomacy is an interesting trade.some times you have to lie and put on a tough act in order to make the other guy stand down and comply.sure clinton knew he needed to keep sadam in his place.but all out war was not his or anyones disire either.pre-emtive air strikes were part of the game to keep him guessing and to shut down his survailance and air defences just in case. you can't blame sadam playing the role of the bad guy bucause if he did come clean 80% of the iraqi would come down on him like a ton of bricks.he was definatly in no position to do anything out side of his country.but he still had to work with the UN which he didn't do.however it was still the UNs ballgame.was GW overly enthusiastic about war with Iraq?absolutly.but he was also a pigen for a bunch of hard core Neo-cons who pushed a bunch of flawed intelegance up to the forfront and made their case for war in Iraq with a bunch of carfully scripted theorys.it was rumsfelds theory that whoever controled the middle eastern oil could basicly control everything.even cheny fell for it eventhough he was dead set againt going into iraq durring the george senior administration.I guess the thought of haliburtan doing all that work for the oil companys was to good to pass up.it was also understood in order for the plan to go in motion there had to be an act that would serve as the next pearl harbor.they were certainly warned about Al queda and things turned out worse than expected.they were just plain dumd.but they got their excuse. "
xdfred wrote on Jul 2, 2008 6:02 PM:
" Well written, jeroze. I never demanded anyone prove president Bush lead. I asked. Even said please. And there was no under oath caveat. The U.S. did go to war with U.N. blessing. And with allies. Why do you think otherwise? Look at the list of countries involved. And the U.N. resolutions.
Also, why would Guantanomo detainees even have habeus corpus rights when the Constitution only applies to people of the United States? And the Geneva convention only applies to organized armies with a known chain of command, not to the detainees fighting in a recognizable uniform of some sort.
Charging incompetence in a war situation is ludicrous at best. 2500 men died taking Omaha beach. Was that incompetence, too? The only error the Bush administration made was to not tell Iran in certain terms to stay out or else. And enforce it. "
Also, why would Guantanomo detainees even have habeus corpus rights when the Constitution only applies to people of the United States? And the Geneva convention only applies to organized armies with a known chain of command, not to the detainees fighting in a recognizable uniform of some sort.
Charging incompetence in a war situation is ludicrous at best. 2500 men died taking Omaha beach. Was that incompetence, too? The only error the Bush administration made was to not tell Iran in certain terms to stay out or else. And enforce it. "
xdfred wrote on Jul 2, 2008 6:04 PM:
" BTW all, the U.N. does not rule the world. And who would want it to. "
jeroze wrote on Jul 2, 2008 6:45 PM:
" hillbillytea: If I remember the film clip right, Cheney said that getting rid of the controling government of Sadaam Hussein might result in a chaos that was worse than what Sadaam's dictatorship caused. "
chester11 wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:58 PM:
" Well, since the subject has been decidedly changed I'll add another Bush lie:
Whoever outed a CIA agent was going to be "taken care of" by this administration. Actually, that's from Bush' own face. Wait, I guess that's not really a lie depending on how you look at it.
But let's see, xdfred will say something derogatory about Valerie Plame in response, never having the moral honesty to admit that if she was married to a Republican and it was a Dem administration crony, or pundit, that pulled that stunt, he would've wanted that person lynched. Ain't that right, fred?
And yea, it's not like most of these lies come directly from George ("Mission Accomplished") W. ("although I never personally met Mr. Lay") Bush ("We don't torture!").
Just withholding significant facts and allowing his oily bums to fabricate everything for him. Such as throwing the lying through his teeth Gonzo up in front of a Congressional hearing after axing U.S. attorneys for failing to go after political opponents. So, it's David Eglesias lying, right Hetfield?
Or, Bush generally just being a disingenuous jerk, and taking credit for the GI Bill expansion that Jim Webb put together and Bush threatened to veto, but now insinuating he worked on it all night over take-out with Webb and John McCain.
Also, Scott McCllelan must be the one lying because his recollection of what occurred, while he had unprecedented security clearance, doesn't jibe with what you all want to believe. I like how now he's a loser who didn't know what he was talking about anyway because they don't tell press secretaries anything. Should I also assume the same then about Fleischer and Perino?
Or, no, because they're still rubber stamping Bush's spins. So they're cool, you guys!
Oh and cire, love those big independent viewpoints you've been displaying.
You sound like Bill O'Reilly. "
Whoever outed a CIA agent was going to be "taken care of" by this administration. Actually, that's from Bush' own face. Wait, I guess that's not really a lie depending on how you look at it.
But let's see, xdfred will say something derogatory about Valerie Plame in response, never having the moral honesty to admit that if she was married to a Republican and it was a Dem administration crony, or pundit, that pulled that stunt, he would've wanted that person lynched. Ain't that right, fred?
And yea, it's not like most of these lies come directly from George ("Mission Accomplished") W. ("although I never personally met Mr. Lay") Bush ("We don't torture!").
Just withholding significant facts and allowing his oily bums to fabricate everything for him. Such as throwing the lying through his teeth Gonzo up in front of a Congressional hearing after axing U.S. attorneys for failing to go after political opponents. So, it's David Eglesias lying, right Hetfield?
Or, Bush generally just being a disingenuous jerk, and taking credit for the GI Bill expansion that Jim Webb put together and Bush threatened to veto, but now insinuating he worked on it all night over take-out with Webb and John McCain.
Also, Scott McCllelan must be the one lying because his recollection of what occurred, while he had unprecedented security clearance, doesn't jibe with what you all want to believe. I like how now he's a loser who didn't know what he was talking about anyway because they don't tell press secretaries anything. Should I also assume the same then about Fleischer and Perino?
Or, no, because they're still rubber stamping Bush's spins. So they're cool, you guys!
Oh and cire, love those big independent viewpoints you've been displaying.
You sound like Bill O'Reilly. "
cire wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:31 AM:
" chester11, "Oh and cire, love those big independent viewpoints you've been displaying."
I had to list the quotes from those "level-headed" Democrats to correct the false statements that were made about it being "Bush's War" and "Bush Lied/People Died".
Am I a Republican because I can't sit here and listen to this garbage without posting the facts? I've voted for both parties in local & state elections within the past 4 years, but I guess since I don't fall in line with the Democratic way of thinking, I'm the enemy. ..and Democrats wonder how they are alienating voters...
I seem to recall that Bush got more Independent votes than both Gore & Kerry...so it would appear that the "average American" sides a bit more to the right than to the left. "
I had to list the quotes from those "level-headed" Democrats to correct the false statements that were made about it being "Bush's War" and "Bush Lied/People Died".
Am I a Republican because I can't sit here and listen to this garbage without posting the facts? I've voted for both parties in local & state elections within the past 4 years, but I guess since I don't fall in line with the Democratic way of thinking, I'm the enemy. ..and Democrats wonder how they are alienating voters...
I seem to recall that Bush got more Independent votes than both Gore & Kerry...so it would appear that the "average American" sides a bit more to the right than to the left. "
xdfred wrote on Jul 3, 2008 11:03 AM:
" As usual, Chester, you are wrong, again. I don't care who it is, someone pretending to be a secret agent is trash. Whether republican or democrat. Valerie Plame, desk jockey, parked personal car at Langley. Undercover CIA types don't park their personal licensed vehicles at Langley for obvious reasons. And did her "outing" get anyone hurt? Now, "leaky" Leahy got some people killed. "
hetfield wrote on Jul 3, 2008 11:09 AM:
" Plame, wow, I wondered how long it would take for someone to mention her. This poor mistreated cia agent. The difference in the cia now from the cia of the past is part of the problem with the conservative movement; the sissyfying of the party. This poor lady was thrown out under the bus by her boss and what, does she die in service, does she get captured by the enemy? No she writes a book and is now a millionaire. poor val!
As far as lying goes, any president is in between a rock and a hard place(except for clinton, he was inbetween monica and his desk). we dont toruture? well, as in any war, we need information to help win the war. If some terrorist has it, we are entitled to get it. I personally dont care how we get it, short of killing them. This is completely different than say torturing McCain just for kicks.
So does this mean Bush lied? Who cares. Congress gave him to ability to fight this war "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" So congress lied then huh?
Let's look at the good barck hussein obama. this guy is lying now. he wil flip flop on any subject to appear he is now conservative? What a joke. His #1 liberal senator tag doesnt allow him to care about evangelicals, or faith based agendas. He isnt even in the oval office and he is lying. Now, he took an oath when he became senator, so he should be impeached as well.
The good senator will change america all right, he will destroy her with the same ravenous indignity that he has shown the last 3+ years. "
As far as lying goes, any president is in between a rock and a hard place(except for clinton, he was inbetween monica and his desk). we dont toruture? well, as in any war, we need information to help win the war. If some terrorist has it, we are entitled to get it. I personally dont care how we get it, short of killing them. This is completely different than say torturing McCain just for kicks.
So does this mean Bush lied? Who cares. Congress gave him to ability to fight this war "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" So congress lied then huh?
Let's look at the good barck hussein obama. this guy is lying now. he wil flip flop on any subject to appear he is now conservative? What a joke. His #1 liberal senator tag doesnt allow him to care about evangelicals, or faith based agendas. He isnt even in the oval office and he is lying. Now, he took an oath when he became senator, so he should be impeached as well.
The good senator will change america all right, he will destroy her with the same ravenous indignity that he has shown the last 3+ years. "
xdfred wrote on Jul 3, 2008 11:20 AM:
" Prove the lie Chester. Did he say it knowing he wouldn't do it? And, as usual, you are wrong again. Somebody pretending to be a "secret agent", who parks her personal car at Langley, is trash regardless of political affiliation. I can see why you identify with the self serving Walter Mitty syndrome both those characters, Valerie and her husband, suffer from, though.
Scott McClellan? Unprecedented security clearance? What made him so special?
Your comments are quite boring, Chester, but please continue. "
Scott McClellan? Unprecedented security clearance? What made him so special?
Your comments are quite boring, Chester, but please continue. "
jeroze wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:19 PM:
" Back to the question which heads the column "Why does gasoline cost so much?" Actually I believe that this is one of Professor Clayson's best efforts.
I wish to add another comment. Gasoline costs so much because the people out there selling oil to the USA are showing the USA that they know how to really get a message across and that they have the ability to cut us down to size. No longer are they working for us or with us but against us.
They will continue to do this as long as the USA takes the rest of the world for granted and takes advantage of those who have less.
After all people are people wherever they are and they go by the rule
Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
If you clobber me
I'll clobber you. "
I wish to add another comment. Gasoline costs so much because the people out there selling oil to the USA are showing the USA that they know how to really get a message across and that they have the ability to cut us down to size. No longer are they working for us or with us but against us.
They will continue to do this as long as the USA takes the rest of the world for granted and takes advantage of those who have less.
After all people are people wherever they are and they go by the rule
Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
If you clobber me
I'll clobber you. "
xdfred wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:40 PM:
" jeroze, oil costs so much because OPEC is greedy and has monopolized the market. And how are we taking the rest of the world for granted? Our greatest economic strength is our competitive spirit. Our own government is quashing that advantage with regards to domestic oil production. We have had serious flooding and tornado activity this year. Billions in damages. Where are our global neighbors? Yet a Tsunami occurs, and there we are with a helping hand. Fascists threaten the peace and stability of the world, and there we are with bullets and bayonets. Hunger? Who feeds the desperate sufferers of hunger more than we do?
Who, blindly, I might add, contributes billions to fight aids (and line despot pockets) in Africa. Whose inventions and products ease suffering and improve the quality, or even the possibility, of life for many around the world?
Tell me Jeroze, who is being taken for granted.
Drill and bring OPEC to it's knees. "
Who, blindly, I might add, contributes billions to fight aids (and line despot pockets) in Africa. Whose inventions and products ease suffering and improve the quality, or even the possibility, of life for many around the world?
Tell me Jeroze, who is being taken for granted.
Drill and bring OPEC to it's knees. "
jeroze wrote on Jul 3, 2008 6:37 PM:
" xfred we have clobbered those who clobbered us haven't we? And so the cycle goes, Violence begets violence begets violence begets violence.......... "
jeroze wrote on Jul 3, 2008 6:48 PM:
" Xfred are you saying that we received no help when the levee broke in New Orleans from other countries? Think again please. Check it out. The great generosity for which you give the USA credit is the same generosity you will find all over the world. Likewise the bully tactics. You name it, people are the same everywhere around the world. "
jeroze wrote on Jul 3, 2008 7:22 PM:
" Xfred, I think that our Louisiana people got aid from other countries. I believe that at first we got sympathy from other coutries at 9-11.
I think a study of the generosity of people around the world is very revealing. People are the same all over the world. Charity is not confined to borders of the U S A. Check out what our USA generosity is in comparison of our GDP. "
I think a study of the generosity of people around the world is very revealing. People are the same all over the world. Charity is not confined to borders of the U S A. Check out what our USA generosity is in comparison of our GDP. "
chester11 wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:00 PM:
" xdfred: "I can see why you identify with the self serving Walter Mitty syndrome both those characters, Valerie and her husband, suffer from, though."
Wanna compare DD214s, chump? "
Wanna compare DD214s, chump? "
chester wrote on Jul 4, 2008 12:34 AM:
" Here was my squadron, xdfred.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/vaw-126.htm
I know the idea of veterans being of a Progressive persuasion is a completely confusing concept to you, and I'm sorry to change the subject but you pinched a nerve.
Somehow, you mistake non-serving (but tough talking) (people) like Tom Delay and Dick Cheney for soldiers and several times in these last few threads we've batted back and forth on I've brought up veteran's benefits, GI Bill expansion, MRAPs, stop-loss tours, Walter Reed, and PTSD issues and how Republicans can be counted on without fail to vote to these vets' detriment.
Go ahead. Ignore those issues once again and pluck three non-consecutive words out of my post and then create some delusional, incomprehensible point.
And once again, I know we were talking about gas/oil but I've lost interest in that because you and Hetfield 's pathetic allegiance to U.S. security has been exposed for the sham it is, because no matter what you think of Mrs. Plame, she was an agent in the CIA and for purely partisan reasons you've adopted a seething contempt for her. Which is beyond the pale and you're (wrong) for saying that if she was a member of the other party, you wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit when she was attacked like that.
Let me also ask if you question these individual's patriotism or service record because they all have taken strong Progressive stances:
Pat Tillman, Joe Sestak, John Glenn, Jim Webb, Daniel Inouye, Jack Reed, Charlie Rangel, Paul Rieckoff, Jack Murtha, Paul Hackett, Jimmy Carter, Tom Daschle, Tom Harkin, Max Cleland, George McGovern, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy.
Now you may scoff at some of the policies of those guys and for some of them, I have too, but I guaranTEE you that for every 1 of your beloved Republicans that have served I can give you 5 Democrats. Additionally, the most prominent, most famous members of your party are cowardly chickenhawks. "War, war, war!!" As long as my kids and I don't have to be involved.
You just gonna ignore this?
If you see three of these: ... I was censored because you went wrong and I responded in kind, pal.
Happy 4th of July, "patriot". "
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/vaw-126.htm
I know the idea of veterans being of a Progressive persuasion is a completely confusing concept to you, and I'm sorry to change the subject but you pinched a nerve.
Somehow, you mistake non-serving (but tough talking) (people) like Tom Delay and Dick Cheney for soldiers and several times in these last few threads we've batted back and forth on I've brought up veteran's benefits, GI Bill expansion, MRAPs, stop-loss tours, Walter Reed, and PTSD issues and how Republicans can be counted on without fail to vote to these vets' detriment.
Go ahead. Ignore those issues once again and pluck three non-consecutive words out of my post and then create some delusional, incomprehensible point.
And once again, I know we were talking about gas/oil but I've lost interest in that because you and Hetfield 's pathetic allegiance to U.S. security has been exposed for the sham it is, because no matter what you think of Mrs. Plame, she was an agent in the CIA and for purely partisan reasons you've adopted a seething contempt for her. Which is beyond the pale and you're (wrong) for saying that if she was a member of the other party, you wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit when she was attacked like that.
Let me also ask if you question these individual's patriotism or service record because they all have taken strong Progressive stances:
Pat Tillman, Joe Sestak, John Glenn, Jim Webb, Daniel Inouye, Jack Reed, Charlie Rangel, Paul Rieckoff, Jack Murtha, Paul Hackett, Jimmy Carter, Tom Daschle, Tom Harkin, Max Cleland, George McGovern, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy.
Now you may scoff at some of the policies of those guys and for some of them, I have too, but I guaranTEE you that for every 1 of your beloved Republicans that have served I can give you 5 Democrats. Additionally, the most prominent, most famous members of your party are cowardly chickenhawks. "War, war, war!!" As long as my kids and I don't have to be involved.
You just gonna ignore this?
If you see three of these: ... I was censored because you went wrong and I responded in kind, pal.
Happy 4th of July, "patriot". "
chester11 wrote on Jul 4, 2008 10:17 AM:
" One last thing, xdfred. Weren't you the genius that accused someone who didn't agree with you of sitting around whining instead of out sandbagging a few weeks ago? Since, of course, you have this omniscient knowledge about all of us here in the Cedar Valley and our activities up to and including our service records.
I believe you said that on the same couple days we were realizing, as a community, how bad the flooding had hit our area. If you forgot that, or you're all keyed up to deny I'm pretty sure I can go back and find the post. Did you want me to do that, or..?
I think the Courier is great for allowing us to post out here and having staff take the time out to regulate but it's a shame to me how you can get away with saying that kind of thing, which is presumptuous at best and viciously insulting at worst, without getting your three ... because if any post deserved it...that one did. "
I believe you said that on the same couple days we were realizing, as a community, how bad the flooding had hit our area. If you forgot that, or you're all keyed up to deny I'm pretty sure I can go back and find the post. Did you want me to do that, or..?
I think the Courier is great for allowing us to post out here and having staff take the time out to regulate but it's a shame to me how you can get away with saying that kind of thing, which is presumptuous at best and viciously insulting at worst, without getting your three ... because if any post deserved it...that one did. "
Courier editors wrote on Jul 4, 2008 10:41 AM:
" This is a warning that the behavior on this thread is turning very nasty, and will be shut down if civility does not return. Stop the name-calling and turning this into something personal and keep to the topic. "
hillbillytea wrote on Jul 4, 2008 1:31 PM:
" at tax time it was bought up on the news that bush made $200,000 in 2007 on his stocks that he had to pay taxes on.It was also reported that Cheney made two million on his haliburtain stock.that presents a conflict of interest.a problem that I see is that if legislation were proposed that would compramise their stock, they could very well intervene even if such legislation were benificial to the consumer. in this case the lack of action was frustrating to the the average consumer.does anyone know what stock GW is still holding.We all know he was an oil man but is he still an active energy stock holder.It make you wonder and yes they all do it. "
hillbillytea wrote on Jul 4, 2008 1:54 PM:
" the point is was trying to make was that it doesn.t seem so odd that while gas prices and oil company profits skyrocked washington was seen as slow to intervene "
coalplant wrote on Jul 4, 2008 2:46 PM:
" chester,
That was me who made the very accurate comment on the type of people Phil, cross and yourself are,,,the type who take pictures and opine about how bad things are and never lift a finger to help those out who need it because the omniprescent and all powerful and compassionate government will do it for you. I stand by it because it's true and you can scream all you want about how patriotic it is to feel our country is to blame for all that is wrong in the world,,,that's your brand of patriotism and I am sure it makes you feel good to feel bad,,, but I find it pathetic. "
That was me who made the very accurate comment on the type of people Phil, cross and yourself are,,,the type who take pictures and opine about how bad things are and never lift a finger to help those out who need it because the omniprescent and all powerful and compassionate government will do it for you. I stand by it because it's true and you can scream all you want about how patriotic it is to feel our country is to blame for all that is wrong in the world,,,that's your brand of patriotism and I am sure it makes you feel good to feel bad,,, but I find it pathetic. "
roaddog wrote on Jul 4, 2008 3:20 PM:
" Its really not that complicated. It is all about supply and demand along with Goverment regulations. If we drill our own or at least announce we are going to the market will react to the prediction of the influx of oil as well as to the fact we (the USA) will no longer need the foreign suppliers. "
jeroze wrote on Jul 5, 2008 2:48 PM:
" Summary for the week:
Why is the price of gasoline so high?
1. The world has changed and is changing.
2. Oil has become expensive to develope.
3. The dollar has fallen in value eue to the overwhelming debt.
4. Environmental considerations have put a damper on drilling in the U S
5. Alternative sources of energy do not get adequate emphasis.
6. Countries with oil to export are not friendly to the U. S. A.
7. Oil companies are making large profits.
8. The present administration has shown a definite favoritism to the U. S. Oil Corporations and in general seem to want the haves to have more. "
Why is the price of gasoline so high?
1. The world has changed and is changing.
2. Oil has become expensive to develope.
3. The dollar has fallen in value eue to the overwhelming debt.
4. Environmental considerations have put a damper on drilling in the U S
5. Alternative sources of energy do not get adequate emphasis.
6. Countries with oil to export are not friendly to the U. S. A.
7. Oil companies are making large profits.
8. The present administration has shown a definite favoritism to the U. S. Oil Corporations and in general seem to want the haves to have more. "
hetfield wrote on Jul 6, 2008 1:24 PM:
" It's amazing that the left can only see what the left wants them to see. You blame the right for one reason; envy. You envy people who work hard to make themselves better. you envy those who have more than do due to their work. you envy those who risk their livelihood to invest, create, achieve and thrive. you envy people for their tremendous service records to our country. you envy these folks for their bravery, courage, and selflessness.
This country countinues to thrive due to the efforts of the right, regardless of what the leftists throw at them. The past two presidential elections prove this point. The left continues to throw candidates out there who are so liberal and unworthy of the post, that your hated president is retiring as a two termer. Barack Hussein Obama is another example. this man has zero experience nationally or internationally, but somehow has you fooled. he is merely a muppet for the puppet-masters of the donkeye party.
It is with no doubt that McCain will win this election. Liberals are known to spout high and far how their candidate offers hope. But in the privacy of their voting booth, they cant stomache voting for Obama, nor will they.
time to drill, boys, time to drill. "
This country countinues to thrive due to the efforts of the right, regardless of what the leftists throw at them. The past two presidential elections prove this point. The left continues to throw candidates out there who are so liberal and unworthy of the post, that your hated president is retiring as a two termer. Barack Hussein Obama is another example. this man has zero experience nationally or internationally, but somehow has you fooled. he is merely a muppet for the puppet-masters of the donkeye party.
It is with no doubt that McCain will win this election. Liberals are known to spout high and far how their candidate offers hope. But in the privacy of their voting booth, they cant stomache voting for Obama, nor will they.
time to drill, boys, time to drill. "
jeroze wrote on Jul 6, 2008 4:47 PM:
" Hetfield, the left you are describing is a left that I haven't yet found. I wonder if left really envies the way you have indicated.
I believe most of the people you say the left envies wound not be a reason for us all to admire, not envy.
The summary above more than just a summary of our bloggings on this Clayson article. It is summary of all the information that were encountered in this article and other sources.
It is time to move on to this week..... "
I believe most of the people you say the left envies wound not be a reason for us all to admire, not envy.
The summary above more than just a summary of our bloggings on this Clayson article. It is summary of all the information that were encountered in this article and other sources.
It is time to move on to this week..... "
Oboy wrote on Jul 6, 2008 8:15 PM:
" Just 2 questions, how much a week are we spending on gas/fuel to keep Bush's War going? And how much are the Dentists paying you for the tag line "time to drill boys, time to drill? "
xdfred wrote on Jul 8, 2008 2:35 PM:
" Who's to blame for gas prices?
Who is most to blame for America's skyrocketing gasoline prices?
The list of suspects and collaborators is long – foreign oil producers, environmentalists, lack of competition among oil companies, instability in the Middle East, etc.
Yet, none of those can begin to compete with the U.S. federal government as the chief contributor to $4-plus-a-gallon gas and $130-a-barrel oil. And the problem is far bigger than you might suspect.
It's not just at ANWR in the remote parts of Alaska where Washington continues to is prohibit pumping of vast reserves of oil – even in a time of national crisis, when the American people are on the verge of apoplexy over gas prices. In fact, the U.S. government is pretty much blocking exploration and pumping of oil on most so-called public land.
Federal lands throughout the United States are estimated to contain 31 billion barrels of oil and 231 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Some 60 percent of onshore federal lands that have potential as domestic sources of oil and natural gas are officially closed to leasing by the Bureau of Land Management. That translates to 62 percent domestic oil reserves inaccessible for development.
But it gets worse.
An additional 30 percent of onshore federal oil and 49 percent of onshore federal gas may only be developed subject to restrictions over and above standard environmental lease terms, including seasonal timing limitations.
And, I am afraid, it gets still worse.
Just 8 percent of onshore federal oil and 10 percent of onshore federal gas are accessible under standard lease terms.
That's quite a service the federal government is providing for the country, isn't it? But if you don't like the fact that Washington is blocking development of oil and gasoline on lands owned by you, consider this.
Not only is the federal government's energy policy bent toward subverting the development of energy, Washington also demands – and gets – a huge cut on the sale of every gallon of gasoline sold, far more, in fact, than the oil companies themselves profit from each gallon.
It's true.
While few Americans realize they own the land where drilling could bring gas prices down dramatically, they also have little clue that up to 75 cents of the cost per gallon is the result of local, state and federal taxes – and that number is rising. That's because government profits to the tune of 20 percent of the cost paid at the pump.
Do you think government has an incentive to lower the cost of a gallon of gas when it rakes in 20 percent of the price? I don't think so. Government is, in fact, making windfall profits from rising gas prices. By definition, the oil companies do not make windfall profits. As any economics 101 student knows, windfall profits are those made without effort or investment. The only party making windfall profits from gas and oil by that definition is government. Government has every possible incentive to keep gas prices high and going higher.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, when the average price of regular unleaded gas peaked at $3 per gallon in 2006, most major companies were profiting only about 10 cents per gallon on refining and marketing options, while the federal government alone profited by as much as 18.4 cents per gallon.
And what did the government do to earn that money? It blocked exploration and development of oil. What a racket! How do I invest in those futures?
Well, you can't exactly invest in the government. It's more like allowing yourself to be extorted at the point of a gun.
From Joseph Farrah, Worldnetdaily "
Who is most to blame for America's skyrocketing gasoline prices?
The list of suspects and collaborators is long – foreign oil producers, environmentalists, lack of competition among oil companies, instability in the Middle East, etc.
Yet, none of those can begin to compete with the U.S. federal government as the chief contributor to $4-plus-a-gallon gas and $130-a-barrel oil. And the problem is far bigger than you might suspect.
It's not just at ANWR in the remote parts of Alaska where Washington continues to is prohibit pumping of vast reserves of oil – even in a time of national crisis, when the American people are on the verge of apoplexy over gas prices. In fact, the U.S. government is pretty much blocking exploration and pumping of oil on most so-called public land.
Federal lands throughout the United States are estimated to contain 31 billion barrels of oil and 231 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Some 60 percent of onshore federal lands that have potential as domestic sources of oil and natural gas are officially closed to leasing by the Bureau of Land Management. That translates to 62 percent domestic oil reserves inaccessible for development.
But it gets worse.
An additional 30 percent of onshore federal oil and 49 percent of onshore federal gas may only be developed subject to restrictions over and above standard environmental lease terms, including seasonal timing limitations.
And, I am afraid, it gets still worse.
Just 8 percent of onshore federal oil and 10 percent of onshore federal gas are accessible under standard lease terms.
That's quite a service the federal government is providing for the country, isn't it? But if you don't like the fact that Washington is blocking development of oil and gasoline on lands owned by you, consider this.
Not only is the federal government's energy policy bent toward subverting the development of energy, Washington also demands – and gets – a huge cut on the sale of every gallon of gasoline sold, far more, in fact, than the oil companies themselves profit from each gallon.
It's true.
While few Americans realize they own the land where drilling could bring gas prices down dramatically, they also have little clue that up to 75 cents of the cost per gallon is the result of local, state and federal taxes – and that number is rising. That's because government profits to the tune of 20 percent of the cost paid at the pump.
Do you think government has an incentive to lower the cost of a gallon of gas when it rakes in 20 percent of the price? I don't think so. Government is, in fact, making windfall profits from rising gas prices. By definition, the oil companies do not make windfall profits. As any economics 101 student knows, windfall profits are those made without effort or investment. The only party making windfall profits from gas and oil by that definition is government. Government has every possible incentive to keep gas prices high and going higher.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, when the average price of regular unleaded gas peaked at $3 per gallon in 2006, most major companies were profiting only about 10 cents per gallon on refining and marketing options, while the federal government alone profited by as much as 18.4 cents per gallon.
And what did the government do to earn that money? It blocked exploration and development of oil. What a racket! How do I invest in those futures?
Well, you can't exactly invest in the government. It's more like allowing yourself to be extorted at the point of a gun.
From Joseph Farrah, Worldnetdaily "
xdfred wrote on Jul 8, 2008 2:42 PM:
" And I repeat:
xdfred
wrote on Jul 3, 2008 4:05 PM:
" So, who have we clobbered, jeroze? "
Jeroze, if we got aid from overseas after Katrina, it was either trivial, or a very well kept secret. We are the most generous nation on the planet when it comes to giving. No comparison.
Chester, keep your bogus DD214. You and Cross. "
xdfred
wrote on Jul 3, 2008 4:05 PM:
" So, who have we clobbered, jeroze? "
Jeroze, if we got aid from overseas after Katrina, it was either trivial, or a very well kept secret. We are the most generous nation on the planet when it comes to giving. No comparison.
Chester, keep your bogus DD214. You and Cross. "
chester11 wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:01 PM:
" coalplant wrote on Jul 4, 2008 2:46 PM:
" chester,
That was me who made the very accurate comment on the type of people Phil, cross and yourself are,,,the type who take pictures and opine about how bad things are and never lift a finger to help those out who need it because the omniprescent and all powerful and compassionate government will do it for you. I stand by it because it's true and you can scream all you want about how patriotic it is to feel our country is to blame for all that is wrong in the world,,,that's your brand of patriotism and I am sure it makes you feel good to feel bad,,, but I find it pathetic. "
xdfred wrote on Jul 8, 2008 2:42 PM:
Chester, keep your bogus DD214. You and Cross. "
Well, twould seem that warning about personal insults only applies to certain users.
What's the point of trying to respond to these little punks if my feelings and post about vicious, cowardly comments like this are gonna be neutered? "
" chester,
That was me who made the very accurate comment on the type of people Phil, cross and yourself are,,,the type who take pictures and opine about how bad things are and never lift a finger to help those out who need it because the omniprescent and all powerful and compassionate government will do it for you. I stand by it because it's true and you can scream all you want about how patriotic it is to feel our country is to blame for all that is wrong in the world,,,that's your brand of patriotism and I am sure it makes you feel good to feel bad,,, but I find it pathetic. "
xdfred wrote on Jul 8, 2008 2:42 PM:
Chester, keep your bogus DD214. You and Cross. "
Well, twould seem that warning about personal insults only applies to certain users.
What's the point of trying to respond to these little punks if my feelings and post about vicious, cowardly comments like this are gonna be neutered? "
xdfred wrote on Jul 9, 2008 12:36 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Jul 8, 2008 2:42 PM:
Chester, keep your bogus DD214. You and Cross. " There's a personal insult in there? It's just a bit odd that the premier left wingers on this board claim to be military vets. And I believe the claim is bogus.
Well Chester, if you'd stick to the topic instead of trying to puff yourself up by throwing your fictitious DD214 around and calling names, ....ah, never mind.
Gas costs a lot because of left wingers like you. And all your bluster and bogus claims about how great you are isn't going to change that. "
Chester, keep your bogus DD214. You and Cross. " There's a personal insult in there? It's just a bit odd that the premier left wingers on this board claim to be military vets. And I believe the claim is bogus.
Well Chester, if you'd stick to the topic instead of trying to puff yourself up by throwing your fictitious DD214 around and calling names, ....ah, never mind.
Gas costs a lot because of left wingers like you. And all your bluster and bogus claims about how great you are isn't going to change that. "
50674 wrote on Jul 9, 2008 6:26 PM:
" YOU xdfred have the freedom to post your opinion because of those who have their DD214. And yours in is on file in which county?? "
xdfred wrote on Jul 10, 2008 9:32 AM:
" 50674, don't make assumptions. I just don't like bragging myself up like Chester/Cross, especially in a forum like this where nothing can be proven. I may have been an 0311 in a previous life, or I may not have, but here, it's all talk. My point to those characters is why even bring it up?
But if you ever have the pleasure of meeting me, I'll be the one with the scars and USMC tattoos. Or maybe not. So why bring it up? "
But if you ever have the pleasure of meeting me, I'll be the one with the scars and USMC tattoos. Or maybe not. So why bring it up? "
chester11 wrote on Jul 10, 2008 9:08 PM:
" The reason, xdfred, I brought it up about myself is because my patriotism and volunteerism gets questioned by guys like you and Coalplant.
I don't think it's all that inappropriate for me to mention it under those circumstances.
It has no relevance to this issue and it's really not that big of a deal. I said my tour was during peacetime. But you and a few of your buddies out here have concrete beliefs about people that lean left and whether I prove it to you or not, is it incomprehensible to you that there are progressives with the same, and even MORE liberal viewpoints than myself, in the military?
So, if coalplant makes assumptions about how lazy and unpatriotic I am because I identify myself say, as a liberal, than I suspect he'd believe the same about the list of progressive veterans I listed above our posts. Because he didn't just attack me. He attacked Cross. Then he attacked liberals in general as sitting around whining and not lifting a finger and not sandbagging, and etc, and etc, and whatever other rotten garbage he said. My brother is active duty Petty Officer 2nd Class. My stepdad (who I see as my father) retired from the Army. We vote mostly Democrat. Neither of them lay around on the couch whining about everything like Coalplant said.
I can pull up the post if you need me to.
We have gone WAYYY off the subject and we're the only ones left really talking about this but how would you respond buddy? If you spent 4 years in service to the country (which you may have..), all over the world, and years of various volunteer work afterwards would you be offended if someone said something like this..
"That was me who made the very accurate comment on the type of people Phil, cross and yourself are,,,the type who take pictures and opine about how bad things are and never lift a finger to help those out who need it"
disregarding the subject at hand as well? And ONLY because of the more progressive stance I have on issues.
Yea, I thought so.
Yea, I feel halfway stupid printing it out like it's a big deal, but that's the idiotic notion he put forth and the point is that Coalplant needs to be checked on his vile little opinions. "
I don't think it's all that inappropriate for me to mention it under those circumstances.
It has no relevance to this issue and it's really not that big of a deal. I said my tour was during peacetime. But you and a few of your buddies out here have concrete beliefs about people that lean left and whether I prove it to you or not, is it incomprehensible to you that there are progressives with the same, and even MORE liberal viewpoints than myself, in the military?
So, if coalplant makes assumptions about how lazy and unpatriotic I am because I identify myself say, as a liberal, than I suspect he'd believe the same about the list of progressive veterans I listed above our posts. Because he didn't just attack me. He attacked Cross. Then he attacked liberals in general as sitting around whining and not lifting a finger and not sandbagging, and etc, and etc, and whatever other rotten garbage he said. My brother is active duty Petty Officer 2nd Class. My stepdad (who I see as my father) retired from the Army. We vote mostly Democrat. Neither of them lay around on the couch whining about everything like Coalplant said.
I can pull up the post if you need me to.
We have gone WAYYY off the subject and we're the only ones left really talking about this but how would you respond buddy? If you spent 4 years in service to the country (which you may have..), all over the world, and years of various volunteer work afterwards would you be offended if someone said something like this..
"That was me who made the very accurate comment on the type of people Phil, cross and yourself are,,,the type who take pictures and opine about how bad things are and never lift a finger to help those out who need it"
disregarding the subject at hand as well? And ONLY because of the more progressive stance I have on issues.
Yea, I thought so.
Yea, I feel halfway stupid printing it out like it's a big deal, but that's the idiotic notion he put forth and the point is that Coalplant needs to be checked on his vile little opinions. "
coalplant wrote on Jul 11, 2008 6:03 AM:
" Chester,
My vile little opinions are exactly that mine,,, I don't pretend to represent the rest of the world like ... Cross, ...Phil and ... Chester. Your problem is having it pointed out directly to you how foolish and absolutely detrimental your type of attitudes are to people. If you have to claim service in the military to prove your patriotic then maybe it's time to look in the mirror and re-evaluate the way you choose to live your life. Then again I am not the one who kept accusing the wrong person of making the so called vile statements and not once offered an apology to the person you so carelessly slandered. Perhaps that also says alot about the way liberals represent themselves. Personally I am tired of a bunch of burnouts from the sixties trying to relive an era of absolute stupidity. Then again that's just my opinion, one of which I am entitled to have,, whether it be right or wrong
Gas prices are high because we continue to pay for it
Obama in 08
Maybe Jesse Jackson is onto something "
My vile little opinions are exactly that mine,,, I don't pretend to represent the rest of the world like ... Cross, ...Phil and ... Chester. Your problem is having it pointed out directly to you how foolish and absolutely detrimental your type of attitudes are to people. If you have to claim service in the military to prove your patriotic then maybe it's time to look in the mirror and re-evaluate the way you choose to live your life. Then again I am not the one who kept accusing the wrong person of making the so called vile statements and not once offered an apology to the person you so carelessly slandered. Perhaps that also says alot about the way liberals represent themselves. Personally I am tired of a bunch of burnouts from the sixties trying to relive an era of absolute stupidity. Then again that's just my opinion, one of which I am entitled to have,, whether it be right or wrong
Gas prices are high because we continue to pay for it
Obama in 08
Maybe Jesse Jackson is onto something "
chester11 wrote on Jul 11, 2008 7:07 AM:
" "Coalplant wrote: If you have to claim service in the military to prove your patriotic then maybe it's time to look in the mirror and re-evaluate the way you choose to live your life."
Nah. I'm fine with it ds. "
Nah. I'm fine with it ds. "
coalplant wrote on Jul 11, 2008 9:06 AM:
" good to hear your fine with it, now why don't you quit the whining and start being a productive member of society, and wean yourself from the teat of government "
xdfred wrote on Jul 11, 2008 2:19 PM:
" To get back on topic: Why does gas cost so much? "Environmentalist" Leftwingers or the greedy oil companies. If the oil companies, why wait until now? Why wasn't gas at $4 a gallon 10 years ago? "
50674 wrote on Jul 11, 2008 5:31 PM:
" xdfred, perhaps we will have the pleasure of meeting one day...no tatoo of USMC here but still, I was Parris Island, SC, 1970. I'm not bragging it up either but I wouldn't ever assume that someone else's calim is bogus. It isn't right. We CAN disagree without being unkind. "
chester11 wrote on Jul 11, 2008 6:08 PM:
" You're unbelievable, Coalplant. Unbelievable. You think you got me pegged dontcha?
All straight from the anonymity of your little computer room there.
See you in another thread pal.
Better hope your arguments are airtight.. "
All straight from the anonymity of your little computer room there.
See you in another thread pal.
Better hope your arguments are airtight.. "
coalplant wrote on Jul 11, 2008 8:10 PM:
" See Chester this is what is absolutely amazing about folks like you and Cross,I'm not arguing with you,i'm not presenting arguements, I'm posting an opinion on a quasi message board, laughing my but off at how serious you liberals take yourself. notice I said liberals because your and Cross's and Phil's beliefs are not even in the ballpark of what us regular card carrying Dems think. So watch me all you want, argue with me until your blue in the face, I still think your beliefs are pathetic and that ain't changing "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
hillbillytea wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:54 AM: