Just Wondering: When Republicans Fill Their Gas Tanks...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...at $3 per gallon, do they whistle a happy tune and have big grins on their faces?

Do they feel all warm and fuzzy inside watching the gauges on the pump spin?

What sort of thoughts go through their minds, I wonder?

"Praise the Lord! This is proof that crony capitalism and free market economics work! In your face, liberal elitist scumbags!"

"Hallelujah! Praise God! What's good for ExxonMobil is good for Main St. USA!"

"Golly, this is WAY better than paying a dollar a gallon and having that awful, immoral Clinton fella in the white house!"

Or maybe it's something as simple as "Hmmm, I don't like this one bit........but it's a small price to pay to keep homosexuals from gettin' married."

Just curious. :D

[cutthemdown]

We just blame it on welfare and entitlements then re-watch Reagan speaches on our big screen t.v's

[Spider]

...at $3 per gallon, do they whistle a happy tune and have big grins on their faces?

Do they feel all warm and fuzzy inside watching the gauges on the pump spin?

What sort of thoughts go through their minds, I wonder?

"Praise the Lord! This is proof that crony capitalism and free market economics work! In your face, liberal elitist scumbags!"

"Hallelujah! Praise God! What's good for ExxonMobil is good for Main St. USA!"

"Golly, this is WAY better than paying a dollar a gallon and having that awful, immoral Clinton fella in the white house!"

Or maybe it's something as simple as "Hmmm, I don't like this one bit........but it's a small price to pay to keep homosexuals from gettin' married."

Just curious. :D
LOL a few years back I did have 1 person tell me ... well they are paying 5 bucks per gallon in europe , I said and they pay 46 cents in South America whats your point ?
;D he just shrugged ....

[BroncoMatt]

I wish I paid only $3 gallon

[Spider]

I wish I paid only $3 gallon

;D I carry 300 gallons .....@ Paid 3.46 per gallon in Bellfield N.D .

[spdirty]

I do my part by always looking for the most expensive diesel I can find before filling up.

[orinjkrush]

scary part is that lots of mutual funds and retirement funds invest in EXXON and others.

[Crushaholic]

I certainly don't blame Bush, as some people on this site like to do. OPEC controls the oil prices. I've said it before. We absolutely HAVE to find a cure for our oil addiction...

[Spider]

I certainly don't blame Bush, as some people on this site like to do. OPEC controls the oil prices. I've said it before. We absolutely HAVE to find a cure for our oil addiction...

Some times hindering the supply chain is enough ...........

[Sassy]

I still don't get why people complain about the rising cost of oil and yet they pay $3-$4 for a coffee, over $3 for a gallon of milk, a $1+ for soda/water, $5 a bottle for tylenol, $3+ for a loaf of bread...why isn't the price of gas allowed to go up as well? For many years it didn't and now it's just catching up with the rest of it.

[spdirty]

I still don't get why people complain about the rising cost of oil and yet they pay $3-$4 for a coffee, over $3 for a gallon of milk, a $1+ for soda/water, $5 a bottle for tylenol, $3+ for a loaf of bread...why isn't the price of gas allowed to go up as well? For many years it didn't and now it's just catching up with the rest of it.

Because I don't buy 50 gallons of coffee, milk, soda/water, tylenol, or bread every week.

[Sassy]

No...but the cost of drilling, production, etc. also goes up along with what it costs for the oil crew...how can oil/gas prices stay at a low? The cost of EVERYTHING eventually goes up and that includes oil/gas.

[frerottenextelway]

I still don't get why people complain about the rising cost of oil and yet they pay $3-$4 for a coffee, over $3 for a gallon of milk, a $1+ for soda/water, $5 a bottle for tylenol, $3+ for a loaf of bread...why isn't the price of gas allowed to go up as well? For many years it didn't and now it's just catching up with the rest of it.

Sassy, the price of gas is connected with everything you mentioned. The higher the price of gas, the more it costs make and ship those pepsis across the country. The more it costs to the manufacturer, the higher the price it will be on the consumer. The price of gas is not only a direct bill on the consumer, but a root of a lot of inflation on everything else.

If places like Denmark, Spain, Portugal and so on can generate much of their power from alternative sources, you gotta wonder why a place like America can't. Or maybe it's that it's not that we can't...

[Sassy]

Sassy, the price of gas is connected with everything you mentioned. The higher the price of gas, the more it costs make and ship those pepsis across the country. The more it costs to the manufacturer, the higher the price it will be on the consumer. The price of gas is not only a direct bill on the consumer, but a root of a lot of inflation on everything else.

If places like Denmark, Spain, Portugal and so on can generate much of their power from alternative sources, you gotta wonder why a place like America can't. Or maybe it's that it's not that we can't...

I get that. You just never hear people complaining when they go out for that Starbucks coffee everyday...at $4 a shot...that could be putting a dent in their gas bill...and COFFEE is not a necessity...well, ok, to some it is ;D...including me!

[TDmvp]

sassy showing common sense something missing from most here at the MAne ...

[Sassy]

sassy showing common sense something missing from most here at the MAne ...

;)

[TDmvp]

3 + dollars to move something 20/30 mile that is 3000 /5000 pounds seems pretty reasonable .... try pushing it ...

[Sassy]

Hmmm...how about the huge entertainment centers/big screens...yet no one seems to have a problem paying high prices for those type of items...it's all in how you perceive it.

[Spider]

Sassy, the price of gas is connected with everything you mentioned. The higher the price of gas, the more it costs make and ship those pepsis across the country. The more it costs to the manufacturer, the higher the price it will be on the consumer. The price of gas is not only a direct bill on the consumer, but a root of a lot of inflation on everything else.

If places like Denmark, Spain, Portugal and so on can generate much of their power from alternative sources, you gotta wonder why a place like America can't. Or maybe it's that it's not that we can't...

;D well said ........People dont seem to understand , that the more it cost for me, to operate , the more it is costing them ...... I dont know how this fact eludes them but it does ........

[Sassy]

;D well said ........People dont seem to understand , that the more it cost for me, to operate , the more it is costing them ...... I dont know how this fact eludes them but it does ........

It doesn't elude me at all...my point is with inflation everything goes up. It's costing you more for everything...and these people on the rigs need to get paid too...everything else goes up and people don't really say much. Oil and Gas go up and people are on a major rampage.

If you really want to get into it...You make how much an hour? :wiggle:

[frerottenextelway]

Hmmm...how about the huge entertainment centers/big screens...yet no one seems to have a problem paying high prices for those type of items...it's all in how you perceive it.

Purchasing luxeries is what makes the economy click. Higher gas prices means less money for the consumer. Higher gas prices means luxeries cost more. Less money and higher prices means less are bought. Less that are bought means less are made. Less that are made mean less jobs to make them. Less jobs means even less money in the economy, and the viscous circle continues.

It's no big secret that spikes in gas prices spurs consumer inflation, and consumer inflation may be the single biggest detriment to an economy, at least one of the biggest. I don't get why people would want to downplay this? It is a big deal.

[Spider]

I still don't get why people complain about the rising cost of oil and yet they pay $3-$4 for a coffee, over $3 for a gallon of milk, a $1+ for soda/water, $5 a bottle for tylenol, $3+ for a loaf of bread...why isn't the price of gas allowed to go up as well? For many years it didn't and now it's just catching up with the rest of it.

rather simple Sass . you can do without that Coffee , aspirin , milk , Bottled water , big screen TV's etc .......But you cant do with out oil , home heating , food , and still keep this country the way it is , without a acceptable substitution , the economy crashes , we lose our military , we become a 3 rd world country damn near over night ......... we can go without bottled water and still be safe ........

[Spider]

Purchasing luxeries is what makes the economy click. Higher gas prices means less money for the consumer. Higher gas prices means luxeries cost more. Less money and higher prices means less are bought. Less that are bought means less are made. Less that are made mean less jobs to make them. Less jobs means even less money in the economy, and the viscous circle continues.

It's no big secret that spikes in gas prices spurs consumer inflation, and consumer inflation may be the single biggest detriment to an economy, at least one of the biggest. I don't get why people would want to downplay this? It is a big deal.

yep .......They down play it for a very simple reason .... It is dawning on them Bush is a **** up , they now understand to some degree the damage they did voting for him , so they down play everything Bush has ****ed up as a self defense thingy ;D

[Sassy]

Gas was 'cheap' for years...now it's finally catching up with the "cost of living" so to speak...and if you look at the cost of gas per gallon...depending on the state...do you reallize how much of that price is TAX.

[Sassy]

rather simple Sass . you can do without that Coffee , aspirin , milk , Bottled water , big screen TV's etc .......But you cant do with out oil , home heating , food , and still keep this country the way it is , without a acceptable substitution , the economy crashes , we lose our military , we become a 3 rd world country damn near over night ......... we can go without bottled water and still be safe ........

You're still missing it...a lot of the people that complaining about the price of gas are also those that are buying the other stuff too...regardless of whether it's a need.

[Spider]

You're still missing it...a lot of the people that complaining about the price of gas are also those that are buying the other stuff too...regardless of whether it's a need.

So your point is **** things we dont need , let the economy crash for higher fuel prices ........

[enjolras]

It's because folks in the U.S. would rather bitch and moan than make the necessary lifestyle adjustments needed to absorb these high fuel costs. If I was Spider I would be tempted to run every Yukon, Suburban, Hummer and the like off the road because THEY are certainly making it more difficult for him to make a living.

[Dudeskey]

I do my part by always looking for the most expensive diesel I can find before filling up.

lol, I guess biodiesel would be right up your alley then ;)

[Spider]

you know Sass , as fuel prices go , so does your dinner ....... you may not have hard time eating , but there are plenty of working stiffs that do have a hard time feeding their family ....... Life is different when you got people depending on you to support them .......Little billy dont give a damn about fuel prices , all he knows is he needs to eat .......

[enjolras]

Should note: High gas prices are GREAT for Denver as we are setting up as one of the renewable energy capitals of the world. And the renewed interest in Rocky Mountain shale isn't hurting either.

[Spider]

It's because folks in the U.S. would rather b**** and moan than make the necessary lifestyle adjustments needed to absorb these high fuel costs. If I was Spider I would be tempted to run every Yukon, Suburban, Hummer and the like off the road because THEY are certainly making it more difficult for him to make a living.

;D I always wondered why someone that lives in the city needs a hummer ...I guess it is a status thing

[Spider]

Should note: High gas prices are GREAT for Denver as we are setting up as one of the renewable energy capitals of the world. And the renewed interest in Rocky Mountain shale isn't hurting either.

you guys in Colo are about to become rich , beyond your wildest dreams

[Dudeskey]

It's because folks in the U.S. would rather b**** and moan than make the necessary lifestyle adjustments needed to absorb these high fuel costs. If I was Spider I would be tempted to run every Yukon, Suburban, Hummer and the like off the road because THEY are certainly making it more difficult for him to make a living.

Guilty as charged... I've been trying to convince my wife to get rid of her Durango & get something more efficient.

[peacepipe]

to state the obvious,Gas prices go up because there is no competition. If I had a product that everyone needed & was the only source for it, I probably jack up the price as well.

[Spider]

I am serious , that new way they got to retrieve Shale Oil , will be a smash ....they heat underground , then extract it like regular oil ..... Hardest part will be relocating oil rigs ......

[Sassy]

So your point is **** things we dont need , let the economy crash for higher fuel prices ........

Hmmm....ok...so say you're the one "complaining" about the price of oil/gas...and yet you are buying the high priced coffee, eating out, shopping for expensive items (in your words "helping the economny"....) This is what I'm talking about. That it's those people that are complaining that also can afford to do these things. That's all I'm saying...you're the one bringing up all the rest of the stuff...

[Dudeskey]

I am serious , that new way they got to retrieve Shale Oil , will be a smash ....they heat underground , then extract it like regular oil ..... Hardest part will be relocating oil rigs ......

More work for you... man screw this tanker gig, I wanna go do oversize ;D

[cutthemdown]

Some times hindering the supply chain is enough ...........

really though oil sits around waiting to be refined. There is no shortage of crude oil. In fact despite some lag in Iraq's oil the flow is on. Gas is too expensive but most of that is because OPEC wants it that way.

[peacepipe]

Any thoughts on nuclear energy?

[cutthemdown]

;D I always wondered why someone that lives in the city needs a hummer ...I guess it is a status thing

I know a guy with a 4x4 that he put like 10 grand into. He's never been friggin 4 wheelin!!! We always tease him that he should buy a boat then never put it on the water.

[Sassy]

really though oil sits around waiting to be refined. There is no shortage of crude oil. In fact despite some lag in Iraq's oil the flow is on. Gas is too expensive but most of that is because OPEC wants it that way.

It's the taxes that are added that make it look more expensive than it is.

[Spider]

Any thoughts on nuclear energy?

Iam a huge supporter in nuke power

[Spider]

really though oil sits around waiting to be refined. There is no shortage of crude oil. In fact despite some lag in Iraq's oil the flow is on. Gas is too expensive but most of that is because OPEC wants it that way.

alot of oil sits around , I never did buy the we are running out bull**** .... But alot of Refiners are on winter production %'s even during summer

[Sassy]

I do know a little about the what it takes to drill a well. My family has interest in some wells and the production costs/drilling costs are unreal. We have one well going now that is costing over 3 million so far(around 50,000 a day) and that doesn't include the overhead 10%+ tax that the gov. takes)...that's JUST drilling/production. If that well is dry...well, there you go...I honestly don't think that people realize what it costs to get that oil...not to mention you have to have a way to get it to where it needs to go...building pipleines...if they don't exist...ND is seeing that right now with the oil that they say is by Parshall (700,00 bpd) they think. Oil...even at $100 per barrel...isn't a bad deal considering there is no waste. Every bit of it is used. It's the taxes that are added on top of it that makes it seem expensive.

[Spider]

Hmmm....ok...so say you're the one "complaining" about the price of oil/gas...and yet you are buying the high priced coffee, eating out, shopping for expensive items (in your words "helping the economny"....) This is what I'm talking about. That it's those people that are complaining that also can afford to do these things. That's all I'm saying...you're the one bringing up all the rest of the stuff...

just trying to show , that there is people here , that cant afford these things , and when they are sitting home , they are not spending , less disposable income they have , the less goods get moved .....

[Spider]

I do know a little about the what it takes to drill a well. My family has interest in some wells and the production costs/drilling costs are unreal. We have one well going now that is costing over 3 million so far(around 50,000 a day) and that doesn't include the overhead 10%+ tax that the gov. takes)...that's JUST drilling/production. If that well is dry...well, there you go...I honestly don't think that people realize what it costs to get that oil...not to mention you have to have a way to get it to where it needs to go...building pipleines...if they don't exist...ND is seeing that right now with the oil that they say is by Parshall (700,00 bpd) they think. Oil...even at $100 per barrel...isn't a bad deal considering there is no waste. Every bit of it is used. It's the taxes that are added on top of it that makes it seem expensive.
Dry holes are a bitch , Anadarko is working on Co2 pumping that seems to be working in Midwest wyoming ..... But drillers are not the culprit , working stiffs like me .Exxon , Mobil , BP , and in some cases Shell are the culprits

[Spider]

More work for you... man screw this tanker gig, I wanna go do oversize ;D

LOL and I want out .....

[Sassy]

Dry holes are a b**** , Anadarko is working on Co2 pumping that seems to be working in Midwest wyoming ..... But drillers are not the culprit , working stiffs like me .Exxon , Mobil , BP , and in some cases Shell are the culprits

I don't know Spide...you posted somewhere what you made per hour for one job...I have no sympathy there.

[Spider]

I don't know Spide...you posted somewhere what you made per hour for one job...I have no sympathy there.

50.00 per hour .. but what about the guy making 10.00 per hour ? And I am a working stiff ........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

yep .......They down play it for a very simple reason .... It is dawning on them Bush is a **** up , they now understand to some degree the damage they did voting for him , so they down play everything Bush has ****ed up as a self defense thingy ;D

Ding ding ding!

All this talk about higher production costs is just more right-wing snake oil.

Oil was profitable at $30/barrel.

The big oil companies like Exxon operate at 10% profit margins. 10% of $300 billion is still $30 billion dollars. Grocery stores operate on 1% to 2% margins, yet there are lots of different grocery store chains. How can competition exist then? How are they profitable? COSTCO (who pays their lowest start salary at $10-11/hr, gives full benefits to all, and has a CEO that makes $300k to 500k/year) is the third leading retailer and operates on razor thin profit margins (less than grocery stores) but has a yearly profit of $3 billion. How can they compete? How are they so successful?


The right-wingers would have you believe the CEOs of Chevron were starving when the company was making only a few million/billion during the $20/barrel days instead of the quarterly $12 billion, $42 billion/yr profit nowadays.

Furthermore, oil companies use all sorts of accounting tricks to depreciate or appreciate the cost of doing business. These companies can assign whatever number they want to the cost of goods or operations (especially since they own the subsidairies and/or interest in refineries.) Bill can say he charged you $1000 - fine and dandy when Bill is your bro and is the head of company you have an interest in.

The cost of goods/production/doing business is inflated all the time for accounting purposes so that the the oil companies pay less taxes. You can deduct almost all business expenses, thus almost every company inflates the costs, depreciation, reciepits, etc. (You hear about it all the time with the Pentagon's $300 dollar toilet seats and Halilburton's $6 six pack of cola.) If you own the other company or have influence in it (like oil companies do with their subsidiaries, refineries, other oil companies, etc.) you can have the other friendly company bill you inflated recepits while you pay much less (and the oil companies are full of incestuous relationships.) You know how corporations still pay their CEOs tens of millions of dollars even as their company flounders/shows a loss? The board of directors who determine their salaries are made up of other CEOs from other corporations who have an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" relationship and who vote to give themselves/each other high salaries regardless of fiscal performance.

On top of all of this, big oil companies are STILL getting millions in subsidies from the US government/taxpayers (thanks to Republican-controlled government) that Bush/Repubs are fighting to continue giving them despite their record tripling of profits/$42 billion profit for just one company.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I certainly don't blame Bush, as some people on this site like to do.

Hilarious!

Yep, the fact that we have two oil men in the WH is just a coincidence, don't you know?

And this whole Iraq war thing has absolutely no influence on the speculation that drives prices.

That's the ticket.

[cutthemdown]

Is Obama going to bring us cheaper gas? I haven't heard that promise yet.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/tom-gasprices3.gif

[Spider]

;D I got a big suburban . seats about 20 people , but then I am raising an entire basketball team ....... We use our little car when ever possible .....

[enjolras]

I think anyone who thinks any president is going to reverse this trend is silly. The price of gas is not coming down. The only question is how high it will get.

After all, this isn't just about the U.S. It's about huge increases in demand in China, India, South America, and even a significant uptick in Africa. The rest of the world has decided that they want to play in the 21st century too.

The sooner we accept that.. the better. Now it's about how we, as a people, choose to internalize it. It's a challenge. It's disruptive. But it's not the end of America as we know it. It's a huge opportunity to reassert ourselves as a global scientific leader by developing alternatives. It's a huge opportunity to change how we fundamentally live by turning our backs on some of the hugely wasteful (45 minute commutes to work for example) habits we've allowed ourselves to get into. It's a wake-up call... nothing more.

[Spider]

I think anyone who thinks any president is going to reverse this trend is silly. The price of gas is not coming down. The only question is how high it will get.

After all, this isn't just about the U.S. It's about huge increases in demand in China, India, South America, and even a significant uptick in Africa. The rest of the world has decided that they want to play in the 21st century too.

The sooner we accept that.. the better. Now it's about how we, as a people, choose to internalize it. It's a challenge. It's disruptive. But it's not the end of America as we know it. It's a huge opportunity to reassert ourselves as a global scientific leader by developing alternatives. It's a huge opportunity to change how we fundamentally live by turning our backs on some of the hugely wasteful (45 minute commutes to work for example) habits we've allowed ourselves to get into. It's a wake-up call... nothing more.
ummmm Shale oil will take care of the supply part ........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I think anyone who thinks any president is going to reverse this trend is silly. The price of gas is not coming down. The only question is how high it will get.

After all, this isn't just about the U.S. It's about huge increases in demand in China, India, South America, and even a significant uptick in Africa. The rest of the world has decided that they want to play in the 21st century too.

The sooner we accept that.. the better. Now it's about how we, as a people, choose to internalize it. It's a challenge. It's disruptive. But it's not the end of America as we know it. It's a huge opportunity to reassert ourselves as a global scientific leader by developing alternatives. It's a huge opportunity to change how we fundamentally live by turning our backs on some of the hugely wasteful (45 minute commutes to work for example) habits we've allowed ourselves to get into. It's a wake-up call... nothing more.

The price we pay at the pump for gas is determined by more than just the factors you mention here.

You are probably correct in assuming we'll never see $1.00 a gallon again, but I just explained how oil companies could charge less for their products and still make more than enough profit. The situation in Iraq will have a major influence on speculation (and thus price) as well.

+1 on the opportunity to change our habits - can't argue with that.

[Sassy]

Is Obama going to bring us cheaper gas? I haven't heard that promise yet.

Obama is for change..."HE" just doesn't know what that is yet! LOL!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And then there's reality:

Obama on energy:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Problem

Foreign Oil: America's 20-million-barrel-a-day oil habit costs our economy $1.4 billion a day, and $500 billion in 2006 alone. Every single hour, we spend $41 million on foreign oil.
Climate Change: As a result of climate change, glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; more people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct.
Barack Obama's Plan

Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050


Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Invest in a Clean Energy Future


Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.
Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.
Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.
Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S
Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.
Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology. Support Next Generation Biofuels


Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.
Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020.
Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030. Set America on Path to Oil Independence

Obama's plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.

Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines. Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030


Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.
Establish a Grant Program for Early Adopters: Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.
Invest in a Digital Smart Grid: Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change


Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters: Obama will create a Global Energy Forum — that includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa –the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world. The forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.
Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: The UNFCCC process is the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem and an Obama administration will work constructively within it. Barack Obama's Record


Renewable Fuels: Obama has worked on numerous efforts in the Senate to increase access to and use of renewable fuels. Obama passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the costs of switching one or more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend. Obama also sponsored an amendment that became law providing $40 million for commercialization of a combined flexible fuel vehicle/hybrid car within five years.
CAFE: Obama introduced a bold new plan that brought Republicans and Democrats, CAFE supporters and long-time opponents together in support of legislation that will gradually increase fuel economy standards and offer what the New York Times editorial page called "real as opposed to hypothetical results." For More Information about Barack's Plan

http://www.barackobama.com/images/page_elements/icon-pdf.gifRead the Energy Plan (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf)
http://www.barackobama.com/images/page_elements/icon-pdf.gifRead the Environment Plan (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf)
Read the Speech (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/08/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_28.php)

[Sassy]

more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend.
Which gives you worse gas mileage and is hard on your engine...

[Bronco Jamus]

A 3rd to half the money you pay at the pump goes to federal, state, and local taxes. We need to do something about that. The kicker is the tax money rarely goes to where it's supposed to in Colorado.

[Sassy]

A 3rd to half the money you pay at the pump goes to federal, state, and local taxes.


This is what I've been trying to say...no one else has commented on that part.

[Bronco Jamus]

more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend.
Which gives you worse gas mileage and is hard on your engine...

I lose about 30 miles per tank with e85

[Sassy]

Have you checked your owner's manual?
I haven't yet...but some cars it says specifically not to use ethanol.

It also takes five gallons of groundwater to make one gallon of ethanol.

[Bronco Jamus]

A 3rd to half the money you pay at the pump goes to federal, state, and local taxes.


This is what I've been trying to say...no one else has commented on that part.

Its ridiculous.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<center> Frequently Asked Questions
</center>
What is E85? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/e85.php)
IS MY VEHICLE E85 COMPATIBLE? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/flexfuelvehicles.php)
CAN A VEHICLE BE CONVERTED TO USE E85? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/conversion.php)
DOES AN E85 VEHICLE OBTAIN MORE OR LESS MILEAGE COMPARED TO GASOLINE? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/range.php)
Are there state incentives available for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles
(http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/incentives_laws.html)
What is Ethanol? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/ethanol.php)
Why are there different varieties of ethanol for light duty vehicles (E85) and heavy duty vehicles (E95)? Why can't E95 just replace E85? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/types.php)
How is ethanol generally produced using agricultural and/or municipal waste? Please define what is meant by agricultural and municipal waste. Are emissions released during the production of this fuel. (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/production.php)
Why do ethanol vehicles require a certain type of motor oil? Does this refer to dedicated ethanol vehicles only? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/motoroil.php)
What is a flexible fuel vehicle? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/ff_vehicles.php)
What happens when E85 is not available? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/notavailable.php)
What are the differences in an FFV compared to a gasoline only model? Are different parts used? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/diffferences.php)
Does an FFV cost more than a gasoline-only model? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/cost.php)
Are repairs and maintenance costs for FFVs any different than they are for gasoline? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/repairs.php)
How much ethanol does the U.S. have? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/quantity.php)
Does it take more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy we get out of it? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/energy.php)
Is E85 more toxic or dangerous than gasoline? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/toxicity.php)
What is the price of E85? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/priceofe85.php)
Where can I get more information? (http://www.e85fuel.com/about/contact.php)
Can ethanol fuel be used in all vehicles? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/anycar.php)
Which countries use the most high level blends of ethanol vehicles and why? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/countries.php)
Are most of the ethanol vehicles in the U.S. bi-fuel, flex-fuel or dedicated vehicles?
(http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/aremostvehicles.php)
What is the difference in putting out an ethanol fire versus putting out a gasoline fire?
(http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/fires.php)
What happens if I accidentally fuel my gasoline-only powered vehicle with E85?
(http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/misfueling.php)
How many E85 compatible vehicles are on American roads today? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/number_ffvs.php)
Where can I find information on publicly traded agriculture stocks? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/traded_stocks.php)
What are some links for additional E85 Information? (http://www.e85fuel.com/information/links.php)
What's new with E85?
(http://www.e85fuel.com/whatsnew/index.php)
If every kernel of corn was used solely for refining E85 fuel (ethanol), how much would we reduce our oil dependence?<o:p></o:p> (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/corn_usage.php)<o:p>
</o:p>
<o:p>Is the increased production of ethanol in the U.S. rising the cost of tortillas? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/tortilla_cost.php)
</o:p>
<o:p> Are prices of other foods rising because of corn prices? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/food_costs.php)</o:p>

[Bronco Jamus]

Have you checked your owner's manual?
I haven't yet...but some cars it says specifically not to use ethanol.

Yes. It says to use 91 octane or higher. My commute is 2 miles. I use this manual two wheel contraption called a bike. And I don't need a gym membership. :)

[Sassy]

SO my question is...if your vehicle is NOT compatible and all of our pumps have ethanol in them...then what do you do? Minnesota, I think, requires ethanol in all of their gas.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/wolf-sale.jpg

[Sassy]

Wish I could ride bike...but with -30 to -50 windchills lately, I would say it's not a good idea! LOL!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

CAN A VEHICLE BE CONVERTED TO USE E85? (http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/conversion.php)

[Bronco Jamus]

Wish I could ride bike...but with -30 to -50 windchills lately, I would say it's not a good idea! LOL!

I drive those days too.

I was unaware it takes that much water to produce a gallon of e85. That's terrible. You folks think paying foe gas is bad, wait until we have fresh water shortages and have to pay for desalintized water. Hydrogen is the answer.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bigozine2.com/features08/Aimages/PEoilboursepics/PEoilboursepic.gif
Without fanfare and almost an international blackout by the mainstream press, Iran opened its Kish Oil Bourse on Feb 17. Western media's silence speaks volumes of just how daring the Iranian plan is - to destroy the Anglo-American grip on the oil trade. Commentator Pepe Escobar explains. <table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="470"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="80">
</td> <td valign="top" width="390"> It was a discreet, almost hush hush affair, but after almost three years of stalling and endless delays, it finally happened. Now more than ever, it may also signal a true geoeconomic earthquake - way beyond a potentially shattering blow to US dollar hegemony.
Last Sunday, the Iranian Oil Bourse - the first-ever oil, gas and petrochemical exchange in the Islamic Republic, and the first within OPEC - was launched by Iran's Oil Minister Gholam-Hossein Nozari, flanked by Minister of Economy and Financial Affairs Davoud Danesh Ja'fari, the man who will head the bourse.
The bourse's official name is Iranian International Petroleum Exchange (IIPE), widely known in Iran and the Persian Gulf as the Kish bourse. Kish island is a free zone (declared by the Shah) in an ideal laissez faire setting: lots of condos and duty-free malls, no Khomeini mega-portraits and hordes of young honeymooners shopping for made-in-Europe home appliances.
There was frantic speculation all over the world that the bourse would start trading in euros. But according to Nozari, transactions at this early stage will be in Iran's currency, the rial. Anyway the Iranian ambassador to Moscow, Gholam-Reza Ansari, has already advanced that "in the future, we'll be able to use the ruble, Russia's national currency, in our operations".

<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="320"> <tbody><tr> <td> What Iran plans to do in the long run is quite daring: to directly challenge Anglo-American energy/corporate banking domination of the international oil trade.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> He added that "Russia and Iran, two major producers of the world's energy, should encourage oil and gas transactions in various non-dollar currencies, releasing the world from being a slave of dollar". Russia's first deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said the previous week that "the ruble will de facto become one of the regional reserve currencies."
Slowly but surely
This is just what the Iranians are calling the first phase. Ultimately, the bourse is to directly compete against London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), both owned by US corporations (since 2001, NYMEX is owned by a consortium which includes BP, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley). What Iran plans to do in the long run is quite daring: to directly challenge Anglo-American energy/corporate banking domination of the international oil trade.
There's a lot hanging in the balance to assure the success of the bourse already in this first phase. Other OPEC members, and especially Iran's neighbors, the Persian Gulf petro-monarchies, must be supportive, or at least "catch the drift".
It makes total sense for OPEC member countries to support an alternative to both NYMEX and the IPE, which exercise a de facto, unhealthy monopoly of the oil and gas market, are always very comfortable to exploit volatility for profit, and are always able to wreak havoc against the interests of producer countries. An avalanche of contracts related to Iranian or Saudi oil, for instance, are still indexed to the price of the UK's North Sea Brent oil, whose production is terminally declining.

<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="320"> <tbody><tr> <td> Everyone in the oil business knows that high oil prices are not really due to OPEC - which supplies 40 per cent of the world's crude - or "al Qaeda threats". The main profiteers are middlemen - "traders" to put it nicely, "speculators" to put it bluntly.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> In the summer of 2005, at the Petroleum Ministry in central Tehran, this correspondent interviewed Mohammad Javed Asemipour, then the executive in charge of establishing the Kish bourse. Asemipour stressed the road map, which remains unchanged: the bourse would start dealing with petrochemical products, and then with what everybody really craves - light-sulfur Caspian Sea crude. This was not going to be an Iranian-style exchange, but "an international exchange, fully integrated in the world economy". The ultimate goal is very ambitious: the creation of a new Persian Gulf benchmark oil price.
Today, Minister Nozari admits Iran's share of global oil trade is still very low. Enter the bourse, which is the solution to eliminate the middlemen. Everyone in the oil business knows that high oil prices are not really due to OPEC - which supplies 40 per cent of the world's crude - or "al Qaeda threats". The main profiteers are middlemen - "traders" to put it nicely, "speculators" to put it bluntly.
The Petroleum Ministry's immediate priorities remain the same: to attract much needed foreign investment in the energy sector in Iran, and to expand its address book of oil buyers. Iran - like so many developing countries - does not want to depend on Western oil trading firms such as Philip Brothers (owned by Citicorp), Cargill or Taurus. Enron - until its debacle - used to be one of the most profitable. Some powerful oil companies - such as Total and Exxon - trade under their own names.
The empire will strike back
At the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, mega-speculator George Soros was adamant, stressing we are at the end of the dollar era and a "systemic failure" may be upon us.

<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="320"> <tbody><tr> <td> Iran does not trade a single barrel of oil in dollars anymore. Since December 2007 it converted all its oil export payments to other currencies. Iran now sells oil to Japan in yen.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> On February 8 in Dubai OPEC Secretary-General Abdullah al-Badri told the London-based Middle East Economic Digest that OPEC may inevitably switch to the euro within a decade.

Iran and Venezuela - supported by Ecuador - are actively campaigning inside OPEC for oil to be priced at least in a basket of currencies.
According to OPEC's current president, Chakib Khelil, OPEC Finance ministers will soon meet to discuss the possibility in depth. According to Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani, a committee will "submit to OPEC its recommendation on a basket of currencies that OPEC members will deal with."
There's no evidence - yet - that ultra-cautious iron clad US ally Saudi Arabia would incur Washington's wrath by supporting such a move. As for Iran, it is OPEC's second largest exporter. According to minister Nozari, Iran's oil revenue will reach US$63 billion by the end of the current Iranian year, which ends on March 20. Crude oil production is at 4.1 million barrels a day, the highest level since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Iran does not trade a single barrel of oil in dollars anymore. Since December 2007 it converted all its oil export payments to other currencies. Iran now sells oil to Japan in yen. That makes sense: Japan is the top importer of Iranian oil, and Iran is Japan's third-largest supplier. Worryingly for the dollar, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani has already announced that the tiny oil-rich emirate would abandon the dollar for the Qatari riyal before summer. There's a strong possibility the United Arab Emirates (UAE) may also switch to their own currency.

<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="320"> <tbody><tr> <td> As the Kish bourse picks up momentum, more and more oil and gas trading will happen in a basket of currencies - and more and more the US dollar will lose its paramount status... Iranian officials have always maintained Washington has threatened to disrupt the oil bourse - via an online virus, attempting regime change or even the dreaded, unilateral pre-emptive nuclear strike.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> As the Kish bourse picks up momentum, more and more oil and gas trading will happen in a basket of currencies - and more and more the US dollar will lose its paramount status. Quite a few Middle East analysts expect the Persian Gulf petro-monarchies to end their dollar peg sooner rather than later - some say as early as next summer, as their black gold will increasingly not be traded in dollars. Iranian economist Hamid Varzi stresses that the "psychological effect" of Iran's move away from the US dollar is "encouraging others to follow suit.
Iranian officials have always maintained Washington has threatened to disrupt the oil bourse - via an online virus, attempting regime change or even the dreaded, unilateral pre-emptive nuclear strike. On the other hand, the possible success of the bourse may be crucial to signal the US's waning power in a world evolving towards multi-polarity. The Saudis and the Persian Gulf petro-monarchies have already decided to reduce their US dollar holdings. It's not far-fetched to imagine Washington, sooner or later, having to pay for its oil and gas imports in euros.
No wonder Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is so demonized by Washington as he keeps repeating that the empire of the dollar is falling. But even ultra-cautious Prince Saudi al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister, has admitted during the latest OPEC summit in Riyadh that the dollar would collapse if OPEC decided to switch to euros or a basket of currencies.

During a crucial closed meeting - with the microphones on, by mistake - Prince Saudi said "My feeling is that the mere mention that OPEC countries are studying the issue of the dollar is itself going to have an impact that endangers the interests of the countries. There will be journalists who will seize on this point and we don't want the dollar to collapse instead of doing something good for OPEC."
The trillion-dollar question is if, and when, most European and Asian oil importers may stampede towards the Iranian oil bourse. OPEC members as well as oil producers from the Caspian may be inevitably seduced by the advantages of selling at Kish - with no dreaded middlemen. If they can buy oil with euros, yen or even yuan, Europeans, Chinese and Japanese won't need US dollars - and the same applies for their central banks.
<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="320"> <tbody><tr> <td> The trillion-dollar question is if, and when, most European and Asian oil importers may stampede towards the Iranian oil bourse... If they can buy oil with euros, yen or even yuan, Europeans, Chinese and Japanese won't need US dollars - and the same applies for their central banks.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> It would take only a few major oil exporters to switch from the dollar to the euro - or the yen - to fatally bomb the petrodollar mothership. Venezuela, Norway and Russia are all ready to say goodbye to the petrodollar. France officially supports a stronger role for the euro in international oil trade.
It may be a long way away, but ultimately the emergence of a new oil marker in euros in Kish will lead the way to the petroeuro global oil trade. It makes total sense. The European Union imports much more oil from OPEC than the US, and 45 per cent of Middle East imports also come from the E.U.
The symbolism of the Iranian oil bourse is stark; it shows that the flight from the US dollar is irreversible - and so would, sooner rather than later, the capacity of Washington to launch wars on credit. But at this early stage in the game, only one thing is certain: the Empire will strike back.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

[Meck77]

*sigh* Do people still not realize our dollar is tied to the price of oil?

[Breaker]

http://www.bartcop.com/tom-gasprices3.gif

Link?

[Breaker]

The price we pay at the pump for gas is determined by more than just the factors you mention here.

You are probably correct in assuming we'll never see $1.00 a gallon again, but I just explained how oil companies could charge less for their products and still make more than enough profit. The situation in Iraq will have a major influence on speculation (and thus price) as well.

+1 on the opportunity to change our habits - can't argue with that.

Anyone mention that the federal government requires oil companies to make something like 38 different grades of gas ....... just letting them make two or three might cut out some of the costs of refinement.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Anyone mention that the federal government requires oil companies to make something like 38 different grades of gas ....... just letting them make two or three might cut out some of the costs of refinement.

And yet they still managed to make all those record profits (largest quarterly profits in history for Exxon.)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend.
Which gives you worse gas mileage and is hard on your engine...Uh, this isn't quite correct. New engines are designed to run ethanol (currently $ 2.05 a gallon here) or gas (flex) with no adverse wear and only fractionally lower mileage.

[Florida_Bronco]

more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend.
Which gives you worse gas mileage and is hard on your engine...

It is not harder on the engine, you just need to have the fuel system re-worked to be compatible. If you don't do that, it can corrode the fuel lines.

[spdirty]

We are getting a couple 4 banger Rangers. I hate having to do it, but gettin damn sick and tired of $80 to fill up and only getting 400 miles a tank.

so dance liberals! My company is going green!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...but gettin damn sick and tired of $80 to fill up and only getting 400 miles a tank.



Aren't you glad I'm not a Republican?

My response would be something like "quit whining and be happy that free market economics work!" or "Hey, if you don't like the prices oil companies charge, you can always just quit buying their products!"

:D

[Florida_Bronco]

We are getting a couple 4 banger Rangers. I hate having to do it, but gettin damn sick and tired of $80 to fill up and only getting 400 miles a tank.

so dance liberals! My company is going green!

I hear ya there. I did notice that my gas mileage went up slightly when I removed the air pump and other emissions crap from my Mustang, probably because it ran cooler. Still considering getting a little 4 banger for a daily driver until I get to the S.O and have a take home car that I can use.

I just don't know if it'd be worth it. The Mustang does get a good 20-25mpg on the highway.

[spdirty]

Aren't you glad I'm not a Republican?

My response would be something like "quit whining and be happy that free market economics work!" or


Free market economics would work just fine if you goddamn hippie environazi global warming racket supporting dlckheads would let us drill for our own damn oil!


"Hey, if you don't like the prices oil companies charge, you can always just quit buying their products!"

:D

And do what? Not drive and starve my kid? You try hauling around 20 10 foot posts, a 60 pound jackhammer, and 20 stop signs on a bicycle.

[spdirty]

I hear ya there. I did notice that my gas mileage went up slightly when I removed the air pump and other emissions crap from my Mustang, probably because it ran cooler. Still considering getting a little 4 banger for a daily driver until I get to the S.O and have a take home car that I can use.

I just don't know if it'd be worth it. The Mustang does get a good 20-25mpg on the highway.

mine went from 18.3 to 15.0. When I went to Ford they said it was because in the winter time Colorado makes the pumps put in some "environmentally friendly" additive in the diesel that drives down gas milage. Bastards.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Free market economics would work just fine if you goddamn hippie environazi global warming racket supporting dlckheads would let us drill for our own damn oil!

It's not the environmentalists who are stopping us from supplying ourselves with our own oil:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147&q=the+energy+n%20%20on+crisis&total=73&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=sea%20rch%20&plindex=1


And do what? Not drive and starve my kid? You try hauling around 20 10 foot posts, a 60 pound jackhammer, and 20 stop signs on a bicycle.

Thanks for proving my point. Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Link?

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I hear ya there. I did notice that my gas mileage went up slightly when I removed the air pump and other emissions crap from my Mustang, probably because it ran cooler. Still considering getting a little 4 banger for a daily driver until I get to the S.O and have a take home car that I can use.

I just don't know if it'd be worth it. The Mustang does get a good 20-25mpg on the highway.That's not very good, my Silverado 4x4 gets 20/21 on the highway.

[spdirty]

It's not the environmentalists who are stopping us from supplying ourselves with our own oil:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147&q=the+energy+n%20%20on+crisis&total=73&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=sea%20rch%20&plindex=1

Listened to the first 5 minutes, gonna have to listen to the rest tonight.

The guy said we have as much oil in Alaska as they do in Saudi so I'm kind of surprised you would link him up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Listened to the first 5 minutes, gonna have to listen to the rest tonight.

The guy said we have as much oil in Alaska as they do in Saudi so I'm kind of surprised you would link him up.

When you finish listening to the whole thing you'll probably have a better idea why I (along with some conservatives on this forum like Meck77) have posted this video.

[spdirty]

When you finish listening to the whole thing you'll probably have a better idea why I (along with some conservatives on this forum like Meck77) have posted this video.

ok

[Breaker]

Aren't you glad I'm not a Republican?

My response would be something like "quit whining and be happy that free market economics work!" or "Hey, if you don't like the prices oil companies charge, you can always just quit buying their products!"

:D

Actually the entire situation with gas is a perfect example of why a free market economy does work. A free market economy allows prices to be regulated by willingness of an individual to purchase said product, service etc. At this point Americans are becoming less willing to pay for the gas so the market is naturally evolving into finding alternative fuel sources that are both cheaper and more readily available. That is the free market economy at its best, it is being controlled by the willingness of the consumer to pay for the resource and once there is no longer willingness a new industry and tech arises to meet the demand. Amazing how that works better than government price fixing.

[Florida_Bronco]

That's not very good, my Silverado 4x4 gets 20/21 on the highway.

The Mustang is a 1994 GT with over 220k miles on it and performance modifications. I'm still getting about 2-3 mpg more than other GTs with similar mods, even those with alot less miles.

I was happy to see that going with the long tube headers and off road H-pipe gave me back most of the mileage I lost with the gears.

[-Slap-]

...at $3 per gallon, do they whistle a happy tune and have big grins on their faces?


Of course, these are the same people who deified Ronald Reagan. Just about all the major problems facing us today - gangs, homelessness, terrorism - can be traced back to heartless or catastrophic decisions from that administration.

[BMF Bronco]

sorry I didn't go through and read every post on here, but I will pose the same question I did on another forum...

So when Obama or billary get into office, will the prices of gas go back down since Bush will no longer control the prices of oil?

[enjolras]

sorry I didn't go through and read every post on here, but I will pose the same question I did on another forum...

So when Obama or billary get into office, will the prices of gas go back down since Bush will no longer control the prices of oil?

That would be a 'no'... although it may very well go down, it'll just have next to nothing to do with them.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Of course, these are the same people who deified Ronald Reagan. Just about all the major problems facing us today - gangs, homelessness, terrorism - can be traced back to heartless or catastrophic decisions from that administration.

QFT. :thumbsup:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually the entire situation with gas is a perfect example of why a free market economy does work. A free market economy allows prices to be regulated by willingness of an individual to purchase said product, service etc. At this point Americans are becoming less willing to pay for the gas so the market is naturally evolving into finding alternative fuel sources that are both cheaper and more readily available. That is the free market economy at its best, it is being controlled by the willingness of the consumer to pay for the resource and once there is no longer willingness a new industry and tech arises to meet the demand. Amazing how that works better than government price fixing.

Trouble is, we're not talking about a product consumers can take or leave (like big screen TVs or electric guitars) here: we're talking about a natural resource upon which our physical survival depends (i.e., we depend on oil not only for transportation, but for almost all of our agriculture/food supply, pharmaceuticals, plastics, etc.) and to which our economy is inextricably tied (when the price of oil goes up, then the price of everything else goes up along with it.)

Few would argue that we need to move toward the use of alternative energy sources, but to suggest that this transition can be best accomplished by simply allowing the "free market" to take its course (i.e., by suppressing consumer demand via price gouging) is naive.

[enjolras]

Trouble is, we're not talking about a product consumers can take or leave (like big screen TVs or electric guitars) here: we're talking about a natural resource upon which our physical survival depends (i.e., we depend on oil not only for transportation, but for almost all of our agriculture/food supply, pharmaceuticals, plastics, etc.) and to which our economy is inextricably tied (when the price of oil goes up, then the price of everything else goes up along with it.)

Few would argue that we need to move toward the use of alternative energy sources, but to suggest that this transition can be best accomplished by simply allowing the "free market" to take its course (i.e., by suppressing consumer demand via price gouging) is naive.

I simply couldn't disagree more. For one, there is no price-gouging going on. Gas is still competitive, it's just that the base price of oil has skyrocketed. It's something like 5x more expensive than it was 10 years ago.

Gas isn't going away, it's becoming more scarce in the face of a huge increases in overall demand. We still have oil. Our economy isn't going to grind to a halt. We're not going to all die.

We've known for literally decades that this was coming. As Americans we chose to ignore it blissfully believing that the 'good times' could never come to an end (sound familiar housing bubble?).

Now we are going to be forced to transition at economic knife-point. I think that's a good thing. We'll have to stop measuring our worth by the size our house/car/whatever and instead adopt a much more sustainable (and rationale) lifestyle. That's a good thing. We'll innovate and make it through this 'crisis' without the need for the government come in and make things worse.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

For one, there is no price-gouging going on.

You've got to be kidding me? ???

In order to believe this, you would have to ignore a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Oil was profitable at $30 a barrel.

What we are witnessing right now is pure, unmitigated greed on the part of the oil companies (sanctioned by their neocon puppets in Washington.)

The factors you mentioned that determine prices are all valid, and it's true that we may never see $1.00 gas again, but the oil companies could charge less for their products and still make more than enough profit.

[Bronco Jamus]

Now we are going to be forced to transition at economic knife-point. I think that's a good thing. We'll have to stop measuring our worth by the size our house/car/whatever and instead adopt a much more sustainable (and rationale) lifestyle. That's a good thing. We'll innovate and make it through this 'crisis' without the need for the government come in and make things worse.

Many intelligent people do. I live at 50 percent of my means and so do most of my co-workers. I bank 75 percent of the left over 50 percent. Compared to what other citizens pay for gas in other countires, we're still paying less. The shortages are good, because as you stated, businesses and citizens alike will have to find other means to compete in the market place. And they will.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I simply couldn't disagree more. For one, there is no price-gouging going on. Gas is still competitive, it's just that the base price of oil has skyrocketed. It's something like 5x more expensive than it was 10 years ago.

Gas isn't going away, it's becoming more scarce in the face of a huge increases in overall demand. We still have oil. Our economy isn't going to grind to a halt. We're not going to all die.

We've known for literally decades that this was coming. As Americans we chose to ignore it blissfully believing that the 'good times' could never come to an end (sound familiar housing bubble?).

Now we are going to be forced to transition at economic knife-point. I think that's a good thing. We'll have to stop measuring our worth by the size our house/car/whatever and instead adopt a much more sustainable (and rationale) lifestyle. That's a good thing. We'll innovate and make it through this 'crisis' without the need for the government come in and make things worse.We don't but others do and how much is the question. Peak oil certainly may be here now.

[W*GS]

What we are witnessing right now is pure, unmitigated greed on the part of the oil companies (sanctioned by their neocon puppets in Washington.)

You'd have to prove that "oil companies" determine the price of crude oil to make your assertion correct. Please do so.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bullsh*t.

I'll I have to do is prove that oil companies could charge less for their products and still make a hefty profit - and I've already done that.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Internal Memos Show Oil Companies Intentionally Limited Refining Capacity <hr style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> FTCR: Internal Memos Show Oil Companies Intentionally Limited Refining Capacity to Drive Up Gasoline Prices

9/7/2005 9:00:00 AM

To: National Desk

Contact: Jamie Court, 310-392-0522 ext 327; Tim Hamilton, 360- 495-4941, both of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights; Web: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/)

SANTA MONICA, Calif., Sept. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) today exposed internal oil company memos that show how the industry intentionally reduced domestic refining capacity to drive up profits. The exposure comes in the wake of Hurricane Katrina as the oil industry blames environmental regulation for limiting number of U.S. refineries.

The three internal memos from Mobil, Chevron, and Texaco (available at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/ show different ways the oil giants closed down refining capacity and drove independent refiners out of business. The confidential memos demonstrate a nationwide effort by American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying and research arm of the oil industry, to encourage the major refiners to close their refineries in the mid-1990s in order to raise the price at the pump.

"Large oil companies have for a decade artificially shorted the gasoline market to drive up prices," said FTCR president Jamie Court, who successfully fought to keep Shell Oil from needlessly closing its Bakersfield, California refinery this year. "Oil companies know they can make more money by making less gasoline. Katrina should be a wakeup call to America that the refiners profit widely when they keep the system running on empty."

"It's now obvious to most Americans that we have a refinery shortage," said petroleum consultant Tim Hamilton, who authored a recent report about oil company price gouging for FTCR. (Read the report at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/rp/ ) "To point to the environmental laws as the cause simply misses the fact that it was the major oil companies, not the environmental groups, that used the regulatory process to create artificial shortages and limit competition."

The memos from Mobil, Chevron and Texaco show the following.

-- An internal 1996 memorandum from Mobil demonstrates the oil company's successful strategies to keep smaller refiner Powerine from reopening its California refinery. The document makes it clear that much of the hardships created by California's regulations governing refineries came at the urging of the major oil companies and not the environmental organizations blamed by the industry. The other alternative plan discussed in the event Powerine did open the refinery was "....buying all their avails and marketing it ourselves" to insure the lower price fuel didn't get into the market. Read the Mobil memo at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/5105.pdf

-- An internal Chevron memo states; "A senior energy analyst at the recent API convention warned that if the US petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins." It then discussed how major refiners were closing down their refineries. Read the Chevron memo at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/5103.pdf

-- The Texaco memo disclosed how the industry believed in the mid-1990s that "the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus of refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. (The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry.) Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline. One example of a significant event would be the elimination of mandates for oxygenate addition to gasoline. Given a choice, oxygenate usage would go down, and gasoline supplies would go down accordingly. (Much effort is being exerted to see this happen in the Pacific Northwest.)" As a result of such pressure, Washington State eliminated the ethanol mandate - requiring greater quantities of refined supply to fill the gasoline volume occupied by ethanol. Read the Texaco memo at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/5104.pdf

FTCR is nonprofit, nonpartisan consumer group. For more information visit, http://www.consumerwatchdog.org (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/) .

http://www.usnewswire.com/
<!-- / message --><!-- sig --> __________________

[W*GS]

I'll I have to do is prove that oil companies could charge less for their products and still make a hefty profit - and I've already done that.

Who or what should set oil companies' profits?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

For starters:

1) No more taxpayer-funded subsidies for oil companies.

2) Close the loopholes that allow these companies to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

3) Instate a windfall profits tax.

4) Prosecute these companies for manipulating supply (i.e., deliberately limiting refining capacity) to fatten their bottom line.

5) Break up the oligopily that is the oil industry in order to allow competition.

Your apologist excuses for the current olligopoly is despicable, especially when Keys and Adams both said capitalism thrives on and requires competition.

Ivory tower "libertarians" like you crow about "efficient markets" - yet you defend the oil industry as if it were an efficient market.

[-Slap-]

It's impossible to lose money in oil. The federal goverment won't allow it.

Do Republicans get a big smile on their face when they realize how many of their tax dollars go to subsidize these companies?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Do Republicans get a big smile on their face when they realize how many of their tax dollars go to subsidize these companies?

You bet.

But if those tax dollars should happen to go to something like healthcare for needy children, then that's a whole 'nother story.

Those kids are taking food out of the mouths of starving oil company CEOs, I tell ya!

[W*GS]

As usual, LABF perceives questions as apologia for and/or defenses of the oil industry.

He's so accustomed to attacking me, he can't help it - and he still can't answer my questions.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS either missed post #107 or he's having his usual comprehension troubles.

Isn't it funny how W*GS' ivory tower libertarian ideology (and personal vendetta) forces him into being an apologist for the oil oligopoly?

He'd rather take it up the tailpipe at the pump than have a government that actually governs!

[W*GS]

I made two requests:

You'd have to prove that "oil companies" determine the price of crude oil to make your assertion correct. Please do so.

Who or what should set oil companies' profits?

You didn't supply much in the way of responses to either. Instead, and as usual, you attacked me and lied about my motivations.

I'm getting tired of calling you out as the bull****ter you are.

Try some intellectual honesty (hell, any kind of honesty) for a change. Please.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I didn't say oil companies single-handedly determine the price of crude oil.

I said oil companies could charge less for their products and still make a profit.

Distinctions: they are a b*tch, huh?

I addressed your second question in post #107.

I notice you didn't respond to that post.

Why is that?

[W*GS]

I didn't say oil companies single-handedly determine the price of crude oil.

What percentage, then, of the current price of crude is due to oil companies' greed and how much is due to other factors - and list them, please.

I said oil companies could charge less for their products and still make a profit.

Sure - they could charge just enough to make one penny profit, and that would meet your above criteria.

Like I said, who or what should set oil companies' profits?

I addressed your second question in post #107.

Thanks for proving my assertion that your knowledge of economics (and public policy, and politics generally, for that matter) would fit on a bumper sticker.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I see W*GS is still using the only two tools a BushCo water carrier has left at this juncture: deflection and obfuscation.

I already posted at length on how oil was profitable at $30/barrel and why the recent record profits by Exxon, et al, don't reflect some nebulous 'cost of doing business,' as W*GS' fellow BushCo apologists have claimed.

I already listed (for starters) some ways that government could do its job and reign in the corrupt business practices (e.g., see the article about oil companies deliberately shutting down refineries to drive up prices) and greed of the oil oligopoly in post #107.

W*GS refuses to respond to these observations because he can't.

[W*GS]

I see W*GS is still using the only two tools a BushCo water carrier has left at this juncture: deflection and obfuscation.

Bull****ting is the only tool you've ever had. Anyone asking you questions doesn't get answers; only smears, slurs, innuendoes and personal attacks.

What's your problem? I'll give you a hint - you're too ****ing stupid to think, so you have to fall back on the bull****.

I already posted at length on how oil was profitable at $30/barrel and why the recent record profits by Exxon, et al, don't reflect some nebulous 'cost of doing business,' as W*GS' fellow BushCo apologists have claimed.

Who's responsible for the ~$65 increase in the price/bbl compared to $30/bbl? Give me a list.

I already listed (for starters) some ways that government could do its job and reign in the corrupt business practices (e.g., see the article about oil companies deliberately shutting down refineries to drive up prices) and greed of the oil oligopoly in post #107.

The group that provided that article isn't credible.

You continually prove that you can't think for yourself.

W*GS refuses to respond to these observations because he can't.

The irony here is rich.

[-Slap-]

I guess those record earnings quarters that the oil companies keep reporting isn't a big enough clue for some folks.

[W*GS]

The oil price

Peak nationalism
Jan 3rd 2008
From The Economist print edition

Oil keeps getting more expensive—but not because it is running out

NEW YEAR'S EVE has been and gone, but for oilmen, the party continues. On January 2nd, helped across the line by a New York trader eager for bragging rights, the first business day of the year, the price of their product topped $100 a barrel for the first time. Oil is now almost five times more expensive than it was at the beginning of 2002.

It would be natural to assume that ever increasing price reflects ever greater scarcity. And so it does, in a sense. Booming bits of the world, such as China, India and the Middle East have seen demand for oil grow with their economies. Meanwhile, Western oil firms, in particular, are struggling to produce any more of the stuff than they did two or three years ago. That has left little spare production capacity and, in America at least, dwindling stocks. Every time a tempest brews in the Gulf of Mexico or dark clouds appear on the political horizon in the Middle East, jittery markets have pushed prices higher. This week, it was a cold snap in America and turmoil in Nigeria that helped the price reach three figures.

No wonder, then, that the phrase “peak oil” has been gaining ground even faster than the oil price. With each extra dollar, the conviction grows that the planet has been wrung dry and will never be able to satisfy the thirst of a busy world.

Geography, not geology
Yet the fact that not enough oil is coming out of the ground does not mean not enough of it is there. There are many other explanations for the lacklustre response to the glaring price signal. For one thing, oil producers have tied their own hands. During the 1980s and 1990s, when the price was low and so were profits, they pared back hiring and investment to a minimum. Many ancillary firms that built rigs or collected seismic data shut up shop. Now oil firms want to increase their output again, they do not have the staff or equipment they need.

Worse, nowadays, new oil tends to be found in relatively inaccessible spots or in more unwieldy forms. That adds to the cost of extracting oil, because more engineers and more complex machinery are needed to exploit it—but the end of easy oil is a far remove from the jeremiads of peak-oilers. The gooey tar-sands of Canada contain almost as much oil as Saudi Arabia. Eventually, universities will churn out more geologists and shipyards more offshore platforms, though it will take a long time to make up for two decades of underinvestment.

The biggest impediment is political. Governments in almost all oil-rich countries, from Ecuador to Kazakhstan, are trying to win a greater share of the industry's bumper profits. That is natural enough, but they often deter private investment or exclude it altogether. The world's oil supply would increase markedly if Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell had freer access to Russia, Venezuela and Iran. In short, the world is facing not peak oil, but a pinnacle of nationalism.

None of that will help consumers or governments. The economic toll of expensive oil is just as high whether geology or politics is to blame—and the best response is just the same. Policy should encourage energy efficiency and support research into alternative fuels. Governments seeking to shield their citizens with subsidies or price caps should instead expose them to the full cost to foster frugality. All this will be hard and unpopular. But politicians might console themselves with the thought that even the most recalcitrant petro-regime is more malleable than the brute realities of geology.

Copyright © 2008 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

[enjolras]

The oil price

Peak nationalism
Jan 3rd 2008
From The Economist print edition

....Policy should encourage energy efficiency and support research into alternative fuels. Governments seeking to shield their citizens with subsidies or price caps should instead expose them to the full cost to foster frugality. All this will be hard and unpopular. But politicians might console themselves with the thought that even the most recalcitrant petro-regime is more malleable than the brute realities of geology.

A-freaking-men.

[W*GS]

Exactly. End all government manipulations of the oil market, explicit and implicit.

[Dudeskey]

You've got to be kidding me? ???

In order to believe this, you would have to ignore a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Oil was profitable at $30 a barrel.

What we are witnessing right now is pure, unmitigated greed on the part of the oil companies (sanctioned by their neocon puppets in Washington.)

The factors you mentioned that determine prices are all valid, and it's true that we may never see $1.00 gas again, but the oil companies could charge less for their products and still make more than enough profit.

I remember reading an article in the WSJ that implied that if the dollar held the same value it did around 2000, oil would stil be around $30/ barrel. I'll have to dig up a link in the meantime.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The oil price

Peak nationalism
Jan 3rd 2008
From The Economist print edition
Oil keeps getting more expensive—but not because it is running out
No one knows that, not even the only news source you ever cite. In fact, more and more oil people are now leaning towards Peak oil than ever before. Watch CNBC on oil day (Wednesdays) when the oil and gas economic people comment on the latest price movements, lots of interesting comments on the rates of world growth for fossil fuels and availability.

[Spider]

I have been screaming for years about refineries being on winter production percentage levels for 2 years now .....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No one knows that, not even the only news source you ever cite.

:yep:

Given Fox News and The Economist are his only sources of "news," it's no wonder W*GS is so embarrassingly uninformed/misinformed re: such a broad range of issues, isn't it?

:laugh:

[W*GS]

Fox? Hardly.

Coming from the guy who relies on 'bartcop' and 'smirkingchimp'...

I'll take "The Economist" over absolutely anything you read, any day, asshole.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

It doesn't take much to reduce W*GS to ad hominem attacks and name-calling these days.

Whatever "political capital" W*GS and his fellow bush apologists had around here was pretty much spent by 2/1/04.

Since then, they've been living on VISA and Mastercard. :D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Alan Greenspan tells Gulf States to abandon the US Dollar

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSL2515874520080225

By Souhail Karam and Stanley Carvalho


JEDDAH/ABU DHABI (Reuters) - Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Monday near-record Gulf Arab inflation would fall "significantly" were the oil producers to drop their dollar pegs, in contradiction to Saudi policy.


The pegs restrict the Gulf's ability to fight inflation by forcing them to shadow U.S. monetary policy at a time when the Fed is cutting rates to ward off recession and Gulf economies are surging on a near five-fold jump in oil prices since 2002.


Rifts are growing across the world's top oil-exporting region on how to tackle inflation which hit a 27-year peak of 7 percent in Saudi Arabia in January and a 19-year peak of 9.3 percent in the United Arab Emirates in 2006, the most recent figure.


"In the short term free floating ... will not fully dissipate inflationary pressure, although it would significantly do so," Greenspan told an investment conference in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia's second-largest city.

[W*GS]

It doesn't take much to reduce W*GS to ad hominem attacks and name-calling these days.

This from the guy who's got nothing and has had nothing but name-calling.

Like I said, who or what should set oil companies' profits?

Who's responsible for the ~$65 increase in the price/bbl compared to $30/bbl? Give me a list.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

When it comes to name-calling, W*GS is a major league hypocrite (just like he is on every other front.)

He scolds others for doing it, but he does it more than anyone on the Mane.

[W*GS]

Bull****, LABF, and you know it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Don't forget - I have proof.

Don't make me post it again.

[W*GS]

Post it all you want.

Every time you do, you just prove how obsessed you are with me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hilarious!

Most ironic comment ever.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Post it all you want.
Every time you do, you just prove how obsessed you are with me.I'm pretty sure the only reason you are here is to hound LABF. I mean it's not like you are hiding it or something.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm pretty sure the only reason you are here is to hound LABF. I mean it's not like you are hiding it or something.

And it's not like he's a Broncos fan (or even an NFL fan for that matter.)

[W*GS]

I ain't the one who's archived posts, nor have I hunted all over the Internet to find a picture.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No "archiving" required - the forum has a search engine (but you already know this - you use it on a regular basis to find my posts.)

And no effort required on the picture - you revealed your identity a long time ago.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Confidence Plunges, Inflation Rate Soars (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jsanM66tszKz1zFq0LOG4XvWS7zAD8V2A1KG3) - AP

US consumer confidence hits a five-year low (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c622768e-e4d6-11dc-a495-0000779fd2ac.html) - Financial Times

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/happy_hour-gop.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/per_gallon.jpg

[W*GS]

No "archiving" required - the forum has a search engine (but you already know this - you use it on a regular basis to find my posts.)

Your little set of one-sided context-free quotes from me weren't available as a single post before you posted it the first time; ergo, you carefully kept and archived them.

There's nothing you write here that's worth one byte of my disk space.

And no effort required on the picture - you revealed your identity a long time ago.

I'm not a coward who hides behind a handle.

[W*GS]

LABF, is $1/gallon gasoline the birthright of every American?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Those quotes reveal your mental and emotional instability in no uncertain terms - context or no.

LOL @ your suggestion that you reveal your identity here as an act of bravery (vs. an act of ego.)

W*GS, is $3.00 gas the birthright of every oil company?

[W*GS]

Any claims you make are suspect since we all know you're a liar, LABF.

If, over time, you had stuck to the truth, you'd have credibility. But, since you've chosen, repeatedly, to lie, anything you say is suspect. Your cowardice is noted as well. What are you hiding? Your name on a registry somewhere?

As for the price of gasoline, what's the "right" number?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nothing but ad hominem attacks and no facts to back his accusations.

That's W*GS for you. :oyvey:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The "right" number?

Oil was profitable @ $30/barrel.

[W*GS]

Nothing but ad hominem attacks and no facts to back his accusations.

That's LABF for you. :oyvey:

Fixed it for ya.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS is a product of the Karl Rove/Fox News paradigm:

Repeat a lie often enough and it will become truth.

[W*GS]

Oil (not the same as gasoline, but I'll let that pass) is about $100/bbl. Amazingly, your buddy Hugo, despite that, has run the Venezuelan economy into the ground.

Anyway, what's your strategy for pushing it down to $30/bbl? Why not $1/bbl?

[W*GS]

We all know you're a liar, LABF. Every time you accuse me of being a Bush supporter, it's a lie.

Since when are you an admirer of Karl Rove?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

The lower Bush's approval numbers sink, the more urgent W*GS' impression of Peter denying Christ when the rooster crows.

Too funny!

(Almost as funny as W*GS' continued effort to dodge the original point, viz., that oil companies could charge less for their products and still make handsome profits.)

[Spider]

Oil (not the same as gasoline, but I'll let that pass) is about $100/bbl. Amazingly, your buddy Hugo, despite that, has run the Venezuelan economy into the ground.

Anyway, what's your strategy for pushing it down to $30/bbl? Why not $1/bbl?

is this a serious question ?

[W*GS]

If it's so obvious that I support Bush, find a single post in which I do so.

Just one, LABF.

Since you can't, you're a liar.

[W*GS]

LABF has a plan to reduce the price of oil to $30/bbl.

Let's hear it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You missed my plan (again.) See post #107.

LMAO @ W*GS denying he has spent the past eight years defending Bush against all critics.

That's some profound denial.

[W*GS]

You missed my plan (again.) See post #107.

How do any of those things push the price of crude down to $30/bbl?

LMAO @ W*GS denying he has spent the past eight years defending Bush against all critics.

One post, LABF. One.

Show us.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I didn't name any specific dollar/barrel figure in my post - that was your doing.

What? Still denying that you have defended almost every move Dubya has made?

Still denying that you have been Bush's director of deflection since your arrival on the Mane?

[W*GS]

I didn't name any specific dollar/barrel figure in my post - that was your doing.

A lie:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1900639&postcount=146

What? Still denying that you have defended almost every move Dubya has made?

Still denying that you have been Bush's director of deflection since your arrival on the Mane?

One post, LABF. Just one.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I said oil was profitable at $30/barrel - I didn't claim that the things I recommended in post #107 would lower the price to $30/barrel.

Once again, you are showing your talent for obfuscation.

[W*GS]

So, you just pulled $30/bbl out of your ass, and now you're backpedaling.

What effect would your ideas have on the price of oil?

[W*GS]

Oh, and for the lie that I'm a Bush supporter:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1897734&postcount=44

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your reading comprehension problems are worse than I thought.

I said oil was profitable at $30/barrel (a claim I stand by.)

What effect? Uh, for starters, oil companies wouldn't be able to drive up prices by deliberately limiting supply (d'oh!)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That graphic doesn't change the fact that you have defended almost every move the Smirk & Sneer misadministration has made.

[W*GS]

That graphic doesn't change the fact that you have defended almost every move the Smirk & Sneer misadministration has made.

Prove it. One post.

[W*GS]

Your reading comprehension problems are worse than I thought.

I said oil was profitable at $30/barrel (a claim I stand by.)

Care to retract your lie in

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1900747&postcount=157

What effect? Uh, for starters, oil companies wouldn't be able to drive up prices by deliberately limiting supply (d'oh!)

How are oil companies limiting the supply of oil?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The lie is yours.

I said oil was profitable at $30/barrel.

I didn't say the measures I recommended in post #107 would result in $30/barrel.

You're a bad liar.

[W*GS]

You said, in

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1900747&postcount=157

I didn't name any specific dollar/barrel figure in my post - that was your doing.

That was a lie.

And you still haven't shown how oil companies limit the supply of oil.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

God, are you really this dense? ???

When I said I didn't name a specific dollar figure, I meant that I didn't mention a dollar figure in connection with the reforms I suggested.

The only time I mentioned a dollar figure was when I said oil was profitable at $30/barrel.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/oil-barrier.jpg

[W*GS]

You lied when you claimed I named a specific number - you did, in any context.

How are oil companies limiting the supply of oil?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.ohanaed.com/images/4533.gif

Repeat post for the slow student:

Internal Memos Show Oil Companies Intentionally Limited Refining Capacity <hr style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --><!-- message --> FTCR: Internal Memos Show Oil Companies Intentionally Limited Refining Capacity to Drive Up Gasoline Prices

9/7/2005 9:00:00 AM

To: National Desk

Contact: Jamie Court, 310-392-0522 ext 327; Tim Hamilton, 360- 495-4941, both of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights; Web: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/)

SANTA MONICA, Calif., Sept. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) today exposed internal oil company memos that show how the industry intentionally reduced domestic refining capacity to drive up profits. The exposure comes in the wake of Hurricane Katrina as the oil industry blames environmental regulation for limiting number of U.S. refineries.

The three internal memos from Mobil, Chevron, and Texaco (available at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/ show different ways the oil giants closed down refining capacity and drove independent refiners out of business. The confidential memos demonstrate a nationwide effort by American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying and research arm of the oil industry, to encourage the major refiners to close their refineries in the mid-1990s in order to raise the price at the pump.

"Large oil companies have for a decade artificially shorted the gasoline market to drive up prices," said FTCR president Jamie Court, who successfully fought to keep Shell Oil from needlessly closing its Bakersfield, California refinery this year. "Oil companies know they can make more money by making less gasoline. Katrina should be a wakeup call to America that the refiners profit widely when they keep the system running on empty."

"It's now obvious to most Americans that we have a refinery shortage," said petroleum consultant Tim Hamilton, who authored a recent report about oil company price gouging for FTCR. (Read the report at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/rp/ ) "To point to the environmental laws as the cause simply misses the fact that it was the major oil companies, not the environmental groups, that used the regulatory process to create artificial shortages and limit competition."

The memos from Mobil, Chevron and Texaco show the following.

-- An internal 1996 memorandum from Mobil demonstrates the oil company's successful strategies to keep smaller refiner Powerine from reopening its California refinery. The document makes it clear that much of the hardships created by California's regulations governing refineries came at the urging of the major oil companies and not the environmental organizations blamed by the industry. The other alternative plan discussed in the event Powerine did open the refinery was "....buying all their avails and marketing it ourselves" to insure the lower price fuel didn't get into the market. Read the Mobil memo at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/5105.pdf

-- An internal Chevron memo states; "A senior energy analyst at the recent API convention warned that if the US petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins." It then discussed how major refiners were closing down their refineries. Read the Chevron memo at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/5103.pdf

-- The Texaco memo disclosed how the industry believed in the mid-1990s that "the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus of refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. (The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry.) Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline. One example of a significant event would be the elimination of mandates for oxygenate addition to gasoline. Given a choice, oxygenate usage would go down, and gasoline supplies would go down accordingly. (Much effort is being exerted to see this happen in the Pacific Northwest.)" As a result of such pressure, Washington State eliminated the ethanol mandate - requiring greater quantities of refined supply to fill the gasoline volume occupied by ethanol. Read the Texaco memo at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/5104.pdf

FTCR is nonprofit, nonpartisan consumer group. For more information visit, http://www.consumerwatchdog.org (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/) .

http://www.usnewswire.com/

[W*GS]

Not the question I asked.

Try again.

[W*GS]

In any case, those oh-so-incriminating memos are from 1995-1996.

It's 2008, LABF.

[Arkie]

Oil is finite. We've used up a lot of the oil that's easy to tap. Some of it is not worth going after until the price goes up even more. I expect soon that only the very rich will be able to afford it.

[cutthemdown]

LABF was only stating that oil companies make money on oil from 30 a barrel and up. I don't know if 30 is too low but its safe to say they are making more then they probably should. I would support the govt giving away less for exploration because these oil companies have plenty of money to do it themselves.

In the end though you make what you can, it't not oil mens fault their biz is lucrative and evil. Hate the game not the player. I will say that America won't tolerate 4 dollar gas for long. The next Presidents homeymoon isn't going to last long, people are going to want to see some changes.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://imgs.sfgate.com/templates/brands/chronicle/images/chronicle_logo.gif (http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/)
<!-- dont write <hr /> here -->
U.S. sales of profitable SUVs, trucks and sedans nose-dive

Consumer confidence down, gas prices up - GM, Ford to cut output in 2nd quarter


Dee-Ann Durbin, Associated Press
Tuesday, March 4, 2008

(03-04) 04:00 PST Detroit --
Automakers got hit in February as U.S. sales of their most profitable vehicles - trucks, sport utility vans and large sedans - plunged as consumers reacted to high gas prices and the possible recession. General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. announced second-quarter production cuts.
GM reported a sales decline of almost 13 percent for the month, Ford's fell 7 percent, Chrysler's 14 percent and Toyota's 3 percent. It was expected to be a difficult month for automakers as consumer confidence continued to slide. Declines in home construction also have significantly weakened truck sales.
If the February sales rate held steady for the full year, U.S. sales would be 15.4 million units in 2008, according to Autodata Corp. That's down from a rate of 16.6 million units in February 2007.
Honda Motor Co. bucked the trend, posting a 5 percent increase in U.S. sales as booming sales of its small cars and crossovers picked up the slack from its slumping Ridgeline pickup and luxury sedans. The subcompact Honda Fit saw sales jump 62 percent.
GM said its sales decline was led by a 19 percent drop in sales of trucks and SUVs. Large sedans didn't fare much better; sales of the full-size Buick Lucerne were down 26 percent.
GM said the comparison with February 2007 was a tough one, because retail sales hit a high mark for the year in February 2007. Still, the company responded to the downturn by cutting North American production by 5 percent in the second quarter to 1.08 million vehicles.
Toyota Motor Corp. said its car sales fell 4 percent; its truck sales were flat for the month. The aging Avalon full-size sedan was down 30 percent compared with February 2007. Toyota saw particular weakness in its Lexus division, where sales of its flagship LS 460 sedan fell 25 percent for the month.
This year is expected to be the slowest in a decade for the U.S. auto industry, but automakers still expect sales to pick up in the second half because of the federal stimulus package and pent-up demand. It will be tough going until then, and the biggest casualties are the kinds of expensive vehicles automakers counted on for profits in the past.
Ford said sales of its crossovers were brisk in February, but buyers shunned its large sedans and SUVs. Combined sales of Ford's largest SUVs were down 22 percent in February. Ford's car sales dropped 9 percent, and truck sales fell 5 percent.
Ford said it will cut shifts at factories in Chicago, Louisville, Ky., and Cleveland by this summer and reduce North American production by 10 percent in the second quarter to 730,000 vehicles.
Chrysler LLC said its car sales rose 9 percent, largely on the strength of small cars such as the Dodge Caliber subcompact, which was up 10 percent for the month, and the midsize Dodge Avenger, which rose 60 percent. But its truck sales fell 22 percent. Chrysler's newly redesigned Dodge Caravan minivan was down a disappointing 32 percent for the month.
Nissan Motor Co. said its sales rose 1 percent because of a strong showing by its Versa subcompact. Like other automakers, Nissan also reported strong crossover sales, with its recently redesigned Murano up 6 percent. Ford's Edge crossover gained 46 percent for the month; GM's GMC Acadia rose 33 percent.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Iraq pumped 3.5M barrels daily before Bush invaded (http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_07_17/cover.html)
and then they got their 2003 Halliburton upgrade Bush is stealing $220,000,000 every day.
No wonder they were so eager to start a war,
It's the biggest theft in Earth's history.
Exxon made $10B profit in 90 days
$100M a day - all profit - because Bush started a fake war
Link (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2243279)
Some people celebrate Bush's bloody oil war...
http://www.bartcop.com/bfee-family-portrait-smaller.jpg
Some don't.
http://www.bartcop.com/flag-draped-grief.jpg x <strike>3,972 (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/)</strike>....3,973 (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/)

[W*GS]

Wow. A technicolor yawn from LABF...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS to the pinhead's rescue.

Talk about a same sh*t/different day yawn.

[W*GS]

LABF with the usual lie...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS with the usual denial.

1) I post something critical of Bush.

2) W*GS attacks me. (Or any other Bush critic, for that matter.)

3) W*GS denies being a Bush defender.

[W*GS]

Attacking you and your socialism doesn't defend Bush, dork.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's not just me, dipsh*t - your history here is one of attacking and/or siding against anyone who criticizes Bush the vast majority of the time (either that, or you deflect criticism of Bush and his record to a discussion of Clinton.)

You only started backing away when the Bush bandwagon started to empty out.

[W*GS]

You still don't get it.

I attack lefties - and since you're a socialist...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Now we're making a little progress:

You attack "lefties" - never righties - yet you claim you're not a right-winger.

Perhaps now you're starting to see why you have so little credibility here.

[W*GS]

There are more than two possible political viewpoints, idiot.

Hasn't that sunk into your socialist ****-fer-brains head yet?

As for cred, you have none, because you're a baldfaced liar.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But moron: When it comes to clashes between two specific viewpoints, i.e., liberal vs. conservative, you almost invariably side with the righties - yet you claim you are not a right-winger.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Hasn't that sunk through your "I'm a badass from the safety of my pc" head yet?

[W*GS]

Doofus, I attack left-wingers from the libertarian perspective. That you insist on only two just shows what a ****wad you are.

Remember the political compass chart? Lefties dominate here - even being in the majority isn't enough for you, you need to smear everyone who doesn't follow your particular far-left line as a right-winger. You're too ****ing stupid, ideological, and partisan to see anything more. Toss in the fact that you contaminate every thread with some Bush bull****, and you're a real piece of work.

And I'm a Mac guy - PCs are for losers.

Lastly, there's nothing I've written here I wouldn't say to your face. Go project your cowardice onto someone else, ya pud.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're a lying sack of sh*t.

Whenever BushCo or the neocons are under fire, you almost invariably side with the BushCo supporters and neocons. (Even clav asked you why you were still carrying water for the neocons, and he's about as non-partisan as it gets.) When at a loss for an actual rebuttal to the BushCo critic (which is most of the time) your established reputation is one of deflecting and changing the subject.

That you continue to deny something so obvious (and something which you have been called on so many times by so many people here) is hilarious.

BTW, I've seen your face, and I don't think so.

[W*GS]

Prove I side with the Bush supporters and neo-cons, ****-fer-brains.

Provide one post. Just one, ya lying asshole.

What you're doing, as usual, is projecting your own flaws and faults on to me. You're the liar, you're the deflector. I don't need to deny being a Bush supporter, because I'm not. You're continually denying being a socialist and a Chavez fluffer, and we all know you are. You also deflect onto Bush (so you can lay out your tired old lines and tired old images) regardless of the subject.

You attack anyone who deviates in the slightest from your own extremely far-left views. You're a binary thinker who can't imagine more than two views on a topic - either your own (defined as good) and the only other possible position, right-wing/conservative (defined as evil). The concept that someone doesn't have one of those two viewpoints just melts your brain and reflexively causes you to attack them as not-you, i.e., right-wing/conservative.

And as always, there's nothing I've written here I wouldn't say to you. If you'd lose your cool, that would just about be expected.

[Rohirrim]

http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/Dr.%20Strangelove.jpg
No fighting in the War Room!

[W*GS]

I'd love to see the missing "pie fight" footage...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LMAO @ W*GS' denial re: his role as Dubya's Director of Deflection on the OM.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61D0G5B4VBL._AA240_.jpg

[W*GS]

That's all you got, bub. Repeated lies.

But coming from the guy who inserts his oh-so-tired comments about Bush in every thread, and who denies being a socialist, you're a prize, LABF...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You have distinguished yourself here as Dubya's Director of Deflection.

That you would deny such a well-established rep is hard to believe.

BTW, still waiting for you to name even one position that qualifies me as a socialist (shouldn't be hard insofar as you've been following my posts here and elsewhere for the past eight years.)

Your failure to do this is proof positive that you are simply working the same "liberalism = socialism" straw man as every other right-winger on this board.

[W*GS]

One post, LABF. One. Show us.

You've yet to explain how your place on the political compass, right next to a genuine and unashamed socialist, somehow makes you not a socialist.

'Fess up, ya cowardly pud.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But pinhead: That would amount to copying and pasting the entire WRP forum.

No need - anyone who has been here long enough has already read your posts, and if I had a nickel for everytime you've been called on your defense of BushCo, I'd be Bill Gates by now.

Since you keep harping on that survey of yours (which you seem to regard as some sort of oracle) and can't point to one of my positions that would qualify me as a socialist, I can only conclude that you are a gutless pansy who is all talk.

Come on - just one issue...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'll even give you a little hint to get you started:

Socialists believe that the means of production and distribution should be owned by the state.

I believe the means of production and distribution should be privately owned.

[Spider]

I'll even give you a little hint to get you started:

Socialists believe that the means of production and distribution should be owned by the state.

I believe the means of production and distribution should be privately owned.

LOL ........ gee thats only a minor difference .. But now you just clued in the clueless ones here that think Democrats are socialist ...... oh well something else will come up that they are completely clueless about ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL ........ gee thats only a minor difference .. But now you just clued in the clueless ones here that think Democrats are socialist ...... oh well something else will come up that they are completely clueless about ;D

:yep:

Watching him confuse the two is almost as funny as watching him deny his history of siding with the BushCo supporters in almost every debate we've had here.

[Taco John]

The price of gas isn't going up. The value of the dollar is going down. When this happens, the oil producers raise the cost of crude to make up for the difference in value.

Gold and oil pretty much trade together. Take a look at this chart from 2005:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/images/zeal081905a.gif

Gold was dramatically undervalued at that time, and has since caught up with oil (though it still has a ways to go). The dollar on the other hand has done nothing but plummet. When the dollar goes down, both gold and oil naturally go up; gold goes up because it's seen as a hedge against the failing dollar -- oil goes up because we have a monopoly on it's exchange through an agreement with OPEC that they'll only use US Dollars as a method of exchange.

With nothing of substance backing the dollar except this agreement with OPEC, our economy would utterly collapse if the dollar sunk to the point that they decided to eject on the deal and instead take Euros as the single unit of exchange for oil.

But hey! Did anyone catch American Idol? Sorry to trouble you with this talk about such a silly thing as backing a currency with something of actual substance.

[W*GS]

But pinhead: That would amount to copying and pasting the entire WRP forum.

Bull****. You're just a weak little weasel, who can't back up squat.

The fact that I'm anti-socialism just cannot be absorbed by that pile of **** between your ears - so you smear me with lie after lie after lie.

[W*GS]

I believe the means of production and distribution should be privately owned.

But under such strong "oversight" and "regulation" that it's de facto State control.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're a pathetic little punk who is only a badass from the safety of his computer.

I've seen your photo, and I guarantee you wouldn't talk that way to my face if we were to meet in person.

Your history here isn't one of "anti-socialism" - it's one of defending the policies of Bush and the neocons against all critics and changing the subject to Clinton or Kennedy whenever someone exposes the latest GOP crime or scandal.

Either you're hoping people here have short memories or you are simply a moron for thinking your denial is fooling anyone.

[W*GS]

You're a pathetic little punk who is only a badass from the safety of his computer.

I've seen your photo, and I guarantee you wouldn't talk that way to my face if we were to meet in person.

Because you couldn't take it and you'd get violent. Typical ****-fer-brains response - believing your fists will take care of something your brain and wit cannot handle.

Your history here isn't one of "anti-socialism" - it's one of defending the policies of Bush and the neocons against all critics

Name a Bush policy that you can prove that I support. Just one.

and changing the subject to Clinton or Kennedy whenever someone exposes the latest GOP crime or scandal.

This from the guy that regardless of the topic, deflects onto Bush so he can repeat his tired old criticisms and toss in a few bartcop bitmaps. Snore.

Either you're hoping people here have short memories or you are simply a moron for thinking your denial is fooling anyone.

You're the liar for not being able to point to a single post that supports your accusations. I don't make claims I can't back up - you're too much the coward and little pissant to stick to the same principle. You'd rather lie, smear, slur and attack than anything else, in regards to me in particular.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Now here's a guy who knows how to use his brains and his wits in a conflict:


I already know that you're a liar, a fraud, with no integrity - I didn't think it possible, but you're now even more of a scumbag than I had you pegged previously.


Truth be told, you're less than a smear of **** on toilet paper being flushed out to sea with a million other tons of sewage.


I'd ask you to repeat what you've written to my face, but you're too much the chicken**** to do that. You simply hide in your cyberspace fantasy land, where you think you're the big tough guy. In the real world, you're a submissive little turd.


You stepped over the line, ****-fer-brains. That's the kind of **** pathetic punks like you try to get away with from the safety of cyberspace.



I daresay if you speak and act toward others IRL like you here, you'll be lucky if all you lose is your teeth, ya punk.


The two requirements for LABF to be a biological father (I hesitate to use "parent"):

1) "Mom" is in a coma;
2) Abortion in cases of rape is outlawed.

Without those two necessities, LABF will pass from this world without any offspring, and for that, we can all be grateful.


The only way you're ever gonna have a kid is by raping a mentally-disabled woman whose guardians are ardent pro-lifers.


**** you, prick.


All you've shown with this bull**** of yours is that you're a reprehensible ****wad.


Any claims about how I or others are doing in regards to either are just the bull**** of an ignorant indecent scumbag - i.e., you, LABF.


Evil of the sort you represent cannot be left unchallenged.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This one here sounds like the most glaringly obvious case of projection, does it not?


I'd ask you to repeat what you've written to my face, but you're too much the chicken**** to do that. You simply hide in your cyberspace fantasy land, where you think you're the big tough guy. In the real world, you're a submissive little turd.

[W*GS]

I've been waiting for the display of your obsession with me; thanks for playing.

Strange how you don't post the URLs of the posts in which I made those comments... You've got a little text file somewhere that you maintain so when your reason and wisdom have left you, you can post it in the belief that you're somehow scoring points with it.

As always, there's nothing I've written here I wouldn't say to your face. It would be a delight to see just how angry you'd get.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So are you going to deny saying these things just because I didn't post the URLs?

That would be consistent with your SOP, wouldn't it?

I post these comments to expose your hypocrisy when you start pretending you're above name-calling, personal attacks, implied threats, etc.

As for your claim that you would say these things to my face, I have to laugh at such foolish bluster and BS.

Do you normally issue these kinds of guarantees when you're dealing with someone about whom you know almost nothing and whom you have never actually met face to face?

Either you are just engaging in more of your typical Internet tough guy bluster, or you are foolishly overconfident (not exactly a hallmark of an experienced fighter.)

[W*GS]

Providing my comments context-free (which is what posting the URLs would forbid you from doing) merely illustrates, again, how intellectually dishonest you are. That you've collected them together shows your level of obsession with me.

Who says I'm not an experienced fighter? I ain't the chicken**** coward here - you are.

You truly are a dishonest person - you lie on matters of fact, and regularly engage in bull**** tactics. Just what the **** is your problem, LABF?

[ant1999e]

Gas prices are still high but Obama's the president now. What gives???

[Tombstone RJ]

Gas prices are still high but Obama's the president now. What gives???

well yah know, it's because of everything the past administration did. Hey food prices are also higher but we got Obama in office so I've got the whole food stamp option going...