Not sure if the story here is (a) another of his flip-flops, (b) his accidental revelation of the truth, or (c) his stuttering "oh shit I did it again" reaction.

Anybody see his deer-in-the-headlights reaction yesterday when asked his position on whether or not insurance companies should be required to cover prescription contraceptives just like they cover Viagra?

This after campaign adviser Fiorino stated earlier that they should. McCain couldn't even remember that he'd voted against just such a requirement previously.

Comical.

Why do the oil companies need our beaches and pristine areas to drill right on now when they already have about 90 million acres of federal land leased to them for oil exploration but haven't even begun to drill there yet? I know not all those acres will produce an oil find but big oil should have shown good faith by at least attempting oil exploration on those leased acres given to them before asking to also drill right off our beautiful coastlines. I don't get it.

drill right on now = drill on right now

CHRIS

In that T. Boone Pickens ad he points out (rightly) that in 1976 we only imported 30% of our oil from foreign suppliers.

I don't think we're pumping less oil here. We're selling it on the open market.

This cry for offshore oil is a strawman. No sooner will it be pumped than it will be sold on the open market.

Only the oilmen will profit.

Why does americanunity HATE supply and demand so much?

Why does americanunity HATE supply and demand so much?

Posted by James_Dean

He doesn't, but the idea that this will solve are energy problems is a load of crap for the reason he states.

Offshore drilling is only one of the things we need. But if the libs oppose it, no big deal. It's funny to watch so many of them scream about high oil prices, when it's been a completely predictable outcome of their policies of the last 30 years.

So--no new drilling. How do the libs propose to close the gap between supply and demand?

RiR

Bush and the GOP Congress ripped CAFE standards to shreds and made 11 MPG Lincoln Navigators the SUV's of choice with the 100% writeoff provisions they passed.

If CAFE standards had been allowed to continue, and MPG increased as planned, we'd be using far less oil wouldn't we?

It's funny to watch so many of them scream about high oil prices, when it's been a completely predictable outcome of their policies of the last 30 years.

Posted by rightisright

Sure, it's got everything to do with our failure to drill, and nothing whatsoever to do with the rising economies of the east nor with 30 years of failing to do anything about pursuing renewable energy.

So--no new drilling. How do the libs propose to close the gap between supply and demand?

Posted by rightisright

30 friggin' years ago Carter had a plan. Many Americans insulated their homes for better efficiency. He put solar panels on the WH and encouraged Americans to do the same with tax incentives.

Reagan came along and gutted all that, and the GOP derided Carter as a doomsday prophet. Well, Carter was right and the naysayers were all wrong.

We imported only 30% of our oil when Carter was president. During GOP tenures it's increased every year. The GOP has encouraged more consumption by every means neccessary: Gutting CAFE standards, tax credits for buying gas guzzling SUV's, you name it.

Don't pretend that pumping more oil means we have more oil here domestically.

"If CAFE standards had been allowed to continue, and MPG increased as planned, we'd be using far less oil wouldn't we?"

AU, its not so clear cut, by increasing the CAFE you actually lower the cost per mile. Therefore making it cheaper to drive, without alternatives, people will. Right now people are using less gas because the cost per mile is higher.

The quickest way to decrease useage is to increase the cost, not lower it. Europe utilization is quite different than ours, they have alternatives, space, and pricing differences.

Its known as the efficiency paradox, its the reason companies strive to lower thier costs, so people will buy more.

ANDREA

People drive when they need to.

People didn't just hop in the car to go for a 500 mile drive for the fun of it at any point in our history with autos.

People ARE forgoing vacations now though.

ANDREA

The GOP's plan was to pass a 100% tax credit for buying a 2 ton Lincoln Navigator that gets piddly squat in mileage and gut CAFE standards.

They laughed at everyone who said we needed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

When Carter was prez we imported 30%. He had a plan to reduce that to zero. The GOP laughed that off and we're now in the pickle we are as a result.

Those facts are indisputable.

American Unity, I suspect you're just lying. The facts are indisputable: there is a 50% federal tax credit for solar panels. The tax credits for SUV's were put in to rescue the heavy equipment industry after 9/11--would've suited me to say no to Detroit, but Congress overwhelmingly put them in. CAFE standards are great, but it's hard to make the case when oil is at $40 a barrel, especially when Detroit (labor unions, heavy Dem delegations) is getting fat off of SUV and heavy truck sales.

Listen carefully: during the 1970's, oil was coming out of the ground in Texas and Oklahoma in far greater quantities and quality than today, and peaked in the early 1980's. If you're not going to allow for more domestic drilling, just where do you think it should come from? I'll bet you drive a car every day--every time you fill up, you tell the oil companies--go find more, I don't care where it comes from.

So, they do. Can't drill in parts of Alaska? off California? off Florida? Fair enough--we'll go to Saudi Arabia. AmericanUnity is willing to pay $3.86 a gallon, and doesn't care where we get it.

So here we are. In twenty years we'll have worked our way through it. But Carter's solar panels wouldn't have saved the US from having to import oil; it's stupid to think otherwise. Besides, do you really need the president to tell you whether or not solar panels make sense for YOUR home? If Reagan had put in an Olympic-sized swimming pool, would you have done that too?

How about the speed limit? Do YOU still drive 55? After all, just because Reagan and Bush tore up Carter's silly energy policy, doesn't mean you have to.

And do you really believe--REALLY--that were we to bring on a lot more supply, that THAT wouldn't have an effect on prices? That they wouldn't be LOWER than they would be otherwise?

Come on. Your schtick might work with someone else. But please tell me you're not that dumb.

Excuse me: the federal credit for solar is 30%. Many states (including mine) kick in an additional 20%.

The Bush Administration is paying you 30% of your cost to install solar panels. Have you?

"Supply and demand"....that's a knee-slapper.

"How about the speed limit? Do YOU still drive 55? After all, just because Reagan and Bush tore up Carter's silly energy policy, doesn't mean you have to."

Don't be stupid, Mr. Tu Quo que. It's suicidal to drive at that speed. Your usual shtick of asking individuals to do what can only be efficiently accomplished collectively is a bore, not to mention fallacious. I'll be glad to drive 55, when everyone else is required to.

I hate to beat up on the old man, but I mean for real, can you imagine him slipping up at 3 AM?

It's funny to watch so many of them scream about high oil prices, when it's been a completely predictable outcome of their policies of the last 30 years.

Posted by rightisright

Why just a few years ago that liberal rush limbaugh was crowing "we will never run out of oil".

RightisWrong's idea of Florida is Mickey land.

We don't give a flying fyck what they've done in Tejas.

What state do you exist in, RIR?

726-
That unctuous drug-addled draft-dodging serial divorcer (and defender of "conservative values") WON'T ever run out of oil.

We never will run out of oil.

But we have run out of $10 oil. And five years ago we ran out of $50 oil.

There will always be an oil industry, but it will be recovered at ever-higher prices.

But if the libs oppose it, no big deal. It's funny to watch so many of them scream about high oil prices, when it's been a completely predictable outcome of their policies of the last 30 years

Jeb Bush, George Bush and Arnold Schwartzenneger are all Liberals!

FAKEFACT!

"it will be recovered at ever-higher prices."

Posted by rightisright

At some point it will take more than a barrel's energy to get a barrel.

"I'll do everything within my power to get those offshore reserves exploited."

-- McFreudian slip

Why would oil comapanies want more sources of oil? So they can increase the supply and thereby reduce the price?

This whole discussion is a complete waste of time. Open all the areas in this country you want, oil companies are not going to drill for more oil because it will reduce their profits.

"People drive when they need to" - Americanunity

I believe that.

Nobody makes a hundred mile round trip to see their best friend's 7 year old daughter in a dance recital.

Nobody makes a two hundred mile round trip to swim in the ocean when there a lake 15 miles away.

Nobody makes a 5 mile round trip to pick up beer right after they've been grocery shopping cause the beer is a buck cheaper.

Nobody makes a 30 mile round trip to see the effects of the big fire (flood, tornado) last week.

Just about anybody who can carpools cause it's the right thing to do.

Yeah I believe that.

Exploit, explore, search whatever the net effect is the same people want gas and the oil companies are in business to supply the oil for that gas so you can either do your part and cut down on your driving or let them drill here in the states. You can't have it both ways.

BTW I don't drive except to rent a vehicle for a vacation. I walk, bike or take the bus but because it affects me somewhat indirectly I say DRILL pretty much wherever oil might be found in recoverable amounts and stop your "Not in my backyard bitching".

Gimme-
Where does that oil drilled in the US go, and who does it belong to?

corporate cock sucker

I have already pointed out that less than 25% of the land identified by the USGC as having oil underneath it are being actively drilled by the oil companies.

Now they want more land to grab?

Develop what you already have under lease first.

How is adding to the backlog of undrilled land under oil lease going to solve our oil crisis?

Our own Goatman says there aren't enough rigs, and they can build them fast enough. Then they're going to drill some wet holes. So while I don't oppose drilling America I also believe we should be looking at what we can do to improve efficiencies and the recycling of materials through pyrolysis to provide energy.

Maybe McCain isn't aware of these possibilities but maybe he's listening to the wrong people.

Keep dreaming Faggie. Washington is a city of Zombies. 40 years of watching them fiddle over this issue should tell you that.

What's the matter RayGay, need something else to bitch about? Basically you lack imagination, and then criticize anyone who has one. Fairly typical of the average engineering graduate. You can crunch the numbers but you really never invented anything.

As for politics, your attitude is one of emasculation and helplessness. Sucks to be you.

You can crunch the numbers but you really never invented anything.

I have one patent in my name. In my earlier career, I designed machines.

Look Faggie, I'm not criticizing you for your imagination. I'm criticizing you for expecting anything constructive to come out of Washington.

As for politics, your attitude is one of emasculation and helplessness. Sucks to be you.

ROFLMAO!! Been stocking up on silver. Hope you enjoy your poverty. You're like the religious wackos who think life is meaningless without God.

Ray, you have it backwards. Life is meaningful because of God.

Magic Negro

I'm criticizing you for expecting anything constructive to come out of Washington.

I didn't say anything about an "expectation" did I?

Yet all three of the technologies cited in the article have received some funding from the the DOE. So someone in Washington is looking ahead, even if it's not our representatives, though of course they are the ones who allocate the funding.

Yeah, I mean why use oil for 300 years when you can burn it all up in 150 years.

I didn't say anything about an "expectation" did I?

What do you call this?

"Maybe McCain isn't aware of these possibilities but maybe he's listening to the wrong people."

They are all blind, deaf and dumb. Expect no more and you will be right almost every time.

Ray, you have it backwards. Life is meaningful because of God.

Magic Negro

Some people just don't know how to find meaning in life without vicarious attachment to a higher authority, being it the Church or the State.

Yet all three of the technologies cited in the article have received some funding from the the DOE.

Yeah sure like corn based biofuel. Typically when some technology needs subsidies because it can't get capital funding, it's going to be a loser.

And I remind you Faggie. Those technologies are trivial compared to the enormous quantities of energy locked in the ground by same people. Get wise and give up on those clowns. Save your own ass before they get to it. And give my best to Lisa if she hasn't dumped you yet.

Ray, you have it backwards. Life is meaningful because of God.

Magic Negro

The irony is that if existed, he would strike your sorry dumb white ass for being such a lousy christian.

Fuck you RayGay. You're consistently the most hateful person on the site now that tadowe is gone.

I learned to survive long ago. Poverty is a state of mind, and so too personal wealth. It's a matter of not wanting things you don't have. I have tools, and I know how to build. What do you do with your silver Raygay? Rub it between your greasy fingers?

During the Depression people like me lived off the land. I'll be doing that starting August 1. Just drifting through the Ozarks, mostly fishing for my dinner, and working on a couple of projects. Keep me in mind while you're crawling along in rush hour traffic.

Sounds like Lisa dumbed you.

And BTW Faggie, I'll remind you again that this Depression was engineered in Washington. Remember those years you sacrificed for those thugs while you're fishing in the bayou. I'll still be enjoying steak.

Wrong RayGay, you'll be sucking on the end of pistol and handing over your silver. You're a smartass and roundly disliked. No one is going to protect you.

Flip/flopping away or, circumstances change so needs change. How about looking into just how much oil is there in the "unexplored" regions of Alaska. Save the environment? of course but get the oil. Or at least find out if there is any more to get. The knowledge of large deposits can in itself be a powerful tool in the oil "wars".

My message is simple: government is not your friend; it is your enemy. The State has become a church, the political class its priests and Washington the Vatican. I know that pisses a lot of people off who don't want to hear it. They like you will suffer greatly for allowing themselves to become dependent.

Have your fantasy if you will.

SeanR-
When that oil reaches the surface, where does it go, and to whom does it belong?

All of the oil goes to our refineries and into our gas tanks, right?

It belongs to us, right? - as citiznes in a crisis -- a war even?

"citiznes"? My bad.

When that oil reaches the surface, where does it go, and to whom does it belong?

No one wants to talk about that. I'm sure it's complicated....

Betelg

Let me use small words so you can understand.

If the worldwide supply of oil is high, the cost will go down. Yes, the oil should go on the worldwide market, but I would prefer that we sell it to our allies.

Your argument is like saying, "Where does all the food we grow go?" I mean, according to your theory if we don't export ANYTHING then the cost of EVERYTHING will be CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP. That's simply silly and displays a serious lack of economic understanding.

The oil companies are not charities. You want them to drill, spend enormous amounts of money and then limit them on the amount of profit they can make by ordering them to only sell it for domestic use. Hell, let's do that to every company in the country. That's called price controls and it's never worked. It leads to shortages and it has failed miserably everytime it's been tried.

What you really want, like most leftists, is for the government to take over the oil companies. What's after that? Oh yeah, you want them to take over the medical industry and the pharmaceuticals industry. You want more government. You probably want the government to make the trains run on time.

That's why I am not a leftist. I simply disagree with your whole way of thinking. Barack Hussein Obama thinks like you and it's why the man would be disastrous for this country.

"You probably want the government to make the trains run on time."

You mean like the Japanese government? The horror!

"Yes, the oil should go on the worldwide market"

Thank you.

I do hope Sean R is not young, as has been suggested before. It would be depressing.

"but I would prefer that we sell it to our allies."

That's really just tough titties, dude, as you just ever so patiently explained that, even in wartime, that's not how it works and anyone who makes a peep about it is a "leftist".

SeanR-
That you have priced yourself on the global marketplace is one thing; that you call yourself a "conservative" is something unbelievably else.

When that oil reaches the surface, where does it go, and to whom does it belong?

Only to the highest bidder -- exactly why I'm paying almost $5 a gallon here in California.

20,000 new cars hit the road every month in Beijing.
Bush and his stinking so-called "free trade" policies have created an oil Frankenstein in China and now Bush and his big oil buddies expect us to gleefully tear up our America's coastlines and pristene landscapes to keep on supplying China?

No way. Either big oil guarantees the U.S. first -- and cheaper -- dibs on all the oil sucked out of the U.S. or forget it. China's need for oil is growing at astronomical rates and is our biggest business competitor -- and soon to be our biggest military competitor.

At the pace China is using oil, soon all our own U.S. oil reserves would be sucked dry and for what? To have supplied China's citizens with our oil at a harsh cost to U.S. citizens? To have strengthened China's ever growing military machine? Bush is so brain dead he commented the other week he did not see China as any kind of real competitor. Say what?

Big oil and their boy in the Oval Office see their reign coming to an end and are now making a full court press to grab U.S. land for oil. Fine with me but only we Americans are the ones to benefit.

"dibs on all the oil sucked out of the U.S. or forget it."

I second!

The oil companies are not charities.

Maybe they're not a charity but they definitely are a price-controlling monopoly.
To deny the prices are not being secretly negotiated and fixed for us here by the 4 or 5 major big U.S. oil companies is ludicrous.

Let big oil drill on the 90 million acres of already leased federal land we gave them. They haven't touched that yet. If they come up empty afterwards, then we can sit down at the table and talk about them drilling in the rest of our country. I for one do not believe in giving cheaper oil to a very real potential military threat -- COMMUNIST (although Bush hates to use that word when it comes to describing his best buddies over there) China.

I love that point where the flabby neo-right must choose between their yellow ribbon magnet patriotism and the virtues of the global market.

CalifChris

Which party is it that is doing Big Oil's bidding?

It is the Democratic party who has kept the supply of energy in this country artificially low. The Democratic party is in the back pocket of Big Oil.

Oh yeah, I love that "90 million acres" argument, but not one of you nutjobs has given me any geology reports on how much oil is there AND how deep that oil is. You have not said how much a barrel of oil has to cost to make it with it to get that oil from that "90 million acres."

ExxonMobil is not a charity so if it costs them more to get that oil than they could sell it for then that would be bad business and very stupid.

Again, you leftists seem to want the government to take over the oil industry. You do realize that's socialism don't you? What am I saying? All you leftists here probably got a hard on as soon as I said the word.

Betelg

I'm a conservative. Conservatives love America, want less government AND believe in free market solutions. Those ideas are not opposed to each other.

Nullifidian

Leftism = Fascism

"Nullifidian

Leftism = Fascism

Posted by SeanR "

Seanr = Shithead.

I thoroughly enjoy your witty repartee Nullifidian.

"However, that doesn't change the fact that fascism was created by the left"

Nice try, SeanR. Well, actually, it's pretty dumb. But I understand why conservatives want to reclassify rightwing ideologies as being part of the left. Can't say I blame you for that pathetic little piece of historical revisionism.

SeanR

Conservatives love America, want less government AND believe in free market solutions./I> people. Globalists do not.

SeanR

Conservatives love America, want less government AND believe in free market solutions.

You are not a conservative. You are a globalist.
Globalists -- like Bush and his ilk -- consider themselves merely as "citizens of the world" and their loyalty lies to whichever country at the current moment will allow them to make the fastest corporate buck.

To say this is true and fair "free trade" is idiotic. You need to go back and re-take your Economics 101 course again. Bush's so-called version of free trade allows other countries to subsidize their industries and companies where we do not, turns a blind eye to infringement of our trademark and copyright laws, and refuses to curb the importing of counterfeit goods, just to name a few injustices in his "free market."

To consider the Bush policies "fair trade in a free market" is absurd. How about showing a few of your "conservative" values by trying to at least make it a level playing field for the U.S. and its citizens.

Yes, big oil is surely allowed to make healthy profit on its cost for oil exploration -- which are huge. However, there comes a point when "profit at any cost" needs to stop when it is killing our own economy.

True conservatives put the betterment of this country and its citizens first before blind corporate profit. Globlists do not.

to clarify

Yes, big oil is surely allowed to make healthy profit on its cost for oil exploration -- which are huge.

By "which are huge" I was referring to big oils' huge costs to explore and extract oil, their production/maintenance costs, and the millions (billions) they lose when a potential oil reserve comes up dry.

Cali, your beginning to sound like goat, why not get it over with and go see the clown.

Production cost?
maintenance cost?

The oil companies don't lose a dime for anythng.

"This whole discussion is a complete waste of time. Open all the areas in this country you want, oil companies are not going to drill for more oil because it will reduce their profits."

You are correct only if there is no competition.

If you truely believe they won't drill for more oil to up the price, why don't you and a few thousand of your best friends start an oil company and get rich?

It's a free market. If you supply a product in demand, you get rich. Do you want to get rich?

This material regarding production and consumption is from the June 28 - July 4, 2008 issue of New Scientist. The editorializing is my own.

Does anyone have any idea what worldwide oil production and usage is in thousands of barrels? Well, the U.S. even today is the number 3 oil producer at 8,330 (thousand) barrels per day.

Producers: Saudi Arabia is first, 10,665; Russia, 9677, U.S.A., 8330; Iran, 4148; China, 3845; Mexico, 3707, Canada, 3288; UAE, 2945; Venezuela, 2803; Norway, 2786; Kuwait, 2648; Nigeria, 2443; Algeria, 2122, Iraq, 2008.

Users: U.S. 20,687; China, 7201; Japan, 5159; Russia, 2811; Germany, 2665; India, 2522; Canada, 2264; Brazil, 2217; South Korea, 2174; Saudi Arabia, 2139; Mexico, 1997; France, 1961; UK, 1830; Italy, 1732; Iran, 1686.

I did a quick calculation in my head, so I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but the daily production listed comes to 61,415,000 barrels, and the daily consumption comes to 59,045,000 barrels.

This is without regard to consumption in numerous countries, so just what the actual balance is, is difficult to determine from this information.

But with even seasonal fluctuations in use, we have a problem, where shortages would occur.

The worldwide use of oil is increasing rapidly. Despite a sense to the contrary, the U.S. remains the world's number one producer of goods, still exceeding Chinese production.

By the way, this is a shocker, the energy, BTUs in a barrel of oil, 32 gallons (and this is only an imprecise "rule of thumb" but is illustrative), is equivalent to the energy of five laborers working non-stop for a year.

Our civilization is dependent on availability of energy. Those of you who trivialize it, are seemingly unaware of its necessity for us to continue to maintain our civilization.

We are confronted by burgeoning world populations and industrialization.

Maybe we should ban export of most of our oil, or more than we currently export at least. Newly discovered and recovered energy should be put exclusively to U.S. use.

The Chinese are quitely asserting rights and dominion over oil resources worldwide without regrd to other matters, which divert our attention, such as "human rights," recognizing that survival of their society depends on acquisition of resources. so, they thwart international action to stop the genocide in Dufar (Sudan). there are all sorts of positions and actions that flow from the need for oil. You can't be an altruist, when you are languishing without a resource.

How far will your "principles" propel your vehicle, and how much heat will they provide for your house? TGhe hot air of the idealists doesn't accomplish much productively insofar as such practical matters are concerned.

""dibs on all the oil sucked out of the U.S. or forget it."

I second!"

That thought is not logical but it is comforting.

The pool of oil on the world market is just like the swimming pool. You can pour water in at one end but the level goes up all over.

Oil a fungible product.

$$$$WAR

Cali, your beginning to sound like goat, why not get it over with and go see the clown.

Production cost?
maintenance cost?

The oil companies don't lose a dime for anything.

Posted by moneywar at 2008-07-12 04:07 PM

You don't get it. An argument has no validity if you don't at least acknowledge the costs and reality faced by both sides. YES big oil makes big bucks. NO big oil shouldn't be allowed to exploit or take advantage of our oil supplies doing so can be a tremdous cost and danger to our U.S. economy. Too much is dependent on oil and oil by-products to allow big oil to run amok. But you do need to be able to weigh the costs on all sides. For me to say one side (big oil) makes nothing but money and has no risks/costs makes my position less credible.

As I said in my previous post -- Corporate pofit at any cost should never be allowed. Re-read my entire post for a change instead of only picking out ONE sentence and basing my entire stance on that alone. Not fair to take it out of context.

...supplies doing so... = supplies when doing so...

Just heard on the news the FDIC has 90 banks on its "Watch List" (which they will not publish in order to avoid a run on those banks). I just emailed the FDIC now to ask them if my bank -- WAMU -- was one of them. It's getting scary out there!

Ray????? Help! (grin)

The Water Car

There are not words to describe the magnitude of this tragedy. It is the greatest injustice in history as it effects all of humanity and the earth. This catastrophe exceeds the burning of the Royal Library of Alexandria in the fourth century A.D., which set back the industrial revolution by a thousand years.

This scientific advancement is greater than the discovery of electricity by Benjamin Franklin, greater than the day Edison switched on his Pearl Street generating station's electrical power distribution system changing our world forever. It surpasses the achievements of Nikola Tesla who's patents and theoretical work formed the basis of modern alternating current and helped usher in the second industrial revolution.

This one invention dwarfs all preceding achievements because it undoes all of the evil and destruction and human enslavement, which has resulted from man's past relationship with science and technology. It would have completely eliminated global warming as it relates to the burning of fossil fuels. It would have ended the destruction of pristine environments in the quest for oil, like those in southern Africa, South America, and Alaska. It would have made dirty, dangerous, and inefficient nuclear power even more obsolete and ridiculous than it already is. More energy is required to produce nuclear fuel rods than they produce when a nuclear power plant is in operation. This new technology produces infinitely more power than it uses because it's fuel is water.

Imagine a world where wars fought over oil are no longer necessary. The mass killing of millions of men, women, and children by America in it's quest for oil would no longer be necessary. It would not be necessary to buy expensive gasoline, purchased with your labor and the blood of innocents. An ordinary car converted to run on water would be virtually free to operate except for the cost of mechanically maintaining the car.

This one invention by a gifted soul would have saved our ecosystem and turned our genocidal civilization into a utopia. But tragically and unjustly it is not to be. In order for humanity to climb out of their self imposed pit of pollution and war, the wealthiest among us must overcome their greed and lust for power.

The people who are raping and murdering our planet will not suddenly awaken and realize that water is a far superior fuel source. It is easier and more profitable for them to attack country after country, killing and enslaving the people, and stealing their oil. After all this has been the barbaric behavior of human kind since we first emerged from the caves.

Just heard on the news the FDIC has 90 banks on its "Watch List" (which they will not publish in order to avoid a run on those banks). I just emailed the FDIC now to ask them if my bank -- WAMU -- was one of them. It's getting scary out there!

Ray????? Help! (grin)

Posted by CalifChris

Safe bank?

SECRECY IS WHAT THE ROTHSCHILD DYNASTY is all about. Do you remember the book The Firm-- which told us about the Cayman Islands being a tax haven for banks?

Well - the Rothschilds also have a bank-- on the Cayman Islands - along with offices worldwide throughout Europe, North America, India, and that emerging giant, China.

It appears that David Ren de Rothschilds Paris based NM Rothschild & Sons has that tax-evasion bank in the Cayman Islands. And even more noteworthy, NM Rothschild & Sons has offices in Beijing, Shanghai, & Hong Kong. For China, in which millions of former US jobs are outsourced, has the Rothschilds as their primary investment advisers.

Indeed NM Rothschild & Sons is the primary investment adviser for Chinas Petro China, the largest oil company in Asia - and for Chinas Mass Transit Railway Corporation which recently built a controversial intrusive rail track into Tibet. (Ethics is not the Rothschilds field.)

Well Chris being you live in California, you would know what I mean when I say where there is smoke there is fire.

Right now you are probably safe if you have under $100k. But there is no telling what the limit of these bailouts are and how long the Fed can keep this up.

Fractional banking is a euphemism for embezzling and pyramiding. You deposit money in a bank. Bank assumes ownership and loans a portion to someone else. The chain continues to its fractional limit.

The process has the effect of expanding the money supply by many multiples of the original deposit. With so many people laying claim to the original deposit, watch out when too many want what they rightfully think is theirs.

CONGRATULATIONS! Youve landed at the ORIGINAL WATER4GAS website by Ozzie Freedom! There are many fakes appearing throughout the internet. Usually what they sell are books that I give away as a FREE BONUS on this website. This is the only website where you can actually get the real DEAL with real tech support.

- Sincerely,
Ozzie Freedom

is SIMPLE to install/remove: the solution you've been looking for!

boosts performance while preventing smog.

You'll discover how to generate free energy in your car or truck.

Here you will find testimonials of many happy customers.

You will find out how it works and get your questions answered:

Won't it damage my car/my warranty?
Why do I need it?
How much money will I save?
What exactly am I getting?
What if I'm not technical or don't have time for all this?
Discover IRS refunds owed to you by law for using green technology in your vehicle!
Enjoy risk-free shopping with 100% Cash Back Guarantee and totally secure shopping.
is more affordable than any other technology that uses water to save fuel, boost mileage and clean out the engine - and in the next few minutes you will discover exactly HOW this is possible.

"Fractional banking is a euphemism for embezzling and pyramiding. You deposit money in a bank. Bank assumes ownership and loans a portion to someone else."

15 times at once it loans it...

Do you remember the book "The Firm" -- which told us about the Cayman Islands
being a tax haven for banks?

Read it. Great read. Read a number of John Grisham's novels about legal bad boys.

"An ordinary car converted to run on water would be virtually free to operate except for the cost of mechanically maintaining the car."

Sorry Bani, but that can't be. When people talk about a water car what they mean is a car that 'burns' hydrogen and oxygen, the product of which is water and heat.

To get the energy out you first have to have the two elements separated. There is a cost to this.

In fact there is a net energy loss in this separation/combination event. But since portable energy is so valuable, it is a loss worth paying for. We can use solar, wind or nuclear generated electricity to create this fuel from water.

I'm not against a 'water car' but don't get too excited at the concept of free energy. There is no free lunch.

RAY

Right now you are probably safe if you have under $100k. But there is no telling what the limit of these bailouts are and how long the Fed can keep this up.

The bank they shut last week will allow depositors to come in this Monday. They said if you had $100,000 or less you were insured by FDIC. If you had more than $100,000 you would get one-half of any amount over $100,000. Then, IF there was any money left over after this mess is sorted out you might be able to recoup your entire loss. Don't hold your breath, right?

Problem is, most people will only look at their own (probably) small bank checking/savings/cd accounts. But wouldn't all the large pension plans who have their pensioners' money in various banks/finance insitutions be at a huge risk for a loss? I would think people could have their 401ks investments made with various banks and not even realize it.

I'm not against a 'water car' but don't get too excited at the concept of free energy. There is no free lunch.

Posted by liveletlive

I used to believe as u...the "There is no free lunch." part, but then one day I noticed that the sun usually rose everyday bright & shiny or eventually got to the bright & shiny part before evening!

Yes, we are either going up the spiritual ladder or down in every breath we take...& stagnation tends to bring one down, so really middle of the roaders are usually a rather stagnant bunch aren't they?:>)

"Society honors its living conformists and its dead troublemakers."

Mignon McLaughlin

His water powered car was better than an electric car because without numerous solar panels and plenty of sunlight they too must be charged by electricity produced ultimately from fossil fuels. Stan's car was far ahead of General Motors hydrogen car, which simply burned hydrogen stored in a fuel tank which had also been produced with power generated by fossil fuels.

Stan found a way of using only half an amp of electricity to fracture water molecules separating the oxygen and hydrogen on demand. As the hydrogen was produced it was burned creating combustion more powerful than gasoline, and water was the only significant exhaust emission. Stan Meyer's water engine technology could easily have been developed to power planes, ships, trains, and spacecraft, completely eliminating our need for oil.

"Stan Meyer said he trusted in angels to protect him, but in March 1998, Stan was poisoned and died in the parking lot of a restaurant in his home town of Grove City, Ohio. According to his brother Steve, the U.S. Government came to Stan's home a week after his murder and confiscated his car, which got 100 miles per gallon of water, and they stole all of his research equipment which he had used to develop the new technology.

"Stan had been threatened many times and would not sell out to Arab Oil Corp. Stan said he was offered a billion dollars from an Arab to basically shelve his idea but he said, 'No, this technology is for the people.'"

same happened to Tesla's stuff after he "died"

OMG

Chris
But wouldn't all the large pension plans who have their pensioners' money in various banks/finance insitutions be at a huge risk for a loss?

Absolutely!

I would think people could have their 401ks investments made with various banks and not even realize it.

Like lambs being led to slaughter. I have a brother with 35 years at Exxon and due to get an early retirement package. Another brother was lucky to find a buyer for his house. Now he has a large sum in the bank. Neither wants to hear my warnings.

Every nation in the world operates with the same kind of banking system. The scale of this collapse is unprecedented.

OMG

Posted by rightisright

I wonder how long RR will keep insisting I'm wrong.

Once again I am amused by the fact that some leftist (Nullifidian) has no clue of something historical.

Yes Nullifidian. Leftism is the father of Fascism.

Posted by SeanR

as is Rightism

Genocide in the 20th century

"Once again I am amused by the fact that some leftist (Nullifidian) has no clue of something historical. "

I'm quite sure I know far more history than you do, junior. You can keep repeating that bullshit until the cows come home, but it doesn't make it true.

Woodrow Wilson wasn't in any sense a leftist, you idiot.

Woodrow Wilson wasn't in any sense a leftist, you idiot.

Posted by nullifidian

just another fool who lamented on his deathbed...

"Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. -Woodrow Wilson "

I don't give a fig what Wilson said on his deathbed. He wasn't in any way, shape, or form a leftist.

what is a leftist?

Leftist is an improper term according to Nulli. Left-libertarian is more proper now. Watch eyes roll in their head when Nulli explains he is left-libertarian.

Bani,

You've got a NWO/conspiracy/cover-up link or quote for every damn subject. I love it.

But man, you're raining on the illusion of self governance parade. The house of cards falls if the secret gets out, so shhhhh.

"Leftist is an improper term according to Nulli. Left-libertarian is more proper now."

Nonsense, Ray. I don't have a problem with either label. Left-libertarian is a useful term to distinguish anti-authoritarian leftists from Stalinists, Trotskyists, etc.

lol thxs for the warning ~ "Tiger's Fang":>)

This diagram illustrates the difference, Ray.

American Protective League
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A typical "spy" report by an APL member to the US government about alleged "disloyal" private conversations.The American Protective League was a World War I-era private organization that along with federal police like the Bureau of Investigation worked in support of the anti German Empire movement and against anti-war citizens and organizations.

Formed by A.M. Briggs, a wealthy Chicago businessman, at its height of power the APL had 250,000 members in 600 cities. Officially condoned by the Attorney General, the APL gave support to the Bureau of Investigation, the precursor to the FBI.

A private organization with no legal authority, APL members acted as vigilantes, allegedly violating the civil liberties of American citizens. The APL has been accused of having illegally detained citizens associated with progressive, labor, and pacifist movements.

In 1918, APL documents showed that 10% of its efforts (the largest of any category) were focused on disrupting the activities of the I.W.W. "Wobblies" radical union movement. The APL burgled, vandalized, and harassed I.W.W. members and their offices. These activities were illegal, yet supported by the Wilson administration and the American establishment. President Wilson, despite some misgivings about their methods, deferred to the judgement of Attorney General Thomas Gregory and chose not to take any action to curtail their activities. The League disbanded in February of 1919.

now where is the Vatican these days in that chart?:>)

Weak dollar sends Vatican into the redGraeme Wearden The Guardian, Friday July 11, 2008

But the shortfall attributed mainly to the weak dollar was mitigated by a rise of 4m in property income. The Holy See is a major owner of property all over Rome and was criticised last year for raising rents and threatening to evict tenants.

Earlier this year, the Vatican released a new list of mortal sins which included "accumulating excessive wealth".

Estimates of its own wealth vary, with some reports putting it at 4bn. Last year a political row broke out over the tax exemptions enjoyed by the Catholic church in Italy. Under a deal first hammered out in 1929, it does not pay property taxes.

This diagram illustrates the difference, Ray.

www.politicalcompass.org

I dismissed that muddled mess of word confusion a couple of days ago.

It has Rand down as a neo-liberal anarchist. What the hell is that? To my knowledge, she never promoted anarchism. She's even clumped together with Milton Friedman.

As commonly understood:

Left = welfare, anti-militarism
Right = capitalism, militarism
Libertarianism = capitalism, anti-militarism

Today's politics is a mixture of socialism and fascism - left and right. The very opposite of libertarianism.

"I dismissed that muddled mess of word confusion a couple of days ago."

Of course you did. It doesn't comport with your ideology. I wouldn't expect you to say anything else.

As an anarcho-capitalist, Ayn Rand certainly belongs there, right next to Milton Friedman.

"The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues."

Pretty accurate. Sorry.

The authors are attempting to change common word understandings by fiat. Nobody but people like you understand it. Go ahead. Try it on anybody and they won't understand you.

As an anarcho-capitalist, Ayn Rand certainly belongs there, right next to Milton Friedman.

Friedman was an advocate of fiat money. Rand an advocate of gold. The couldn't be more different. I don't know of any of Rand's writings where she advocated anarchism, nor Friedman who was most certainly a statist.

which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues.

Too abstract for common understanding. It's not going to sell outside your circles. It's at the root of why your logic is divorced from reality.

"The authors are attempting to change common word understandings by fiat."

Not at all. The defferences between Friedman, Rand, the Libertarian Party, etc., are just matters of degree of pro-capitalism/anti-statism. They all belong in the same quadrant on that chart.

It's funny to see all the flavors of American-style "libertarianism" argue with each other about who are most authentically libertarian. It's really no different from religions arguing about the one, true religion.

I'd call it a bad sign when a bank with a perfectly reasonable name like "Washington Mutual" changes it's name to WaMu and its slogan to Woo Hoo!

Watch out!

Woodrow Wilson

"Leading intellectual of the Progressive era."

Henry Ford a leftist? lol

You're deranged. Hey junior, you ever hear of the Palmer Raids? Look it up. Here's the reality about your so-called "leftist" Woodrow Wilson:

"The crackdown on radical left-wing political groups had actually begun during World War I. After a series of bomb attacks of court buildings, police stations, churches and homes attributed to violent immigrant anarchist groups, the Department of Justice and its small Bureau of Investigation (BOI) (predecessor to the FBI) had begun to track their activities with the approval of President Woodrow Wilson."

In 1915, Wilson warned of:

Hyphenated Americans (who) have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life. Such creatures of passion, disloyalty and anarchy must be crushed out.[1]

It's funny to see all the flavors of American-style "libertarianism" argue with each other about who are most authentically libertarian.

Yes there were areas of disagreement. This is philosophy, not science. As I said many times before, to attach "right" and "left" onto the libertarian label confuses the term with statism. Considering how socialists are so opposed to libertarianism, that is to be expected.

To a libertarian, any form of state intervention is a form of socialism. As much as I expect you to disagree, that would include fascism.

I try to follow the principle of parsimony.
Less State intervention = more liberty and vice versa. The more the State intervenes, the more they screw up. That's the way it's always been.

"To a libertarian, any form of state intervention is a form of socialism. As much as I expect you to disagree, that would include fascism."

God then would be?

"Less State intervention = more liberty and vice versa. "

Ergo maximum liberty = anarchist government, i.e., no government at all. We see what happens when there is no central government: Afghanistan, Somalia, etc., countries ruled by private armies.

They had maximum liberty on the island in Lord of The Flies.

Problem is liberty isn't the only valuable political good, and is absolutely useless, in fact, destructive, unless balanced by mediating values such as political stability, ecoomic security, equality, etc.

In that T. Boone Pickens ad he points out (rightly) that in 1976 we only imported 30% of our oil from foreign suppliers.

I don't think we're pumping less oil here. We're selling it on the open market.

This cry for offshore oil is a strawman. No sooner will it be pumped than it will be sold on the open market.

Only the oilmen will profit.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY

thats why i tell all the supporters of drilling our offshore oil that they are full of shit .. UNLESS the oil companies ONLY sell the oil on the american market .. nowhere else.

That will never happen so i tell these supporters of big oil to go fuck themselves..

If Pickens is pushing alternative energy.. the gig is up

In less time than it would take to reap a reward from a new well, we could be deriving an increasing benefit from the recycling, and out west solar can be installed at power stations, booster stations, and industrial parks. That would reduce peak demand on existing power stations, and eventually save a significant amount of fuel. In the works is a solar cell that captures the infrared spectrum and that would double the power output of a solar collector. It's in the lab now, capturing 40% of the infrared spectrum, and will be the next generation of solar cells.

But keep drilling. Oil is valuable for producing other products besides gasoline.

Posted by OzarkAggie

oh btw.. my 2002 echo gets 46 mpg highway.. it aint "prestigious" but it saves me about 2300 dollars a year in fuel at these prices. That would be after tax dollars.

america needs to buck up and go small, drive less and buy less shit.. its really that simple.

Problem is liberty isn't the only valuable political good, and is absolutely useless, in fact, destructive, unless balanced by mediating values such as political stability, ecoomic security, equality, etc.

Posted by nullifidian

Theme song from Plato's Republic?

The vast majority of stuff written about the Fed is just made up out of whole cloth, including that "quote" from Woodrow Wilson. It appears nowhere in any of his writings, nor in the transcript of any speech. Just another internet-propogated myth, seized upon by the big-bank-conspiracy crowd.

Congratulations. You guys rank right up there with the 9/11 Truth.org lunatics.

I love how leftists don't take into consideration that our nation has grown. We have millions of new people since the 1970's and more energy needs since the 1970's when we were importing 30% of our oil. It never ever occurred to you retards that we would need to gradually increase our refinery capacity, build new coal and nuclear power plants and drill for more oil.

You idiots are blaming us for importing more oil when all these years you have systematically stopped us from developing our own supplies.

Yes you morons, because of your hardheaded stupidity our population has grown, our needs have grown and that's why we have had to import ever more oil. BECAUSE YOU MORONS WOULDN'T LET US HAVE OUR OWN! Now you're blaming the oil companies when it has been you for the past 30 years.

You people are complete idiots and have no clue that your leftist leader have done this to us. NOT THE OIL COMPANIES! Geez, you people are stupid beyond belief!

The vast majority of stuff written about the Fed is just made up out of whole cloth, including that "quote" from Woodrow Wilson.

Apparently so.

"It never ever occurred to you retards...

You idiots are ...

Yes you morons...

because of your hardheaded stupidity...

YOU MORONS...

You people are complete idiots and have no clue...

Geez, you people are stupid beyond belief!

Posted by SeanR

Look junior, don't you have to get to your shift at McDonald's or something?

I love how leftists don't take into consideration that our nation has grown. We have millions of new people since the 1970's and more energy needs since the 1970's when we were importing 30% of our oil. It never ever occurred to you retards that we would need to gradually increase our refinery capacity, build new coal and nuclear power plants and drill for more oil.

You idiots are blaming us for importing more oil when all these years you have systematically stopped us from developing our own supplies.

Yes you morons, because of your hardheaded stupidity our population has grown, our needs have grown and that's why we have had to import ever more oil. BECAUSE YOU MORONS WOULDN'T LET US HAVE OUR OWN! Now you're blaming the oil companies when it has been you for the past 30 years.

You people are complete idiots and have no clue that your leftist leader have done this to us. NOT THE OIL COMPANIES! Geez, you people are stupid beyond belief!

Posted by SeanR

You are the fucking idiots that believe we can drill our way out of this mess.. The 18 billion barrels of oil would only supply the US for 2.5 years at current consumption levels and 260+ days on the world market.

NO one is stopping anyone from drilling or EXPORTING oil especially SELLING North Slope Oil to Japan and Asian rim markets since it is a WORLD market basket for oil. This was oil that was suppose to make us more energy independent YEARS ago remember? Oh those fucking pesky facts..always obscuring your bullshit rhetoric.

Boy.. take at least a few classes on Economics and how markets work before opening your mouth and looking like a complete idiot.

The only way to get away from oil in the SHORT RUN.. is smaller more fuel efficient vehicles( > 35 MPG mandated), shorter work weeks mandated, less driving and less inconspicuous consumption.

In the long run.. solar, wind and hydro and nuclear coupled with clean coal and electric and solar vehicles and high efficiency petrol powered cars are necessary.

Suck it up and do it.. stop blaming people trying to fix a problem and become part of the solution.

Either get on the bus or get under it.. it doesn't matter to me.

LEGIO

A DEMOCRAT President had a solution to this 30 years ago. You righties laughed and derided him. Blame yourselves!

Your posts are getting too long to read - like Johnson's

LEGIO

Apoligies. I just noticed half your lengthy post was that idiot SEANR

My bad.

I keep hearing about Carter's "solution", but what was it, exactly? Solar panels on the roof of the White House? Fair enough--the federal subsidy for solar is now higher than when he was in office: 30%. Speed limits of 55 mph? Okay--go ahead and reduce them again--you have the Congress, and will soon have the White House. Full speed ahead on that one, so to speak.

As to the rest, what the hell are you talking about? Fact is, conservation and solar panels are a tough sell when oil is at $10 a barrel, which is where it went early in the Reagan administration. Easy to say we should be driving tiny Honda's and Datsun's (remember them?)--but it's a harder case to make when gasoline is 40 cents a gallon.

Now we have some real decisions to make. But it was Carter's policies regarding nuclear--along with reluctance of Republicans to go to the mat for it--that has brought us to this point in electrical generation. It has been both parties kowtowing to the enviros that have shut down new coal plants, new nat gas, new windmills and solar farms. So we're here because we deserve to be, on account of the leadership we've sent to Washington. McCain's views on energy policy are as irrelevant as mine: neither of us will be president. So what does Obama think?

RiR

Why don't you read up on it like I did?

You're just going to bash any Democrat for any reason anyway.

Your mind is as closed as the Alabama AG's wife's taco is going to be from now on.

PS RiR

I just finished reading Mickey Kantor's book, "Great New Party". He's a former GOP Congressman from Oklahoma.

I try to educate myself and get informed opinions. You should try it out

Nulli

They had maximum liberty on the island in Lord of The Flies.

False. The victims had no liberty.

Problem is liberty isn't the only valuable political good, and is absolutely useless, in fact, destructive, unless balanced by mediating values such as political stability, ecoomic security, equality, etc.

As Utilitarians think about maximizing happiness for all Libertarians think about maximizing liberty for all. The proper roll of the State is to protect individuals from initiating aggression towards others. In essence, it acts as a neutral traffic coordinator, allowing individuals to move as freely as practical without transgressing on the liberties of other individuals.

The concept of maximizing liberty precludes the universally accepted crimes of murder, theft, fraud and all their derivatives. The State in its present carnation perverts the liberties of individuals by maximizing its own liberty to deprive individuals of their liberty. The State is the world's #1 criminal organizations.

Nuclear power is has never been off the table. It is the corporate energy companies who don't want to spend the necessary safety features to protect the prublic from harm.

They want to make their profit without proper safe guards in construction and disposal.

BTW I don't drive except to rent a vehicle for a vacation. I walk, bike or take the bus

That may be good for you, but not for me. Actually, I love my car. It seems miserable to have to walk or bike where you want to go....

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-07-12 03:10 PM

But I understand why conservatives want to reclassify rightwing ideologies as being part of the left. Can't say I blame you for that pathetic little piece of historical revisionism.

It's more like a circle with totalitarianism at one point, and anarchy at another, 180 degrees away. Fascism, Communism, authoritarianism of all sorts, are associated.

Populism is behind much of the authoritarian movement, where people seek quick solutions regardless of the consequences. The joining of Hitler's socialist roots with a populist scapegoating of Jews, provided a unifying factor that exonerated people from culpability and made them victims. Hitler's socialism prevailed over Marxian socialism in Germany and Austria. The racial docrines promulgated by Hitler are not an integral part of his socialist doctrine. And Mussolini's fascist state did not incorporate such a system.

The Marxists also had their scapegoats. But the Marxian scapegoat was not irrevocably identified by his race, but by class. The scapegoat could divest himself of scapegoat status if he acted timely.

This view of communism and fascism as antipodal is misleading. They are closely allied.

If you are really interested and don't just want to repeat mindless blather, you could read some materials relating to the historical roots of communism and fascism, and the socialist blanket that gave rise to it. Is it a model that works as predicted? Can it be tweaked? What are the inherent problems? Is human nature in the long run amenable to socialist incentives? Is human nature amenable to Christian dictates as to feelings and conduct? Or are we always in a netherland as the reality is not identical to the model?

Anyway null, you seem very invested in certain outcomes rather than being open to receiving and incorporating new information. Why?

MONEYWAR: "Nuclear power is has never been off the table. It is the corporate energy companies who don't want to spend the necessary safety features to protect the prublic from harm.

They want to make their profit without proper safe guards in construction and disposal."

I do find that an interesting statement - where do you get your facts from? I'm curious as I always thought it was all the expensive environmental/regulatory stumbling blocks and NIMBY protesters that stymied them from building as with refineries.

That may be good for you, but not for me. Actually, I love my car. It seems miserable to have to walk or bike where you want to go....

Posted by boaz

heaven forbid americans might actually drop below a 25 BMI..

The US is the world's third largest oil producer. There are differing costs associated with extracting oil from various reserves, and oil that formerly was not economically fesasible to extract, is being processed now as the wellhead price makes it viable.

US production is some 8,330,000 barrels per day. At a price of $140 per barrel, the oil companies would gross some $100 per barrel more than when it was a $40 per barrel, so that their revenues are increased by some $833,000,000 per day based on domestic production. This is quite a windfall, but it goes to the international producers and is not a benefit just accruing to US domestic producers.

Of course, this goes into a worldwide pool, and much of our proudction goes to the world's third largest consumer of oil, Japan, which uses 5,159,000 barrels per day.

The second largest consumer, whose use is rapidly increasing, is China, which uses 7,201,000 barrels per day. As CalifChris noted supra, with Clinton's Open Door policy and Bush's globalism, we have created a voracious appetite in industrializing China, not only for oil for industrial purposes, but for consumers as automobile use there is burgeoning.

The largest consumer of oil is the US. The US is still the world's manufacturing leader with China second. We consume some 20,687,000 barrels of oil per day. With an outgo of some $140 for each barrel of foreign oil, we are running a deficit based on our consumption in excess of production of some 12,357,000 barrels of oil per day. That volume multiplied by the price stated around which the cost is now hovering, comes to $1,729,980,000 per day that we are paying to other producers for this commodity.

Doesn't that show an outlay at the stated figures of more than 631 BILLION dollars per year, $631,442,700,000.

This is quite a drain on our economy when the GDP and GNP are calculated. How long will we be able to sustain it. At what price of oil, will we crack.

Yes, the oil companies are profiting. They were selling the same oil rather recently for some $100 per barrel less in cost. But the crux of the problem at this time is not their profit, but the outlays to those outside this country.

Oil seems to be the best energy source. The reserves for creating atomic energy are calculated to be sufficient for only some 100 years. For civilization to sustain itself, it will be necessary to develop other viable sources of energy. If that cannot be accomplished, homo sapiens sapiens will need to cope with and adjust to radically changed circumstances and regard recent times as our Golden Age.

Fascism, Communism, authoritarianism of all sorts, are associated.--

Meaningless statement. Fascism is an outgrowth of hyper-nationalism, chauvanism. Communism is an economic concept where a handy controlling mechanism (the state) is used to enforce the economic system. Authoritarianism cares not about details, it cares only that a single entity have control. Yes, they all have at their core totalitarianism. That doesnt mean they are the same entity. Seanr _really_ needs to do a _lot_ of reading before he even starts to make sense.

Johnson, Hitler did not come from socialistic roots, nor was he a true socialist. Yes, do read his comments and about his actions. He adapted the socialistic concepts which enabled his view of the new-- greater and stronger German nation. He also persecuted all socialists who in any way opposed his political philosophy. Its your core beliefs which define you, not the tools you employ.

Re Big Oli, I have read many times that at one time (at least), in the 70s and 80s) oil companies got special (i.e., not available to other industries) tax breaks and special accounting rules to compensate them for the risks inherent in their business. Are these rules still in effect?

Legio

You and your fellow leftists want price controls. Is that the economics you learned? Wow, that was a stupid person who taught you that price controls will increase the amount of product being sold and lower the price. The exact opposite will happen.

I can't believe how dumb leftists are. EVERYTIME price controls have been put in place, every single time, it's failed to achieve it's goal of increasing product. In fact, the product becomes scarce, the price goes through the roof and then you leftwing geniuses wonder why.

"Wow. I can't believe how dumb leftists are."

But everyone here can believe how dumb you are:

"For you people to tell me that I can post links is ridiculous and a typical lie of leftists.

You are a bunch of liars. My link, my story, my headline did not appear.

But I won't quit or go away. I'm having too much fun."

Posted by SeanR

No one told me that my story would go to the back page. I was told to post my story and that it would appear. The implication was that it would appear on the main page.

I was lied to. And I won't go away unless this site becomes like moveon.org and bans all dissent.

No one told me that my story would go to the back page. I was told to post my story and that it would appear. The implication was that it would appear on the main page.
I was lied to.

SeanR- You're an idiot!

SeanR- We credited you with the intelligence to click on your own name to find your article.

Rest assured, this will never happen again.

American Unity, I suspect you're just lying. The facts are indisputable: there is a 50% federal tax credit for solar panels.

Posted by rightisright at 2008-07-11 05:45 PM

Since the very first sentence in your post is WRONG it follows that your entire argument is bunk. Do I have to follow you around to clean up after you?

I can't believe you would say such a thing. Is your Google broke today?

There is currently NO FEDERAL TAX CREDIT in effect.

I don't have Panels being install(ed)...

and

for what (YOUR) State provides...

there!

The vast majority of stuff written about the Fed is just made up out of whole cloth, including that "quote" from Woodrow Wilson. It appears nowhere in any of his writings, nor in the transcript of any speech. Just another internet-propogated myth, seized upon by the big-bank-conspiracy crowd.

Congratulations. You guys rank right up there with the 9/11 Truth.org lunatics.

Posted by rightisdumb?

yeah, right...

"Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote.."

That quote is bogus, as I documented earlier.

You guys rank right up there with the 9/11 Truth.org lunatics.

Rightisblind?

911 Archives

"Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote.."

That quote is bogus, as I documented earlier.

Posted by nullifidian

Wiki is not the ultimate source these days...

Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies' - Scotsman.com News
The Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC) said pupils are turning to websites and internet resources that contain inaccurate or deliberately misleading information before passing it off as their own work.

The group singled out online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which allows entries to be logged or updated by anyone and is not verified by researchers, as the main source of information.

Posted on June 22, 2008 9:43 AM

Just one example

"Wiki is not the ultimate source these days...

www.whatreallyhappened.com "

You're comparing Wiki with some crackpot conspiracy site? Sorry, the quote isn't legit until proven otherwise.

Court Rules Federal Reserve is Privately Owned
Case Reveals Fed's Status as a Private Institution

------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------

Below are excerpts from a court case proving the Federal Reserve system's status. As you will see, the court ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency:

Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
United States of America, Defendant/Appellee.
No. 80-5905
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 2, 1982.
Decided April 19, 1982.
As Amended June 24, 1982.

Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David W. Williams, J., dismissed holding that federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of Act and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Affirmed.

You're comparing Wiki with some crackpot conspiracy site? Sorry, the quote isn't legit until proven otherwise.

Posted by nullifidian

your ignorance is raging today,,,what give?:>)

Israeli battles rage on Wikipedia - Telegraph
The pro-Israel group, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (Camera) has called for volunteers to edit entries that display notable bias on the site.

Posted on May 9, 2008 8:22 AM

Newsvine - Stephen Colbert Causes Chaos on Wikipedia, Gets Blocked from Site
Stephen Colbert Causes Chaos on Wikipedia, Gets Blocked from Site...

Posted on May 7, 2008 5:24 PM

THE CAMERA DOESN'T ALWAYS SHOW THE REAL PICTURE Desertpeace
Especially if the 'CAMERA' in question is the name of an organisation called The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. Accuracy to a group such as this means lying and rewriting history, which is exactly what they are doing by editing entries on Wikipedia's Internet site. This is specifically done to entries dealing with Palestinian history.

Wow. I can't believe how dumb leftists are.

Posted by SeanR

price controls? You are a fucking retard...

Go drink a quart of oil sean..it will help your perspective on life..