It's a start

Hmmmmm...Dubya says we have an addiction to oil that we have to break. And the way to break an addiction is to find more? Ol Dubya is a medical geniuris too!

Gas prices plummet to 2000 levels!!!!!
Go Bush!!!

Should we have a two-tier oil policy with our newly exploited reserves retained for domestic use at a lower price so as to subsidize our economy, and enable us to better tolerate the economic trauma we may face with the banking system threatened with collapse?

Should most or all of our domestic production be used in the U.S., so that we are not a petroleum exporting country. Of course, Japan might be in serious trouble with no oil production, and using over 5,000,000 barrels of oil per day, the world's third largest oil consumer after the U.S. and China. It might even effect Japan's foreign policy decisions.

Oh, what a delicate applecart. So easy to upset.

Hey here is a novel idea.... how about drilling on the land that are currently under lease to the oil companies?

Nah, lets open more to them so they can lock them into leases so no one else can drill on them either.

Brilliant!

Johnson,
Exactly what is wrong with us keeping most, if not all, of the oil that is found on/under American soil?

"Hey here is a novel idea.... how about drilling on the land that are currently under lease to the oil companies?"

Actually, I like the idea of "drill it or lose it" on all those leases the oil companies already have.
Something tells me they might be a little more anxious to use the leases they already have if they faced losing the leases.

"This means the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress"

And the private oil companies who will charge us as much as they possibly can for whatever they find there.

Hey here is a novel idea.... how about drilling on the land that are currently under lease to the oil companies?
##############################
#################

I wonder if the trust of these types of comments is that there is lots of money to be made on these leases, if only they would try?

On one hand we accuse big oil of being greedy on a satanic level and then we say, 'why don't we use the leases that they already have'. Well, the answer is simple. There is no oil on those leases.

As long as we feed our addiction, we can't really say anything about how our junkie treats us.

" Well, the answer is simple. There is no oil on those leases."

Riiiiiight. Oil companies are in the business of buying leases to drill where there is no oil.

This is merely a ploy to get more available sights, on the cheap.

It's a start--
Posted by Russ_the_Repub at 2008-07-15 09:27 AM

YEAH!

Its totally reasonable to think that the Worlds Largest Consumer of Oil is going to magically circumvent the need for the Worlds Largest Producers of Oil!
Just another congame run on the American people by the republicans--, just another two fisted Grab from the Nations Public Trust from the Party of Values-- before their forced out the door!

"It's a start"

Way too little, way too late.

Oil up over $147 a barrel - the pittance that will be sucked up off shore or from ANWR will somehow affect and reduce world oil prices? No. The price of a barrel of oil is a world price, not a national price, a simple fact that the ignorant mouth breathers across America fail to realize.

Will this move suddenly vault the dollar back to pre-eminence? No. The Euro is at yet another record high (totally hashing any plans I had at traveling across the Big Pond). The dollar is in the toilet and soon to be flushed entirely. Note that while fuel prices in the US have risen over 200%, they have risen only 60% or so across Europe.

The bottom line is, fellow citizens, is this:

We

Are

Screwed

Big

Time!

Too much debt, both personally and nationally.

Too much complacency.

Too much greed.

The bottom is coming up fast.

Word of the day: Splat!

"There is no oil on those leases."

Then why do they keep the leases???
If there is no oil then they won't mind giving up the leases and letting someone else have the opportunity to drill.

don't we use the leases that they already have'. Well, the answer is simple. There is no oil on those leases.

Posted by Lipzoidial

They don't know, they have not done anything with them other than buy them.

Of all the land that is currently under lease to the oil companies, less than 25% has had ANY development activities on it.

But hey I am sure that the oil cos are so successful because they are in the business of buying worthless assets. Tell them what, I have a broken freezer in my basement, maybe they will want to rent it.

It is nothing more than a land grab to prevent other companies from drilling on the land.

Really? An American corporation, which believes in capitalism, i.e. competition, is trying to monopolize the market? Get outta here...how can that be?

Thing is about offshore drilling leases....there really is no great desire to begin drilling anyway, it's just a campaign issue because McBush doesn't have much to work with so they are cynically trying to capitalize on the high price of gas and shift the blame for that to "environmentalists"....like Jeb Bush. It's nothing but a bunch of McCrap.

This is just one step that needs to be made to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We still need to advance our research in alternative fuels, solar energy, wind etc., but in the meantime we need to take care of ourselves. Hopefully there will be no need for offshore drilling in the near future, and we can clean up those rigs and sink them (they essentially turn into aquatic sanctuaries). In the meantime, if you want the price of gas to go down, we have to start drilling in the gulf. I guess it is easy for me because I live in Louisiana and we already drill in the gulf.

A small step, but at least in the right direction.

How ironic it was Bush's brother, Jeb, who fought opening offshore drilling when the GOP controlled Congress.

And there's no plan to KEEP any oil drilled there HERE anyway. So, what's the difference?

I haven't had any problem buying all the gas I could want.

Once we're drilling on all our present land leases, I'm all for drilling on more off-shore sites.

Lipzoida:
no oil in every one of those those leases? really? ...and you know this, how?

I haven't had any problem buying all the gas I could want.

AU, no offense, but that came off rather elitist. There are people struggling to get buy who have to decide whether to buy gas or put food on the table. GM just laid off 3,000 people today due in part to rising fuel costs. Tell those 3,000 people that they shouldn't worry because you can still buy all the gas you want.

We need to open up drilling in the most enviornmentally friendly way possible while at the same time using our American ingenuity to come up with alternative fuel and clean energy sources.

" In the meantime, if you want the price of gas to go down, we have to start drilling in the gulf."

Er...we already do drill in the gulf and no...that won't make gas prices come down. Oil is a commodity traded internationally and if the dollar is worthless then it takes lots of them to buy a barrel of oil. Fix the dollar and watch oil prices go down. The demand for increased drilling isn't even possible because equipment isn't even available. It's McBush's attempt to paing Dems as "environmentalists" and shift the blame for gas prices to them, it is not a real attempt to alleviate the consumer's problem with high gas prices.

Mr. Arbusto Dry hole oil driller who bankrupted (2) companies because he didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about the oil business lifts the ban on offshore drilling when Oil Companies have permits to drill in 168,000 Acres already.

Its all bullshit !!. Its another gift from Bush to his Oil Buddies on his way out of office continuing his Fucking of the average America person in this country in the name of corporate greed.

Heard something on the news last night that puts this in perspective. Any oil these companies pump goes on to the open-market - as the crowd now goes quite - whats that mean? If the the price of a barrel is $150, do you think they'll sell it domestically for less? I didn't hear mention any provision that they have to sell it for less domestically. So basically Bush is letting them drill/find/pump more oil - whoopee - and make even more money. Maybe Jim Cramer is right -sadly- if you can't beat-em - buy their stock.

If I were king:

1. I'd start a government owned petro company to drill on these new reserves - F the oil companies but we don't have put them out of business - just a little competition. (Oh yeah, for those who reply the government cant run anything... yada yada - dont forget the police, fire, etc and Im sure there are a lot of anti-gov types who have/had bank accounts at Indymac etc that thank their lucky stars they are backed up by who?)

2. Have a big photo-op along the beach somewhere for a groundbreaking ceremony of a humongous domestic hydrogen separation plant! The mere spectacle of it would cause oil prices to fall, OPEC cringe, and oil stock prices plummet. Id go thru with it too - thats right, separate water. Oh but it takes more energy to separate... - so what - use solar or nuc or whatever - its the transportability/usability (not to mention abundance) of hydrogen that makes it viable. And to fend-off the temptation for anyone post a refute - there are several Nordic countries already doing this - so what would you refute - its not practical for us but it is for them?

"If you want the price of gas to go down, we have to start drilling in the gulf."

Posted by taxman

Please explain how more drilling in the Gulf will reduce the price of a barrel of oil, which, BTW, is an international commodity and the price set globally.

Please explain how drilling in the Gulf will make the dollar trade higher?

Drilling now makes sense. Sure maybe the short term effect on prices might be slight, but you have to start. It is sort of like saying, well I will not go to college because it will be 5 years before I can get a job and better myself.

I am not sure how it would work to make it so that the oil drilled here has to stay here. Does anyone know is that what Brazil does?

Of course at the same time we should be attacking this problem from all directions. Supply and demand. Nothing should be off the table.

Brazil is making a large percentage of their fuel (biofuel) from sugarcane.

My God, I am watching Bush's press conference as I type. What a bufoon!!!! The expression on the press corps faces says it all: How could this moron ever be elected?

no oil in every one of those those leases? really? ...and you know this, how?

Posted by SamBarber

Why else would oil companies lock up land leases and then not drill them?

Surely they would not want to shut out the competition. That would be unheard of.

Just jheard part of his news conference where he blames the Congress for preventing more offshore drilling....funny thing...he never mentioned Congress's refusal pre-2006....wonder why???
Like I said, this is just political gamesmanship and has NOTHING to do with the price of gas. They can drill, find oil, pump oil and gas will still keep rising as long as the dollar is worthless.
Clue: Europeans gas prices have not risen as ours have because their money isn't devalued.

Oil inventories and prices are up due to endless agression and sabre rattling in the Middle East. A problem further exascerbated by speculation. There is no supply problem, but lie and pretend that is the fundamental problem in order to cover up the real causes, which can be traced right to your doorstep. I mean Cheney's doorstep, which you are nevertheless responsible for.

Who cares if the beaches are covered with oil, like Moss Landing, Santa Barbara and Alaska.

Here is another lame excuse for advancing the interests of oil companies reeling in profits.

Drilling now makes sense.

Posted by sawdust

My oil and gas clients tell me that the problem is that there is a shortage of drilling rigs to actually drill right now.

I have clients flying all over the country as soon as they hear of a rig for sale.

"Drilling now makes sense."

T. Boone Pickens doesn't know anything.

Nutcase,

It is much easier to blame the Dems and enviromentalists than to actually reign in the oil speculators that contribute to election campaigns.

Economics101: There more widgets you have in the market, the lower the price; i.e., if there is a larger supply of oil on the market, and the OPEC nations know we are going to start supplying, the price of oil/gas will fall. A perfect example of this is the a few weeks ago when GM made the announcement that it was going to stop making Hummers and cut its truck production - you could literally watch the price of oil drop as the statement was released.

We need to open up drilling in the most enviornmentally friendly way possible while at the same time using our American ingenuity to come up with alternative fuel and clean energy sources.

Posted by taxman

As soon as the wailing and screaming becomes loud enough, Congress will do something about the speculators and the price of oil will drop.

Then America can declare "mission accomplished" and put our heads back in the sand.

The demand for increased drilling isn't even possible because equipment isn't even available.

I have clients who make/lease rigs and they are chomping at the bit for the Gulf to open up. There will be plenty of equipment. Rigs go up every day. Hell, think of it as a way to create new jobs.

"you could literally watch the price of oil drop as the statement was released."

I must have missed that, last I heard it was headed to $150. How many Hummers are there??? I doubt that the production of Hummers effects our consumption of oil enough to significantly effect the price of oil at all.

DANNI

Weren't the 100% tax credits (you get to write it all off) for 2 ton vehicles just ducky in 'saving' energy?

I just watched Bush's press conference. God that guy's an idiot.

All the GOP Senators are on the energy bandwagon now.

The very same ones who voted for that above mentioned tax credit to buy gas guzzlers.

Hypocrites.

Oil Dashboard
July, Tuesday 15 2008 - 11:30:10

"Weren't the 100% tax credits (you get to write it all off) for 2 ton vehicles just ducky in 'saving' energy?"

Yes, the fun days of yesteryear when government under Bush actually encouraged Americans to buy Hummers and waste fuel.
100% tax credits good
CAFE standards bad.

"Bush actually encouraged Americans to buy Hummers"

Bush?
Hummers?

Bunny Ranch?

The very same ones who voted for that above mentioned tax credit to buy gas guzzlers.

Excellent point.

Economics101:
POSTED BY TAXMAN
-----------

Since prices went crazy this summer the supply of gas has increased and demand has decreased. Yet prices stay high. It seems like the basic rules of economics no longer apply to this situation.

Hey here is a novel idea.... how about drilling on the land that are currently under lease to the oil companies?

Nah, lets open more to them so they can lock them into leases so no one else can drill on them either.

Brilliant!

Brilliant? No. Your knee jerk response, amusing? Yes.

The oil companies want to buy leases to let them and sit idle not make money. Amusing.

Why don't they drill on existing ones instead of opening up new ones? Existing ones in the GoM have to be drilled with drill ships since they are in very deep water. These monsters cost $675m each and take over a year to build. There are only a handful in existence. They cost the oil company pays to lease them are $565k/day and climbing with each new contract.

The new leases Bush is proposing that we open up are in shallow water and can be drilled with jack-ups of which there are hundreds in existence and many sitting idle since shallow water drilling is not so common any more. Also, the day rate for those is about $80k/day (vs $565k for deepwater drillships, remember?)

Summary for those who were not able to keep up:

No drill ships for existing deep water drilling.
Lots of jackups available for shallow water drilling

Day rate for drill ship: $565k
Day rate for jack-up: $80k

I know the facts won't stop you knee-jerk jerks from spinning your fantastic oil conspiracies, but I thought I'd throw them out anyway.

I'm so excited to see so many leftists once again arguing against increasing our energy supplies.

God I hope gas prices keep going up. Democrats, you people are complete idiots. Idiots. But I do give you credit for being consistent.

For 30 years now you people have refused to allow us to increase the amount of our energy. You've said "No" to nuclear and coal power plants, drilling, more refineries, and recently Ted Kennedy even blocked wind turbines off the coast of his estate in Martha's Vineyard because it upset his view.

For 30 years you people have done all you could to keep us from gradually increasing our supply as our demand gradually rose. So now we're in a crisis situation and you idiots are still saying "No" to attempts to increase our supply of energy.

If the Republicans had any brains (luckily for you they don't) they would bash you relentlessly over this and point out to the public that it is the Democratic party that is standing in our way of energy independence.

But Republicans are stupid beyond belief also so you just might get away with your obstinance.

Dubya says we have an addiction to oil that we have to break. And the way to break an addiction is to find more?

Yet more amusement from the knee jerk jerks. Bush does nothing to help alleviate dependence on foreign oil. He's a jerk.

Bush proposes opening up offhore drilling to make us more energy independent and bring down prices. He's a jerk.

Priceless

YEAH!

Golly Shucks Dang!

Yuk, Yuc --- sniff

Sincerely

Goatman

For 30 years now you people have refused to allow us to increase the amount of our energy--

YEAH!

Why not just Start with pointing fingers at the Last Twelve (years)!

PS on day rate/contracts:

My rig currently has three years left on a 5 year contract with one oil company. We are getting the current day rate.

Another oil company has signed a two year contract for our rig at a substantially higher day rate when the current one expires.

Think about it -- someone speculating that our rig (IOW, oil) will be more valuable in three years than it is now? From a business standpoint, that is some wild fucking speculation unless you are business savvy enough to know that oil is getting tougher to find and drill for and that world consumption will not abating.

Or maybe they think Obama in the WH will make oil prices worse? hmmmmmm I don't think that of course, but the point is, the problem is apolitical. Or the oil companies are very, very bad businessmen signing contracts for oil rigs as they are.

YEAH!

Golly Shucks Dang!

Yuk, Yuc --- sniff

Sincerely

Goatman

Brilliant redneckshill. I presume this means you do not have an intelligible counter point?

Why not just Start with pointing fingers at the Last Twelve (years)!

Why not stop pointing fingers and tackle the problem? I know this would put redneckshill out of a job on this blog, but that's his problem to deal with.

For 30 years now you people have refused to allow us to increase the amount of our energy--

YEAH!

Then why has the industry voluntary closed in excess of 150 refineries in the last 25 (years) while at the same time increasing output and capacity that they claimed they didnt have all along!

Or point to the last 7 years while the GOP Congress enacted tax credits (100% writeoff) to buy gas guzzlers, get us in a war that upset the ME balance of power and sent the oil markets skyrocketing.

I was paying $1.29 months after 9/11.

Iraq's invasion was what set this all off.

These GOP Senators posing and posturing and crying crocodile tears for the C-SPAN cameras are sickening. They're one of the root causes we're in a mess. There's no oil shortage. I've never once been told, "sorry, you can't fill up. The refineries aren't sending enough". Nope, every Lincoln Navigator with a W sticker was filling up all they wanted to - and still can for that matter.

And today oil drops below $139.

But I get a shit eating grin watching it roll beyond $100.
Small justice.

"And today oil drops below $139."

Time for some more threats against Iran to push it back up.

Bush proposes opening up offshore drilling to make us more energy independent and bring down prices. He's a jerk.
Priceless
Posted by goatman at 2008-07-15 11:55 AM

YEAH!

Might be his Shleprock Touch! You know, like how everything he touches turns to shit!
But anyway, why dont you hardhat sporting, coverall wearing, dirt eating glorified ditch digger explain to us how leasing more of the public trust to a monopoly that hasnt/doesnt prepare for the future needs or utilizes the leases it already holds is going to bring down prices-- in the foreseeable future!
Why dont you Cipher on that a while Jethroe!

Goat,
I'll type slowly cuz obviously your mind works slowly.

"Dubya says we have an addiction to oil that we have to break. And the way to break an addiction is to find more?"

Did your hero not say this? Yes, he did. How do you deal with an addiction? You stop using the abusive substance.

"Yet more amusement from the knee jerk jerks. Bush does nothing to help alleviate dependence on foreign oil. He's a jerk."

Did your hero not say we need to drill in more places? How does that alleviate our dependence on oil?

I want to know where Tigerbalm is. He laughed at me when I told him that as soon as we announce plans to drill more the price of oil would plummet. Yes, almost overnight. Well, I'm here rub his nose in it.

The sad part is that only high oil prices will bring Americans to reduce their consumption and push for alternative energy sources.

We really are a greedy, self-important bunch of a_holes... (no offense, rob)

...explain to us how leasing more of the public trust to a monopoly that hasnt/doesnt prepare for the future needs or utilizes the leases it already holds is going to bring down prices-- in the foreseeable future!

I guess you didn't read my 11:52, redneckshill. You can lead a horse to water . . .

Sorry, I can't help you to understand if you don't read.

Or the oil companies are very, very bad businessmen

In the early 80's the fields in the New Mexico were booming. 10 years later drilling rigs were accumulating rust. Boom or Bust seems to be the nature of the business. I think China and India have changed the metrics - at least for now.

I predict oil prices will fall a little and gas prices too....pre-election manipulation of gas and oil prices has been one tool in the Republican's tool box for quite a while. Post election price increases will begin again and go much higher than they are not...probably all the way to $200 as I've heard several talking heads predict.

I'll type slowly cuz obviously your mind works slowly.

"Dubya says we have an addiction to oil that we have to break. And the way to break an addiction is to find more?"

Bush never said that. He said we are addicted to foreign oil. He never said addiction to oil in general.

The sad part is that only high oil prices will bring Americans to reduce their consumption and push for alternative energy sources.

We really are a greedy, self-important bunch of a_holes

Hagbard, I've said this many times. It seems you and I are the only ones on this blog who can understand this simple concept.

Did your hero not say we need to drill in more places? How does that alleviate our dependence on oil?

Posted by evilpolock

I just watched Bush's press conference. It was excruciating.

Then I flipped to C-SPAN and saw Session (R-AL) and Croynyn (R-TX) crying crocodile tears about our need for energy dependence.

The same people who got us in this mess by encouraging consumption in big ass SUV's only a couple of years ago.

Well, Bush wouldn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about anything. So, I'll give him a pass. But, the two Senators I watched crying crocodile tears over offshore drilling voted FOR the tax credits (100%) for gas guzzling 2 ton SUV's.

Man, the hypocrisy never ends when it comes to energy and the GOP.

Lest we forget it was Bush's own brother, Jeb, who fought against offshore drilling not long ago.

Geesh (shaking head)

And today oil drops below $139."

Time for some more threats against Iran to push it back up.

Posted by danni at 2008-07-15 12:06 PM

the reason oil is dropping is because the American economy is on the verge of collapse which means traders are pulling back on future oil contracts.

No worries OIL is only going up. There is no going down until we as Americans get our shit together.

Wake up. The Oil Companies have YOU!

Drilling will solve nothing. It is the White House plan for Mass Deception.

Atta boy Georgie!

As I told him, all we had to do was to signal to the world our intentions to increase our supplies of energy, in this case by drilling, and the price would plummet almost overnight.

YEAH!

The Largest Consumer of Oil is going to Scare the Largest Producers of Oil with a show of a few barrels in comparison! Is Dumb contagious?

This idiocy is like if the King of Saudi Arabia saying he was going to reduce the global price of Lumber by Cutting Down all the Trees in Saudi Arabia! Its fucking ridiculous!

The sad part is that only high oil prices will bring Americans to reduce their consumption and push for alternative energy sources.

GOATMAN, I get it too. That's why my vehicles get 40 mpg and 34 mpg. I'm not a fan of shelling out money to burn in any case. It has been fun looking up at the small dicks driving Hummers on the freeway and smirking though. 8 mpg. BWAAA!

GOATMAN, I get it too.

If more people thought as you do in that respect, the oil issues we have now would not be as severe. Americans need to realize we do not own the planet and its resources.

This idiocy is like if the King of Saudi Arabia saying he was going to reduce the global price of Lumber by Cutting Down all the Trees in Saudi Arabia! Its fucking ridiculous!

I guess you are not aware of the fact that energy does not necessarily have to come from oil, redneckshill.

Is Dumb contagious?

You tell us. Did you catch it from standing too close to someone with it? Or was it congenital?

Goat,
Copied from the link you posted:

"The United States must move beyond a petroleum-based economy and develop new ways to power automobiles."

Is that not removing our dependence on oil...period?

Goat,
And to help ya out even further :)
From the SOTU itself:

"Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances."

Where is the foreign part of "America is addicted to oil"? Where does he mention drilling in more places?
C'mon, answer honestly this time...

"The sad part is that only high oil prices will bring Americans to reduce their consumption and push for alternative energy sources."

What's sadder still is that we could've avoided this by imposing European style gas taxes after the first oil shocks in the 70s. But the usual suspects would rather the money go to OPEC rather than keep the dollars in the U.S. economy.

Quote from Redneckville:

Then why has the industry voluntary closed in excess of 150 refineries in the last 25 (years) while at the same time increasing output and capacity that they claimed they didnt have all along!

We can't have gas taxes, or mandate smaller cars, or speed limits, because we are America and this is our planet!

Where is the foreign part of "America is addicted to oil"? Where does he mention drilling in more places?
C'mon, answer honestly this time...

Honestly? In the first line of the link I posted.

In His State Of The Union Address, President Bush Outlined The Advanced Energy Initiative To Help Break America's Dependence On Foreign Sources Of Energy. The President has set a national goal of replacing more than 75% of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.

If you want to play semantical games that I did not quote it verbatim, then you win. But the spirit of what I said is well reflected in that link.

"The United States must move beyond a petroleum-based economy and develop new ways to power automobiles."

Is that not removing our dependence on oil...period?

I guess you were silly enough to think that it would happen overnight and until it did we would just turn out the lights and wait for it to happen?

No. Just as when Kennedy said we would put a man on the moon, he wasn't there next Tuesday. It took time to reach that goal.

Goat,
No, no, no. The first thing that I posted that you commented on was "Dubya says we have an addiction to oil that we have to break. And the way to break an addiction is to find more?"

It's not semantics no matter how you spin.
But of course when you dive in and blindly support the idiot you most certainly voted for, most likely twice, I can see where you'd miss the clear meaning of a simple sentence.
The reality is he said we need to find a way off of the oil teat, and then says we need to find more oil.

No one said a word about over night. You just can't stay on topic today. Tired?
I am just pointing out yet another flip flop and blunder from Bush. We need to be done with oil...then we need to find more oil. Two completely different stances.

Thanks, seanr. I was in the process of googling some resources to counter redneckshill, but you saved me the time.

So, it may sound good to say some oil company is closing a refinery to drive up profits, but the fact is just because some nutjob at democraticunderground or dailykos says it does not make it true.

In other words, congress has made it so expensive to build a new refinery that it's simply bad business to do so. The environmental regulations and lawsuits as well as the actual building have made it so expensive to build refineries that no smart businessman in his right mind would do it. And that's just the way Democrats and environmentalists want it.

Posted by SeanR at 2008-07-15 12:41 PM

In 2001, Senator Ron Wyden authored a comprehensive report on the state of the US refining industry.

He noted that between 1995 and 2001 there were a total of 24 refinery closures in the United States.

These lost America around 830,000 barrels per day of gasoline. That is about the same amount of capacity lost to Katrina alone.

No new refineries

Wyden uncovered several memos and internal documents from major oil companies. These charted the way that capacity in the US refining industry was reduced to maintain higher profits.

Wyden received one such memo from oil company Texaco, written in 1996. The company felt it was quite clear that petrol supplies needed "reducing."

"The most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity," said the memo.

"The same situation exists for the entire US 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."

You sir are either a liar or severely misinformed.

A United States Senator has found evidence of this same conspiracy by Oil Companies to drive up profits.

And really are you so naive?

Have you forgotten ENRON so soon are you just part of the problem?

"Dubya says we have an addiction to oil that we have to break.

And I said he did not say that. YOu say he did. Please provide a link with that quote.

We need to be done with oil...then we need to find more oil. Two completely different stances.

I've seen a source for the second quote, but not the first. Can you provide one please? When you do, your point will be proven.

Americans need to realize we do not own the planet and its resources.

Posted by goatman

Blasphemy!

Goat,
This is verbatim from the 2006 SOTU which I found in a link from the link you posted earlier. These are his words, not what someone interpreted.

"Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances."

No. Just as when Kennedy said we would put a man on the moon, he wasn't there next Tuesday. It took time to reach that goal.

Posted by goatman at 2008-07-15 12:45 PM

And Bush squandered his Presidency on Iraq while he could have been working toward ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.

Yeah, I know, only history will be the judge.

Fuck them! I will be dead.

I can tell you right now.

Bush screwed the pooch. He should have started that a massive Energy Manhattan Project on day one of his Presidency.

Instead of plotting how to attack Iraq.

GOAT

If some other country with 5% of the world's population were using 25% of it's resources we'd be massing our army by now to put a stop to it.

AU,
Yep.

GREAT Bushism on his press conference reairing on C-SPAN:

"We need to conserve. We need to leave our air conditioners on when we go to work.."

All ya gotta do is tune in to the Great Moments in Presidential Speeches or whatever it's called on Letterman and you realize just how limited this guy is.

"We need to conserve. We need to leave our air conditioners on when we go to work.."

Posted by AMERICANUNITY

He isn't arguing here that it costs less to maintain a certain temperature than it does to allow it to go up and down drastically by turning the ac on and off during the day?

Well, evilpolock, I still don't see anything that supports your statement, "Dubya says we have an addiction to oil that we have to break."

He says we have one. He says the best way to break it is... He says we spent $10g to help, etc. Nowhere does he say that we need to stop oil production completely until this happens.

I do not disagree that in spirit he says we need to break that addiction. But again, I fall back on: "do you think that's going to happen overnight?" It won't. So in the meantime, he wants us to drill until these "new technologies" can take over. Or do we just turn off the lights until then?

Bush screwed the pooch. He should have started that a massive Energy Manhattan Project on day one of his Presidency.

I guess if Clinton, 41, Reagan, or Carter had more foresight they would've started it too.

But no, Bush is today's whipping boy. DOGPILE!

Goat,
LOL...OK, OK, I think we've beaten this to death. I'm not one to continue on and on about semantics, missteps, etc. 99.9% of this blog is about shits and grins for me.
We'll just agree to disagree...deal?

you realize just how limited this guy is.

Posted by evilpolock

Limited? He's done exactly what he always wanted, enriched his friends, executed the guy who attempted to assassinate his father, shredded the constitution, expanded presidential power beyond all expectation, and done it all without consequence.

This is a man BEYOND ALL LIMITS.

an uber mensch for sure.... a hideously evil uber mensch, but an uber mensch all the same.

Yes, the fun days of yesteryear when government under Bush actually encouraged Americans to buy Hummers and waste fuel.

Posted by danni at 2008-07-15 11:32 AM

FF for Danni

"Well, evilpolock, I still don't see anything that supports your statement, "Dubya says we have an addiction to oil that we have to break."

Talk about hairsplitting. No wonder all your "debates" go on forever.

Donnerboy

First of all: Link please. And if your link isn't to a reputable news outlet (AP, CNN, Fox) don't even bother.

I provided that link to oilfield.com because they are the only ones who explained why refineries aren't being built and why they are being shut down. Ron Wyden ain't gonna do that.

Second of all. Ron Wyden? Perhaps the most crazed leftwing fanatic in the senate?

Also, I do take into consideration how much gasoline was in 1996. The oil companies and their employees were suffering. Layoffs were common in the industry.

Let me add that you citing Ron Wyden on oil is like you citing Cynthia McKinney on the Israel/Arab conflict.

Carter had more foresight they would've started it too.

as you might recall Carter tried...if only had listen thened...sigh!

I can still hear the the echoes of the laughter in the smoke filled back rooms.

Clinton was more subdued by that response. But his policies still beat the hell out of Bush's which are Drill for more Oil (preferably in the most sensitive of areas) and Attack Iraq and take the damn Oil!

Some examples of Bill Clinton's Energy Policies:

# [The Clinton Administration has taken] action on Climate Change: Successfully negotiated the Kyoto Protocol, which sets strong, realistic targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and establishes flexible, market-based mechanisms to achieve them as cost-effectively as possible.
# Extended the tax credits for wind and biomass energy production through 2001.
# Set a goal of tripling our use of bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010.
# Increased research funding to more than $1.7 billion in FY 2000 to provide a sound scientific understanding of both the human and natural forces that influence the Earths climate system.
# Issued new energy efficiency standards for home appliances that will save consumers money and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
# Directed federal agencies to reduce energy use in buildings 35 percent by 2010, reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of taking 1.7 million cars off the road and saving taxpayers over $750 million a year.

Care to enlighten us on what the Republicans have accomlished again?

The oil ain't going anywhere until we take it out of the ground. Leaving US aggression and saber rattling out of the analysis, Oil price fluctuations would be mitigated by increasing alternative energy projects, like Governor Brown planned for California and Private Utilities destroyed with help from the Republicans over the last thirty years. Where is the political stability required to make these projects work?

Diversifying our energy resource mix is sound policy, one I'm sure Cheney's Energy Task Force never mentioned. Cheney has created the current situation, Bush is responsible and only morons give these two a pass while blaming it all on the Democrats. Shit for brains and most of the country recognizes that at long last.

glad to see that goatman is posted more responses to me claiming i am his long lost lover kasak or cooper or badday, or who ever else the fuck he has offened...also glad to see that today he is still up to his attack methods with other people....he does not state his own opinions but prefers to attack those of others. he has no original thought.

Oh I forget ... our Energy Policy is a Secret...shhhhhh!

Since Bush lifted the Executive halt to off shore drilling.

This will make the do nothing 9% congress look pretty bad if they don't do the same.

We should be doing everything.

Drilling every resource possible, shale, clean coal, build some nuclear plants, refineries, solar wind and conservation.

We should be driving vehicles that get 100 miles to the gallon. Revamp the trucking industry to hook up with national database dispatch so truckers are always full on their trip to and from their destination. Not run by the gov't but by private enterprise.

If we are 70% dependent now, we could be half that plus in 5-10 years.

We can do everything--technology and science to develop the alternatives. Biofuels already shown to be less than desirable--takes away land and resources for food--not the best idea.

Instead of blaming the shit let's get it done.

Let me add that you citing Ron Wyden on oil is like you citing Cynthia McKinney on the Israel/Arab conflict.

Posted by SeanR at 2008-07-15 01:18 PM

really?

he's a US Senator...who the fuck are you and why should we listen to your crazy rantings?

We are sick of the Hollow Lies.

Instead of blaming the shit let's get it done.

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-07-15 01:25 PM

Exactly! So like lifting the ban is doing something?

More Mass Deception by the White House that does nothing to solve the problem.

Its more Bushshit! It accomplishes NOTHING.

You want to accomplish something?

Get Bush and your RETHUGS to pass The Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008!!!

"I guess if Clinton, 41, Reagan, or Carter had more foresight they would've started it too."

Carter didn't lay out an energy policy which would have reduced or eliminated our dependence on foreign oil which REagan then canceled???
You seem to have your own version of history devoid of facts.

You seem to have your own version of history devoid of facts.

Posted by danni at 2008-07-15 01:30 PM

typical Rethug unthink Danni...

Selective memory...either that or they are still trying to rewrite history so they won't look so bad.

we all as americans need to reduce our consumption...i agree with other posters on here that the high price of gas is a start. finally people are no longer buying those huge suvs and hummers that they were so easily led to by simple marketing tactics...finally they are not being sold and people are starting to purchase more fuel efficient cars, however simply forcing american auto makers to catch up with japanese auto makers in their fuel efficiency standards will not prevent the inevitable.

there is a finite supply of oil, this is fact, once it is gone it is gone, so it would behoove the bush admin, the obama admin, the mccain amdin, who ever is there, to start to invest resources in alternative fuels..all this arguing on here about who is to blame is a waste of time...instead of giving big oil companies tax breaks why not invest that money into alternative fuels..

isnt it brazil that grows over 80% of their fuel from sugar cane? I think i heard something like this once. why is our country so far behind on that....

why the REHUGS

hey I invented a new word!

meant the Rethugs of course... they don't like hugging stuff unless they are in the bathroom of an airport.

So I take it you don't have a link?

Ron Wyden is a far leftwing nutjob. Hell, you nutjobs might elect Al Franken to the U.S. Senate in Minnesota. That doesn't make Franken right or reasonable. It just means one nut was elected by a bunch of other nuts.

Oooh! Ron Wyden is a U.S. Senator. Yeah, that makes him king of the idiots in Oregon. That's all that means.

we all as americans need to reduce our consumption

Not according to Bush of course!

Oooh! Ron Wyden is a U.S. Senator. Yeah, that makes him king of the idiots in Oregon. That's all that means.

Posted by SeanR at 2008-07-15 01:38 PM

I am sure all the Oregonians appreciate your concern too. Who is your Senator so we can make fun of him too?

Fair is fair.

If more people thought as you do in that respect, the oil issues we have now would not be as severe
Posted by goatman at 2008-07-15 12:31 PM

YEAH!

Like back in the 70s when America was on track to eliminate most foreign Oil imports and the president of the USA installed solar panels on the WH!
But wait, thats going to far back isnt it!

Just more proof you dont get it!

are there any republicans on here? if so why are republicans so afraid of obama talking to iran and other terrorists?

do repubs not recall that regean did the same thing, only he made deals with terrorists illegally and sold them arms and funded the war, during that same time of him illegally selling arms to terrorisits and secretly meeting with them, osama bin laden was trained and some say paid for by the money the USA was funneling into the regoin.

so why do repubs attack obama for wanting to talk with our enemies, but forget that regean went even further and supported terrorism.

as you might recall Carter tried...if only had listen thened...sigh!

Oh yeah. I keep forgetting. He put solar panels up on the WH and that evil Reagan took them down, dooming us to fate of foreign oil dependence forever.

So I take it you don't have a link?

Ron Wyden is a far leftwing nutjob
Posted by SeanR at 2008-07-15 01:38 PM

You are a fucking Nutjob.

You and McLame need to learn to USE THE GOOGLE.

I ain't yer personal researcher!

glad to see that goatman is posted more responses to me claiming i am his long lost lover kasak or cooper or badday, or who ever else the fuck he has offened...also glad to see that today he is still up to his attack methods with other people....he does not state his own opinions but prefers to attack those of others. he has no original thought.

"And I'd like to dedicate my first retort of the day to goatman even though he said nothing to me to bring it on.

signed kazak/jerome08/badweek/cooper/
boyd/betelg"

"I guess if Clinton, 41, Reagan, or Carter had more foresight they would've started it too."

Carter didn't lay out an energy policy which would have reduced or eliminated our dependence on foreign oil which REagan then canceled???
You seem to have your own version of history devoid of facts.

For the "i-can't-figure-this-out-
crowd":

I guess if Clinton, 41, Reagan, or Carter had more foresight to produce a workable plan that the Americans could live with . . .

"Oh yeah. I keep forgetting. He put solar panels up on the WH and that evil Reagan took them down, dooming us to fate of foreign oil dependence forever."

goatman it is a valid point, having solar panels on the roof would not reduce our dependence on foreign oil, i agree, but can you not see the mind set that regean was in regarding our energy policy and how it has prevented this country from being prepared....you kind of miss the point of the post once again....pay attention to the details that are not in the text..try to make inferences and you too may see that the past repub admins have beenin the mind set of oil oil oil, this is not blaming them because they were repub, just saying they did not do their job in preparing this country for their future energy crisis. How many new energy plants or oil refineries were built under bush 1? under bush 2? under regean?

Our leaders in this country have been on the wrong track interms of energy...that was the point of that post..dont make me have to start explaining things to you again

Like back in the 70s when America was on track to eliminate most foreign Oil imports and the president of the USA installed solar panels on the WH!
But wait, thats going to far back isnt it!

Just more proof you dont get it!

Posted by Redneckville at 2008-07-15 01:41 PM

OH and just what happened to those Solar Panels on the White House you might ask!

In 1980, the Reagan administration removed perfectly good, working solar thermal panels from the White House (these same solar collectors are still working at Unity College in Unity, Maine).

I hear though that they are finally coming back!

heres yer link oh crap its a environment friedly link...probably they are lying huh Sean?

Reagan did remove the solar panels.

Then he gutted every other item on the plan to create renewable energy.

We only imported 24% of our oil then. 70% now.

And wean ourselves from foreign dependence on oil.

friedly-friendly!

I think i heard something like this once. why is our country so far behind on that....

I guess you haven't bought any beef or grain products lately.

Then Reagan tried his best to gut mileage standards.

Shall I continue on?

hey I invented a new word!

It's about time. 'Rethugs' was funny the first few thousand times, but it's starting to get stale.

Like back in the 70s when America was on track to eliminate most foreign Oil imports and the president of the USA installed solar panels on the WH!

This one never ceases to amuse me.

I wiped my ass with a corn husk once. I probably saved an entire forest doing so.

"I guess you haven't bought any beef or grain products lately"
that is a hoax...the whole thing..you bought into it hook line and sinker..

why dont you do some research..there was a organization created to send out that exact message that the high price of grain and beef is because of ethanol...look into it,, no i wont do your work for you again, but you need to back up your statements with proof that these higher prices are actually because of ethanol..that arguement is a straw man....

the prices changes were going to happen regardless, it is not becuase of grain..you really think that when 100s of million of acres of corn are not planted in this country because the govt acuatlly pays people not to plant with "farm subsidies" that , that has nothing to do with it...try again my friend and please give a source

I guess if Clinton, 41, Reagan, or Carter had more foresight they would've started it too.

But no, Bush is today's whipping boy. DOGPILE!

Posted by goatman at 2008-07-15 01:11 PM | Reply

Actually Carter had an excellent energy plan. Carter put up solar cells on the Whitehouse as an example, and Reagan had them taken down.

I ain't yer personal researcher!

Well, donnieboy, I googled it and couldn't find anything to support your claim. That proves you are wrong.

The hot air in the White House, if properly utilized, could have heated D.C. and half of Maryland too.

I wiped my ass with a corn husk once. I probably saved an entire forest doing so.

Posted by goatman at 2008-07-15 01:53 PM

wow! Goatman is your ass really that big?

Well, donnieboy, I googled it and couldn't find anything to support your claim. That proves you are wrong.

Posted by goatman at 2008-07-15 01:55 PM

nope! That proves you are qualified to be the GOP candidate for President of the United States of America!

Hey Donnerboy,

Did you read your own reference?

REDUCED REFINING CAPACITY IS AN OIL COMPANY CONSPIRACY TO DRIVE UP PRICES.

"But the primary motive behind the lack of US refinery new builds is a basic one, a lack of profits for oil companies.

In the 1980s and 90s, the fashion for American refineries was not to build more, but to close existing ones.

In 2001, Senator Ron Wyden authored a comprehensive report on the state of the US refining industry.

He noted that between 1995 and 2001 there were a total of 24 refinery closures in the United States.

These lost America around 830,000 barrels per day of gasoline. That is about the same amount of capacity lost to Katrina alone.

No new refineries

Wyden uncovered several memos and internal documents from major oil companies. These charted the way that capacity in the US refining industry was reduced to maintain higher profits.

Wyden received one such memo from oil company Texaco, written in 1996. The company felt it was quite clear that petrol supplies needed "reducing."

"The most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity," said the memo.

"The same situation exists for the entire US 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." "

RETHUGLICAN APOLOGISTS ARE JUST A BUNCH OF MACOCHISTS WHO LOVE TAKING IT IN THE ASS.

BEND OVER AGAIN BOYS, HERE COMES CHENEY.

dont make me have to start explaining things to you again

Please don't. I honestly got weary of rubbing you nose in all you lies last night. Don't want to waste my time doing it again.

donnerboy's need to adopt dethpuds style is pretty pathetic. What's scarier is that dethpud is aroused due to the fact that his name is donnerBOY.

why dont you do some research..

I did. I found nothing to support your claim. That proves you are wrong.

(PS jerome, that's why in the rules of debate, the one making the claim has the burden of proof. idiot)

..that arguement is a straw man....

Prove it, betelg/kazak/badweek/jerome/. Talk is cheap. And if your exhanges yesterday are any indication, it is most likely a lie.

I read the article and even the BBC says:

US environmental laws have made it near impossible to build refineries close to residential populations.

The BBC also doesn't define "close to residential populations."

goat man could you please provide a source that shows that corn and beef prices are related to ethanol production?

please be prepared to make a statement that is based on fact and not more lies.

you wasted way too much time last night trying to pick apart my points, that it seems you are unable now at this point to support your own claims..

i just googled high corn prices and beef prices related to brazils energy indepedence, and didnt find anything so that makes you wrong..

isnt it brazil that grows over 80% of their fuel from sugar cane? I think i heard something like this once. why is our country so far behind on that....

Posted by jerome08

They are cutting down rainforests to produce enough cane for their energy needs, jerome.... we don't have enough land in our entire country for that, plus every acre used for energy is an acre not used for food.

the prices changes were going to happen regardless, it is not becuase of grain..you really think that when 100s of million of acres of corn are not planted in this country because the govt acuatlly pays people not to plant with "farm subsidies" that , that has nothing to do with it...try again my friend and please give a source

Hey Donnerboy,

Did you read your own reference?

Of course I did... wish I could get SEan and Goat to read it though.... they don't seem to get it.

When it is all about the money the Oil Companies have no choice but to do whatever possible to drive up prices to ensure profits. It is what a "company" does!

The Government, on the other hand, should be looking out for the best interest of the people (remember WE THE PEOPLE?) and the best interest of the United States.

So what is Bush's priority?

We the People

or

We the Oil Executives?

How does lifting the ban on Drilling help "We the People" again?

Donner--I agree with your post onthe alt go ahead for tax credits.

Posted by donnerboy at 2008-07-15 01:29 PM

I know it's not much but I have sent like 8 emails to the Pres, VP and Mitch McConnell, Boehner, and Blunt. I went for Boxer and Feinstein--and Duncan Hunter.

wow! Goatman is your ass really that big?

Yeah, donnieboy -- don't you remember? Last time you had your nose in it you fell in and we didn't see you for days.

(PS jerome, that's why in the rules of debate, the one making the claim has the burden of proof. idiot)

you are so stupid...did you not say " I guess you haven't bought any beef or grain products lately"

in response to my question as to whether or no brazil produces 80% of their own fuel.

now that was not a debate it was a question..you need to make sure that before you make lame accusations about me need to proof something that you actually are refering to something i needed to prove...a question does not need to be proved, that is the nature of a question.

goatman/lanitaylor/hosertown/
packerfan/ or what ever your name is

Good for you MURPHY!!

You've inspired me to do the same.

Think I'll put of a thread on a couple of other sites about that too.

Donner--we have to lift the ban--we need and should have been srilling off the coast for the last 10 years.

There was too much flak from enviro side and that pretty much halted any production.

We need all of it. It is ridiculous we are so dependent on despots for our energy.

nope! That proves you are qualified to be the GOP candidate for President of the United States of America!

Nope. It proves that you are one of the many idiots here who thinks they can make claims without proof and when asked for it, deflect to a hateful republican anecdote (which will always get cheers from this crowd and deflect from your own shortcomings.)

Still no proof, I presume.

US environmental laws have made it near impossible to build refineries close to residential populations.

Posted by SeanR at 2008-07-15 02:04 PM

wow you read it? So you can read!

and you found a sentence to support your theory that it ALL the fault of those that are trying to protect the environment for future generations! nice!

however, I just bet there are plenty of places not near residential populations don't you think?

goatman that link does not make it true,.

here is another link stating that there are many reasons for high food prices

If 80 percent of the 62 distilleries now under construction are completed by late 2008, grain used to produce fuel for cars will climb to 114 million tons, or 28 percent of the projected 2008 U.S. grain harvest.

Sure, jerome. We can divert 28 percent of our grain harvest somewhere else and food prices will not change.

Let me know when you get back to planet earth and I'll give you some more lessons in econ 101 supply and demand.

You know AU--cut and paste this to use for the emails--

Dear _____

I am a concerned citizen and believe our nation's energy policy needs a complete overhaul.

We need to do everything we can and work together to accomplish Energy Independence for America.

We need to drill everywhere possible, work on the alternative energies to get online and conservation on fuel usage.

Please pass the legislation to provide Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008.

Thank you.

_________

there was a organization created to send out that exact message that the high price of grain and beef is because of ethanol...

I'm still waiting for your link to this organization or reference to it.

You asked for a link from me to prove my point. I provided it for you. Do you get to play by different rules, jerome?

Nope. It proves that you are one of the many idiots here who thinks they can make claims without proof and when asked for it, deflect to a hateful republican anecdote (which will always get cheers from this crowd and deflect from your own shortcomings.)

Still no proof, I presume.

Posted by goatman at 2008-07-15 02:09 PM

I am not your researcher!

are you purposely being an idiot today or can't read?

I posted links ... i just think folks need to learn to use the GOOGLE themselves!

here is a tip on how to do it..perhaps you can forward this to the GOP candidate for President so he will know too!

Copy the item you wish to find the link to ...quote the sentence that I pasted that you wish to find some evidence for...copy that and paste it right into the google search window...paste the whole sentence that I quoted or part. Yo may have to do several tries...

Viola!

Up will pop the link that I got the quote from!

takes 2 seconds Goat and you know it.

take that corncob out yer ass and quit being so anal!

Frickin ETS!

The final factor is the increased demand for biofuels, which has reduced the availability of agricultural products for food and feed use.

U.S. government subsidies for ethanol production, which uses corn as a feedstock, have prompted many U.S. farmers to switch their production from food use to biofuel use. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that 23 percent of the corn crops went into ethanol production in 2006-2007 and predicts the figure will rise to 50 percent in 2007-2008.

Thank you for providing the link to the above quote, jerome/badweek/betelg. Usually people don't provide links to support their opponent, but that's OK.

Unless you think 50% diversion of grain (this is higher than my link states, BTW, but since you provided it, we'll go with it) will not affect food prices, you need a remedial course in econ 101.

goatman that link does not make it true,.

here is another link stating that there are many reasons for high food prices

LOL. Surely you are smart enough to see the irony here, kazak?

freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com

goatman this will also show you that the high price of food is actually becuase of the higher transportation costs due to high gasoline prices, drought, farm subsidies, etc

You must've posted the wrong link. It says nothing of the sort that you say it does.

Please try again.

I am not your researcher!

No you are not. But that does not exempt you from proving a claim you make. Even a freshman debate judge or coach won't let you get by with that, donnieboy.

Thank you Mr President for listening to the PEOPLE and lifting the ban!!!

FACT!

Yeah, donnieboy -- don't you remember? Last time you had your nose in it you fell in and we didn't see you for days.

Posted by goatman at 2008-07-15 02:07 PM

actually I don't remember that part...

I do remember having a life outside blogworld tho... and it has nothing to do with yer fat ass.

Posted by jerome08 at 2008-07-15 02:22 PM

*yawn*

Still no link to verify your original claim, huh? Just deflections to other links.

Honestly, jerome/kazak/badweek/betelg/
cooper/boyd, I enjoy an honest debate, but I grow weary of asking for proof of your absurd claims, especially when I go to the trouble to substantiate mine.

Later, loser.

goat man here is the last time i will do your work for you.

go to your search bar and type in this link

No you are not. But that does not exempt you from proving a claim you make. Even a freshman debate judge or coach won't let you get by with that, donnieboy.

Posted by goatman at 2008-07-15 02:26 PM

this is not freshman college and I have proved my claim as far as I need to. Are you the debate coach here?

If so you need to learn to read better..

Please scan up^ and you will see that I posted a link that he requested ...just not until I properly lectured him for being a lazy trool.

Which you are getting close to becoming!

Thank you Mr President for listening to the OIL COMPANIES and lifting the ban!!!

FACT!

Farm machinery uses fuel. Trucks that haul food use fuel.

Groceries have gone up nearly 30% in a relatively short time.

When a gallon of milk costs as much as a gallon of gas at these prices things are pitiful.

Wages certainly haven't kept up with inflation for the average worker.

Here's the ear of corn:

AU -- you are right; it is a multi faceted problem that can't be solely laid at ethanol's feet. But it certainly cannot be discounted when the increase in demand for grain between this year and last was twice the growth in the same period of time. (see my link upthread for data)

Groceries have gone up nearly 30% in a relatively short time.

I guess that depends on what you definition of a 'short time' is. They rose 4.2% in the year between May 2007 and May 2008. I'm sure they've risen at least 30% over the last, say, 12 years.

Exactly what is a 'short time'?

errata:

They rose 4.2% in the year between May 2007 and May 2008.

=

They rose 5.0% in the year between May 2007 and May 2008.

Sorry for the confusion

GOATMAN

Depends on what groceries you're talking about.

They ran a story here on local news. Most staples were up 30% (bread, milk), some 20%, a few less.

Point is, they're WAY up at Kroger.

AU -- you are right; it is a multi faceted problem that can't be solely laid at ethanol's feet. But it certainly cannot be discounted when the increase in demand for grain between this year and last was twice the growth in the same period of time. (see my link upthread for data)

AU think you for getting him to agree that it is not a problem caused solely on ethanol...he would not listen to me..i appreciate you shinning the light up his arse now that the cob is out.

do you also think that part of the rise in prices has something to do with exports to other countires, considering that kenya and other countries have been facing huge droughts due to global warming and lack of rain and thus there is an increase in demand .....

And for those that were less the portions were down in the same sized container. Essentially a price hike, right?

Depends on what groceries you're talking about.

The link I provided said all food and beverages. Yes, there are some selected ones that had increased as much as 30% (and some that got cheaper than last year, too) but as an aggregate, 5% increase is the number the US Dept of Labor put out.

AU think you for getting him to agree that it is not a problem caused solely on ethanol...

Changed your mind a bit since your first take, huh, jerome? It seems you now believe grain is part, but not all, of the problem.

the prices changes were going to happen regardless, it is not becuase of grain..

Posted by jerome08 at 2008-07-15 01:54 PM

Nothing wrong with that. It just underscores my point, however, that most of the time debating you is keeping you honest.

GOATMAN

Some people have never really debated before. Especially if their main experience is chat rooms or blogs that don't have this type of layout. I had some experience myself before getting here, but quickly learned who can debate, who wants to, and who just comes to puke, spit, and leave scratching their anuses with their typing fingers as they leave.

Cut Jerome a little slack and help him learn how. I don't think he's a bad guy and I sure don't think you are.

You have one BBoob. Two's WAY too many. Just a suggestion...

*grin*

Well, I do respect your opinion, AU, so -- OK.

Well, I do respect your opinion, AU, so -- OK.

Posted by goatman

You don't have to. Just sayin'...

BTW, you're a good debater. But, you know the deal.. some don't.

:-)

Some people have never really debated before.

I never did either. I wanted to join the debate team in HS, but I could not fit Speech into my course load, and it was a necessity to be on the team. But I did go to most of the debates when they were home and loved them. That's where I learned the rules that govern competitional debating and debating in general.

I just remembered the Dan Aykroyd-Jane Curtain 'debates' on SNL.

"Jane, you ignorant slut..."

Not the best opening to get his point across, eh?

Still, there are some here I admit I start off that way with. Mostly because they've proven themselves to be total unprovoked assholes time and time again, and have no desire to debate anything in any meaningful open way.

LOL

That's where I learned the rules that govern competitional debating and debating in general.

GOATMAN

You're probably one of only a couple here who were lucky enough to have that experience.

In my high school, for a guy it was considered one step lower than singing in the Madrigal choir so I didn't participate or attend.

I just had a lot of bright friends with whom I could debate/discuss issues beyond chasing pussy.

You're very good at it when you want to be BTW.

You're probably one of only a couple here who were lucky enough to have that experience.

It seems it would be a lot easier now. Back then those guys carried around shoe boxes full of 3x5 index cards for their facts. I can't imagine. yikes.

Hmmmmm....this happened yesterday and yet I still had to pay 4.19 a gallon today. Hmmmmm.

I never did either. I wanted to join the debate team in HS, but I could not fit Speech into my course load, and it was a necessity to be on the team. But I did go to most of the debates when they were home and loved them. That's where I learned the rules that govern competitional debating and debating in general.

Posted by goatman at 2008-07-15 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

I always thought you learned them watching Monty Python's 'The Holy Grail' ...."I shall taunt you a 2nd time".

J/K.

It seems it would be a lot easier now. Back then those guys carried around shoe boxes full of 3x5 index cards for their facts. I can't imagine. yikes.

GOATMAN

Ask W. He had an earpiece during a 2004 debate. You can clearly see the shape of the receiver in his back - well, unless he has a mole that's remarkably shaped like a wireless audio receiver. LOL

" "Was President Bush literally channeling Karl Rove in his first debate with John Kerry?" TV camera behind Bush showed solid object under Bush's jacket. "Bush not known to wear back brace or pack [heat]," said Salon. "Was the bulge under his well-tailored jacket a hidden receiver, picking up transmissions from someone offstage feeding the president answers through a hidden earpiece? Does the device explain why the normally ramrod-straight president seemed hunched over during much of the debate? . . . (Boston Globe, 9 October 2004)"

The other theory was he was zapped BY aliens and was able to talk more articulately off the cuff than any time in his life.

Whatever the case, he magically reverted to his normal, inarticulate-can-barely-talk self as soon as the debate was over.

(start UFO music)

*grin*

AU--you know the tailor was super pissed off about the fitting of that suit.

It was funny about the deflection though..;o)

we could've avoided this by imposing European style gas taxes after the first oil shocks

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-07-15 12:40 PM | Reply

Standard Liberal theology: there's no problem that can't be made worse by raising taxes

"Standard Liberal theology: there's no problem that can't be made worse by raising taxes"

Tell it to the majority of economists, dummy.

"The economic arguments in favor of a gas tax are overwhelming. But the gas-tax debate has never been about the economics. The politics are toxic. Just ask John Kerry about the political beating he took during the 2004 campaign over his support for a 50-cent-per-gallon tax increase a decade ago. Yet there's reason to believe that bold political leadership could shift the politics behind a gas tax."

Standard Liberal theology: there's no problem that can't be made worse by raising taxes

Posted by vernon at 2008-07-15 05:44 PM

yeah! But just look what lowering taxes in a time of War does for you...

I dont agree that raising taxes is a liberal or right wing idea, I think that it is something that economists of both party affiliations see as one of the only things to get us out of this mess.
Jim Cramer for one, said we need to raise taxes, he is from the show Mad Money, and is also supporting John MCcain.

and when most liberals say raise taxes I dont think that means the low income and middle class, it means take away tax loop holes that allow companies to avoid paying taxes with off shore accounts. The Grand Cayman Bank has been helping big ceos and corporations avoid taxes for years. I think it is said that Warren buffet pays less than 18% taxes, and the average middle class american pays close to 28% when sales tax is considered.

so raising taxes means making everyone pay their fair share.

"I dont agree that raising taxes is a liberal or right wing idea"
-----------------

^^^That's because you are a flaming liberal^^^

james.....i wont bite, so dont try, i have learned after being here for only two days, that falling into that trap only raises my blood pressure, thanks to goatman for teaching me that lesson,

and yes i am a proud liberal...i am proud that i believe in leaving this planet cleaner for my children than when i was here, i believe that we should provide equal education for all, i believe that everyone should have the opportunity to speak their mind (as you do) I believe that everyone should have the same opportunity to achieve the american dream, so yes I am a liberal, I care about people....what do you care about?

Jerome- James Dean can't read...he only comes around to spouts FACT! every fews minutes or so as to try and get us all bent...

James Dean is a classic "Trool". Try arguing with a brick... its more satisfying... and when you are done you can crush it to pieces or build something with it!

Why do libs feel they own the Environmental, Education and censorship issues? They are all the the exact WRONG side of all of them!

FACT!

Because they ARE issues that "libs" believe have significance and are under threat in various ways from the RIGHT!

"Because they ARE issues that "libs" believe have significance and are under threat in various ways from the RIGHT!"
----------------

You forget that "belief" is not necessarily "fact"
In this case it is not fact.

FACT!

james did i ever say in my post anything other than "i believe this or i believe that?" i never said i owned any issue...you are so sad my friend so sad

you attacked me and said i was a liberal, if you say those are not the issues that liberals suport then please enlighten me. tell me what being a liberal is then? Please share with all of us your knowledge on why my support of a fair tax system is liberal and not simply american.

"I dont agree that raising taxes is a liberal or right wing idea"
-----------------

^^^That's because you are a flaming liberal^^^

Posted by James_Dean at 2008-07-15 06:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"READ MY LIPS....NO NEW TAXES" -GHW BUSH.

Using your logic, Bush 41 must be a flaming liberal.

"Why do libs feel they own the Environmental, Education and censorship issues? They are all the the exact WRONG side of all of them!
FACT! "

posted by james dean

please tell us what the right side is of these issues.....or are you just full of shit like donnerboy pointed out.

Why are Republicans like GWB (and most of the right wing retards on this site) unable to understand what other POPULAR Republicans like Schwarzenegger do understand? Namely that Americans value our environment. We want new alternative forms of energy developed. We do not want our natural resources raped in order to save a nickel on a gallon of gas. If Republicans feel the rape of the environment for the benefit of oil companies is a winning issues, then I gladly encourage them to go for it, because it will blow in their faces.

FACT

Why do libs feel they own the Environmental, Education and censorship issues? They are all the the exact WRONG side of all of them!

Because they DO!

I know better but can't stop myself!

Oh yeah! Like the Bush Administration has never been on the wrong side of these issues...

FACTILICIOUS!

James Dean is dead.
He fucked up a perfectly good Porsche.

FACT!

And a perfectly good connection between his head and his neck.

Right side of the issues:

Environment:

Please don't blame the "evil" humans who are somehow affecting global warming. That is a myth. With that said Conservatives (by definition) want to conserve the environment.

Education:

Instead of focussing on lowering the bar to the least common denominator in order to not hurt any feelings, lets get the unions out of education and switch back to actually teaching the "3 R's" and measure students on their actual test scores.

Censorship:

The libs FAVOR censorship so that only THEIR perspective is broadcast. see the "Fairness Doctrine"

You people are all about big government and the plantation policies of the past.

FACT!

" That is a myth. "

James Dean is still dead.

FACT

I just expunged a HUGE SBD fart....Do I owe somebody some money to reduce my carbon Assprint???

Just askin....

Why are Republicans like GWB (and most of the right wing retards on this site) unable to understand what other POPULAR Republicans like Schwarzenegger do understand? Namely that Americans value our environment

It's the "fuck the enviroment there is money to be made" mentality they display so vibrantly. But the sad reality is that they actually believe the shit they spew, that greenhouse gasses do not effect the atmosphere, that asbestos will not make you sick, that tobacco will not give you cancer.

Just ask the 9/11 workers that are dying from illnesses from the cleanup after the EPA under orders from the Bush Criminal Cabal said that the air was safe.

FACTOLAMMADINGDONG!

"Instead of focussing on lowering the bar to the least common denominator in order to not hurt any feelings, lets get the unions out of education and switch back to actually teaching the "3 R's" and measure students on their actual test scores."

so said james dean

james as a teacher i can tell you that is a fabulous idea, why teaching art or music or pe..in fact lets let our kids get as fat sas they can.

I can also tell you that test scores as an indicator would be great if kids came to school prepared.. the problem is that parents (which i am sure you are one of) have kids to have another accessory, so they do not read with their kids, teach them abcs, or even spend any time with them to prepare them for kindergarten. are you aware that the standards require kindergarteners to learn the continents, the three forms of matter, as well as simiple addition. it would be great if kids came to school ready to learn those all important things in kindergarten..fuck being a kid they should just become automotons at the door and learn that stuff, the problem is that dip shit parents do not do anything to prepare their kids for school, so not only do i have to be a teacher i have to be a parent for the majority of kids who come to school still not potty trained in kindergarten, or suffering from trauma cause parents are too busy with their cars, jobs, drugs, and own personal lives to be bothered with being a parent.

With your logic we should hold doctors responsible for the fucked up way that people treat their bodies smoking, eating crappy food, drinking, and then why cant the doctor make it all better. why , because there is a thing callle personal responsiblity medically, and the same goes for parenting. get a life man you are retarded.

"do you think it is right that someone who made $46 million paid only 18% in taxes while his secretary paid 30%.....check out the link,and tell me if you think that is fair, are you happy paying more in taxes than a multi-millionare does?"

Buffett's taxes come from long term capital gains, not income, so it makes sense that he pays less than 30%. Do you think long term capgains should be taxed like income? Keep in mind most small investors have already paid income taxes on the money they use to invest.

Do you think long term capgains should be taxed like income?

If that's their primary source of income.

Surely there's a way to index it so small investors pay less and large pro investors pay income tax.

Energy may be the thing that gets Congress working together again.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

A sinking boat kills all.

We need to do everything we can to both eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and create new types and sources of energy. At these prices we're shipping out $700,000,000,000 (billion) out of our country in energy costs alone.

Man, the hypocrisy never ends when it comes to energy and the GOP.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY
------
About like the hypocracy of Democrats saying they don't want wind farms in their backyard while they come to Sweetwater, Texas and speak highly of it? The Offending member was Senator Kennedy.

Or is it like the hypocracy of raving about cutting oil and gas consumption while shunning off the available alternative fuel available to us at this time based on the movie "The China Syndrome?"

Again, both sides are hypocrits! If you see the world of politics as a whole, neither side is any better than the other.

Lonnie

Lonnie, it is true that the vast majority of politicians to tell the occasional lie, and are subject to hypocrisy. But GWB and the GOP have had the reins of power for the last eight years. They have at this point earned the lion's share of disdain.

Moder8,

My point is there are viable alternative fuels out there that can be used but are not because the Democrats don't like them.

Senator Kennedy had a fit of anger when they wanted to put a wind farm in Martha's Vinyard. Why, he said he liked the wind farms when he was in Sweetwater?

Nuclear energy isn't being used because of a movie.

It is apparant to me that whatever alternatives are discovered, there will be someone who don't like them but what we have is a bunch of hypocritical politicians saying they want alternatives but don't like the current batch of alternatives available to us.

If you don't like the alternatives, then you should shut up and drill. It's that simple!

Lonnie

"Buffett's taxes come from long term capital gains, not income, so it makes sense that he pays less than 30%. Do you think long term capgains should be taxed like income? Keep in mind most small investors have already paid income taxes on the money they use to invest."
said andyuhenet

actually you're incorrect....he made $46 million dollars last year, and is worth close to $62 billion.

that $46 million was not on capital gains that was his income, so yes it should be taxed the same, and yes I do believe that in the other scenario you brought up , that a person who gets all of their income from capital gains tax should still pay taxes just like a person who gets SS has to pay income tax on the money they get.

seems only fair to me.

Nuclear energy isn't being used because of a movie.

Posted by lwalk17 at 2008-07-16 04:36 P

blatantly and patently untrue. Educate yourself.

Nuclear energy is not economical.

Amory Lovins, co-founder, chairman and chief scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado says:

Its uneconomic. It costs, for example, about three times as much as wind power, which is booming.

Let me give you some numbers about whats happening in the marketplace, because thats reality, as far as Im concerned. I really take markets seriously. 2006, the last full year of data we have, nuclear worldwide added a little bit of capacity, more than all of it from upgrading old plants, because the new ones they built were smaller than the retirements of old plants. So they added 1.4 billion watts. Sounds like a lot. Well, its about one big plants worth worldwide. That was less than photovoltaics, solar cells added in capacity. It was a tenth what wind power added. It was a thirtieth to a fortieth of what micropower added.

Bet you didn't even know that.

Because you didn't look. You just parrot what Rush says.

Good Dittohead!

Bad American!

One day americans will stop calling it wall st., and start calling it what it is: a racket.

One day americans will stop calling them 'campaign contributions', and start calling them what they are: bribes.

I can dream...