67 replies to this topic

[Hossua]

belercous, on 08 March 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

Houssa; I quit watching the video soon after hearing them say that oil was priced according to gold. Anyone who doesn't know that oil is priced in American Dollars ought not be commenting on the price of oil because clearly they have no idea of what they're talking about, the credibility level is zero. A sixth-grader wouldn't say something that dumb. How could anyone take him seriously after saying that?

Sigma; The Dems clearly would rather face Santorum in Nov. because he's unelectable. Romney won't be able to win in `12 either, but he'll be able to come closer than anyone else the GOP has in the race. The RNC would be wise to focus their attention on minimizing the loss of seats in the House & trying win more in the Senate.

He didn't say it was priced in gold. He said it's value was tied to gold, which isn't true either. The point he was making is that oil was actually under priced when compared to gold on average. He then postulated that was because of inflation, which is partially true.

[belercous]

The guy has no credibilty so I quit watching it.

Oil certainly is underpriced when compared to gold over the course of years. Trouble with that argument is that gold's overpriced now so the comparison isn't valid. Inflation has been low for years & doesn't account for much of the price of gas now. The demand is low & the supply is strong. Futures traders (speculators) are what's behind the price of gas now (they're betting on Iran attempting to shut off the Strait of Hormuz).

[Sigma]

I know many of you disagree, I respectuflly beseach you all to reconsider, and join me to rid the US gvt of the gang of enemies infesting our great country. After much heart & soul searching research & prayer, I gave the greenlight to the Romney team to pass my ph# to Mitt Romney, and he called me today. We spoke at length. Im sure I dont have to repeat what I said to him here, surely self evident truths are universally known & understood here. That being said, I demanded and he indeed did pledge the following- 1-no more restrictions on any gun or ammo ownership, no AWB bull****, and that he would push with us to eliminate all anti 2A restrictions currently in place. 2- he would stand with us solidly for we the people hunting, fishing & trapping rights, fighting to backdown the feds from wasting tax dollars slaughtering our wildlife with our tax dollars instead of the rightful owners of said wildlife rights to utilize them as assets instead of forced bureaucrat liabilities. He also vowed to stack the SCOTUS with Constitution respecting Americans. For a change. We spoke of other critical upgrades, and I felt good about his proclaiments. So I officially endorsed him for POTUS. Plz take a deep breath, think hard, and join me for the fight of our lives for the soul of America.

Thank you, Ted Nugent

From Ted"s facebook page

Edited by Sigma, 17 May 2012 - 05:10 PM.

[TomKoz]

More Drilling = more oil.  More oil = more supply.  More supply = lower cost.

Have permits for drilling on "Fed controlled" land increased or decreased under King O ???

The Prez cannot "personally control the price of gasoline, however the government Admiistration, led by the Prez, through all of it's regulartory arms can control the amount of drilling (and other oil extraction methods) that are performed.

IF the current Prez/Administration were to open up much much more "Fed controlled" land to drilling/exploration, reduce EPA regulations/restictions, and allow for more refineries to be built - what would happen to the price of oil and gasoline????

Just saying.

ABO  -  ANYBODY BUT Obama

[Tompo]

TomKoz, on 17 May 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

More Drilling = more oil.  More oil = more supply.  More supply = lower cost.

Have permits for drilling on "Fed controlled" land increased or decreased under King O ???

The Prez cannot "personally control the price of gasoline, however the government Admiistration, led by the Prez, through all of it's regulartory arms can control the amount of drilling (and other oil extraction methods) that are performed.

IF the current Prez/Administration were to open up much much more "Fed controlled" land to drilling/exploration, reduce EPA regulations/restictions, and allow for more refineries to be built - what would happen to the price of oil and gasoline????

Just saying.

ABO  -  ANYBODY BUT Obama

We are drilling more in America than we have in a decade and yet, still the cost of oil is rising.   Oil is priced on the world market, not the US market.

[I Hate Gunlaws]

Tompo, on 18 May 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

We are drilling more in America than we have in a decade and yet, still the cost of oil is rising.  

Nice talking point... and technically true in a specific context- meaning if you're talking about privately held land being drilled. On the other hand- what's been happening on federally controlled land? Look it up.

[Tompo]

I Hate Gunlaws, on 18 May 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

Tompo, on 18 May 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

We are drilling more in America than we have in a decade and yet, still the cost of oil is rising.  

Nice talking point... and technically true in a specific context- meaning if you're talking about privately held land being drilled. On the other hand- what's been happening on federally controlled land? Look it up.

It's not a talking point, it's a fact.

What's your definition of "federally controlled land"?
Interior Department data show that the number of oil-and-gas drilling permits for federal lands was 4,244 in fiscal 2011 and 4,090 the year before that, which is higher than the early years of the G.W. Bush administration.

[I Hate Gunlaws]

Hmmm... maybe I'm mis-reading the statistics? Or is it simply selective editing? Looks to me like Bush "out-drilled" Obama by a considerable margin for 5 years straight before Obama took office. Like I said... nice talking point.

Table 8- "Number of drilliing permits approved by fiscal year on Federal lands": http://www.blm.gov/p...dat/table08.pdf

[belercous]

We rely less upon foreign oil now than when W. was in office. We don't have enough storage for all the gasoline we've produced. We don't have a high demand for gas. More drilling is not going to lower the price of gas. How exactlly is more drilling going to help?

The number of drilling permits approved is not an accurate metric. Drilling permits don't last for just 1 year. What about all the previously approved permits? Why are they not all being used? The whole "Drill here, Drill now" & "Drill, Baby, Drill" hasn't seemed to lower gas prices. Why for for is that? Such a great slogan couldn't be wrong, could it?

There's a good reason gas prices are what they are. But don't expect right-wing "news" sources to explain this.

[I Hate Gunlaws]

belercous, on 18 May 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

We rely less upon foreign oil now than when W. was in office. We don't have enough storage for all the gasoline we've produced. We don't have a high demand for gas. More drilling is not going to lower the price of gas. How exactlly is more drilling going to help?

The number of drilling permits approved is not an accurate metric. Drilling permits don't last for just 1 year. What about all the previously approved permits? Why are they not all being used? The whole "Drill here, Drill now" & "Drill, Baby, Drill" hasn't seemed to lower gas prices. Why for for is that? Such a great slogan couldn't be wrong, could it?

There's a good reason gas prices are what they are. But don't expect right-wing "news" sources to explain this.

Actually, permits do last for just one year according to some state websites. Federal permits, known as APDs, last for 2 years.
An interesting article... and not from what I'd consider a "right-wing" news source.... http://www.nytimes.c...-per-13123.html

[TomKoz]

Law of Supply & Demand.  It is very simple, the more supply of something, the less demand, the lower the cost.

If by costly/ burdensom regulations and policies you Lower supply, the more demand, the higher the cost.

So simple, even a lib should be able to understand - but will still try to spin.

[bob]

I think the dems fear whoever the R party puts up. The anyone but Obama movement is strengthening and his own policies are hurting him with the hard left he could otherwise count on. It only takes a little bit of a shift.

[Tompo]

TomKoz, on 19 May 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

Law of Supply & Demand.  It is very simple, the more supply of something, the less demand, the lower the cost.

If by costly/ burdensom regulations and policies you Lower supply, the more demand, the higher the cost.

So simple, even a lib should be able to understand - but will still try to spin.

But, that isn't what's happening.  US drilling is at an all time high.  US supply is high.  But, oil isn't priced on the US market, it's priced on the WORLD market.  And world demand is increasing in places like China and India, which cause prices to rise.

[TomKoz]

Ok, But if we produced MORE there would be more Supply and prices would be lower.

The argument cannot be broken.

[Tompo]

TomKoz, on 19 May 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

Ok, But if we produced MORE there would be more Supply and prices would be lower.

The argument cannot be broken.

TomKoz, on 19 May 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

Ok, But if we produced MORE there would be more Supply and prices would be lower.

The argument cannot be broken.

It doesn't matter if 'we' produce more oil.  The oil drilled in the US isn't priced in the US but on the WORLD market. Supplies of oil in the US IS high. There is no shortage of oil/gas.   The demand for oil in places like China and India have caused oil prices to rise.     BTW, the US EXPORTS oil.

[FST_Kent]

Quote

BTW, the US EXPORTS oil.

Mostly oil products from the below the upper levels of the "barrel".

[Tompo]

FST_Kent, on 20 May 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Quote

BTW, the US EXPORTS oil.

Mostly oil products from the below the upper levels of the "barrel".

No,
the United States exported more gasoline, heating oil and diesel fuel last year than it imported, the Energy Department reported.

http://content.usato.../1#.T7mUNcWwW1w

[FST_Kent]

Quote

No,
the United States exported more gasoline, heating oil and diesel fuel last year than it imported, the Energy Department reported.

Misleading articl title and leave it to the federal government to lump three different products into one total.

Heating oil and diesel are oil products from the bottom of the barrel which was my point.

Gasoline accounts for less than half of the barrel and thousands of other petroleum products are made from the remainder.

And getting back to the orginal topic......  

The Dems do fear Romney.

[Tompo]

FST_Kent, on 21 May 2012 - 07:31 AM, said:

Quote

No,
the United States exported more gasoline, heating oil and diesel fuel last year than it imported, the Energy Department reported.

Misleading articl title and leave it to the federal government to lump three different products into one total.

Heating oil and diesel are oil products from the bottom of the barrel which was my point.

Gasoline accounts for less than half of the barrel and thousands of other petroleum products are made from the remainder.

And getting back to the orginal topic......  

The Dems do fear Romney.

What exactly was 'misleading"?  The facts?  

I don't know what there is to 'fear' about Romney....he changes positions on issues nearly every hour.  I would think republicans should 'fear' him.

[TomKoz]

"Fear" ?  What I fear is the demise of this country, the shredding of the Constitution, and the lives if my children and future grandchildren IF this IDIOT occupying the White House is re-elected!!  

I do Not fear that he will be lawfully re-elected.  I Do fear that he may be re-elected by fraudulent means - again !!

ANYBODY BUT obama.

[FST_Kent]

Quote

To repeat myself again, the title of the article is misleading.
  
U.S. exported more gasoline than imported last year

Then the energy department groups three different products together, gas, heating oil, and diesel then compares it to total number of barrels imported and exported.  The article never mentions the thousands of products that are made from that one barrel that have always been exported.

[belercous]

Seems strange how if some people get off-topic, they get chastized for it. Others, not so much.

I believe the OP was about Democrats fearing Romney. As of 5/21/12, I'm gonna hafta say that the Dems don't have much fear of Romney. Why would they fear him? Romney's basically a "protest" vote. He offers nothing new & the only thing he brings to the table is that he's not Obama. That should get him far. The `12 presidential election is not a contest between opposing ideologies, both are centrists; Mitt a bit to the right, Barack a bit to the left.  

Which candidate is going to be labeled the "flip-flopper?" Which party ran the economy into the ditch? Now, if the American populace decides that corporations are people, Mitt wins. If the public believes that keeping taxes low on the rich ("trickle-down" economics) will help reduce the deficit, Mitt will win. If the voters believe that women who work for a secular agency of the Catholic Chuch shouldn't be entitled to birth-control pills, Romney wins. If voters view Romney as more in touch with the common man than Obama, Mitt wins. If the spending cuts of the Ryan budget plan (which Romney supports) are popular, Mitt wins.

I can't see how Romney could lose this election. Unless more people vote against him than for him. The Dems are quivering in fear.

[highspeed]

No politician has the American people or America in it`s interest. Their only interest is getting reelected. Money drives the train and it don`t matter which train!

[TomKoz]

belercous, on 21 May 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

Which candidate is going to be labeled the "flip-flopper?" Which party ran the economy into the ditch? Now, if the American populace decides that corporations are people, Mitt wins. If the public believes that keeping taxes low on the rich ("trickle-down" economics) will help reduce the deficit, Mitt will win. If the voters believe that women who work for a secular agency of the Catholic Chuch shouldn't be entitled to birth-control pills, Romney wins. If voters view Romney as more in touch with the common man than Obama, Mitt wins. If the spending cuts of the Ryan budget plan (which Romney supports) are popular, Mitt wins.

Do the Democrats fear Romney??  I'd have to say they moreso fear an educated voter with foresight !

If the American populace wants America to end up like Greece, Obama will win.
If voters believe that a women who wants birt control should take responsibility and pay for it herself, Romney will win.
If the voters realize that corporations are not hurt by raising taxes on them as they do not technically pay taxes (they just pass the tax along to their customers - the public - Romney will win.

[Molly B.]

belercous, on 21 May 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

Seems strange how if some people get off-topic, they get chastized for it. Others, not so much.

It's like herding cats.  The opening post was about a video/oil and gas prices/do democrats fear Romney so this one was particularly difficult to follow .  There is a "report" button at the bottom of every post. It is there to bring posts to our attention.  I suggest you use it until the vote for Right to Carry is cast. We are all very busy 24/7 working that important issue.  Political bantering and debate is not high on the priority list.

[belercous]

I lean towards highspeed's post, but some pols actually do things to help people also.

Tom; %-wise, there's not too many educated voters. The vast majority of people are intellectually lazy, they don't think if they don't have to. Most people vote based upon emotion/belief/feelings, etc, not reasoned arguments. If more people voted based upon reason, we wouldn't have the type of political ads we do; Ads using lies, half-truths & distortions. Such ads wouldn't work if people were politically aware or engaged in a bit of critical thinking. These types of ads work because most people don't question them. They don't question the ads because most people refuse to put forth the intellectual effort required.  

If most people were educated, or could at least engage in critical thinking, right-wing radio wouldn't be so popular. The talk show host I like to use as an example of sophistry is Rush. He doesn't simply rely uopn lies, he uses flawed reasoning. I once recorded a program of his to demonstrate to a conservative friend how Rush use fallacious arguments. I'd play a bit, stop the tape, then explain what the fallacy was & why such argument could not be relied upon to derive truth.

If more people were interested in politics & reality, we'd have a lot more programs like Face The Nation, Meet The Press, etc. Instead we get programs like Limbaugh's, Beck's, Hannity's, etc. which are echo chambers where only one side of an argument gets presented. These types of programs are like professional wrestling; they're good entertainment, but when one begins to think they represent reality that person becomes part of the joke.

Please note that I'm not saying that most people are stupid, just that they're intellectually lazy by not engaging in critical thinking. I know people who have some strange ideas or don't otherwise appear too bright, but who can get seriously in-depth on sports statisics/strategies, the Bible, or other areas in which they are interested.

Molly; Just making an observation. It seems the chastizing post has disappeared. I see your point about being busy with other things (still for CC, but I don't see what's changed from last year) so I suppose a mod has to act upon a complaint. I won't bother the mods with petty complaints by tattling on others. We have gotten off-topic though.

Back to the OP. The Dems feared Romney the most of any GOP challenger, sure. We'd prefer a real right wing zealot to get the GOP nod, not a moderate. But "fearing" Romney is relative. On an absolute scale, the fear level is fairly low. What has Mitt got to offer? More of the same old, same old. Repeal ObamaCare? Well, that could be taken off the table before Nov., and if it is, it will give more ammo to the Dems. If SCOTUS upholds the Act, Romney will be running against his own idea. Novel approach for winning office for sure.

What does the GOP plan to do about health care if SCOTUS shoots down ObamaCare? [Watch insurance rates go up if the PPACA is invalidated] The Dems will want to do something about that, the GOP has nothing.

Romney's the best the GOP's got, but it won't be good enough to win in Nov., he brings nothing new to the table. If cutting taxes & regulations actually worked, our economy would never have tanked to begin with. The Nov. election will be a referendum on Obama. Keep the President, or dump him. I'm still taking $10.00 bets that says Obama gets re-elected. Loser pays IllinoisCarry.Com. I've only had 4 takers, so perhaps it's not much of a gamble. I certainly don't believe I'm gambling.

[FST_Kent]

How much is the bet?

James Carville is publicly doubting the big O's chance of re-election.

Doesn't mean they fear Romney however.

[belercous]

$10.00. loser pays IllinoisCarry.Com, not me. Can I put you down for a friendly wager? (I am not affiliated with IllinoisCarry.Com, nor is this an activity endorsed or condoned by this website. I am acting purely as a private individual and do not stand to profit from this. But nobody can really lose since the proceeds go towards a good cause.)

I'm not going to tell you the reason Carville's doing that, but there is one. Its likely not the one you think.

[FST_Kent]

Quote

Because his wife, Mary Matalin, is a republican strategist?  I don't know.  I think the guy will do or say just about anything so at least his name will get mentioned somewhere.

I had just about forgotten about him too.  Damn!

Quote

$10.00

That's it?

[belercous]

Kent; You're not even close. Carville's comment has nothing to do with his wife's job, they keep their political differences seperate from their private lives. I will say that the comment is a political calculation. This pretty much gives it away.

$10.00 is a nominal sum which permits all to engage the wager. This is about bragging rights, to make a point. Believe me, I'm gonna look real foolish if I lose this bet, but I don't believe I will. I've only got 4 takers so far & the wager's been open for many months. Before Obama took office I pretty much suspected he'd get re-elected. Of course I also thought the economy would be doing better by now so my belief is not as strong as it once was. But I'm still keeping the bet open since I still can't imagine Romney winning. My biggest worry (Obama's too) is if Europe goes in the tank. Greece alone won't be a problem.

Is you in or is you not? You still haven't answered that question. I notice you didn't jump at the offer, which has been around for quite awhile.