*YOU* are responsible for high gas prices

[Stormin Mormon]

I've been rather unimpressed by a certain Kenyan, who prohibits drilling, shuts down wells, and then says it's the American peoples fault for not inflating our tires. How about if we drill for oil, and you can inflate your black lips?

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

.

Just suppose we drilled in ANWR and found an oil field equal to Saudi Arabia? What do you think that would do to the price? Until you get rid of the politicians who won't even let exploratory drilling to find out what's there, no one will ever know.

[trader4]

What a joke. It's a carefully edited piece of propaganda where they just excerpt the piece they want from what the person is saying. Let's just look at the first commentator, Cal Thomas. He says "no president has the power to raise or lower gas prices, those respond to market forces...." At which point they cut off the rest of what he has to say.

But anyone who knows Cal Thomas and his positions knows that he is in favor of MORE drilling, in ANWR and other federal lands for example. Now if we have more oil, then through MARKET FORCES, the price comes down. Geez, how hard is that to understand?

Then there are others carefully excerpted where they say there is nothing Bush can do about it. Let's go back to the above increased drilling scenario. There was nothing Bush could do about it. He was NOT blocking ANWR, not blocking drilling in the Gulf, not blocking a Keystone pipeline. He was in favor and doing all he could but with the Dems blocking it in Congress there was nothing more he could do. Obama on the other hand, is against those. He's on the phone lobbying Congressman to vote AGAINST the bill to OK the Keystone pipeline right now. Capiche?

But then that carefully crafted piece is from Media Matters, about as radical a left wing outfit as you can find.

[trader4]

The different formulations are a point few mention. They prevent an efficient market because if you have excess of one formulation, it may not be able to be sent to where it's needed.

r.- Hide quoted text -

And again, a point few mention. The devaluation of the dollar has been a substantial contributor to the increase in price of oil.

[trader4]

Is this the same Robert Green that was bitching in this thread about how trade sanctions should not be used, even against Japan prior to WWII, because they only hurt the little guy? Yet, as usual, here you are bitching about when the USA does the opposite and opens up trade. Funny how with you America hating libs we can never do anything right.

The USA is still the largest manufacturer in the world.

I'm glad you don't have a kid to look out for. With your jaundiced view of this country, he'd turn out to be an angry hippy, not a robot repairman.

Our trade with China has been increasing through boom and bust. To suggest people only want to pay $4 for a broom instead of $10 only recently is pretty much bogus.

He doesn't dial in the price. He just blocks the Keystone pipeline. Blocks drilling in the Gulf. Blocks drilling in ANWR. Blocks drilling in other federal lands. See how that works?

You better check on that with your liberal friends. Last I heard they all have their shorts up in a knot because some states are trying to require ID to vote. The ACLU just went to the UN to complaing that USA elections should be put under their scrutiny because of it. How cool is that? We'd have the likes of China, Iran, Saudi Arabia telling us how to run elections.

[Jim Yanik]

Dean Hoffman wrote in news:jk614d$e81$ [e-mail]:

where did oil come from? Plant matter. there's no reason why new oil cannot be created,or why oil is not created constantly.

after all,old,depleted wells in TX have refilled and are again producing oil.

[Jim Yanik]

John Carter wrote in news:XnsA01B9CD2D27Djcartgmailcom@74.209.136.99:

Yes, he does. His foreign policies affect oil prices. When Iran feels they can act up,threaten,and get away with it because of a weak America,oil prices climb.When the MidEast is unstable,oil prices climb,and that is due to Comrade Hussein's weak policies.

US oil production is up DESPITE Comrade Hussein's best efforts. it's all on PRIVATE and state lands,because Comrade Hussein has cut off Federal lands.

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news:a02c8851- [e-mail]:

OK. That's almost too easy. There were very legitimate concerns about the route of the pipeline as proposed, related to the rather sensitive ecology of the areas through which this thing was going to go. That's the main argument to negotiate another route. By forcing Obama to approve or deny within 60 days, the Republicans who voted that measure in, basically cut their own nose off just to spite their own faces. They just forced the President to say no. When he did so, he also said that he hoped the Canuckistanis would come back soon with a better proposal, which they are working on as you are dreaming right now. There were a whole bunch of other problems with the pipeline, including how many jobs construction and operation would generate, and whether that would really help any unemployment (many of those jobs are very specialized, and won't help general unemployment). In addition, there is considerable disagreement about the "greenness" of the project since cooking those rocks to get the oil out costs a lot of energy, spewing a lot of CO2. I am not sure which side to believe regarding either the jobs or the CO2 etc. Just the inconclusiveness means it should be studied a little (or a lot) more, IMO.

[Han]

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in news:1OG9r.201556$ [e-mail]:

From your point of view (if I understand it), you're probably right. We'll find out soon (by June) what the SCOTUS thinks. As far as the "Contract with America" is concerned, politics when done right, should allow compromise. Since that abomination of a contract is mostly used as a straightjacket or as blackmail to stick to a far right of center point of view, you're shit out of luck to get governance. Wouldn't it be better to compromise and get the budget deficit under control?

[Frank]

The smell would probably be the same as burning camel shit.

[krw]

Nah, they're way too dim.

[trader4]

That's always the excuse the radical environmentalists use to block everything whether it;s a pipeline, windmill, or solar farm.

As opposed to what? Obama had already said he was gonna sit on it until at least after the election. We need energy now.

The Canadians also said they were considering sending the oil to China instead.

Typical lib nonsense. WTF does it matter if it creates 1 job or

10,000 jobs? We need the oil, it comes from a safe, friendly source. Creating jobs, which the pipeline would do, is just another plus. I guess we should let Obama evaluate what creates jobs and instead of just approving a pipeline that doesn't cost the taxpayers a cent and actually brings in tax dollars, we should let him send $500mil to piss away at the likes of Solyndra.

Yes and following that logic, the pipeline will never be built and the oil will go to China. That's what Obama and the libs prefer.

Boy what a great story for the debates and campaign. I can't wait.

[trader4]

01556$ [e-mail]:

How well has "compromise" worked? That "compromise" where the Republicans agree to some of the Democrats wasteful spending in exchange for some of their own, is precisely what's gotten us to where we were when Bush left office. Since then, spending has exploded far worse, by 40%.

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Well, there you have it. Where would the oil go once it got to the end of the pipeline in Louisiana? Yep, you got it, export.

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Just keep harping on expenditures that started with Bush's TARP. See where that gets you. Unemployed yet?

[trader4]

[e-mail]:

Yeah, that's a good one to add to the lib list of excuses. Don't build a pipeline because some of the oil from Canada MIGHT be exported. Better Canada should just ship it directly to China, which they will likely do. We could have a pipeline that brings us energy from a safe, local trading partner, adds to our national security, and creates jobs. But we shouldn't do it because some of the oil MIGHT get exported.

But at least it shows your true colors. You'd come up with ANY excuse to justify Obama's blocking it. Another favorite lib excuse you could try is "But if we start on the project today, it won't be available until 4 years from now...."

[The Daring Dufas]

Sorry, I couldn't help it. ^_^

TDD

[trader4]

peranza.aioe.org:

Except of course that the process took millions of years.

More oil that was already there may have seeped in. But you do realize that is very different than creating the oil from biomass to begin with? I'd like to see where THAT has occured in wells,.

[trader4]

[e-mail]:

Let's look at Bush's TARP. It was NOT spending, and never will be despite your lib attempts to characterize it as such. It was a LOAN program under Bush. TARP was expanded under Obama to include equity investment in the likes of GM. Of the $700bil authorized, as of today only about $70bil is still at risk. The rest has been PAID BACK, with interest. ALL the money from the banks in particular, has been PAID BACK WITH INTEREST. And as the govt sells off the remaining stock, etc, that it still owns, it's likely the net cost to the taxpayers will be very little or even zero.

And TARP existed in 2008/2009. Why do you libs keep harping back to that? It's now 2012 and the govt is running deficits north of $1Bil a year. Why is spending TODAY still 40% higher than it was in 2007?

Why are you libs so damn dumb?

[Kurt Ullman]

I would be a lot more sanguine about that as a form of reality if he had actually pulled the plug or if that route hadn't been permitted in the first place. What happened was they okayed everything and then at the last minute they put it off only to study it and get a report back immediately after the election. WHen my politicians screw me for political gain, I at least expect them to respect my intelligence and at least TRY to not make it so blatant.

That's

Which is what they were hoping for since that makes it a campaign issue. We'll see if they use it successfully in November.

W

So, apparently you don't think specialized people should be fully employed (g). It would have employed a bunch of welders and earth mover operators, etc., that are not otherwise employed. Sorta surprised at this since it was a whole bunch of union jobs that were trashed.

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

1. If that shale oil is as dirty as some say it is (I don't know whether it is, but if ...) then I think the Canucks should take a hint and just leave it where it is. If it is a lot cleaner, then let's talk, but let us make sure of that first.
2. Same way I'm not sure what the ultimate destination is. If it were to be proven that it will be economically refined into useful and cheap oil products for the US market, then let's go ahead and do it. If not, why does it have to go through the US in the first place?

If you think those are liberal excuses, so be it. I think you are just excusing drill baby drill to make the oil companies richer, but prove me wrong, please!