It's Hard Out Here for a Pump
By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 27, 2006
I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.
But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices.
Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years.
For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.
The last time the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency was in 1993. Immediately after trying to put gays in the military and socialize all health care, Clinton's next order of business was to propose an energy tax on all fuels, including a 26-cent tax on gas. I think the bill was called "putting people first in line at the bus station." This is the Democratic Party. That's their program.
Al Gore defended the gas tax, vowing that it was "absolutely not coming out" of the energy bill regardless of "how much trouble it causes the entire package."
And mind you, this was before we knew Gore was clinically insane. Back then we thought he was just a double-talking stuffed shirt who seemed kind of gay. The important thing was to force Americans to stop their infernal car-driving, no matter how much it cost.
Democrats in Congress promptly introduced an "energy bill" that would put an additional 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline to stop "global warming," an atmospheric phenomenon supposedly aggravated by frivolous human activities such as commerce, travel and food production.
Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley endorsed the proposal on "Charlie Rose," saying: "I'd have a five-cent increase every year for five years ... But that's not going to happen ... because we've got people who fret and worry that one- or two-tenths of a cent of a gasoline tax is going to cause some revolution at home." So in Tom Foley's universe, two-tenths of a cent is the same as a quarter ? another testimonial to the American public educational system.
The Democrats' proposed gas tax did cause a revolution at home, and consequently the Democrats were able to sneak through only an additional 4.3-cent federal tax on gasoline. After tut-tutting the idea that voters would object if the Democrats attempted a huge gas tax increase, Speaker Tom Foley soon became former speaker, and indeed former Congressman Tom Foley.
Gary Hart, another whimsical demonstration of what Democrats think a president should be like, said at the time, "I certainly favor consumption taxes, particularly on energy." Then there's John Kerry, who favored a 50-cent increase in the gas tax in 1994. If he were a rap artist, Kerry's stage name would be "Fifty Cent a Gallon."
Last year, a couple of green "climatologists" at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were back at it in the journal Science, wheeling out their proposal for a 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline as an "insurance policy" against global warming.
Just two months ago, we were being confidently told ? on the basis of a New York Times-CBS News poll, so it must be true ? that "Americans might OK a gasoline tax hike if it reduced global warming or lessened U.S. dependence on foreign oil." (This poll was wedged in among the 29 polls claiming Americans think we're losing the war in Iraq.) Other results from the Times' "meaningless polls" section: Americans might "OK" a Dennis Kucinich presidency if it meant free ice cream every Tuesday.
How many times do Democrats have to tell us they want to raise the price of gas for the average American before the average American believes them? Is it more or less than the number of times Democrats tell us they want to surrender in the war on terrorism?
It's as if a switch goes off in people's brains telling them: The Democrats can't be saying they want to destroy the lives of people who drive cars because my father was a Democrat, and the Democrats can't be this stupid!
The Democrats' only objection to current gas prices is that the federal government's cut is a mere 18.4 cents a gallon. States like New York get another 44 cents per gallon in taxes. The Democratic brain processes the fact that "big oil companies" get nearly 9 cents a gallon and thinks: WE SHOULD HAVE ALL THAT MONEY!
When the free market does the exact thing leftists have been itching to do through taxation, they pretend to be appalled by high gas prices, hoping the public will forget that high gas prices are part of their agenda
Wow...First and foremost, Ann Coulter is a bitter, angry woman (at least she claims she is).
Second, I can't believe dfarr is actually posting her mindless tripe on here as if she has any credibility and can back up any of these claims of "imposing punitive taxation" with sources less than a decade old. I googled the phrase "putting people first in line at the bus station" and of course, got zero returns. I suppose this bill is a figment of her imagination.
Gore is clinically insane? Wow...that's news to me, Ms. Coulter. "Seemed kind of gay?" Now that's what I call responsible journalism.
And let me clarify Mr. Foley's statement for Ms. Coulter, who seems to be more concerned with concealing her man-hands and Adam's Apple than improving her reading comprehension skills. Mr. Foley says that he would support a 5 cent increase every five years but that won't happen because the mere thought of a one- or two-tenths of a cent is already enough to get people up in arms. Does this make sense to you, Ms. Coulter...or do I need to maybe type in a larger font...as she would say herself, another testimonial to the American public educational system.
"How many times do Democrats have to tell us they want to raise the price of gas for the average American before the average American believes them? Is it more or less than the number of times Democrats tell us they want to surrender in the war on terrorism?"
Hey Mrs. Coulter, democrats don't control the presidency, the house, or the senate...yet you bitch and moan about how they proposed something back when I was slow dancing to Boyz II Men at the Junior High Dance. Where's the bitching about the oil companies record profits? the subsidies? the fact that American public that she so selflessly stands up for is being raped daily by OPEC and the oil industry, yet W and his cronies best solution is to tell the public to conserve and rollback environmental policies?
Why hasn't Bush stood up to OPEC? Why hasn't he pushed automakers to produce more fuel efficient autos? Why haven't we limited the subsidies? Why haven't we taxed the billions in record profits made by oil companies? Why haven't we investigated claims of price gouging by oil companies? Why was there no outcry when Cheney was having closed door meetings with energy industry lobbyists?
The fact is, the Republicans have had 5 years to come up with an energy policy to help prevent or slow the currect situation and now it's too late and the best solution pundits like Ann Coulter can come up with is to blame Bill Clinton. That's just pitiful.
as usual u missed the entire point of the article.
dems ( and some repubs) are complaing about oil profits, when oil companies only get about $.06 for every gallon sold, where the government gets about $.40 for every barrel, depending on which state you live in.
she's pointing out how dems are the main proponents of these high taxes that drive up the gas prices and how dems support these special blends that drive up prices in certain areas.
she's pointing out the hypocrisy of the dems for complaining about energy prices when they are the party who doesnt want us to drill anwr, use nuclear power, build refineries, or streamline the gas production by getting rid of special gas blends.
do u understand the point of the article now? dems bitch & moan about gas prices & profits, yet they are the ones who helped drive up the price w/ their taxes & other pointless regulations. just imagine how much higher prices would be if the dems had gotten their extra $.25 tax.
also, this is an opinion piece sarah, not a piece of serious journalism. as usual u miss the distinction. also, oil companies are taxed on profits. that just shows how little u know about tax code.
i posted this article specifically to get a rise out of u, and it worked.
Well if its such a huge problem, then why haven't the Republicans done anything to change it? They have the power..it doesn't matter if democrats are huge proponents of anything, they're basically powerless right now.
So quitchurbitchin' dfarr, Coulter, and Republicans and do something about it.
Sarahbelle18 Wrote:Well if its such a huge problem, then why haven't the Republicans done anything to change it? They have the power..it doesn't matter if democrats are huge proponents of anything, they're basically powerless right now.
So quitchurbitchin' dfarr, Coulter, and Republicans and do something about it.
well, they already tried to drill anwr but it was blocked. more funding has gone to alternative fuels, & bush even discussed it in his SOTU speech. they're also suspending some taxes & pollution regulations so that the prices can be brought down this summer. its better than nothing.
dfarr Wrote:dems ( and some repubs) are complaing about oil profits, when oil companies only get about $.06 for every gallon sold, where the government gets about $.40 for every barrel, depending on which state you live in.
Already, dfarr, you prove your stupidity by comparing apples and oranges. Are you even aware of how many gallons of gas come from a barrel of oil? The answer is 42. That means the oil companies make $2.52 cents per barrel. Quite a bit more than the government's 40 cents.
dfarr Wrote:she's pointing out how dems are the main proponents of these high taxes that drive up the gas prices and how dems support these special blends that drive up prices in certain areas. she's pointing out the hypocrisy of the dems for complaining about energy prices when they are the party who doesnt want us to drill anwr, use nuclear power, build refineries, or streamline the gas production by getting rid of special gas blends.
As usual, you prove that Republicans couldn't care less about the future of the planet, and care only about how to line their pockets in the here and now. I have no problems with high gas taxes -- we still pay far less in fuel tax than any other developed country. The "special blends" are meant to reduce pollution and improve fuel efficiency. I bet you are opposed to the regulations requiring vehicles sold meet a minimum fuel efficiency standard, those those standards are already woefully low.
It would take, according to industry estimates, more than 50 years before Anwar drilling would yield the first usable barrel of oil, at the cost of millions of acres of wildlife. The oil industry itself doesn't want to build refineries because of their expense. The democrats have recently begun ENDORSING nuclear power, but since you don't actually comprehend or read the news unless it comes through right-wing filters, you wouldn't know that.
dfarr Wrote:also, this is an opinion piece sarah, not a piece of serious journalism. as usual u miss the distinction. also, oil companies are taxed on profits. that just shows how little u know about tax code.
i posted this article specifically to get a rise out of u, and it worked.
The problem, dfarr, is that you only exist on this board to piss people off who don't agree with your right-wing agenda. I consider myself a moderate -- I agree with many Republican, as well as Democrat, ideas. However, you come on here, present Ann Coulter as if she's a serious journalist and not a crazy bitch who has been caught lying out-right so many times it's not even funny -- should I mention how many libel suits she and her publisher have against them?
The price of gasoline would be about a $1 a gallon fewer right now -- even with the 25-cent tax you mentioned -- if the cost per barrel were what it was two years ago. OPEC has reduced drilling and production deliberately to inflate prices, and oil companies have helped. This has nothing to do with the Democrats; it has everything to do with the oil industry -- to which the Bush administration is so far beholden it can't see anything else.
UAB Kirksville Wrote:dfarr Wrote:dems ( and some repubs) are complaing about oil profits, when oil companies only get about $.06 for every gallon sold, where the government gets about $.40 for every barrel, depending on which state you live in.
Already, dfarr, you prove your stupidity by comparing apples and oranges. Are you even aware of how many gallons of gas come from a barrel of oil? The answer is 42. That means the oil companies make $2.52 cents per barrel. Quite a bit more than the government's 40 cents.
dfarr Wrote:she's pointing out how dems are the main proponents of these high taxes that drive up the gas prices and how dems support these special blends that drive up prices in certain areas. she's pointing out the hypocrisy of the dems for complaining about energy prices when they are the party who doesnt want us to drill anwr, use nuclear power, build refineries, or streamline the gas production by getting rid of special gas blends.
As usual, you prove that Republicans couldn't care less about the future of the planet, and care only about how to line their pockets in the here and now. I have no problems with high gas taxes -- we still pay far less in fuel tax than any other developed country. The "special blends" are meant to reduce pollution and improve fuel efficiency. I bet you are opposed to the regulations requiring vehicles sold meet a minimum fuel efficiency standard, those those standards are already woefully low.
It would take, according to industry estimates, more than 50 years before Anwar drilling would yield the first usable barrel of oil, at the cost of millions of acres of wildlife. The oil industry itself doesn't want to build refineries because of their expense. The democrats have recently begun ENDORSING nuclear power, but since you don't actually comprehend or read the news unless it comes through right-wing filters, you wouldn't know that.
dfarr Wrote:also, this is an opinion piece sarah, not a piece of serious journalism. as usual u miss the distinction. also, oil companies are taxed on profits. that just shows how little u know about tax code.
i posted this article specifically to get a rise out of u, and it worked.
The problem, dfarr, is that you only exist on this board to piss people off who don't agree with your right-wing agenda. I consider myself a moderate -- I agree with many Republican, as well as Democrat, ideas. However, you come on here, present Ann Coulter as if she's a serious journalist and not a crazy biatch who has been caught lying out-right so many times it's not even funny -- should I mention how many libel suits she and her publisher have against them?
The price of gasoline would be about a $1 a gallon fewer right now -- even with the 25-cent tax you mentioned -- if the cost per barrel were what it was two years ago. OPEC has reduced drilling and production deliberately to inflate prices, and oil companies have helped. This has nothing to do with the Democrats; it has everything to do with the oil industry -- to which the Bush administration is so far beholden it can't see anything else.
Actually, you make several factual errors. First, government taxes on gasoline are by the gallon, not barrel. Thus, the federal and state governments do average about $0.40 per gallon, well in excess of an oil companies profit, pegged any where from $0.06 to $0.09 per gallon.
Secondly, do you have any concept of how big an area of a million acres is? Drilling in ANWR would not take an area that big. I am not sure how much area it would take, but stating millions of acre is assine hyperbole.
Thirdly, environmental regulations hinder the construction of refineries. This obviously is a chicken/egg question. Do the oil companies not develop new refineries to artificially raise price or because of the costs imposed by environmental regulation, either side can be argued fairly.
Fourth, the cost per barrel of crude has risen more because of the growing energy consumption in China and India and the threat Iran poses to the Persian Gulf than because of OPEC. Seriously, this is simple supply/demand issue. Demand has dramatically increased on a global scale in the past decade, supply has not matched it. Thus, prices increase.
Get your facts correct, otherwise you look like a fool.
UAB Kirksville Wrote:dfarr Wrote:dems ( and some repubs) are complaing about oil profits, when oil companies only get about $.06 for every gallon sold, where the government gets about $.40 for every barrel, depending on which state you live in.
Already, dfarr, you prove your stupidity by comparing apples and oranges. Are you even aware of how many gallons of gas come from a barrel of oil? The answer is 42. That means the oil companies make $2.52 cents per barrel. Quite a bit more than the government's 40 cents.
dfarr Wrote:she's pointing out how dems are the main proponents of these high taxes that drive up the gas prices and how dems support these special blends that drive up prices in certain areas. she's pointing out the hypocrisy of the dems for complaining about energy prices when they are the party who doesnt want us to drill anwr, use nuclear power, build refineries, or streamline the gas production by getting rid of special gas blends.
As usual, you prove that Republicans couldn't care less about the future of the planet, and care only about how to line their pockets in the here and now. I have no problems with high gas taxes -- we still pay far less in fuel tax than any other developed country. The "special blends" are meant to reduce pollution and improve fuel efficiency. I bet you are opposed to the regulations requiring vehicles sold meet a minimum fuel efficiency standard, those those standards are already woefully low.
It would take, according to industry estimates, more than 50 years before Anwar drilling would yield the first usable barrel of oil, at the cost of millions of acres of wildlife. The oil industry itself doesn't want to build refineries because of their expense. The democrats have recently begun ENDORSING nuclear power, but since you don't actually comprehend or read the news unless it comes through right-wing filters, you wouldn't know that.
dfarr Wrote:also, this is an opinion piece sarah, not a piece of serious journalism. as usual u miss the distinction. also, oil companies are taxed on profits. that just shows how little u know about tax code.
i posted this article specifically to get a rise out of u, and it worked.
The problem, dfarr, is that you only exist on this board to piss people off who don't agree with your right-wing agenda. I consider myself a moderate -- I agree with many Republican, as well as Democrat, ideas. However, you come on here, present Ann Coulter as if she's a serious journalist and not a crazy biatch who has been caught lying out-right so many times it's not even funny -- should I mention how many libel suits she and her publisher have against them?
The price of gasoline would be about a $1 a gallon fewer right now -- even with the 25-cent tax you mentioned -- if the cost per barrel were what it was two years ago. OPEC has reduced drilling and production deliberately to inflate prices, and oil companies have helped. This has nothing to do with the Democrats; it has everything to do with the oil industry -- to which the Bush administration is so far beholden it can't see anything else.
i meant per gallon for the government. i wish taxes were only $.40/barrel.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articl...?track=rss
u might want to rethink your thoughts of democrats endorsing nuclear power.
have u seen these "millions of acres of wildlife" that you're so worried about? it is nothing but barren land, plus it wouldnt disturbe millions of acres. only 2000 acres of 19.5 million would be allowed to be drilled.
no, i enjoy debate. neither you nor your fellow liberals have brought up any single point to make me change my mind on any issue. if my opinions piss you off then thats on you, not me, although i did post this article b/c i know of sarahbelle's love for ann coulter. please mention how many libel suits she & her publisher have lost. the number of suits filed dont matter. also, where did i present her article as anything but opinion?
wow, you must be an economic genius since u figured out that gas would be cheaper at prices from 2 years ago. i hope u have fun in stockholm when u get the nobel prize. take intro macroeconomics. learn about a supply/demand curve. when demand increases, either price increases or supply increases.
My god, learn and read for yourself what is going on in the oil industry, don't take paid conservative spin doctors' word for what is happening.
The oil industry reduced refining capacity by closing down more
than 50 refineries in the past decade alone. Oil companies volutarily closed refineries so that the price of oil would increase, increasing their profits. Enviromental regulations had nothing to do with it.
All of the following is taken from congressional investigations into the oil industry, you can read one of the reports here:
http://wyden.senate.gov/leg_issues/repor...report.pdf
There are a lot of others, but all say pretty much the same thing :That oild companies have colluded with each other to artifically drive up the cost of oil in order to drive up their own profits.
?As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical
factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the
surplus gasoline production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining
industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery
margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist
in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline.?
Internal Texaco document, March 7, 1996
?A senior energy analyst at the recent API (American Petroleum Institute) convention
warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn?t reduce its refining capacity, it will never
see any substantial increase in refining margins?However, refining utilization has been
rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low.?
Internal Chevron document, November 30, 1995
On June 11, 2001, the Wall Street Journal reported that Marathon Ashland Petroleum intentionally withheld reformulated gasoline supply in the Midwest in a contrived effort to keep prices, and profits, artificially high Although Marathon was reported to have operated alone in this instance, documents suggest that over the past five years other leading oil companies have worked together to control the amount of gasoline available on the market.
BlazerMatt Wrote:My god, learn and read for yourself what is going on in the oil industry, don't take paid conservative spin doctors' word for what is happening.
The oil industry reduced refining capacity by closing down more
than 50 refineries in the past decade alone. Oil companies volutarily closed refineries so that the price of oil would increase, increasing their profits. Enviromental regulations had nothing to do with it.
All of the following is taken from congressional investigations into the oil industry, you can read one of the reports here: http://wyden.senate.gov/leg_issues/repor...report.pdf
There are a lot of others, but all say pretty much the same thing :That oild companies have colluded with each other to artifically drive up the cost of oil in order to drive up their own profits.
?As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical
factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the
surplus gasoline production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining
industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery
margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist
in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline.?
Internal Texaco document, March 7, 1996
?A senior energy analyst at the recent API (American Petroleum Institute) convention
warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn?t reduce its refining capacity, it will never
see any substantial increase in refining margins?However, refining utilization has been
rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low.?
Internal Chevron document, November 30, 1995
On June 11, 2001, the Wall Street Journal reported that Marathon Ashland Petroleum intentionally withheld reformulated gasoline supply in the Midwest in a contrived effort to keep prices, and profits, artificially high Although Marathon was reported to have operated alone in this instance, documents suggest that over the past five years other leading oil companies have worked together to control the amount of gasoline available on the market.
very interesting. yet somehow the high prices are blamed on the current administration.
Here's the woman who dfarr endorses and offers selections from to present to us:
Coulter supported the apartheid regime in South Africa and has called black people "savages."
"In response to a question on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Miss Coulter said she supported the government of Israel for the same reason she supported apartheid in South Africa, because they were surrounded by 'savages.'" (Source: Daily Bruin, University of California at Los Angeles)
In an article published one day after the 9/11 attacks, she wrote, "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
On February 10, 2006, the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference applauded her when she referred to Arabs as "ragheads" and said, "I think our motto should be post-9-11, raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences."
Coulter describes people who practice the religion of Islam as "camel jockey", "jihad monkey" and "tent merchant".
Coulter has stated that women are "not as bright" as men (Hannity and Colmes, 09/23/04), "have no capacity to understand how money is earned" (Politically Incorrect, 02/26/01), and "shouldn't be in the military" (Hannity and Colmes, 05/05/04).
On a few occasions Coulter has suggested that the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote should be repealed. In a 14 February 2000 National Review Online article she wrote, "If this ticket doesn't close the gender gap, it's time to repeal the 19th Amendment." On 26 February 2001, she said, "[women should] all have to give up their vote" (Politically Incorrect). She also argues that banning women from voting would ensure Republican presidents would be elected ? as historical voting patterns had shown men had voted in majorities for Republican candidates.
Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Arkansas, on January 26, 2006, Coulter said of United States Supreme Court Justice Stevens: "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' cr?me br?l?e. That's just a joke, for you in the media."
"The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet ? it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars ? that's the Biblical view."
You don't want the Republicans in power, does that mean you want a dictatorship, gay boy?" ? February 24, 2006
The current administration gets blamed because, for the most part, they ARE the oil industry. So when congress demanded inquires into all of this, the current administration arranged it so that oil executives would not have to be under oath during the hearings.
It's not just that the current adminstration are not stopping the price gouging from happening, they are helping it happen. Their income, and the income of their firends are directly tied to the profits of the oll industry. Thats why they let the oil industry dictate our energy policy.
BlazerMatt Wrote:The current administration gets blamed because, for the most part, they ARE the oil industry. So when congress demanded inquires into all of this, the current administration arranged it so that oil executives would not have to be under oath during the hearings.
It's not just that the current adminstration are not stopping the price gouging from happening, they are helping it happen. Their income, and the income of their firends are directly tied to the profits of the oll industry. Thats why they let the oil industry dictate our energy policy.
i also just remembered something. the refinery capacities have nothing to do w/ the price of crude coming out of the ground. gas prices would still be high even if every refinery was running full steam.
Sarahbelle18 Wrote:Here's the woman who dfarr endorses and offers selections from to present to us:
Coulter supported the apartheid regime in South Africa and has called black people "savages."
"In response to a question on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Miss Coulter said she supported the government of Israel for the same reason she supported apartheid in South Africa, because they were surrounded by 'savages.'" (Source: Daily Bruin, University of California at Los Angeles)
In an article published one day after the 9/11 attacks, she wrote, "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
On February 10, 2006, the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference applauded her when she referred to Arabs as "ragheads" and said, "I think our motto should be post-9-11, raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences."
Coulter describes people who practice the religion of Islam as "camel jockey", "jihad monkey" and "tent merchant".
Coulter has stated that women are "not as bright" as men (Hannity and Colmes, 09/23/04), "have no capacity to understand how money is earned" (Politically Incorrect, 02/26/01), and "shouldn't be in the military" (Hannity and Colmes, 05/05/04).
On a few occasions Coulter has suggested that the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote should be repealed. In a 14 February 2000 National Review Online article she wrote, "If this ticket doesn't close the gender gap, it's time to repeal the 19th Amendment." On 26 February 2001, she said, "[women should] all have to give up their vote" (Politically Incorrect). She also argues that banning women from voting would ensure Republican presidents would be elected ? as historical voting patterns had shown men had voted in majorities for Republican candidates.
Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Arkansas, on January 26, 2006, Coulter said of United States Supreme Court Justice Stevens: "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' cr?me br?l?e. That's just a joke, for you in the media."
"The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet ? it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars ? that's the Biblical view."
You don't want the Republicans in power, does that mean you want a dictatorship, gay boy?" ? February 24, 2006
do u want me to get some quotes from the LEADERS of the political left? coulter is merely a talking head on the right, far from a leader. however, i could find some good quotes from Sen. Byrd, the only man who can claim to have voted against both black nominees to the supreme court. its one thing for a journalist/loud mouth for your side to say some appalling things, but its totally different when the people who are the movers & shakers of your side to say things.
coulter wasnt completely wrong about south africa. what was once a very rich & plentiful country has turned into a AIDS infested country w/ hardly any money. that doesnt defend apartheid, but her statement about being surround by savages has proved itself to be true.
and u heard numerous people from the right come out and condemn coulter after she started calling muslims ragheads and such. you never hear the left condemn anyone.
dfarr Wrote:Sarahbelle18 Wrote:Here's the woman who dfarr endorses and offers selections from to present to us:
Coulter supported the apartheid regime in South Africa and has called black people "savages."
"In response to a question on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Miss Coulter said she supported the government of Israel for the same reason she supported apartheid in South Africa, because they were surrounded by 'savages.'" (Source: Daily Bruin, University of California at Los Angeles)
In an article published one day after the 9/11 attacks, she wrote, "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
On February 10, 2006, the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference applauded her when she referred to Arabs as "ragheads" and said, "I think our motto should be post-9-11, raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences."
Coulter describes people who practice the religion of Islam as "camel jockey", "jihad monkey" and "tent merchant".
Coulter has stated that women are "not as bright" as men (Hannity and Colmes, 09/23/04), "have no capacity to understand how money is earned" (Politically Incorrect, 02/26/01), and "shouldn't be in the military" (Hannity and Colmes, 05/05/04).
On a few occasions Coulter has suggested that the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote should be repealed. In a 14 February 2000 National Review Online article she wrote, "If this ticket doesn't close the gender gap, it's time to repeal the 19th Amendment." On 26 February 2001, she said, "[women should] all have to give up their vote" (Politically Incorrect). She also argues that banning women from voting would ensure Republican presidents would be elected ? as historical voting patterns had shown men had voted in majorities for Republican candidates.
Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Arkansas, on January 26, 2006, Coulter said of United States Supreme Court Justice Stevens: "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' cr?me br?l?e. That's just a joke, for you in the media."
"The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet ? it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars ? that's the Biblical view."
You don't want the Republicans in power, does that mean you want a dictatorship, gay boy?" ? February 24, 2006
do u want me to get some quotes from the LEADERS of the political left? coulter is merely a talking head on the right, far from a leader. however, i could find some good quotes from Sen. Byrd, the only man who can claim to have voted against both black nominees to the supreme court. its one thing for a journalist/loud mouth for your side to say some appalling things, but its totally different when the people who are the movers & shakers of your side to say things.
coulter wasnt completely wrong about south africa. what was once a very rich & plentiful country has turned into a AIDS infested country w/ hardly any money. that doesnt defend apartheid, but her statement about being surround by savages has proved itself to be true.
and u heard numerous people from the right come out and condemn coulter after she started calling muslims ragheads and such. you never hear the left condemn anyone.
Sure...quote left leaders and I'll give you twice as many quotes from right leaders.
If we're discussing pundits, then quote left pundits.
Sarahbelle18 Wrote:dfarr Wrote:Sarahbelle18 Wrote:Here's the woman who dfarr endorses and offers selections from to present to us:
Coulter supported the apartheid regime in South Africa and has called black people "savages."
"In response to a question on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Miss Coulter said she supported the government of Israel for the same reason she supported apartheid in South Africa, because they were surrounded by 'savages.'" (Source: Daily Bruin, University of California at Los Angeles)
In an article published one day after the 9/11 attacks, she wrote, "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
On February 10, 2006, the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference applauded her when she referred to Arabs as "ragheads" and said, "I think our motto should be post-9-11, raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences."
Coulter describes people who practice the religion of Islam as "camel jockey", "jihad monkey" and "tent merchant".
Coulter has stated that women are "not as bright" as men (Hannity and Colmes, 09/23/04), "have no capacity to understand how money is earned" (Politically Incorrect, 02/26/01), and "shouldn't be in the military" (Hannity and Colmes, 05/05/04).
On a few occasions Coulter has suggested that the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote should be repealed. In a 14 February 2000 National Review Online article she wrote, "If this ticket doesn't close the gender gap, it's time to repeal the 19th Amendment." On 26 February 2001, she said, "[women should] all have to give up their vote" (Politically Incorrect). She also argues that banning women from voting would ensure Republican presidents would be elected ? as historical voting patterns had shown men had voted in majorities for Republican candidates.
Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Arkansas, on January 26, 2006, Coulter said of United States Supreme Court Justice Stevens: "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' cr?me br?l?e. That's just a joke, for you in the media."
"The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet ? it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars ? that's the Biblical view."
You don't want the Republicans in power, does that mean you want a dictatorship, gay boy?" ? February 24, 2006
do u want me to get some quotes from the LEADERS of the political left? coulter is merely a talking head on the right, far from a leader. however, i could find some good quotes from Sen. Byrd, the only man who can claim to have voted against both black nominees to the supreme court. its one thing for a journalist/loud mouth for your side to say some appalling things, but its totally different when the people who are the movers & shakers of your side to say things.
coulter wasnt completely wrong about south africa. what was once a very rich & plentiful country has turned into a AIDS infested country w/ hardly any money. that doesnt defend apartheid, but her statement about being surround by savages has proved itself to be true.
and u heard numerous people from the right come out and condemn coulter after she started calling muslims ragheads and such. you never hear the left condemn anyone.
Sure...quote left leaders and I'll give you twice as many quotes from right leaders.
If we're discussing pundits, then quote left pundits.
"A spoiled child (Bush) is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little b*stard. [audio of gun being cocked]." -- A "humor bit" from the Randi Rhodes show
"Do our government's poorly paid contract killers deserve our "support" for blindly following orders?" -- Ted Rall shows his "support" for the troops
"If I had my way, I would see Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell strapped down to electric chairs and lit up like Christmas trees. The better to light the way for American Democracy and American Freedom!" -- Democratic Talk Radio's Stephen Crockett
why dont u want to discuss people who actually matter to the parties?
BlazerMatt Wrote:My god, learn and read for yourself what is going on in the oil industry, don't take paid conservative spin doctors' word for what is happening.
The oil industry reduced refining capacity by closing down more
than 50 refineries in the past decade alone. Oil companies volutarily closed refineries so that the price of oil would increase, increasing their profits. Enviromental regulations had nothing to do with it.
All of the following is taken from congressional investigations into the oil industry, you can read one of the reports here: http://wyden.senate.gov/leg_issues/repor...report.pdf
There are a lot of others, but all say pretty much the same thing :That oild companies have colluded with each other to artifically drive up the cost of oil in order to drive up their own profits.
?As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical
factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the
surplus gasoline production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining
industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery
margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist
in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline.?
Internal Texaco document, March 7, 1996
?A senior energy analyst at the recent API (American Petroleum Institute) convention
warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn?t reduce its refining capacity, it will never
see any substantial increase in refining margins?However, refining utilization has been
rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low.?
Internal Chevron document, November 30, 1995
On June 11, 2001, the Wall Street Journal reported that Marathon Ashland Petroleum intentionally withheld reformulated gasoline supply in the Midwest in a contrived effort to keep prices, and profits, artificially high Although Marathon was reported to have operated alone in this instance, documents suggest that over the past five years other leading oil companies have worked together to control the amount of gasoline available on the market.
Interesting points, but questions, valid questions, still remain. Okay 50 refineries were shut down between 1991 and 2001 (per your article). By and large, based upon your article, these were independent refineries. In other words they were not owned directly by Exxon, Conoco/Phililips, etc. So, why were they shut down? Did they independently go out of business because, as your article points out, profit margins were down, or were they bought by larger corporations and closed in the name of efficiency? 1991-2001 also corresponds with the Clinton administration when drastic environmental regulations went into effect. Was the closure of these refineries due, in part, to increased environmental regulation? Your article addresses none of these points. Each and every one is a valid question. The article hints at collusion in the oil industry between 1991-2001. If there was collusion, then why was it ot proscecuted under existing federal trade laws during the Clinton administration? Or were there investigations that failed to find even indictable proof (and an indictment requires less proof than a conviction)? Where are these questions addressed?
The cost at the pump is due to supply and demand. There are two major chokepoints in gasoline production: 1. getting it out of the ground and 2. refining it. Getting it out of the ground affects the barrel price of crude. This has shot up because of increased global (not just US) demand and concerns over the oil trade through the Persian Gulf. Then there is the refinery cost, which is affected by government requirements for different blends and reduction in refinery capacity due to closures and natural disasters. The intersection of both, coupled with governmental taxes at the pump, lead to high gas prices. It is that simple, yet your articles fails to address these issues, too.
Finally, when did it become a crime in this country to post a profit? Seriously, when did it become a crime to make money? If it is done illegallly, then sure, but illegallity on a broad scale has never been proven.
My point is instead of blaming the oil companies, maybe we ought to look at ourselves and our government. Oil is the lifeblood of our economy. The SOLE lifeblood. That is not a good thing. Further, we have stood by for years and allowed the government to screw with this lifeblood (maybe in some instances for good reason). But, when the prices go high the politicians blame the oil companies. Remember, when you point a finger at someone else, four point back at you.
Here is a quote from a leader for ya:
Quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Though gasoline prices are soaring, President George W. Bush said on Friday he has no evidence that oil companies are illegally overcharging consumers at the pump.
Bush this week ordered the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether oil companies are profiteering on gasoline. The national gasoline price soared 13 cents in the last week to an average $2.91 a gallon, the fourth highest price ever in the Energy Department's weekly survey of service stations.
"I have no evidence that there is any rip-off taking place," Bush told reporters at the White House. "But it's the role of the Federal Trade Commission to assure me that my inclination and instinct is right," he added.
Bush said consumers "expect to be treated fairly at the pump," but they must understand gasoline prices are high because of tight fuel supplies due to the lack of new refineries that can process crude oil into motor fuel.
"My attitude is that the oil companies need to be mindful that the American people expect them to reinvest their cash flows in such a way that it enhances our energy security," Bush said. "That means expansion of refineries."
However, the administration is against imposing a windfall-profits tax on big oil companies that do not use some of their record earnings to build new refineries.
So in short, this is what is happened with big oil (and this is all documented fact):
1.) They realize they can make much higher profits if demand was greater than supply.
2.) To make this happen, they shut down over 50 operational refineries, lowering supply to dangerous levels, causing the cost of refined oil to skyrocket, and sending their profits skyrocketing right along with it.
3) They say "Hey we can't build new refineries because of all of these crazy *** enviromental regulations that keep us from doing things like pumping toxic waste into drinkign water."
4) Whistleblowers release documents proving that the current shortage of supply was planned by big oil as a way to increase profits.
5) The republican controlled congress aranges it so that the oil execs would not have to testify under oath at the hearings on oil policy so that they won't have to answer questions about their price gouging scheme
6) Big Oil enjoys record profits, over 400% growth in profits over a ten year period, money coming directly from your and my pockets.
7) the president and his big oil friends continue to protect big oil's profits, at any cost.
BlazerMatt Wrote:Here is a quote from a leader for ya:
Quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Though gasoline prices are soaring, President George W. Bush said on Friday he has no evidence that oil companies are illegally overcharging consumers at the pump.
Bush this week ordered the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether oil companies are profiteering on gasoline. The national gasoline price soared 13 cents in the last week to an average $2.91 a gallon, the fourth highest price ever in the Energy Department's weekly survey of service stations.
"I have no evidence that there is any rip-off taking place," Bush told reporters at the White House. "But it's the role of the Federal Trade Commission to assure me that my inclination and instinct is right," he added.
Bush said consumers "expect to be treated fairly at the pump," but they must understand gasoline prices are high because of tight fuel supplies due to the lack of new refineries that can process crude oil into motor fuel.
"My attitude is that the oil companies need to be mindful that the American people expect them to reinvest their cash flows in such a way that it enhances our energy security," Bush said. "That means expansion of refineries."
However, the administration is against imposing a windfall-profits tax on big oil companies that do not use some of their record earnings to build new refineries.
So in short, this is what is happened with big oil (and this is all documented fact):
1.) They realize they can make much higher profits if demand was greater than supply.
2.) To make this happen, they shut down over 50 operational refineries, lowering supply to dangerous levels, causing the cost of refined oil to skyrocket, and sending their profits skyrocketing right along with it.
3) They say "Hey we can't build new refineries because of all of these crazy *** enviromental regulations that keep us from doing things like pumping toxic waste into drinkign water."
4) Whistleblowers release documents proving that the current shortage of supply was planned by big oil as a way to increase profits.
5) The republican controlled congress aranges it so that the oil execs would not have to testify under oath at the hearings on oil policy so that they won't have to answer questions about their price gouging scheme
6) Big Oil enjoys record profits, over 400% growth in profits over a ten year period, money coming directly from your and my pockets.
7) the president and his big oil friends continue to protect big oil's profits, at any cost.
And you keep missing the point. 50 refineries closed between 1991 and 2001. So why didn't gas prices spike in 2001? Last I checked, it is 2006. The document you site proves nothing. The points you make, I am sure, are what you wish to be true, but where is the evidence? Nothing you have cited would even lead to an indictment, and no offense intended, greater people than you or I have looked into this and found nothing. Further, how do you continue to ignore hard economic data regarding supply and demand? Before you make charges of a vast conspiracy, don't you think it wise to have evidence, first?
I fully understand that nothing I can say will ever change your mind. You have already found oil companies guilty. But for those of us whom are not willing to restart figurative public burnings, prove your contentions. Give us hard data. If you cannot, admit it and move on.
BlazerMatt Wrote:Here is a quote from a leader for ya:
Quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Though gasoline prices are soaring, President George W. Bush said on Friday he has no evidence that oil companies are illegally overcharging consumers at the pump.
Bush this week ordered the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether oil companies are profiteering on gasoline. The national gasoline price soared 13 cents in the last week to an average $2.91 a gallon, the fourth highest price ever in the Energy Department's weekly survey of service stations.
"I have no evidence that there is any rip-off taking place," Bush told reporters at the White House. "But it's the role of the Federal Trade Commission to assure me that my inclination and instinct is right," he added.
Bush said consumers "expect to be treated fairly at the pump," but they must understand gasoline prices are high because of tight fuel supplies due to the lack of new refineries that can process crude oil into motor fuel.
"My attitude is that the oil companies need to be mindful that the American people expect them to reinvest their cash flows in such a way that it enhances our energy security," Bush said. "That means expansion of refineries."
However, the administration is against imposing a windfall-profits tax on big oil companies that do not use some of their record earnings to build new refineries.
So in short, this is what is happened with big oil (and this is all documented fact):
1.) They realize they can make much higher profits if demand was greater than supply.
2.) To make this happen, they shut down over 50 operational refineries, lowering supply to dangerous levels, causing the cost of refined oil to skyrocket, and sending their profits skyrocketing right along with it.
3) They say "Hey we can't build new refineries because of all of these crazy *** enviromental regulations that keep us from doing things like pumping toxic waste into drinkign water."
4) Whistleblowers release documents proving that the current shortage of supply was planned by big oil as a way to increase profits.
5) The republican controlled congress aranges it so that the oil execs would not have to testify under oath at the hearings on oil policy so that they won't have to answer questions about their price gouging scheme
6) Big Oil enjoys record profits, over 400% growth in profits over a ten year period, money coming directly from your and my pockets.
7) the president and his big oil friends continue to protect big oil's profits, at any cost.
ok, so things that happened before bush was president are still his fault? good, i was just trying to clear that up.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wtotworldw.htm
http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm
oil prices have gone up by more than 400% since 1991, so it makes sense for profits to increase too.
Did you even read the PDF I linked too? It contains links to the actual oil company documents, read and learn.
Ask yourself "Why is my president and his republican allies protecing oil company officialls from answering questions about their actions under oath?"
dfarr Wrote:Sarahbelle18 Wrote:dfarr Wrote:Sarahbelle18 Wrote:Here's the woman who dfarr endorses and offers selections from to present to us:
Coulter supported the apartheid regime in South Africa and has called black people "savages."
"In response to a question on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Miss Coulter said she supported the government of Israel for the same reason she supported apartheid in South Africa, because they were surrounded by 'savages.'" (Source: Daily Bruin, University of California at Los Angeles)
In an article published one day after the 9/11 attacks, she wrote, "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
On February 10, 2006, the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference applauded her when she referred to Arabs as "ragheads" and said, "I think our motto should be post-9-11, raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences."
Coulter describes people who practice the religion of Islam as "camel jockey", "jihad monkey" and "tent merchant".
Coulter has stated that women are "not as bright" as men (Hannity and Colmes, 09/23/04), "have no capacity to understand how money is earned" (Politically Incorrect, 02/26/01), and "shouldn't be in the military" (Hannity and Colmes, 05/05/04).
On a few occasions Coulter has suggested that the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote should be repealed. In a 14 February 2000 National Review Online article she wrote, "If this ticket doesn't close the gender gap, it's time to repeal the 19th Amendment." On 26 February 2001, she said, "[women should] all have to give up their vote" (Politically Incorrect). She also argues that banning women from voting would ensure Republican presidents would be elected ? as historical voting patterns had shown men had voted in majorities for Republican candidates.
Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Arkansas, on January 26, 2006, Coulter said of United States Supreme Court Justice Stevens: "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' cr?me br?l?e. That's just a joke, for you in the media."
"The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet ? it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars ? that's the Biblical view."
You don't want the Republicans in power, does that mean you want a dictatorship, gay boy?" ? February 24, 2006
do u want me to get some quotes from the LEADERS of the political left? coulter is merely a talking head on the right, far from a leader. however, i could find some good quotes from Sen. Byrd, the only man who can claim to have voted against both black nominees to the supreme court. its one thing for a journalist/loud mouth for your side to say some appalling things, but its totally different when the people who are the movers & shakers of your side to say things.
coulter wasnt completely wrong about south africa. what was once a very rich & plentiful country has turned into a AIDS infested country w/ hardly any money. that doesnt defend apartheid, but her statement about being surround by savages has proved itself to be true.
and u heard numerous people from the right come out and condemn coulter after she started calling muslims ragheads and such. you never hear the left condemn anyone.
Sure...quote left leaders and I'll give you twice as many quotes from right leaders.
If we're discussing pundits, then quote left pundits.
"A spoiled child (Bush) is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little b*stard. [audio of gun being cocked]." -- A "humor bit" from the Randi Rhodes show
"Do our government's poorly paid contract killers deserve our "support" for blindly following orders?" -- Ted Rall shows his "support" for the troops
"If I had my way, I would see Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell strapped down to electric chairs and lit up like Christmas trees. The better to light the way for American Democracy and American Freedom!" -- Democratic Talk Radio's Stephen Crockett
why dont u want to discuss people who actually matter to the parties?
Ummm...because it's completely irrelevent to this thread?
You want to talk stupid leaders and the things they say, start a new thread.
Quote:oil prices have gone up by more than 400% since 1991, so it makes sense for profits to increase too.
No, it would have made sense for their net income to have gone up 400%...
Their PROFITS have gone up 400%, their net income has gone up a lot more than that.
Whistleblowers from within the oil industry first came foward with this information in 2001.... quick, who was the President in 2001? Who has the President been since then? What has been done about it? I know what the Democrats in the House and Senate have tried to do, they have tried to hold hearing on this since.... ready for this... 2001, in other words, as soon as the whistleblowers came foward, there were those there who were wanting to investigate it. Every time they tried to start a congessional investigation into it, Republicans blocked it. Every time. Then, when gas hit $3.00 a gallon, they finally had to allow an investigation, but insured that it would not hurt the oil industry by not requiring a single oil executive to answer questions under oath.
BlazerMatt Wrote:Did you even read the PDF I linked too? It contains links to the actual oil company documents, read and learn.
Ask yourself "Why is my president and his republican allies protecing oil company officialls from answering questions about their actions under oath?"
ok, if all the refineries were open, it still would lower the price about 20-30 cents. which is a pretty decent chunk at current prices. according to conocophillips, about 15% of the cost of oil comes from the refining process. however, 58% of the price comes from the cost of the crude itself.
my point is that these refineries have been closed for a while now and nobody has complained one bit. so these outrageous prices have more to do w/ the cost of crude than they do with refineries being shut down.
i do agree w/ u that the oil company people should have to testify about why some of these refineries were shut down though.
BlazerMatt Wrote:Did you even read the PDF I linked too? It contains links to the actual oil company documents, read and learn.
Ask yourself "Why is my president and his republican allies protecing oil company officialls from answering questions about their actions under oath?"
Yes, I did, and I would note that the document is dated June 2001, the internal documents you refer to are from the mid-1990's. That is nearly five years ago in the first case, and a decade in the second. What you need to ask yourself is where is the proof.
Perhaps you overlooked the dates?
Are you some sort of tard? The dates are the whole point! All of this first came to light back in 2001. Every attempt to get more information about big oil and their policies, have been shot down by this administration. on literally hundreds of occasions, Democrats have tried to get meaningful investigations started on these issues. Every single time they have been shut down by Republicans in congress and in this administration.
Are you going to deny the Bush Administration's ties to big oil? Are you going to deny that big oil writes the energy policy fir the bush administration?
BlazerMatt Wrote:Are you some sort of tard? The dates are the whole point! All of this first came to light back in 2001. Every attempt to get more information about big oil and their policies, have been shot down by this administration. on literally hundreds of occasions, Democrats have tried to get meaningful investigations started on these issues. Every single time they have been shut down by Republicans in congress and in this administration.
Are you going to deny the Bush Administration's ties to big oil? Are you going to deny that big oil writes the energy policy fir the bush administration?
Again, I find it endlessly amusing that anytime people on the left are asked to merely bring forward evidence of their claims, they resort to personal attacks.
I asked you a simple question about whether you had any evidence of the claims you are making. To date you have only pointed to a legislative brief by one Senator penned in June 2001 which cites a few papers from the mid-1990's and certain alleged investifations that never happened. This is not proof.
Further, any collusion to fix prices in the mid-1990's should have been investigated by the Clinton administration. You have advanced no evidence if such were the case (though if you read Krauhammer's editorial in today's WaPo you would see investigations were ordered and came up with nothing). Assuming for the sake of argument there was collusion in the mid-1990's, as you suggest, if it was not prosecuted then the statute of limitations has probably run.
Yet, in asking for evidence for your claims, I am evidently a "tard" to use your language. Way to be intolerant, not just of me but to use a term that is not politically correct.
I guess in the future I should be quicker to indict on baseless charges and not ask for such senseless things as evidence?
Quote:have u seen these "millions of acres of wildlife" that you're so worried about? it is nothing but barren land, plus it wouldnt disturbe millions of acres. only 2000 acres of 19.5 million would be allowed to be drilled.
Umm, have you ever been there? I have. I've seen tens of thousands of caribou wandering the landscape (and I shot a couple, but I was on a hunting trip with local Inupiat, who live on what little of that refuge the federal government hasn't yet taken from them. And, by the way, they did use the caribou for food and clothing before you start shouting about that.). Not to mention bears, wolves, and birds of dozens of species. It's NOT a barren wilderness, despite what the moron in the Senate from Alaska claims. It's home to a people who lived there long before we white men came to the United States, but we've done everything we can to destroy it. Before YOU start repeating the words of fools, perhaps you should take some time to investigate exactly what's going on.
Government drilling has been going on there for years; to the native's great expense. They do not profit from the oil that's already been pumped from their lands; instead, they see native species wiped out by it. Until you've spent some time in their shoes (which are leather-like things made from caribou and whale hide), don't discard it for further development.
It should also be noted that there's NO EVIDENCE that oil is on some of this land the government wants to drill. They want to do EXPLORATORY DRILLING (which is like strip mining; just to go West Virginia to see how that's destroyed thousands of acres of eco-system) to see if there's even anything there. They'll go in, destroy the native landscape, find nothing, and then leave it decimated. That's what Bush wants to do.
UAB Kirksville Wrote:Quote:have u seen these "millions of acres of wildlife" that you're so worried about? it is nothing but barren land, plus it wouldnt disturbe millions of acres. only 2000 acres of 19.5 million would be allowed to be drilled.
Umm, have you ever been there? I have. I've seen tens of thousands of caribou wandering the landscape (and I shot a couple, but I was on a hunting trip with local Inupiat, who live on what little of that refuge the federal government hasn't yet taken from them. And, by the way, they did use the caribou for food and clothing before you start shouting about that.). Not to mention bears, wolves, and birds of dozens of species. It's NOT a barren wilderness, despite what the moron in the Senate from Alaska claims. It's home to a people who lived there long before we white men came to the United States, but we've done everything we can to destroy it. Before YOU start repeating the words of fools, perhaps you should take some time to investigate exactly what's going on.
Government drilling has been going on there for years; to the native's great expense. They do not profit from the oil that's already been pumped from their lands; instead, they see native species wiped out by it. Until you've spent some time in their shoes (which are leather-like things made from caribou and whale hide), don't discard it for further development.
It should also be noted that there's NO EVIDENCE that oil is on some of this land the government wants to drill. They want to do EXPLORATORY DRILLING (which is like strip mining; just to go West Virginia to see how that's destroyed thousands of acres of eco-system) to see if there's even anything there. They'll go in, destroy the native landscape, find nothing, and then leave it decimated. That's what Bush wants to do.
2000 acres out of 19.5 million is a drop in the bucket. we either look for oil in places other than the middle east, or people just need to shut up about the price of oil. if you arent going to support looking for oil in other places, then quit your bitchin.
Actually, when compared to other countries, our gas prices are still fairly moderate. As a rep, I'm in favor of utilizing different energy sources. I f'ing hate paying $90 to my wife's car up. However, if we are not going to use other energy sources, we should drill the piss out of Alaska and Colorado. We would be much better off not being dependant on oil from Mexico and the middle east. My company car will be a hybrid when I reorder in the fall. A republican in a hybrid, what is the world coming to?
Q&A: What's Behind High Gas Prices?
by Scott Horsley
NPR.org, April 27, 2006 ? With average prices at the pump approaching $3 a gallon, filling up is causing American consumers increasing pain in the pocketbook. A look at the issues surrounding high gas prices:
What factors are causing gas prices to rise so quickly?
The biggest factor in rising costs is the price of crude oil, followed by the cost of refining.
If a gallon of gasoline costs $2.90 (this week's average, according to the Energy Department), crude oil accounts for about $1.60. The cost of crude oil on the futures market has risen about 33 percent in the last year. This reflects supply problems in such places as Nigeria, Iraq and the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the threat of supply problems in Iran.
Refining costs add another 64 cents or so to a gallon of gasoline. Refining margins have increased from a few years ago, and are especially high this spring, because many refineries are currently shut down for seasonal maintenance. Refineries are still recovering from the effects of last year's hurricanes. And they are adjusting to more stringent low-sulfur fuel requirements and the phase-out of the gasoline additive MTBE.
The balance of the price is taxes -- about 55 cents -- and distribution and marketing costs, which account for about 11 cents per gallon.
OK. So the rising cost of crude oil and of refining help account for the spike in gas prices. But at the same time, oil companies are reporting record net profits. They're being accused of price gouging. What's their response?
Big oil companies are making most of their money by producing crude oil. They invested in oil fields when prices were much lower, with the expectation that they could break even at, say, $25 per barrel. Since the market price is now more than $70 a barrel, the extra money is gravy. It's like a farmer who can raise corn for $1.50 a bushel. If the market price is $1.75, he makes a quarter per bushel. If the market price jumps to $2.25, his profits jump as well. (If the market crashes to $1 per bushel, the farmer loses money. That can happen to oil companies as well.) Oil companies, like the farmer, are the beneficiaries of high market prices, but they can no more control those prices than a farmer can dictate what he gets for a bushel of corn.
Critics would say the oil industry is far less competitive than the corn market, which is certainly true. But if oil companies could control the price of crude oil, they would not have allowed the price to fall to $10 a barrel as it did in 1998.
Then who sets the prices?
Oil companies don't set crude-oil prices; the global market does. Basically, the market decides what people are willing to pay at a certain moment in time. And a lot of that has to do with the fact that the world is getting richer. Countries like India and China are growing, and that has created more demand for oil and gas. In the United States, we're still going full throttle when it comes to energy use. At the same time, there have been supply disruptions and political instability in major oil-producing nations. So you have a situation where demand has been growing steadily and inexorably, and the system of supply is quite vulnerable. That's the basic recipe for high prices.
If the market sets prices for oil, then what role does OPEC play? How does it affect prices?
Traditionally, OPEC set limits on how much oil its member countries produce in order to keep the price higher than it would be in a truly competitive market (but not so high as to encourage development of alternatives). This often worked, despite widespread cheating by OPEC members, who often produced above their quotas. OPEC's production quotas are less of a factor in limiting supplies today, since members other than Saudi Arabia are almost all producing as much oil as they possibly can.
Iraq's oil production hasn't recovered to its prewar levels. Has this had a major impact on global oil supply and prices?
Yes. In January 2003, before the U.S. invasion, Iraq produced 2.5 million barrels of oil per day. Production fell sharply during the invasion, and recovered to as much as 2.3 million barrels per day in 2004. Last year, however, Iraq rarely produced as much as 2 million barrels a day. And in January of this year, daily production was only 1.6 million barrels. By itself, this would not be a huge loss to the world market. But coupled with supply problems in Nigeria, Venezuela and the Gulf of Mexico, it doesn't help.
Some Republicans want to open up Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas drilling. What kind of impact might ANWR oil have on prices?
The Energy Department forecasts that if ANWR were opened to drilling, it would add about 900,000 barrels of oil per day to global supplies. That would just about make up for the current gap in Iraq's production. But the new barrels wouldn't become available for many years.
Are prices really that high when compared to other countries or to the gas crisis of the late '70s and early '80s?
Gasoline prices have increased sharply in the last two years. But over a longer period of time, the prices of other goods have increased even more. In March of 1981, the average price of gasoline nationwide peaked at $1.42 a gallon. If gasoline prices had simply risen at the same rate as other goods since then, the average price today would be $3.08. (Although gas prices are higher than that in some areas, the national average is still about 18 cents shy of the all-time high.)
Drivers in some other countries have it worse. Gasoline prices in the United Kingdom, Italy and the Netherlands are at least twice as high as those in the United States. (But drivers in oil-rich countries such as Kuwait, Nigeria and Venezuela pay less than a $1 a gallon for gas.)
Is there any evidence that people are starting to change their habits in response to higher prices?
When you ask drivers at the gas station, "Are you trying to conserve?," they invariably say they are. But weekly data from the Energy Department show that we're still using more gasoline than we were a year ago. It's likely that the pace of growth has slowed because of the high price.
It also appears that people shopping for new cars are paying more attention to fuel economy than they were a few years ago. Buyers of hybrid and fuel-efficient diesel cars are already eligible for tax breaks, and this week President Bush called on Congress to expand those.
The Bush administration is supporting an investigation into possible price gouging. Meanwhile, some members of Congress are talking about a windfall profits tax. Will those measures help?
The government has conducted numerous investigations of suspected "price gouging" in the past; it usually finds that market forces of supply and demand, not illegal market manipulation, are responsible for high prices. The idea of a windfall profits tax was raised last year and went nowhere. Oil companies say taxing their profits would limit their ability to invest in new oil fields or refineries, although at least one proposal, from Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), would tax only those windfall profits that were NOT reinvested.
Are there any short-term fixes?
The market solutions are: a) increase supply; and b) decrease demand. The seasonal crunch in refining capacity should ease in the next few weeks. But unless peace suddenly breaks out around the globe, crude oil supplies are likely to remain tight. So decreasing demand is our best hope in the short run.
What about long-term fixes?
They're the same: increase supply and decrease demand. But in the long term, we have more opportunities to do this, by developing new oil fields, building new refineries, replacing gas guzzlers with gas sippers, and searching for alternative fuels.