Hows that $4 a gallon feel

clarise · Mar 19, 2012

Code:
stumbler said: ↑

CO2 is killing us. Literally. In tornadoes, and floods, and heat strokes. But you're just bullshitting yourself if you try to claim we in the US are doing anything about it.

But the main thing you brainwashed parrots don't understand is reality. The reality as I've already posted on this thread that oil is running out and the price is only keep going up over time.
Click to expand...

This lament is reminiscent of DL's remark that "one could argue Marx predicted the Depression." Just because one "can argue it," does not make it true.

Same here. Just because some bureaucratic Chicago hack gets installed at the EPA as a reward for getting another hack elected, and goes on to declare that CO2 is killing us, does not make it true. The hack is still a hack, and he is only saying it to shift wealth from one batch of robber barons (the oil industry) to another (the green industry).

We have always had tornadoes. We have always had heat stroke. We have always had floods.

I wish my car did not run on gas. I do. Honestly. But it does. And either my next car will run on fossil fuel, or it will run on electricity produced by fossil fuel. Guaranteed. The anti-nuclear lobby (a.k.a., the same Green Movement that is shutting down the coal industry) has seen to that.

The point of Krauthammer's op-ed is that while, yes, Obama himself cannot tip gas prices one way or another, it is also indisputable that he is a shill for a Green power structure that is dismantling the existing energy industry and replacing it with nothing.

DL will detest me for saying this, but I can't help it: the trend is unnervingly Randian, and looks like it might have been heisted straight from Atlas Shrugged. Just replace Rand's locomotives and copper mines with coal and oil. Exact same plotline.

stumbler · Mar 19, 2012

Oil Falls From One-Week High; BofA Boosts 2012 Forecsts

March 19 (Bloomberg) --Brent oil declined in London after data showed Saudi Arabian crude output at close to the largest level in three decades. U.S. crude advanced.

Futures fell as much as 0.8 percent. Saudi Arabia, the largest producer in OPEC, pumped 9.87 million barrels a day in January, according to data submitted to the Joint Organization Data Initiative. Bank of America Corp. raised 2012 price forecasts after the economic recovery beat expectations.

“There’s no immediate supply shortage,” said Andrey Kryuchenkov, an analyst at VTB Capital in London, who correctly predicted last month that prices had peaked in the short-term. “As Brent gets past $120, market participants start worrying about demand and hence you’re getting extremely choppy trading at the moment. It’s unlikely we’ll see a sustained push higher from here.”

Brent oil for May settlement was at $125.36 a barrel, down 45 cents, on ICE Futures Europe exchange in London. The European benchmark contract was at a premium of $17.58 to New York futures for the same month.
Click to expand...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-19/oil-falls-from-one-week-high-bofa-boosts-2012-forecsts.html

stumbler · Mar 19, 2012

The claim that won’t die: Did Obama want higher gas prices?

President Obama said he would prefer a gradual adjustment to near $4 a gallon gasoline. President Obama said that. And, unfortunately, the president has put policies in place that have gotten us now to $4 a gallon, or almost, in gasoline prices. We’ve seen it. It was $1.83 when he started as president; it’s over $3.70 now. So the president’s got his wish, and people are furious about it.” — Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) during hearing of House energy committee, March 8, 2012

Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise is toeing the Republican Party line here, accusing the president of consciously trying to raise gas prices to wean Americans off carbon fuels. Earlier this month, we determined that Indiana’s Gov. Mitch Daniels deserved three Pinocchios for making similar claims.

We mentioned in our previous column that we hadn’t found a single instance in which President Obama advocated higher gas prices. A reader later mentioned that he’d found an example, pointing out a June 2008 interview in which then-Sen. Obama discussed energy policy on CNBC. The trading and investment blog TownHallFinance.com used that same video to suggest we’d missed the mark with our analysis of Daniels’s remarks.

We reviewed the 2008 interview (which you can view below) and took yet another look at the current state of U.S. oil production to determine whether anything should change about our previous determination. If not, Scalise would deserve just as many Pinocchios as Daniels.

The Facts

First, we’ll discuss the interview between then-Sen. Obama and CNBC’s John Harwood. Here’s an exchange from that meeting:

Obama: I think that we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage, and the president frankly hasn’t had an energy policy. As a consequence, we’ve been consuming energy as if it’s infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are.
Harwood: So, could these high prices help us?
Obama: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly U.S. automakers, then I think, ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.
You’ll notice Obama doesn’t expressly state that he opposes high gas prices but says he doesn’t think cost hikes should happen suddenly or dramatically. This is what the president’s critics cite as damning evidence of his true intentions.

But these comments deserve some context. (View the entire transcript here). Obama was discussing gas prices that had already hit about $4 per gallon. He proposed a holistic solution that would include investments in alternative fuels and higher auto-efficiency standards, complemented by immediate financial relief through temporary tax cuts.

Does that mean the president thinks higher gas prices make good energy policy? He didn’t exactly answer directly during the CNBC interview, even though Harwood asked the question twice. But Obama made his position perfectly clear on March 6, when he faced a similar question during a White House press conference.
Here’s what the president said:

“Look, here’s the bottom line with respect to gas prices. I want gas prices lower because they hurt families, because I meet folks every day who have to drive a long way to get to work. And then filling up this gas tank gets more and more painful, and it’s a tax out of their pocketbooks, out of their paychecks. And a lot of folks are already operating on the margins right now.
And it’s not good for the overall economy because when gas prices go up, consumer spending oftentimes pulls back.
And we’re in the midst right now of a recovery that is starting to build up steam, and we don’t want to reverse it.”
In both instances we’ve cited, Obama suggested he’s averse to letting gas prices shock families’ finances. In his White House remarks, he said point blank: “I want gas prices lower.”

Has the president taken adequate steps to make that happen?
It’s hard to know yet without a crystal ball. That’s because presidents don’t have a ton of control over the price of gas while they’re in office, as an article in Tuesday’s Washington Post explains. Take drilling for example. The Department of the Interior works with five-year lease plans for extraction, and the last plan from President George W. Bush ended just this year.

That’s not to disparage Bush over today’s prices. According to Jay Hakes, a former Energy Information Administration official interviewed for the Washington Post article, Bush deserves credit for signing 2007 legislation that has kept the current situation from being worse.
Hakes also said Obama “is on a good path to ease future markets” because of his decision to open new areas for exploration and development -- particularly offshore along Alaska’s Arctic coasts -- and to implement stricter fuel-efficiency standards.

It’s hard to deny that the Obama administration has tried to control costs to some degree, even if it’s with an eye toward the future. The White House on Monday released a report from various federal agencies that laid out steps taken to achieve greater energy independence and affordability. Among the accomplishments: new fuel-efficiency standards, an increase of 120,000 barrels per day in domestic oil production last year, and the approval of dozens of renewable energy projects.

The report also notes that domestic oil production has risen each year that Obama has been in the White House, that the United States is importing about 24 percent less oil each day compared to when the president first took office, and that the nation has led the world in natural-gas production since that same time.

Republicans contend that the administration still hasn’t done enough, pointing out that it rejected the Keystone XL pipeline project -- at least for now -- and resisted new drilling on federal lands.

Obama had his reasons for that decision. Critics say he was pandering to environmentalists in preparation for the 2012 election. The president himself claims he could not approve the pipeline until the firm hoping to build it developed a route circumventing environmentally sensitive sandhills in Nebraska.

Obama lately has touted rising domestic oil and gas production as proof that his administration is taking steps to control energy prices. Critics argue that most of the increase has come from drilling on private rather than federal lands. We question whether that really matters so long as production is up, especially when many oil and gas companies are sitting on existing leases.

A March 2011 report from the Department of the Interior showed that the oil and gas industry was not using half of its onshore federal leases at the time. Industry advocates say that isn’t the case any more, since high prices have made drilling more lucrative. They argue that the government should open up new lands to prepare for future spikes.

Scalise spokesman Stephen Bell says the Obama administration has hampered oil and gas production in ways beyond drilling policies, for example by “attempting to restrict hydraulic fracturing.”

The president rejected a moratorium on so-called “fracking” in 2010, suggesting he’s relatively lax toward the industry to date. And although his administration has considered new regulations, many Republicans have called for the same, especially when the hydraulic fracturing operations would take place in their home states.

Bell also claims the Obama administration has restricted off-shore oil exploration, but that’s a dubious claim. The DOI has proposed opening more than 75 percent of “undiscovered technically recoverable” off-shore oil and gas resources for lease.

The American Petroleum Institute claims that the 75-percent figure is misleading because it excludes areas where the industry wants to do more exploration. A fact sheet from the industry advocate states: “If the administration would allow leasing in these areas, exploratory work would proceed, and we would have a better sense of what’s out there (probably more than the administration assumes).”

That claim rings somewhat hollow considering that oil companies haven’t always swooped up leases when they’re available. In December, the DOI made available 21 million off-shore acres in the Gulf of Mexico (thought to have the richest reserves of any U.S. coast), but the industry grabbed only 1 million acres.

DOI spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz said the claims of off-shore drilling restrictions are misleading. “The administration continues to offer more acres for lease than industry chooses to purchase,” she said.

The Pinocchio Test

Some of Obama’s comments from 2008 suggest that he thinks there’s a silver lining to higher prices, but they also indicate that he doesn’t want energy prices to affect the pocketbooks of working families. Critics say the president’s policies have caused the recent price hike, but experts suggest he has less control over the current cost of oil than people generally think. With that in mind, he probably deserves less blame for existing pain at the pump, as well as less credit for the increased production he likes to brag about.

As for Obama’s regulatory policies, they show that the president is willing to cite environmental and public-safety concerns when it comes to energy, whether it’s in terms of production and emissions. He has also proposed killing tax breaks for oil companies. One could argue, as some Republicans have, that some of these policies put upward pressure on prices, but that’s different than consciously trying to raise prices -- as though Obama is secretly smiling about the cost hikes.

Our earlier ruling stands. Scalise earns three Pinocchios for suggesting that the president “got his wish” with $4-per-gallon gasoline.

Three Pinocchios

Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ces/2012/03/13/gIQAf0EW9R_blog.html#pagebreak

CS natureboy · Mar 19, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

The claim that won’t die: Did Obama want higher gas prices?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ces/2012/03/13/gIQAf0EW9R_blog.html#pagebreak
Click to expand...

Why don't you give the pimpdaddy dick sucking cut and paste a break?

clarise · Mar 19, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

The claim that won’t die: Did Obama want higher gas prices?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ces/2012/03/13/gIQAf0EW9R_blog.html#pagebreak
Click to expand...

.......

True. All true.

Either you are being disingenuous, or you really do not get it: that the president does not have to advocate for anything. Funny thing. Bush didn't personally advocate for anything, either. And his dad's mentor, Ronald Reagan, successfully pleaded the fifth on Iran Contra, along with everything else, because he did not personally advocate for a single solitary thing.

Yet Barack Hussein Obama can somehow pick and choose. When things go right, he's a genius. When things go wrong, it's someone else's fault.

Obama has no more power, personally, than Reagan had, or than Carter had, or than Clinton had, or than 'W' had. When you finally get that fundamental truth, you will sound just a little bit less like Obama's last apologist, and a little bit more like an articulate and remarkably bright guy.

Dude, you are, like so ready to read Atlas Shrugged. I know you've been told it's wrong, all wrong. The prose is wooden. The philosophy is prosaic and quaint. Forget all of that. Just forget everything you've heard about how wrong Ayn Rand is, and how she can't write, and just read the damned thing. Even your blood would run cold.

stumbler · Mar 19, 2012

clarise said: ↑

.......

True. All true.

Either you are being disingenuous, or you really do not get it: that the president does not have to advocate for anything. Funny thing. Bush didn't personally advocate for anything, either. And his dad's mentor, Ronald Reagan, successfully pleaded the fifth on Iran Contra, along with everything else, because he did not personally advocate for a single solitary thing.

Yet Barack Hussein Obama can somehow pick and choose. When things go right, he's a genius. When things go wrong, it's someone else's fault.

Obama has no more power, personally, than Reagan had, or than Carter had, or than Clinton had, or than 'W' had. When you finally get that fundamental truth, you will sound just a little bit less like Obama's last apologist, and a little bit more like an articulate and remarkably bright guy.

Dude, you are, like so ready to read Atlas Shrugged. I know you've been told it's wrong, all wrong. The prose is wooden. The philosophy is prosaic and quaint. Forget all of that. Just forget everything you've heard about how wrong Ayn Rand is, and how she can't write, and just read the damned thing. Even your blood would run cold.
Click to expand...

Non-fuck you Clarise and your phony condescending bullshit that YOU ARE THE ONLY THAT EVER READ A FUCKING BOOK.

CS natureboy · Mar 19, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

Non-fuck you Clarise and your phony condescending bullshit that YOU ARE THE ONLY THAT EVER READ A FUCKING BOOK.
Click to expand...

Wow!!!! You really are stupid, aren't you? LMAO!!!!

So, is your brain damage the result of sniffing gas and being dropped on your head when you were a kid?:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

stumbler · Mar 19, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

Non-fuck you Clarise and your phony condescending bullshit that YOU ARE THE ONLY THAT EVER READ A FUCKING BOOK.
Click to expand...

Here's your Atlas Shrugged today which you are the poster boy for.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

CS natureboy · Mar 19, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

Here's your Atlas Shrugged today which you are the poster boy for.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
Click to expand...

Hey, how about some more worthless cut and paste bullshit from the white hating bigot stumbler!!!!

He never gets tired of showing us all just how over the top stupid he really is...:excited::excited::excited::excited::excited::excited::excited::excited:

clarise · Mar 19, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

Here's your Atlas Shrugged today which you are the poster boy for.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
Click to expand...

CS NatureBoy is right. I don't know which nerve I touched, and I don't care.

You know, you veer to the personal, in your efforts to insult me, just a little bit too much for your own comfort. Given that you have volunteered more than a little of yourself to me, over the past couple years, in your rants. And given that I have a long memory.

Yet I never (or at least seldom ever) throw the insults back at you. The reason, of course, is that I happen to like you. As far as this shithole and my need for anonymity will allow. You've got a problem with that.

And that's okay, too.

If it's any consolation, I still think you're a chemically addled ultra-left loon.

stumbler · Mar 19, 2012

clarise said: ↑

CS NatureBoy is right. I don't know which nerve I touched, and I don't care.

You know, you veer to the personal, in your efforts to insult me, just a little bit too much for your own comfort. Given that you have volunteered more than a little of yourself to me, over the past couple years, in your rants. And given that I have a long memory.

Yet I never (or at least seldom ever) throw the insults back at you. The reason, of course, is that I happen to like you. As far as this shithole and my need for anonymity will allow. You've got a problem with that.

And that's okay, too.

If it's any consolation, I still think you're a chemically addled ultra-left loon.
Click to expand...

Then we are even aren't we? We don't like or respect each other but you and the Natural Boy should be very happy together.

CS natureboy · Mar 19, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

Then we are even aren't we? We don't like or respect each other but you and the Natural Boy should be very happy together.
Click to expand...

LOL, you sound like someone who is very desperate and alone...

More than likely, if there ever was anyone in your life, you have long since drove them away with your hateful personality and attitude.

clarise · Mar 19, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

Then we are even aren't we? We don't like or respect each other but you and the Natural Boy should be very happy together.
Click to expand...

Arrrggghhh. Men. I just wrote that I do like you. Fool.

stumbler · Mar 19, 2012

clarise said: ↑

Arrrggghhh. Men. I just wrote that I do like you. Fool.
Click to expand...

You've got me there. An obvious error. Ok you win. I don't like or respect you regardless of your personal feelings.

You win.

Distant Lover · Mar 20, 2012

CS natureboy said: ↑

LOL, you sound like someone who is very desperate and alone...

More than likely, if there ever was anyone in your life, you have long since drove them away with your hateful personality and attitude.
Click to expand...

Talk much.

ace's n 8's · Mar 20, 2012

RandyKnight said: ↑

This info came out in 2006

read the disclaimer
http://www.rense.com/disclaimer.htm

They use the link for Stansberry Associates which the link does not work.
Stansberry associates is a shock type penny stock tout that sells info on what they think will be the next big deal
here is there home-site
http://www.stansberryresearch.com/
I have run down many of there Bull Shit claims and they are for the most part BS

here is fact check ORG on this matter

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/us-offshore-oil-reserves/
Click to expand...

3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Oil in North Dakota and Montana

Title: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Oil in North Dakota and Montana
Description: The USGS has determined that the Bakken Formation, in North Dakota and Montana, has 25 times more technically recoverable oil than was estimated in the USGS's 1995 assessment. We sit down with USGS scientists Brenda Pierce and Rich Pollastro to learn more.
Location:USA
Date Taken: 4/10/2008
Click to expand...

http://gallery.usgs.gov/audios/38

RickyRoma · Mar 20, 2012

Obama on Gas Prices: There's nothing I can do. . .

Saudi Arabia: Step Back Negro. I don't want you to get hurt when I whip this out!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/49ec22cc-71ea-11e1-8497-00144feab49a.html#axzz1pfEvMDgM

Saudi Arabia moves to calm oil market

By Javier Blas in London

Saudi Arabia is taking steps to cool the overheating global energy market, boosting its exports to the US and re-opening old oilfields to expand production, as the world’s largest oil producer tries to prevent damage to the global economic recovery.
The Saudi cabinet on Monday said the kingdom would work “individually” and with others for the “return [of] oil prices to fair levels”. Riyadh recently said it aimed to keep oil prices at $100.
“High oil prices . . . can lead to negative effects on the global economy,” the cabinet agreed, according to a summary carried by the official Saudi news agency.

shootersa · Mar 20, 2012

Distant Lover said: ↑

What have I said that is not true?
Click to expand...

It's what you didn't say. And you know it.

stumbler · Mar 20, 2012

ace's n 8's said: ↑

3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Oil in North Dakota and Montana

http://gallery.usgs.gov/audios/38
Click to expand...

Hey Ace that's great. At our current rate of consumption which is 4 billion barrels per year that's a whole year's worth of oil you gullible parrot.

stumbler · Mar 20, 2012

And now we can watch the actual price gouging in action and why the oil companies actually make more money when the price of oil falls. And its this simple. When the price of oil goes up the price of gasoline and diesel go up instantly. Even though the gas they are selling was actually made from oil purchased about 90 days before at a lower price. But when the price of oil drops gasoline prices don't fall at the same rate and always end just a little higher than before. That's why we are looking at $4 per gallon gas now with oil down to about $125 per barrel when in 2008 we were paying $4 per gallon but the price of oil was $140.

Take note the price of oil has been dropping but not the price of gasoline.

http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/

Log in or Sign up

clarise Precious princess Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

clarise Precious princess Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

clarise Precious princess Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

clarise Precious princess Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

Distant Lover Master of Facts

ace's n 8's Porn Star

RickyRoma Porn Star

shootersa Frisky Feline

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Hows that $4 a gallon feel

Log in or Sign up

clarise Precious princess Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

clarise Precious princess Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

clarise Precious princess Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

clarise Precious princess Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

Distant Lover Master of Facts

ace's n 8's Porn Star

RickyRoma Porn Star

shootersa Frisky Feline

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Useful Searches