Obama said no to American energy independence and yes to radical environmentalists

[Pogo]

Now, as to Pogo and all the other nay sayers, your points are insufficient to justify my continued presence.

Translation: he's been humiliated as an ignoramus and skulks away back to devote more time to snapping at Nurse Ratchet.


And now hear this dipshit: don't you EVER edit my posts. You've been reported, asshole.

OK asshole, I did not edit your posts and I discussed this with the moderator you went whining to when I put points in (mostly to identify). You aren't smart enough to recognize the fact that I changed nothing of your comment and you proved my point that you have insufficient intelligence to carry on a reasonable discussion. In addition to which you don't understand the subject you were trying to discuss. You are incapable of humiliating me, as again, you are simply not intelligent enough.

You edit your own posts all you want. You DO NOT edit mine. Which is what you did above, which is why it's been Xed out. Got it?

You losers who think the rules apply to everybody but Numero Uno crack me the fuck up.

I don't need to humiliate you, turdmouth. You're doing a fine job on your own.

 

[dnsmith35]

Translation: he's been humiliated as an ignoramus and skulks away back to devote more time to snapping at Nurse Ratchet.


And now hear this dipshit: don't you EVER edit my posts. You've been reported, asshole.

OK asshole, I did not edit your posts and I discussed this with the moderator you went whining to when I put points in (mostly to identify). You aren't smart enough to recognize the fact that I changed nothing of your comment and you proved my point that you have insufficient intelligence to carry on a reasonable discussion. In addition to which you don't understand the subject you were trying to discuss. You are incapable of humiliating me, as again, you are simply not intelligent enough.

You edit your own posts all you want. You DO NOT edit mine.

I didn't edit your post idiot. All I did was IDENTIFY THE QUOTE AS YOURS. .

Which is what you did above, which is why it's been Xed out. Got it?.

What I've got is, YOU ARE AN IDIOT who is so insecure that you don't even want your own quotes to be labeled..

You losers who think the rules apply to everybody but Numero Uno crack me the fuck up..

You are correct, you are cracked the fuck up..

I don't need to humiliate you, turdmouth. You're doing a fine job on your own.

You are not intelligent enough to humiliate me ass wipe and you are so stupid you don't realize you are humiliating yourself with your petty whining, especially since you don't understand the subject you think you are discussing.

Goodnight douche bag. Enjoy your inability to think! BTW, back at you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I hear people complaining that gas prices are too high and we need to drill for more oil. I can live with the drilling(as long as it is not within 250 miles of my house). What they fail to understand is the claim that if we could all of a sudden open up 100 more refineries and we drilled all our oil ourselves, gas prices will not go down. Big oil is not going to drop its prices while its making its monstrous profits. This pipeline may create some temporary jobs, but the fact is gas prices aren't going to go down because that would create less profit. To think otherwise is a complete fallacy. The so called free market worshippers are completely wrong here. Completely and absolutely wrong.

How did gas prices drop from over $4.00/gal to $1.89 just before Obama's inauguration?

Because of the Bush Great Recession.

 

[BlindBoo]

I hear people complaining that gas prices are too high and we need to drill for more oil. I can live with the drilling(as long as it is not within 250 miles of my house). What they fail to understand is the claim that if we could all of a sudden open up 100 more refineries and we drilled all our oil ourselves, gas prices will not go down. Big oil is not going to drop its prices while its making its monstrous profits. This pipeline may create some temporary jobs, but the fact is gas prices aren't going to go down because that would create less profit. To think otherwise is a complete fallacy. The so called free market worshippers are completely wrong here. Completely and absolutely wrong.

How did gas prices drop from over $4.00/gal to $1.89 just before Obama's inauguration?

Over the course of a few months hundreds of thousands of people stopped driving to work. There was a huge glut of refined fuel. How many times have you heard that anyway?

 

[dnsmith35]

What is abundently clear is, there are some ignorant people who have yet to put forth a single argument as to why we should not seek energy independence, to include oil independence.That being the case, it is further abundently clear that there is no point in continuing in their pissing contest, a contest in which they do not produce valie points or argument but persist in rude and contentious assertions. For them I offer the following:

1. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE BE GOOD FOR THE US. That can only be answered by someone with a modicum of intelligence, CATEGORICALLY AND POSITIVELY.

2. A PIPELINE FROM CANADA AND THE DAKOTAS HELP US MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION. It follows then that we should build the pipeline providing it is located away from water aquifers.

3. It does not matter how the oil is marketed as the important point is HAVING THAT INDEPENDENT SOURCE, such that we never get caught without pants down like during the oil embargo of 1973.

4. I would go so far as finding, drilling, piping THEN STORING IN SALT DOMES IN LOUISIANA or SOUTH TEXAS and refining what we can import from the middle east for use in the US. The point is never to have to use it, but to have strategic reserves for the future.

5. That does not mean we shouldn't continue to explore alternative energy sources, because eventually the petroleum in quantities the world uses now will cease to be.

6. The issue is not the PRICE AT THE PUMP, but rather the ability of the US to be part of the worldwide control of petroleum prices from the well.

I personally don't give a rat's ass about the ignorant left wing fanatic stooges who chose to soak up propaganda from their puppet masters nisinformation sites. There is no excuse to destroy our environment to get energy, but there is equally no excuse to declare that EVERYTHING WE DO WITH OIL IS DESTRUCTIVE. That is unadulterated horse puckey.

I have said as much earlier on in the discussion, and the opposition has not posted a single comment in rebuttal; as all they have done is call names and insult. Sadly I returned the favor which is not characteristic of me, but returning favors in kind is sometimes a must.

 

[dnsmith35]

I hear people complaining that gas prices are too high and we need to drill for more oil. I can live with the drilling(as long as it is not within 250 miles of my house). What they fail to understand is the claim that if we could all of a sudden open up 100 more refineries and we drilled all our oil ourselves, gas prices will not go down. Big oil is not going to drop its prices while its making its monstrous profits. This pipeline may create some temporary jobs, but the fact is gas prices aren't going to go down because that would create less profit. To think otherwise is a complete fallacy. The so called free market worshippers are completely wrong here. Completely and absolutely wrong.

How did gas prices drop from over $4.00/gal to $1.89 just before Obama's inauguration?

Over the course of a few months hundreds of thousands of people stopped driving to work. There was a huge glut of refined fuel. How many times have you heard that anyway?

We are currently paying $2.97 at the pump for regular gasoline. Adjusted for inflation that equals $.34 when the taxes are factored out. It appears that inflation is the biggest reason we pay $3.33 including taxes at the pump now. Price of gasoline is not the issue. The issue is strategic needs of our country and our future.

 

[dnsmith35]

I hear people complaining that gas prices are too high and we need to drill for more oil. I can live with the drilling(as long as it is not within 250 miles of my house). What they fail to understand is the claim that if we could all of a sudden open up 100 more refineries and we drilled all our oil ourselves, gas prices will not go down. Big oil is not going to drop its prices while its making its monstrous profits. This pipeline may create some temporary jobs, but the fact is gas prices aren't going to go down because that would create less profit. To think otherwise is a complete fallacy. The so called free market worshippers are completely wrong here. Completely and absolutely wrong.

How did gas prices drop from over $4.00/gal to $1.89 just before Obama's inauguration?

Because of the Bush Great Recession.

The great recession was caused by the Housing balloon and subsequent crash because of the inflation of price over value. It started in 1997 and blew up in our faces in 2006/7. This, in spite of my support for Clinton and Obama reflects poorly on all administrations since Carter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

dnsmith is pissed because he was handled appropriately: as if it is only one side, as if.

True Americans do not care about the nonsense from the far left and far right.

Yes, energy independence would be great for the US

Pipelines would be great if kept away from water sources and deep reservoirs and aquifers

To avoid the damage of 1973 in the future, we need to have the right to the left work together on this

Building and increasing the strategic reserve makes good sense

5. That does not mean we shouldn't continue to explore alternative energy sources, because eventually the petroleum in quantities the world uses now will cease to be.

The issue is independence, not the price at the pump

We need to increase natural and non-oil sources as well.

Business will go along, even if it has to update equipment and processes in order to protect our people and environment

Any political lobbying group and business that fight against these proposals can be condement as environmental terrorist organizations, the properties seized, and the folks sent to FEMA camps.

 

[dnsmith35]

dnsmith is pissed because he was handled appropriately: as if it is only one side, as if.

Translation = I can't beat dnsmith in discussion so I will resort to insult.

True Americans do not care about the nonsense from the far left and far right.

I agree, so why don't you shed your puppet master and stop listening to left wing fanatic propaganda.

Yes, energy independence would be great for the US

That is what I have asserted all along.

Pipelines would be great if kept away from water sources and deep reservoirs and aquifers

I have also asserted that all along. My sentiments exactly!

To avoid the damage of 1973 in the future, we need to have the right to the left work together on this

I agree!

Building and increasing the strategic reserve makes good sense

5. That does not mean we shouldn't continue to explore alternative energy sources, because eventually the petroleum in quantities the world uses now will cease to be.

The issue is independence, not the price at the pump

We need to increase natural and non-oil sources as well.

Business will go along, even if it has to update equipment and processes in order to protect our people and environment

Any political lobbying group and business that fight against these proposals can be condement as environmental terrorist organizations, the properties seized, and the folks sent to FEMA camps.

Since you seem to agree with every assertion I made, WHY DID YOU ATTACK ME? IN THIS POST: http://www.usmessageboard.com/9372506-post115.html You didn't piss me off, you just attacked me for no reason, and I proved my MATH is as good as anyone on the thread.

 

[BlindBoo]

How did gas prices drop from over $4.00/gal to $1.89 just before Obama's inauguration?

Over the course of a few months hundreds of thousands of people stopped driving to work. There was a huge glut of refined fuel. How many times have you heard that anyway?

We are currently paying $2.97 at the pump for regular gasoline. Adjusted for inflation that equals $.34 when the taxes are factored out. It appears that inflation is the biggest reason we pay $3.33 including taxes at the pump now. Price of gasoline is not the issue. The issue is strategic needs of our country and our future.

Consumption rose and production fell by the 1960's because we had pumped out all our cheap, easy to access oil. We didn't want to conserve back then and I'm pretty sure we're not in the mood to conserve now either. The only reason we're seeing an increase in US production now is because the price per barrel makes it economical to go after deeper more expensive oil, in and the same is true for the Bakken shale oil play.

 

[dnsmith35]

Over the course of a few months hundreds of thousands of people stopped driving to work. There was a huge glut of refined fuel. How many times have you heard that anyway?

We are currently paying $2.97 at the pump for regular gasoline. Adjusted for inflation that equals $.34 when the taxes are factored out. It appears that inflation is the biggest reason we pay $3.33 including taxes at the pump now. Price of gasoline is not the issue. The issue is strategic needs of our country and our future.

Consumption rose and production fell by the 1960's because we had pumped out all our cheap, easy to access oil. We didn't want to conserve back then and I'm pretty sure we're not in the mood to conserve now either. The only reason we're seeing an increase in US production now is because the price per barrel makes it economical to go after deeper more expensive oil, in and the same is true for the Bakken shale oil play.

I have no doubt that the inflation which drove the price of oil and gasoline is being compensated by higher profits. But the facts still are. we should strive for oil independence and alternative fuels as well. And we should accept that oil companies should be compensated at the same rates of profit as other businesses.

 

[dnsmith35]

I forgot to add another thought I consider valid. Instead of allowing oil companies tax benefits based on the expected future shortages, we should just let them use price to compensation them for that contingency. Since oil is not significantly higher priced based on inflation adjustments than it was 60 years ago (with tax eating up over 10% of that price to consumers). Because a large number of consumers are not well off, fuel taxes are severely regressive as those less wealth people are the ones who cannot afford newer more fuel efficient vehicles so it is a double edged sword to them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The following is an absolutely false correlation Obama said no to American energy independence and yes to radical environmentalists

 

[Pogo]

I forgot to add another thought I consider valid. Instead of allowing oil companies tax benefits based on the expected future shortages, we should just let them use price to compensation them for that contingency. Since oil is not significantly higher priced based on inflation adjustments than it was 60 years ago (with tax eating up over 10% of that price to consumers). Because a large number of consumers are not well off, fuel taxes are severely regressive as those less wealth people are the ones who cannot afford newer more fuel efficient vehicles so it is a double edged sword to them.

Higher fuel efficiency doesn't correspond to "newer", dumbass.

When I sold off my 20-year-old Saturn after well over 400,000 miles she was still pulling 40mpg regularly. And still is. And I got the same kind of mileage from my 1981 Civic and my 1984 Tercel.

 

[dnsmith35]

I forgot to add another thought I consider valid. Instead of allowing oil companies tax benefits based on the expected future shortages, we should just let them use price to compensation them for that contingency. Since oil is not significantly higher priced based on inflation adjustments than it was 60 years ago (with tax eating up over 10% of that price to consumers). Because a large number of consumers are not well off, fuel taxes are severely regressive as those less wealth people are the ones who cannot afford newer more fuel efficient vehicles so it is a double edged sword to them.

Higher fuel efficiency doesn't correspond to "newer", dumbass.

When I sold off my 20-year-old Saturn after well over 400,000 miles she was still pulling 40mpg regularly. And still is. And I got the same kind of mileage from my 1981 Civic and my 1984 Tercel.

OK, dumbass; a 1981 Civic will cost more than a 1981 gas guzzler in the same condition. So I shall reiterate, fuel taxes are regressive, hurting the poor who cannot afford to buy the more fuel efficient vehicles. Got it dumb ass?

I believe you are too stupid to understand the very clear facts that the poor always pay a disproportionate amount of tax based on their income for fuel tax than do the rich. I use 100 gallons of gasoline and pay $41 in tax which does not have as much effect on my total income as a poor many filling his gas guzzler who also pays $41 in tax for 100 gallons. Put another way, a 1981 Chevy costs much less than most fuel efficient vehicles of the same age. All taxes which cost the poor as much for the same unit value hurts the poor more than the wealthy.

Also, the fuel efficiency for similar models has increased over the years such that in most brands the 2014 model gets better fuel efficiency than the older models. Got if DUMBASS? You know, you started this business of insulting, and I can play that game as long as you continue it.

I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself with stupid comments.

 

[Pogo]

I forgot to add another thought I consider valid. Instead of allowing oil companies tax benefits based on the expected future shortages, we should just let them use price to compensation them for that contingency. Since oil is not significantly higher priced based on inflation adjustments than it was 60 years ago (with tax eating up over 10% of that price to consumers). Because a large number of consumers are not well off, fuel taxes are severely regressive as those less wealth people are the ones who cannot afford newer more fuel efficient vehicles so it is a double edged sword to them.

Higher fuel efficiency doesn't correspond to "newer", dumbass.

When I sold off my 20-year-old Saturn after well over 400,000 miles she was still pulling 40mpg regularly. And still is. And I got the same kind of mileage from my 1981 Civic and my 1984 Tercel.

OK, dumbass; a 1981 Civic will cost more than a 1981 gas guzzler in the same condition. So I shall reiterate, fuel taxes are regressive, hurting the poor who cannot afford to buy the more fuel efficient vehicles. Got it dumb ass?

I believe you are too stupid to understand the very clear facts that the poor always pay a disproportionate amount of tax based on their income for fuel tax than do the rich. I use 100 gallons of gasoline and pay $41 in tax which does not have as much effect on my total income as a poor many filling his gas guzzler who also pays $41 in tax for 100 gallons. Put another way, a 1981 Chevy costs much less than most fuel efficient vehicles of the same age. All taxes which cost the poor as much for the same unit value hurts the poor more than the wealthy.

Also, the fuel efficiency for similar models has increased over the years such that in most brands the 2014 model gets better fuel efficiency than the older models. Got if DUMBASS? You know, you started this business of insulting, and I can play that game as long as you continue it.

Horseshit.

Unless you're driving a Prius or Insight, something like that, you can't do any better than a comparable car from 20, 30 years ago. Hasn't happened. The point you just tried to make was that in order to have a fuel efficient car you need a recently manufactured one, and that's bullshit, and you're wrong. So bite me.

And YOU started the insulting shit, cocksucker. Read back, it's all on the record.

 

[dnsmith35]

Higher fuel efficiency doesn't correspond to "newer", dumbass.

When I sold off my 20-year-old Saturn after well over 400,000 miles she was still pulling 40mpg regularly. And still is. And I got the same kind of mileage from my 1981 Civic and my 1984 Tercel.

OK, dumbass; a 1981 Civic will cost more than a 1981 gas guzzler in the same condition. So I shall reiterate, fuel taxes are regressive, hurting the poor who cannot afford to buy the more fuel efficient vehicles. Got it dumb ass?

I believe you are too stupid to understand the very clear facts that the poor always pay a disproportionate amount of tax based on their income for fuel tax than do the rich. I use 100 gallons of gasoline and pay $41 in tax which does not have as much effect on my total income as a poor many filling his gas guzzler who also pays $41 in tax for 100 gallons. Put another way, a 1981 Chevy costs much less than most fuel efficient vehicles of the same age. All taxes which cost the poor as much for the same unit value hurts the poor more than the wealthy.

Also, the fuel efficiency for similar models has increased over the years such that in most brands the 2014 model gets better fuel efficiency than the older models. Got if DUMBASS? You know, you started this business of insulting, and I can play that game as long as you continue it.

Horseshit.

Unless you're driving a Prius or Insight, something like that, you can't do any better than a comparable car from 20, 30 years ago. Hasn't happened. The point you just tried to make was that in order to have a fuel efficient car you need a recently manufactured one, and that's bullshit, and you're wrong.

No dumbass, that was not the point I was trying to make. The fact is, what the poor can afford to buy today are the used gas guzzlers which are not fuel efficient as those of us who are more wealthy. You are so stupid you missed the whole point. The fact is, today's mid size of the same model of 15 or 20 years ago tends to be more fuel efficient. Your attempt to explain an orange with the description of a watermelon shows ignorance of the highest order.

So bite me.

I wouldn't touch your filthy body with a pole, much less with my teeth.

And YOU started the insulting shit, cocksucker. Read back, it's all on the record.

You sucking imbecile, you started it and you are right it IS all on the record.http://www.usmessageboard.com/9371122-post86.html and http://www.usmessageboard.com/9365838-post57.html I never insult first. A little sarcasm is not insulting, and it makes a point which you are too stupid to recognize. And I did not edit your post, I identified that it was YOUR quote dumbass.

 

[dnsmith35]

I know that most of the people reading this thread know exactly what I meant and what the point was even if Pogo was unable to interpret English.

My point was simple. High fuel prices and fuel taxes hurt the poor more than they hurt the more wealthy. One of the reasons, in spite of Pogo's rude comment, is, the poor cannot afford to buy the more fuel efficient vehicles and frequently rely on older model gas guzzlers because that is all they can afford. Of course there are exceptions, and older model Saturns and Honda Civic may still get good gas mileage, but really, how many are available and are their prices as low as older model gas guzzlers?

I wrote this in simple language such that even Pogo may POSSIBLY understand it.

Another concern; many people want to push conservation by taxing gasoline similar to the taxation in Europe such that it reduces driving; FURTHER making it hard on the poor to get to and from work.