Right Wingers eating crow on price of gasoline. $1.39 in Indiana.

[Muhammed]

Cut the bullshit. Obama isn't going along with anything.
The fact is there is nothing he can do to stop domestic oil production on privately owned lands.
Obama has been obsessed with the idea of 'green energy' for who knows how long.
Obama wasted half a trillion on Solyndra. And he gave GE over one trillion dollars in tax breaks because that company's management decided to go along with Obama on his green energy bullshit

There are dozens of other businesses and countries pouring monies into developing alternative energy including fusion reactors........You can't go forward by living in the past...

Yeah. No shit.
Obama's problem is that in his mind we should stop using oil NOW.
We should be seeing many more vehicles running on hydrogen and natural gas. Unfortunately, there are political forces which are preventing this and other price worthy and energy efficient fuels from coming to market.
And quite frankly, the petroleum industry is bigger than any US POTUS and bigger than anyone can imagine.
In fact, the world's economic well being rests squarely on the shoulders of the availability and production of petroleum.

Which is not the case, during Oblama's tenure oil production in the US topped Saudi Arabia, making the US the top producer in the world...Why was this not accomplished during Boosh? An oilman....

Any oil man will tell you that it takes anywhere from 3-5 years before you can actually produce oil once you start the process. Bush did allow that process to start.

The catalyst for fracking came from higher fuel prices...

Or perhaps, awesome technology.

 

[Contumacious]

Not one Obama hating wingnut predictor wants to yell about how Obama's rejection of Keystone pipeline and EPA abuses and his contempt for big oil was going to lead to $5 to $6 gasoline and destroy jobs and the economy.

Where are you?

Credit Card in Northern Virginia at $1.82.

National avg at $2.04 right now.

YO VERN

OBAMA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COST OF ENERGY.

THE MAIN REASON FOR THE LOW PRICE OF PETRO IS FRACKING.

BUT OBAMA WANTS FRACKING TO STOP DUE TO "GLOBULL WARMING"

SO STFU

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What happened is when ethanol became a commodity and started to be used, farmers that grew other grains (soybeans, barley, oats) dropped what they were growing to grow corn. Then those grains increased in cost because of low supply. That's why all food products increased in price.

But this is what happens when you decide to burn up your food supply. If there is any irony in this at all, it's that ethanol creates more pollution to produce than gasoline.

It's not that we can't produce alternatives--we can. The question is at what cost?

As of today, there is nothing that can replace the supply, reliability and strength of petroleum. We pay far less for gasoline than other countries let's say in Europe.

One of our customers was a big lib. So he had a windmill installed at his business. I kinda like windmills. They are cool looking.

One day I went there and the entire top of the windmill was gone. The owner walked by and I asked what happened to the windmill? He just waved both hands towards me as if pushing away and said "Ah!" LOL!

One of the workers said that he was only two years from breaking even on his windmill investment, then the stupid thing broke, and it cost almost as much to repair as buying a new one, so he opted to just use electricity from the electric company.

They also threw a fit when petroleum ruined the whaling industry.......autos replaced horses and was fought by old timers.........They said electricity was a fluke and would never work...

They also threw a fit when petroleum ruined the whaling industry

Petroleum was cheaper than whale oil. When you get a cheaper renewable, let us know.

I will let you know...They are always trying to create a better mouse trap...

They are always trying to create a better mouse trap.

And when they do, the government won't have to subsidize it. Or hike taxes on the old mouse traps.

The military, mostly the Navy, is wanting an alternative fuel for their future war strategy of a lack of fuel in a future war in which the ME and other nations have oil supplies depleted or cut off...

The military, mostly the Navy, is wanting an alternative fuel for their future war strategy of a lack of fuel

The Navy already has one, nuclear.

 

[FA_Q2]

'

What happened is when ethanol became a commodity and started to be used, farmers that grew other grains (soybeans, barley, oats) dropped what they were growing to grow corn. Then those grains increased in cost because of low supply. That's why all food products increased in price.

But this is what happens when you decide to burn up your food supply. If there is any irony in this at all, it's that ethanol creates more pollution to produce than gasoline.

It's not that we can't produce alternatives--we can. The question is at what cost?

As of today, there is nothing that can replace the supply, reliability and strength of petroleum. We pay far less for gasoline than other countries let's say in Europe.

One of our customers was a big lib. So he had a windmill installed at his business. I kinda like windmills. They are cool looking.

One day I went there and the entire top of the windmill was gone. The owner walked by and I asked what happened to the windmill? He just waved both hands towards me as if pushing away and said "Ah!" LOL!

One of the workers said that he was only two years from breaking even on his windmill investment, then the stupid thing broke, and it cost almost as much to repair as buying a new one, so he opted to just use electricity from the electric company.

They also threw a fit when petroleum ruined the whaling industry.......autos replaced horses and was fought by old timers.........They said electricity was a fluke and would never work...

Almost no one believes that oil is permanent and alternatives will not replace it. That is not the point. The problem is that the government wants to FORCE alternatives to come in and replace oil long before they are ready to do so and place restrictions on oil (that conveniently come in the guise of taxing it more) so that customers are moved over before they should. This is bad. Allowing the tech to mature to the point that it replaces oil naturally is how it should be done.

Hmm... so, should government force taxpayers to supplement oil? Or should it just stay out of it altogether?

That depends on what you call government supplementing oil. In general, most oil 'subsidies' are general tax provisions that should and are extended to all products (like writing off expenses). If you are talking about straight out subsidies then no, nothing should revive governmental support.

If you want to discuss something specific then bring it up as your comment really has nothing to do with mine at all.

It has plenty to do with the context of the thread. I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of your position. Most folks here seem to be of the opinion that lower oil prices are some kind of achievement. That the President should get credit for it somehow.

Lower oil prices ARE a major achievement IF they are lower because of a universal climate that is conducive to a better market.

- though the point is something that I would say is true that was said in slight jest as I don't think that addressed what you wanted


But, no - I would have thought that we have had enough interaction here that you would know that I would not support the government trying to create lower (and false) energy prices through special favors or cover to oil interests. There is a very real discussion to be had as to our FP and the wars in the middle east as cover for oil interests. I think that both sides of that debate have some merit though I would strongly side on getting out of there based on other reasons before we even got into the reality we are defending international oil interests.

I would also state that whatever cover one might think that oil receives from bloated government, it does not justify furthering market meddling thorough alternative energy. Essentially, 2 wrongs do not make a right and in this case it just ensures that we dig ourselves a deeper hole.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster 12944126

Do you have a record of public predictions "about how Obama's rejection of Keystone pipeline and EPA abuses and his contempt for big oil was going to lead to $5 to $6 gasoline and destroy jobs and the economy"?

Is a RW U.S. Senator saying it on the floor of the U.S. Senate public record enough for you?

. In March 2012, on the floor of the United States Senate, Mike Lee (R-UT) predicted that if Obama was reelected gas would cost $5.45 per gallon by the start 2015. Lee said that gas prices would rise 5 cents for every month Obama was in office, ultimately reaching $6.60 per gallon.

You do know Newt Gingrich, right?

. Lee was not alone. Newt Gingrich, running for the GOP nomination, predicted that if Obama was reelected he would push gas to “$10 a gallon.”

Videos of them saying this are in this link:

4 Things That Were Supposed To Happen By 2015 Because Obama Was Reelected



Here's a typical RW'er blogger associated with the Heritage Foundation:

.

1. Gas Prices Are Skyrocketing Under President Obama: The oil futures market is just that, a futures market. The price-per-barrel spikes in oil this week have not affected the domestic market yet. In fact, former Shell Oil President John Hofmeister made the prediction in December 2010 that America would face $5/gallon gasoline by 2012, a full month before the revolution in Egypt began.

And:

. Jobs Are Being Killed by Obama’s Oil Policies: As a direct result of Obama’s oil policies, companies that help supply our domestic energy needs are going out of business.

And

. And More Jobs Are Being Killed: Vendors, suppliers, even restaurants and retailers are losing ground or going out of business as a result of the economically crippling policies Obama has unilaterally imposed.

10 Things You Need to Know About High Gas Prices and Obama’s Oil Policy


And here's American Enterprise Institute wrapping it all up:

1. Marc A. Thiessen@marcthiessen

March 5, 2012 3:02 pm | AEIdeas


6. Obama, unworried about the impact of gas and electricity prices on his reelection, will finally wage the regulatory war on fossil fuels the Left demands.

.
10 disasters America will face if Obama gets a second term
Politics and Public Opinion

The damage of a second Obama term could be potentially irrevocable. I asked a number of conservative thinkers what they feared most from a second term, and compiled this list of the top ten disasters that would befall America if Obama were re-elected this fall:

1. Obamacare will not be repealed.

2. The unprecedented levels of spending in Obama’s first four years will become the new floor, as America sets new records for fiscal profligacy and debt.

3. Job creators will face massive tax increases, and more Americans will come off the tax rolls—resulting in fewer citizens with a stake in keeping taxes low and more with a stake in protecting benefits.

4. Government dependency, already at record levels, will continue to grow.

5. Four lost years in dealing with the entitlement crisis will become eight—digging us into a hole from which we may not be able to emerge.

6. Obama, unworried about the impact of gas and electricity prices on his reelection, will finally wage the regulatory war on fossil fuels the Left demands.

7. He will unleash the Environmental Protection Agency to impose crushing new burdens on U.S. business.

8. His administration’s assault on religious freedom will go on and expand to new areas.

9. The Defense Department will be gutted, with cuts so deep that America will no longer be a superpower.

10. Obama could have the opportunity to appoint more liberal Supreme Court justices, ending the Roberts court in all but name for a generation.

10 disasters America will face if Obama gets a second term - AEI



And Rush of course:

.
4. The entire U.S. economy was supposed to collapse

Rush Limbaugh predicted that “the country’s economy is going to collapse if Obama is re-elected.” Limbaugh was confident in his prediction: “There’s no if about this. And it’s gonna be ugly. It’s gonna be gut wrenching, but it will happen.”

....

Limbaugh said it could take “a year and a half, two years, three years.” It’s been two years and two months since Limbaugh’s prediction, so he still technically has another 10 months to be proven right.

4 Things That Were Supposed To Happen By 2015 Because Obama Was Reelected


Romney was wrong too as he conveniently forgot what he wrote in his own book about certain benefits of higher gas prices:

.
In the book, Mr. Romney called for greater domestic exploration and drilling. And he expressed concern about the collateral damage from higher energy prices on people who drive great distances, businesses that consume a lot of energy and people on fixed incomes.

But he acknowledged that allowing the price for gas and oil to rise could be the centerpiece of “game-changing incentives” that would alter consumer behavior when it came to buying cars and using electricity. That, he wrote, could help the country wean itself off an overreliance on foreign oil.

“To become energy secure, we may need to turn to those game-changing incentives that will lead individuals and businesses of all kinds to invest in efficiency and to reduce their use of oil and energy,” he wrote.

Campaign aides say Mr. Romney’s position on energy remains consistent. They say the energy chapter in his book carefully lays out the beliefs he now espouses as he seeks to become the Republican nominee. Asked to square Mr. Romney’s statements in his book with his recent criticism of Mr. Obama, the Romney campaign replied by reiterating its assertion that the president is harming the economy by pushing for higher energy costs.

“President Obama is succeeding in his efforts to drive energy prices higher, producing the hardship for American families and businesses that Governor Romney predicted,” Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for Mr. Romney, said. “This is exactly why the governor has always rejected proposals that would increase prices, and why he instead supports a strategy of developing the extraordinary energy resources that we have in this country.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/0...bama-for-rising-gas-prices.html?referer=&_r=0

Romney "acknowledged that allowing the price for gas and oil to rise could be the centerpiece of “game-changing incentives” that would alter consumer behavior when it came to buying cars and using electricity. That, he wrote, could help the country wean itself off an overreliance on foreign oil."

In March 2012, on the floor of the United States Senate, Mike Lee (R-UT) predicted that if Obama was reelected gas would cost $5.45 per gallon by the start 2015. Lee said that gas prices would rise 5 cents for every month Obama was in office, ultimately reaching $6.60 per gallon.

At the time, gas was over $3 a gallon. Based on Obama's hostility toward fossil fuels, it's not unreasonable to think he'd try to make gas more expensive. So Mike Lee was wrong, so what?

Markets everyday include people who disagree on the future prices of many commodities.
Usually half of them are wrong.


6. Obama, unworried about the impact of gas and electricity prices on his reelection, will finally wage the regulatory war on fossil fuels the Left demands.

What's he trying to do in Paris? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What happened is when ethanol became a commodity and started to be used, farmers that grew other grains (soybeans, barley, oats) dropped what they were growing to grow corn. Then those grains increased in cost because of low supply. That's why all food products increased in price.

But this is what happens when you decide to burn up your food supply. If there is any irony in this at all, it's that ethanol creates more pollution to produce than gasoline.

It's not that we can't produce alternatives--we can. The question is at what cost?

As of today, there is nothing that can replace the supply, reliability and strength of petroleum. We pay far less for gasoline than other countries let's say in Europe.

One of our customers was a big lib. So he had a windmill installed at his business. I kinda like windmills. They are cool looking.

One day I went there and the entire top of the windmill was gone. The owner walked by and I asked what happened to the windmill? He just waved both hands towards me as if pushing away and said "Ah!" LOL!

One of the workers said that he was only two years from breaking even on his windmill investment, then the stupid thing broke, and it cost almost as much to repair as buying a new one, so he opted to just use electricity from the electric company.

They also threw a fit when petroleum ruined the whaling industry.......autos replaced horses and was fought by old timers.........They said electricity was a fluke and would never work...

Almost no one believes that oil is permanent and alternatives will not replace it. That is not the point. The problem is that the government wants to FORCE alternatives to come in and replace oil long before they are ready to do so and place restrictions on oil (that conveniently come in the guise of taxing it more) so that customers are moved over before they should. This is bad. Allowing the tech to mature to the point that it replaces oil naturally is how it should be done.

Hmm... so, should government force taxpayers to supplement oil? Or should it just stay out of it altogether?

Hmm... so, should government force taxpayers to supplement oil?

Oil is heavily taxed.

Maybe. But that doesn't answer the question. Should government formulate policy to facilitate lower oil prices?

Should government formulate policy to facilitate lower oil prices?

Is oil important to the US economy?
At the very least, the government shouldn't try to cause the price to go higher.

So how is the government "forcing taxpayers to supplement oil"?

 

[bripat9643]

Enjoy it while you can. I noticed prices for other goods that were increased a few years back because of higher transportation cost, so retailer claimed, have not fallen at all!

If you are referring to food prices, you only have to look to the federally mandated corn Ethanol subsidy.
Once farmers saw this little federal perk, they switched corn production from feed for cattle and food and food additives to corn for ethanol.
This one subsidy has been no better than a food tax on Americans.
The price of beef, poultry( feed) dairy( feed and corn additives to some products)and anything with any type of corn derivative has skyrocketed in price.

What happened is when ethanol became a commodity and started to be used, farmers that grew other grains (soybeans, barley, oats) dropped what they were growing to grow corn. Then those grains increased in cost because of low supply. That's why all food products increased in price.

But this is what happens when you decide to burn up your food supply. If there is any irony in this at all, it's that ethanol creates more pollution to produce than gasoline.

Cut the bullshit. Obama isn't going along with anything.
The fact is there is nothing he can do to stop domestic oil production on privately owned lands.
Obama has been obsessed with the idea of 'green energy' for who knows how long.
Obama wasted half a trillion on Solyndra. And he gave GE over one trillion dollars in tax breaks because that company's management decided to go along with Obama on his green energy bullshit

There are dozens of other businesses and countries pouring monies into developing alternative energy including fusion reactors........You can't go forward by living in the past...

It's not that we can't produce alternatives--we can. The question is at what cost?

As of today, there is nothing that can replace the supply, reliability and strength of petroleum. We pay far less for gasoline than other countries let's say in Europe.

One of our customers was a big lib. So he had a windmill installed at his business. I kinda like windmills. They are cool looking.

One day I went there and the entire top of the windmill was gone. The owner walked by and I asked what happened to the windmill? He just waved both hands towards me as if pushing away and said "Ah!" LOL!

One of the workers said that he was only two years from breaking even on his windmill investment, then the stupid thing broke, and it cost almost as much to repair as buying a new one, so he opted to just use electricity from the electric company.

They also threw a fit when petroleum ruined the whaling industry.......autos replaced horses and was fought by old timers.........They said electricity was a fluke and would never work...

The taxpayers weren't forced to subsidize petroleum, electricity or the automobile.

petroleum is close to the ground, making extraction easy....the US subsidized electrifying rural USA....

Right, so families living in the ghetto had to subsidize electricity for rich farmers?

Why would you prefer a source of power that's difficult over one that's easy to get?

The bottom line: existing forms of power didn't require government subsidies.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ray 12944525

Correct, provided that he took no actions to reduce fuel production.

Oil companies were not developing some federal land leases back in 2012 that they already had acquired. Was that an 'action' by the oil companies to reduce oil production or had they reached maximum capability to increase production beyond a certain limit at that time or was it simplybmarket forces in play?

 

[Moonglow]

If you are referring to food prices, you only have to look to the federally mandated corn Ethanol subsidy.
Once farmers saw this little federal perk, they switched corn production from feed for cattle and food and food additives to corn for ethanol.
This one subsidy has been no better than a food tax on Americans.
The price of beef, poultry( feed) dairy( feed and corn additives to some products)and anything with any type of corn derivative has skyrocketed in price.

What happened is when ethanol became a commodity and started to be used, farmers that grew other grains (soybeans, barley, oats) dropped what they were growing to grow corn. Then those grains increased in cost because of low supply. That's why all food products increased in price.

But this is what happens when you decide to burn up your food supply. If there is any irony in this at all, it's that ethanol creates more pollution to produce than gasoline.

There are dozens of other businesses and countries pouring monies into developing alternative energy including fusion reactors........You can't go forward by living in the past...

It's not that we can't produce alternatives--we can. The question is at what cost?

As of today, there is nothing that can replace the supply, reliability and strength of petroleum. We pay far less for gasoline than other countries let's say in Europe.

One of our customers was a big lib. So he had a windmill installed at his business. I kinda like windmills. They are cool looking.

One day I went there and the entire top of the windmill was gone. The owner walked by and I asked what happened to the windmill? He just waved both hands towards me as if pushing away and said "Ah!" LOL!

One of the workers said that he was only two years from breaking even on his windmill investment, then the stupid thing broke, and it cost almost as much to repair as buying a new one, so he opted to just use electricity from the electric company.

They also threw a fit when petroleum ruined the whaling industry.......autos replaced horses and was fought by old timers.........They said electricity was a fluke and would never work...

The taxpayers weren't forced to subsidize petroleum, electricity or the automobile.

petroleum is close to the ground, making extraction easy....the US subsidized electrifying rural USA....

Right, so families living in the ghetto had to subsidize electricity for rich farmers?

Why would you prefer a source of power that's difficult over one that's easy to get?

The bottom line: existing forms of power didn't require government subsidies.

Rich were the farmers in the 1930's, why they was rolling the dough...

 

[dblack]

They also threw a fit when petroleum ruined the whaling industry.......autos replaced horses and was fought by old timers.........They said electricity was a fluke and would never work...

Almost no one believes that oil is permanent and alternatives will not replace it. That is not the point. The problem is that the government wants to FORCE alternatives to come in and replace oil long before they are ready to do so and place restrictions on oil (that conveniently come in the guise of taxing it more) so that customers are moved over before they should. This is bad. Allowing the tech to mature to the point that it replaces oil naturally is how it should be done.

Hmm... so, should government force taxpayers to supplement oil? Or should it just stay out of it altogether?

Hmm... so, should government force taxpayers to supplement oil?

Oil is heavily taxed.

Maybe. But that doesn't answer the question. Should government formulate policy to facilitate lower oil prices?

Should government formulate policy to facilitate lower oil prices?

Is oil important to the US economy?

To some people it is. To some it isn't. You're still not answering the question. Are you ashamed of your position?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

hey didn't rise. They went down immediately. Starting in July 2008 when the Alaskan exec-ordered offshore restriction was lifted. Then they dropped significantly when the major offshore moratorium expired at the end of September 2008

Gasoline prices went down as the Great Bush Recession was collapsing the U.S. economy at a rate not seen since the Great Depression. Lifting restrictions had nothing to do with lowering gasoline prices. Jobs were being lost at a pace going to one million per month.

What on earth is your point with regards to the OP?

You are very slow and biased.
The price began to drop as the promise for enhanced supply was approved. That was all before the housing market collapse.
What's more, if the price dropped due to economic downturn then the price would have stayed low all through the Obama term because the economy has yet to recover.
Truth is, the economy has yet to recover because of Obama's energy policy's impact on consumer goods prices and the detrimental impact that has had on the economy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray 12944525

Correct, provided that he took no actions to reduce fuel production.

Oil companies were not developing some federal land leases back in 2012 that they already had acquired. Was that an 'action' by the oil companies to reduce oil production or had they reached maximum capability to increase production beyond a certain limit at that time or was it simplybmarket forces in play?

Again, leasing land is not the same as drilling rights. Drilling rights are extremely hard to get, especially by a liberal administration.

It's a dog and pony show, just like pulling troops out of Iraq against the will of Obama's military leaders. It was sheer vote buying. Telling people that an anti-fossils fuel President was for more oil production (based on land exploration) was vote buying because Americans were upset with the cost of fuel.

If oil companies can drill and make a profit, trust me, they will. No oil company is going to lease land and sit on it for whatever reason unless they can't drill.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Almost no one believes that oil is permanent and alternatives will not replace it. That is not the point. The problem is that the government wants to FORCE alternatives to come in and replace oil long before they are ready to do so and place restrictions on oil (that conveniently come in the guise of taxing it more) so that customers are moved over before they should. This is bad. Allowing the tech to mature to the point that it replaces oil naturally is how it should be done.

Hmm... so, should government force taxpayers to supplement oil? Or should it just stay out of it altogether?

Hmm... so, should government force taxpayers to supplement oil?

Oil is heavily taxed.

Maybe. But that doesn't answer the question. Should government formulate policy to facilitate lower oil prices?

Should government formulate policy to facilitate lower oil prices?

Is oil important to the US economy?

To some people it is. To some it isn't. You're still not answering the question. Are you ashamed of your position?

Government should interfere less with oil production.
That reduced interference would increase supply and reduce price.

I hold the same position for our entire economy. Less interference would be better.

Do you feel I should be ashamed of my position?

 

[dblack]

Hmm... so, should government force taxpayers to supplement oil? Or should it just stay out of it altogether?

Hmm... so, should government force taxpayers to supplement oil?

Oil is heavily taxed.

Maybe. But that doesn't answer the question. Should government formulate policy to facilitate lower oil prices?

Should government formulate policy to facilitate lower oil prices?

Is oil important to the US economy?

To some people it is. To some it isn't. You're still not answering the question. Are you ashamed of your position?

Government should interfere less with oil production.
That reduced interference would increase supply and reduce price.

I hold the same position for our entire economy. Less interference would be better.

Do you feel I should be ashamed of my position?

It depends. You still haven't answered the question, so I don't know what your position really is. The thing is, for those who claim to support free markets, goals like lower oil prices as a policy priority are problematic.

Earlier, Ray From Cleveland asked if I knew of anyone who didn't think lower oil prices are a good thing, and I do. Lots of people think keeping oil prices low is a mistake. They believe higher oil prices would be a good thing in the long run because they'd prompt us to pursue new technologies and new energy sources that would actually put us in a much better position in the future, that facilitating a continued dependency on oil is doing us a dis-service. And they're probably right.

Many of them would like to see government place additional taxes on oil to make the prices even higher to achieve that goal. But that would be just as wrong as adjusting policy to keep prices artificially low. These kinds of problems should be solved voluntarily by society via the free market, not by legal mandates and coercive state policies.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

dblack 12945004

It has plenty to do with the context of the thread. I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of your position. Most folks here seem to be of the opinion that lower oil prices are some kind of achievement. That the President should get credit for it somehow.

RW'ers here are not of that opinion. I have dismissed and denied giving Obama credit for the low prices we have today. That is a diversion from the OP. I have said most of the credit goes to the private sector developing consequential technology that enabled record setting increase in oil production on private land that has had a major impact on the low gasoline prices that hopefully will stabilize over the long term at current pricing.

What I want to know is why RW'ers did not know or conveniently put out of mind that U.S. production was increasing dramatically during 2012 after recovery from the Deepwater Horizon spill was underway, and why politicians like Newt Gringrich ignored known reality and was blaming Obama in advance for $10 a gallon gasoline if he were to be re-elected .

It's time for Gingrich to eat crow. Like the entire assembly of the right wing propaganda media entertainment machine should do.

 

[FA_Q2]

Adblock 12945004

It has plenty to do with the context of the thread. I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of your position. Most folks here seem to be of the opinion that lower oil prices are some kind of achievement. That the President should get credit for it somehow.

RW'ers here are not of that opinion. I have dismissed and denied giving Obama credit for the low prices we have today. That is a diversion from the OP. I have said most of the credit goes to the private sector developing consequential technology that enabled record setting increase in oil production on private land tha has had a major impact on the low gasoline prices that hopefully will stabilize over the long term at current pricing.

What I want to know is why RW'ers did not know or conveniently put out of mind that U.S. production was increasing dramatically during 2012 after recovery from the Deepwater Horizon spill was underway, and why politicians like Newt Gringrich ignored known reality and was blaming Obama in advance for $10 a gallon gasoline if he were to be re-elected .

It's time for Gingrich to eat crow. Like the entire assembly of the right wing propaganda media entertainment machine should do.

Because political expediency is the name of the game - not honesty or reality.

Weather or not he (and other politicians) should eat crow is irrelevant as they will not. The American attention span is pathetic and statements made years ago no longer matter to anyone. Hell, things stated last month are ignored.

 

[Blackrook]

Not one Obama hating wingnut predictor wants to yell about how Obama's rejection of Keystone pipeline and EPA abuses and his contempt for big oil was going to lead to $5 to $6 gasoline and destroy jobs and the economy.

Where are you?

Credit Card in Northern Virginia at $1.82.

National avg at $2.04 right now.

Tbe Saudis dumped oil on the market to force down the price, to shut down American oil production in a deliberate attempt to influence U.S. elections.

Saudi Arabia Dumps Oil in Time for US Election Season

 

[Oldstyle]

Last paragraph in the article:

A spokesman for the Department of the Interior, asked to respond to the industry's contention that DOI's report is both misleading and absurd, says, "The report speaks for itself. The notion that we have somehow locked up federal lands clearly doesn't square with the facts. Our goal is to continue expanding safe and responsible development, and we will continue to take steps to deliver on that priority."

I'll take that over American Petroleum Institute statements any day of the week.

Read that statement carefully, Dottie! It's political double-speak. It doesn't answer the contentions made that the report was deliberately misleading...instead it states rather pompously that the report "speaks for itself"! Well, yes it does...but not in a good way! It speaks to how this Administration has no problem at all playing fast and loose with "the facts".

 

[NotfooledbyW]

FA_Q2 12945656

Because political expediency is the name of the game - not honesty or reality.

Weather or not he (and other politicians) should eat crow is irrelevant as they will not.

The American attention span is pathetic and statements made years ago no longer matter to anyone. Hell, things stated last month are ignored.

How can Americans have a proper political attention span if dishonesty and no devotion to known reality by politicians is as you say - irrelevant - simply because the dishonest politician won't accept accountability for the very politically expedient lies that politicians like Newt Gingrich have told in the distant or recent past. And specifically in this case when his lie involved a prediction that time has proven to be false. In this case only time could prove the Gingrich ten dollar 'politically expedient prediction was based on lies and his total lack of respect for known reality at the time his prediction was presented to the public.

Therefore you represent a gross disrespect for basic honesty and integrity from all individuals including political and business leaders that is desperately needed in a properly functioning free society. You have chosen to blame the victim for having a pathetic attention span for being lied to by a politician seeking to become the President of the United States of America.

The problem is your declaration that political lies are irrelevant. It is not the attention span of Americans being lied to by politicians and business leader for expediency.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle 12945724

It speaks to how this Administration has no problem at all playing fast and loose with "the facts".

What fast and loose facts are you referring to so we can check your judgment out?