·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama's failed foreign policy
Obama's failed foreign policyFollow
The United States. Do try and keep up just a little, m'kay?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
The United States as a geographic region, not the government. Do try and keep up, m'kay?
Man, you're working HARD to avoid admitting that domestic production won't do jack towards allowing us to thumb our nose at foreign producers :D
Edited, Apr 12th 2011 11:45am by Jophiel
Man, you're working HARD to avoid admitting that domestic production won't do jack towards allowing us to thumb our nose at foreign producers :D
Edited, Apr 12th 2011 11:45am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,
First lets start getting serious about drilling. Something that will never happen as long as the Dems have any say in the matter.
Quote:
How exactly do you propose that we only purchase domestically produced oil?
First lets start getting serious about drilling. Something that will never happen as long as the Dems have any say in the matter.
Or do you support a government takeover of the industry telling all oil companies operating in the US who they are allowed to sell to? Sure doesn't sound like the "less government is better government" conservative mantra to me.
So varus, why do you support government takeover of not just private companies, but EVERY private company in the entire industry?
Edited, Apr 12th 2011 12:56pm by bsphil
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,
We're talking about capitalism. And it never ceases to amaze me that you think flooding the market with oil won't decrease it's cost. It's like the words supply and demand have no meaning for you.
We're talking about capitalism. And it never ceases to amaze me that you think flooding the market with oil won't decrease it's cost. It's like the words supply and demand have no meaning for you.
It's not in private companies' own interests to flood a market to the point of dropping prices.
In fact, I put forward this little truism as one possible reason that private companies have been granted a slew of drilling rights in the USA that they are not acting upon.
Edited, Apr 12th 2011 2:37pm by Aripyanfar
varusword75 wrote:
You can't convince me that govn loosening drilling restrictions and really allowing US oil companies to access and distribute all this oil won't have a positive effect on the cost of fuel. The mere mention of loosening drilling restrictions causes the price of oil to drop.
No one would even think they could convince you - instead they just point out how you're consistently wrong and laugh at you
varusword75 wrote:
You can't convince me that govn loosening drilling restrictions and really allowing US oil companies to access and distribute all this oil won't have a positive effect on the cost of fuel.
I don't have to. You want the change so you should be able to argue and defend why the change should happen.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
You can't convince me that govn loosening drilling restrictions and really allowing US oil companies to access and distribute all this oil won't have a positive effect on the cost of fuel.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,
Are you going to actually say anything anytime soon?
Are you going to actually say anything anytime soon?
Probably not. I prefer typing to VOIP.
ZING!
Edited, Apr 12th 2011 3:31pm by LockeColeMA
8$ a gallon lololol. That is rich. That is a 213% increase. From current levels. Considering the price of gas has only increased 31% since this time last year (and at an spikey rate due to the Global Economy recovering. But is still actually still 10% less than pre-recssion levels.)
Edited, Apr 12th 2011 3:37pm by rdmcandie
Edited, Apr 12th 2011 3:37pm by rdmcandie
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
varusword75 wrote:
And the argument for why change should happen now is real simple 8$ a gallon. That's it.
Well, you're right about it being "simple". Not exactly a strong argument supporting your claims though.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
And the argument for why change should happen now is real simple 8$ a gallon. That's it.
Well, you're right about it being "simple". Not exactly a strong argument supporting your claims though.
Pretty sure Varus' paranoia comes from columns like this:
Quote:
Better get ready for gas prices to go way back up, to the $4-per-gallon heights of last summer and even beyond. And it won’t be because of anything OPEC does, or the lunatics running either Iran or Venezuela. It will be because the U.S. government thinks you should pay much more for the gas you depend upon to get to work, go to the grocery store and pick up the kids at school. It’s all for your own good because, remember, the government is here to help us.
It hasn’t gotten much attention but Steven Chu, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice as Secretary of Energy, is a firm believer that the federal government should increase taxes on gas in order to push the price-per-gallon up to European levels. That’s what he told The Wall Street Journal in September. It’s for our own good, see, because forcing the price of gas into the stratosphere will make us stop driving our evil automobiles and instead use mass transit. Or bicycles. Or walk.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2008/12/are-you-ready-8-gallon-gasoline#ixzz1JLEcHuHf
It hasn’t gotten much attention but Steven Chu, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice as Secretary of Energy, is a firm believer that the federal government should increase taxes on gas in order to push the price-per-gallon up to European levels. That’s what he told The Wall Street Journal in September. It’s for our own good, see, because forcing the price of gas into the stratosphere will make us stop driving our evil automobiles and instead use mass transit. Or bicycles. Or walk.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2008/12/are-you-ready-8-gallon-gasoline#ixzz1JLEcHuHf
Note that Obama went on record disagreeing with Chu's idea.
Disagreeing with a subordinate's claims is how you float media test balloons.
Technically if you want to push more mass transit and development of hydro/electric/hamster powered personal vehicles taxing the heck out of gas is the way to do it and there's nothing wrong with that agenda.
Somehow humans survived and procreated to the point where there are several billion of us on the planet prior to oil powered personal vehicles. I'm pretty sure peak oil (actual or forced) isn't going to kill us off.
Technically if you want to push more mass transit and development of hydro/electric/hamster powered personal vehicles taxing the heck out of gas is the way to do it and there's nothing wrong with that agenda.
Somehow humans survived and procreated to the point where there are several billion of us on the planet prior to oil powered personal vehicles. I'm pretty sure peak oil (actual or forced) isn't going to kill us off.
We went around with that Chu article a few weeks back. That was when Gbaji tried to edumacate us all about oil subsidies and domestic production levels.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I think todays oil prices are more a result of market speculation in oil futures. Which, if that's right would lead me to believe that its more connected to a function of supply/demand.
Which leads me to also believe that if people considerably and conciously reduce their demand for oil products, then the price will also drop.
Which leads me to also believe that if people considerably and conciously reduce their demand for oil products, then the price will also drop.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
paulsol wrote:
I think todays oil prices are more a result of market speculation in oil futures. Which, if that's right would lead me to believe that its more connected to a function of supply/demand.
Which leads me to also believe that if people considerably and conciously reduce their demand for oil products, then the price will also drop.
Which leads me to also believe that if people considerably and conciously reduce their demand for oil products, then the price will also drop.
I read an article a few weeks ago that says price really has very little to do with supply and demand and more to do with speculation.
Here it is.
paulsol wrote:
I think todays oil prices are more a result of market speculation in oil futures. Which, if that's right would lead me to believe that its more connected to a function of supply/demand.
Which leads me to also believe that if people considerably and conciously reduce their demand for oil products, then the price will also drop.
Which leads me to also believe that if people considerably and conciously reduce their demand for oil products, then the price will also drop.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
bsphil wrote:
It's actually not tied to supply/demand at all. The supply was unaffected by the Libya situation and yet the prices are still going up because of it.
Thats why I mentioned Future speculations as being the driver behind todays prices.
And whilst its just my musings on the subject and I happily admit its not my main interest in life, if oil prices were not connected to supply and demand, its the only commodity whose price isnt, that I can think of anyway.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
I just read the linked article and it seems to be agreeing with what I said...
That Oil prices are linked to the future market speculators who are gambling on there being a 'potential risk' to future supply.
It follows that if there is less demand, then oil prices will also fall.
Same as any other commodity, from carrots to cars.
That Oil prices are linked to the future market speculators who are gambling on there being a 'potential risk' to future supply.
It follows that if there is less demand, then oil prices will also fall.
Same as any other commodity, from carrots to cars.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
paulsol wrote:
bsphil wrote:
It's actually not tied to supply/demand at all. The supply was unaffected by the Libya situation and yet the prices are still going up because of it.
Thats why I mentioned Future speculations as being the driver behind todays prices.
And whilst its just my musings on the subject and I happily admit its not my main interest in life, if oil prices were not connected to supply and demand, its the only commodity whose price isnt, that I can think of anyway.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
varusword75 wrote:
Joph,
And how about the radical muslims that violently took control of the govn? Do you think they value the idea of democracy?
No they wanted to see if the US would support it's allies against radical muslims seeking to take control. Man you love twisting reality to suit your liberal talking points.
Fact is Obama has p*ssed on every major ME ally W spent a decade creating.
And you liberals don't give two sh*ts about another countries quest for democracy. Iraq was a perfect example of this. Saddam was an actual homicidal mass murdering dictator that continually threatened US interests abroad and you liberals actually worked counter to what the W administration was trying to do. So don't come here and pretend like you care about anyone in the ME; it just isn't so.
Quote:
Saudi Arabia doesn't like the idea of democracy
And how about the radical muslims that violently took control of the govn? Do you think they value the idea of democracy?
Quote:
wanted the US to prop up Mubarak
No they wanted to see if the US would support it's allies against radical muslims seeking to take control. Man you love twisting reality to suit your liberal talking points.
Fact is Obama has p*ssed on every major ME ally W spent a decade creating.
And you liberals don't give two sh*ts about another countries quest for democracy. Iraq was a perfect example of this. Saddam was an actual homicidal mass murdering dictator that continually threatened US interests abroad and you liberals actually worked counter to what the W administration was trying to do. So don't come here and pretend like you care about anyone in the ME; it just isn't so.
Brain not feel right?
Recent Visitors: 331
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (331)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama's failed foreign policy
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC