Fact: Palin could make a billion gaffes, shit herself on stage, snuff a little kid and still be a thousand times better than our warmongering idiot-in-chief. (President Pay More only gets one term)
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
one small thing wrong(while saying a million more things, on big
picture problems, that are dead on correct)....It doesn't matter,
she's still a thousand times better than what we've currently got in
the WH.
Obamacare = Giant fail. Everyone wants their waiver.
Middle East Peace = Giant fail. Obama just lost the Jewish vote and
the Arab world hates him.
Stimulus = Giant fail. Made the economy worse. Made a small recession
the norm.
GM bailout = Giant fail. Bailing out a foreign car company with
borrowed Chinese cash, for way more than it's worth, is a giant
boondoggle the admin just wants to hide from....But no one is going to
let them.
Ban on drilling & mining for energy = Giant fail. Green energy is
never going to deliver and high energy prices are another thing going
to bury this admin.
Cash for clunkers = Giant fail. Stole auto sales from other months and
caused people who were way over their head to take on more debt.
Ignored Fannie and Freddie = Giant fail. They are back to doing what
caused the mess we're in.
Debt crisis ignored = Giant fail. Another reason Obama's polls are
trending down. He's toast.
Bin Laden Assassination = Giant fail. Trillions spent to murder a guy
who was unarmed and who had actionable intelligence we could have
used(against American and international law). Murder was followed by
Obama trying to cover up what really happened....Only to have other
people come out with thousands of other stories that debunked his.
Libya = Giant fail. Supporting al Qaeda to take over the country just
shows how pathetic this admin really is.
Economy = giant fail.
Nothing Palin could do could top any of this. President Pay More is
finished.
Tom Jigme Wheat
<messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You chickenhawk obamatards can continue to point out where she said
> one small thing wrong(while saying a million more things, on big
> picture problems, that are dead on correct)....It doesn't matter,
> she's still a thousand times better than what we've currently got in
> the WH.
>
> Obamacare = Giant fail. Everyone wants their waiver.
numbers of healthy people to the insurance pools which offset the cost
of those with chronic conditions, and does not allow insurance
companies to deny coverage to those with pre existing conditions. CBO
has proven that it will cost more to repeal OBamaCare then to
implement it for the long term.
> Middle East Peace = Giant fail. Obama just lost the Jewish vote and
> the Arab world hates him.
Clinton's position.
> Stimulus = Giant fail. Made the economy worse. Made a small recession
> the norm.
every economic program Obama introduces, because they dont want
regulation on Wall street speculation in derivatives which was the
cause of the financial collapse, which occured on Bush's watch.
> GM bailout = Giant fail. Bailing out a foreign car company with
> borrowed Chinese cash, for way more than it's worth, is a giant
> boondoggle the admin just wants to hide from....But no one is going to
> let them.
sell its 6% stake in GM for a profit.
> Ban on drilling & mining for energy = Giant fail. Green energy is
> never going to deliver and high energy prices are another thing going
> to bury this admin.
That's a crock of shit. Green energy products is big business in
China, i.e., solar panels and wind turbines., we are falling behind
them, already they produce the majority of the world's solar panels.
> Cash for clunkers = Giant fail. Stole auto sales from other months and
> caused people who were way over their head to take on more debt.
> Ignored Fannie and Freddie = Giant fail. They are back to doing what
> caused the mess we're in.
You can thank the repeal of Glass Steagal for that.
> Debt crisis ignored = Giant fail. Another reason Obama's polls are
> trending down. He's toast.
Noone complained about the debt crisis when Bush was in office. He ran
up the largest deficit in US history. Obama is still stuck trying to
repeal Bush era policies that are still running the country,
irresponsible tax cuts for the rich, that encouraged wealth hoarding
by the rich, leading to massive speculation that tanked the economy.
Also he is trying to wind down the Bush started wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Already all US troops are slated to pull out of Iraq by
the end of the Year, and approximately 10,000 troops will be leaving
afghanistan by then as well.
> Bin Laden Assassination = Giant fail. Trillions spent to murder a guy
> who was unarmed and who had actionable intelligence we could have
> used(against American and international law). Murder was followed by
> Obama trying to cover up what really happened....Only to have other
> people come out with thousands of other stories that debunked his.
> Libya = Giant fail
So you are a qaddafi revisionist. This is the same guy that killed
hundreds of americans when his agents bombed pan am flight 103, and
the Berlin disco.
. Supporting al Qaeda to take over the country just
> shows how pathetic this admin really is.
That's the standard revisionist corporate argument used during and
after the launching of the euphemistic "War on terror" by Bush and the
NeoConservatives, that every self determinist movement in the middle
east is some how an al qaeda inspired plot, because it upsets the
corporate client state status quo.
> Economy = giant fail.
>
> Nothing Palin could do could top any of this. President Pay More is
> finished.
Palin is unfit to be president. All she has jingoist diatribes and
soundbytes. She lacks substance.
thomaswheat1975
thomaswheat1975
f. barnes
True.
Felix Reynaldo
"Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head"
news:265bd457-7f9c-44a7...@p9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> You chickenhawk obamatards can continue to point out where she said
> one small thing wrong(while saying a million more things, on big
> picture problems, that are dead on correct)....It doesn't matter,
> she's still a thousand times better than what we've currently got in
> the WH.
Typical talk of the idiots who live in perpetual jealousy of those who are
smarter, more resourceful and more cleaver.
Typical talk of an idiot that lacks the intellectual ability to get into a
reputable college and graduate with something more than a degree in basket
weaving.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> > one small thing wrong(while saying a million more things, on big
> > picture problems, that are dead on correct)....It doesn't matter,
> > she's still a thousand times better than what we've currently got in
> > the WH.
>
> Typical talk of the idiots who live in perpetual jealousy of those who are
> smarter, more resourceful and more cleaver.
>
> Typical talk of an idiot that lacks the intellectual ability to get into a
> reputable college and graduate with something more than a degree in basket
> weaving.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> > one small thing wrong(while saying a million more things, on big
> > picture problems, that are dead on correct)....It doesn't matter,
> > she's still a thousand times better than what we've currently got in
> > the WH.
>
> > Obamacare = Giant fail. Everyone wants their waiver.
>
Get a brain, loon, it's a total cluster fuck. (Which, like I said, is
why everyone is getting waivers for it)
>
> CBO has proven that it will cost more to repeal OBamaCare then to
> implement it for the long term.
debunked...Obamatards(all are insane) bring it up again. (They really
are incapable of telling the truth and dealing with reality)
>
> Middle East Peace = Giant fail. Obama just lost the Jewish vote and
> > the Arab world hates him.
>
> Obama's position on Israel / Palestine is no different than Bush or
> Clinton's position.
Clinton advocated for pre-967 borders. (And then explain what happened
to all that bs hope and change)
>
> > Stimulus = Giant fail. Made the economy worse. Made a small recession
> > the norm.
>
> No republican Corporate lackey's
lackeys this country has ever seen. (Seriously, name one thing the
Republicans are supposedly doing and President Pay More makes them
look like a bunch of amateurs)
>
> > GM bailout = Giant fail. Bailing out a foreign car company with
> > borrowed Chinese cash, for way more than it's worth, is a giant
> > boondoggle the admin just wants to hide from....But no one is going to
> > let them.
>
> Gm has completely paid back the US government
>
> > Ban on drilling & mining for energy = Giant fail. Green energy is
> > never going to deliver and high energy prices are another thing going
> > to bury this admin.
>
> That's a crock of shit. Green energy products is big business in
> China, i.e., solar panels and wind turbines., we are falling behind
> them, already they produce the majority of the world's solar panels.
coal. (Fact: Solar panels and windmills are unworkable and will no
where near provide the energy we need, psycho)
>
> Cash for clunkers = Giant fail. Stole auto sales from other months and
> > caused people who were way over their head to take on more debt.
> > Ignored Fannie and Freddie = Giant fail. They are back to doing what
> > caused the mess we're in.
>
> > You can thank the repeal of Glass Steagal for that.
money buying up bad loans.
Fact: our government created these too big to fail banks...It drove
all of America's small banks out of business with regulations and
rules that favored the big guys. (Just like they've done with the meat
industry, farming, etc)
Fact: our government created this crisis by throwing
trillions(taxpayer money) into the housing market so that idiots could
have houses they couldn't afford.
Fact: you establishment idiots will always believe that more
government is the key...no matter how many times you're proven wrong.
I can thank not allowing badly run companies to go out of business and
government created bubbles for the state we're in.
>
> Debt crisis ignored = Giant fail. Another reason Obama's polls are
> > trending down. He's toast.
>
> Noone complained about the debt crisis when Bush was in office.
And by none...You mean the imaginary voices in your head.
>
> He ran up the largest deficit in US history.
Before obama that is.
> Obama is still stuck
Being a failed progressive just like Bush. They are both
interchangeable morons.
>
> > Bin Laden Assassination = Giant fail. Trillions spent to murder a guy
> > who was unarmed and who had actionable intelligence we could have
> > used(against American and international law). Murder was followed by
> > Obama trying to cover up what really happened....Only to have other
> > people come out with thousands of other stories that debunked his.
> > Libya = Giant fail
>
> So you are a qaddafi revisionist.
Another lie.
>
> This is the same guy that killed
> hundreds of americans when his agents bombed pan am flight 103, and
> the Berlin disco.
Again, we're helping al Qaeda to take over the country.
>
> > Supporting al Qaeda to take over the country just> shows how pathetic this admin really is.
>
> That's the standard revisionist corporate argument <insane babble>
You're a insane retard. (But that's not saying anything anyone doesn't
already know)
>
> > Economy = giant fail.
>
> > Nothing Palin could do could top any of this. President Pay More is
> > finished.
>
> Palin is unfit to be president.
Says an chickenshit chickenhawk obamatard who wont sign up to go serve
in Obama's wars. (Feel free to go to Libya and die with al Qaeda)
Now run along and change your name so nobody can killfile you.
Bert
> On Jun 6, 9:36 pm, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You chickenhawk obamatards can continue to point out where she said
>> one small thing wrong(while saying a million more things, on big
>> picture problems, that are dead on correct)....It doesn't matter,
>> she's still a thousand times better than what we've currently got in
>> the WH.
>>
>> Obamacare = Giant fail. Everyone wants their waiver.
>> Middle East Peace = Giant fail. Obama just lost the Jewish vote and
>> the Arab world hates him.
>> Stimulus = Giant fail. Made the economy worse. Made a small recession
>> the norm.
>> GM bailout = Giant fail. Bailing out a foreign car company with
>> borrowed Chinese cash, for way more than it's worth, is a giant
>> boondoggle the admin just wants to hide from....But no one is going to
>> let them.
>> never going to deliver and high energy prices are another thing going
>> to bury this admin.
>> Cash for clunkers = Giant fail. Stole auto sales from other months and
>> caused people who were way over their head to take on more debt.
>> Ignored Fannie and Freddie = Giant fail. They are back to doing what
>> caused the mess we're in.
>> Debt crisis ignored = Giant fail. Another reason Obama's polls are
>> trending down. He's toast.
>> Bin Laden Assassination = Giant fail. Trillions spent to murder a guy
>> who was unarmed and who had actionable intelligence we could have
>> used(against American and international law). Murder was followed by
>> Obama trying to cover up what really happened....Only to have other
>> people come out with thousands of other stories that debunked his.
>> Libya = Giant fail. Supporting al Qaeda to take over the country just
>> shows how pathetic this admin really is.
>> Economy = giant fail.
>>
>> Nothing Palin could do could top any of this. President Pay More is
>> finished.
>
> True.
double that.
Tom Jigme Wheat
<messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > You chickenhawk obamatards can continue to point out where she said
> > > one small thing wrong(while saying a million more things, on big
> > > picture problems, that are dead on correct)....It doesn't matter,
> > > she's still a thousand times better than what we've currently got in
> > > the WH.
>
> > > Obamacare = Giant fail. Everyone wants their waiver.
>
> > Bullshit, lie lie lie
>
> Get a brain, loon, it's a total cluster fuck. (Which, like I said, is
> why everyone is getting waivers for it)
>
> > CBO has proven that it will cost more to repeal OBamaCare then to
> > implement it for the long term.
>
> Just when you thought a lie had been thoroughly
> debunked...Obamatards(all are insane) bring it up again. (They really
> are incapable of telling the truth and dealing with reality)
Here's the CBO.gov link neocon talking head
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1750
"As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects
that enacting H.R. 2 (Republican plan to repeal ObamaCare) would
probably increase federal budget deficits over the 2012–2019 period by
a total of roughly $145 billion (on the basis of the original
estimate), plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes
that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. Adding two
more years (through 2021) brings the projected increase in deficits to
something in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects
of technical and economic changes."
>
> > Middle East Peace = Giant fail. Obama just lost the Jewish vote and
> > > the Arab world hates him.
>
> > Obama's position on Israel / Palestine is no different than Bush or
> > Clinton's position.
>
> Yeah? Then why don't you(insane obamatard) provide a quote where Bush/
> Clinton advocated for pre-967 borders. (And then explain what happened
> to all that bs hope and change)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/world/middleeast/23aipac.html
"As Mr. Obama himself pointed out, his theme in the speech last
Thursday was not extraordinary. American presidents, including George
W. Bush and Bill Clinton, have consistently instructed their foreign
policy aides to pursue an agreement between the Israelis and
Palestinians using the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed land swaps,
as a basis for talks.
Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel, in fact, made such a
proposal to the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud
Abbas,
in 2008, as the two sides rushed to complete a peace deal before Mr.
Bush and Mr. Olmert left office. "
"
>
> > > Stimulus = Giant fail. Made the economy worse. Made a small recession
> > > the norm.
>
> > No republican Corporate lackey's
>
> Retard, Obama and his party are the biggest corporate welfare loving
> lackeys this country has ever seen. (Seriously, name one thing the
> Republicans are supposedly doing and President Pay More makes them
> look like a bunch of amateurs)
Oh and your such a partisan, that you overlook the corporate welfare
package republicans voted to give multi-billion dollar subsidies to
the oil companies despite record profits. The also dont want the CFTC
to implement regulation governing the speculation in the oil market,
that the CEO of Exxon Mobil admitted was responsible for 40% of the
price spikes of oil/gasoline at the pump.
>
> > > GM bailout = Giant fail. Bailing out a foreign car company with
> > > borrowed Chinese cash, for way more than it's worth, is a giant
> > > boondoggle the admin just wants to hide from....But no one is going to
> > > let them.
>
> > Gm has completely paid back the US government
>
> And your sane. <snicker>
>
Eat shit. You cant stand the fact that Obama singlehandedly saved GM
and Chrysler, who have completely paid back the government and are now
profitable.
> > > Ban on drilling & mining for energy = Giant fail. Green energy is
> > > never going to deliver and high energy prices are another thing going
> > > to bury this admin.
>
> > That's a crock of shit. Green energy products is big business in
> > China, i.e., solar panels and wind turbines., we are falling behind
> > them, already they produce the majority of the world's solar panels.
>
> Which they sell to us(big taxpayer boondoggle)....And then they use
> coal. (Fact: Solar panels and windmills are unworkable and will no
> where near provide the energy we need, psycho)
That's a crock of shit, you just admitted that there is increased
demand for solar and wind turbines, also china is investing massive
amounts of money for wind farms off the coast of shanghai. They are
the industry leader in manufacturing solar panels, due to republican -
oil industry lobbying to subvert the development of green
technologies, and the the overall general theme under the Bush
administration to allow the Corps to outsource (offshoring) american
jobs to china. Fact under Bush we lost 6 million manufacturing jobs,
outsourced to china.. You are just stuck in the past.
>
> > Cash for clunkers = Giant fail. Stole auto sales from other months and
> > > caused people who were way over their head to take on more debt.
> > > Ignored Fannie and Freddie = Giant fail. They are back to doing what
> > > caused the mess we're in.
>
> > > You can thank the repeal of Glass Steagal for that.
>
> Yeah psycho, glass forced Fannie and Freddie to spend trillions of our
> money buying up bad loans.
You are really stupid. the Glass Steagal Banking Act was repealed in
1999 towards the end of clinton's term. Then Bush allowed the banks to
merge with holding companies and to run wild in the speculation of
derivatives that ultimately taked the ecoomy.
>
> Fact: our government created these too big to fail banks...It drove
> all of America's small banks out of business with regulations and
> rules that favored the big guys. (Just like they've done with the meat
> industry, farming, etc)
> Fact: our government created this crisis by throwing
> trillions(taxpayer money) into the housing market so that idiots could
> have houses they couldn't afford.
And you refuse to look at the predatory lending practices of the big
banks, or the role of the derivatives market spiking real estate
prices, then tanking their values such that home prices are down to
2002 levels, and home owners who bought at the peak of the market now
owe more on their homes than they are worth. And you fail to
acknowlege the fact that the corporations have been laying off workers
as they outsource to china and elsewhere, despite the fact that they
are sitting on trillions of cash reserves. Liberal Government is a
conveniant scape goat for the corporate rouge "Free Market" raiders
and their toady "house negro "stooges.
> Fact: you establishment idiots will always believe that more
> government is the key...no matter how many times you're proven wrong.
>
> I can thank not allowing badly run companies to go out of business and
> government created bubbles for the state we're in.
>
> > Debt crisis ignored = Giant fail. Another reason Obama's polls are
> > > trending down. He's toast.
>
> > Noone complained about the debt crisis when Bush was in office.
>
> And by none...You mean the imaginary voices in your head.
Bush added 5 trillion to the national debt, more than any other
president in history.
The debt crisis didn't become an issue until under Obama when the
republicans launched their plan to defund medicare.
>
> > He ran up the largest deficit in US history.
>
> Before obama that is.
>
> > Obama is still stuck
>
> Being a failed progressive just like Bush. They are both
> interchangeable morons.
>
> > > Bin Laden Assassination = Giant fail. Trillions spent to murder a guy
> > > who was unarmed and who had actionable intelligence we could have
> > > used(against American and international law). Murder was followed by
> > > Obama trying to cover up what really happened....Only to have other
> > > people come out with thousands of other stories that debunked his.
> > > Libya = Giant fail
>
> > So you are a qaddafi revisionist.
> Another lie.
>
> > This is the same guy that killed
> > hundreds of americans when his agents bombed pan am flight 103, and
> > the Berlin disco.
>
> Again, we're helping al Qaeda to take over the country.
Where is your proof that the rebels in Bengazi are affiliated with Al
Qaida.
>
> > > Supporting al Qaeda to take over the country just> shows how pathetic this admin really is.
that's the standard revisionist line the republicans use because their
corporate oil industry lobbyists perfer the status quo in the middle
east, autocrats, no democracy and oil client states.
>
> > That's the standard revisionist corporate argument <insane babble>
thomaswheat1975
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> > > > one small thing wrong(while saying a million more things, on big
> > > > picture problems, that are dead on correct)....It doesn't matter,
> > > > she's still a thousand times better than what we've currently got in
> > > > the WH.
>
> > > > Obamacare = Giant fail. Everyone wants their waiver.
>
> > > Bullshit, lie lie lie
>
> > Get a brain, loon, it's a total cluster fuck. (Which, like I said, is
> > why everyone is getting waivers for it)
>
> > > CBO has proven that it will cost more to repeal OBamaCare then to
> > > implement it for the long term.
>
> > Just when you thought a lie had been thoroughly
> > debunked...Obamatards(all are insane) bring it up again. (They really
> > are incapable of telling the truth and dealing with reality)
>
> Here's the CBO.gov link
could use and they produced this skewed report. (Nothing new for this
admin)
I've pointed this fact out to you several times before. Other people
have pointed this out to you several times. You're a psychotic name
changing moron.
>
> > > Middle East Peace = Giant fail. Obama just lost the Jewish vote and
> > > > the Arab world hates him.
>
> > > Obama's position on Israel / Palestine is no different than Bush or
> > > Clinton's position.
>
> > Yeah? Then why don't you(insane obamatard) provide a quote where Bush/
> > Clinton advocated for pre-967 borders. (And then explain what happened
> > to all that bs hope and change)
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/world/middleeast/23aipac.html
Again, quote where Bush or Clinton endorsed the pre-1967 borders. You
can't because they never did. (You're a psychotic moron)
>
> > > > Stimulus = Giant fail. Made the economy worse. Made a small recession
> > > > the norm.
>
> > > No republican Corporate lackey's
>
> > Retard, Obama and his party are the biggest corporate welfare loving
> > lackeys this country has ever seen. (Seriously, name one thing the
> > Republicans are supposedly doing and President Pay More makes them
> > look like a bunch of amateurs)
>
> Oh and your such a partisan,
I've clearly called for an end of all subsidies(and the like).
>
> that you overlook the corporate welfare
> package republicans voted to give multi-billion dollar subsidies to
> the oil companies despite record profits.
Another delusion.
>
> The also dont want the CFTC
> to implement regulation governing the speculation in the oil market,
Not the job of our government.
> that the CEO of Exxon Mobil admitted blah blah blah
The real reason oil prices are having crazy price swings is due to
government interference. (Obama's policies distort the market)
>
> > > > GM bailout = Giant fail. Bailing out a foreign car company with
> > > > borrowed Chinese cash, for way more than it's worth, is a giant
> > > > boondoggle the admin just wants to hide from....But no one is going to
> > > > let them.
>
> > > Gm has completely paid back the US government
>
> > And your sane. <snicker>
>
> Eat shit.
You(psychotic moron) probably do.
>
> You cant stand the fact that Obama singlehandedly saved GM
> and Chrysler,
Not really, both are still horribly run companies that will be looking
for handouts in the future. See GM pleading for increase in gas taxes
and government subsidies because no one want's their overpriced volt.
Note: If anything, Obama's market distorting policies have hurt good
car companies that played by the rules.
>
> > > Ban on drilling & mining for energy = Giant fail. Green energy is
> > > > never going to deliver and high energy prices are another thing going
> > > > to bury this admin.
>
> > > That's a crock of shit. Green energy products is big business in
> > > China, i.e., solar panels and wind turbines., we are falling behind
> > > them, already they produce the majority of the world's solar panels.
>
> > Which they sell to us(big taxpayer boondoggle)....And then they use
> > coal. (Fact: Solar panels and windmills are unworkable and will no
> > where near provide the energy we need, psycho)
>
> That's a crock of shit,
Clearly not...If you were not a psychotic moron you would have been
able to look this up to see I was right. (Or just look to the last
post I corrected you on when you posted your bs)
>
> you just admitted that there is increased
> demand for solar and wind turbines
Because of our government spending hundreds of billions of dollars.
(Without our government pumping shitloads of cash into the market,
causing this greenie bubble, solar panels and wind turbines would be a
niche market at best.
>
> > > Cash for clunkers = Giant fail. Stole auto sales from other months and
> > > > caused people who were way over their head to take on more debt.
> > > > Ignored Fannie and Freddie = Giant fail. They are back to doing what
> > > > caused the mess we're in.
>
> > > > You can thank the repeal of Glass Steagal for that.
>
> > Yeah psycho, glass forced Fannie and Freddie to spend trillions of our
> > money buying up bad loans.
>
> You are really stupid.
You're projecting, you psychotic moron.
>
> the Glass Steagal Banking Act
Didn't cause Fannie and Freddie to use trillion of our(taxpayer)
dollars to distort the housing market.
>
> > Fact: our government created these too big to fail banks...It drove
> > all of America's small banks out of business with regulations and
> > rules that favored the big guys. (Just like they've done with the meat
> > industry, farming, etc)
> > Fact: our government created this crisis by throwing
> > trillions(taxpayer money) into the housing market so that idiots could
> > have houses they couldn't afford.
>
> And you refuse to look at the predatory lending practices of the big
> banks,
Nobody forced anyone to take out a loan at the bank. (But we were
forced, thanks to moronic progressives, to bailout these badly run
banks. Like the morons who took out bad loans, they should have been
allowed to fail)
>
> > Fact: you establishment idiots will always believe that more
> > government is the key...no matter how many times you're proven wrong.
>
> > I can thank not allowing badly run companies to go out of business and
> > government created bubbles for the state we're in.
>
> > > Debt crisis ignored = Giant fail. Another reason Obama's polls are
> > > > trending down. He's toast.
>
> > > Noone complained about the debt crisis when Bush was in office.
>
> > And by none...You mean the imaginary voices in your head.
>
> Bush added 5 trillion to the national debt, more than any other
> president in history.
Progressives love to spend. Obama, if he hasn't already, is going to
easily beat Bush.
>
> The debt crisis didn't become an issue
When Republicans were kicked out on their asses for being progressive
big government slobs. (Democrats quickly followed in 2010)
Americans want our government to be drastically cut and want the debt
to be dealt with.
>
> > > He ran up the largest deficit in US history.
>
> > Before obama that is.
>
> > > Obama is still stuck
>
> > Being a failed progressive just like Bush. They are both
> > interchangeable morons.
>
> > > > Bin Laden Assassination = Giant fail. Trillions spent to murder a guy
> > > > who was unarmed and who had actionable intelligence we could have
> > > > used(against American and international law). Murder was followed by
> > > > Obama trying to cover up what really happened....Only to have other
> > > > people come out with thousands of other stories that debunked his.
> > > > Libya = Giant fail
>
> > > So you are a qaddafi revisionist.
> > Another lie.
>
> > > This is the same guy that killed
> > > hundreds of americans when his agents bombed pan am flight 103, and
> > > the Berlin disco.
>
> > Again, we're helping al Qaeda to take over the country.
>
> Where is your proof that the rebels in Bengazi are affiliated with Al
> Qaida.
Already did this the last time you defended Obama siding with al
Qaeda. (So just go back and read what was written)
>
> > > > Supporting al Qaeda to take over the country just> shows how pathetic this admin really is.
>
> that's the standard revisionist line the republicans use because their
> corporate oil industry lobbyists perfer the status quo in the middle
> east, autocrats, no democracy and oil client states.
You're a psychotic moron.
>
> > > That's the standard revisionist corporate argument <insane babble>
>
> thomaswheat1975 = batshit crazy and stupid to boot.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> and Chrysler, who have completely paid back the government and are now
> profitable.
A) They have not completely paid back the money our government has
given them. (Much less what foreign countries gave them)
http://tinyurl.com/3qe6zay
B) These companies are far from being saved. They are both poorly run
and will continue to suck until the next bailout.
C) If our government hadn't stolen money from Americans to over-invest
in these two badly run foreign companies, what would those Americans
have done with that money? How many jobs would they have created? How
many more jobs would have been created by having a dollar that was a
little less debt ridden and worth a little more? How many more jobs
would have been created by good car companies(American no less) that
played by the rules in a crowded market? How better off would our
economy have been if we had allowed these lemons to fail?
D) If it was such a great deal then why did the government need to
make it and why didn't you progressives beat it to the punch? (In
short: why does everybody else have to pay for you and your ilks
supposed beliefs?)
WeinerWaggon
wrote:
very good questions.
Tom Jigme Wheat
<messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > You chickenhawk obamatards can continue to point out where she said
> > > > > one small thing wrong(while saying a million more things, on big
> > > > > picture problems, that are dead on correct)....It doesn't matter,
> > > > > she's still a thousand times better than what we've currently got in
> > > > > the WH.
>
> > > > > Obamacare = Giant fail. Everyone wants their waiver.
>
> > > > Bullshit, lie lie lie
>
> > > Get a brain, loon, it's a total cluster fuck. (Which, like I said, is
> > > why everyone is getting waivers for it)
>
> > > > CBO has proven that it will cost more to repeal OBamaCare then to
> > > > implement it for the long term.
>
> > > Just when you thought a lie had been thoroughly
> > > debunked...Obamatards(all are insane) bring it up again. (They really
> > > are incapable of telling the truth and dealing with reality)
>
> > Here's the CBO.gov link
>
> The Obama admin and Democrats gave the CBO a limited set of data it
> could use and they produced this skewed report. (Nothing new for this
> admin)
Now you are misstating the truth, what you are referring to is the
budget indicators Paul ryan submitted to the Heritage foundation to
cook up numbers how his plan doesnt add to the deficit or cut
medicare.
>
> I've pointed this fact out to you several times before. Other people
> have pointed this out to you several times. You're a psychotic name
> changing moron.
personal attacks dont prove anything the CBO is non partisan: i will
post the link to how the repeal of Obama Care adds over 200 billion
dollars to the national debt, and another link how Paul ryan's budget
also doubles medicare costs for seniors since you are such a neocon
tard who doesnt know how to do research, other than glenn beckian
soundbytes.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1750
As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects
that enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits
over the 2012–2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion (on the
basis of the original estimate), plus or minus the effects of
technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the
forthcoming estimate. Adding two more years (through 2021) brings the
projected increase in deficits to something in the vicinity of $230
billion, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes.
Congressional Budget Office analysis of GOP Paul Ryan's proposal to
privatize Medicare and make cuts to Medicaid (MediCal)
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=2128
excerpt
"Under the proposal, most elderly people who would be entitled to
premium support payments would pay more for their health care than
they would pay under the current Medicare system. For a typical 65-
year-old with average health spending enrolled in a plan with
benefits
similar to those currently provided by Medicare, CBO estimated the
beneficiary’s spending on premiums and out-of-pocket expenditures as
a
share of a benchmark amount: what total health care spending would be
if a private insurer covered the beneficiary. By 2030, the
beneficiary’s share would be 68 percent of that benchmark under the
proposal, 25 percent under the extended-baseline scenario, and 30
percent under the alternative fiscal scenario. "
translation for neocon dick tards like yourself
your out of pocket costs will double when you turn 65 starting in
2020, such that the average out of pocket cost under the GOP paul ryan
plan will be about 12000 dollars. that's the average annual soicial
security benefit. Also if your low income senior, and the majority of
seniors retirement income qualify as low income wont have medicaid to
pay for their nursing home care when they become infirmed, while paul
ryan proposes more tax cuts for the rich and corporations, despite the
fact that tax levels are as low when Herbert hoover was in office,
another republican president who started a great depression, over
laissev faire deregulation.
GOP Republican Tax Plan for the Rich will add 2.9 trillion to the
deficit in the next 10 years
Paul Ryan wants to lower the income tax rates on the top income
earners from 35% to 25%. This will cost the government 2.9 trillion
dollars in revenues over the next decade. So now Ryan wants to cut
Medicare and Medicaid to help pay for it. His budget will increase
seniors on medicare, out of pocket costs by 6000 dollars a year. For
those seniors on medicaid, who are in nursing homes, its a real
possibility that Medicaid would not be able to cover the cost of
their
care. Also his plan would lead to higher taxes for the middle class.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/ta040711.html
Think Again: 'Brave, Radical, and Smart'
>
> > > > Middle East Peace = Giant fail. Obama just lost the Jewish vote and
> > > > > the Arab world hates him.
>
> > > > Obama's position on Israel / Palestine is no different than Bush or
> > > > Clinton's position.
>
> > > Yeah? Then why don't you(insane obamatard) provide a quote where Bush/
> > > Clinton advocated for pre-967 borders. (And then explain what happened
> > > to all that bs hope and change)
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/world/middleeast/23aipac.html
>
> Again, quote where Bush or Clinton endorsed the pre-1967 borders. You
> can't because they never did. (You're a psychotic moron)
I said that Obama used the 1967 borders as a starting point for
negotiations, with mutual land swaps. Your just a racist necon
political talking head.
>
> > > > > Stimulus = Giant fail. Made the economy worse. Made a small recession
> > > > > the norm.
>
> > > > No republican Corporate lackey's
>
> > > Retard, Obama and his party are the biggest corporate welfare loving
> > > lackeys this country has ever seen. (Seriously, name one thing the
> > > Republicans are supposedly doing and President Pay More makes them
> > > look like a bunch of amateurs)
>
> > Oh and your such a partisan,
>
> I've clearly called for an end of all subsidies(and the like)
Then why havent you mentioned the fact that the republicans blocked
democrat attempts to remove multi billion dollar oil subsidies for the
big oil companies. As usual by leaving this fact out you reveal
yourself to be a corporate welfare partisan.
>
> > that you overlook the corporate welfare
> > package republicans voted to give multi-billion dollar subsidies to
> > the oil companies despite record profits.
> Another delusion.
So your denial about rampant speculation in the oil industry and your
'free market' delusions posit that the oil companies and the options
traders should be allowed to drive the price through the roof,
unlimited, just because you know that high fuel prices exacerbate the
reccession, and americans limited knowlege of economics means they
will blame the president or government for the independent actions of
market options traders. The CEO of exxon even said that if there
wasn't such extreme market speculation, the price of oil should be
about 60 - 70 dollars a barrel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lenzner/exxonmobil-ceo-says-oil-p_b_862811.html
excerpt
ExxonMobil CEO Says Oil Price Should Be $60 to $70 a Barrel
Posted: 05/17/11 10:02 AM ET
Robert Lenzner.Forbes columnist
Rex Tillerson, the boss of ExxonMobil, admitted last week that the
price of oil-based purely on supply and demand- should be in the $60
to $70 a barrel range. The reason it's above $100 a barrel, Tillerson
explained, is due to the oil majors using futures contracts to lock
in
current high prices, and speculation that is engineered by the high-
frequency trading of quantitative hedge funds.
>
> > The also dont want the CFTC
> > to implement regulation governing the speculation in the oil market,
>
> Not the job of our government.
What planet are you from.
>
> > that the CEO of Exxon Mobil admitted blah blah blah
>
> The real reason oil prices are having crazy price swings is due to
> government interference. (Obama's policies distort the market)
That;s a crock of shit. the oil companies are recording record profits
through price gouging.
Rex Tillerson, Exxon Mobil CEO, who by the way made 29 million
dollars
last year says that the price for oil should be in the 60-70 dollar a
barrell, but the factors driving up the price is commodities
speculation, in his testimony before congress, last week. Profits for
the oil companies in the US for the first quarter was 36 billion
dollars, but the republicans with the exception of Senator Mark Kirk
of Illinois, argue for continuing this corporate welfare / socialism
for the oil companies, and employing the same tactic used during the
debate on the extension of the Bush tax cuts, that a expiration of a
tax policy rate, and renewal of the old rate constitutes a tax
increase.
>
> > > > > GM bailout = Giant fail. Bailing out a foreign car company with
> > > > > borrowed Chinese cash, for way more than it's worth, is a giant
> > > > > boondoggle the admin just wants to hide from....But no one is going to
> > > > > let them.
>
> > > > Gm has completely paid back the US government
>
> > > And your sane. <snicker>
>
> > Eat shit.
>
> You(psychotic moron) probably do.
>
> > You cant stand the fact that Obama singlehandedly saved GM
> > and Chrysler,
>
> Not really, both are still horribly run companies that will be looking
> for handouts in the future. See GM pleading for increase in gas taxes
> and government subsidies because no one want's their overpriced volt.
facts are they have completely paid back the government.
Chrysler is posting record profits since the early 90's. Iam not going
to do the research for a lazy fuck like yourself.
>
> Note: If anything, Obama's market distorting policies have hurt good
> car companies that played by the rules.
>
> > > > Ban on drilling & mining for energy = Giant fail. Green energy is
> > > > > never going to deliver and high energy prices are another thing going
> > > > > to bury this admin.
>
> > > > That's a crock of shit. Green energy products is big business in
> > > > China, i.e., solar panels and wind turbines., we are falling behind
> > > > them, already they produce the majority of the world's solar panels.
>
> > > Which they sell to us(big taxpayer boondoggle)....And then they use
> > > coal. (Fact: Solar panels and windmills are unworkable and will no
> > > where near provide the energy we need, psycho)
>
> > That's a crock of shit,
>
> Clearly not...If you were not a psychotic moron you would have been
> able to look this up to see I was right. (Or just look to the last
> post I corrected you on when you posted your bs)
>
> > you just admitted that there is increased
> > demand for solar and wind turbines
>
> Because of our government spending hundreds of billions of dollars.
> (Without our government pumping shitloads of cash into the market,
> causing this greenie bubble, solar panels and wind turbines would be a
> niche market at best.
Green tech is not a niche market in china. If we dont adopt
alternative energy sources we will be left in their dust. Also you
assume we have an inexhaustible supply of oil, at most we will be out
of oil by 2100.
>
> > > > Cash for clunkers = Giant fail. Stole auto sales from other months and
> > > > > caused people who were way over their head to take on more debt.
> > > > > Ignored Fannie and Freddie = Giant fail. They are back to doing what
> > > > > caused the mess we're in.
>
> > > > > You can thank the repeal of Glass Steagal for that.
>
> > > Yeah psycho, glass forced Fannie and Freddie to spend trillions of our
> > > money buying up bad loans.
That's a crock of shit, the banks/mortgage lenders undertook the
'toxic assets' after Glass Steagal was repealed, shortly before Bush
was elected..as usual you are proving to be an ignoramus.
>
> > You are really stupid.
>
> You're projecting, you psychotic moron.
>
> > the Glass Steagal Banking Act
>
> Didn't cause Fannie and Freddie to use trillion of our(taxpayer)
> dollars to distort the housing market.
>
> > > Fact: our government created these too big to fail banks...It drove
> > > all of America's small banks out of business with regulations and
> > > rules that favored the big guys. (Just like they've done with the meat
> > > industry, farming, etc)
Now on this point I agree Obama has not suffienctly addressed the "too
big to fail concept" for the big banks. After the Bush / obama bank
bail outs the top 4 or 5 banks got even bigger after the financial
crisis started, such that banks like Bank of America as an example, is
140% bigger than it was before the crisis.
> > > Fact: our government created this crisis by throwing
> > > trillions(taxpayer money) into the housing market so that idiots could
> > > have houses they couldn't afford.
>
> > And you refuse to look at the predatory lending practices of the big
> > banks,
>
> Nobody forced anyone to take out a loan at the bank. (But we were
> forced, thanks to moronic progressives, to bailout these badly run
> banks. Like the morons who took out bad loans, they should have been
> allowed to fail)
You refuse to look at the fact that the lassiev faire economic
policies of Bush, cost us 8 million jobs, which precipitated major
loan defaults or foreclosures, nor do you acknowlege the fact that
after the price spikes in home prices, which have now fallen to an
average of 2002 era home prices, such that the majority of those
struggling with a mortgage o9r have al ready begun to be foreclosed
upon, owe more on their homes than they are currently worth That's a
very small incentive to keep paying a mortgage when you owe more on
your house (negative equity) than its worth. Fuck yah, I'd walk away
from that scam..
You deny the obvious for example,, Reagan Republicans loved saddam
hussein when he was our ally against Iran, despite the fact that he
was using poison gas against his own people, Kurds and Shia, because
iraq has the second largest oil reserves after saudi arabia. Bush
didn't turn against saddam until he invaded kuwait, because he had a
investor relationship with the Kuwaiti government. Now some
republicans like inhofe have taken the revisionist stance that qaddafi
is preferable to democratic self determination espoused by the rebels,
because he thinks he can get a sweet heart deal for the oil companies
in libya with qaddafi in power, despite his past support for
international terrorism. Fact is if qaddafi remains in power, then
Libya will be africa's number one supplier of oil to china, due to
their recently negotiated sweet heart deals. If qaddafi stays in
power, China gets richer, and were ass out of a cheap price for
libya's supply of light sweet crude oil.
No it is you who are a corporate welfare partisan talking
head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
eat shit, Bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > That's the standard revisionist corporate argument <insane babble>
>
> > thomaswheat1975 = batshit crazy and stupid to boot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom Jigme Wheat
money to bail out the airlines after 9/112001, or his implementation
of the auto bailout in the last years of his presidency. Obama just
continued the policy. Fact is the bailout of chrysler and GM saved
over 2 million jobs and both companies having emerged out of
bankruptcy in 2009 and are now profitable. Both companies have repaid
the majority of their loans, in the case of chrysler some 6 years
ahead of schedule.
thomaswheat1975
Recent Facts:
Chrysler reported that profits were up 10%
http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/01/autos/may_2011_auto_sales/
excerpt
"Chrysler, Hyundai sales buck industry slump
By Peter Valdes-Dapena June 1, 2011: 4:59 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Chrysler Group sales bucked an industry slide
last month as the automaker's redesigned models contributed to a 10%
increase compared to last year...
Both automakers reported heavy interest in fuel efficient vehicles by
consumers in the face of rising gas prices. Both GM and Ford reported
sales gains for small cars and fuel-efficient crossover SUVs.
still dont think green tech like better fuel economy standards arent
economically feasible, think again!!!
GM reported sales were down 1% from last year, but that difference is
marginal, they are still profitable.
http://www.npr.org/2011/05/25/136650503/chrysler-repays-billions-was-bailout-worth-it
"Yesterday, Chrysler repaid $7.6 billion in loans, with interest, that
it borrowed from the United States and Canadian governments. Car sales
are up, and the company - like fellow bailout recipient GM - is now
back in the black.
"President Obama hailed a significant milestone for the turnaround of
Chrysler, and many argue this is proof that the government bailout of
the auto industry was worth the cost.
"The way that the bailout was structured, the car companies got just
direct money from the government, and then there was a portion of it
that was a loan. General Motors has already paid back the portion that
it was expected to pay back, and now Chrysler has paid back what it
was expected to pay back, with interest.
"And the administration, I think, having covered it and read insider
accounts, decided that they could get their arms around saving GM and
Chrysler. And in doing so, we're able to save, you know, upwards to
two million jobs that would have, sort of, gone to the wind"
if you dont like NPR check out this site:
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/06/05/the-chrysler-miracle.html
or this one:
http://detnews.com/article/20110525/AUTO01/105250354/Chrysler-pays-back-bailout-loans--looks-ahead
Chrysler pays back bailout loans, looks ahead
CEO says payoff removes 'taint' of federal involvement
Alisa Priddle and Christina Rogers/ The Detroit News
Now that its government loans are repaid, Chrysler Group LLC hopes
consumers will measure it — and make it solidly profitable — by buying
its cars and trucks.
As expected Tuesday, Auburn Hills-based Chrysler repaid $7.6 billion
in outstanding loans, interest and fees. That wipes its slate clean
with the U.S. and Canadian governments less than two years after
government bailouts kept Chrysler and General Motors Co. in business.
Analyst Jack Nerad of online data firm Kelley Blue Book in Irvine,
Calif., said the loan payoff may help Chrysler put to rest any
residual animosity from Americans opposed to the bailout.
"From a consumer's perspective, there were some people who were pretty
angry about the bailout," he said. "Paying that off and not being a
burden to the taxpayers is a good counter argument."
Dealers expect to benefit.
"For a while during bankruptcy, I think Chrysler and GM were being
overlooked," said David Shepherd, owner of Shepherd Auto Team Plaza in
Fort Scott, Kan.
"Who wants to buy a vehicle from a company that has gone broke?" said
Shepherd, who sells GM, Chrysler, Toyota and Ford products.
The U.S. government also has recouped almost half the $49.5 billion it
spent to save GM, which went bankrupt, like Chrysler, and emerged as a
new company. GM, which has repaid $23.1 billion through stock sale and
loan repayment, also has had to repair its reputation with new
products.
Shepherd noted that GM's sales have been on the uptick since the
initial public stock offering and stronger earnings. He hopes Chrysler
gets a similar bounce as news of the loan repayment spreads and
consumers recognize the company is here for the long term.
It's a hope shared by Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne, who celebrated
the government loan repayment Tuesday with 1,100 workers at the
automaker's Sterling Heights plant.
"It's not going to be a make-or-break event, but it will certainly
remove any taint that we may have had," said Marchionne, wearing a
button that said "Paid" on his trademark black sweater.
"We dared to dream big, and we delivered on that dream," he said. "All
of us remember that until just a short time ago, in the eyes of most,
Chrysler had been condemned to death."
Marchionne hopes consumers will visit Chrysler showrooms to see the
improved lineup of cars and trucks. More are to come with the help of
partner Fiat SpA, whose little 500 already is on the U.S. market.
Move eases interest burden
Chrysler repaid the Treasury by refinancing its high-interest
government loans — reselling the debt in the capital market. The move,
similar to refinancing a home mortgage at a better rate, will save
more than $300 million in interest annually that can be invested in
future products.
The U.S. Treasury received wire transfers of more than $5.9 billion;
Canadian governments received $1.7 billion to retire their loans to
the automaker.
Also Tuesday, Fiat paid Chrysler $1.27 billion to increase its stake
in the American automaker from 30 percent to 46 percent.
Now that Fiat has a controlling stake, Marchionne said Fiat earnings,
starting with June's second-quarter results, will include Chrysler's
earnings as well. Chrysler also will continue to release its results
separately.
Chrysler workers see all these financial moves as building job
security.
"I'm glad we got to this point," said Bill Parker, president of United
Auto Workers union Local 1700 at the Sterling Heights plant.
"It's gotta be a positive sign."
Repaying the loans "sets the right posture for both sides" for
contract talks to replace the current contract that expires in
September, UAW Vice President General Holiefield said.
Obama commends move
In a statement issued Tuesday, President Barack Obama said "Chrysler's
repayment of its outstanding loans to the U.S. Treasury and American
taxpayers marks a significant milestone for the turnaround of Chrysler
and the countless communities and families who rely on the American
auto industry."
For Marchionne and his team, repayment was a matter of pride, and a
personal objective since the June 2009 bailout.
But even he didn't think it could be done so quickly. "I didn't know
if the financial markets would be there."
The Treasury gave $12.5 billion to Chrysler and $10.6 billion in loans
were recovered. The government may get some of that outstanding $1.9
billion investment when Chrysler has an IPO as early as this year. The
Treasury still holds a 6.6 percent equity stake in Chrysler.
Loan repayment came more than six years ahead of deadlines established
in 2009.
Ron Bloom, Obama's assistant for manufacturing policy, said the event
qualifies as "the comeback of the year."
From The Detroit News:
http://detnews.com/article/20110525/AUTO01/105250354/Chrysler-pays-back-bailout-loans--looks-ahead
Pretty hypocritical of mitt romney to have opposed the auto bail out
when his father was the president of american motors company. If he
wins the republican nomination he will definetly lose in michigan, his
home state.
On Jun 7, 6:12 pm, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
<messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You cant stand the fact that Obama singlehandedly saved GM
> > and Chrysler, who have completely paid back the government and are now
> > profitable.
>
> I had to revisit this gem.
>
> A) They have not completely paid back the money our government has
> given them. (Much less what foreign countries gave them)http://tinyurl.com/3qe6zay
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> Nobody complained when bush used 15 billion dollars of tax payer
moron.
>
> Recent Facts:
> Chrysler reported that profits were up 10%
http://factcheck.org/2011/06/chrysler-paid-in-full/
BTW, GJ spam posting your idiotic response, you psychotic moron.
> > > You cant stand the fact that Obama singlehandedly saved GM
> > > and Chrysler, who have completely paid back the government and are now
> > > profitable.
>
> > I had to revisit this gem.
>
> > A) They have not completely paid back the money our government has
> > given them. (Much less what foreign countries gave them)http://tinyurl.com/3qe6zay
> > B) These companies are far from being saved. They are both poorly run
> > and will continue to suck until the next bailout.
> > C) If our government hadn't stolen money from Americans to over-invest
> > in these two badly run foreign companies, what would those Americans
> > have done with that money? How many jobs would they have created? How
> > many more jobs would have been created by having a dollar that was a
> > little less debt ridden and worth a little more? How many more jobs
> > would have been created by good car companies(American no less) that
> > played by the rules in a crowded market? How better off would our
> > economy have been if we had allowed these lemons to fail?
> > D) If it was such a great deal then why did the government need to
> > make it and why didn't you progressives beat it to the punch? (In
> > short: why does everybody else have to pay for you and your ilks
> > supposed beliefs?)
Too stupid and crazy to answer these question, eh?
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> > could use and they produced this skewed report. (Nothing new for this
> > admin)
>
> Now you are misstating the truth,
>
> what you are referring to is the blah blah blah
> budget indicators Paul ryan submitted to the Heritage foundation
What I'm referring to is the fact that the Obama likes to used rigged
numbers to back up his failed presidency.
>
> > I've pointed this fact out to you several times before. Other people
> > have pointed this out to you several times. You're a psychotic name
> > changing moron.
>
> personal attacks dont prove anything blah blah blah
No attacks, you are a crazy moron. Its a fact.
>
> http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1750
Nobody gives a shit about your rigged numbers, you psychotic moron.
>
> > > > > Middle East Peace = Giant fail. Obama just lost the Jewish vote and
> > > > > > the Arab world hates him.
>
> > > > > Obama's position on Israel / Palestine is no different than Bush or
> > > > > Clinton's position.
>
> I said that Obama used the 1967 borders as blah blah blah
What you said is above, you psychotic moron. (Now provide those quotes
or admit you're a liar)
>
> > I've clearly called for an end of all subsidies(and the like)
> Then why havent you mentioned the fact that the republicans blocked
> democrat attempts to remove multi billion dollar oil subsidies for the
> big oil companies.
I did you delusional moron. (Again , I'm for the removal of all
subsidies and the like)
Can you say the same for green energy subsidies, rail subsidies, the
bailouts, etc? (Nope)
>
> As usual by leaving this fact out you reveal
> yourself to be a corporate welfare partisan.
More moronic psychotic babble.
>
> > > that you overlook the corporate welfare
> > > package republicans voted to give multi-billion dollar subsidies to
> > > the oil companies despite record profits.
> > Another delusion.
>
> So your denial about rampant speculation in the oil industry
DA, The speculation would drive oil prices down if we we're actively
drilling for oil. (It's government interference in the free market
that is driving prices up)
>
> > > The also dont want the CFTC
> > > to implement regulation governing the speculation in the oil market,
>
> > Not the job of our government.
> What planet are you from.
You wouldn't be familiar with it....It's the one called earth, and
unlike the planet you live on, it's grounded in reality.
>
> > > that the CEO of Exxon Mobil admitted blah blah blah
> > The real reason oil prices are having crazy price swings is due to
> > government interference. (Obama's policies distort the market)
>
> That;s a crock of shit.
No, like I said, you're just way too stupid and crazy to see the
truth.
>
> the oil companies are recording record profits
> through price gouging.
Nope, if they had they would be in jail. (You psychotic moron)
Even the Obama admin cleared them.
>
> > Not really, both are still horribly run companies that will be looking
> > for handouts in the future. See GM pleading for increase in gas taxes
> > and government subsidies because no one want's their overpriced volt.
>
> facts are they have completely paid back the government.
Only in your delusions.
>
> Chrysler is posting record profits since the early 90's.
Yeah, they needed bailouts because they're a kick ass company.
<sarcasm>
You're insane.
>
> Iam not going
> to do the research for a lazy fuck like yourself.
You're a psychotic moron.
>
> > Note: If anything, Obama's market distorting policies have hurt good
> > car companies that played by the rules.
>
> > Because of our government spending hundreds of billions of dollars.
> > (Without our government pumping shitloads of cash into the market,
> > causing this greenie bubble, solar panels and wind turbines would be a
> > niche market at best.
> Green tech is not a niche market in china.
Because they're making a mint selling it to us. (It is a niche in the
fact that China is going coal and thinks we're fucking morons for not
doing the same)
>
> > > > > > You can thank the repeal of Glass Steagal for that.
> > > > Yeah psycho, glass forced Fannie and Freddie to spend trillions of our
> > > > money buying up bad loans.
> That's a crock of shit,
Nope, like I said, you're too psychotic/stupid to see the truth.
>
> the banks/mortgage lenders
Sold bad loans to Fannie and Freddie because they are badly run
companies with an unlimited taxpayer funded wallet.
>
> > > > Fact: our government created these too big to fail banks...It drove
> > > > all of America's small banks out of business with regulations and
> > > > rules that favored the big guys. (Just like they've done with the meat
> > > > industry, farming, etc)
> Now on this point I agree Obama has not suffienctly addressed the "too
> big to fail concept"
Because he's a fucking statist who thinks that it's his job to drive
the economy(which he thinks is like a car) and pick the winners and
loser. (Progressives like him specialize in distorting the free market
and creating badly run companies that are too big to fail)
>
> > Nobody forced anyone to take out a loan at the bank. (But we were
> > forced, thanks to moronic progressives, to bailout these badly run
> > banks. Like the morons who took out bad loans, they should have been
> > allowed to fail)
> You refuse to look at the fact that the lassiev faire economic
> policies of Bush
The Fannie and Freddie shit we're in had nothing to do with laissez-
faire polices, you psychotic moron.
>
> > > that's the standard revisionist line the republicans use because their
> > corporate oil industry lobbyists perfer the status quo in the middle
> > east, autocrats, no democracy and oil client states.
> You're a psychotic moron.
> You deny the obvious for example,,
No, I point out that its crazy to think that it's the job of the
Americans to tell islamic cult members how to run their country.
>
> Reagan Republicans loved saddam
> hussein when he was our ally against Iran, despite the fact that he
> was using poison gas against his own people, Kurds and Shia, because
> iraq has the second largest oil reserves after saudi arabia. blah blah blah
Who cares. Not the job of the US to force democracy on the
world...Especially psychotic islamic death cultist, you psychotic
moron.
>
> No it is you who are a corporate welfare partisan talking
> head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again, you psychotic moron, I'm for ending all subsides, bailouts and
the like. I'm also against all of America's world cop bs. (You're not)
Tom Jigme Wheat
<messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > As usual by leaving this fact out you reveal
> > yourself to be a corporate welfare partisan.
>
> More moronic psychotic babble.
>
> > > > that you overlook the corporate welfare
> > > > package republicans voted to give multi-billion dollar subsidies to
> > > > the oil companies despite record profits.
> > > Another delusion.
>
> > So your denial about rampant speculation in the oil industry
>
> DA, The speculation would drive oil prices down if we we're actively
> drilling for oil. (It's government interference in the free market
> that is driving prices up)
No its a proven fact, that it takes about 10 years to get an oil well
ready for production. also major economists have predicted that
increasing domestic drilling would only have an effect of about 5 - 8
cents on the price for a gallon of gasoline.
Drill baby drill won't lower gas prices By Steve Hargreaves, senior
writer April 25, 2011: 11:22 AM ET
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htm
excerpt
"After OPEC got done adjusting its production to reflect the increased
American output, gas prices might drop a whopping 3 cents a gallon,
the study said.
"More production from anywhere would tend to lower prices," said Adam
Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank. "But the amount
that we're talking about domestically, it wouldn't move gas prices
from $4 a gallon to $3."
In fact, more domestic oil is just what we've been seeing and gasoline
prices are still going up.
Including liquids from natural gas, biofuels and other products that
are all used to make gasoline, the United States now produces 9.7
million barrels of oil a day, according to EIA. That's the most oil
this country has pumped in 20 years, and puts it just behind Saudi
Arabia and Russia as the world's top producer.
"Since 2005 production has been steadily rising. The United States now
produces about a million and a half more barrels today than it did six
years ago. Over this same time period oil hit a record $147 a barrel."
Your minimalist supply sider approach to the fact the Oil speculators
should continue to drive up the price of oil to astronomical levels
and that prices will stabilise if we increase domestic oil production
is a crock of shit. The fact is according to Exxon Mobil's Ceo, is
that approximately 40% of the price of oil is due to rampant
speculation. Goldman Sach's estimated that 20% of the price of oil was
due to speculation. Demand is down, so there is no reason to raise the
price. This is not capitalism, rather mercantilist casino capitalism.
Goldman Sachs rocked oil markets for a second day Tuesday by calling
for a nearly $20 fall in Brent crude oil, saying speculators had
pushed prices ahead of fundamentals. It was the second warning of a
steep market reversal from the long-term commodity bull in as many
days. On Monday, Goldman recommended clients close a trade heavily
weighted toward U.S. crude futures
Goldman analyst Greely said that while unrest in the Middle East and
North Africa remains a risk to oil markets, with Libyan exports
already largely cut off, the price had been pushed too high by the
large number of speculative traders currently long crude oil.
“Both inventories and spare capacity are much higher now and net
speculative positions are four times as high as in June 2008,” Greely
said.
There are definitely gluts in oil supply in the United States, though
There are definitely gluts in oil supply in the United States, though
pipeline bottlenecks are not allowing it to get out as quickly as
needed. The US Energy Information Administration says clearly that
supply is higher today than it was last year, when gas cost on
average
over a dollar a gallon less. There’s surplus oil everywhere at a time
when prices are skyrocketing. Speculation is a very good explanation
for this. Market forces aren’t. As Sanders’ office told me, “When
even
Goldman Sachs says that excessive speculation is responsible for 20
percent of crude oil prices, you know Wall Street is jacking up the
prices.” This averages out to at least 70 cents a gallon going
directly to Wall Street. Others put the number for speculation at 50%.
"
According to the American Petroleum Institute, more oil drilling will
not reduce oil prices.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htm
It takes 10 years to develop an oil well and begin supplies. The
supply generated by these new wells would be very minimal compared to
the total supply of oil imported by the US market.
The fact is the rise in prices are due to market speculation. Up to
60
cents a gallon of gasoline is due to speculation in the New York
Mercantile Exchange futures market. In fact demand for oil is down in
the US compared to last year. The Oil companies are rigging the
market.
the top US oil companies reported 35 billion dollars in profits in the
last quarter.
We should repeal this subsidy, and impose a excise speculation tax on
the wall street Futures Market, especially in the New York Mercantile
exchange. This would discourage rampant speculation and help
stabilize
prices. Also we should open up about 10% of the Strategic Petroleum
reserve for domestic consumption.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lenzner/exxonmobil-ceo-says-oil-p_b_862811.html
excerpt
"The profits for the big 6 oil companies was $36 billion in the
year's first quarter. ".
You just want more corporate welfare for the oil companies
thomaswheat1975
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htm
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Every time gas prices reach record highs the
call goes out for more oil drilling. This year it's no different.
"The Gulf is ready to get back to work to help create jobs and lower
gasoline prices," Washington Republican Doc Hastings, head of the
House Natural Resources Committee and a big proponent of more
drilling, said last week.
1133119Email Print The problem is this: While increased oil and gas
drilling in the United States may create good-paying jobs, reduce
reliance on foreign oil and lower the trade deficit, it will have
hardly any impact on gas and oil prices.
That's because the amount of extra oil that could be produced from
more drilling in this country is tiny compared to what the world
consumes.
Plus, any extra oil the country did produce would likely be quickly
offset by a cut in OPEC production.
"This drill drill drill thing is tired," said Tom Kloza, chief oil
analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, which calculates gas
prices for the motorist organization AAA. "It's a simplistic way of
looking for a solution that doesn't exist."
The feds' convenient oil market crackdown
According to a 2009 study from the government's Energy Information
Administration, opening up waters that are currently closed to
drilling off the East Coast, West Coast and the west coast of Florida
would yield an extra 500,000 barrels a day by 2030.
The world currently consumes 89 million barrels a day, and by then
would likely be using over 100 million barrels.
After OPEC got done adjusting its production to reflect the increased
American output, gas prices might drop a whopping 3 cents a gallon,
the study said.
"More production from anywhere would tend to lower prices," said Adam
Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank. "But the amount
that we're talking about domestically, it wouldn't move gas prices
from $4 a gallon to $3."
In fact, more domestic oil is just what we've been seeing and gasoline
prices are still going up.
Including liquids from natural gas, biofuels and other products that
are all used to make gasoline, the United States now produces 9.7
million barrels of oil a day, according to EIA. That's the most oil
this country has pumped in 20 years, and puts it just behind Saudi
Arabia and Russia as the world's top producer.
Still drilling deep in the Gulf
Since 2005 production has been steadily rising. The United States now
produces about a million and a half more barrels today than it did six
years ago. Over this same time period oil hit a record $147 a barrel.
Oddly, it's largely because of high prices that this new production is
possible. The deepwater drilling, shale rock extraction and other
techniques used to increase production are pricey endeavors.
It's been a bounty for those that work in the oil and gas industry. In
the last ten years the industry has added 2 million jobs, said Rayola
Dougher, senior economic advisor for the American Petroleum Institute.
The industry now employs over 9 million Americans.
These are well-paying jobs. People can earn $15 to $20 an hour right
out of high school. With a just a few years experience, $60,000 a year
is possible. Petroleum engineers and others with advanced degrees
easily clear six figures.
It's also been good for oil companies. Thanks to lower taxes,
companies generally make much more money on a barrel of oil produced
in the United States than they do from North Sea or Middle East crude.
Dougher said that if all federal land was open to oil drilling -- not
just offshore but Alaska's wildlife refuge and all federal land in the
West that isn't a national park -- the country could produce an extra
2.8 million barrels of oil a day by 2025.
Being that she represents the oil industry, Dougher gave the idea a
hard sell.
She said it would create another 500,000 jobs, add $150 billion each
year to government coffers and shave a significant chunk off the
country's foreign trade deficit.
But one argument she didn't make was lower prices.
"How would that play out in the market, what impact would that have on
prices," she said, "we just don't know."
Tom Jigme Wheat
http://www.industryweek.com/articles/china_overtakes_u-s-_in_green_investment_21415.aspx
excerpt
"A study led by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that Chinese
investment in clean energy soared by more than 50% in 2009 to reach
$34.6 billion, far more than any other country in the Group of 20
major economies.
The report said that China has shown determination to be on the
frontline of green technology, while U.S. investors have been put off
by uncertainties amid the legislative battle on climate change.
Total U.S. investment was about half that at $18.6 billion, the first
time in five years that the world's largest economy lost the top spot
in clean energy, the study said. While the United States dominates
technological innovation, its investment in clean energy tumbled 42%
last year from 2008 levels.
"China is emerging as the world's clean energy powerhouse," said
Phyllis Cuttino, global warming campaign director of the Pew
Environment Group. "This represents a dramatic growth when you
consider that just five years ago their investment totaled $2.5
billion," she said."
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Global_warming/G20-Report-LowRes.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/business/09subsidies.html
excerpt
"Many European countries — along with China, Japan and South Korea —
have pushed commercial development of carbon-reducing technologies
with a robust policy mix of direct government investment, tax breaks,
loans, regulation and laws that cap or tax emissions. Incentives have
fostered rapid entrepreneurial growth in new industries like solar and
wind power, as well as in traditional fields like home building and
food processing, with a focus on energy efficiency.
"Of the three largest operators of wind farms doing business in the
United States, only one, NextEra, is American. Iberdrola is Spanish
and Horizon Wind Energy is a subsidiary of Energias de Portugal. Among
manufacturers making components for the industry, just one American
company, General Electric, is in the top 10. The others include Suzlon
(India), Vestas (Denmark), Goldwind (China) and Enercon (Germany).
Tighter energy-efficiency standards for machinery and appliances
established in Europe, Japan and China have “primed the demand pump”
for companies in those countries to develop innovative designs that
use less energy than United States products, said Stefan Heck, head of
McKinsey’s global clean technology practice. California is the only
American state to adopt similarly high standards. "
>
> > > > > > > You can thank the repeal of Glass Steagal for that.
> > > > > Yeah psycho, glass forced Fannie and Freddie to spend trillions of our
> > > > > money buying up bad loans.
> > That's a crock of shit,
>
> Nope, like I said, you're too psychotic/stupid to see the truth.
The Glass Steagal banking Act was repealed in 1999 before Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac took on 'toxic assets' Also since you are so anti
government programs, you should know that Fannie Mae, and freddie Mac
shouldn't be held soley responsible for the housing collapse. The fact
is Subprime Lending by the big banks with outrageous credit terms were
primarily responsible for the market collapse.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
excerpt
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a
conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a
government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class
Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.
Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and
the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage
finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal
government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and
minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the
private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was
behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers
during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime
lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
•More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by
private lending institutions.
•Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low-
and moderate-income borrowers that year.
•Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject
to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz1OiiLaQCV
. The Big Commercial Banks with the repeal of Glass Steagal, were
allowed to merge with investment banks (ex. Bank of America's merger
with Merril Lynch) and trade in derivatives / options trading/
speculation that caused price spikes and market collapse. If Glass
Steagal Had never been repealed we wouldn't have had a collapse in the
housing market.
thomaswheat1975
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> > drilling for oil. (It's government interference in the free market
> > that is driving prices up)
>
> No its a proven fact, that it takes about 10 years to get an oil well
> ready for production.
their no drill policies. It can actually be done way sooner if our
government got out of the way and allowed it. (See Petrobras in the
Gulf)
B) If we had a drill everywhere policy speculators would have no
choice but to drive the price of oil way down. That's a fact.
>
> The supply generated by these new wells
the rest. He foolishly thinks that high oil prices are going to make
green energy profitable(never going to happen)....He ignores the fact
that the green energy boondoggle is tied to oil and is also going up
in price.
>
> Drill baby drill won't lower gas prices By Steve Hargreaves
You're so fucking stupid....Seriously.
A) What kind of psychotic retard actually puts full articles in his
post? You.
B) What kind of psychotic retard doesn't understand that just because
something's in an agenda driven article doesn't make it true. You.
C) If we had a drill everywhere policy it would drive the price of oil
way down...Which is why this admin, which moronically thinks driving
up oil prices will make green energy work, is blocking it.
Drill baby drill would drive energy prices down:
http://energy.usgs.gov/
3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in
North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
Just one location. Doesn't count what's off of the Florida Coast, in
Alaska, off California's coast, Oil Sands in Utah, etc.
<snip the psychotic retard's article spamming>
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> > fact that China is going coal and thinks we're fucking morons for not
> > doing the same)
>
> as usual you are talking out of your ass
>
>
> excerpt
> "A study led by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that Chinese
> investment in clean energy soared by more than 50% in 2009
retard....How else are they going to be able to sell the shit to us?
(You're so batshit crazy you probably think they've been pulling the
solar panels out of their ass...)
The fact of the matter is that their selling us solar panels(paid for
with massive government subsidies from our stupid government) while
they're building coal plants(two every week). That's a fact.
>
> > > > > > > > You can thank the repeal of Glass Steagal for that.
> > > > > > Yeah psycho, glass forced Fannie and Freddie to spend trillions of our
> > > > > > money buying up bad loans.
> > > That's a crock of shit,
>
> > Nope, like I said, you're too psychotic/stupid to see the truth.
>
> The Glass Steagal banking Act was repealed in 1999
A) It was repealed because, like every other feel good government
regulation, it was driving mom and pop banks out of business. (Its
partially to blame for creating the "too big to fail" companies)
B) It wouldn't have prevented the mess we're in. For one, Lehman
Brothers,Bear Stearns,and Merrill Lynch, etc weren't involved in
commercial banking and commercial banks owning investment banks, and
vice-versa, had absolutely nothing to do with the economic crisis.
You're a psychotic moron.
C) The problem was caused by our government(Fannie, Freddie, etc) and
its tax funded distortions of the housing market..
http://tinyurl.com/625htcd
<Here, let me again trim this for you, you psychotic moron>
Tom Jigme Wheat
cnn is a mainstream media source, I trust the reporter more than I
trust a corporate lackey
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htm
According to a 2009 study from the government's Energy Information
Administration, opening up waters that are currently closed to
drilling off the East Coast, West Coast and the west coast of Florida
would yield an extra 500,000 barrels a day by 2030.
The world currently consumes 89 million barrels a day, and by then
would likely be using over 100 million barrels.
After OPEC got done adjusting its production to reflect the increased
American output, gas prices might drop a whopping 3 cents a gallon,
the study said.
"More production from anywhere would tend to lower prices," said Adam
Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank. "But the amount
that we're talking about domestically, it wouldn't move gas prices
from $4 a gallon to $3."
more like 5 cents a gallon decrease.
"
>
> > The supply generated by these new wells
>
> The only reason there are a 'few' wells is because Obama's blocking
> the rest. He foolishly thinks that high oil prices are going to make
> green energy profitable(never going to happen)....He ignores the fact
> that the green energy boondoggle is tied to oil and is also going up
> in price.
>
> > Drill baby drill won't lower gas prices By Steve Hargreaves
>
> Total bs. Steve Hargreaves is a hack.
>
> You're so fucking stupid....Seriously.
> A) What kind of psychotic retard actually puts full articles in his
> post? You.
> B) What kind of psychotic retard doesn't understand that just because
> something's in an agenda driven article doesn't make it true. You.
> C) If we had a drill everywhere policy it would drive the price of oil
> way down...Which is why this admin, which moronically thinks driving
> up oil prices will make green energy work, is blocking it.
The US is producing about 1.5 million more barrels than it did 6 years
ago, and this has not caused oil prices to go down. Oil prices are
skyrocketing because of the rampant speculation in the futures market.
This rampant speculation, or unregulated options trading also caused
the collapse of the housing industry
thomaswheat1975.
>
> Drill baby drill would drive energy prices down:http://energy.usgs.gov/
>
> 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in
> North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formationhttp://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
Tom Jigme Wheat
On Jun 8, 4:54 pm, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> its tax funded distortions of the housing market..http://tinyurl.com/625htcd
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
due to his psychotic delusions, is clearly wrong about everything
wrote:
> as usual you are talking out of your ass!!!!!
moron)
thomas wheat
attempted personal attacks only belly the desperateness of your failed
fallacious position
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> wrong again corporate establishment talking head:
corporate establishment talking head, you psychotic moron)
>
> According to a 2009 study from the government's Energy Information
> Administration,
beloved government is lying on this then why should anyone believe it
at all? And why should we believe it over the people that want to
drill for oil? (What, they're going to spend billions for nothing?)
>
<Here, let me snip the post for the retarded psycho>
>
> The US is producing about 1.5 million more barrels than it did 6 years
No thanks to Obama, and very little thanks to Bush. (And the blame for
lack of new production goes to your beloved government, you psychotic
moron)
>
> and this has not caused oil prices to go down.
government is distorting the marketplace and causing several bubbles)
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> > due to his psychotic delusions, is clearly wrong about everything
> > wrote:> as usual you are talking out of your ass!!!!!
>
> > Is that what the voices in your head are saying? (You're a psychotic
> > moron)
>
> attempted personal attacks
delusions. It's a fact.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
points, which were debunked a long time ago, and retreat to a warped
fantasy land in his head.
Sid9
"Bert" <b...@rt.invalid> wrote in message
news:4dee05c9$0$1071$afc3...@read01.usenet4all.se...
Ahhh....and echo chamber!
Tom Jigme Wheat
<messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 5:22 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> wrote:> wrong again corporate establishment talking head:
>
> Again, I'm against subsidies, bailouts and the like. (You're the
> corporate establishment talking head, you psychotic moron)
>
> > According to a 2009 study from the government's Energy Information
> > Administration,
>
> But I just provided another link from our government....If your
> beloved government is lying on this then why should anyone believe it
> at all? And why should we believe it over the people that want to
> drill for oil? (What, they're going to spend billions for nothing?)
>
assume that the majority of the oil is in shale rock. The Fracking
process required to extract this oil is a much more expensive
undertaking than conventional oil drilling extraction process. Also
Fracking has been proven to be more environmentally destructive than
conventional oil drilling.
Fact is we're producing 1.5 million more barrels than we did 6 years
ago, Oil drilling in the US is at a 20 year high and yet the price of
oil is still going up. More domestic oil production will not lower oil
prices, ,Shale extraction will be just another excuse to raise the
price. The real reason oil prices are so high is because of the
speculators on the New York Mercantile Exchange, driving up the price,
despite the fact that there is an excess in supply in the US and
demand is down in the US from last year. Why dont you do some
research on derivatives and options trading. An options trader can
artificially effect the rise or fall of a commodity, by merely
speculating, or placing a bet on whether supply or demand of that
commodity will increase or decrease. Furthermore you fail to take in
account the role of the global economy on oil prices. Individual
countries have little power over commodity prices, since the prices
are determined by international traders and speculators, not just the
ones here in the US. Also regarding oil commodities, OPEC cartel
members just refused to increase oil supply, despite Saudi objections,
and so the speculators will use this as an excuse to raise the price
of oil even further.
thomaswheat1975
Tom Jigme Wheat
> On Jun 8, 9:53 pm, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head<messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 5:22 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> wrote:> wrong again corporate establishment talking head:
>
> > Again, I'm against subsidies, bailouts and the like. (You're the
> > corporate establishment talking head, you psychotic moron)
>
> > > According to a 2009 study from the government's Energy Information
> > > Administration,
>
> > But I just provided another link from our government....If your
> > beloved government is lying on this then why should anyone believe it
> > at all? And why should we believe it over the people that want to
> > drill for oil? (What, they're going to spend billions for nothing?)
>
> Your link doesn't account for the cost of the oil extraction, since I
> assume that the majority of the oil is in shale rock. The Fracking
> process required to extract this oil is a much more expensive
> undertaking than conventional oil drilling extraction process. Also
> Fracking has been proven to be more environmentally destructive than
> conventional oil drilling.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/energy-environment/28shale.html
The Texas field, known as the Eagle Ford, is just one of about 20 new
onshore oil fields that advocates say could collectively increase the
nation’s oil output by 25 percent within a decade — without the
dangers of drilling in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico or the
delicate coastal areas off Alaska.
There is only one catch: the oil from the Eagle Ford and similar
fields of tightly packed rock can be extracted only by using hydraulic
fracturing, a method that uses a high-pressure mix of water, sand and
hazardous chemicals to blast through the rocks to release the oil
inside.
The technique, also called fracking, has been widely used in the last
decade to unlock vast new fields of natural gas, but drillers only
recently figured out how to release large quantities of oil, which
flows less easily through rock than gas. As evidence mounts that
fracking poses risks to water supplies, the federal government and
regulators in various states are considering tighter regulations on
it.
Spills and methane contamination fall under existing state and federal
regulations. Fracturing, by contrast, received a specific exemption
from the Safe Drinking Water Act from a Republican Congress and then-
President George W. Bush in the 2005 energy bill.
The additives in fracturing fluids can contain toxins like benzene or
2-Butoxyethanol, commonly called 2-BE, a toxic solvent. They are a
tiny fraction of the mix, but human exposure to some of them is
measured in parts per million.
A 2004 EPA study found that fracturing posed "little or no threat" of
groundwater contamination, except perhaps when diesel is used. But the
agency never tested the water itself. Instead it relied on a survey of
state regulators. Critics like Fox rejoin that it is hard to prove the
absence of something without looking for it.
thomaswheat1975
> > government is distorting the marketplace and causing several bubbles)- Hide quoted text -
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> > corporate establishment talking head, you psychotic moron)
>
> > > According to a 2009 study from the government's Energy Information
> > > Administration,
>
> > But I just provided another link from our government....If your
> > beloved government is lying on this then why should anyone believe it
> > at all? And why should we believe it over the people that want to
> > drill for oil? (What, they're going to spend billions for nothing?)
>
> Your link doesn't account for the cost of the oil extraction
3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in
Estimate—
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
And this isn't the only report I can provide that shows we could be
doing massively more to make ourselves more energy independent.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
<Steve Hargreaves article, which didn't provide an actual link to the
actual report because it probably would have destroyed his argument,
is bs>
Now again, if your beloved government is going to lie about the amount
of oil available, why should we believe it?
Why should we believe it over companies that are willing to put up
billions to drill for the oil?
If you were right(which your not) and there is very little oil to be
had then isn't Obama a retard(more than normal) for blocking companies
from trying to get to it?
Seeing as how oil in a key ingredient in a lot of greenie techs, like
solar panels, how is cutting off the supply of oil going to make their
cost come down?
Tom Jigme Wheat
<messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Again, I'm against subsidies, bailouts and the like. (You're the
> > > corporate establishment talking head, you psychotic moron)
>
> > > > According to a 2009 study from the government's Energy Information
> > > > Administration,
>
> > > But I just provided another link from our government....If your
> > > beloved government is lying on this then why should anyone believe it
> > > at all? And why should we believe it over the people that want to
> > > drill for oil? (What, they're going to spend billions for nothing?)
>
> > Your link doesn't account for the cost of the oil extraction
>
> Actually it does.
> 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in
> North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995
> Estimate—http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
>
> And this isn't the only report I can provide that shows we could be
> <Steve Hargreaves article, which didn't provide an actual link to the
> actual report because it probably would have destroyed his argument,
> is bs>
I found the Energy Information Agency link which the CNN article
cites:
It unequivocaly states that increased offshore oil drilling off of the
West coast, East Coast, and Gulf coast would have a marginal impact on
oil prices in the US, and it would take almost 10 years to develop the
new sites and bring them to full production capacity. Furthermore any
increase in domestic oil supply would be offset by cuts in supply by
OPEC, to maintain the high price of oil per barrel, as evinced by
OPEC's decision yesterday to not increase oil supplies, which means
oil prices are going up again.
I'll reiterate my statement of fact. We are at a 20 year high in
domestic oil production and this has not lowered oil prices. We are
producing 1.5 million more barrels of oil than we did in 2006 and this
has had no effect on prices. Prices are manipulated by the
speculators, in the commodity futures market, and by OPEC.
Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the
Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the
Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a
significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or
prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and
production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic
production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case
is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and
3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For
the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to
be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case
compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case
(Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international
market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to
be insignificant.
Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable
oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case,
conversion of those resources to production would require both time
and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and
Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of
Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource
would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case
prices."
thomaswheat1975
Jerry Okamura
"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
news:1a4d619e-b2df-45a9...@v11g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
And what will happen to oil prices "if" we don't drill where we know we have
oil?
I'll reiterate my statement of fact. We are at a 20 year high in
domestic oil production and this has not lowered oil prices. We are
producing 1.5 million more barrels of oil than we did in 2006 and this
has had no effect on prices. Prices are manipulated by the
speculators, in the commodity futures market, and by OPEC.
It’s a supply and demand issue. Prices will remain high, until there is
more supply than demand.
Sid9
"Tom Jigme Wheat" <thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a4d619e-b2df-45a9...@v11g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
The only thing that will reduce the rice of oil and gasoline is reduced
demand,
The GM Volt and the newly announced Ford electric auto are the start!
5 years and the effect will be visible
Sid6
then instead of paying for gas we will be paying $4000 a year or 2 for
batteries and we will have to hear about how it is destroying the planet
mining for lead and whatever else goes into the batteries and how it is
worse than and more expensive and complicated than what we had going
before the bedwetters made the dumb change over to coal fired electric
cars. word.
Tom Jigme Wheat
with your Supply - Demand formula. The Fact is we are dealing with
monopoly neo-mercantile capitalism. As the CNN.com article stated
Increased domestic oil production will not lower oil prices, since the
price on the commodities exchange is dictated by global supply and
global speculators. The fact is oil drilling in the US is at a 20 year
high, and we are producing 1.5 million more barrels than we did in
2006.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htm
Furthermore this article cites a 2009 EIA.gov which concluded along
the same lines, adding that if we increase our domestic oil
production, OPEC will likely decrease their production, to compensate
for the increase in supply, in order to drive up the price of oil per
barrel.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
-excerpt-
"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the
Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a
significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or
prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and
production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic
production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case
is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and
3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For
the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to
be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case
compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case
(Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international
market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to
be insignificant. "
Fact is speculators in the world's commodity markets are driving up
the price of oil along with OPEC. The CEO of Exxon Mobil as I already
mentioned in an earlier post in this same discussion thread admitted
in his congressional testimony that 40% of the price of oil per barrel
was due to speculation. Goldman Sach's said it was more like 20% of
the total price. The fact is we need a tax on speculative derivative
option trades. That would discourage or slow the rate of speculation
in the market
Also we only have 2% of the world's proven oil reserves.
Squandering our limited supply for the benefit of the short term
profits of the oil companies, will only mean even more drastic price
spikes as we began to exhaust our own domestic oil supply. By 2100, I
would wager that the global supply of oil will be entirely exhausted.
We need to begin to transition to solar, wind and BIOMASS, like what
Synthetic Genomics is working on-- with investment from Exxon Mobil to
mass produce oil from algae.
http://www.syntheticgenomics.com/media/emrefact.html
http://www.syntheticgenomics.com/images/071410.pdf
Fact is rising Oil Prices due to rampant speculation and political
turmoil in the Middle east, along with the collapse of the housing
market are why we are mired in the worst economic recession, since the
crash of 1929.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are conveniant scapegoats for the overall
predatory lending schemes launched by the big banks.
What really caused the financial crisis
http://politicalcorrection.org/print/factcheck/201105100010
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/12/private-sector-loans-triggered-the-crisis/
Subprime Mortgage Data Do Not Support Claim That Government Actions
Triggered Housing Bubble. Barry Ritholtz, who wrote the book Bailout
Nation about the housing bubble and ensuing financial crisis, reports:
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
-More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by
private lending institutions.
-Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low-
and moderate-income borrowers that year.
-Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject
to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
[The Big Picture,
Its because of our increased dependence on oil that we are forced to
defend the economic authoritarian autocratic status quo in the middle
east. This increased dependence on oil committs us to an increasingly
costly defense of our national security, as we support tyrants in
these countries, The majority of the people who have no avenue for
popular dissent from the oil cartel regimes, identify the United
states as the source and reason for the repression they are
experincing, and so this opens up the ideological basis for terrorist
Jihadists to target us. We must begin the transition to a new economy.
As I mentioned in an earlier post in this same discussion thread, this
speculative fossil fuel economy is causing extremists to agitate for
more cuts in the social safety net to maintain this global supply
model that exacerbates income inequality and political turmoil, world
wide, while it is becoming increasingly more expensive to defend the
Oil economy status quo, as evinced by the occupation of Afghanistan
after 9/11/2001, the 2003 Iraq war, and now Libya.
Furthermore, in a twisted way, Newt Gingrich was right when he said he
disagreed with Paul Ryan's Budget plan for Medicare, charecterizing it
as, "as Radical Right wing Social Engineering," which is what the
republican propaganda campaign and policy proposal attempt to do, by
attempting to induce conservative senior americans over 55, who will
retain traditional Medicare and have them sell out the traditional
Medicare coverage for everyone under that age, and go to the polls and
later to their graves having sold out the rest of the American
populace, out of which half will require Medicare when they retire,
and will have their out of pocket costs doubled, and benefit limits
reduced.
We need to implement the Affordable care Act (ObamaCare), Adding
increased numbers of healthy americans to the insurance rolls would
offset costs for the elderly and disabled. Also it would lower
insurance costs and overall health care costs for americans, because
they would be able to get coverage at group rate discounts as opposed
to if they bought individual insurance policies. Also we need to
import prescription drugs from canada and western Europe, this would
save tax payers 25 billion dollars annually.
Inconclusion transitioning to a Green economy, repealing the Bush tax
cuts for the top 2 percent, implementing Financial reform, and saving
traditional Medicare along with implementing Obama Care should be the
key talking points for the 2012 election. Those candidates who ignore
the reality of finite commodity resources, environmental degredation,
or call for lowering the American standard of living, in the guise of
'free market' reform to government, will pay for it with defeat at the
polls in a national election. Americans arent as dumb as the global
oligarcs think.
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 10, 1:29 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in messagenews:1a4d619e-b2df-45a9...@v11g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
> more supply than demand.- Hide quoted text -
Jerry Okamura
fall?
"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
news:f6f3c97b-d732-4687...@e17g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
Jerry Okamura
"Sid9" wrote in message news:isu2je$gfq$1...@dont-email.me...
Not also an increase in supply?
The GM Volt and the newly announced Ford electric auto are the start!
Reducing the amount of oil needed, and increasing the production of
batteries?
Tom Jigme Wheat
> "Sid9" wrote in messagenews:isu2je$gfq$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Tom Jigme Wheat" <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1a4d619e-b2df-45a9...@v11g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 8:09 pm, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> > <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > Again, I'm against subsidies, bailouts and the like. (You're the
> >> > > corporate establishment talking head, you psychotic moron)
>
> >> > > > According to a 2009 study from the government's Energy Information
> >> > > > Administration,
>
> >> > > But I just provided another link from our government....If your
> >> > > beloved government is lying on this then why should anyone believe it
> >> > > at all? And why should we believe it over the people that want to
> >> > > drill for oil? (What, they're going to spend billions for nothing?)
>
> >> > Your link doesn't account for the cost of the oil extraction
>
> >> Actually it does.
> >> 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in
> >> North Dakota and Montana s Bakken Formation 25 Times More Than 1995
The only problem with the energy strategy that relies on just electric
car's is that the batteries themselves contain many toxins, so long
term renvironmentally sustainable efuse storage will be a challenge.
Also these batteries are dependant on rare earth metals of which china
produces approximately 90 percent of the world's supply. Also the
defense department is becoming increasingly dependant on rare earth
metals from china for its ballistic electronics guidance systems. If
we ever go to war with china over trade, or our debt, we will
definitely have a national security liability here.
Also I think the long term plan for energy independence can come from
Biomass, like using algae to create oil, like what Synthetic Genomics
is doing in partnership with Exxon.
check them out!
thomaswheat1975
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
<messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Again, I'm against subsidies, bailouts and the like. (You're the
> > > corporate establishment talking head, you psychotic moron)
>
> > > > According to a 2009 study from the government's Energy Information
> > > > Administration,
>
> > > But I just provided another link from our government....If your
> > > beloved government is lying on this then why should anyone believe it
> > > at all? And why should we believe it over the people that want to
> > > drill for oil? (What, they're going to spend billions for nothing?)
>
> > Your link doesn't account for the cost of the oil extraction
>
> Actually it does.
> 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in
> North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995
> Estimate—http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
>
> And this isn't the only report I can provide that shows we could be
> <Steve Hargreaves article, which didn't provide an actual link to the
> actual report because it probably would have destroyed his argument,
> is bs>
>
> Now again, if your beloved government is going to lie about the amount
> of oil available, why should we believe it?
> Why should we believe it over companies that are willing to put up
> billions to drill for the oil?
> If you were right(which your not) and there is very little oil to be
> had then isn't Obama a retard(more than normal) for blocking companies
> from trying to get to it?
> Seeing as how oil in a key ingredient in a lot of greenie techs, like
> solar panels, how is cutting off the supply of oil going to make their
> cost come down?
psychotic to answer these question. (Instead he cites an analysis of a
an old laughable 2009 EIA report that's been largely debunked by
reality(as well as the 2011 EIA report I provided))
He's worthless.
Tom Jigme Wheat
outlook report. It confirms the same conclusions found in the 2009
report. Fact: increased US domestic oil production (more drilling)
will not lower oil prices since the price is set by speculators and
overall global demand, and OPEC's ability to manipulate level of
supply. some other features of the report show that coal fired plants
are and will be over the long term will have more capital intensive
costs to maintain through 2035, then nautral gas or biofuel type
plants. The report predicts increased growth of Green technologies
world wide. Speculative reports on total shale oil reserves are often
overstated by oil companies in order to attract investors. Also the
costs are higher than nautral gas extraction. The report concludes
that fossil fuel consumption will decline by 5 percent by 2035, while
renewable energy consumption increases from 8 percent at 2009 levels
to 13 percent by 2035 as well.
next time before you cite something make sure you read it first,
corporate establishment talking head!!!!
thomaswheat1975
issues in focus section
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
"Changes in domestic oil production tend to have only a modest impact
on crude oil and
petroleum product prices, because any change in domestic oil
production is diluted in the
world oil market. In 2009, the United States produced 5.36 million
barrels per day of crude
oil and lease condensate, or 7 percent of the world total of 72.26
million barrels per day.
Unlike crude oil supply and prices, domestic natural gas supply and
prices are determined
largely by supply and demand for natural gas in the North American
market, where the
development and production of shale gas in the Lower 48 States is
largely responsible for
current and foreseeable future market conditions." (pg 36)
Although public estimates of onshore lower 48 shale gas resources, as
reported by private
institutions, have grown over the past decade as more shale gas plays
have been production
tested, it is not known what shale formations were included in the
estimates or what
methodology and data were used to derive them. For example, an
estimate relying only on
publicly reported costs and performance profiles for shale gas wells
would tend to
overestimate the size of the economic resource base, because public
information is skewed
toward high-production and high-profit wells. Given the lack of
information about how
private institutions have derived their resource estimates, this
analysis considers a set of
alternative resource estimates that are intended to provide a
plausible but not definitive
range of potential shale gas resources. (38)
Because some plant types—coal, nuclear, and most renewables—are more
capital-intensive than
others (in particular, natural gas), the mix of future capacity
installations and
consequently the fuels used for power generation depends on both the
relative and absolute
level of capital costs. If construction costs increase proportionately
for plants of all
types, leaving relative costs unchanged, natural-gas-fired capacity
will be more economical
than the more capital-intensive coal and nuclear technologies. Over
the longer term, higher
construction costs could lead to higher electricity prices, which
could slow the growth of
electricity consumption. (40)
Retrofit or retire?
Several key economic factors can influence owners’ decisions as to
whether older power
plants should be retrofitted or retired. The stringency of
regulations, compliance costs,
remaining life of a plant, fuel prices, and expectations regarding
electricity demand and
prices all may be considered. Plant owners must determine whether
expected future revenues
from their plants over their remaining lives will be sufficient to
recover the investment in
new equipment needed to comply with environmental regulations. Key
variables in the
determination are the costs of retrofit equipment and future
electricity prices.
Because natural gas often is the marginal fuel for electricity
generation, low natural gas
prices make it more likely that older coal-fired plants will be
retired. Low natural gas
prices reduce the overall cost of generating electricity, eventually
leading to reduced
revenues from coal-fired plants. The updated estimates of capital
costs for coal and nuclear
power plants in AEO2011 are 25 to 37 percent higher than those used in
AEO2010, whereas
capital costs for natural gas combined-cycle plants are essentially
unchanged from AEO2010.
In addition, projected natural gas prices in the AEO2011 Reference
case are lower than those
in AEO2010, reducing the levelized costs of generation for new natural
gas power plants.
Consequently, new combined-cycle plants are an attractive alternative
for replacing capacity
lost as a result of coal-fired plant retirements. (47-48)""
"In the GHG Price Economywide case, coal-fired generation declines
steadily throughout the
projection. In 2035, generation from coal is approximately 54 percent
below the 2009 level,
and 11 percent of the electricity generated from coal comes from
either new or retrofitted
coal plants with CCS. Generation from natural gas increases by more
than 90 percent from
2009 to 2035 in the GHG Price Economywide case. Natural gas is a more
attractive fuel for
complying with a GHG price, because when it is used in an efficient
combined-cycle plant, it
emits approximately 60 percent less CO2 per kilowatthour of generation
than coal burned in a
typical existing plant. Toward the end of the projection, new natural
gas plants with CCS
are also built in the GHG Price Economywide case, and in 2035 13
percent of gas-fired
electricity generation is from plants with CCS.
Table 11. Coal-fired plant retirements in nine cases, 2010-2035 (50)
coal plants spew mercury, sulphur dioxide, nitrous dioxide into the
atmosphere.
Worldwide, the use of energy from all sources increases over the
projection. Given
expectations that oil prices will remain relatively high, petroleum
and other liquids are
the world’s slowest-growing energy sources. High energy prices and
concerns about the
environmental consequences of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions lead a
number of national
governments to provide incentives in support of the development of
alternative energy
sources, making renewables the world’s fastest-growing source of
energy in the outlook.(60)
Consumption of all fuels increases in the AEO2011 Reference case, but
the aggregate fossil
fuel share of total energy use falls from 83 percent in 2009 to 78
percent in 2035 as
renewable fuel use grows rapidly (Figure 57). The renewable share of
total energy use
increases from 8 percent in 2009 to 13 percent in 2035, in response to
the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA2007) RFS, availability of
Federal tax credits
for renewable electricity generation and capacity early in the
projection period, and State
renewable portfolio standard (RPS) programs. (63)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/reports.cfm?t=128
the above link shows reference tables for the 2011 EIA.gov energy
outlook report which says
that conventional coal fired plants are and will have more capital
intensive costs to
maintain then solar or nautral gas plants.
On Jun 10, 10:57 pm, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking
> He's worthless.- Hide quoted text -
Tom Jigme Wheat
changes
in regards to discussion @
issues in focus section
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
"..Worldwide, the use of energy from all sources increases over the
projection. Given expectations that oil prices will remain relatively
high, petroleum and other liquids are the world’s slowest-growing
energy sources. High energy prices and concerns about the
environmental consequences of greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions lead a
number of national governments to provide incentives in support of the
development of alternative energy sources, making renewables the
world’s fastest-growing source of energy in the outlook.(60)
Consumption of all fuels increases in the AEO2011 Reference case, but
the aggregate fossil fuel share of total energy use falls from 83
percent in 2009 to 78 percent in 2035 as renewable fuel use grows
rapidly (Figure 57). The renewable share of total energy use increases
from 8 percent in 2009 to 13 percent in 2035, in response to the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA2007) RFS,
availability of Federal tax credits for renewable electricity
generation and capacity early in the projection period, and State
renewable portfolio standard (RPS) programs. (63)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/reports.cfm?t=128
the above link shows reference tables for the 2011 EIA.gov energy
outlook report which says
that conventional coal fired plants are and will have more capital
intensive costs to
maintain then solar or nautral gas plants.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Jerry Okamura
prices?
"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
news:ad9c47bb-01eb-43de...@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Jerry Okamura
"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
news:4c62acc1-ebcd-490e...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
Another one of those solutions that has its own disadvantages, like using
land that could be used to grow food? And for the global warming supporters
not a good way to go?
thomas wheat
the middle east, or us increasing domestic oil production, which has
no effect on oil prices since they are set globally, and are rigged by
OPEC, and the speculators. Also we only have 2 percent of the global
supply of oil reserves, so it doesnt make sense to squander limited
resources, especially since domestic oil energy producers have an
incentive to export our oil to Asia were they can get higher prices
rather than what they can get for domestic consumption. However, it
should be noted that US demand for oil is down from last year, and
2009 levels, so there is no conceivable reason according to classical
supply and demand, capitalism, that the price for oil should be
rising, unless the market is really rigged internationally, by
speculators and OPEC. Regarding food price spikes and lack of arable
land, this is excerbated by the fossil fuel economy since food prices
rise in conjuction with rising fossil fuel prices.Furthermore,
Increased fossil fuel emissions is also contributing to more extreme
global weather patterns which are affecting global crop yields. So we
cant continue with business as usual. We need a long term energy
policy that Transitions to Solar, Wind, and (Biomass, like what
Synthetic Genomics is working on,) and increased nautral gas
production, which according to EIA.gov, is cheaper long term than oil,
and is not as subject to international speculation like oil is, for
use in homes and transportation vehicles should offset the concerns
raised by your post.
thomaswheat1975
Annual Energy Outlook 2011
with projections to 2035
US Energy Information Administration
issues in focus section
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
-excerpts-
"Changes in domestic oil production tend to have only a modest impact
on crude oil and petroleum product prices, because any change in
domestic oil
production is diluted in the world oil market. In 2009, the United
States produced 5.36 million barrels per day of crude oil and lease
condensate, or 7 percent of the world total of 72.26 million barrels
per day. Unlike crude oil supply and prices, domestic natural gas
supply and prices are determined largely by supply and demand for
natural gas in the North American market, where the development and
production of shale gas in the Lower 48 States is largely responsible
for current and foreseeable future market conditions." (pg 36)
Although public estimates of onshore lower 48 shale gas resources, as
reported by private institutions, have grown over the past decade as
more shale gas plays have been production tested, it is not known what
"..Worldwide, the use of energy from all sources increases over the
projection. Given expectations that oil prices will remain relatively
high, petroleum and other liquids are the world’s slowest-growing
energy sources. High energy prices and concerns about the
environmental consequences of greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions lead a
number of national governments to provide incentives in support of the
development of alternative energy sources, making renewables the
world’s fastest-growing source of energy in the outlook.(60)
Consumption of all fuels increases in the AEO2011 Reference case, but
the aggregate fossil fuel share of total energy use falls from 83
percent in 2009 to 78 percent in 2035 as renewable fuel use grows
rapidly (Figure 57). The renewable share of total energy use increases
from 8 percent in 2009 to 13 percent in 2035, in response to the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA2007) RFS,
availability of Federal tax credits for renewable electricity
generation and capacity early in the projection period, and State
renewable portfolio standard (RPS) programs. (63)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/reports.cfm?t=128
the above link shows reference tables for the 2011 EIA.gov energy
outlook report which says
that conventional coal fired plants are and will have more capital
intensive costs to
maintain then solar or nautral gas plants.
from discussion @ groups.google.com
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/5e50eb860afc51f4?lnk=raot#5e50eb860afc51f4
On Jun 11, 11:03 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote:
> "Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in messagenews:4c62acc1-ebcd-490e...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
> not a good way to go?- Hide quoted text -
thomas wheat
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/156ded32db126629?lnk=raot#156ded32db126629
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.eia.gov/analysis/reports.cfm?t=128
>
> the above link shows reference tables for the 2011 EIA.gov energy
> outlook report which says
>
> that conventional coal fired plants are and will have more capital
> intensive costs to
>
> maintain then solar or nautral gas plants.
>
> from discussion @ groups.google.comhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
psychotic moron wrote:
> AS usual you are wrong again.
>
> You never even read the 2011 energy outlook report.
its laughable predictions.
>
> It confirms the same conclusions found in the 2009 report.
prime example of garbage in/garbage out, selective data, ideology
driven faux science.
Key notes from report:
A) The report says it usually takes 3 to 10 years for oil production.
It actually implies it could be done faster with fast tracks from US
government.
B) It assumes that America becoming more energy independent wont cause
the the price of oil to massively go down because the rest of the
world will cut back on it's production.
C) It blindly estimates that there is 69.3 to 144.0 trillion barrels
of technically recoverable undiscovered U.S. offshore oil.
D) Contrary to what this psychotic moron is saying, the report
actually predicts that US production will drive down prices(modestly).
E) It implies that by 2035 we will have reached peak oil and prices
will start to skyrocket.
F) When the Federal investment tax credit expires the average growth
in solar photovoltaic is predicted to slow from 39 percent per year to
less than 1 percent per year. Wind capacity will go to 0 percent.
Predicts, without this subsidies, most of our solar and wind
production will massively decrease. (Doesn't factor in loss of state
subsidies or loss of other federal subsidies)
>
> Fact: increased US domestic oil production (more drilling)
> will not lower oil prices
That's not what the report says, you psychotic moron. It says that if
we don't drill prices will be higher. And you completely ignore what
effect sending our cash to countries like Saudi Arabia has. (I
personally would rather see the money going to our economy, but that's
just me)
>
> since the price is set by speculators and
> overall global demand, and OPEC's ability to manipulate level of
> supply.
A) OPEC hasn't regulated shit and most of the time its members are
cheating and flooding the market with their own oil, you psychotic
moron.
B) We get most of our oil from non-OPEC members like Canada and
Mexico.
>
> next time before you cite something make sure you read it first,
You're a psychotic moron. (Not an insult)
<Answer these question>
Now if our government was lying in its 2009 report....Why should we
believe what it has to say now?
Why should we believe it over people who are willing to spend billions
of their dollars to drill for oil?
If you were right(which the report says you're not) and there is very
little oil to be had, and drilling for it wont touch oil prices at
all, then isn't Obama a retard(more than normal) for blocking
companies from trying to get to it?
Seeing as how oil in a key ingredient in a lot of greenie techs, like
solar panels, how is cutting off the supply of oil going to make their
cost come down?
The report says that solar panels(and the like) only exist because of
gov subsidies...What does that say about their viability?
thomas wheat
AS usual you are wrong again. You never even read the 2011 energy
outlook report. You dont even cite page numbers. The study says
increased domestic oil drilling will not effect oil prices since we
only produce 7 percent of the world's total, and OPEC accounts for 40
percent of the world's total so they have more leverage to manipulate
oil prices. This also doesnt include the price added by the oil
speculators, who according to Exxon's CEO are jacking up the price by
40 dollars, or if you perfer the more conservative Goldman Sachs
scenario, 26 dollars of the price of oil per barrel is due to
speculation. The study concludes that natural gas and other Green
technologies will increase rapidly by 2035, as fossil fuel energy
supplies become less economically viable due to global supply
manipulations by OPEC and decreasing economically viable reserves
coupled with increased demand in Asia. Also the study even acknowleges
that surveys done on potential domestic oil reserves are overstated by
the industry.
The 2011 study confirms the same conclusions found in the 2009
report.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
Fact: increased US domestic oil production (more drilling)
will not lower oil prices since the price is set by speculators and
overall global demand, and OPEC's ability to manipulate level of
supply. some other features of the report show that coal fired plants
are and will be over the long term will have more capital intensive
costs to maintain through 2035, then nautral gas or biofuel type
plants. The report predicts increased growth of Green technologies
world wide. Speculative reports on total shale oil reserves are often
overstated by oil companies in order to attract investors. Also the
costs are higher than nautral gas extraction. The report concludes
that fossil fuel consumption will decline by 5 percent by 2035, while
renewable energy consumption increases from 8 percent at 2009 levels
to 13 percent by 2035 as well.
next time before you cite something make sure you read it first,
corporate establishment talking head!!!!
latest OPEC Oil News
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/business/energy-environment/11oil.html
The article says that oil prices have gone down temporarily to 99
dollars a barrel, because of Saudi unilateral actions to raise supply,
but that supply will be sold to china and oil prices will rise again
soon sharply, as demand in Asia keeps increasing.
issues in focus section
here's the 2011 Energy Outlook study by the Energy Information
Administration its conclusions conform to the 2009 Energy Outlook
study as well
Your premises were that increased domestic oil production would lower
gas prices,and that coal fired power plants were more economically
viable long term and the fact is you are wrong, this link proves that.
I cite page numbers and you do not.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
"Changes in domestic oil production tend to have only a modest impact
on crude oil and petroleum product prices, because any change in
domestic oil
production is diluted in the world oil market. In 2009, the United
States produced 5.36 million barrels per day of crude oil and lease
condensate, or 7 percent of the world total of 72.26 million barrels
per day. Unlike crude oil supply and prices, domestic natural gas
supply and prices are determined largely by supply and demand for
natural gas in the North American market, where the development and
production of shale gas in the Lower 48 States is largely responsible
for current and foreseeable future market conditions." (pg 36)
IF US increased Domestic oil production it would have no effect on
local prices since the price is set by international demand as the
study clearly shows. Also we have only 2 percent of the world's total
supply of oil, and we would be a fool to mass produce, since we have a
limited economically viable finite supply, the majority of which would
be sold to China and India, since our oil companies can sell to them
for higher prices wholesale than what they could get away with
domestic oil sales.
“World oil prices are influenced by a number of factors, some of which
have mainly short-term impacts. Others, such as expectations about
world oil demand and OPEC production decisions, affect prices in the
longer term. Supply and demand in the world oil market are balanced
through responses to price movements, and the factors underlying
expectations for supply and demand are both numerous and complex. The
key factors determining long-term expectations for oil supply, demand,
and prices can be summarized in four broad categories: the economics
of non-OPEC conventional liquids supply; OPEC investment and
production decisions; the economics of unconventional liquids supply;
and world demand for liquids.” (pg. 23)
also I was right when I said it takes 10 years to develop an oil well
and that potential reserves in the Gulf and elsewhere are
overstated.
“In the High OCS Resource case, the assumed increase in technically
recoverable OCS resources in undeveloped areas impacts crude oil and
natural gas production through 2035, primarily because of the long
lead times required for resource development in the offshore,
regardless of the size of the resources discovered. In most areas,
depending on location and water depth, a period of 3 to 10 years for
exploration, infrastructure development, and developmental drilling is
required from lease acquisition to first production. (35)”
Also in regards to deep offshore oil drilling you have conveniently
blocked out of your memory, the BP Deepwater Horizon Macando Oill Rig
disaster of last year, in which the conventional safety features i.e.,
the blow out preventer failed, and the fact is the oil industry has no
plan for containing a massive oil spill at depths greater than a mile
deep beneath ocean. That disaster was the worst oil spill in our
history, and the environmental impact will be felt for years to come.
regarding your high OCS data quote on page 35, this proves nothing
since more domestic drilling will not reduce oil prices, since demand
in Asia outpaces global supply quotas. This will give the speculators
further excuse to drive up the price of oil even further.
regarding prices the EIA Study predicts Oil Prices will continue rise
regardless of whether the US increases supply.
High Oil Price cases
In the AEO2011 High Oil Price case, high demand for liquids, combined
with more constrained supply availability, results in a sharp,
continued increase in world oil prices. As in the Low Oil Price case,
GDP growth is used as a proxy for liquids demand growth in the non-
OECD nations. Annual GDP growth in non-OECD nations is assumed to be
1.0 percentage points higher in the High Oil Price case than in the
Reference case, or 5.7 percent on average. Coupled with more
constrained supply, oil prices increase to $200 per barrel in 2035 as
a consequence. Despite the higher prices, however, total world liquids
consumption grows to 115 million barrels per day in the High Oil Price
case, or 4 million barrels per day higher than in the Reference case.
In contrast, in the Traditional High Oil Price case, only world
liquids supply strategies are assumed to result in higher oil prices
and tight supplies, which constrain increases in demand over the long
term.
In both the High Oil Price case and the Traditional High Oil Price
case, high prices and restrictions on the production of lower cost
conventional liquids encourage the development of relatively expensive
unconventional supplies. (shale oil) The outlook is similar in the two
cases, with about 20 million barrels per day of unconventional
resources brought to market in 2035. Non-OPEC liquids supplies are
slightly higher in the High Oil Price case than in the Traditional
High Oil Price case, but the largest difference between the two cases
is in conventional OPEC supplies. The High Oil Price case assumes that
OPEC will increase production to maximize revenues, because demand in
non-OECD nations is not dampened by high prices. In this case, OPEC
conventional liquids supplies increase by almost 8 million barrels per
day from 2009 to 2035, as compared with a decline of 2 million barrels
per day in the Traditional High Oil Price case.” (pg. 24)
special emphasis on this quote: It shows the oil industry inflates
their estimates on their oil shale reserves.
“Although public estimates of onshore lower 48 shale gas resources, as
here's the study's conclusion where it says alternative fuel sources
will be more economically viable over the long term.
"..Worldwide, the use of energy from all sources increases over the
projection. Given expectations that oil prices will remain relatively
high, petroleum and other liquids are the world’s slowest-growing
energy sources. High energy prices and concerns about the
environmental consequences of greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions lead a
number of national governments to provide incentives in support of the
development of alternative energy sources, making renewables the
world’s fastest-growing source of energy in the outlook.(60)
Consumption of all fuels increases in the AEO2011 Reference case, but
the aggregate fossil fuel share of total energy use falls from 83
percent in 2009 to 78 percent in 2035 as renewable fuel use grows
rapidly (Figure 57). The renewable share of total energy use increases
from 8 percent in 2009 to 13 percent in 2035, in response to the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA2007) RFS,
availability of Federal tax credits for renewable electricity
generation and capacity early in the projection period, and State
renewable portfolio standard (RPS) programs. (63)
This study full conforms to the 2009 study as shown below:
It unequivocaly states that increased offshore oil drilling off of
the
West coast, East Coast, and Gulf coast would have a marginal impact
on
oil prices in the US, and it would take almost 10 years to develop
the
new sites and bring them to full production capacity. Furthermore any
increase in domestic oil supply would be offset by cuts in supply by
OPEC, to maintain the high price of oil per barrel, as evinced by
OPEC's decision yesterday to not increase oil supplies, which means
oil prices are going up again. {update the new york times reported
today
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/business/energy-environment/11oil.html
that saudi arabia increased supply and that this will have short term
price stability as the article predicts oil prices will rise as demand
increases in Asia.}
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
In regards to post @
I'll reiterate my statement of fact. We are at a 20 year high in
domestic oil production and this has not lowered oil prices. We are
producing 1.5 million more barrels of oil than we did in 2006 and
this
has had no effect on prices. Prices are manipulated by the
speculators, in the commodity futures market, and by OPEC.
In regards to message @ groups.google.com
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.liberal/msg/fef229d5d5360ccf
also see this link:
---
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/reports.cfm?t=128
the above link shows reference tables for the 2011 EIA.gov energy
outlook report which says that conventional coal fired plants are and
will have more capital
intensive costs to maintain then solar or nautral gas plants.
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 11, 7:11 pm, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking
head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
thomas wheat
head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The report says that solar panels(and the like) only exist because of
> gov subsidies...What does that say about their viability?
The same could be said about the multibillion dollar subsidies we give
the oil companies. However, regarding tax credits, since the potential
for green tech - natural gas to take off and become more economically
viable in the long term and since it is a relatively new industry, I
dont see anything wrong with subsidies or tax credits in the short
term, until they become a mainstream supplier of energy. There is no
justification for subsidising the oil industry when they reported over
36 billion dollars in profits last quarter. Since I assume we are
using tax credit and subsidy in the same way, I dont agree with
subsidizing the life styles of the rich rich and infamous with these
current extended Bush tax cuts, especially since they doubled their
money under Bush, and middle class income declined under bush by 2300
dollars. Supply side, Trickle down economics is full with this
obsolete income redistribution tax subsidies for the rich. The problem
is the rich can only see the short term profit margin, and with more
wealth they will just used it invest in more speculative derivatives
trading, which will tank the economy even further and exacerbate our
economic collapse as a super power, by the foreign transfer of US
sovereign wealth to tax shelters, and into the hands of the global
military industrial oil supply oligarcy.
thomaswheat1975
discussion thread archived here:
thomas wheat
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> > gov subsidies...What does that say about their viability?
>
> The same could be said about the multibillion dollar subsidies we give
> the oil companies.
even if we got rid of their subsidies, you fucking psychotic retard.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
psychotic moron wrote:
> AS usual you are wrong again.
anyone reads it they will see my notes were right)
>
>You never even read the 2011 energy outlook report.
trust in the companies that are willing to use billions of their own
cash to get to the oil. (Not some bs report with made up data that's
masquerading as science)
I invite everyone to read this report...Like this psychotic moron,
it's pathetic.
>
> You dont even cite page numbers.
Because it's a laughable agenda driven report(which contradicts itself
and past reports)....And I think most people are capable of looking at
the table of contents and reading it themselves...you psychotic moron.
> The study says increased domestic oil drilling will not effect oil prices
Actually that's not what the report says.
And if you want to get real technical the report says this:
Projections by EIA are not statements of what will happen but of what
might happen, given the assumptions and
methodologies used for any particular scenario. The Reference case
projection is a business-as-usual trend estimate, given
known technology and technological and demographic trends. EIA
explores the impacts of alternative assumptions in
other scenarios with different macroeconomic growth rates, world oil
prices, and rates of technology progress. The main
cases in AEO2011 generally assume that current laws and regulations
are maintained throughout the projections. Thus, the
projections provide policy-neutral baselines that can be used to
analyze policy initiatives.
While energy markets are complex, energy models are simplified
representations of energy production and consumption,
regulations, and producer and consumer behavior. Projections are
highly dependent on the data, methodologies, model
structures, and assumptions used in their development. Behavioral
characteristics are indicative of real-world tendencies
rather than representations of specific outcomes.
Energy market projections are subject to much uncertainty. Many of the
events that shape energy markets are random and
cannot be anticipated. In addition, future developments in
technologies, demographics, and resources cannot be foreseen
with certainty. Many key uncertainties in the AEO2011 projections are
addressed through alternative cases.
EIA has endeavored to make these projections as objective, reliable,
and useful as possible; however, they should serve as
an adjunct to, not a substitute for, a complete and focused analysis
of public policy initiatives.
In short, it's a guess that changes from year to year. (Which is why
the 2011 report is completely different than the 2009 report)
Past predictions: we wouldn't see $100 per barrel until 2017 and
natural gas would remain below $5 per thousand cubic feet (mcf) until
2022.
Only a psychotic moron would trust such bs.
<snip>
You really are a complete fucking psychotic moron. (Why else would you
spam post information that proves you're a liar and that could easily
be summed up in a sentence and a page number)
Tom Jigme Wheat
again:
regarding discussion archived here:
Why would you attempt to cite a report, albeit without page numbers,
and then deny the validity of that report when it contradicts your
skewed statist view that we have an inexhaustible supply of oil, and
that the USA is an island in a vacumn, not subject to the price
manipulations of global economic oil demand. Fact is I've proven the
report's findings, that increased domestic oil drilling will have no
impact on oil prices since they are set globally, by OPEC, and the
speculators. (36) Furthermore the study says that any increase in our
oil supply will either be offset by OPEC cuts in supply to drive up
the price, or by increasing demand in Asia, especially in China will
drive up the price of oil per barrel. Finally the report argues that
increased domestic Nautral Gas production will prove to be more
economically viable then increased importation of oil, or domestic oil
production, because the North American nautral gas market is more
economically integrated, infrastructrally developed and more insulated
from the speculative demand price spikes of the globally traded oil
market, since nautral gas prices are much lower.(pg. 60) Oil prices
will continue to rise, in most scenarios the report says, oil could
reach between 125 dollars a barrel to 200 dollars a barrel.(pg 23)
That's hardly economically sustainable for the long term. Green
Technologies, i.e., solar, wind power, Biomass,(pg. 77) and Nautral
Gas are going to be the new fuel technologies of the future. Quite
living in the past.
thomaswheat1975
Here's the
2009 EIA.gov energy outlook study,
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
its overall conclusions also conform to the 2011 study, which you
cited, albeit without page numbers, and now disavow because you are a
Global Warming denialist, living in a static fantasy of the US having
unlimited oil reserves, while the cost of maintaining that supply,
i.e., patronage of client states to facillitate oil supply, directly
contravenes our national security, and creates a foreign transfer of
US wealth to unstable politically repressive regimes, where the masses
there hate us for enabling tyranny. We only produce about 7 percent of
daily supply of world oil, while we only have 2 percent of the world's
oil reserves. If we expanded US domestic oil extraction it would have
no effect on oil prices, since it takes 10 years to bring a rig to
full production capacity, and that the oil we export, is marginal to
the overall global oil supply and international demand mostly from
asia is driving up the price, along with futures speculation.. Even if
we did increase production, that oil would not be sold for domestic
consumption, rather it would be sold to Asia, since they are willing
to pay more for the gasoline, and global oil demand is the highest in
that region.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
-excerpt-
"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the
Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a
significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production
or
prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and
production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic
production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case
is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and
3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For
the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to
be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access
case
compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case
(Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international
market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to
be insignificant. "
2011 EIA.gov Energy Outlook Study
note: both the 2009 and 2011 EIA.gov studies reach the same
conclusions. You tried to cite the report as fact, albeit w/out page
numbers and now you disavow it, because you are partisan industry hack
wannabe, and you associate your machismo with fossil fuel consumption.
issues in focus section
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
"Changes in domestic oil production tend to have only a modest impact
on crude oil and petroleum product prices, because any change in
domestic oil production is diluted in the world oil market. In 2009,
the United
States produced 5.36 million barrels per day of crude oil and lease
condensate, or 7 percent of the world total of 72.26 million barrels
per day. Unlike crude oil supply and prices, domestic natural gas
supply and prices are determined largely by supply and demand for
natural gas in the North American market, where the development and
production of shale gas in the Lower 48 States is largely responsible
for current and foreseeable future market conditions." (pg 36)
On how prices for oil are set globally:
"“World oil prices are influenced by a number of factors, some of
which have mainly short-term impacts. Others, such as expectations
about world oil demand and OPEC production decisions, affect prices in
the longer term. Supply and demand in the world oil market are
balanced through responses to price movements, and the factors
underlying expectations for supply and demand are both numerous and
complex. The key factors determining long-term expectations for oil
supply, demand, and prices can be summarized in four broad categories:
the economics of non-OPEC conventional liquids supply; OPEC investment
and production decisions; the economics of unconventional liquids
supply; and world demand for liquids.” (pg. 23)"
How the oil industry overstates domestic oil reserves:
Although public estimates of onshore lower 48 shale gas resources, as
reported by private institutions, have grown over the past decade as
more shale gas plays have been production tested, it is not known
what
shale formations were included in the estimates or what methodology
and data were used to derive them. For example, an estimate relying
only on publicly reported costs and performance profiles for shale
gas
wells would tend to overestimate the size of the economic resource
base, because public information is skewed toward high-production and
high-profit wells. Given the lack of information about how private
institutions have derived their resource estimates, this analysis
considers a set of alternative resource estimates that are intended
to
provide a plausible but not definitive range of potential shale gas
resources. (pg. 38)
also I was right when I said it takes 10 years to develop an oil well
and that potential reserves in the Gulf and elsewhere are overstated.
“In the High OCS Resource case, the assumed increase in technically
recoverable OCS resources in undeveloped areas impacts crude oil and
natural gas production through 2035, primarily because of the long
lead times required for resource development in the offshore,
regardless of the size of the resources discovered. In most areas,
depending on location and water depth, a period of 3 to 10 years for
exploration, infrastructure development, and developmental drilling is
required from lease acquisition to first production. (35)”
regarding growth expectations of nautral gas from 2011 - 2035, and the
decline of coal production:
""In the GHG Price Economywide case, coal-fired generation declines
steadily throughout the projection. In 2035, generation from coal is
approximately 54 percent below the 2009 level, and 11 percent of the
electricity generated from coal comes from either new or retrofitted
coal plants with CCS. Generation from natural gas increases by more
than 90 percent from 2009 to 2035 in the GHG Price Economywide case.
Natural gas is a more attractive fuel for complying with a GHG price,
because when it is used in an efficient combined-cycle plant, it emits
approximately 60 percent less CO2 per kilowatthour of generation than
coal burned in a typical existing plant. Toward the end of the
projection, new natural gas plants with CCS are also built in the GHG
Price Economywide case, and in 2035 13 percent of gas-fired
electricity generation is from plants with CCS.
Table 11. Coal-fired plant retirements in nine cases, 2010-2035 (50) "
Nautral Gas Energy power plants will be more economically viable to
maintain then coal fired or nuclear power plants.
" If construction costs increase proportionately for
plants of all types, leaving relative costs unchanged, natural-gas-
fired capacity will be more economical than the more capital-
intensive
coal and nuclear technologies. (pg. 40) "
Here is the 2011 Energy Outlook study's conclusions:
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
"..Worldwide, the use of energy from all sources increases over the
projection. Given expectations that oil prices will remain relatively
high, petroleum and other liquids are the world’s slowest-growing
energy sources. High energy prices and concerns about the
environmental consequences of greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions lead a
number of national governments to provide incentives in support of the
development of alternative energy sources, making renewables the
world’s fastest-growing source of energy in the outlook.(60) "
"Consumption of all fuels increases in the AEO2011 Reference case,
but
the aggregate fossil fuel share of total energy use falls from 83
percent in 2009 to 78 percent in 2035 as renewable fuel use grows
rapidly (Figure 57). The renewable share of total energy use increases
from 8 percent in 2009 to 13 percent in 2035, in response to the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA2007) RFS,
availability of Federal tax credits for renewable electricity
generation and capacity early in the projection period, and State
renewable portfolio standard (RPS) programs. (63) "
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 12, 4:38 am, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking
head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Jigme Wheat
Why would you attempt to cite a report, albeit without page numbers,
and then deny the validity of that report when it contradicts your
skewed statist view that we have an inexhaustible supply of oil, and
that the USA is an island in a vacumn, not subject to the price
manipulations of global economic oil demand. Fact is I've proven the
report's findings, that increased domestic oil drilling will have no
impact on oil prices since they are set globally, by OPEC, and the
speculators. Furthermore the study says that any increase in our oil
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
the overall global oil supply. Even if we did increase production,
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
issues in focus section
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
On Jun 12, 11:23 am, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> As usual the corporate politically partisan talking head is wrong
> again:
>
> regarding discussion archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
> generation and capacity early in ...
>
> read more »
Tom Jigme Wheat
Prices are Manipulated by OPEC, Increased Asian Demand and Futures
Market speculators
regarding discussion archived here:
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
issues in focus section
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
On Jun 12, 11:30 am, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> regarding discussion archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> Why would you attempt to cite a report, albeit without page numbers,
> and then deny the validity of that report when it contradicts your
> skewed statist view that we have an inexhaustible supply of oil, and
> that the USA is an island in a vacumn, not subject to the price
> manipulations of global economic oil demand. Fact is I've proven the
> report's findings, that increased domestic oil drilling will have no
> impact on oil prices since they are set globally, by OPEC, and the
> On Jun 12, 11:23 am, Tom Jigme Wheat ...
>
> read more »
Tom Jigme Wheat
So as usual your corporate establishment talking head self, argues via
fait accompli that we should continue to give the oil companies
subsidies. Fact is we will be out of oil by 2100 at the latest, when
the world will have 10 billion people, and with this current statist
fossil fuel economy we are fucked under that scenario, when we run
out. Nautral Gas supplies will last at most 150 years, so long term we
need to transition to Biomass, like what J. Craig Ventner is working
on @ http://www.syntheticgenomics.com . Other conventional alternative
technologies include wind, and solar. Unconventional long term
theoretical sources could be derived from Tokamak Hot Fusion power
plants, which could provide an inexhaustable supply of hydrogen
energy.
check out this site:
thomaswheat1975
Jerry Okamura
"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
news:04cd71db-f686-4730...@o10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Can someone who predicts the future be wrong?
http://www.iter.org/mach
thomaswheat1975
Jerry Okamura
oil?
"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
news:011f1359-0d29-4fea...@v11g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
Tom Jigme Wheat
> Will the price of oil increase or decrease, if there is a larger supply of
> oil?
production, which is what they recently did on Friday, prices will go
down marginally,in the short term. The EIA.gov 2011 energy Outlook
study predicts oil could reach 200 dollars a barrel by 2035, because
one of its scenarios predicts OPEC's overall supply will drop from 40
percent, to about 36 percent, because of increasing population growth
and demand in Asia as well as overall dwindling global oil reserve
calculations.Shale oil and gas extraction is projected to grow during
this period, but the costs for extraction, are much higher than
traditional oil drilling extraction methods.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
So this will cause the price for oil to rise in the US domestic
market, in addition to what OPEC and the speculators in the Future's
market can do to manipulate the price. We have a finite limit of oil
reserves, begining the transition to Green technologies like Nautral
Gas, Solar, Wind, Biomass, and the Tokamak Nuclear Fusion Test
Reactor
http://science.energy.gov/fes/facilities/
When Bush was in office he cut the funding for Fusion Energy in half.
What in asshole!!! Everywhere else he spent like like crazy, but no we
couldn't develop an inexhaustable cheap energy source with his
corporate welfare policies for the rich and oil companies. Obama needs
to raise funding for this program and partner with the French, @
http://www.iter.org
are ways we can harness potentially, unlimited inexhaustable energy
sources, without the environmental , or national security liabilities
associated with the fossil fuel economy.
thomaswheat1975
discussion archived here:
>
> "Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in messagenews:011f1359-0d29-4fea...@v11g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
>
> regarding discussion archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> Why would you attempt to cite a report, albeit without page numbers,
> and then deny the validity of that report when it contradicts your
> skewed statist view that we have an inexhaustible supply of oil, and
> that the USA is an island in a vacumn, not subject to the price
> manipulations of global economic oil demand. Fact is I've proven the
> report's findings, that increased domestic oil drilling will have no
> impact on oil prices since they are set globally, by OPEC, and the
> availability of Federal tax credits for ...
>
> read more »
Jerry Okamura
oil?
"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
news:5ba3b557-3a49-47fd...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
Tom Jigme Wheat
effect on domestic oil prices.
see pg 36 of the 2011 eia.gov energy outlook study, link ,I previously
posted. Most of the oil would be sold abroad anyway, since its more
profitable to do so. Releasing some of the strategic petroleum
reserve for american domestic consumption would temporarily lower the
price, but this is a short term solution.
Furthermore, the prices would rise again, since oil is traded
internationally, and the greatest demand for oil is in asia.
Unilateral oil supply increases by the Saudi's in defiance of OPEC,
have lowered the price temporarily to 99 dollars a barrel as of
friday, but you have to remember the Saudi's have the world's largest
oil reserves. However, their oil, has high sulphur content, unlike the
premium light sweet crude that Venezuela, and Libya have, that's
required for diesal and airplane fuel. The US only has 2 percent of
total oil reserves, and only supplies 7 percent of the daily supply,
so while it has political leveraging power to effect oil prices, like
Bush's occupation of Iraq, or through diplomatic means, economically,
it is at the mercy of the global market and the price is set by global
demand, which is much greater than what the US can produce to create a
glut in supply to stabilize oil prices. Also Bush's occupation of Iraq
nearly bankrupted us, and it had little effect on long term oil price
increases. Until the US transitions to an alternative fuel source, we
will be at the mercy of global demand and market speculation, setting
prices, and thus we will have little control over our own gasoline
prices. Demagougerish populism will call for the occupatiion of more
middle east countries, and this will lead to more terrorist attacks on
american soil, and decreased civil liberties as the government will
seek to expand the USA Patriot Act's warrantless search and seizure
clauses. The 2011 EIA.gov study predicted that oil could rise from 125
dollars a barrell to 200 dollars a barrel by 2035. By then you will
wish that you had a hybrid, or had a car powered by nautral gas,
Biofuels (Biomass algae), and that your home was powered by the
Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor.
thomaswheat1975 .
On Jun 12, 3:09 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> Will the price of oil increase or decrease, if there is a larger supply of
> oil?
>
> "Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in messagenews:5ba3b557-3a49-47fd...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jun 12, 1:49 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:> Will the price of oil increase or decrease, if there is a larger supply of
> > oil?
>
> In the short term if major suppliers like OPEC increase oil
> production, which is what they recently did on Friday, prices will go
> down marginally,in the short term. The EIA.gov 2011 energy Outlook
> study predicts oil could reach 200 dollars a barrel by 2035, because
> one of its scenarios predicts OPEC's overall supply will drop from 40
> percent, to about 36 percent, because of increasing population growth
> and demand in Asia as well as overall dwindling global oil reserve
> calculations.Shale oil and gas extraction is projected to grow during
> this period, but the costs for extraction, are much higher than
> traditional oil drilling extraction methods.
>
> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> So this will cause the price for oil to rise in the US domestic
> market, in addition to what OPEC and the speculators in the Future's
> market can do to manipulate the price. We have a finite limit of oil
> reserves, begining the transition to Green technologies like Nautral
> Gas, Solar, Wind, Biomass, and the Tokamak Nuclear Fusion Test
> Reactor
>
> http://science.energy.gov/fes/facilities/
>
> When Bush was in office he cut the funding for Fusion Energy in half.
> What in asshole!!! Everywhere else he spent like like crazy, but no we
> couldn't develop an inexhaustable cheap energy source with his
> corporate welfare policies for the rich and oil companies. Obama needs
> to raise funding for this program and partner with the French, @http://www.iter.org
>
> are ways we can harness potentially, unlimited inexhaustable energy
> sources, without the environmental , or national security liabilities
> associated with the fossil fuel economy.
> thomaswheat1975
>
> discussion archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa/browse_thread/thread/...
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
wrote:
> As usual the corporate politically partisan
>
> Why would you attempt to cite a report
your report(EIA - Annual Energy Outlook 2009) was wrong. Its
predictions of the future were wrong. Its outlook on supply and demand
were wrong. It's insane conclusions were wrong. It was all around
wrong, wrong wrong. These reports are a perfect example of just how
dishonest, inept, corrupt and greedy our government really is and how
it will use anything to try and get more power and money to a select
few. (Statism always fails and these reports were compiled to support
statism)
The fact that you support such behavior just shows what a psychotic
moron you are.
Note: I also cited the report because it proved you(psychotic retard)
wrong on several of your assertions(time to drill for oil, it's
effects on price, etc) and because it basically puts in you into the
position of admitting either A) You're a liar or B) our government is.
(Instead you've proven that both you and our government are
moronically full of shit and lying your asses off)
>
> contradicts your skewed statist view
You support billionaire welfare, greenie subsidies, government
interventions, etc. You're the statest with a skewed view, you
psychotic retard.
----------------------
Increased US Domestic Oil Production will not lower Oil Prices isn't
what the report says....You stick with the subject line when the
report actually says the complete opposite. You're a psychotic moron.
Tom Jigme Wheat
head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 11:23 am, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:> As usual the corporate politically partisan
>
> That's you, you psychotic retard.
>
> > Why would you attempt to cite a report
>
> I cited a report(EIA - Annual Energy Outlook 2011) because it proved
> your report(EIA - Annual Energy Outlook 2009) was wrong.
Just for your small brain here's the quote from the 2011 report
regarding increased domestic oil production will not lower oil prices.
2011 EIA.gov Energy Outlook Study
issues in focus section
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
Now compare the first quote with the 2009 report quote I furnished
earlier. You will see no contradictions
2009 EIA.gov energy outlook study, the summary is only one page, I
assume you know how to read!!
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
excerpt-
"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the
Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a
significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production
or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and
production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic
production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case
is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and
3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For
the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to
be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access
case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case
(Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international
market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to
be insignificant. "
> Its
> predictions of the future were wrong.
OH and you can predict the future. Show me your market analysis models
> Its outlook on supply and demand
> were wrong. It's insane conclusions were wrong.
your only saying that because both reports contradict your statist
view that increased domestic oil drilling, will lower prices, and that
we have a unlimited supply of oil. Your simplistic views ignore the
realities of international economic forces and the control they exert
over governments, and local ,regional economies.
>It was all around
> wrong, wrong wrong. These reports are a perfect example of just how
> dishonest, inept, corrupt and greedy our government really is
If so why would you cite the 2011 Energy report, (albeit w/out page
numbers) as fact, then disavow the whole complete report. Now you are
contradicting yourself.
>and how
> it will use anything to try and get more power and money to a select
> few. (Statism always fails and these reports were compiled to support
> statism)
Oh and the oil companies are the champions of liberty and progress, we
should have them in charge instead of a black president, and a
obstructionist congress on the billionaire, David Koch payroll.
>
> The fact that you support such behavior just shows what a psychotic
> moron you are.
>
> Note: I also cited the report because it proved you(psychotic retard)
> wrong on several of your assertions(time to drill for oil, it's
> effects on price, etc)
The only reason oil dropped to 99 dollars a barrel on friday is
because the Saudi's agreed to supply more oil. They have the largest
oil reserves, hence the have the most ability out of OPEC and other
oil exporting countries to effect the price temporarily through
increase in supply.
>and because it basically puts in you into the
> position of admitting either A) You're a liar or B) our government is.
> (Instead you've proven that both you and our government are
> moronically full of shit and lying your asses off)
>
> > contradicts your skewed statist view
>
> You support billionaire welfare, greenie subsidies, government
> interventions, etc.
Green technologies are the future, world oil supplies will run out by
2100. Tax credits to spur new research and development, and energy
rebates for energy efficient products, are better, than supporting the
finite oil statist global supply side terrorist blackmail scenario,
that has no plan for when oil supplies are exhausted.
>You're the statest
learn how to spell
>with a skewed view, you
> psychotic retard.
Oh and David Koch funded tea partiers have a better plan for the
government and economy. They want to return us to the articles of
confederation, since all their simplistic constructions of the
constitution have been refuted. Then they plan to disband all unions,
even private unions, repeal minimum wage laws, and labor rights,
repeal the EPA, no enviromental regulations, like the clean air act,
or the clean water act, so Koch chemical companies, can be free to
dump lead, arsenic, mercury, and benzene into the environment. And
that if we regulate them, it will stunt economic growth. The fact is
they plan to stunt the economy, by retarding our children, so they can
create a corporate socialist utopia for the oligarchs.
>
> ----------------------
> Increased US Domestic Oil Production will not lower Oil Prices isn't
> what the report says....You stick with the subject line when the
OH really asswipe:
2011 EIA.gov Energy Outlook Study
issues in focus section
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
"Changes in domestic oil production tend to have only a modest impact
on crude oil and petroleum product prices, because any change in
domestic oil production is diluted in the world oil market. In 2009,
the United States produced 5.36 million barrels per day of crude oil
and lease
condensate, or 7 percent of the world total of 72.26 million barrels
per day. Unlike crude oil supply and prices, domestic natural gas
supply and prices are determined largely by supply and demand for
natural gas in the North American market, where the development and
production of shale gas in the Lower 48 States is largely responsible
for current and foreseeable future market conditions." (pg 36)
> report actually says the complete opposite. You're a psychotic moron.
talking out of your ass again
"Changes in domestic oil production tend to have only a modest impact
on crude oil and petroleum product prices, because any change in
domestic oil production is diluted in the world oil market."(pg. 36)
thomaswheat1975
latest discussion archived here:
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
psychotic moron wrote:
> > > Why would you attempt to cite a report
>
> > I cited a report(EIA - Annual Energy Outlook 2011) because it proved
> > predictions of the future were wrong. Its outlook on supply and demand
> > were wrong. It's insane conclusions were wrong. It was all around
> > wrong, wrong wrong. These reports are a perfect example of just how
> > it will use anything to try and get more power and money to a select
> > few. (Statism always fails and these reports were compiled to support
> > statism)
>
saying that supply and demand don't matter and more US oil production
wont lower oil prices...While below, in an argument with someone else,
you admit that it will. Said the liar who spends post after post
defending government reports, which are all around wrong, all around
conflict with each other, use faux science to come to insane
conclusions, all because you think the government should be in charge
of deciding which power source we should be forced to use, subsidize,
etc. (You think the government knows better than the free market and
should be allowed to steal capital from it....Even after seeing the
damage it's done to the housing market! (You're a psychotic moron who
should have been committed a long time ago)
BTW, seeing as how you have such faith in our government's leadership,
wisdom, etc...Why don't you sign up to go serve in Afghanistan? <This
psychotic moron isn't going to answer this question>
>
> tard
Said the liar who's calling everyone a corporate establishment talking
head statist if they dare to disagree with him and his insane belief
that our government should be allowed to steal money from hard working
Americans to pay for subsidies, bailouts, government partnerships and
other crony statist bs. (That's not the job of our government(for a
good reason))
The reason you change your name so much is because you don't want to
be killfiled, ignored and treated like what you are...a psychotic
moron. That's a fact you can't deny.
Tom Jigme Wheat
<messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Again, I'm against subsidies, bailouts and the like. (You're the
> > > corporate establishment talking head, you psychotic moron)
>
> > > > According to a 2009 study from the government's Energy Information
> > > > Administration,
>
> > > But I just provided another link from our government....If your
> > > beloved government is lying on this then why should anyone believe it
> > > at all? And why should we believe it over the people that want to
> > > drill for oil? (What, they're going to spend billions for nothing?)
>
> > Your link doesn't account for the cost of the oil extraction
>
> Actually it does.
> 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in
> North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995
>
> And this isn't the only report I can provide that shows we could be
> doing massively more to make ourselves more energy independent.
>http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
> <Steve Hargreaves article, which didn't provide an actual link to the
> is bs>
his latest stupid response archived here on usenet:
Talking out of your ass again dipshit corporatist establishment
talking head
Proof you contradicted yourself, when you attempted to cite a report
in which you claimed it said more increased US domestic oil drilling
would lower oil prices.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/dc8b2e9536bd6643
From: Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
<messiah2...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.liberal
Subject: Re: Fact: Palin could make a billion gaffes, shit herself on
stage,snuff a little kid and still be a thousand times better than our
warmongering idiot-in-chief. (President Pay More only gets one term)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 20:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/dc8b2e9536bd6643?dmode=source
excerpt of your own words:
>And this isn't the only report I can provide that shows we could be
>doing massively more to make ourselves more energy independent.
>http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
><Steve Hargreaves article, which didn't provide an actual link to the
>actual report because it probably would have destroyed his argument,
>is bs
oh really here's the link to his article:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htm
excerpt
"The problem is this: While increased oil and gas drilling in the
United States may create good-paying jobs,
reduce reliance on foreign oil and lower the trade deficit, it will
have hardly any impact on gas and oil prices.
That's because the amount of extra oil that could be produced from
more drilling in this country is tiny
compared to what the world consumes. Plus, any extra oil the country
did produce would likely be quickly offset by a cut in OPEC
production."
now here's the report you attempted to cite which contradicts
everything you ever said about increased domestic drilling will lower
gasoline prices.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
"Changes in domestic oil production tend to have only a modest impact
on crude oil and petroleum product prices, because any change in
domestic oil production is diluted in the world oil market. In 2009,
the United States produced 5.36 million barrels per day of crude oil
and lease condensate, or
7 percent of the world total of 72.26 million barrels per day. Unlike
crude oil supply and prices,
domestic natural gas supply and prices are determined largely by
supply and demand for
natural gas in the North American market, where the development and
production of shale gas in the Lower 48 States is largely responsible
for current and foreseeable future market conditions." (pg 36)
here's the report which you attempted to cite which I can prove you
contradicted yourself at this url
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/dc8b2e9536bd6643
here's the facts:
In the short term if major suppliers like OPEC increase oil
production, which is what they recently did on Friday, prices will go
down marginally,in the short term. The EIA.gov 2011 energy Outlook
study predicts oil could reach 200 dollars a barrel by 2035, because
one of its scenarios predicts OPEC's overall supply will drop from 40
percent, to about 36 percent, because of increasing population growth
and demand in Asia as well as overall dwindling global oil reserve
calculations.Shale oil and gas extraction is projected to grow during
this period, but the costs for extraction, are much higher than
traditional oil drilling extraction methods. see page 23 of the
EIA.gov report which your dumb ignorant ass
attempted to cite, w/out page numbers, because your a crypto-fascist
reactionary.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
On how prices for oil are set globally:
"“World oil prices are influenced by a number of factors, some of
which have mainly short-term impacts. Others, such as expectations
about world oil demand and OPEC production decisions, affect prices
in
the longer term. Supply and demand in the world oil market are
balanced through responses to price movements, and the factors
underlying expectations for supply and demand are both numerous and
complex. The key factors determining long-term expectations for oil
supply, demand, and prices can be summarized in four broad
categories:
the economics of non-OPEC conventional liquids supply; OPEC
investment
and production decisions; the economics of unconventional liquids
supply; and world demand for liquids.” (pg. 23)"
So you are happy to pay 8 dollars a gallon for gasoline in 2035.
“Long-term prospects
In past AEOs, High Oil Price and Low Oil Price cases have been used to
explore the potential impacts of changes in
world liquids supply on world (and U.S.) oil markets as a result of
either OPEC production decisions or changes in economic
access to non-OPEC resources. In AEO2011, the High Oil Price and Low
Oil Price cases have been expanded to incorporate
alternative assumptions about liquids supply, economic developments,
and liquids demand as key price determinants.
The assumed price paths in the AEO2011 High and Low Oil Price cases
bracket a broad range of possible future world oil price paths,
with prices in 2035 (in real 2009 dollars) at $200 per barrel in the
High Oil Price case and $50 per barrel in the Low Oil Price case, as
compared with $125 in the Reference case (Figure 13).(pg 23)”
2011 EIA.gov Energy Outlook Study
issues in focus section
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
Oil prices will continue to rise, in most scenarios the report says,
oil could reach between 125 dollars a barrel to 200 dollars a barrel.
(pg 23)
That's hardly economically sustainable for the long term. Green
Technologies, i.e., solar, wind power, Biomass,(pg. 77) and Nautral
Gas are going to be the new fuel technologies of the future. Quite
living in the past. do you really want to pay 8 dollars a gallon at
the pump.
Why do you think Google recently invested millions in Solar City
recently.
Iam sure they can spot long term market trends. Especially with global
warming,
we will have more days of sun, which makes solar one of the attractive
alternatives, to the global collapse of civilization
after oil runs out in 2100, since dipshits like you worship Jehovah as
the god of oil.
2009 energy outlook study note no contradiction with the 2011 report.
Crypto Fascist doesnt know how to read!!!
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
more proof that your static closed loop corporate welfare scheme for
the oil companies will not lower prices at the pump.
-excerpt-
"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the
Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a
significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production
or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and
production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic
production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case
is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and
3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For
the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to
be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access
case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case
(Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international
market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to
be insignificant. "
also I was right when I said it takes 10 years to develop an oil well
and that potential reserves in the Gulf and elsewhere are overstated.
“In the High OCS Resource case, the assumed increase in technically
recoverable OCS resources in undeveloped areas impacts crude oil and
natural gas production through 2035, primarily because of the long
lead times required for resource development in the offshore,
regardless of the size of the resources discovered. In most areas,
depending on location and water depth, a period of 3 to 10 years for
exploration, infrastructure development, and developmental drilling
is
required from lease acquisition to first production. (35)”
Proof you know absolutely nothing about economics
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
thomaswheat1975
>
> Now again, if your beloved government is going to lie about the amount
> of oil available, why should we believe it?
> Why should we believe it over companies that are willing to put up
> billions to drill for the oil?
> If you were right(which your not) and there is very little oil to be
> had then isn't Obama a retard(more than normal) for blocking companies
Tom Jigme Wheat
Tom Jigme Wheat
<messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > You chickenhawk obamatards can continue to point out where she said
> > > one small thing wrong(while saying a million more things, on big
> > > picture problems, that are dead on correct)....It doesn't matter,
> > > she's still a thousand times better than what we've currently got in
> > > the WH.
>
> > > Obamacare = Giant fail. Everyone wants their waiver.
>
> > Bullshit, lie lie lie
>
> Get a brain, loon, it's a total cluster fuck. (Which, like I said, is
> why everyone is getting waivers for it)
>
> > CBO has proven that it will cost more to repeal OBamaCare then to
> > implement it for the long term.
>
> Just when you thought a lie had been thoroughly
> debunked...Obamatards(all are insane) bring it up again. (They really
> are incapable of telling the truth and dealing with reality)
>
> > Middle East Peace = Giant fail. Obama just lost the Jewish vote and
> > > the Arab world hates him.
>
> > Obama's position on Israel / Palestine is no different than Bush or
> > Clinton's position.
>
> Yeah? Then why don't you(insane obamatard) provide a quote where Bush/
> Clinton advocated for pre-967 borders. (And then explain what happened
> to all that bs hope and change)
>
> > > Stimulus = Giant fail. Made the economy worse. Made a small recession
> > > the norm.
>
> > No republican Corporate lackey's
>
> Retard, Obama and his party are the biggest corporate welfare loving
> lackeys this country has ever seen. (Seriously, name one thing the
> Republicans are supposedly doing and President Pay More makes them
> look like a bunch of amateurs)
>
> > > GM bailout = Giant fail. Bailing out a foreign car company with
> > > borrowed Chinese cash, for way more than it's worth, is a giant
> > > boondoggle the admin just wants to hide from....But no one is going to
> > > let them.
>
> > Gm has completely paid back the US government
>
> And your sane. <snicker>
>
> > > Ban on drilling & mining for energy = Giant fail. Green energy is
> > > never going to deliver and high energy prices are another thing going
> > > to bury this admin.
>
> > That's a crock of shit. Green energy products is big business in
> > China, i.e., solar panels and wind turbines., we are falling behind
> > them, already they produce the majority of the world's solar panels.
>
> Which they sell to us(big taxpayer boondoggle)....And then they use
> coal. (Fact: Solar panels and windmills are unworkable and will no
> where near provide the energy we need, psycho)
>
> > Cash for clunkers = Giant fail. Stole auto sales from other months and
> > > caused people who were way over their head to take on more debt.
> > > Ignored Fannie and Freddie = Giant fail. They are back to doing what
> > > caused the mess we're in.
>
> > > You can thank the repeal of Glass Steagal for that.
>
> Yeah psycho, glass forced Fannie and Freddie to spend trillions of our
> money buying up bad loans.
What I find appalling about the financial real estate crisis of 2008
that we are still in, is how racially skewed conservative opinion is
towards the role that Fannie Mae Played in the collapse of the market.
The fact is Wall Street banks recieved more than 500 percent more
bailout funds then Fannie Mae recieved, and Conservative bigots
overlook this and target Fannie Mae as being the cause of the
collapse, when the fact is over 80 percent of all subprime lending
(loans to People with less than perfect credit scores) directly
responsible for banks and other lenders assuming toxic assets,
(defaulted mortgage loans) were issued by private lenders and not
Fannie Mae.
What got Fannie Mae in trouble was a few of its executives got greedy,
and began buying billions of dollars in collaterallized debt
obligations from companies like CountryWide, now owned by Bank of
America, even though CountryWide knowingly falsified income earnings
amounts of borrowers to the account managers in order to increase the
borrowers loan amount and their own commissions on the loan. (pg. 192)
They, offered these fraudulent contracts to low and middle income
people, white or minority race alike.
These mortgages, over half were zero down Adjustable Rate Mortgages,
in which interest rates skyrocketed later on during the loan cycle.
The contracts were written in incomprehensible legalese that even a
PHD in finance probably wouldnt know what he was signing.,(pg 194) So
with the collapse of the market starting in november of 2007, due to
speculators cashing in their default futures options (credit default
swaps), companies invested in these mortgage backed securities, seeing
their bottom line under assault began laying off millions of workers,
home prices dropped to almost 10 year lows, people suddenly owed more
on their home than it was worth, and with job losses accruing, and
high interest payments required from these ARM loans, of which
CountryWideBofA was the second largest issuer of these "toxic assets"
in the nation, fraudentally screwed millions of people, who had no
choice but to default, and all of these factors caused the collapse of
the housing market.
I got all of this info from a book Iam reading written
by Pulitzer prize winning New York Times reporter Gretchen Morgenson.
The
Book is titled , "Reckless Endangerment,"
http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Outsized-Corruption-Armageddon/dp/0805091203/
thomaswheat1975
>
> Fact: our government created these too big to fail banks...It drove
> all of America's small banks out of business with regulations and
> rules that favored the big guys. (Just like they've done with the meat
> industry, farming, etc)
> Fact: our government created this crisis by throwing
> trillions(taxpayer money) into the housing market so that idiots could
> have houses they couldn't afford.
> Fact: you establishment idiots will always believe that more
> government is the key...no matter how many times you're proven wrong.
>
> I can thank not allowing badly run companies to go out of business and
> government created bubbles for the state we're in.
>
> > Debt crisis ignored = Giant fail. Another reason Obama's polls are
> > > trending down. He's toast.
>
> > Noone complained about the debt crisis when Bush was in office.
>
> And by none...You mean the imaginary voices in your head.
>
> > He ran up the largest deficit in US history.
>
> Before obama that is.
>
> > Obama is still stuck
>
> Being a failed progressive just like Bush. They are both
> interchangeable morons.
>
> > > Bin Laden Assassination = Giant fail. Trillions spent to murder a guy
> > > who was unarmed and who had actionable intelligence we could have
> > > used(against American and international law). Murder was followed by
> > > Obama trying to cover up what really happened....Only to have other
> > > people come out with thousands of other stories that debunked his.
> > > Libya = Giant fail
>
> > So you are a qaddafi revisionist.
> Another lie.
>
> > This is the same guy that killed
> > hundreds of americans when his agents bombed pan am flight 103, and
> > the Berlin disco.
>
> Again, we're helping al Qaeda to take over the country.
>
> > > Supporting al Qaeda to take over the country just> shows how pathetic this admin really is.
>
> > That's the standard revisionist corporate argument <insane babble>
>
> You're a insane retard. (But that's not saying anything anyone doesn't
> already know)
>
> > > Economy = giant fail.
>
> > > Nothing Palin could do could top any of this. President Pay More is
> > > finished.
>
> > Palin is unfit to be president.
>
> Says an chickenshit chickenhawk obamatard who wont sign up to go serve
> in Obama's wars. (Feel free to go to Libya and die with al Qaeda)
>
> Now run along and change your name so nobody can killfile you.
Tom Jigme Wheat
<messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The Obama admin and Democrats gave the CBO a limited set of data it
> > > could use and they produced this skewed report. (Nothing new for this
> > > admin)
>
> > Now you are misstating the truth,
>
> You're way too stupid and crazy to even know what the truth is.
>
> > what you are referring to is the blah blah blah
> > budget indicators Paul ryan submitted to the Heritage foundation
>
> Nobody mentioned either of them, you crazy moron.
>
> What I'm referring to is the fact that the Obama likes to used rigged
> numbers to back up his failed presidency.
>
> > > I've pointed this fact out to you several times before. Other people
> > > have pointed this out to you several times. You're a psychotic name
> > > changing moron.
>
> > personal attacks dont prove anything blah blah blah
>
> No attacks, you are a crazy moron. Its a fact.
>
> >http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1750
>
> Nobody gives a shit about your rigged numbers, you psychotic moron.
>
> > > > > > Middle East Peace = Giant fail. Obama just lost the Jewish vote and
> > > > > > > the Arab world hates him.
>
> > > > > > Obama's position on Israel / Palestine is no different than Bush or
> > > > > > Clinton's position.
>
>
> What you said is above, you psychotic moron. (Now provide those quotes
> or admit you're a liar)
>
> > > I've clearly called for an end of all subsidies(and the like)
> > Then why havent you mentioned the fact that the republicans blocked
> > democrat attempts to remove multi billion dollar oil subsidies for the
> > big oil companies.
>
> I did you delusional moron. (Again , I'm for the removal of all
> subsidies and the like)
>
> Can you say the same for green energy subsidies, rail subsidies, the
> bailouts, etc? (Nope)
>
> > As usual by leaving this fact out you reveal
> > yourself to be a corporate welfare partisan.
>
> More moronic psychotic babble.
>
> > > > that you overlook the corporate welfare
> > > > package republicans voted to give multi-billion dollar subsidies to
> > > > the oil companies despite record profits.
> > > Another delusion.
>
> > So your denial about rampant speculation in the oil industry
>
> DA, The speculation would drive oil prices down if we we're actively
> drilling for oil. (It's government interference in the free market
> that is driving prices up)
>
> > > > The also dont want the CFTC
> > > > to implement regulation governing the speculation in the oil market,
>
> > > Not the job of our government.
> > What planet are you from.
>
> You wouldn't be familiar with it....It's the one called earth, and
> unlike the planet you live on, it's grounded in reality.
>
> > > > that the CEO of Exxon Mobil admitted blah blah blah
> > > The real reason oil prices are having crazy price swings is due to
> > > government interference. (Obama's policies distort the market)
>
> > That;s a crock of shit.
>
> truth.
>
> > the oil companies are recording record profits
> > through price gouging.
>
> Nope, if they had they would be in jail. (You psychotic moron)
>
> Even the Obama admin cleared them.
>
> > > Not really, both are still horribly run companies that will be looking
> > > for handouts in the future. See GM pleading for increase in gas taxes
> > > and government subsidies because no one want's their overpriced volt.
>
> > facts are they have completely paid back the government.
>
> Only in your delusions.
>
> > Chrysler is posting record profits since the early 90's.
>
> Yeah, they needed bailouts because they're a kick ass company.
> <sarcasm>
>
> You're insane.
>
> > Iam not going
> > to do the research for a lazy fuck like yourself.
>
> You're a psychotic moron.
>
> > > car companies that played by the rules.
>
> > > Because of our government spending hundreds of billions of dollars.
> > > (Without our government pumping shitloads of cash into the market,
> > > causing this greenie bubble, solar panels and wind turbines would be a
> > > niche market at best.
> > Green tech is not a niche market in china.
>
> Because they're making a mint selling it to us. (It is a niche in the
> fact that China is going coal and thinks we're fucking morons for not
> doing the same)
>
> > > > > > > You can thank the repeal of Glass Steagal for that.
> > > > > money buying up bad loans.
>
> Nope, like I said, you're too psychotic/stupid to see the truth.
>
> > the banks/mortgage lenders
>
> Sold bad loans toFannieand Freddie because they are badly run
> companies with an unlimited taxpayer funded wallet.
>
> > > > > Fact: our government created these too big to fail banks...It drove
> > > > > all of America's small banks out of business with regulations and
> > > > > rules that favored the big guys. (Just like they've done with the meat
> > > > > industry, farming, etc)
> > big to fail concept"
>
> Because he's a fucking statist who thinks that it's his job to drive
> the economy(which he thinks is like a car) and pick the winners and
> loser. (Progressives like him specialize in distorting the free market
> and creating badly run companies that are too big to fail)
>
> > > Nobody forced anyone to take out a loan at the bank. (But we were
> > > forced, thanks to moronic progressives, to bailout these badly run
> > > banks. Like the morons who took out bad loans, they should have been
> > > allowed to fail)
> > You refuse to look at the fact that the lassiev faire economic
> > policies of Bush
>
> TheFannie and Freddie shit we're in had nothing to do with laissez-
> faire polices, you psychotic moron.
What I find appalling about the financial real estate crisis of 2008
that we are still in, is how racially skewed conservative opinion is
towards the role that Fannie Mae Played in the collapse of the market.
The fact is Wall Street banks recieved more than 500 percent more
bailout funds then Fannie Mae recieved, and Conservative bigots
overlook this and target Fannie Mae as being the cause of the
collapse, when the fact is over 80 percent of all subprime lending
(loans to People with less than perfect credit scores) directly
responsible for banks and other lenders assuming toxic assets,
(defaulted mortgage loans) were issued by private lenders and not
Fannie Mae.
What got Fannie Mae in trouble was a few of its executives got greedy,
and began buying billions of dollars in collaterallized debt
obligations from companies like CountryWide, now owned by Bank of
America, even though CountryWide knowingly falsified income earnings
amounts of borrowers to the account managers in order to increase the
borrowers loan amount and their own commissions on the loan. They,
offered these fraudulent contracts to low and middle income people,
white or minority race alike.
These mortgages, over half were zero down Adjustable Rate Mortgages,
in which interest rates skyrocketed later on during the loan cycle.
The contracts were written in incomprehensible legalese that even a
PHD in finance probably wouldnt know what he was signing.,(pg 194) So
with the collapse of the market starting in november of 2007, due to
speculators cashing in their default futures options (credit default
swaps), companies invested in these mortgage backed securities, seeing
their bottom line under assault began laying off millions of workers,
home prices dropped to almost 10 year lows, people suddenly owed more
on their home than it was worth, and with job losses accruing, and
high interest payments required from these ARM loans, of which
CountryWideBofA was the second largest issuer of these "toxic assets"
in the nation, fraudentally screwed millions of people, who had no
choice but to default, and all of these factors caused the collapse of
the housing market.
I got all of this info from a book Iam reading written
by Pulitzer prize winning New York Times reporter Gretchen Morgenson.
The
Book is titled , "Reckless Endangerment,"
http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Outsized-Corruption-Armageddon/dp/0805091203/
thomaswheat1975
>
> > > > that's the standard revisionist line the republicans use because their
> > > corporate oil industry lobbyists perfer the status quo in the middle
> > > east, autocrats, no democracy and oil client states.
> > You're a psychotic moron.
> > You deny the obvious for example,,
>
> No, I point out that its crazy to think that it's the job of the
> Americans to tell islamic cult members how to run their country.
>
> > Reagan Republicans loved saddam
> > hussein when he was our ally against Iran, despite the fact that he
> > was using poison gas against his own people, Kurds and Shia, because
> > iraq has the second largest oil reserves after saudi arabia. blah blah blah
>
> Who cares. Not the job of the US to force democracy on the
> world...Especially psychotic islamic death cultist, you psychotic
> moron.
>
> > No it is you who are a corporate welfare partisan talking
> > head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Again, you psychotic moron, I'm for ending all subsides, bailouts and
> the like. I'm also against all of America's world cop bs. (You're not)
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
quasi-governmental partnerships that use stolen taxpayer money to warp
the free market and cause seriously destructive bubbles.
B) Fannie and Freddie are nothing more than another wing of our
government and have stolen taxpayer money whenever they wanted to. The
amount of taxpayer money they've gotten, and the amount they are set
to get, easily dwarfs anything anyone got in the bailouts.
C) The Truth About Fannie and Freddie’s Role in the Housing Crisis
Separating economic myth from economic fact:
http://tinyurl.com/625htcd
The government gave us this mess. Without it's interference there
would have been no too big to fail companies created by bad mom and
pop company killing regulations, there would have been no insane
housing bubble(see link I provided), no billionaire welfare and crony
bailouts, etc.
>
D) Seeing as how you believe in how great the government is....how
long until you enlist to go to Afghanistan?
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
<thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ snipped ]
Thanks for the book recommendation. You may be interested in these:
"Winner-Take-All Politics," by Hacker and Pierson.
"The Great Housing Bubble," by Lawrence Roberts.
"Plunder and Blunder," by Dean Baker.
"God's Politics," by Jim Wallis.
And for general reading enjoyment:
"Delta Blues," by Ted Gioia
"William Faulkner and Southern History," by Joel Williamson.
"Walking the Bible," and "Abraham," by Bruce Feiler
----------------------------------------------
Democrats view George Orwell's novel "1984" as a cautionary tale.
Republicans see the novel as their blueprint.
KATN
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
cronyism, corporatism, etc has ended in flames and these morons are
talking as if everything was going good...All we needed was for the
government to do more. They really are psychotic morons)
>
> Freedom loving Americans view George Orwell's novel "1984" as a cautionary tale.
> Progressives see the novel as their blueprint. (Which is why they embrace Nazi George Soros and his blood money with open arms)
>
> KATN
Still hasn't enlisted to go and serve in one of Obama's many
wars(Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, etc). (So much for all
that bs about how great Obama and our government is)
-----------------------
Tom Jigme Wheat
head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the book recommendation. You may be interested in these:
>
> cronyism, corporatism, etc has ended in flames and these morons are
> talking as if everything was going good...All we needed was for the
> government to do more. They really are psychotic morons)
welfare statisim under bush, who tanked the economy and got us into
two wars, and he did something no other president did during war time,
he cut taxes on the rich. I tell you Iraq, Afghanistan, 9/11/2001 all
were part of George W. Bush's plan to bankrupt the government,so that
future ideolouges could argue for bullshit "adult conversations" about
entitlements, when in fact they plan to raid the trustfunds.
thomaswheat1975
>
> > Freedom loving Americans view George Orwell's novel "1984" as a cautionary tale.
> > Conservatives see the novel as their blueprint.
> > KATN
>
> Still hasn't enlisted to go and serve in one of Obama's many
> wars(Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, etc). (So much for all
> that bs about how great Obama and our government is)
>
> -----------------------
> The Truth About Fannie and Freddie’s Role in the Housing Crisis
> Separating economic myth from economic fact:http://tinyurl.com/625htcd
I think Iam going to trust Mcclatchy Newspapers and Pulitzer prize
winner Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times over your racial and
class bigoted agenda, that assumes that Fannie Mae was solely
responsible for the economic collapse of the housing market, just
because they lent to poor, and middle income white's and minorities.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html.
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 18, 7:01 am, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
<PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:41:25 -0700 (PDT), Tom Jigme Wheat
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Outsized-Corruption-Armag...
>
> >thomaswheat1975
>
> Thanks for the book recommendation. You may be interested in these:
>
> "Winner-Take-All Politics," by Hacker and Pierson.
>
> "The Great Housing Bubble," by Lawrence Roberts.
>
> "Plunder and Blunder," by Dean Baker.
>
> "God's Politics," by Jim Wallis.
>
> And for general reading enjoyment:
>
> "Delta Blues," by Ted Gioia
>
> "William Faulkner and Southern History," by Joel Williamson.
>
> "Walking the Bible," and "Abraham," by Bruce Feiler
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Democrats view George Orwell's novel "1984" as a cautionary tale.
>
> Republicans see the novel as their blueprint.
>
> KATN- Hide quoted text -
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> > cronyism, corporatism, etc has ended in flames and these morons are
> > talking as if everything was going good...All we needed was for the
> > government to do more. They really are psychotic morons)
>
> This guy just doesnt quit,
>
> we just finished 8 years of corporate welfare statisim under bush,
Obama, etc. They get in there and expand government with things like
Fannie and Freddie, Medicare Prescription Plan, Obamacare, Nation
Building, etc. If they're not telling people what to do 24/7 than
they're not happy.
Note: you've already argued several times for various forms of
corporate welfare and statisim, you psychotic moron.
>
> who tanked the economy and got us into
> two wars, and he did something no other president did during war time,
> he cut taxes on the rich. I tell you Iraq, Afghanistan, 9/11/2001 all
> were part of George W. Bush's plan to bankrupt the government,
He was a typical progressive, he thought it was his job to make the
world safe for democracy and to run everyone's life. American or not,
it didn't matter.
And now Obama's carrying on his legacy(X100).
>
> so that
> future ideologues could argue for bullshit "adult conversations" about
> entitlements, when in fact they plan to raid the trustfunds.
A good reason why the government should never have been involved in it
in the first place.
Tom Jigme Wheat
government, i.e., the liberal Keynesian Welfare State invites only one
other alternative, and that is Corporatism:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporatism?show=0&t=1308430620
discussion archived here:
Definition of CORPORATISM:
The organization of a society into industrial and professional
corporations serving as organs of political representation and
exercising control over persons and activities within their
jurisdiction.
First Known Use of CORPORATISM 1890
On Jun 18, 1:09 pm, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking
So You argue for Corporatism by fait accompli:
In your view we should never had the Social Security program, or
Medicare, or you argue that it should be privatized. Do you really
trust the stock market, after the financial collapse of the real
estate market. Home ownership sales were what was powering the meagar
economy under Bush, until Market collapse in November 2007. Now people
owe more on their homes than they are worth. So if you invested your
Social Security retirement money in the stock market, the way the
derivatives traders have rigged stock prices, unlike the current
system, where you are guranteed benefits until you die, and your
spouse enjoys survivors benefits, you could lose everything, and then
do you think by then your children will be able to afford the cost of
your medical care, or the hassle of caring for you until you die. I
dont think so!!!!
thomaswheat1975
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> government, i.e., the liberal Keynesian Welfare State invites only one
> other alternative, and that is Corporatism:
just about every country, are 14 trillion plus dollars of debt, all
our entitlements are broke, have a giant prison population, etc.
Note: I don't demonize the government. There are clear things it
should be doing(protect individuals
from force and fraud).
>
> > > so that
> > > future ideologues could argue for bullshit "adult conversations" about
> > > entitlements, when in fact they plan to raid the trustfunds.
>
> > A good reason why the government should never have been involved in it
> > in the first place.
>
> So You argue for Corporatism by fait accompli:
I argue for free market, free will and the right to allow people to
make their own choices and you argue for a giant all controlling, all
powerful government(worst kind of monopoly) that steals from the free
market and taxpayers...And if they have the nerve to say "no" then
they're thrown in jail(or in some cases murdered by FBI agents raiding
their home).
>
> In your view we should never had the Social Security program, or
> Medicare
No, I argue that a person should have a choice and should get to
choose where their money goes. If they choose to invest in such
things, then so be it. (Why do you hate free choice and free will?)
Tom Jigme Wheat
head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What you dont seem to realize is that your total demonization of
> > government, i.e., the liberal Keynesian Welfare State invites only one
> > other alternative, and that is Corporatism:
>
> This kind of line of argument is we're in five wars, have bases in
> just about every country, are 14 trillion plus dollars of debt, all
> our entitlements are broke, have a giant prison population, etc.
Correction we are in 2 wars and one police action in Libya. According
to the Quadrennial Defense Review, all combat operations in Iraq will
cease at the end of this year..
Your isolationist stance regarding the preeminent role of the USA in
world affairs if immplemented would take us back to the isolationist
Republican Congressional movement of the 1930's, which allowed for the
destabilizing rise of the NAZI's that thrust the world into Global
War. Republican Senator, John Mccain on ABC's This Week, with
Christiane Amanpour, invoked this same analogy, lambasting Freshman
Republican's in the House for advocating this kind of argument.
Regarding US military bases abroad, the geopolitical implications of
the US withdrawing from E. Asia or the Middle East would be
disasterous to our National Security. Regarding troops in Europe, I
think we could afford to shutter some bases there, and let the
Europeans take the lead in managing their regional security. However,
the US cannot afford to withdraw the nuclear umbrella from Europe,
given the large numbers of tactical nuclear weapons the Russians have
deployed near the borders of Europe. The US cannot afford to withdraw
from NATO, however, increased NATO membership, and making European
allies shoulder more of the costs for their collective security is
what we need to do.
Regarding the National Debt, it should be noted that the majority of
the debt was created by Republican Presidents. The last republican
that ran a balanced budget was Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he did so
with the highest rates of the Marginal Income Tax on the rich in the
history of USA. The majority of a national debt was created by Reagan,
GHWB, and George W. Bush (5 trillion). Bill Clinton was the last
Democrat that had a Balanced Budget, and a surplus of approximately
140 billion that was used to pay down the national debt. Unfortunately
for Obama, he is stuck with the deficit raising Bush Tax Cuts
extension till the end of this year.
I didn't agree with this decision, but You cant blame Obama, the
Legislature votes in tax increases/decreases, and handles
appropiations, and usually this requires a super majority. While the
Bush tax cuts were being debated in december of 2010, Obama was
attempting to get the 66 vote threshold for the New START treaty with
Russia, since we no longer had nuclear weapons inspectors in Russia.
The treaty called for the reduction/decomissioning of 1500 strategic
deployed nuclear weapons, from each country's nuclear arsenals, and
limited Mobile ICBM launchers and the number of nuclear bombers to
about 700 each. If we had not passed the New START treaty, with
Russia, it would have opened up the possibility of nuclear Armageddon,
given that the nuclear black market in the former Republics of the
old Soviet Union are rather porous, and littered with ex oppurtunistic
KGB appartchiks willing to sell Cold War Russian military hardware to
the highest bidder. With the treaty we now have inspection and
verification on both sides, which begins the process of ridding the
earth of the scourge of Nuclear weapons.
Regarding Entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), The
funds are in trouble because the economy tanked under Bush, and we are
still stuck with his tax cuts, and so tax revenues to the treasury
department are down dramatically.
You cant balance the Budget, by further decreasing Tax Revenues. Both
Eisenhower and Clinton knew this.
While the republicans claim to have a Job Creation agenda, the only
state that had the highest job increases, was Governor Rick Perry's
Texas, but the majority of those jobs his administration added were
low paying jobs. Texas is attractive to big Business because of the
antiregulatory environment in the state legislature, which incidentlly
is where all of the major US Chemical Companies are located, so its
not suprising that Govenor Perry denies the fact that Global Warming
is occuring, and Texas has one of the lowest standards of water and
air quality in the nation. Governor Perry has openly called for
secession from the Union, which means he has a long term racist agenda
of restoring the Confederacy.
Also the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, both Bush started,
have further drained the treasury, since defense spending is at the
highest level percentage of GDP since World War II, at roughly 750
billion dollars. While I agree that this budget should be cut, I dont
think it would be wise to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan or
Libya.
Currently the US is engaged with back channel peace negotiations with
the Taliban, and the Karzai government in Kabul. To withdraw
immediately from Afghanistan would severely damage ours or Karzai's
leveraging power in these negotiations. Regarding Libya and Qaddafi,
he has already attacked us twice, i.e., the bombing of Pan Am 103 that
killed 90 americans, and the bombing of a Berlin Disco frequented by
US military personell. Qaddafi also was in the process of developing a
nuclear uranium enrichment program with the help of A. Q. Khan, the
father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. While Qaddafi did
dismantle this pprogram, he now has every incentive to attack and
state sponsor terrorist activities against the West, if NATO allows
him to remain in power.
Also the cost of the Libyan operation is about 1 billion dollars a
month, 10 percent of what we are spending on military operations in
Afghanistan. In reality the US only has a support role in this
operation, the British, French and Italians have taken the lead role
in the NATO operation.
>
> Note: I don't demonize the government. There are clear things it
> should be doing(protect individuals
> from force and fraud).
Then why would be opposed to the Dodd-Frank Bill, that attempts to
regulate rampant destablising Financial Speculation on Wall Street,
and sets up the Consumer Protection Bureau, that provides free
education and financial advice to consumers.
>
> > > > so that
> > > > future ideologues could argue for bullshit "adult conversations" about
> > > > entitlements, when in fact they plan to raid the trustfunds.
>
> > > A good reason why the government should never have been involved in it
> > > in the first place.
>
> > So You argue for Corporatism by fait accompli:
>
> I argue for free market, free will and the right to allow people to
> make their own choices and you argue for a giant all controlling, all
> powerful government(worst kind of monopoly) that steals from the free
> market and taxpayers..
If you are not rich there is no free will in the market place.. It is
an Oligapoly!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly
>.And if they have the nerve to say "no" then
> they're thrown in jail(or in some cases murdered by FBI agents raiding
> their home).
I didnt agree with what happened at Ruby Ridge or Waco. Janet Reno was
a cunt. but you have to remember agencies are not politically
monolithic in nature. Also You would have to say that Bush himself
used a phony mandate launced by his contrived War on Terror, to allow
the NSA to spy on americans as late as 2005, so he could insure
himself reelection. Also his USA patriot Act, section 802 allowed for
warrantless wiretapping of Anarchists and Environmentalists, and
jailing protestors under national security grounds,
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism
while at the same time the reactionary White nationalist movement
recieved little federal attention, despite their role in the second
worst terrorist attack in American History, the Oklahoma City Bombing.
>
> > In your view we should never had the Social Security program, or
> > Medicare
>
> No, I argue that a person should have a choice and should get to
> choose where their money goes. If they choose to invest in such
> things, then so be it. (Why do you hate free choice and free will?)
Only a sucker or someone who is rich and already is a trust funder
would make that argument. Its the same argument that these corporate
types make about "Right to Work," intiatives trying to trick the
common man into thinking he would have a better deal if he didnt have
to pay union dues. When in fact, union wages in the private sector pay
better,there's guranteed health benefits, and the workers are more
productive as a whole. Regarding your response to the "free choice" of
paying into social security or Medicare, you are in fact, perhaps
unkowingly aping, Dick Armey's Freedom Works, bullshit line, that
workers should have the choice whether to pay into social security.
The fact is if the tax were voluntary we would no longer have social
security or medicare, and life expectancy in the United States would
decline dramatically. For the over 50 percent of americans who will be
dependant on Social Security Medicare, etc., when they retire, this
tempoary illusion of "free choice" becomes the imposition of
tyrannical third world style dominion, with the defunding and or
abolishment of the program, which is Dick Armey's long term plan. So
what you argue for is temporary free choice, and then the determinist
chains of poverty follow suit.
thomaswheat1975
latest discussion archived here:
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> > > government, i.e., the liberal Keynesian Welfare State invites only one
> > > other alternative, and that is Corporatism:
>
> > This kind of line of argument is we're in five wars, have bases in
> > just about every country, are 14 trillion plus dollars of debt, all
> > our entitlements are broke, have a giant prison population, etc.
>
> Correction we are in 2 wars and one police action in Libya.
you psychotic moron.
Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya. That's five countries(That
we know of) with American boots on the ground.
>
> Your isolationist stance
Our current polices are what are really isolating us. (Pick any
country where we have bases and I can guarantee the locals are
protesting us and want us out)
>
> regarding the preeminent role of the USA in world affairs
That era is over. It doesn't work and we're broke.
Let Europe, and the like, defend themselves. (They are more than
capable of it)
>
> if immplemented would take us back to the isolationist
> Republican Congressional movement of the 1930's, which allowed for the
> destabilizing rise of the NAZI's that thrust the world into Global
> War.
?!?!? It's our job to keep the world stable, do you know how crazy
that sounds? (You're insane)
As it stands, the only thing we're making stable in the world is a
violent hatred for the US. Our world cop bs and endless wars on drugs,
terrorism and the like has united the world in a hatred of us.
{...}
>
> Republican Senator, John Mccain on ABC's This Week, with
> Christiane Amanpour, invoked this same analogy,
Hey, if you and John McCain want to go fight in Libya .. then by all
means, put your beliefs into action and go to it. The locals will
welcome you with open arms and provide you with what you need to fight
the enemy. (There's nothings stopping you and the thousand of others
who support this war from going to it)
Godspeed.
>
> Regarding US military bases abroad, the geopolitical implications of
> the US withdrawing
If we stay on our current course our currency will take a nose dive
and will take down most of the world's economies. What are the
geopolitical implications of that?
>
> Regarding the National Debt, it should be noted that the majority of
> the debt was created by Republican Presidents.
Like I said, it was created by progressives who insanely think it's
the job of the US government to make an empire, rule the world and
tell everybody what to do.
>
> Unfortunately
> for Obama, he is stuck with the deficit raising Bush Tax Cuts
> extension till the end of this year.
You can't bitch about tax cuts while advocating empire. (And the only
reason Obama, our President, would be stuck with anything he opposes
is because he's a shitty leader and on the wrong side of the issues)
>
> I didn't agree with this decision, but You cant blame Obama
He's a piss poor leader who doesn't know what he's doing. I blame all
his failures on him...And I hate him for the fact that he's not smart
enough to know he's way over his head and needs to step down.
> Obama was
> attempting to get the 66 vote threshold for the New START treaty with
> Russia, since we no longer had nuclear weapons inspectors in Russia.
These treaties are a joke, right along with Russian safeguards,
security, etc. It's just more bs promises that our government has
everything under control. Like it had everything under control before
9/11 and the like. (I wipe my ass with its promises)
>
> Regarding Entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), The
> funds are in trouble because
The payments are in jeopardy because Our government doesn't care about
the money it steals from us and our economy. It waste shitloads of it
on bs like building mosques in Afghanistan and paying whores to learn
not to drink to much in China.
>
> While the republicans claim to have a Job Creation agenda
Both parties are filled with morons who think its the job of our
government to control our economy. (Insane)
>
> Also the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, both Bush started,
And Barack could have ended them, day one. (But he wont do that
because he thinks it's the job of America to transform these countries
into America. He's bat shit Insane)
>
> Currently the US is engaged with back channel peace negotiations with
> the Taliban
What were you saying about the Nazi like regimes? So much for stopping
them... (Insane)
>
> Also the cost of the Libyan operation is about 1 billion dollars
So cheap wars are more acceptable? Especially ones where we are
backing al Qaeda, right? (Insane)
>
> > Note: I don't demonize the government. There are clear things it
> > should be doing(protect individuals
> > from force and fraud).
>
> Then why would be opposed to the Dodd-Frank Bill, that attempts to regulate
It drives mom and pop operations under and allows the too big to get
even bigger. It tells private citizens what to do with their money and
property. It creates Monopolies. It's a piece of shit bill that was
designed to favor big politically connected corporations. (Which is no
surprise after seeing Dodd and Frank's role in the housing mess)
>
> > > So You argue for Corporatism by fait accompli:
>
> > I argue for free market, free will and the right to allow people to
> > make their own choices and you argue for a giant all controlling, all
> > powerful government(worst kind of monopoly) that steals from the free
> > market and taxpayers..
>
> If you are not rich there is no free will in the market place.. It is
> an Oligapoly!!!
Our government(has monopoly on force) has done more to create
monopolies and kill freewill than anything the free market has done or
is doing.
<Your link on Oligapoly at wiki>
For example(Oligapoly), as of fourth quarter 2008, Verizon, AT&T,
Sprint, Nextel, and T-Mobile together control 89% of the US cellular
phone market.
<end>
These companies are perfect examples of what I said above. They are
politically connected, they get shit loads of government cash and tax
breaks, government regulations are designed to protect them and their
market share, they get shitloads of no bid government contracts, etc.
>
> >.And if they have the nerve to say "no" then
> > they're thrown in jail(or in some cases murdered by FBI agents raiding
> > their home).
>
> I didnt agree with what happened at Ruby Ridge or Waco.
This isn't just those two instances. All Americans have to give our
government its dues. Our government has a complete monopoly on force
and can murder anyone in an instance for no reason at all. (Which is
why it should be limited)
And why it shouldn't be involved in bogus drug wars and the like.
>
> while at the same time the reactionary White nationalist movement
> recieved little federal attention
Maybe it would have gotten done if our government wasn't fighting
insane wars, funding our allies defense, locking up millions of people
in a silly drug war, etc)
There is a good chance the bombing would have never happened if our
government had been like it was designed(limited). Same could be said
for 9/11, which Osama claimed was because of the foreign policy you
support.
>
> > > In your view we should never had the Social Security program, or
> > > Medicare
>
> > No, I argue that a person should have a choice and should get to
> > choose where their money goes. If they choose to invest in such
> > things, then so be it. (Why do you hate free choice and free will?)
>
> Only a sucker or someone who is rich and already is a trust funder
> would make that argument.
I'm for the complete opposite. This is your argument, this is what
you're for.
>
> Its the same argument that these corporate
> types make about "Right to Work," intiatives trying to trick the
> common man
Nobody is being tricked to do anything. (You're Insane)
<snip crazy ramblings>
Thomas Jigme Wheat
censors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
topics discussed DOD Quadrennial Defense Review 2010, renewable
sources of energy, and how the Increased US Domestic Oil Production
will not lower Prices, also discusses the derviatives scams in the
real estate and oil markets, along with how repeal of the Affordable
Care Act (ObamaCare) adds to the deficit.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.japan/browse_thread/thread/ee71e6d6bd0581be
thomaswheat1975
> http://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-d...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
Thomas Jigme Wheat
soc.culture.japan
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.japan/browse_thread/thread/ee71e6d6bd0581be
thomaswheat1975
> http://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-d...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
Tom Jigme Wheat
fascist, the Market is an Oligopoly, not true atomistic capitalism,
envisioned by Adam Smith.
I've given you a gold mine of information, and all you can do is try
to parrot Glen Beck Orwellian doublespeak. Fact is republicans under
Bush destablised the global geopolitical system by attempting unipolar
and unilateral military actions. Now we are suffering the
consequences. The republic is beset on all sides by transnational
terrorist threats and conventional state sponsors of terror, because
the world smells blood, because they know if the US doesnt vote to
raise the debt limit / ceiling by august 2 nd of this year than all
hell will break loose in the financial markets, interest rates will
skyrocket, elderly and disabled wont get their social security checks,
or sacrifice their medical coverage, and I guess your faggot ass will
be made homeless, and the troops will not be paid or both.
Either way faggots like you just dont get it, you think the solution
is to be found soley in the private sector, read the 2010-2011 QDR,
DOD is having a major supply redundancy and export control violations
among its private contractor networks. There are only 4 major defense
contractors left in the US, so its in their best interest to bleed the
US government dry. You should read this book, "Prophets of War" by
William D. Hartung, it details how Lockheed Martin ripped off the
government all throughout the 70's and 80's and 90's, like charging
600 dollars for toilet seats, and 7000 dollars for coffee makers
aboard bombers, etc., it also goes over the mega mergers in the
defense industry.
In regards to causalties you needle nose pussy fuck doesnt know what
real causalties are. We have lost a total of 5000 troops over 10 years
fighting 2, Bush started wars. In vietnam we lost 58000 troops, in
World War II we lost 400000 troops. This isnt shit you pussy fuck.
However, let me reiterate, the QDR says all troops will be withdrawn
from Iraq by the end of this year, QDR unofficially projects that
Obama will withdraw 5000 - 10000 troops from afghanistan this year,
with final combat troops scheduled to pull out by 2014, if
negotiations with the Child raping, stoning women to death, for
adultry, cutting off their noses for objecting to arranged marriage,
Taliban prove unsuccessful. Eat shit you heartless
faggot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 19, 10:12 pm, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking
Thomas Jigme Wheat
wrote:
> go fuck yourself faggot right wing corporatist neo nazi crypto
> fascist, the Market is an Oligopoly, not true atomistic capitalism,
> envisioned by Adam Smith.
>
> I've given you a gold mine of information, and all you can do is try
> to parrot Glen Beck Orwellian doublespeak. Fact is republicans under
> Bush destablised the global geopolitical system by attempting unipolar
> and unilateral military actions. Now we are suffering the
> consequences.
latest discussion with the crypto fascist @ this link
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
wrote:
> go fuck yourself faggot right wing corporatist neo nazi crypto
> fascist, the Market is an Oligopoly, not true atomistic capitalism,
> envisioned by Adam Smith.
>
> I've given you a gold mine of information,
>
> and all you can do is try
> to parrot Glen Beck Orwellian doublespeak.
> Fact is republicans under
> Bush destablised the global geopolitical system by attempting unipolar
> and unilateral military actions.
You mean the wars you support because we have to make the world safe
for freedom, right? The wars Obama could end today, right? The wars he
could bring our troops home from today, right? The wars you wont fight
in, right?
>
> Now we are suffering the
> consequences. The republic is beset on all sides by transnational
> terrorist threats and conventional state sponsors of terror,
So in your twisted psychotic world, the world is broken because we
went to war and that means we need even more wars to fix it. (You're
insane)
> because
> the world smells blood, because they know if the US doesnt vote to
> raise the debt limit / ceiling by august 2 nd of this year than all
> hell will break loose in the financial markets, interest rates will
> skyrocket, elderly and disabled wont get their social security checks,
> or sacrifice their medical coverage,
Wrong. http://tinyurl.com/6bqj9o7
And this lie really fucks up your whole government is best argument. I
know your bat shit insane, but are you at least capable of mounting a
cohesive argument?
>
> and I guess you will be made homeless,
No, I don't require government handouts to live.
>
> and the troops will not be paid or both.
Another lie.
What does a devalued currency do to all these people(troops, people on
SS, etc)?
>
> Either way faggots
You mean "faggots right wing corporatist neo nazi crypto fascist,
right? <snicker>
You're insane.
>
> like you just dont get it, you think the solution
> is to be found soley in the private sector,
No, this is another one of your lies, I clearly outlined what our
government is supposed to handle.
>
> read the 2010-2011 QDR,
> DOD is having a major supply redundancy and export control violations
> among its private contractor networks. There are only 4 major defense
> contractors left in the US, so its in their best interest to bleed the
> US government dry.
Which you support. You support these wars. (And when I say support I
don't mean enlisting and going to fight in it. You expect other people
to do that)
>
> In regards to causalties you needle nose pussy
Oh, so now I'm a faggot right wing corporatist neo nazi crypto fascist
needle nose pussy fuck. <I can't say it enough, you're a psychotic
moron>
> doesnt know what
> real causalties are. We have lost a total of 5000 troops over 10 years
> fighting 2, Bush started wars.
Tell that to the families that lost someone, you psychotic moron.
>
> In vietnam we lost 58000 troops, in
> World War II we lost 400000 troops. This isnt shit sir.
A) It's enough to keep your ass from enlisting.
B) Nice insane argument, you psychotic moron.
>
> However, let me reiterate, the QDR says all troops will be withdrawn
> from Iraq by the end of this year,
Obama is pushing for them to stay. He could bring them home today if
he wanted to.
>
> QDR unofficially projects that
> Obama will withdraw 5000 - 10000 troops from afghanistan this year,
So he's going to be even more underfunding and understaffing a war
that we've been fighting for ten years. (Insane)
>
> with final combat troops scheduled to pull out by 2014, if
> negotiations with the Child raping, stoning women to death, for
> adultry, cutting off their noses for objecting to arranged marriage,
> Taliban prove unsuccessful.
Wahahahaahahahaahahaha, only you would think that that's a good reason
to keep troops there.
>
> Eat shit you heartless faggot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right wing corporatist neo nazi crypto fascist needle nose pussy
fuck...Yeah yeah, you're insane.
>
> thomaswheat1975 - Psychotic moron
Seriously, get help.
PaxPerPoten
> go fuck yourself faggot right wing corporatist neo nazi crypto
> fascist, the Market is an Oligopoly, not true atomistic capitalism,
> envisioned by Adam Smith.
I think it is time for you to go back to sucking dicks and selling your
drugs on the corner and leaving these decisions to real Americans.
Perhaps NAMBLA would appreciate your upchuck more then I/we do.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
PaxPerPoten
> On Jun 19, 11:14 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat<thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
The Idiot from LaLa land dresses up in his finest feathers for the Gay
parade and then posts to itself? Wow.. Drugs and Homo DNA...Not a good mix.
Tom Jigme Wheat
hasnt debunked shit, he just keeps changing the subject:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65254c69e0bd3b3e
So it is you who are living in denial. Come August 2 2011, if the
government doesnt vote to raise the debt ceiling, your astroturfing,
parroting David Koch, feeble mind wont get your trust fund check:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-15-debt-limit-debate_n.htm
excerpts for the right wing tards who dont know how to read an article
for themselves:
"Debate over U.S. debt limit is going down to the wire
"In just seven weeks, America could run out of borrowed money.
Exactly one month ago, the Treasury Department began issuing IOUs
rather than bonds to some government pension funds. That allowed for
continued auctions of so-called "risk-free" Treasury bonds until Aug.
2.
Unless Congress acts by then, the world's richest nation — unable to
borrow $4 billion a day to pay its bills — would risk default.
To hear Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner tell it, interest rates
would spike, stock and home values would sink, savings and investment
would dry up, jobs would disappear, businesses would fail, and
everything from tax refunds to troops' salaries would go unpaid.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says it would lead to "severe
disruptions" in financial markets, lower credit ratings and damage to
the dollar and Treasury securities.
The centrist Democratic think tank Third Way claims the gyrations in
labor, financial and stock markets would cost 642,500 jobs, add
$19,175 to every mortgage in process and lop $8,816 from the typical
401(k) account.
Now comes the need to increase the government's $14.3 trillion debt
limit — the amount of money it can owe creditors ranging from China to
the Social Security Trust Fund. The ceiling was reached May 16, and
only action by a reluctant Congress can raise it.
The federal government relies on borrowed money like a fish needs
water. Threaten to take it away, and you risk a global crisis with
economic, political, diplomatic and even moral implications.
What happens if America can't pay its bills?
"Nobody knows what would happen, but why in the world would you want
to try to find out?" says David Walker, the former U.S. comptroller
general now heading the fiscal watchdog group Comeback America
Initiative."
On how your beloved Republicans have contributed the most to the
national debt
"In the past half-century, Congress has acted 78 times to raise,
extend or revise the debt limit — the amount of money the government
can borrow to repay bond holders. The red ink has risen 49 times under
Republican presidents, 29 times under Democrats. It's gone up 10 times
since 2001"
On How ronald reagan tripled the national debt on his watch:
"The Obama administration has taken to citing Ronald Reagan's
promotion of debt ceiling increases as proof that it's not just a
Democrat's desire. Indeed, it was Reagan's defense buildup and tax
cuts, along with a major recession, that helped triple the debt on his
watch, to nearly $3 trillion — half the size of the economy at that
time."
Comparison of Clinton and Bush, Clinton ran a budget surplus, Bush,
was a deficit spender:
"Four years of economic boom at the end of Bill Clinton's
administration produced historic budget surpluses and reduced the debt
as a percentage of the economy to 56%. But the accumulated interest
costs still caused the debt to rise to $5.7 trillion.
From there, it took off.
George W. Bush's tax cuts, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and expansion
of Medicare to include prescription drugs were deficit-financed,
sending the debt past $10 trillion"
"The recession and Obama's economic stimulus package in 2009 sent it
higher still. And in December, Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax
cuts through 2012.
Today the debt isn't just a problem because of its size. Nearly half
of the $9.7 trillion "public" debt — as opposed to the $4.6 trillion
held by the Social Security trust fund and other government accounts —
is owned by foreign investors. Nearly half of that $4.5 trillion can
be traced to two countries, China and Japan."
on the republican plan for more corporate welfare tax cuts for the
rich and slashing Medicare and medicaid to pay for it:
"Because of those rising interest costs and a growing, aging
population, even the deficit-reduction plans floated by Republicans,
the White House and various outside groups wouldn't stop the debt from
growing.
The most draconian — House Republicans' plan to slash $4.4 trillion
from the deficit in the next decade, then transform Medicare into a
voucher-like program — projects a $16.2 trillion debt next year. By
2021, even with all the cuts, it would be $23 trillion.
"This problem," says Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., a leader of a bipartisan
Senate effort to control the debt, "just gets exponentially worse."
The Treasury Department makes about 1 billion payments a year, 80
million a month. Without borrowing authority, some payments couldn't
be made.
Obama and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid control two-thirds of
the negotiations, but Republican House Speaker John Boehner is in the
driver's seat.
on how the republicans just want to give more corporate welfare to the
rich:
"Republicans are insisting that entitlement programs such as Medicare
and Medicaid be included in the cuts, but that tax increases be left
out.
Obama wants to target tax breaks enjoyed by oil companies and others,
and he's pushing for a "debt cap" aimed at locking in the savings over
five years by forcing automatic reductions if needed."
On how US government default would be disasterous to the credit
markets:
"As Aug. 2 nears, it becomes less likely that a deal to raise the debt
limit can get through Congress in time. That means a short-term
extension would be needed to avoid default.
The deadlocked debate has spooked financial markets and all three
major financial ratings agencies. Pimco, the world's largest bond
investor, unloaded its U.S. government debt in March.
"It's a very dangerous game of roulette that we're playing right now,"
says Neel Kashkari, Pimco's managing director.
Standard & Poor's put the government on notice in April that its
triple-A rating was in jeopardy. Moody's Investors Service warned this
month of a similar downgrade. Fitch Ratings says Treasury bonds could
be rated as "junk" by August.
Among the world's nearly 20 AAA-rated nations, "the U.S. really is the
only one that has not yet adopted a serious plan to reverse the upward
path of the debt," says Steven Hess, senior credit officer at Moody's.
Default clocks and payment plans
That failure has at least some lawmakers preparing for default —
something Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf calls
"a dangerous gamble."
One school of thought: It would never happen. The Treasury Department
would find some way to extend the clock. Geithner's Aug. 2 deadline
isn't real.
Geithner counters that as soon as the nation failed to pay any of its
bills on time — from salaries and contracts to tax refunds — "the
world would recognize it as a first-ever failure by the United States
to meet its commitments."
no go run and hide you stupid fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975
message archived here:
"
"
On Jun 19, 11:14 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Tom Jigme Wheat
head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > What you dont seem to realize is that your total demonization of
> > > > government, i.e., the liberal Keynesian Welfare State invites only one
> > > > other alternative, and that is Corporatism:
>
> > > This kind of line of argument is we're in five wars, have bases in
> > > just about every country, are 14 trillion plus dollars of debt, all
> > > our entitlements are broke, have a giant prison population, etc.
>
> > Correction we are in 2 wars and one police action in Libya.
>
> Tell that to the people who have loved ones dying from our attacks,
> you psychotic moron.
we have lost a total of 5000 people in 10 years in Iraq and
afghanistan. In world war 2 we lost 400000 men. This is nothing!!!!!!
>
> Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya. That's five countries(That
> we know of) with American boots on the ground.
All US combat troops will be out of Iraq at the end of the year
according to the QDR; that's a reduction of 50000 troops. In
afghanistan 5000 - 10000 troops will be recalled. Regarding somalia,
we have a few special operations group (SOG) no more than a 100 people
total there. In libya no US military combat troops have been deployed.
Primarily the US is relying on unmanned drone strikes on Qaddafi's
military installations. The majority of the Bombing operations are
being carried out by the British and the french, with Italy in a
logistics supply role!!!!! The US presence in Libya is very minimal,
it is only costing us about a billion a month!!!
You dont know what the fuck you are talking about, dipshit!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Your isolationist stance
>
> Our current polices are what are really isolating us. (Pick any
> country where we have bases and I can guarantee the locals are
> protesting us and want us out)
I highly doubt that europe wants to see american troop withdrawl, but
nevertheless I think we need to make reductions here. The threat of
soviet land invasion has faded with the cold war. However, the
potential for a tactical nuclear strike on europe by russia, means we
must invest more in ballistic missile defense, to compensate for troop
reductions.
>
> > regarding the preeminent role of the USA in world affairs
>
> That era is over. It doesn't work and we're broke.
>
> Let Europe, and the like, defend themselves. (They are more than
> capable of it)
as I have stated previously and as you attempt to parrot my line when
it suits you, I have already suggested in an earlier post, in this
thread, that Europe you should shoulder more of the costs for NATO,
and that possibly we could close some bases in Germany.
>
> > if immplemented would take us back to the isolationist
> > Republican Congressional movement of the 1930's, which allowed for the
> > destabilizing rise of the NAZI's that thrust the world into Global
> > War.
>
> ?!?!? It's our job to keep the world stable, do you know how crazy
> that sounds? (You're insane)
Look what happened before World war 2, you had UK prime minister
Nevile Chamberlain's appeasement of Nazi germany, and a disaffected
isolationist republican congress, and then Pearl Harbor got bombed. By
the way we suffered more civilian causalties during the 9/11/2001
terrorist attacks then we suffered at pearl harbor!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> As it stands, the only thing we're making stable in the world is a
> violent hatred for the US. Our world cop bs and endless wars on drugs,
> terrorism and the like has united the world in a hatred of us.
Oh so now you think you want Ron Paul for president. This is the guy
who said we should legalize heroin. I can see legalization of
marijuana, as a taxable commodity, but nothing else.
>
> {...}
>
> > Republican Senator, John Mccain on ABC's This Week, with
> > Christiane Amanpour, invoked this same analogy,
>
> Hey, if you and John McCain want to go fight in Libya .. then by all
> means, put your beliefs into action and go to it. The locals will
> welcome you with open arms and provide you with what you need to fight
> the enemy. (There's nothings stopping you and the thousand of others
> who support this war from going to it)
Iam too old to serve, nonetheless the rank and file in afghanistan is
a crap shoot. Alot of hostile friendly fire causalties. like what
happened to Pat Tillman!!!!!!!!
>
> Godspeed.
>
> > Regarding US military bases abroad, the geopolitical implications of
> > the US withdrawing
>
> If we stay on our current course our currency will take a nose dive
> and will take down most of the world's economies. What are the
> geopolitical implications of that?
First of all we cant afford to pull out of Japan or south korea.
Secondly we only have roughly 25000 troops in South Korea, and support
operations in Japan. China's rise as an economic superpower along with
their proxy DPRK, N. Korea already possessing nuclear weapons, means
we cant withdraw from that region. Also china has doubled national
defense spending from last years levels!!!!
exactly we have to raise the debt ceiling or the USA's triple AAA bond
rating will be downgraded. Republican plans are worse than the
democrats when it comes to taming the deficit, their plan is just cut
taxes for the rich, and possibly impose a flat tax later, that would
mean you would be paying a 30 percent sales tax on everything, and the
rich would pay nothing since they get the majority of their income
through capital gains!!!!!!!!!
we need deficit reduction, however, there are ways to save the social
safety net and not lower america's standard of living or overall life
expectancy. Your free will theory, doesnt take in account the fact of
the economic deterministic effects on seniors and the poor and
disabled if we dismantled these programs. If the debt limit isn't
raised and your grandma has medicare, she will have no coverage, you
heartless bastard!!! You are like Marie Antoninette, before she got
her head cut off, for saying let the poor eat cake, just like her, you
live in an ivory tower!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Regarding the National Debt, it should be noted that the majority of
> > the debt was created by Republican Presidents.
>
> Like I said, it was created by progressives who insanely think it's
> the job of the US government to make an empire, rule the world and
> tell everybody what to do.
You really classify republicans as progressives. You are really
stupid!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Unfortunately
> > for Obama, he is stuck with the deficit raising Bush Tax Cuts
> > extension till the end of this year.
>
> You can't bitch about tax cuts while advocating empire. (And the only
> reason Obama, our President, would be stuck with anything he opposes
> is because he's a shitty leader and on the wrong side of the issues)
your analysis doesnt take an account of the obstructionist congress,
and the fact that the congress votes in tax increases, or decreases,
the president can only propose this, congress holds the purse strings.
How you like supporting people who favor income redistributation from
the middle class to the rich. Moron!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > I didn't agree with this decision, but You cant blame Obama
>
> He's a piss poor leader who doesn't know what he's doing. I blame all
> his failures on him...And I hate him for the fact that he's not smart
> enough to know he's way over his head and needs to step down.
You just hate Barack Obama cuz he's black!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Obama was
> > attempting to get the 66 vote threshold for the New START treaty with
> > Russia, since we no longer had nuclear weapons inspectors in Russia.
>
> These treaties are a joke, right along with Russian safeguards,
> security, etc. It's just more bs promises that our government has
> everything under control. Like it had everything under control before
> 9/11 and the like. (I wipe my ass with its promises)
the alternative to the treaty, would have allowed for increased
proliferation of nuclear weapons by both sides, and we would not be
able to monitor russian compliance with the New Start Treaty or
whether they were honoring NPT, or the fact that security at russian
nuclear missile silos are extremely lax, and that all of the weapons
grade uranium being smuggled on the black market was coming from
russia, so we had to have inspection teams at russian nuke sites to
verify security of their arsenal and to monitor treaty compliance, in
regards to New START. WE also reciprocated by allowing the russians to
verify that we as are they are required to make reductions in our
nuclear arsenals.
>
> > Regarding Entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), The
> > funds are in trouble because
>
> The payments are in jeopardy because Our government doesn't care about
> the money it steals from us and our economy. It waste shitloads of it
> on bs like building mosques in Afghanistan and paying whores to learn
> not to drink to much in China.
>
> > While the republicans claim to have a Job Creation agenda
>
> Both parties are filled with morons who think its the job of our
> government to control our economy. (Insane)
>
> > Also the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, both Bush started,
>
> And Barack could have ended them, day one. (But he wont do that
> because he thinks it's the job of America to transform these countries
> into America. He's bat shit Insane)
as stated earlier you have already proven that you are a moral
relativist, and a nihilist!!!!!!!
You want the Taliban to return to power in afghanistan, which is
exactly what will happen if we leave, and then they will be free to
rape children, cut off the noses of young girls who object to arranged
marriages, and stone femal adulterers to death!!!! Not to mention if
we pull out Al qaeda and the Taliban could potentially take over
Pakistan, since the ISI, is riddled with Al qaida sympathizers, and
its just a matter of time if we leave, that they will get a hold of
Pakistan's nuclear arsenal!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Currently the US is engaged with back channel peace negotiations with
> > the Taliban
>
> What were you saying about the Nazi like regimes? So much for stopping
> them... (Insane)
>
> > Also the cost of the Libyan operation is about 1 billion dollars
>
> So cheap wars are more acceptable? Especially ones where we are
> backing al Qaeda, right? (Insane)
>
> > > Note: I don't demonize the government. There are clear things it
> > > should be doing(protect individuals
> > > from force and fraud).
>
> > Then why would be opposed to the Dodd-Frank Bill, that attempts to regulate
>
> It drives mom and pop operations under and allows the too big to get
> even bigger. It tells private citizens what to do with their money and
> property. It creates Monopolies. It's a piece of shit bill that was
> designed to favor big politically connected corporations. (Which is no
> surprise after seeing Dodd and Frank's role in the housing mess)
You are so fuckin ignorant. One of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank
bill limits the amount of swipe fees big banks can charge stores every
time they use their mastercard or visa debit/credit card. Currently
the big banks charge your beloved Mom and Pops stores, 40 cents or
roughly 1 percent of the purchase price every time a customer makes a
purchase at their store, this is in addition to fees charged by
Mastercard and Visa to consumers every time they use their card. The
big banks racked up billions charging these fees. The Dodd-frank bill
with senator Dick Durbin's amendment attached to it would limit the
amount of swipe fee surcharges to 12 cents per transaction.
>
> > > > So You argue for Corporatism by fait accompli:
>
> > > I argue for free market, free will and the right to allow people to
> > > make their own choices and you argue for a giant all controlling, all
> > > powerful government(worst kind of monopoly) that steals from the free
> > > market and taxpayers..
>
> > If you are not rich there is no free will in the market place.. It is
> > an Oligapoly!!!
>
> Our government(has monopoly on force) has done more to create
> monopolies and kill freewill than anything the free market has done or
> is doing.
Yah but you bitch about Verizon and AT&T being on the government dole,
when in fact they are not, they just have really good tax attorney's
like Michelle Bachman's of the world, so that Verizon can get of
paying its fair share in taxes cuz of all the loop holes in the tax
code, and becaus the Wireless broadband market is an Oligopoly, with
these two companies, pending AT&T's meger with T-Mobile, means that
now 80 percent of the market will be controlled by 2 companies. Also
AT&T is being sued by consumers in a class action suit, for charging
customers sometimes as much as 300 percent, for iPhone use they never
used!!! That's not capitalism, rather monopolistic
mercantilism!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.itworld.com/networking/166943/suit-charges-att-overcharges-much-300-iphone-data
>
> <Your link on Oligapoly at wiki>
> For example(Oligapoly), as of fourth quarter 2008, Verizon, AT&T,
> Sprint, Nextel, and T-Mobile together control 89% of the US cellular
> phone market.
Yah dip shit here's my link, since all you are capable of is
"primitive accumulation!!!!"
You should also know that several former republican appointed FCC
commissioners have taken consulting jobs with AT&T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> <end>
>
> These companies are perfect examples of what I said above. They are
> politically connected, they get shit loads of government cash and tax
> breaks, government regulations are designed to protect them and their
> market share, they get shitloads of no bid government contracts,
Oh you are talking about Bush's sweet heart deal with former vice
president Dick Cheney's company, Haliburton/ Kellog Brown and Root,
that defrauded the american tax payer in Iraq reconstruction
contracts. Nice of you to be a fuckin moron!!!!!!!!!!!
> etc.
They get tax breaks because they have people like Michelle Bachman
representing them.
Analysis: 12 Corporations Pay Effective Tax Rate of Negative 1.5%
on $171 Billion in Profits; Reap $62.4 Billion in Tax Subsidies
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/12corps060111.pdf
-excerpt-
Exxon Mobil, Boeing, Verizon, Others Illustrate Why Revenue-Raising
Reform is Needed
Washington, DC – To better inform the public and lawmakers about how
successful many American corporations have been in reducing or
eliminating their federal income taxes, Citizens for Tax Justice is
releasing a preview of its forthcoming major study of Fortune 500
companies and the taxes they paid — or failed to pay — over the
2008-10 period. Today’s release details the pretax U.S. profits,
federal taxes paid and effective tax rates of (in alphabetical
order):
American Electric Power, Boeing, Dupont, Exxon Mobil, FedEx, General
Electric, Honeywell International, IBM, United Technologies, Verizon
Communications, Wells Fargo and Yahoo.
>
> > >.And if they have the nerve to say "no" then
> > > they're thrown in jail(or in some cases murdered by FBI agents raiding
> > > their home).
>
> > I didnt agree with what happened at Ruby Ridge or Waco.
>
> This isn't just those two instances. All Americans have to give our
> government its dues. Our government has a complete monopoly on force
> and can murder anyone in an instance for no reason at all. (Which is
> why it should be limited)
>
> And why it shouldn't be involved in bogus drug wars and the like.
>
> > while at the same time the reactionary White nationalist movement
> > recieved little federal attention
>
> Maybe it would have gotten done if our government wasn't fighting
> insane wars, funding our allies defense, locking up millions of people
> in a silly drug war, etc)
>
> There is a good chance the bombing would have never happened if our
> government had been like it was designed(limited). Same could be said
> for 9/11, which Osama claimed was because of the foreign policy you
> support.
>
> > > > In your view we should never had the Social Security program, or
> > > > Medicare
>
> > > No, I argue that a person should have a choice and should get to
> > > choose where their money goes. If they choose to invest in such
> > > things, then so be it. (Why do you hate free choice and free will?)
as usual tards like you resort to the ivory tower musings of the
Bourbon dynasty, before reality sets in and you get guillitoned, i.e.,
thrown from your hypocritical heartless perch!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Only a sucker or someone who is rich and already is a trust funder
> > would make that argument.
>
> I'm for the complete opposite. This is your argument, this is what
> you're for.
>
> > Its the same argument that these corporate
> > types make about "Right to Work," intiatives trying to trick the
> > common man
>
> Nobody is being tricked to do anything. (You're Insane)
Oh and you argue that the Right to work intiative, isnt really about
tricking people into leaving their unions. Without collective
bargaining workers have no power or leverage regarding their
wages!!!!!!!! Just look at walmart, they are anti-union and so they
pay less than comparably placed unionized retail sector jobs, like in
grocery stores. They also rarely offer health insurance and that's if
you are employed full time, so they will usually schedule you just
under the minimum requirement to qualify for health coverage under
state law so that they dont have to pay you health benefits. I Had
friends who worked at Walmart while going to college, they are the
evil empire!!!!!!!!! The Walton family who owns walmart is
collectively worth 80 billion dollars, and they get the most of their
product from sweatshop Communist chinese labor. You have no idea what
the fuck you are talking about when it comes to free will, neither did
Louis XVI did before he get his head cut off!!!!!!!!!!!!!
eat shit bitch!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975
discussion archived here:
Tom Jigme Wheat
alternative which is to legalize heroin, also the market is being
flooded with coke right now pending the approval of Columbian and
Panama Free trade agreements. I think Marijuana should be legalized,
but nothing else. Its estimated that it could generate billions in tax
reserves, for state's struggling with deficits!!!!!
The drug war is really a class war, the transnational cartels, are the
feudalist trailers, of the oligarchs, engineering addiction as a way
to maximise profit and prohibit class mobility!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975
discussion archived here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65389faaa5d00230?
> http://www.itworld.com/networking/166943/suit-charges-att-overcharges...
>
>
>
> > <Your link on Oligapoly at wiki>
> > For example(Oligapoly), as of fourth quarter 2008, Verizon, AT&T,
> > Sprint, Nextel, and T-Mobile together control 89% of the US cellular
> > phone market.
>
> Yah dip shit here's my link, since all you are capable of is
> "primitive accumulation!!!!"
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/gadgetreviews/lawsuit-claiming-at-t-is-over...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
Tom Jigme Wheat
wrote:
> http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/
>
> thomaswheat1975
Is the USA going to leave Japan South Korea or Taiwan behind in the
ballistic missile defense review
regarding threats posed by N. Korea and Iran. Also there is no law
that prohibits the sale of ballistic missile technology!!!!!!
also see this link for excerpts from the QDR
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/9abe668f877a5a9c
thomaswheat1975
United States seeks in order to tailor a “phased adaptive approach” to
the unique threats and capabilities in a region.
http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/docs/BMDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200630_for%20web.pdf
regarding discussion archived here:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.japan/browse_thread/thread/c3735611abe9a340
and here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/9abe668f877a5a9c?
and here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65389faaa5d00230?
“To implement this new focus on regional architectures, the
Administration will pursue the following initiatives:
1.) Deploy the European Phased Adaptive Approach, which accelerates
the deployment of proven technologies and also promises improved long-
term protection of the homeland.
2.) “Apply “ phased adaptive approaches in other regions by building
on current efforts, with a principal focus on East Asia and the Middle
East. (28)”
“Finally, the Airborne Laser (ABL) program was identified for
restructuring because it had experienced repeated schedule delays and
technical problems since its inception in 1996, and because its
operating concept was not adequately defined. Plans for a second ABL
aircraft were canceled, and the existing ABL aircraft—a highly
modified 747 transport—was retained but shifted to a technology
demonstration program. The Department is examining the implications of
retaining the current ABL aircraft as a high-energy laser research
test bed.”(41)
North Korea, which has demonstrated its nuclear ambitions and
continues to
develop long-range missiles, is of particular concern. Following the
Taepo Dong 1 missile test in 1998, North Korea has conducted flight
tests of the Taepo Dong 2 (TD-2) missile in 2006 and more recently in
April 2009. Despite the most recent launch’s failure in its stated
mission of orbiting a small communications satellite, it successfully
tested many technologies associated with an ICBM. Although the test
launches of the TD-2 in 2006 and 2009 were deemed unsuccessful, we
must assume that sooner or later North Korea will have a successful
test of its TD-2 and, if there are no major changes in its national
security strategy in the next decade, it will be able to mate a
nuclear warhead to a proven delivery system.
One of the benefits of the European Phased Adaptive Approach is that
it allows for a Russian contribution if political circumstances make
that possible. For example, Russian radars could contribute useful and
welcome tracking data, although the functioning of the U.S. system
will not be dependent on that data.
The Administration is committed to substantive and sustained dialogue
with the leadership of Russia on U.S. missile defenses and their roles
in different regions. For example, the United States and Russia have
initiated a joint assessment of the ballistic missile threat, as
agreed to by Presidents Obama and Medvedev at the July 2009 Moscow
Summit. Our goals are to enlist Russia in a new structure of
deterrence that addresses the emerging challenges to international
peace and security posed by a small number of states seeking illicit
capabilities.(34)
Engaging China in discussions of U.S. missile defense plans is also an
important part of our international efforts. China is one of the
countries most vocal about U.S. ballistic missile defenses and their
strategic implications, and its leaders have expressed concern that
such defenses might
negate China’s strategic deterrent. (34)
Although Iran has not stated an intent to
develop ICBMs, it continues to pursue
longer-range ballistic missiles. Iran launched
its Safir Space Launch Vehicle (SLV) in
August 2008 with what it claims was a
dummy satellite. Iran used the Safir-2 SLV to
place the domestically produced Omid
satellite in orbit in February 2009, according
to statements made to the press by Iranian
officials. Despite continued diplomatic efforts
Iran also continues to defy its international
obligations on its nuclear program, further
reducing international confidence in the
nature of its program. These factors only
compound international concerns about the
intent of its ballistic missile program.
In East Asia, the United States has a range of cooperative
relationships. Japan is one of our most significant international BMD
partners. The United States and Japan have made considerable strides
in BMD cooperation and interoperability in support of bilateral
missile defense operations. Japan has acquired a layered integrated
missile defense system that includes Aegis BMD ships with Standard
Missile 3 interceptors, Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) fire
units, early warning radars, and a command and control system.
The United States and Japan
regularly train together, and our forces have
successfully executed cooperative BMD
operations. One of our most significant
cooperative efforts is the co-development of a
next-generation SM-3 interceptor, called the
Block IIA. This co-development program
represents not only an area of significant
technical cooperation but also the basis for
enhanced operational cooperation to
strengthen regional security. The U.S.-Japan
partnership is an outstanding example of the
kind of cooperation the United States seeks in
order to tailor a phased adaptive approach to
the unique threats and capabilities in a region.(33)
The Republic of Korea (ROK) is also an important U.S. BMD partner. The
ROK has indicated interest in acquiring a missile defense capability
that includes land- and sea-based systems, early warning radars, and a
command and control system. The United States and ROK are working to
define possible future BMD requirements. As these requirements are
determined, the United States stands ready to work with the ROK to
strengthen its protection against the North Korean missile threat. The
United States looks forward to taking further steps to enhance
operational coordination and build upon ongoing missile defense
cooperation.(33)
Regional Threats
Regional actors, such as North Korea in Northeast Asia and Iran and
Syria in the Middle East, have short, medium, and intermediate range
ballistic missiles that threaten U.S. forces, allies, and partners in
regions where the United States deploys forces and maintains security
relationships. North Korea conducted seven widely publicized ballistic
missile launches on July 4–5, 2006. It successfully tested six mobile
theater ballistic missiles, demonstrating a capability to target U.S.
and allied forces in South Korea and Japan. On July 3–4, 2009, it
again exercised its capability to threaten U.S. and allied forces and
populations in South Korea and Japan by launching seven
ballistic missiles. North Korea has developed an advanced solid-
propellant short-range ballistic missile (SRBM). A mobile IRBM is also
under development.
Iran has an extensive missile
development program and
has received support in the
past from entities in Russia,
China, and North Korea.
DIA believes that Iran still
depends on outside sources
for many of the related dualuse
raw materials and
components; for example,
the Shahab-3 MRBM is based
on the North Korean No
Dong missile.
Iran continues to modify this missile to extend its range and
effectiveness. In 2004,
Iran claimed that it tested an improved version of the Shahab-3;
subsequent statements by Iranian officials suggest that the improved
Shahab-3’s range is up to 2,000 kilometers and that Iran has the
ability to mass-produce these missiles. In addition, Iran’s solid-
propellant rocket and missile programs are progressing, and Iran has
flight-tested a new solid-propellant MRBM with a claimed range of
2,000 kilometers. Iran is also likely working to improve the accuracy
of its SRBMs.
Syria also presents a regional threat. It has several hundred SCUD-
class and SS-21 SRBMs and may have chemical warheads available for a
portion of its SCUD missiles. All of Syria’s missiles are mobile and
can reach much of Israel and large portions of Iraq, Jordan, and
Turkey from launch sites well within the country. (6)
Taiwan
]
One regional trend that particularly concerns the United States is the
growing imbalance of power across the Taiwan Strait in China’s favor.
China is developing advanced ballistic missile capabilities that can
threaten its neighbors, and anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM)
capabilities that can attempt to target naval forces in the region.
China continues to field very large numbers of conventionally armed
SRBMs opposite Taiwan and is developing a number of new mobile
conventionally armed medium-range systems. Moreover, China has
upgraded programs for command and control, communications,
intelligence, and other related force capabilities, and
continues to develop new SRBMs, MRBMs, and IRBMs. These missiles are
key components of Beijing’s military modernization program. Chinese
missiles will be capable of reaching not just important Taiwan
military and civilian facilities but also U.S. and allied military
installations in
the region. (7)
There
is no global norm or treaty banning trade in ballistic missiles (the
function of the Missile
Technology Control Regime is to facilitate ad hoc coordination of
export controls among likeminded exporters who desire to keep
militarily sensitive technologies out of the hands of dangerous
states). (7)
Policy Priorities
In support of presidential guidance, this review has set the following
policy priorities.
First, the United States will continue to defend the homeland from
limited ballistic missile attack. These efforts are focused on
protecting the homeland from a ballistic missile attack by a regional
actor such as North Korea or Iran. Through our continued commitment to
maintain and develop the ground-based mid-course defense (GMD) system,
the United States seeks to dissuade such states from developing an
inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM), deter them from using an
ICBM if they develop or acquire such a capability, and defeat an ICBM
attack by such states should deterrence fail. (11)
This primarily means that the Department of Defense will realign
spending away from defenses planned to rely on currently immature
technology, away from technologies that require unrealistic concepts
of operations in order to be effective, and away from technologies
intended to defeat adversarial missile threats that do not exist and
are not
expected to evolve in the near to midterm. These considerations led to
the decisions to “terminate” both the Multiple Kill Vehicle and
Kinetic Energy Interceptor programs and to shift the Airborne Laser to
a technology demonstration program in the FY 2010 budget. (12) free
electron laser????
Both Russia and China have repeatedly expressed concerns that U.S.
missile defenses adversely affect their own strategic capabilities and
interests. The United States will continue to engage them on this
issue to help them better understand the stabilizing benefits of
missile defense—particularly China, which claims to have successfully
demonstrated its own ground-based midcourse interception on January
11, 2010. As the United States has stated in the past, the homeland
missile defense capabilities are focused on regional actors such as
Iran and North Korea. While the GMD system would be employed to defend
the United States against limited missile launches from any source, it
does not have the capacity to cope with large scale Russian or Chinese
missile attacks, and is not intended to affect the strategic balance
with those countries. (13)
The United States is currently protected against the threat of limited
ICBM attack, as a result of investments made over the past decade in a
system based on Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD). This system
relies on ground-based interceptors at two sites: Fort Greely, Alaska,
and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. By the end of FY 2010, the
United States will deploy a total of 30 GBIs, with 26 at Fort Greely
and 4 at Vandenberg. To enable these ground-based systems to
successfully intercept attacking missiles in the midcourse part of
their trajectory, the United States employs early warning radars in
Alaska, California, Greenland, and the United Kingdom; afloat radar
systems (i.e., Aegis destroyers, Aegis cruisers, and Sea-Based X-band
radar
[SBX]); and a sophisticated command and control infrastructure. (15)
Over the past decade the United States has made significant progress
in developing and fielding essential capabilities for protection
against attack from short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. These
capabilities include increasingly capable PATRIOT batteries that
provide point defense against short-range ballistic missiles, the
powerful AN/TPY-2 X-band radar for detecting and tracking ballistic
missiles, and soon-to-be-deployed THAAD batteries for defense against
both short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. Sea-based
capabilities have also continued to develop. The Aegis system offers
not only the ability to provide surveillance and tracking of ballistic
missiles but also an upper-tier missile defense capability in the form
of the SM-3 Block IA interceptor. Spaced-based sensors detect
ballistic missile launches and provide data to groundand sea-based
missile defense assets. (19)
However, these capabilities are modest
numbers when set against
the rapidly expanding
regional missile threat.
The Administration took
steps to address this
problem in the FY 2010
budget, by providing
additional money for
THAAD interceptors, for
SM-3 Block IA
interceptors, and for the
AEGIS BMD SM-3 FLIGHT TEST. The Arleigh Burke-class guided missile
destroyer USS Hopper, equipped with the Aegis Weapons System, is shown
launching
a SM-3 while underway in the Pacific Ocean. The missile successfully
intercepted a
short-range ballistic missile launched from the Pacific Missile Range
Facility in
Kauai, Hawaii. This exercise marked the 19th successful intercept of
23 at-sea firings
using the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.
D E F E N D I N G A G A I N S T R E G I O N A L T H R E A T S
20
Bal l i s t i c M i s s ile Defense Review Repor t
upgrading of more Navy ships to incorporate the Aegis BMD capability.
The President’s Budget request for FY 2011 will further expand these
deployable capabilities. (20)
Near-term Capabilities
Looking to the future of regional defense, DoD is developing
capabilities for deployment in the near term (out to 2015) and over
the longer term. A key objective is to leverage recent successes in
regional missile defense to further expand that capability at low
risk. As part of the solution, DoD will increase the procurement of
proven systems such as THAAD, the SM-3 interceptor, and the AN/TPY-2
radar.
The second part of the solution is to further improve the technology
that has already been developed. At the moment, the SM-3 interceptor
is launched only from sea. In the 2015 time frame, a relocatable land-
based SM-3 system, tentatively called “Aegis Ashore,” will be
available that will make possible better regional coverage by virtue
of its ability to be placed inland. These land-based interceptors will
provide persistent coverage of the areas they protect and will be an
important element of a future regional missile defense against medium-
and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. DoD will also continue to
improve the SM-3 interceptor missile defense capability. By 2015 a
more capable SM-3 missile, the Block IB, will be available. It will
have an improved seeker capability for greater on-board discrimination
and greater area coverage. This interceptor will be deployed both at
sea and on land, with the “Aegis Ashore” system. (20)
summary of nuclear posture review:
While missile defenses play an important role in regional
deterrence, other components will also be significant.
Against nuclear-armed states, regional deterrence will
necessarily include a nuclear component (whether forwarddeployed
or not). But the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in
these regional deterrence architectures can be reduced by
increasing the role of missile defenses and other capabilities.”(23)
Second, the United States will pursue a phased adaptive approach
within each region that is tailored to the threats unique to that
region, including their scale, the scope and pace of their
development, and the capabilities available and most suited for
deployment. This does not require a globally integrated missile
defense architecture that integrates allies into a uniform, global
structure. Instead, the United States will pursue regional structures
sharing common assets that are relevant and robust…(23)
The Phased Adaptive Approach in Europe
The Administration’s approach to missile defense in Europe was
announced in September 2009.
This announcement followed a unanimous recommendation to the President
by the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff that the 2007
plan for European missile defense be revised.
Under this new approach, in Phase 1 (2011 time frame) existing missile
defense systems will be deployed to defend against short- and medium-
range ballistic missiles. Phase 1 will focus on the protection of
portions of southern Europe by utilizing sea-based Aegis missile
defense-capable ships and interceptors (the SM-3 Block IA). This first
phase will also include a forward-based radar, which, by providing
data earlier in the engagement, will enhance the defense of Europe and
augment homeland defense capabilities already in place in Alaska and
California.
In Phase 2 (2015 time frame) our capabilities will be enhanced by the
fielding of a more
advanced interceptor (the SM-3 Block IB) and additional sensors. Phase
2 will include landbased SM-3s in southern Europe, in addition to
their sea-based locations, expanding coverage to additional NATO
allies.
In Phase 3 (2018 time frame) coverage against medium- and intermediate-
range threats will be improved with a second land-based SM-3 site,
located in northern Europe, as well as an upgraded Standard Missile 3
(the SM-3 Block IIA, which is already under development) at seaandland-
based sites. These changes will extend coverage to all
NATO allies in Europe.
In Phase 4 (2020 time frame) an additional capability against a
potential ICBM launched from the Middle East against the United States
will be available. This phase will take advantage of yet another
upgrade to the Standard Missile 3, the Block IIB. All four phases will
include upgrades to the missile defense command and control system.
The United States has been working closely with NATO allies on the
relationship of the
European PAA to the Alliance’s missile defense plans. In addition to
these NATO-wide
consultations, the Czech Republic and Poland, both close allies,
continue to play an important role in our collective missile defense
efforts. (24)
We also see opportunities for cooperation with Russia in the context
of the
European Phased Adaptive Approach, which are discussed in greater
detail in the section titled “Strengthening International
Cooperation.” (24)
The United States and
Japan cooperate in a way that is highly
interoperable, and the nations are
working together to jointly develop a
future system. The United States and
Israel are involved in the coproduction
of the Arrow 2 missile defense system as well as in additional
BMD research and development activities. The United States is also
beginning to work with some partners of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
In short, the
foundations for applying phased adaptive approaches in these regions
are different..(25)
Perhaps the most important derives from the fact that
regional demand for U.S. BMD assets is likely to exceed supply for
some years to come. Although the missile threat is developing at
different rates in different regions, overall it is developing
rapidly. Today there are thousands of ballistic missiles and hundreds
of launchers in countries other than Russia, China, the United States,
and NATO members; roughly 90 percent of those missiles have ranges
less than 1,000 kilometers. Against this threat, the United States
currently has only a few hundred defensive short-range interceptors
deployed in multiple regions.(26)
To implement this new focus on regional architectures, the
Administration will pursue the following initiatives:
To implement this new focus on regional architectures, the
Administration will pursue the following initiatives:
1.) Deploy the European Phased Adaptive Approach, which accelerates
the deployment of proven technologies and also promises improved long-
term protection of the homeland.
2.) Apply phased adaptive approaches in other regions by building on
current efforts, with a principal focus on East Asia and the Middle
East.(28)
3.) Deploy the European Phased Adaptive Approach, which accelerates
the deployment of proven technologies and also promises improved long-
term protection of the homeland.
4.) Apply phased adaptive approaches in other regions by building on
current efforts, with a principal focus on East Asia and the Middle
East.(28)
In March 2007, the Missile Defense Executive Board (MDEB) was
established, bringing
together senior DoD executives (and also representatives of the
Department of State and National Security Staff) to review and provide
guidance for missile defense.
In September 2008, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued innovative
guidance to allow the Military Departments, the Joint Staff, the
combatant commands, and other
directorates within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to
participate in and influence
the development of the Missile Defense Agency’s annual program plan
and budget
submittal. (37)
Further, the Deputy’s guidance provided guidelines for
responsibilities and authorities for resource execution as the
developing elements of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS)
reach maturity and are transitioned to the Military Departments for
operation and support. The guidance, termed the BMDS Life Cycle
Management Process, was used to develop the Missile Defense Agency’s
inputs to the President’s Budget for FY 2011. (37)
The Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program was one such troubled program.
The MKV was
intended to be deployed on midcourse interceptors, like the ground-
based interceptor, so that one interceptor could address complex
countermeasures by identifying and destroying all lethal objects in a
threat cluster. However, the MKV technology was not maturing at a
reasonable rate. Since continuing to develop those technologies
required to demonstrate MKV effectiveness would have been time-
consuming and costly, the Department chose to terminate the MKV
program and invest in other approaches.(40)
The Defense Department also terminated the Kinetic Energy Interceptor
(KEI) program. The KEI mission was designed to counter advanced
ballistic missile threats by intercepting missiles in the boost phase
of flight. KEI was neither affordable nor proven, could not be
integrated into existing weapons platforms or systems, and did not
conform to the strategy of focusing on emerging regional missile
threats. As a result, it grew in cost from $4.6 billion to $8.9
billion, the development schedule continued to slip, and the average-
unit production cost grew from $25 million to more than $50 million
per interceptor. In addition, the KEI’s size meant that any existing
operational platform would need significant modifications to host it.
(40)
On Jun 20, 10:16 am, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> regarding your stance on the drug war, should we adopt Ron Paul's
> alternative which is to legalize heroin, also the market is being
> flooded with coke right now pending the approval of Columbian and
> Panama Free trade agreements. I think Marijuana should be legalized,
> but nothing else. Its estimated that it could generate billions in tax
> reserves, for state's struggling with deficits!!!!!
>
> The drug war is really a class war, the transnational cartels, are the
> feudalist trailers, of the oligarchs, engineering addiction as a way
> to maximise profit and prohibit class mobility!!!!!!!!!
> thomaswheat1975
>
> discussion archived here:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65389faaa...
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Tom Jigme Wheat
> On 6/22/2011 7:02 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 3:07 am, PaxPerPoten<P...@USA.org> wrote:
> >> On 6/22/2011 2:11 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
>
> >>> You were already clowned by me at alt.politics.democrats.d
>
> >>> at this link,
you gus were clowned on the non stimulative effect of the Bush Tax
cuts here:
and regarding failed republican energy policy and the role of the
unregulated financial industry tanking the US economy, along with
proof that repeal of the affordable health care act adds to the
deficit, you guys were clowned at this links:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/abb972cd082cd361
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65389faaa5d00230
see complete discussion thread, 88 posts!!! for more info
thomaswheat1975
>
> > and as usual you guys are trying to change the subject, from the fact
> > that Increased US Domestic Oil Production will not lower oil prices,
> > since USA only has 2 percent of world reserves, and that Oil
> > production in the USA is at a 20 year high and this has not stopped
> > the price of oil from hovering to around 100 dollars a barrel. Also
> > the energy information administration, eia.gov predicts in its 2011
> > energy outlook study that by 2030, the price of oil per barrel will be
> > 200 dollars, how you like paying 8 dollars a gallon of gas. My
> > argument for investing in trenewable fuel sources is a compelling one,
> > you guys are stuck in some static right wing tard universe that's
> > about to explode!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I suggest you read the book "The Prize" It is a volume of our national
> resources and where they lie.
Well from all of the information that I have sided in this discussion
thread, would seem to prove that Iam right about our oil reserves.
About the industry figures regarding oil reserves, the eia.gov study
said that industry often overstates the amount of available reserves
to inflate stock prices. Also all these new reserves we are hearing
about from Exxon Mobil, is tar sands / shale oil. Tar sands / shale
oil is higher in sulphur content, and is a lower quality fuel than say
light sweet crude from Venezuela or Libya. Furthermore tar sands /
shale oil has higher extraction costs, and has higher fossil fuel
emissions than oil with lower sulphur content. Also most of this tar
sands oil is in canada, and the process used to extract the oil,
hydrofracking is more environmentally destructive than conventional
oil drilling. Face the facts, you are going to have to buy oil from
Hugo Chavez, or rape the canadian wilderness, and spew more fossil
fuel emissions into the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change, and
global warming..Or the alternative, is to invest in hydrogen fuel,
biomass, and hybrid technology!!!!!!
check out this link: Regarding Hydrogen fuel powered cars that can
travel 500 miles with 10 kilograms of hydrogen fuel. But even this is
minimalist, since Solid Hydrogen fuel used in our ICBMS can travel
6000 miles in a matter of hours, with one fuel
source!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
Hydrogen Fuel
As a fuel to power engines, hydrogen may realize the possibility of
very low emissions—and potentially zero emissions. Hydrogen fuel can
be converted electrochemically into electric energy using a fuel cell
or burned in a hydrogen combustion engine. The fuel cell is one of the
most promising clean-energy technologies, while the hydrogen
combustion engine provides another option for carbon-free hydrogen
fuel.
LLNL researchers have designed, built, and demonstrated a hydrogen-
storage tank on a conventional vehicle that can hold 10 kilograms of
liquid hydrogen—enough for 500+ miles of driving. ..Livermore
Laboratory is also examining the use of exotic microbes as biological
hydrogen generators. For use in hydrogen fuel production, the most
promising microbes are Pyrococcus furiosus. P. furiosus can consume
extracts of starchy plant matter, digesting the carbohydrate in a way
that not only provides energy but also releases hydrogen gas.
thomaswheat1975
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/52ba8746fa3ff936
>
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65389faaa...
>
> >>> You and your toady right wing pedophile trust-funder Buster Norris,
> >>> wont get your SSI check come August 2nd of this year, if USA doesn't
> >>> vote to raise the debt ceiling (limit) ha, ha!! so keep supporting the
> >>> rank file corporatist republicans, they mean to turn this country
> >>> into a third world banana republic
> >>> thomaswheat1975
>
> >> SSI is stolen from Social Security. Has nothing to do with the budget.
> >> The only tie to the Budget is the Lydon Baines Johnson 1964 shithole law
> >> that steals the surplus and sends it to the General fund to be spent
> >> illegally outside of the 1934 Social Security Trust Fund.
> >> Its Just another Democratic theft from the poor and elderly.
>
> > How do you figure, since the majority of people on SSI have never even
> > paid into the system, not that Iam saying that mentally disabled
> > people shouldn't have a means to survive.
>
> The Feds should have funded SSI outside of the Social Security Trust
> fund and set Watch dogs to insure it was not misused. They didn't.
>
> Also since I have no clue
>
> > what you are talking about please cite the supposed law referring to
> > LBJ era policies stealing from SSI.
>
> Not SSI. LBJ had a special act in 1964 to remove the surplus money from
> Social Security to the General fund..Not borrowed! Just moved!..It was
> then used to fund the war in Vietnam and the Space program. All the
> while claiming it was held in trust for years to offset the national
> debt. In fact they set up a false book keeping fund that was supposedly
> Highway funds to offset the National debt also. it was just paper. Now
> the US Government under every administration since then has been blowing
> Social Security money left and right to the tune Of roughly $2.7
> Trillion to date and with np intention of returning even one dime. With
> common interest compounded that would add up to about $9.8 Trillion
> today. Don't even bother thinking about it..It is gone and there is no
> chance of recapturing it. War profiteers have boogied with it. They
> claim LBJ added roughly $8 billion to his net worth with the War
> profiteering industries they owned and monopolized.
>
> I find it funny that you guys hate
>
> > democrats so much, but you forget FDR, Roosevelt,
>
> Actually that was a Fellow by the name of Lindberg that suggested that
> the German system would be an excellent one for America. He was not a
> Democrat and I don't think a strong Republican. In fact he was upset
> that both parties accused him of Nazi sympathies because he still had
> relatives in Germany. FDR could not have Social Security without the
> Republicans and the support of the nation. Lindberg was the selling
> point as he was a Hero to the people.
>
> was the one who
>
> > founded the Social Security program. So keep supporting the party of
> > corporate welfare oligarchs, and you will find yourself out on the
> > street, cold hungry and delusional, How sad!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> You are of course aware the both parties want to kill social security so
> they can get their grubby paws on the %15.7 of total income without
> deductions that it brings in. It is not now considered a tax. But they
> will sure as Hell make it one and you will still have to fund your own
> retirement/disability. Average income is $41.000 at 15.7% = $6,437
> How would you like that for a tax increase. I of course factored in the
> employers portion..After all that is you money also. How long do you
> think it will take these tax and spend morons to bankrupt that system
> also. Do not raise the Debt limit ever again. In fact lower it forcing
> payments to reduce debt. California is not paying legislatures until
> they balance the budget. Great idea for the Fed system.
>
>
>
> >> It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
> >> the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
> >> ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
> >> be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
>
> --
> It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
> the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
> ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
> be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
On Jun 22, 6:34 am, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 6:07 am, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/22/2011 7:02 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 3:07 am, PaxPerPoten<P...@USA.org> wrote:
> > >> On 6/22/2011 2:11 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
>
> > >>> You were already clowned by me at alt.politics.democrats.d
>
> > >>> at this link,
>
> > > and as usual you guys are trying to change the subject, from the fact
> > > that Increased US Domestic Oil Production will not lower oil prices,
> > > since USA only has 2 percent of world reserves, and that Oil
> > > production in the USA is at a 20 year high and this has not stopped
> > > the price of oil from hovering to around 100 dollars a barrel. Also
> > > the energy information administration, eia.gov predicts in its 2011
> > > energy outlook study that by 2030, the price of oil per barrel will be
> > > 200 dollars, how you like paying 8 dollars a gallon of gas. My
> > > argument for investing in trenewable fuel sources is a compelling one,
> > > you guys are stuck in some static right wing tard universe that's
> > > about to explode!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > I suggest you read the book "The Prize" It is a volume of our national
> > resources and where they lie.
>
> Well from all of the information that I have sided in this discussion
> thread, would seem to prove that Iam right about our oil reserves.
> About the industry figures regarding oil reserves, the eia.gov study
> said that industry often overstates the amount of available reserves
> to inflate stock prices. Also all these new reserves we are hearing
> about from Exxon Mobil, is tar sands / shale oil. Tar sands / shale
> oil is higher in sulphur content, and is a lower quality fuel than say
> light sweet crude from Venezuela or Libya. Furthermore tar sands /
> shale oil has higher extraction costs, and has higher fossil fuel
> emissions than oil with lower sulphur content. Also most of this tar
> sands oil is in canada, and the process used to extract the oil,
> hydrofracking is more environmentally destructive than conventional
> oil drilling. Face the facts, you are going to have to buy oil from
> Hugo Chavez, or rape the canadian wilderness, and spew more fossil
> fuel emissions into the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change, and
> global warming..Or the alternative, is to invest in hydrogen fuel,
> biomass, and hybrid technology!!!!!!
>
> check out this link: Regarding Hydrogen fuel powered cars that can
> travel 500 miles with 10 kilograms of hydrogen fuel. But even this is
> minimalist, since Solid Hydrogen fuel used in our ICBMS can travel
> 6000 miles in a matter of hours, with one fuel
> source!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>
> Hydrogen Fuel
>
> As a fuel to power engines, hydrogen may realize the possibility of
> very low emissions—and potentially zero emissions. Hydrogen fuel can
> be converted electrochemically into electric energy using a fuel cell
> or burned in a hydrogen combustion engine. The fuel cell is one of the
> most promising clean-energy technologies, while the hydrogen
> combustion engine provides another option for carbon-free hydrogen
> fuel.
>
> LLNL researchers have designed, built, and demonstrated a hydrogen-
> storage tank on a conventional vehicle that can hold 10 kilograms of
> liquid hydrogen—enough for 500+ miles of driving. ..Livermore
> Laboratory is also examining the use of exotic microbes as biological
> hydrogen generators. For use in hydrogen fuel production, the most
> promising microbes are Pyrococcus furiosus. P. furiosus can consume
> extracts of starchy plant matter, digesting the carbohydrate in a way
> that not only provides energy but also releases hydrogen gas.
> thomaswheat1975
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > ttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/52ba8746fa3ff936
>
> > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65389faaa...
>
> > >>> You and your toady right wing pedophile trust-funder Buster Norris,
> > >>> wont get your SSI check come August 2nd of this year, if USA doesn't
> > >>> vote to raise the debt ceiling (limit) ha, ha!! so keep supporting the
> > >>> rank file corporatist republicans, they mean to turn this country
> > >>> into a third world banana republic
> > >>> thomaswheat1975
>
> > >> SSI is stolen from Social Security. Has nothing to do with the budget.
> > >> The only tie to the Budget is the Lydon Baines Johnson 1964 shithole law
> > >> that steals the surplus and sends it to the General fund to be spent
> > >> illegally outside of the 1934 Social Security Trust Fund.
> > >> Its Just another Democratic theft from the poor and elderly.
>
> > > How do you figure, since the majority of people on SSI have never even
> > > paid into the system, not that Iam saying that mentally disabled
> > > people shouldn't have a means to survive.
>
> > The Feds should have funded SSI outside of the Social Security Trust
> > fund and set Watch dogs to insure it was not misused. They didn't.
>
> > Also since I have no clue
>
> > > what you are talking about please cite the supposed law referring to
> > > LBJ era policies stealing from SSI.
>
> > Not SSI. LBJ had a special act in 1964 to remove the surplus money from
> > Social Security to the General fund..Not borrowed! Just moved!..It was
> > then used to fund the war in Vietnam and the Space program. All the
> > while claiming it was held in trust for years to offset the national
> > debt. In fact they set up a false book keeping fund that was supposedly
> > Highway funds to offset the National debt also. it was just paper. Now
> > the US Government under every administration since then has been blowing
> > Social Security money left and right to the tune Of roughly $2.7
> > Trillion to date and with np intention of returning even one dime. With
> > common interest compounded that would add up to about $9.8 Trillion
> > today. Don't even bother thinking about it..It is gone and there is no
> > chance of recapturing it. War profiteers have boogied with it. They
> > claim LBJ added roughly $8 billion to his net worth with the War
> > profiteering industries they owned and monopolized.
>
> > I find it funny that you guys hate
>
> > > democrats so much, but you forget FDR, Roosevelt,
>
> > Actually that was a Fellow by the name of Lindberg that suggested that
> > the German system would be an excellent one for America. He was not a
> > Democrat and I don't think a strong Republican. In fact he was upset
> > that both parties accused him of Nazi sympathies because he still had
> > relatives in Germany. FDR could not have Social Security without the
> > Republicans and the support of the nation. Lindberg was the selling
> > point as he was a Hero to the people.
>
> > was the one who
>
> > > founded the Social Security program. So keep supporting the party of
> > > corporate welfare oligarchs, and you will find yourself out on the
> > > street, cold hungry and delusional, How sad!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > You are of course aware the both parties want to kill social security so
> > they can get their grubby paws on the %15.7 of total income without
> > deductions that it brings in. It is not now considered a tax. But they
> > will sure as Hell make it one and you will still have to fund your own
> > retirement/disability. Average income is $41.000 at 15.7% = $6,437
> > How would you like that for a tax increase. I of course factored in the
> > employers portion..After all that is you money also. How long do you
> > think it will take these tax and spend morons to bankrupt that system
> > also. Do not raise the Debt limit ever again. In fact lower it forcing
> > payments to reduce debt. California is not paying legislatures until
> > they balance the budget. Great idea for the Fed system.
>
> > >> It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
> > >> the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
> > >> ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
> > >> be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
>
> > --
thomas wheat
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
i have excerpts of the study w/ page numbers at this link
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/48cf5a36493b41b6
and then this link: where the increased US domestic Oil drilling
theory to lower oil prices was debunked, because we only have 2
percent of global reserves, oil drilling is at a 20 year high, we are
producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC, and
Financial Futures Market Speculators.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/abb972cd082cd361
case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS if you are going to bring up the tar sands reserves, the fact is
that they have higher sulphur content, which makes for a lower quality
grade of gasoline fuel, than say Venezuela's light sweet crude, and
these tar sands, also emit more emissions than standard fuel, and the
hydrofracking required to blast the shale, has a larger more negative
environmental impact and is more expensive than conventional oil
drilling. Finally most of these tar sands are in Canada, so I dont see
it as US Domestic oil drilling.
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, "Thomas Wheat (35), 1131 Evans Dr., Santa Rosa, CA
95405, 707-542-2288" <dumb...@dumbass.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:11:30 -0700 (PDT),thomaswheat
>
> <thomasjigmewh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >You were already clowned by me at alt.politics.democrats.d
>
> >at this link,
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65389faaa...
>
> >You and your toady right wing pedophile trust-funder Buster Norris,
> >wont get your SSI check come August 2nd of this year, if USA doesn't
> >vote to raise the debt ceiling (limit) ha, ha!! so keep supporting the
> >rank file corporatist republicans, they mean to turn this country
> >into a third world banana republic
> >thomaswheat1975
>
> Clowned??????????????????????
>
> HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> On 6/15/2011 7:26 PM, Patriot Games DemocRATHallofShame.Com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:25:52 -0700 (PDT), Tom JigmeWheat
> > <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> [ nothing of value...]
>
> > Tom JigmeWheat<thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>|67.169.2.30
> >thomaswheat<thomasjigmewh...@gmail.com>|67.169.2.30
>
> >ThomasWheat(35)
> >1131EvansDr.
> > Santa Rosa, CA 95405
> > Email:thomaswh...@hotmail.com
> > 707-542-2288 (landline)
> > 707-291-4931 (cellphone)
>
> > Street view:
> >http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1131+Evan...
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/3sjzv8j
>
> > [ThomasWheat]
> > Stepfather:ThomasS. McIntyre, 64
> > Tommy's Mommy: Margaret A.Wheat, 57
> > Tommy's Little Sister: Tara A.Wheat, 26
> > 209 Simone Pl S
> > Santa Rosa, CA 95409
> > 707-540-0234 (landline)
> > 707-321-1249 (cellphone)
>
> > MySpace:http://www.myspace.com/200119007
>
> > Pic:
> >http://a3.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/120/3f614cfd4a1930803c10a...
>
> > About: I am a single 32 year old college graduate with a degree in
> > history. I am passionate about politics and am proud to be a liberal.
>
> > Twitter Account:http://twitter.com/#!/thomaswheat1975
>
> > Website:http://www.georgebushconspiracy.com/
Buster Norris
<thomasji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>we are
>producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
>had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oil dives to 4-mth low on IEA move
23 Jun 2011
"Oil prices crashed six per cent to a four-month low after the world's
consumer nations said they would band together to release emergency
oil reserves for the third time ever.
"The IEA said it would release 60 million barrels of oil from
strategic inventories, shocking traders and sending August Brent crude
futures more than $US8 lower. Brent settled at a four-month low of
$US107.26 a barrel, off $US6.95..
"US August crude dropped $US4.39 to settle at $US91.02 a barrel,
taking prices more than 20 per cent below their post-2008 high above
$US114 reached in early May."
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/UPDATE-4-Oil-falls-more-than-3-on-growth-worries-d-J4DPV?OpenDocument&src=hp1
Tom Jigme Wheat
decided to release 30 million barrels of oil from the strategic
petroleum reserve. IEA also released an additional 30 million as well.
Bill Clinton made the recommendation, and I forwarded it to the
president two weeks ago. Obviously, this is not domestic oil
production, since no drilling was involved, and since at its current
rate, private domestic oil production has skyrocketed gasoline prices
at the pump. The price is falling because there is a surplus in
supply, above and beyond overall USA demand. Now I admit, if we could
produce 30 million barrels a week we could effect oil prices more
through domestic production, but we dont have those kinds of reserves,
nor the quality, light sweet crude, required for diesal and jet
engines. The US Tar sands reserves are overstated, high in sulphur
content, have higher emissions, and have higher extraction costs than
say oil from Russia. However, this is a short term fix, but
contingencies are in place for further operations. Have a nice
day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS you should be happy, for a brief time you wont be butt-raped by the
oil companies!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The President's policies are working!!!HA HA HA Sucker!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 23, 7:11 pm, Buster Norris <bustyourf...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:26:44 -0700 (PDT), thomas wheat
>
> <thomasjigmewh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >we are
> >producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
> >had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC
>
> LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Oil dives to 4-mth low on IEA move
> 23 Jun 2011
>
> "Oil prices crashed six per cent to a four-month low after the world's
> consumer nations said they would band together to release emergency
> oil reserves for the third time ever.
>
> "The IEA said it would release 60 million barrels of oil from
> strategic inventories, shocking traders and sending August Brent crude
> futures more than $US8 lower. Brent settled at a four-month low of
> $US107.26 a barrel, off $US6.95..
>
> "US August crude dropped $US4.39 to settle at $US91.02 a barrel,
> taking prices more than 20 per cent below their post-2008 high above
> $US114 reached in early May."http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/UPDATE-4-Oil-falls...
RichTravsky
> see this link:
>
> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> i have excerpts of the study w/ page numbers at this link
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/48cf5a36493b41b6
>
> and then this link: where the increased US domestic Oil drilling
> theory to lower oil prices was debunked, because we only have 2
> percent of global reserves, oil drilling is at a 20 year high, we are
> producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
> had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC, and
> Financial Futures Market Speculators.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/abb972cd082cd361
>
> case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> PS if you are going to bring up the tar sands reserves, the fact is
> that they have higher sulphur content, which makes for a lower quality
> grade of gasoline fuel, than say Venezuela's light sweet crude, and
> these tar sands, also emit more emissions than standard fuel, and the
> hydrofracking required to blast the shale, has a larger more negative
> environmental impact and is more expensive than conventional oil
> drilling. Finally most of these tar sands are in Canada, so I dont see
> it as US Domestic oil drilling.
Also of interest:
Offshore drilling has nothing to do with it, especially
considering that the governors of Florida and California were against offshore
drilling.
http://vtdigger.org/2011/05/26/sanders-demands-that-commission-curb-oil-speculation/
May 26, 2011
...
The national average price for regular gasoline today is $3.82 a gallon.
In Vermont, the price tops $3.90 a gallon. Meanwhile, the supply of crude
oil is higher than it was two years ago and the demand for gasoline is
lower than two years ago, when a gallon of gas cost only $2.30. "There is
mounting evidence that the sky-high price of gas has nothing to do with the
fundamentals of supply and demand and everything to do with Wall Street
speculators jacking up oil and gas prices in the energy futures market,"
Sanders said.
The CEO of Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson, recently testified before Congress
that Wall Street speculators are driving up the price of oil as much as 40
percent. Goldman Sachs has said that at least 20 percent of the price of
oil comes from excessive speculation. That translates into about 70 cents
a gallon at the pump.
...
Canada was also seeing high gas prices.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-to-grill-gas-industry-executives-over-soaring-pump-prices/article2019582/
May. 12, 2011
The re-elected Harper government has decided the best way to defuse the
fury of car owners stuck with skyrocketing gas prices is to haul industry
representatives before a committee for a tongue-lashing.
With gasoline selling for more than $1.40 cents a litre in parts of the
country, Industry Minister Tony Clement said Thursday he plans to ask key
industry executives to explain themselves before parliamentary hearings
in Ottawa.
...
Tom Jigme Wheat
> thomas wheat wrote:
> > see this link:
>
> >http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> > i have excerpts of the study w/ page numbers at this link
>
>
> > and then this link: where the increased US domestic Oil drilling
> > theory to lower oil prices was debunked, because we only have 2
> > percent of global reserves, oil drilling is at a 20 year high, we are
> > producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
> > had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC, and
> > Financial Futures Market Speculators.
>
>
> > case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > PS if you are going to bring up the tar sands reserves, the fact is
> > that they have higher sulphur content, which makes for a lower quality
> > grade of gasoline fuel, than say Venezuela's light sweet crude, and
> > these tar sands, also emit more emissions than standard fuel, and the
> > hydrofracking required to blast the shale, has a larger more negative
> > environmental impact and is more expensive than conventional oil
> > drilling. Finally most of these tar sands are in Canada, so I dont see
> > it as US Domestic oil drilling.
>
> Also of interest:
> Offshore drilling has nothing to do with it, especially
> considering that the governors of Florida and California were against offshore
> drilling.
My friend from Canada,
Regarding US Domestic oil drilling, and the tar sands shale reserves
of our respective countries, I'd like to metion pertinent facts. For
one thing ExxonMobil is heavily invested in the project. However,
there is alot of disinformation regarding the size, and overall crude
oil quality of USA and Canad's tar sands (shale oil) reserves. As I
have stated repeatedly in earlier posts in this thread, the amount of
oil we could supply with these reserves, along with the increased
costs of extraction associated with hydrofracking shale oil,
including along with, the fact that it has high sulphur content,
which makes it have higher emissions, and unsuitable for strategic
refined assets such as diesal and jet fuel which require light sweet
crude oil, of which the closest supplier is Venezuela, means that any
increased North American domestic oil production will have a marginal,
if in fact non-existent effect on oil prices, since the prices are set
by speculators and OPEC mostly, since the latter, has about 40 percent
of the world's total proven oil reserves. Also Its foolish to place
sanctions on Venezuela since they are one of the largest regional
suppliers of oil to the USA.
While they are a member of OPEC, Hugo Chavez's supposed connections to
terrorism, are clouded under the murky fear doctrine of Class warfare
long preached by the Reaganite CIA "School Of America's" assassination
Cult, in Congress. For one thing while Chavez has ties to FARC and
ETA, these groups are marginal threats compared to Al Qaeda, or the
right wing paramilitary groups associated with transnational
narcotrafficking in Columbia. It is the republican capitalist
ideological opposition to peasant based populism, that causes them to
place Cold war ideological era constructions regarding the threat of
Socialism misidentified with the threat of Communism. While he does
also have ties to Iran, lawmakers are overstating the connection,
since they are both OPEC countries. The difference between the two is,
Chavez has a representitive democracy, and he has done more for the
poverty stricken in Venezuela then any president before him.
Furthermore Venezuela is not a socialist economy, since 66 percent of
the economy is in the private sector. He favors Trotsky over Marx,
Stalin, Mao, or Lenin, of which the other communist ideolouges in
those states disavowed as reactionary. Trotsky favored permanent
revolution, as did Jefferson, regarding the tree of liberty, must be
refreshed by the blood of patriots, periodically, etc.,!!!
Furthermore The USA has only 2 percent of the world's total oil
reserves. Secondly, US oil production is up over a million barrels
since 2005, and is in fact at a 20 year high, so our increased oil
production is not having an effect on oil prices. Furthermore it takes
10 year to get an oil rig at peak production, so increased drilling
will have no effect on prices now, and also our oil companies will
most likely export it China, where they can command higher prices,
since the largest demand for oil is in Asia.
Oil Prices fell to 91 dollars a barrel yesterday, because USA
president Obama, released 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic
petroleum reserve, though this is about equivelant to one day of the
world's total demand for oil, so its a short term fix, for spiking oil
prices. If you rember, last year or the year before, oil was 2.72 a
gallon average in the USA, and now its about 3.89 a gallon where I
live, despite the increased oil production. It peaked at about 4.15 a
gallon about a month ago. The reason oil prices have fallen, is
because 1.) Obama released 30 million barrels from the strategic
petroleum reserve. 2.) IEA, non OPEC member nations agreed to release
an additional 30 million barrels into the world market in an attempt
to drive down prices, as response to OPEC member nations, withholding
supply to drive up the cost of oil per barrel.
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/23/2971403/international-energy-agency-releases.html
excerpt
"
International Energy Agency releases oil from Strategic Petroleum
Reserve to help lower prices
By STEVE EVERLY
The Kansas City Star
It worked, too, though how long it will last isn’t clear.
The 28-member International Energy Agency surprised the markets with
its announcement that 60 million barrels of oil would be released from
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, about half coming from the United
States.
The move signaled a more aggressive stance toward using the stockpiles
to lower prices, although the extra oil will be enough to satisfy only
an estimated 18 hours of world demand. On Thursday, the U.S. oil
benchmark, West Texas Intermediate crude, dropped $4.39 a barrel and
closed at $91.02.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/23/2971403/international-energy-agency-releases.html
However, this is only tempoary. And we will be held hostage by the
speculators, and OPEC Middle Eastern Authoraritarian Countries and the
ensuing security liability, increased terrorisim until we transition
to an alternative fuel source, such as hydrogen fuel cell, Biomass,
and hybrid technology, and the TOKAMAK NUCLEAR FUSION TEST REACTOR!!
http://f4e.europa.eu/mediacorner/newsview.aspx?content=477
It is a proven fact that oil supplies will be exhausted by year 2100,
and then the world's population will be over 10 billion people reduced
to a state of cannibalistic anarchy if we dont transition to an
alternative fuel sources.
thomaswheat1975
> http://vtdigger.org/2011/05/26/sanders-demands-that-commission-curb-o...
> May 26, 2011
> ...
> The national average price for regular gasoline today is $3.82 a gallon.
> In Vermont, the price tops $3.90 a gallon. Meanwhile, the supply of crude
> oil is higher than it was two years ago and the demand for gasoline is
> lower than two years ago, when a gallon of gas cost only $2.30. "There is
> mounting evidence that the sky-high price of gas has nothing to do with the
> fundamentals of supply and demand and everything to do with Wall Street
> speculators jacking up oil and gas prices in the energy futures market,"
> Sanders said.
>
> The CEO of Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson, recently testified before Congress
> that Wall Street speculators are driving up the price of oil as much as 40
> percent. Goldman Sachs has said that at least 20 percent of the price of
> oil comes from excessive speculation. That translates into about 70 cents
> a gallon at the pump.
> ...
>
> Canada was also seeing high gas prices.
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-to-grill-gas...
>
> May. 12, 2011
>
> The re-elected Harper government has decided the best way to defuse the
> fury of car owners stuck with skyrocketing gas prices is to haul industry
> representatives before a committee for a tongue-lashing.
>
> With gasoline selling for more than $1.40 cents a litre in parts of the
> country, Industry Minister Tony Clement said Thursday he plans to ask key
> industry executives to explain themselves before parliamentary hearings
> in Ottawa.
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, "Thomas Wheat (35), 1131 Evans Dr., Santa Rosa, CA
> > 95405, 707-542-2288" <dumb...@dumbass.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:11:30 -0700 (PDT),thomaswheat
>
> > > <thomasjigmewh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >You were already clowned by me at alt.politics.democrats.d
>
> > > >at this link,
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65389faaa...
>
> > > >You and your toady right wing pedophile trust-funder Buster Norris,
> > > >wont get your SSI check come August 2nd of this year, if USA doesn't
> > > >vote to raise the debt ceiling (limit) ha, ha!! so keep supporting the
> > > >rank file corporatist republicans, they mean to turn this country
> > > >into a third world banana republic- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Tom Jigme Wheat
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/23/2971403/international-energy-agency-releases.html
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/23/2971403/international-energy-agency-releases.html
http://f4e.europa.eu/mediacorner/newsview.aspx?content=477
On Jun 23, 10:44 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > $US114 reached in early May."http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/UPDATE-4-Oil-falls...- Hide quoted text -
Tom Jigme Wheat
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/23/2971403/international-energy-agency-releases.html
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/23/2971403/international-energy-agency-releases.html
http://f4e.europa.eu/mediacorner/newsview.aspx?content=477
On Jun 23, 10:44 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Tom Jigme Wheat
Chavez has a representative democracy, and he has done more for the
poverty stricken in Venezuela then any president before him.
Furthermore Venezuela is not a socialist economy, since 66 percent of
the economy is in the private sector. He favors Trotsky over Marx,
Stalin, Mao, or Lenin, of which the other communist ideolouges in
those states disavowed as reactionary. Trotsky favored permanent
revolution, as did Thomas Jefferson, regarding the tree of liberty,
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/23/2971403/international-energy-agency-releases.html
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/23/2971403/international-energy-agency-releases.html
http://f4e.europa.eu/mediacorner/newsview.aspx?content=477
On Jun 23, 10:44 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Tom Jigme Wheat
> thomas wheat wrote:
> > see this link:
>
> >http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> > i have excerpts of the study w/ page numbers at this link
>
>
> > and then this link: where the increased US domestic Oil drilling
> > theory to lower oil prices was debunked, because we only have 2
> > percent of global reserves, oil drilling is at a 20 year high, we are
> > producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
> > had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC, and
> > Financial Futures Market Speculators.
>
>
> > case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > PS if you are going to bring up the tar sands reserves, the fact is
> > that they have higher sulphur content, which makes for a lower quality
> > grade of gasoline fuel, than say Venezuela's light sweet crude, and
> > these tar sands, also emit more emissions than standard fuel, and the
> > hydrofracking required to blast the shale, has a larger more negative
> > environmental impact and is more expensive than conventional oil
> > drilling. Finally most of these tar sands are in Canada, so I dont see
> > it as US Domestic oil drilling.
>
> Also of interest:
> Offshore drilling has nothing to do with it, especially
> considering that the governors of Florida and California were against offshore
> drilling.
>
> May 26, 2011
> ...
> The national average price for regular gasoline today is $3.82 a gallon.
> In Vermont, the price tops $3.90 a gallon. Meanwhile, the supply of crude
> oil is higher than it was two years ago and the demand for gasoline is
> lower than two years ago, when a gallon of gas cost only $2.30. "There is
> mounting evidence that the sky-high price of gas has nothing to do with the
> fundamentals of supply and demand and everything to do with Wall Street
> speculators jacking up oil and gas prices in the energy futures market,"
> Sanders said.
>
> The CEO of Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson, recently testified before Congress
> that Wall Street speculators are driving up the price of oil as much as 40
> percent. Goldman Sachs has said that at least 20 percent of the price of
> oil comes from excessive speculation. That translates into about 70 cents
> a gallon at the pump.
> ...
>
> Canada was also seeing high gas prices.
That's why it makes sense for the USA and Canada to increase
production of Natural Gas to introduce into the USA Canada North
American Market, because according to the EIA.gov study I cited
earlier in this discussion thread, Natrual gas prices are fairly low
right now, and the North American Market is more insulated from price
spikes in this commodity, since both countries are integrated, and US-
Canada has a plentiful supply.
2011 Energy outlook, Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
"Changes in domestic oil production tend to have only a modest impact
on crude oil and petroleum product prices, because any change in
domestic oil production is diluted in the world oil market. In 2009,
the United
States produced 5.36 million barrels per day of crude oil and lease
condensate, or 7 percent of the world total of 72.26 million barrels
per day. Unlike crude oil supply and prices, domestic natural gas
supply and prices are determined largely by supply and demand for
natural gas in the North American market, where the development and
production of shale gas in the Lower 48 States is largely responsible
for current and foreseeable future market conditions." (pg 36)
thomaswheat1975
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-to-grill-gas...
Tom Jigme Wheat
cents if you go with the conservative goldman sachs estimate. Exxon
Mobil CEO estimated 40 percent was due to speculation not fuel
shortages in usa america. so .40 x 3.89 = the price of oil is inflated
by about 1.56 dollars a gallon, which means that gas should cost about
2.33 cents a gallon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
now do the metric conversion for liters
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 23, 10:44 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
thomas wheat
decided to release 30 million barrels of oil from the strategic
petroleum reserve. IEA also released an additional 30 million as well.
Bill Clinton made the recommendation, and I forwarded it to the
president two weeks ago. Obviously, this is not domestic oil
production, since no drilling was involved, and since at its current
rate, private domestic oil production has skyrocketed gasoline prices
at the pump. The price is falling because there is a surplus in
supply, above and beyond overall USA demand. Now I admit, if we could
produce 30 million barrels a week we could effect oil prices more
through domestic production, but we dont have those kinds of reserves,
nor the quality, light sweet crude, required for diesal and jet
engines. The US Tar sands reserves are overstated, high in sulphur
content, have higher emissions, and have higher extraction costs than
say oil from Russia. However, this is a short term fix, but
contingencies are in place for further operations. Have a nice
day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS you should be happy, for a brief time you wont be butt-raped by the
oil companies!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The President's policies are working!!!HA HA HA Sucker!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regarding US Domestic oil drilling, and the tar sands shale reserves
of our respective countries, I'd like to metion pertinent facts. For
one thing ExxonMobil is heavily invested in the project. However,
there is alot of disinformation regarding the size, and overall crude
oil quality of USA and Canad's tar sands (shale oil) reserves. As I
have stated repeatedly in earlier posts in this thread, the amount of
oil we could supply with these reserves, along with the increased
costs of extraction and increased negative environmental impact,
associated with hydrofracking shale oil.
Furthermore, Shale oil (tar sands) has higher
sulphur content, which makes it have higher emissions, and
unsuitable for strategic refined assets such as deisal and jet fuel
which require light sweet
crude oil, of which the closest supplier is Venezuela, means that any
increased North American domestic oil production will have a marginal,
if in fact non-existent effect on oil prices, since the prices are set
by speculators and OPEC mostly, since the latter, has about 40 percent
of the world's total proven oil reserves. Also Its foolish to place
sanctions on Venezuela since they are one of the largest regional
suppliers of oil to the USA.
While they are a member of OPEC, Hugo Chavez's supposed connections to
terrorism, are clouded under the murky fear doctrine of Class warfare
and Backdoor Corporate Banana Republics,
long preached by the Dulles-Reaganite CIA "School Of America's"
assassination
Cult, in Congress. For one thing while Chavez has ties to FARC and
ETA, these groups are marginal threats compared to Al Qaeda, or the
right wing paramilitary groups associated with transnational
narco-trafficking in Columbia. It is the republican capitalist
ideological opposition to peasant based populism, that causes them to
place Cold war ideological era constructions regarding the threat of
Socialism misidentified with the threat of Communism. While he does
also have ties to Iran, lawmakers are overstating the connection,
since they are both OPEC countries. The difference between the two is,
Chavez has a representative democracy, and he has done more for the
poverty stricken in Venezuela then any president before him.
Furthermore Venezuela is not a socialist economy, since 66 percent of
the economy is in the private sector. He favors Trotsky over Marx,
Stalin, Mao, or Lenin, of which the other communist ideologues in
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/23/2971403/international-energy-agency-releases.html
However, this is only temporary. And we will be held hostage by the
speculators, and OPEC Middle Eastern Authoritarian Countries and the
ensuing security liability, increased Terrorism until we transition
to an alternative fuel source, such as hydrogen fuel cell, Biomass,
and hybrid technology, and the TOKAMAK NUCLEAR FUSION TEST REACTOR!!
http://f4e.europa.eu/mediacorner/newsview.aspx?content=477
It is a proven fact that oil supplies will be exhausted by year 2100,
and then the world's population will be over 10 billion people reduced
to a state of cannibalistic anarchy if we dont transition to an
alternative fuel sources.
thomaswheat1975
discussion archived here:
On Jun 23, 10:44 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote: