"Obama is to blame for high gas prices":

[Kyle Curtis]

Is something a conservative moron would say. 

Clearly as Brent missed it the first time, here we are again.  (Oh, and the answer to your question is, yes, the increase in oil prices is caused by speculators.  As for the Keystone Pipeline, let me ask you: is it worth it to jeopardize our country's largest aquifer--which provides water to the country's bread basket & cattle ranchers in fly over country--just so that China and India have fuel for their gas tanks?  Because that's where the tar sands oil will go.  In other words, not for America's energy independence in the slightest.

President Obama is to blame for the rise in gas prices.

WRONG.

Prices at the gas pump are approaching record highs. Everyone is feeling the pinch each time they fill up their gas tank.  The average gas price of $3.52 per gallon on the President’s Day weekend is unheard of for this time of year.  But to suggest that President Obama is the reason why gas prices are so high betrays a complete ignorance of the economics of oil.

The price of gas is largely determined by the price of crude oil, which is determined by OPEC and not, as some on the right would want you to believe, determine by President Obama.  
Despite the fact that the United States is producing domestic outputs of oil not seen since 2003, the fact remains that the U.S. possesses two percent of the world’s oil reserves.  Even if President Obama opened up the entire Alaskan Wildlife Natural Refuge for drilling and flooded the market with the country’s strategic oil reserve, how much leverage could the U.S. realistically expect to have with just two percent of global oil reserves?  Pretty much none, that’s how much.

    “Obama can’t accomplish his green energy agenda without sky high gas prices.”

This is an argument made my some by the right who suggest that President Obama is committing some sort of global socialist conspiracy to embrace green energy.  I know that the right views Obama as some far left, Saul Alinksy-type radical community organizer while disillusioned liberals view Obama as a tool of Wall Street, the reality is the President has continually demonstrated himself to be a technical pragmatist.  And as such, he recognizes the reality is that there is no cheaper energy source than fossil fuels.  Even the most committed commie Marxist understands the economic calamity that would occur if fossil fuels were immediately discontinued for more expensive green energy options.  

The President also recognizes that fossil fuels are the most dirtiest and environmentally unsustainable sources of energy as well.  As a result, the President has repeatedly called for increasing federal subsidies for alternative sources of energy, far above the minimal ten percent of subsidies these energies received in 2006, which would make these energy sources for affordable and less economically burdensome.  

Besides, the economic calamity that a switch from cheap fossil fuels would cause is also contrary to the President’s stated agenda of creating jobs and improving the economy--an agenda that he has largely accomplished over the past three years.

    “Obama could do more to decrease the price of gas.”

Yet another statement by the right rooted in fantasy than reality. What, exactly, could Obama do to decrease the price of gas? He’s all ready overseen record levels of domestic oil production. As a candidate, Obama promised a comprehensive energy plan, and this has included the “Drill baby drill” increase of domestic drilling that his opponents chanted in 2008. Surprise! It appears that the increased domestic oil production has only the most marginal impact on gas prices. How can this be? Is it perhaps that on its way towards “energy independence” the oil produced and distributed by the U.S. ends up on the global market.  And although the U.S. only has two percent of the world’s oil, it does lead the world in refinery capability.  And as a result, the number one export of the country is refined gasoline.  But yet, when you consider the increasing demand for fuel in the burgeoning middle class of China and India, it appears that the increased domestic oil production is being refined for gas to be pumped into the fuel tanks of Asian automobiles.

“Energy independence” indeed.

The fact is that increased oil prices have political ramifications, something that oil company heads are well aware of when they ‘predict’ years in advance that the price of gas would reach five dollars per gallon in 2012 to ruin Obama’s chance at re-election. When high fuel prices are figured into transportation costs, any dramatic increase results in the increased price of everything. Clearly higher costs of goods and services are not to an incumbent President’s advantage, especially when he’s attempting to steer the country out of its present economic morass. Food prices have also increased in recent years- if people believe that Obama should do more to lower gas prices, why doesn’t he also just slash the prices of food as well?  Both the prices of food and oil are volatile in nature, vulnerable to so many variables such as global unrest or freak weather occurrences brought about by global weirding. To say that Obama is responsible for high gas prices is an indication that one is simply clueless about these issues.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Brent Wolters <brenton...@comcast.net> wrote:

Yes or no...

 

Are gas price increases driven mostly by speculators?

 

 

Oh hey everybody, look who suddenly wants to talk about gas prices. Well, first of all, let's all welcome Brent back to the group. We all hope you had a great vacation. I'll try as best I can to get you caught up on all the posts we've made debunking any talking point that high gas prices as the result of anything Obama has done. I know you want to stay caught up and informed so I'll try to give you a quick synopsis of everything we've already talked about, that you've obviously missed while you were away.

First of all, let's go over a few facts about gas prices.

1. Fact: No president has ever had any influence over the price of gas, whether increasing or decreasing, ever. Not Reagan, not Bush Sr or Jr, not Clinton, not Carter, not Nixon, no president, ever, not one penny.

2. Fact: Domestic energy production has soared under President Obama.
3. Fact: President Obama has taken huge steps to reduce our dependence on oil.
4. Fact: Big oil made a record $137 BILLION in profits last year.
5. Fact: Republican politicians refuse to end taxpayer handouts to big oil.
6: Fact: Republican politicians want to cut big oil’s taxes even more.

All these facts are referenced and sourced in this post here: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/jsmog/BWCoPt9WwcU

And I even took the time to debunk everything from directly where you get your information here: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/jsmog/er0s-5N8-rU

It's yet time once again to say, give it a rest already.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Brent Wolters <brenton...@comcast.net> wrote:

Why thanks, Noah. 

 

Please enlighten us...Who IYHO is right on Keystone?  Bill Clinton or Obama? 

 

 

 

I'm amazed that you can see through your tears for Andrew Reichbart to type this drivel, Brent.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Brent Wolters <brenton...@comcast.net> wrote:

Actually just the opposite.  Over-regulation and restrictions is helping to drive up the costs and hurting many in the US who are looking for work.

 

And really, why would Obama approve lending BILLIONS to Petrobras for offshore drilling, while shutting down our off shore leases here in the US???

 

And as for Keystone:  Even Bill Clinton has acknowledged that it's time to 'embrace' the idea... 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics-15749652/bill-clinton-embrace-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-28477261.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fpolitics-15749652%252Fbill-clinton-embrace-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-28477261.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: js...@googlegroups.com [mailto:js...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian Brainerd
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:24 PM
To: js...@googlegroups.com
Cc: <js...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: from the out of nowhere department:

Is your position that the government should be regulating private business ?

Sent from my time macihine.

On Mar 1, 2012, at 2:15 PM, "Brent Wolters" <brenton...@comcast.net> wrote:

 

Can we place our fond remembrance of Andrew Breitbart on hold for just a moment to focus on the key economic concern in America today:  Gas prices!

Just this week, Obama’s own Anti-Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, admitted (what we all know is true) that "the Obama Energy Department really isn’t trying to lower gasoline prices.” 

Does this anti-American attitude anger you at all?

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Juneau Smog" group.
To post to this group, send email to js...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jsmog-un...@googlegroups.com
Group Page: http://groups.google.com/group/jsmog
Home Page: http://juneausmog.com
Follow on Twitter: http://twitter.com/akjsmog
Follow on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/juneau.smog

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Juneau Smog" group.
To post to this group, send email to js...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jsmog-un...@googlegroups.com
Group Page: http://groups.google.com/group/jsmog
Home Page: http://juneausmog.com
Follow on Twitter: http://twitter.com/akjsmog
Follow on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/juneau.smog

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Juneau Smog" group.
To post to this group, send email to js...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jsmog-un...@googlegroups.com
Group Page: http://groups.google.com/group/jsmog
Home Page: http://juneausmog.com
Follow on Twitter: http://twitter.com/akjsmog
Follow on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/juneau.smog

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Juneau Smog" group.
To post to this group, send email to js...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jsmog-un...@googlegroups.com
Group Page: http://groups.google.com/group/jsmog
Home Page: http://juneausmog.com
Follow on Twitter: http://twitter.com/akjsmog
Follow on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/juneau.smog

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Juneau Smog" group.
To post to this group, send email to js...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jsmog-un...@googlegroups.com
Group Page: http://groups.google.com/group/jsmog
Home Page: http://juneausmog.com
Follow on Twitter: http://twitter.com/akjsmog
Follow on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/juneau.smog

--

Follow even more exciting misadventures in politics on the Jsmog Live Blog: http://juneausmog.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Juneau Smog" group.
To post to this group, send email to js...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jsmog-un...@googlegroups.com
Group Page: http://groups.google.com/group/jsmog
Home Page: http://juneausmog.com
Follow on Twitter: http://twitter.com/akjsmog
Follow on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/juneau.smog

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Juneau Smog" group.
To post to this group, send email to js...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jsmog-un...@googlegroups.com
Group Page: http://groups.google.com/group/jsmog
Home Page: http://juneausmog.com
Follow on Twitter: http://twitter.com/akjsmog
Follow on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/juneau.smog

[Brent Wolters]

 

Subject: "Obama is to blame for high gas prices":

 " Oh, and the answer to your question is, yes, the increase in oil prices is caused by speculators..."

 

Speculators who are unhappy with the instability that has occurred in the Middle East thanks to Obamas weak and pathetic foreign policy.

 

So, yes!   Obama is to blame for the high gas prices! 

[Alex Romero]

So why didn't the price go down during Bushes and Reagan years....hmmmm...seems like if direct middle eastern policy the POTUS puts into place effects directly, then it would have gone down if someone was doing it right then? (expecting crickets)

[Kyle Curtis]

I'm sorry, I thought it was the Republicans who were saber-rattling about invading Iran.  Huh. 

[William Curtis]

What is weak about Obama's Middle Eastern policy? Is it that he wants to end the wars there which the majority of Americans support? More wars mean
more money for Republicans. Is that what makes Obama's policies weak? Look how much support Gingrich is getting by supporting the idea of bombing Iran!
Republicans only see potential money to be made and not the destructive affects on humanity at home as well as abroad. Americans will have their say in
8 and 1/2 months. Each day looks better and better with GOP candidates denouncing each other, committing gaffes, and saying ridiculous things like forming
an American state on the moon by 2016. Meanwhile what is Obama doing? creating jobs, improving the stock market, improving recovery here and there, reinvested
in the car industry, etc. etc. This is what American want ....not religious fanatics who wants to end public education or CEO flip floppers who publically supports the 1% or a philanderer who wants high school kids to become janitors. Does any of these candidates really appeal to you? It is interesting to me that only 5.4% even bothered to vote in the Iowa Republican caucus.
I wonder who the other 94.6% are going to vote for?

Ciao,
Bill

[Brent Wolters]

It's the Obama administration that is sending mixed signals about our support of Israel.

[Kyle Curtis]

Oh, is that what it is?  And if the Obama administration isn't demanding a full-scale invasion of Iran and start yet another budget-busting war, it somehow doesn't support Israel?

[Alex Romero]

Stage 3 of Brentism is showing...grabbing for straws in the midst of facts.

[Brent Wolters]

Why are democrats so wee-wee'd about contraception, when they're going dickless...

 

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/03/02/2418219/norm-dicks-to-call-it-quits-after.html

[Kyle Curtis]

Didn't Anrhony's Wiener prove that incorrect?

Brent Wolters <brenton...@comcast.net> wrote:

[Alex Romero]

Republicans are such whiny bastards...Republicans have cashed in on contraception on the federal dime numerous times....since when is stopping sperm such a problem for Republicans all of a sudden, i thought they were ok with using contraception. All was good until the egg got fertilized....way to regress douche bags....next they will lop of genitals at birth....FFS

Limbaugh said "Government pays for contraception and what do we get?"...how about less population and less starving babies...how about that for starters you Fat Fuck!...what a short sighted douchebag!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/rush-limbaugh-democrats-demonizing-sex-comments/story?id=15834374

Contraception is Health Care, no discussion needed, just shut it and pay up!

[Brent Wolters]

Anthony is another dick no longer serving the dems in congress. Again dems
are going dickless.

Brent Wolters <brenton...@comcast.net> wrote:

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4846 - Release Date: 03/02/12

[Juneau Smog]

Glad to know that in with all the problems in the world, the economy, energy resources, wars, starvation, housing crisis, health care costs, and everything thing else inbetween, all Brent and his fellow Republicans care about is dick size and who's having sex with who. 

In the Land of Plenty that's top of the heap,

A race is run to pick the best chief.

A nation with power and wealth refined,

More shooters and boomers than the rest combined.

The world has trouble, it's far and wide.

Many thousands killed on the civilian side.

Not to mention the countless who die in the bush,

Blown up, raped or starved by a madman's cruel push.

Back here our economy's like a beached jellyfish,

Budget cuts and austerity, the international dish.

So how do we pick the free world's right leader?

Why . . . by talking 'bout sex, is it only for breeders?

It's all about who does what in the bed,

And whose hair looks best atop their smart head.

And who did the greatest at hosting some sports!

And who got timeshare at Moon Colony Resorts.

And who slept with whom and how many they made,

It's a sign of a leader, the more kids are displayed!

Did you really tie your dog to the family car roof?

Looks like a birth certificate, but show us some proof!

The fate of the world is decided you see . . .

. . . By who gets the best zinger in Debate Four-Oh-Three.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/01/1069596/-Mark-Fiore-Leaders?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29

[Alex Romero]

What else can Brent do right now? I bet he feels pretty shitty that his party can't come up with someone who can defeat Obama.

[Juneau Smog]

This is what it would be like if Brent and the Republicans succeed in their religious crusade to ensure employers have full control making women's health care decisions for them.

[Brent Wolters]

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

 

Too funny.  Nobody is trying to limit BC. (Birth Control not Bud Curtis)  They're just trying to avoid having to pay for it if it goes against their religious beliefs.  I would think that BC would fall under "elective" care and thus shouldn't be mandatory.

[Kyle Curtis]

Interesting.  However, since you will never have any need or other purpose to take birth control, your opinion is irrelevant.

And as part of a comprehensive health plan, then contraception for women does, indeed, need to be covered.

Thanks for playing.  But you are the weakest link.  Good-bye.

[Juneau Smog]

You can laugh all you want. We already know you're an asshat. The fact remains, an attack on whether women can buy birth control or not and have their insurance pay for it, there's not a woman in the United States of America who doesn't get what the Republicans are doing, this is a blatant war on women, everyone understands this. They've been warring on women over abortion rights forever and now they are going after them on birth control. And the polling data is devastating. That Republicans are just getting crushed on this. You can think this is the most hilarious thing on the planet, but it's not like I'm trying to postulate an opinion here. The facts show you are not just on the losing side of this issue, but it's also going to bring down everything else along with. So, laugh it up fuzz ball and enjoy the next four years of Obama.

[Juneau Smog]

Here's just a little information on reproductive health that may help Brent and Rush and all other conservative males who believe they are the only ones who can form opinions on the topic, possibly form more enlightened arguments regarding the debate surrounding health insurance and contraception

• Birth control pills aren’t like Viagra: You don’t just pop one whenever you want to have sex. Women must take them continuously, typically once a day, over the course of their menstrual cycles. That’s true whether they have sex once a day or once a month or once a year.
• Oral contraceptives, or “the pill,” can cost $1,210 per year without health insurance. 
• Women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more on out-of-pocket health care costs than do men, in part because of contraceptive costs.
• Surveys show that nearly one in four women with household incomes of less than $75,000 have put off a doctor’s visit for birth control to save money in the past year.
• Twenty-nine percent of women report that they have tried to save money by using their method inconsistently.
• More than half of young adult women say they have not used their method as directed because it was cost-prohibitive.
• Nearly half of women ages 18–34 with household incomes less than $75,000 report they need to delay or limit their childbearing because of economic hardships they’ve experienced in recent years.

Source: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/BC_costs.html

NOTES

[Daniel Curtis]

are boner pills generally covered by most health plans?

[Juneau Smog]

You are correct.

[Brent Wolters]

Perhaps when gas is $2.50 per gallon Ms. Fluke will be able to afford her own contraceptives. 

[Juneau Smog]

That's a good point. How low does gas prices need to be before men can be able to afford their own vasectomies and viagra?

So Brent the proud mysoginist, thinks woman should ignore the direct assualt on them by Republicans and actually go vote for them in the next election in hopes that they will drill for more oil making contraception more affordable for woman to use because people can drive cheaper now, despite how the US's domestic oil production has already drastically increased and has done nothing to lower oil prices, while men continue to get vasectomies and viagra covered by their health insurance? That's your logic? If so, then that's why Republicans are losing so badly.

[William Curtis]

If Republicans are so concerned about lowering gas prices, why don't they support putting regulations on Wall Street speculators? Oh, that would lower
their profits, but not their complaints about high gas prices which they can blame on Obama who must sit behind his desk and make calls every day to
the oil companies and demand that the price of gas be increased by another three cents today. Is that how it works?

Ciao,
Bill