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)

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head

unread,
Jun 6, 2011, 10:36:25 PM6/6/11
to
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.
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

unread,
Jun 7, 2011, 12:14:51 AM6/7/11
to
On Jun 6, 7:36 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.
Bullshit, the affordable care act, lowers costs by adding large
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.
Obama's position on Israel / Palestine is no different than Bush or
Clinton's position.

> Stimulus = Giant fail. Made the economy worse. Made a small recession
> the norm.
No republican Corporate lackey's are trying their hardest to sabotage
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.
Gm has completely paid back the US government, and the US plans to
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

unread,
Jun 7, 2011, 12:54:02 AM6/7/11
to
On Jun 6, 9:36 pm, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head

True.

Felix Reynaldo

unread,
Jun 7, 2011, 1:31:52 AM6/7/11
to

"Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head"
<messi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
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

unread,
Jun 7, 2011, 6:32:42 AM6/7/11
to
> > 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.
Keep your projections to yourself, you chickenhawk obamatard.

Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head

unread,
Jun 7, 2011, 6:31:29 AM6/7/11
to
> > 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.

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

unread,
Jun 7, 2011, 7:04:32 AM6/7/11
to
On 6/7/2011 12:54 AM, f. barnes wrote:
> 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.
>> 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.
>
> True.

double that.

Tom Jigme Wheat

unread,
Jun 7, 2011, 2:13:12 PM6/7/11
to
On Jun 7, 3:31 am, 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.
>
> > 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

unread,
Jun 7, 2011, 8:02:49 PM6/7/11
to
> > > > 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)

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

unread,
Jun 7, 2011, 9:12:40 PM6/7/11
to
> 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?)

WeinerWaggon

unread,
Jun 7, 2011, 10:08:37 PM6/7/11
to
On 6/7/2011 9:12 PM, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
wrote:

very good questions.

Tom Jigme Wheat

unread,
Jun 7, 2011, 11:04:23 PM6/7/11
to
On Jun 7, 5:02 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.
>
> > > > 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

unread,
Jun 8, 2011, 1:12:55 AM6/8/11
to pres...@whitehouse.gov, political-conspiracy-and...@googlegroups.com
Nobody complained when bush used 15 billion dollars of tax payer
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."

apri...@detnews.com

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

unread,
Jun 8, 2011, 2:58:12 AM6/8/11
to
On Jun 7, 10:12 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nobody complained when bush used 15 billion dollars of tax payer
Repeating the same lies doesn't make you any less of a psychotic
moron.

>
> Recent Facts:
> Chrysler reported that profits were up 10%
Just because you suck 10% less cocks doesn't mean your not gay.

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

unread,
Jun 8, 2011, 4:06:44 AM6/8/11
to
> > 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.
>

> 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

unread,
Jun 8, 2011, 3:38:01 PM6/8/11
to political-conspiracy-and...@googlegroups.com
On Jun 8, 1:06 am, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head

<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.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/04/29/sanders-wants-crackdown-on-wall-street-speculation-on-oil-prices/

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

unread,
Jun 8, 2011, 5:00:57 PM6/8/11
to political-conspiracy-and...@googlegroups.com
On Jun 8, 1:06 am, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
as usual you are talking out of your ass

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

unread,
Jun 8, 2011, 7:09:45 PM6/8/11
to
> > 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.
A) Ten years was a bs number dreamed up by democrats to weakly justify
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 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.

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

unread,
Jun 8, 2011, 7:54:23 PM6/8/11
to
> > 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)
>
> as usual you are talking out of your ass
>
> http://www.industryweek.com/articles/china_overtakes_u-s-_in_green_in...

>
> excerpt
> "A study led by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that Chinese
> investment in clean energy soared by more than 50% in 2009
Of course they're going to be investing in it you psychotic
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

unread,
Jun 8, 2011, 8:22:48 PM6/8/11
to political-conspiracy-and...@googlegroups.com, whea...@hotmail.com, pres...@whitehouse.gov, marcus...@gmail.com, ericle...@gmail.com
wrong again corporate establishment talking head:
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

unread,
Jun 8, 2011, 8:24:21 PM6/8/11
to
as usual you are talking out of your ass!!!!!

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

unread,
Jun 8, 2011, 9:04:28 PM6/8/11
to
On Jun 8, 5:24 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> who,
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)

thomas wheat

unread,
Jun 8, 2011, 10:51:34 PM6/8/11
to
On Jun 8, 6:04 pm, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head

attempted personal attacks only belly the desperateness of your failed
fallacious position

Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head

unread,
Jun 9, 2011, 12:53:58 AM6/9/11
to
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?)
>
<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
> ago, blah blah blah
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.
Has to do with a devalued dollar and a weak no drill policy. (Our
government is distorting the marketplace and causing several bubbles)

Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head

unread,
Jun 9, 2011, 12:57:06 AM6/9/11
to
> > On Jun 8, 5:24 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> who,
> > 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
No personal attacks, you're a psychotic moron who loves to spew insane
delusions. It's a fact.

Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head

unread,
Jun 9, 2011, 1:09:04 AM6/9/11
to
Wasted on that moron...All he can do is spew mindless Obama talking
points, which were debunked a long time ago, and retreat to a warped
fantasy land in his head.

Sid9

unread,
Jun 9, 2011, 10:24:54 AM6/9/11
to

"Bert" <b...@rt.invalid> wrote in message
news:4dee05c9$0$1071$afc3...@read01.usenet4all.se...

Ahhh....and echo chamber!

Tom Jigme Wheat

unread,
Jun 9, 2011, 11:30:23 AM6/9/11
to political-conspiracy-and...@googloegroups.com
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.

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

unread,
Jun 9, 2011, 1:10:10 PM6/9/11
to political-conspiracy-and...@googlegroups.com
On Jun 9, 8:30 am, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Info on Fracking or hydrofracking

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/13/13greenwire-baffled-about-fracking-youre-not-alone-44383.html

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

unread,
Jun 9, 2011, 11:09:54 PM6/9/11
to
> > 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
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

unread,
Jun 10, 2011, 1:23:35 PM6/10/11
to political-conspiracy-and...@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
> 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>

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

unread,
Jun 10, 2011, 4:29:14 PM6/10/11
to

"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

unread,
Jun 10, 2011, 5:33:31 PM6/10/11
to

"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

unread,
Jun 10, 2011, 7:40:03 PM6/10/11
to

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

unread,
Jun 10, 2011, 8:09:55 PM6/10/11
to political-conspiracy-and...@googlegroups.com, pres...@whitehouse.gov, lu...@senate.gov, america...@house.gov, marga...@gmail.com, marcus...@gmail.com, thomasw...@gmail.com, fein...@senate.gov, pauli...@gmail.com, foti...@gmail.com, michaelf...@yahoo.com, whea...@hotmail.com, vca...@gmail.com, rigz...@gmail.com, giovanni...@ucsf.edu, italy.b...@gmail.com, tara.a...@gmail.com, in...@rigzin.com
If we were dealing with Atomistic Capitalism I'd be inclined to agree
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.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/10/26/am-globalist-quiz-americas-percentage-of-global-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

unread,
Jun 10, 2011, 9:31:10 PM6/10/11
to
If there is more supply, will the price of oil rise or is it more likely to
fall?

"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message

news:f6f3c97b-d732-4687...@e17g2000prj.googlegroups.com...

Jerry Okamura

unread,
Jun 10, 2011, 9:33:48 PM6/10/11
to

"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

unread,
Jun 10, 2011, 10:13:00 PM6/10/11
to
On Jun 10, 6:33 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "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
> >> Estimatehttp://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

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.

http://syntheticgenomics.com/

check them out!
thomaswheat1975

Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head

unread,
Jun 11, 2011, 1:57:31 AM6/11/11
to
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
> 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?
I knew it...I knew the he was too cowardly, dishonest, stupid and
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

unread,
Jun 11, 2011, 12:31:54 PM6/11/11
to political-conspiracy-and...@googlegroups.com, thomasw...@gmail.com, marga...@gmail.com, marcus...@gmail.com
AS usual you are wrong again. You never even read the 2011 energy
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

unread,
Jun 11, 2011, 1:42:00 PM6/11/11
to political-conspiracy-an...@googlegroups.com, whea...@hotmail.com, marga...@gmail.com, italy.b...@gmail.com, rigz...@gmail.com, in...@rigzin.com, marcus...@gmail.com, ebu...@cats.ucsc.edu, thomasw...@gmail.com, thomasji...@gmail.com, tara.a...@gmail.com, vic...@pacbell.net, ggul...@sonoma-county.org, giovanni...@ucsf.edu
this forun has some formatting bugs so Iam reposting my formating
changes
in regards to discussion @

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/5e50eb860afc51f4?lnk=raot#5e50eb860afc51f4


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

unread,
Jun 11, 2011, 2:01:00 PM6/11/11
to
It "may not lower prices", but it won't result in as big an increase in
prices?

"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message

news:ad9c47bb-01eb-43de...@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

Jerry Okamura

unread,
Jun 11, 2011, 2:03:36 PM6/11/11
to

"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

unread,
Jun 11, 2011, 2:56:02 PM6/11/11
to political-conspiracy-and...@googlegroups.com, vca...@gmail.com, marcus...@gmail.com, marga...@gmail.com
Domestic Nautral Gas production will prove to be cheaper than Oil from
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

unread,
Jun 11, 2011, 3:27:08 PM6/11/11
to
discussion archived here:
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 -