Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama
brads...@prontomail.com
Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama
By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 10, 2008; A04
In black America, oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Bill Clinton is no longer revered as the "first black president."
Tavis Smiley's rapid-fire commentaries on a popular radio show have
been silenced. And the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., self-described
defender of the black church, has been derided by many on the Web as
an old man who needs to "step off."
They all landed in the black community's doghouse after being viewed
as endangering Sen. Barack Obama's chances of being elected president.
And the community's desire to protect the first African American ever
to be in this position may only grow with his win in North Carolina
and his close loss in Indiana this week.
"I have parents who are still living who are very enthusiastic about
Obama," said Valerie Grim, the chair of Indiana University's
Department of African American and African Diaspora Studies. "They
live in Mississippi. For a time, my parents couldn't vote, and when
they could, their only choice was a white person.
"This means more than just saying there's a black person on the
ticket. It represents the things they had been denied. It's being able
to see the unbelievable, that the impossible might be possible. It
represents for them a new day, a new opportunity to see that black
people can contribute, on the ultimate level, to the social order."
Given such sentiment, it has not taken much for other public figures
to move from icon to pariah.
When Bill Clinton called Obama's position on Iraq a "fairy tale" in
New Hampshire, "I think black people felt betrayed," said Andrea
Plaid, a blogger who writes under the pen name the Cruel Secretary.
African Americans continued to regard Clinton highly even after he was
impeached for lying under oath. "And you turn around and do this to
us?" Plaid said.
Smiley, the renowned black author and commentator, took issue with
Obama for skipping his "Covenant With Black America" event in New
Orleans so he could campaign in Texas and Ohio. The resulting backlash
left Smiley feeling "hammered" and "barbequed" by black Americans.
"There's all this talk of 'hater,' 'sellout' and 'traitor,' " Smiley
said at the time. ". . . They are harassing my mama, harassing my
brother."
The animus dogged him even on the radio, where his commentaries on
black causes for the popular "Tom Joyner Morning Show" were renowned.
In a terse statement issued last month, Smiley announced that he was
leaving the show to focus on other ventures.
Smiley "did a disservice to the black community," said L.N. Rock, the
blogger known as the African American Political Pundit. He noted that
Smiley billed the New Orleans gathering as an event for the people.
But while the people agreed with Obama's compromise of dispatching his
wife, Michelle, to speak in his stead, Smiley balked. "He should have
been hammered for that," Rock said.
Wright has been hailed by many in the black clergy as a brilliant
liberation theologian. But after his speech and question-and-answer
session at the National Press Club last month, people commented on the
blog Jack and Jill Politics -- billed as a political sounding board
for the "black bourgeois" -- that the minister should have known
better than to pick a fight with the media at such a crucial point in
the presidential campaign.
Few of those who commented took issue with the substance of what
Wright said. Rather, it was the timing of his presentation and the
unapologetic showboating of a man who was already a radioactive
presence for Obama that riled black people.
A few supporters called Wright a man of conscience who preached the
truth. They were shouted down by others.
The backlash is not limited to the well known. Christopher Chambers, a
Georgetown University professor and Obama supporter, said a woman
tracked down his cellphone number, dialed it and called him a race
traitor after he said Wright's performance would doom the senator's
presidential run if he did not act decisively. Obama denounced
Wright's appearance later that day.
Barbara Reynolds, a black columnist who brokered Wright's appearance
at the press club, was also under assault. She rejected a wave of
rumors that cast her as a Hillary Clinton supporter who set up Wright
to damage Obama.
Although Reynolds has strongly criticized Obama, she said she is torn
over which candidate to support. However, she said, she is unbowed by
her critics: "They can label me, but I'm not going to shut up."
Paradoxically, African Americans wondered early on if Obama cared
sufficiently about their concerns. But that was before he won the Iowa
caucuses. Standing in the path of Obama's campaign has been dangerous
ever since.
"Yes, I wish Wright had sat down and decided to be quiet," said
Venetria Patton, director of the African American Studies and Research
Center at Purdue University.
Of Bill Clinton and his wife, she said: "The more he opened his mouth,
the more I was against her."
Bas Mati
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/09/AR2008050902638.html
>
> Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama
Well no duh - it's a pure racism -play.
Felix D.
"Bas Mati" <wi...@rice.cook> wrote in message
news:P8lVj.181597$XH2....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
This is not a good situation. Two scenarios come to mind where it is
entirely possible that emotions will outweigh reason:
1) Hillary pulls it off and gets named Democrat candidate for President.
Obamites will feel cheated, that she somehow "stole the election." Aside
from possible violence during the convention (like in 1968), in the wider
national election not too many blacks are going to vote Hillary for
President in this scenario. Or, they sit it out, which is probably more
dangerous. Four years of feeling disenfranchised (even if voluntarily, such
as the Palestinians who now claim a 'right of return') can build resentment,
envy, and frustration to extreme levels.
2) Obama does get nominated, but loses the wider election. Maybe scenario
(1) will apply here as well, but it's hardly likely. Looking at racial
voting "blocs", the black vote is nice to get, but not essential. Now, if
blacks vote in significant numbers and Obama flames out, the idea of a
racist America gets reinforced and we're all back to square one.
Either way, the nation suffers at a time when we're going to be challenged
like never before.
Bas Mati
> "Bas Mati" <wi...@rice.cook> wrote in message
> news:P8lVj.181597$XH2....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
>> brads...@prontomail.com wrote:
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/09/AR2008050902638.html
>>>
>>> Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama
>>
>> Well no duh - it's a pure racism -play.
>
> This is not a good situation.
True.
> Two scenarios come to mind where it is
> entirely possible that emotions will outweigh reason:
>
> 1) Hillary pulls it off and gets named Democrat candidate for President.
> Obamites will feel cheated, that she somehow "stole the election." Aside
> from possible violence during the convention (like in 1968), in the wider
> national election not too many blacks are going to vote Hillary for
> President in this scenario. Or, they sit it out, which is probably more
> dangerous. Four years of feeling disenfranchised (even if voluntarily, such
> as the Palestinians who now claim a 'right of return') can build resentment,
> envy, and frustration to extreme levels.
Leading to race riots in Denver, many spurred on by activist shitwad
Glenn Spagnuolo and his "recreate '68" rabble movement.
> 2) Obama does get nominated, but loses the wider election.
Whoa...now that's the one that DOES work!
Hertz Donut
"Felix D." <#1Che...@OGPU.org> wrote in message
news:DoidnWuU4-BooLvV...@comcast.com...
How can it be bad? I mean if the Billary-bot and the
pretty-boy-in-a-suit-who-makes-promises-he-can't-keep loses, how is that a
bad thing the country? If Billary wins, we'll have 4 more years of inept
leadership and sodomy in the White House, not to mention that she can't even
wait until she gets elected to start lying to the American people. If Obama
loses, he won't get to "sympathize and negotiate' with terrorists. Either
way, the country wins.
Honu
Benj
Well, Duh! Tavis Smiley is so racist, he'd campaign for "blacks only"
drinking fountains PROVIDED he was assured that all the black
fountains would be nice and new and all the "Whites only" fountains
were old decrepit and filthy. Tavis like so many blacks has not yet
figured out that they are AMERICANS first and this and that race or
ethnic group second. Tavis is always going on and on about "black
culture" and how blacks deserve to have advantages because of slave
times (even though NOBODY alive today was even in the civil war let
alone a slave!) Somehow Tavis thinks that a "secret handshake" is
just fine for blacks but somehow sinister if the Klan does it. Well
maybe it IS sinister when the Klan does it. That might be because such
secret racist crap is sinister PERIOD!
Fact is I have no proof that Tavis Smiley even Is truly BLACK! I'll
bet there are at least a few "white genes" in his DNA! And as for
Obama being black, we know for a FACT that his genes are half and
half! So what about the old "one drop of blood" rule? That rule makes
Obama BOTH black and white at the same time. And I have to hand it to
Obama himself, he has NOT played any "race card" pretending as Tavis
does to "belong" to one race or the other. Obama is dead centered on
the ONLY issue that counts: Namely WHO is the best AMERICAN to lead
the country. We can all argue about that one, but to say that it's
about race is to spit on the very message the candidate has been
giving.
I'd say Obama doesn't need the kind of "help" these people are
giving. One can only wonder who is paying off who here.
Lobby Dosser
> Well, Duh! Tavis Smiley is so racist, he'd campaign for "blacks only"
> drinking fountains PROVIDED he was assured that all the black
> fountains would be nice and new and all the "Whites only" fountains
> were old decrepit and filthy.
The reason the 'white' fountains were old and decrepit was that the blacks
didn't have Any fountains prior to them being required. At that time, the
'white' type of fountain was no longer available and the blacks got the
newer Oasis Coolers.
Mongomery, Alabama - November 1961 to April 1962.
Gray Ghost
Which will guarantee the Dems lose. Nobody wants to see that again.
Frank
>
>> 2) Obama does get nominated, but loses the wider election.
>
> Whoa...now that's the one that DOES work!
>
--
Title 18 > Chapter 115 > § 2381 Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or
adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United
States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be
imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less
than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United
States
Felix D.
"Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
news:qbqdnRwPNtXx0rvV...@hawaiiantel.net...
>> Either way, the nation suffers at a time when we're going to be
>> challenged like never before.
>>
>
> How can it be bad? I mean if the Billary-bot and the
> pretty-boy-in-a-suit-who-makes-promises-he-can't-keep loses, how is that a
> bad thing the country? If Billary wins, we'll have 4 more years of inept
> leadership and sodomy in the White House, not to mention that she can't
> even wait until she gets elected to start lying to the American people.
> If Obama loses, he won't get to "sympathize and negotiate' with
> terrorists. Either way, the country wins.
On the political plane, maybe, but in the larger picture, a nation that's
about to undergo some painful economic changes leading to widespread social
restructuring cannot afford to have a significant percentage of its
population turned off and resistant to change of any kind thanks to a sullen
feeling of rejection.
Bas Mati
the resulting global oil wars will insure no DumboCrap ever gets elected
again.
Felix D.
"Bas Mati" <wi...@rice.cook> wrote in message
> Felix D. wrote:
>> On the political plane, maybe, but in the larger picture, a nation that's
>> about to undergo some painful economic changes leading to widespread
>> social restructuring cannot afford to have a significant percentage of
>> its population turned off and resistant to change of any kind thanks to a
>> sullen feeling of rejection.
> My guess is that if Barry Hussein lets Iraqi oil fall into AQ's hands the
> resulting global oil wars will insure no DumboCrap ever gets elected
> again.
If it comes to a global oil war, never mind electing Democrats. The larger
worry might be whether we have an election at all. War, a scarcity of oil
and food, a restless population - it wouldn't take much for martial law to
be imposed or (at the least) see civil liberties severely curtailed.
Bas Mati
> "Bas Mati" <wi...@rice.cook> wrote in message
> news:WbMVj.696272$us.4...@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>> Felix D. wrote:
>
>>> On the political plane, maybe, but in the larger picture, a nation that's
>>> about to undergo some painful economic changes leading to widespread
>>> social restructuring cannot afford to have a significant percentage of
>>> its population turned off and resistant to change of any kind thanks to a
>>> sullen feeling of rejection.
>> My guess is that if Barry Hussein lets Iraqi oil fall into AQ's hands the
>> resulting global oil wars will insure no DumboCrap ever gets elected
>> again.
>
> If it comes to a global oil war, never mind electing Democrats. The larger
> worry might be whether we have an election at all.
No, you IDIOT!
The larger issue will be whether or nation can eat, work, drive, produce.
You moron!
Felix D.
"Bas Mati" <wi...@rice.cook> wrote in message
My my, you degenerated a lot more quickly than expected.
Thanks for playing. Be sure to let ,Mommy know you did a lot better than
last time.
<flush>
Bas Mati
> "Bas Mati" <wi...@rice.cook> wrote in message
> news:KZQVj.428969$uN4.3...@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>> Felix D. wrote:
>>> "Bas Mati" <wi...@rice.cook> wrote in message
>>> news:WbMVj.696272$us.4...@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>>>> Felix D. wrote:
>>>>> On the political plane, maybe, but in the larger picture, a nation
>>>>> that's about to undergo some painful economic changes leading to
>>>>> widespread social restructuring cannot afford to have a significant
>>>>> percentage of its population turned off and resistant to change of any
>>>>> kind thanks to a sullen feeling of rejection.
>>>> My guess is that if Barry Hussein lets Iraqi oil fall into AQ's hands
>>>> the resulting global oil wars will insure no DumboCrap ever gets elected
>>>> again.
>>> If it comes to a global oil war, never mind electing Democrats. The
>>> larger worry might be whether we have an election at all.
>> No, you IDIOT!
>>
>> The larger issue will be whether or nation can eat, work, drive, produce.
>>
>> You moron!
>
> My my, you degenerated
You are a fool, a total blithering idiot.
Curt
> How can it be bad? I mean if the Billary-bot and the
> pretty-boy-in-a-suit-who-makes-promises-he-can't-keep loses, how is that a
> bad thing the country? If Billary wins, we'll have 4 more years of inept
> leadership
I'll take eight more years of Clinton "ineptness" compared to the hash
your fat pink neocon girly-boys have made of our foreign AND domestic
policy.
And you know what? Most voters agree with me.
Curt
MTD
> On May 10, 6:44 pm, "Hertz Donut" <some...@outthere.com> wrote:
>
>> How can it be bad? I mean if the Billary-bot and the
>> pretty-boy-in-a-suit-who-makes-promises-he-can't-keep loses, how is that a
>> bad thing the country? If Billary wins, we'll have 4 more years of inept
>> leadership
>
> I'll take eight more years of Clinton "ineptness"
Looks like you won't have that option....
Curt
I can live with Obama, too. He's a serious candidate, and competent to
deal with the complexities of the modern world. Like Hillary. And
Quite Unlike, say, McCain.
Curt
Herb Martin
"Curt" <obadia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc5d8a9c-ee66-40c1...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
So we must presume you are for gun bans and other egregious gun control,,
correct?
Both of the Democratic candidates are for these and failed to support
Heller against the District of Columbia (who have had their gun ban
overturned by the DC Court of Appeals) before the Suppreme Court.
You have posted on talk.politics.guns and other groups that might
care about the 2nd Amendment.
Obama favors gun bans.
Curt
> "Curt" <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cc5d8a9c-ee66-40c1...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 12, 3:57 pm, MTD <s...@throw.er> wrote:
>
> > Curt wrote:
> > > On May 10, 6:44 pm, "Hertz Donut" <some...@outthere.com> wrote:
>
> > >> How can it be bad? I mean if the Billary-bot and the
> > >> pretty-boy-in-a-suit-who-makes-promises-he-can't-keep loses, how is
> > >> that a
> > >> bad thing the country? If Billary wins, we'll have 4 more years of
> > >> inept
> > >> leadership
>
> > > I'll take eight more years of Clinton "ineptness"
>
> > Looks like you won't have that option....
>
> <<I can live with Obama, too. He's a serious candidate, and competent to
> deal with the complexities of the modern world. Like Hillary. And
> Quite Unlike, say, McCain.
>
>
>
> So we must presume you are for gun bans and other egregious gun control,,
> correct?
Absolutely not.
>
> Both of the Democratic candidates are for these and failed to support
> Heller against the District of Columbia (who have had their gun ban
> overturned by the DC Court of Appeals) before the Suppreme Court.
>
> You have posted on talk.politics.guns and other groups that might
> care about the 2nd Amendment.
Cool -- ain't the Internet grand?
>
> Obama favors gun bans.
Lots of people do. They never go anywhere. No one's coming after your
guns, or mine.
Curt
tritium
>> Obama favors gun bans.
>
> Lots of people do. They never go anywhere. No one's coming after your
> guns, or mine.
Care to examine the list of places guns ARE banned, and the types of
weapons that HAVE been banned?
http://www.conservapedia.com/Gun_control
six cities in the United States ban handguns: Washington, D.C., Chicago,
and four of its suburbs
"Gun control" can include:
Restricting which persons can own firearms.
Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase
during a given time period
Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the
government.
Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault
rifles
Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into
restaurants or post offices
Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a
firearm
Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example
banning their sale through the mail
Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government
to buy and/or sell a firearm
Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm
in public, either concealed or openly
Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired
law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which
was used in several southern states.
Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never
occurred in the United States
In the United States the three primary federal gun control laws are:
National Firearms Act (1934)
Gun Control Act (1968)
Brady Bill (1993)
These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the Firearms
Owners Protection Act (1986) and the Omnibus Crime Bill (1994).
Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist
effect if not intent:
Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require
issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely
used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled
out for gun bans.
"Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles
and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they
are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being
studied by the U.S. Department of Justice as "Operation Ceasefire."
Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington,
D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
"Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and
mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note:
not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical
violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be
subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state
court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other
restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It
has since been copied in many other cities.
Herb Martin
>
> <<I can live with Obama, too. He's a serious candidate, and competent to
> deal with the complexities of the modern world. Like Hillary. And
> Quite Unlike, say, McCain.
>
>
>
> So we must presume you are for gun bans and other egregious gun control,,
> correct?
Absolutely not.
Obaba is.
Curt
> "Curt" <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Has anyone come after your guns?
Has anyone come after anyone's guns that you know?
Didn't think so.
Relax.
Curt
Herb Martin
Yes, in NYCity, Chicago, DC, Britain, and Australia.
Nazi Germany was one of the worst even though the
Nazi's didn't event gun control they were hell on enforcement
against their political enemies.
> Didn't think so.
Then you were wrong.
100 MILLION or MORE murdered in the 20th Century
alone by Gun Control Governments.
NapalmHeart
Didn't think so.
Relax.
Curt
********************************************
Over the years, Barack Obama has either voiced support for, or voted to
enact, jaws to: ban all handguns; ban the sale or transfer of all
semi-automatic firearms; ban the Right-to-Carry in every state,
nationwide; ban firearms in the home, even for self-protection.
And he voted against a "self-defense exception," which absolves folks of
violating gun bans when their reason for violating those bans is to fend
off criminal attacking the home.
Obama's website claims, "He will protect the rights of hunters and other
law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns for the
purposes of hunting and target shooting."
The Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting.
Scout
"NapalmHeart" <olsonfa...@iserv.net> wrote in message
news:6aGdnW0oi7n3MK3V...@posted.eaglecomputertechnology...
>
> "Curt" <obadia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e2ea7857-f05f-4f11...@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On May 17, 3:36 am, "Herb Martin" <n...@learnquick.com> wrote:
>> "Curt" <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:9ac5875a-52de-4663...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > <<I can live with Obama, too. He's a serious candidate, and competent
>> > to
>> > deal with the complexities of the modern world. Like Hillary. And
>> > Quite Unlike, say, McCain.
>>
>> > So we must presume you are for gun bans and other egregious gun
>> > control,,
>> > correct?
>>
>> Absolutely not.
>>
>>/ Obaba is.
>
> Has anyone come after your guns?
Washington, Chicago, Mass., California, etc.
> Has anyone come after anyone's guns that you know?
Yes.
> Didn't think so.
Clearly you weren't paying attention.
RickyBobby
<brads...@prontomail.com> wrote in message
news:1ab415c8-3a61-4903...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/09/AR2008050902638.html
>
> Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama
> By Darryl Fears
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Saturday, May 10, 2008; A04
>
> In black America, oh, how the mighty have fallen.
>
> Bill Clinton is no longer revered as the "first black president."
> Tavis Smiley's rapid-fire commentaries on a popular radio show have
> been silenced. And the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., self-described
> defender of the black church, has been derided by many on the Web as
> an old man who needs to "step off."
>
> They all landed in the black community's doghouse after being viewed
> as endangering Sen. Barack Obama's chances of being elected president.
> And the community's desire to protect the first African American ever
> to be in this position may only grow with his win in North Carolina
> and his close loss in Indiana this week.
>
>
Senator Obama will be elected. He has the numerical advantage of Senator
Clinton and he will trounce Senator McCain.
The Republicans will be punished for the failing economy and the failed wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The only Black issues that exist are those in the minds of Blacks. So the
President will probably not have to spend too much of his time in dealing
with imaginary issues.
The only place where Blacks are lacking is in major Hollywood movies. No
offense to an aging Denzel or an aging Halle but since movies are exported
to every other nation on Earth there needs to be a Black Spiderman or Black
Superman or Black Santa Claus or Black George Clooney or Black Jennifer
Aniston.
A couple of years ago the big movie was "Walk the Line" with the whitest
woman in America, Reese Witherspoon, and you watch that movie and tell me
how many Black actors appeared.
If Blacks are good enough for television then they should be good enough for
major movies.
Consider just a few of the iconic movies that people know and love and quote
The Godfather
Bullit
Indiana Jones
Silence of the Lambs
Spider Man
Star Wars
Star Trek
The French Connection
Goodfellas
Casino
How many Blacks in all of those combined? Two? Four? None?
I hate to be fronting some sort of conspiracy theory but if you acknowledge
that people all over the world covet Hollywood movies you would almost think
that Hollywood is hiding Blacks as being a major part of America.
How Black is Reese Witherspoon or George Clooney or Jennifer Aniston or
Julia Roberts or Vince Vaugh?
Most people, of any race, in any country, would agree that Tyra Banks is at
least ten times more attractive than Jennifer Aniston and they are about the
same age. So why is one a major international movie star and the other a
TV star? Why is Reese Witherspoon a bigger movie star than Halle Berry?
Can she act any better?
Herb Martin
"RickyBobby" <nasc...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:EbcZj.1622$J75...@newsfe20.lga...
>
> <brads...@prontomail.com> wrote in message
> news:1ab415c8-3a61-4903...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/09/AR2008050902638.html
>>
>> Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama
>> By Darryl Fears
>> Washington Post Staff Writer
>> Saturday, May 10, 2008; A04
>>
>> In black America, oh, how the mighty have fallen.
>>
>> Bill Clinton is no longer revered as the "first black president."
>> Tavis Smiley's rapid-fire commentaries on a popular radio show have
>> been silenced. And the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., self-described
>> defender of the black church, has been derided by many on the Web as
>> an old man who needs to "step off."
>>
>> They all landed in the black community's doghouse after being viewed
>> as endangering Sen. Barack Obama's chances of being elected president.
>> And the community's desire to protect the first African American ever
>> to be in this position may only grow with his win in North Carolina
>> and his close loss in Indiana this week.
>>
>>
>
> Senator Obama will be elected. He has the numerical advantage of Senator
> Clinton and he will trounce Senator McCain.
So you are an expert in electoral college maps, right?
Or do you plan on whining about "popular vote" even if McCain whumps
him in electoral votes AND while Obama says he has the delegates and
Hilary's "more popular vote" is irrelevant?
> The Republicans will be punished for the failing economy and the failed
> wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The economy is in good shape actually. Amazingly good shape given
the price of oil which is due to Democratic foot dragging on existing
supply and would be far worse if we didn't control the mid-east.
RickyBobby
"Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
news:48359fc0$0$5149$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Energy is cheap at half the price. It comes out of the ground or out of the
sky for free. The only reason that we are paying four dollars for a gallon
of gasoline or diesel fuel is so that Exxon can make a record number of
billions. Oil comes out of the ground for free, coal comes out of the ground
for free, and natural gas comes out of the ground for free. Most people are
too stupid to understand that.
Scratch
news:bKG_j.62$RD5...@newsfe11.phx:
Tell us smart ass the % the oil company makes in profit from a dollar of
gas then tell us the % of taxes that are paid on that same buck and then
come back and tell us who is the most greedy! And do remeber the work the
oil company has to do to make that profit and then tell us the amount of
work that the govt has to put in to collect those taxes.
Wow! Leftists are unbelievably stupid.
--
"Republican Because not everyone wants to be a Socialist."
Scout
Sorry, but exploration, exploitation, infrastructure, facilities and
manpower to find and recover these are a significant cost. True, Exxon still
manages to produce extreme profits but that doesn't also mean they don't
have massive costs either. To ignore the costs is to ignore reality.
Cheyenne Social Club
compared to Microsoft's 30% avg. profit margin...
RSweeney
> Energy is cheap at half the price. It comes out of the ground or out of
> the sky for free. The only reason that we are paying four dollars for a
> gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel is so that Exxon can make a record
> number of billions. Oil comes out of the ground for free, coal comes out
> of the ground for free, and natural gas comes out of the ground for free.
> Most people are too stupid to understand that.
You have to be careful about sarcasm.
Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and the rest of the liberals read this stuff and
believe it.
Cheyenne Social Club
Herb Martin
Are you really so ignorant that you don't know the open (INTERNATIONAL)
market sets the price of crude oil?
> Oil comes out of the ground for free, coal comes out of the ground for
> free, and natural gas comes out of the ground for free. Most people are
> too stupid to understand that.
No, neither is true. Exploration costs find the oil, but even then
there are all sorts of production and transportation costs.
I have drilled oil for a living and I can assure you that
it is NOT free or anywhere on the same planet as free.
Were it free, the oil companies would have made about
6-10 times a MANY billions.
Now if you are just being willfully ignorant you will come
back with some more nonsense about free so skip that
as no one will believe it not even those stupid enough to
think that oil company profits are excessive -- they aren't
and are in fact about normal or a bit small as a return
on investment.
RSweeney
"Cheyenne Social Club" <he...@fon.da> wrote in message
news:wNH_j.856482$Gl5.1...@fe02.news.easynews.com...
One of the oil exec's should have helped her... " Comrade, the term you are
looking for is nationalize."
Magus
And while people are whining about the 640ish billion the oil industry
made last year, I don't hear any moaning about the 1.5ish trillion the
federal government got in taxes on gasoline (just on gasoline).
(remember, the oil industry makes profits on everything usable they can
get out of crude, not just gasoline. [such as tar for roads, plastics,
rubbers, solvents, and all other petroleum products])
Herb Martin
"RSweeney" <docks...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OMqdnYR-_N4YzKbV...@comcast.com...
Them an 'ugo Chavez.
Bunch of demigogues and pandering pimps.
Herb Martin
"Magus" <no...@noway.net> wrote in message
news:PjI_j.21743$255....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
Price of gas in Europe includes:
Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48
Norway Oslo $6.27
Italy Milan $5.96
Denmark Copenhagen $5.93
Belgium Brussels $5.91
Sweden Stockholm $5.80
United Kingdom London $5.79
Germany Frankfurt $5.57
France Paris $5.54
Portugal Lisbon $5.35
Gas prices aren't so bad in the US -- and they would be a lot
better if the Dems would allow:
drilling on ALL our coasts
drilling in Anwar
full coal production
nuclear power plants
new refineries
(and maybe stop using that stupid ethanol)
Even if we (could have) switched to HYDROGEN fuel RIGHT
NOW we would still have to product it or the electricity to
produce it and we cannot do that without the Nuclear Power.
Scout
"Cheyenne Social Club" <he...@fon.da> wrote in message
It is when you consider that the average is under 8%, and when you consider
the shear volume of the business they do in basically a monopolistic
fashion. At least with Microsoft you do have alternatives. With Exxon, if
you buy oil, you are going to be doing business with Exxon somewhere along
the line.
Herb Martin
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:GLI_j.11395$3j.1502@trnddc05...
Wrong. If there is any monolist or monopoly involved it is the
extreme power of OPEC since we cannot produce the oil we
have here in America and must buy overseas on the international
market.
> At least with Microsoft you do have alternatives. With Exxon, if
And Exxon, Shell, Texaco etc buy their crude for the most part
from OUTSIDE the US at internationally set rates.
How stupid do you have to be to blame the baker for cost
of the WHEAT used to make the bread?
Cheyenne Social Club
Cheyenne Social Club
Irrelevant,
That Exxon is 2% more efficient than Chevron is hardly anything to whine
about, unless you're too dam,ned stupid to own their stock.
> and when you consider
> the shear volume of the business they do in basically a monopolistic
> fashion.
How exactly do they manage that, given 3/4s of the world's oil is
supplied by state-owned producers?
> At least with Microsoft you do have alternatives.
Tell that to most average PC users.
> With Exxon, if
> you buy oil, you are going to be doing business with Exxon somewhere along
> the line.
And given the big US oil firms produce less than 10% of the world's oil
this is a problem because??????
Cheyenne Social Club
He's a blithering idiot.
Herb Martin
"Cheyenne Social Club" <he...@fon.da> wrote in message
You want to make gas really expensive -- nationalize the
business and ruin it like Chavez has done to buy bread
for circuses and to keep himself in power.
Cheyenne Social Club
SaPeIsMa
Why don't you look at the MEANINGFUL numbers. Not the TOTAL $ profit, but
the Rate of Return on Investment.
Exxon makes about 8%
That's about median for most business in the US
At 8% return, that means Exxon spends $100 for each $8 of profit
What confuses idiots like you is that you IGNORE the Billions that Exxon
SPENDS to generate it's Billions of profit
RSweeney
"Cheyenne Social Club" <he...@fon.da> wrote in message
"comrade" would have been a nice touch though
Maxine Waters isn't fit to use a toilet.
RSweeney
The real problem is corruption and incompetence... the social thing brings
them.. just look at Maxine Waters.
Cheyenne Social Club
yet the idea has some appeal....
Herb Martin
Comrade Commissar would have been even more apt.
Herb Martin
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wb-dne9fh5aOG6bVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@cpinternet...
AND even were it 50%, Exxon is owned by the SHAREHOLDERS,
people, pension funds, retirement funds, Americans and others.
Good that they are making money -- without cheating since the oil
companies have been investigated some 18 times (and they have
another one starting now) without finding problems.
The Oil companies are scared to death of actually breaking the
law and don't need to do so.
They buy oil; they refine it; they sell it for what the market will
bear, a bit over production costs; in a good year they make
pretty good money, enough to cover years of exploration.
I have drilled a LOT of dry holes -- not my fault of course,
since I was the Directional Drilling Supervisor, the guy who
makes it go where the geologists and engineers say to go.
Sancho Panza
Yeah, and there are no exploration, drilling, refining, transportation,
marketing costs involved, either. Take that!
Michael Ejercito
> "Magus" <n...@noway.net> wrote in message
>
> news:PjI_j.21743$255....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
> > Herb Martin wrote:
> >>news:bKG_j.62$RD5...@newsfe11.phx...
> >>> "Herb Martin" <n...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:48359fc0$0$5149$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> >>>> "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:EbcZj.1622$J75...@newsfe20.lga...
> >>>>> <bradsch...@prontomail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:1ab415c8-3a61-4903...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/09/AR200...
Consumers in America will eventually start using similar
transportation options that people in Europe are using.
Of course, a recent European immigrant might not wince at the cost
of driving a Ford Explorer.
>
> Gas prices aren't so bad in the US -- and they would be a lot
> better if the Dems would allow:
>
> drilling on ALL our coasts
> drilling in Anwar
> full coal production
> nuclear power plants
> new refineries
> (and maybe stop using that stupid ethanol)
>
> Even if we (could have) switched to HYDROGEN fuel RIGHT
> NOW we would still have to product it or the electricity to
> produce it and we cannot do that without the Nuclear Power.
Why not just install the nuclear reactors inside the cars
themselves?
Michael
Michael Ejercito
<me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> "Cheyenne Social Club" <he...@fon.da> wrote in messagenews:A3H_j.449802$i_6....@fe06.news.easynews.com...
>
>
>
> > Scout wrote:
> >>news:bKG_j.62$RD5...@newsfe11.phx...
> >>> "Herb Martin" <n...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:48359fc0$0$5149$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> >>>> "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:EbcZj.1622$J75...@newsfe20.lga...
> >>>>> <bradsch...@prontomail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:1ab415c8-3a61-4903...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/09/AR200...
or Shell or BP or Chevron?
And there are alternatives to oil, such as wood.
Michael
Herb Martin
"Michael Ejercito" <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6ad725c-9253-4c59...@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 26, 5:24 pm, "Herb Martin" <n...@learnquick.com> wrote:
>> "Magus" <n...@noway.net> wrote in message
>>
Do you really not understand this?
(Too big, too complicated, too much maintenance, too
expensive for one car)
Even for airplanes or most ships this is not economical.
No Poster
Yep. It is called "Sensitivity Training" and they will be sending everyone
of us quite soon.
Jack Burns
Those FEMA re-education camps will be bursting at the seams....
RickyBobby
>> news:48359fc0$0$5149$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>> news:EbcZj.1622$J75...@newsfe20.lga...
>>>>
>>>> <brads...@prontomail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1ab415c8-3a61-4903...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/09/AR2008050902638.html
>> the sky for free. The only reason that we are paying four dollars for a
>> gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel is so that Exxon can make a record
>> number of billions. Oil comes out of the ground for free, coal comes out
>> of the ground for free, and natural gas comes out of the ground for free.
>> Most people are too stupid to understand that.
>
> manpower to find and recover these are a significant cost. True, Exxon
> still manages to produce extreme profits but that doesn't also mean they
> don't have massive costs either. To ignore the costs is to ignore reality.
>
>
Exxon has made it difficult or impossible for billions of people to eat.
Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined did not do that much damage to innocent
people.
Billions of people live on less than two dollars per day. It may not be a
great lifestyle, but it is living. Since Exxon has taken it upon themselves
to make the cost of living three or four dollars per day they have sentenced
a couple of billion people to extreme poverty and slow starvation. I hope
the billions upon tens of billions that they are banking soothes their
conscience, supposing that they even have one.
RickyBobby
"Curt" <obadia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ac5875a-52de-4663...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On May 16, 5:16 am, "Herb Martin" <n...@learnquick.com> wrote:
> "Curt" <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cc5d8a9c-ee66-40c1...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 12, 3:57 pm, MTD <s...@throw.er> wrote:
>
> > Curt wrote:
> > > On May 10, 6:44 pm, "Hertz Donut" <some...@outthere.com> wrote:
>
> > >> How can it be bad? I mean if the Billary-bot and the
> > >> pretty-boy-in-a-suit-who-makes-promises-he-can't-keep loses, how is
> > >> that a
> > >> bad thing the country? If Billary wins, we'll have 4 more years of
> > >> inept
> > >> leadership
>
> > > I'll take eight more years of Clinton "ineptness"
>
> > Looks like you won't have that option....
>
> <<I can live with Obama, too. He's a serious candidate, and competent to
> deal with the complexities of the modern world. Like Hillary. And
> Quite Unlike, say, McCain.
>
>
>
> So we must presume you are for gun bans and other egregious gun control,,
> correct?
Absolutely not.
>
> Both of the Democratic candidates are for these and failed to support
> Heller against the District of Columbia (who have had their gun ban
> overturned by the DC Court of Appeals) before the Suppreme Court.
>
> You have posted on talk.politics.guns and other groups that might
> care about the 2nd Amendment.
Cool -- ain't the Internet grand?
>
> Obama favors gun bans.
Lots of people do. They never go anywhere. No one's coming after your
guns, or mine.
Curt
You make a good point. Owning a .38 is no different than owning a chain
saw. They are just tools that do one thing well. When things are slow people
get all up in arms about gun control or abortion control or the existence of
UFO's or if Ebonics should be recognized as a language or if animals have
rights or some silly shit like that. When things get dicey, as they are
now, all of the silliness goes away.
RickyBobby
"NapalmHeart" <olsonfa...@iserv.net> wrote in message
news:6aGdnW0oi7n3MK3V...@posted.eaglecomputertechnology...> news:e2ea7857-f05f-4f11...@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On May 17, 3:36 am, "Herb Martin" <n...@learnquick.com> wrote:
>> "Curt" <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > <<I can live with Obama, too. He's a serious candidate, and competent
>> > to
>> > deal with the complexities of the modern world. Like Hillary. And
>> > Quite Unlike, say, McCain.
>>
>> > So we must presume you are for gun bans and other egregious gun
>> > control,,
>> > correct?
>>
>> Absolutely not.
>>
>
> Has anyone come after your guns?
>
> Has anyone come after anyone's guns that you know?
>
> Didn't think so.
>
> Relax.
>
> Curt
> ********************************************
>
> Over the years, Barack Obama has either voiced support for, or voted to
> enact, jaws to: ban all handguns; ban the sale or transfer of all
> semi-automatic firearms; ban the Right-to-Carry in every state,
> nationwide; ban firearms in the home, even for self-protection.
>
> And he voted against a "self-defense exception," which absolves folks of
> violating gun bans when their reason for violating those bans is to fend
> off criminal attacking the home.
>
> Obama's website claims, "He will protect the rights of hunters and other
> law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns for the
> purposes of hunting and target shooting."
>
> The Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting.
>
Brilliant point.
Scratch
news:PAS7k.6252$r_2....@newsfe14.phx:
Why don't you get just as pissed at the government that takes four times
more in taxes then oil companies make in profit? Naaa, you would have to
give up your beloved socialist programs then.
--
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the
name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist
program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas,
U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948
Brembo
They have done no sucj thing, you fucking LYING MORON!
> Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined did not do that much damage to innocent
> people.
>
> Billions of people live on less than two dollars per day. It may not be
> a great lifestyle, but it is living. Since Exxon has taken it upon
> themselves to make the cost of living three or four dollars per day
You're fucking insane, STFU and drop damned dead.
NapalmHeart
Gun control is always near the top of my list as to deciding
who to vote for. It is a tell-tale sign of the candidate's
overall views.
Ken
SaPeIsMa
>
>>
>
> Exxon has made it difficult or impossible for billions of people to eat.
And naturally you have CLEAR EVIDENCE to support this claim ?
I would like to see it
> Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined did not do that much damage to innocent
> people.
>
Hitler, Stalin, and Mao have killed over 140 millions people amongst the
three of them with Stalin and Mao getting the lion's share.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
> Billions of people live on less than two dollars per day. It may not be a
> great lifestyle, but it is living. Since Exxon has taken it upon
> themselves to make the cost of living three or four dollars per day they
> have sentenced a couple of billion people to extreme poverty and slow
> starvation. I hope the billions upon tens of billions that they are
> banking soothes their conscience, supposing that they even have one.
Do explain EXACTLY HOW "..Exxon has taken it upon themselves to make the
cost of living three or four dollars per day.."
And naturally, support your explanation with VERIFIABLE DATA
RickyBobby
"Brembo" <di...@brakes.bz> wrote in message
news:1_S7k.111272$fz6....@fe08.news.easynews.com...
Oh, my. I guess I must have been wrong about all of that then. I suppose
if everything was going along swimmingly when a barrel of crude oil (which
comes out of the ground for free and belongs to everyone) was fifty dollars
has collapsed into widespread panic when the same barrel sells for 134
dollars and drives up the cost of what people need to live it is nobody's
fault. Silly me.
Brembo
Indeed you are.
>I
> suppose if everything was going along swimmingly when a barrel of crude
> oil (which comes out of the ground for free and belongs to everyone)
Huh?
What kind of drugs are you on there, Jed Clampet?
> was fifty dollars has collapsed into widespread panic when the same
> barrel sells for 134 dollars and drives up the cost of what people need
> to live it is nobody's fault. Silly me.
It's not Exxon's fault, period.
Look to OPEC and your congress critters:
Blame Congress for High Oil Prices
By MACKUBIN THOMAS OWENS
May 29, 2008; Page A17
Gasoline prices are through the roof and Americans are angry. Someone
must be to blame and the obvious villain is "Big Oil" with its alleged
ability to gouge consumers and achieve unconscionable, "windfall"
profits. Congress is in a vile mood, and has dragged oil industry
executives before its committees for show trials, issuing predictable
threats of punishment, e.g. a "windfall profits tax."
But if there is a villain in all of this, it is Congress itself. That
venerable body has made it impossible for U.S. producers of crude oil to
tap significant domestic reserves of oil and gas, and it has foreclosed
economically viable alternative sources of energy in favor of unfeasible
alternatives such as wind and solar. In addition, Congress has slapped
substantial taxes on gasoline. Indeed, as oil industry executives
reiterated in their appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on
May 21, 15% of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while
only 4% represents oil company profits.
To understand the depth of congressional complicity in the high price of
gasoline, one must understand that crude oil prices explain 97% of the
variation in the pretax price of gasoline. That price, which has risen
to record levels, is set by the intersection of supply and demand. On
the one hand, world-wide demand has accelerated mainly due to the rapid
growth of China and India.
On the other hand, supply has been curtailed by the cartel-like behavior
of foreign national oil companies, which control nearly 80% of world
petroleum reserves. Faced with little competition in the production of
crude oil, the members of this cartel benefit from keeping the commodity
in the ground, confident that increasing demand will make it more
valuable in the future. Despite its pious denunciations of the behavior
of U.S. investor-owned oil companies (IOCs), Congress by its actions
over the years has ensured the economic viability of the national oil
company cartel.
It has done so by preventing the exploitation by IOCs of reserves
available in nonpark federal lands in the West, Alaska and under the
waters off our coasts. These areas hold an estimated 635 trillion cubic
feet of recoverable natural gas – enough to meet the needs of the 60
million American homes fueled by natural gas for over a century. They
also hold an estimated 112 billion barrels of recoverable oil – enough
to produce gasoline for 60 million cars and fuel oil for 25 million
homes for 60 years.
This doesn't even include substantial oil shale resources economically
recoverable at oil prices substantially lower than those prevailing
today. In an exchange between Sen. Orin Hatch (R., Utah) and John
Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Company during the May 21 Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing, the point was made that anywhere from 800
million to two trillion barrels of oil are available from oil shale in
Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
If Congress really cared about the economic well-being of American
citizens, it would stop fulminating against IOCs and reverse current
policies that discourage, indeed prohibit, the production of domestic
oil and natural gas. Even the announcement that Congress was opening the
way for domestic production would lead to downward pressure on oil prices.
There is an historical precedent for such a step: Ronald Reagan's
deregulation of domestic crude oil prices at the beginning of his first
term. At the time, thanks to the decision by the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to curtail output, the price of oil
was at a level that in real terms is only now being matched. Domestic
price controls ensured that the OPEC cartel would face little or no
competition in the production of oil.
Price controls were exacerbated by other wrongheaded policies stimulated
by the two "energy crises" of the 1970s. One of the most egregious was
the infamous "windfall profits" tax, designed to punish oil companies
for alleged profiteering. But since it applied to even newly discovered
oil, its main impact was to discourage the exploration and drilling that
would have increased oil supplies.
Although the energy problems of the 1970s were traceable to government
policies, Reagan's decision to deregulate oil prices was ridiculed by
policy makers, especially those who had served in the previous
administration. For instance, Frank Zarb, who had been Jimmy Carter's
"energy czar," predicted that decontrolling the price of crude oil would
lead to gasoline prices of $10 a gallon. Instead, the world price of oil
plummeted, helping to fuel the extraordinary economic growth of the 1980s.
Reagan's deregulation of crude oil prices created incentives for
domestic producers to invest in exploration and to increase production.
The threat of increased output by non-OPEC producers destroyed the
discipline among OPEC members necessary to restrict production to
maintain high prices. Facing the likelihood that an increase in supply
would lead to lower future prices, OPEC producers increased output in
the hopes of maximizing profits before prices fell. The cascading effect
caused oil prices to tumble.
As in the 1970s, U.S. energy policies have essentially restricted the
exploitation of domestic sources of energy. Curtailed supplies have
combined with rapid, world-wide energy demand to increase the price of
oil and other sources of energy. This provides leverage to foreign
producers and threatens U.S. energy security. Freeing up domestic energy
resources will do today what President Reagan's decision to deregulate
oil prices in 1981 did then: cause oil prices to fall, thereby enhancing
U.S. energy security.
RickyBobby
Liberty is always better than oppression, if that is what you meant.
I ain't no Constitutional scholar and historian but I think the founders
thought that liberty, with all of its flaws, would still be a whole lot
better for most folks than oppression.
RickyBobby
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
Try to read slowly so that you do not get confused.
There is an unlimited supply of oil just underneath the surface of the
earth. It cost maybe a dollar per barrel to bring it to the wellhead. Then
it cost another dollar to take it to the refinery which makes a profit off
of it and perhaps a third dollar to take it to your local store. But that is
for 35 gallons, not one gallon.
So it costs in real terms about 30 cents to get a gallon of your favorite
gas or diesel to your favorite store. All of the rest is greedy profit or
taxes.
Out of a population of perhaps 5.8 billion people there are perhaps one
million primitive tribals who do not play the game of earn and spend. All
of the rest have to play the game of earn and spend.
So when the oil cartel decides that a gallon of gasoline or diesel is five
dollars instead of the thirty cents it costs it hurts everyone.
Sam Buckland
>
> There is an unlimited supply of oil just underneath the surface of the
> earth.
Error number 1
> It cost maybe a dollar per barrel to bring it to the wellhead.
Error number 2
> Then it cost another dollar to take it to the refinery
Error number 3
> which makes a
> profit off of it and perhaps a third dollar to take it to your local
> store.
Error number 4
And, of course, you haven't BEGUN to address the cost of actually
REFINING it... and storage... and taxes...
So, basically, we're back to the fact that you're a fucking
idiot.
Felix D.
"Sam Buckland" <not...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g3pf14$lec$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> RickyBobby wrote:
<nonsense>
> So, basically, we're back to the fact that you're a fucking
> idiot.
I wonder if his girlfriend is named "Sky" or "Free"? Assuming he does, in
fact, have a girl friend. Or any friends.
Sam Buckland
Given his posting history, his "girlfriend's name" is
"Rosey Palm".
RickyBobby
"Sam Buckland" <not...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g3pf14$lec$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
I am not any sort of idiot. The stuff comes up for free with less
encouragement than rice or wheat or corn or beans. The only reason that
something that is in the ground for all of us for free suddenly costs so
much is because of opportunitsts who are degrading human life so that they
can bank tens of billions of dollars over something that was always there
for free.
Do you debate that oil is everywhere and already mapped or
do you want to say that it costs 130 dollars per barrel to dig a hole?
If we could put WalMart in charge of this mess gasoline would be 75 cents
per gallon which is about what it is worth.
Sam Buckland
>
> "Sam Buckland" <not...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:g3pf14$lec$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> RickyBobby wrote:
>>>
>>> There is an unlimited supply of oil just underneath the surface of
>>> the earth.
>>
>> Error number 1
>>
>>> It cost maybe a dollar per barrel to bring it to the wellhead.
>>
>> Error number 2
>>
>>> Then it cost another dollar to take it to the refinery
>>
>> Error number 3
>>
>>> which makes a profit off of it and perhaps a third dollar to take it
>>> to your local store.
>>
>> Error number 4
>>
>> And, of course, you haven't BEGUN to address the cost of actually
>> REFINING it... and storage... and taxes...
>>
>> So, basically, we're back to the fact that you're a fucking
>> idiot.
>
> I am not any sort of idiot.
Son, you are a World Class Idiot.
> The stuff comes up for free with less
> encouragement than rice or wheat or corn or beans.
See what I mean? All you can do is repeat the same old
discredited bullshit over and over.
You couldn't catch a clue if you covered yourself in "clue musk"
and danced the "clue mating dance" in the middle of a bunch
of "horny clues" during the height of "clue mating season".
Every time you open your mouth, idiocy spews forth. You don't
know ANYTHING about oil, economics, the world in general,
and (most likely) NASCAR. I already know your taste in
cars sucks.
You're a waste of skin. Really. I can't make it any simpler
for you.
RickyBobby
"Sam Buckland" <not...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
You can insult me with every clever insult you have ever picked up from the
wonders of the internet but you still have to explain how some dumb
substance that lies there for the taking for free should suddenly hold us
all hostage.
Sam Buckland
>
> You can insult me with every clever insult you have ever picked up from
> the wonders of the internet but you still have to explain how some dumb
> substance that lies there for the taking for free should suddenly hold
> us all hostage.
Explaining it to you is a waste of time, you fucking idiot. Because,
in spite of being told more than once, you still think it's "free".
You're one ignorant asshole.
RickyBobby
"Sam Buckland" <not...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
And you are one apologists for the billion dollar per day profit making oil
industry.
Sam Buckland
No, sonny, we've already established that I'm not. We've
decided you're one ignorant asshole.
Brembo
No shit??
Cite?
> It cost maybe a dollar per barrel to bring it to the wellhead.
Yeah?
Ever study day rates and drilling costs?
You are flat fucking insane!
> Then it cost another dollar to take it to the refinery which makes a
> profit off of it
Do tell, just one dollar to transport crude oil, what are ya using, mag
lev tubes?
> and perhaps a third dollar to take it to your local
> store. But that is for 35 gallons, not one gallon.
You really are insane.
> So it costs in real terms about 30 cents to get a gallon of your
> favorite gas or diesel to your favorite store. All of the rest is
> greedy profit or taxes.
BULLSHIT!
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/
What are the components of the retail price of gasoline?
The cost of crude oil as a share of the retail price varies over time
and among regions of the country. In 2007, the price of crude oil
averaged about $68 per barrel and accounted for about 58% of the
national average retail price of a gallon of regular grade gasoline
(Figure 1). In comparison, in 2005 the average crude oil price was $50
per barrel and the crude oil cost was 53% of the retail price. From 2000
to 2007 the average crude oil price was about $39 per barrel and the
crude oil cost share of the retail gasoline prices averaged 48%.
Federal, State, and local government taxes are the next largest part of
the retail price of gasoline. In 2007, taxes (not including county and
local taxes) accounted for about 15% of the cost of a gallon of regular
gasoline. Federal excise taxes were 18.4 cents per gallon and State
excise taxes averaged 21.5 cents per gallon.2 Eleven States levy
additional State sales and other taxes, some of which are applied to the
Federal and State excise taxes. Additional county and city taxes can
have a significant impact on the price of gasoline in some locations.
From 2000 to 2007, taxes averaged about 24% of the retail gasoline price.
2Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Marketing Monthly,
December 2007. Table EN1 at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_marketing_monthly/historical/2007/2007_12/pdf/enote.pdf
Refining costs and profits were about 17% of the national average retail
price of regular gasoline in 2007, close to the 2000 to 2007 average of
16%. This component’s share varies from region to region mainly due to
the different gasoline formulations required in different parts of the
country.
Distribution, marketing, and retail dealer costs and profits in 2007
were 10% of the gasoline price, down from the 2000 to 2007 average of
12%. Most gasoline is shipped from the refinery first by pipeline to
terminals near consuming areas where it may be blended with other
products (such as ethanol) to meet local government and market
specifications, and is then delivered by tanker truck to individual
stations. Some retail outlets are owned and operated by refiners, while
others are independent businesses that purchase gasoline from refiners
and marketers for resale to the public. The price on the pump includes
the retailer’s cost to purchase the finished gasoline and the costs of
operating the service station. It also reflects local market conditions
and factors, such as the desirability of the location and the marketing
strategy of the owner.
> Out of a population of perhaps 5.8 billion people there are perhaps one
> million primitive tribals who do not play the game of earn and spend.
> All of the rest have to play the game of earn and spend.
>
> So when the oil cartel decides that a gallon of gasoline or diesel is
> five dollars instead of the thirty cents it costs it hurts everyone.
Really you are the most uneducated person I've come across in a long time.
How anyone can believe that crap, yikes!
Brembo
Thank you!
Brembo
>
> "Sam Buckland" <not...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:g3pf14$lec$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> RickyBobby wrote:
>>>
>>> There is an unlimited supply of oil just underneath the surface of
>>> the earth.
>>
>> Error number 1
>>
>>> It cost maybe a dollar per barrel to bring it to the wellhead.
>>
>> Error number 2
>>
>>> Then it cost another dollar to take it to the refinery
>>
>> Error number 3
>>
>>> which makes a profit off of it and perhaps a third dollar to take it
>>> to your local store.
>>
>> Error number 4
>>
>> And, of course, you haven't BEGUN to address the cost of actually
>> REFINING it... and storage... and taxes...
>>
>> So, basically, we're back to the fact that you're a fucking
>> idiot.
>
> I am not any sort of idiot.
Oh yes you are.
> The stuff comes up for free with less
> encouragement than rice or wheat or corn or beans.
Where?
That reef off the Louisiana coast that the moonbats think is refilling
itself?
> The only reason that
> something that is in the ground for all of us for free suddenly costs so
> much is because of opportunitsts who are degrading human life so that
> they can bank tens of billions of dollars over something that was always
> there for free.
Uh, it actually costs salaries, equipment, and energy to run a drill rig
fool.
What are you, 14 years old?
> Do you debate that oil is everywhere and already mapped or
> do you want to say that it costs 130 dollars per barrel to dig a hole?
It is NOT everywhere, and it costs significant dollars ins eismic
surveys and geologists to interpret them to find it, FOOL!
> If we could put WalMart in charge of this mess gasoline would be 75
> cents per gallon which is about what it is worth.
YOU ARE FUCKING INSANE AND A MORON!
Brembo
> RickyBobby wrote:
>>
>> "Sam Buckland" <not...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:g3pf14$lec$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> RickyBobby wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is an unlimited supply of oil just underneath the surface of
>>>> the earth.
>>>
>>> Error number 1
>>>
>>>> It cost maybe a dollar per barrel to bring it to the wellhead.
>>>
>>> Error number 2
>>>
>>>> Then it cost another dollar to take it to the refinery
>>>
>>> Error number 3
>>>
>>>> which makes a profit off of it and perhaps a third dollar to take it
>>>> to your local store.
>>>
>>> Error number 4
>>>
>>> And, of course, you haven't BEGUN to address the cost of actually
>>> REFINING it... and storage... and taxes...
>>>
>>> So, basically, we're back to the fact that you're a fucking
>>> idiot.
>>
>> I am not any sort of idiot.
>
> Son, you are a World Class Idiot.
Truly so.
>> The stuff comes up for free with less encouragement than rice or wheat
>> or corn or beans.
>
> See what I mean? All you can do is repeat the same old
> discredited bullshit over and over.
>
> You couldn't catch a clue if you covered yourself in "clue musk"
> and danced the "clue mating dance" in the middle of a bunch
> of "horny clues" during the height of "clue mating season".
>
> Every time you open your mouth, idiocy spews forth. You don't
> know ANYTHING about oil, economics, the world in general,
> and (most likely) NASCAR. I already know your taste in
> cars sucks.
>
> You're a waste of skin. Really. I can't make it any simpler
> for you.
Ditto.
Brembo
Just a look at the EIA data is all it takes, shitwit!
Brembo
How about the software industry, they make a 25% margin...
Brembo
Totally.
Sam Buckland
Not to change the subject, but, why is your ID "Brembo"?
It's what my (15 mpg) car runs on, and something the "RickyBobby"
probably never heard of, but it's a strange ID...
Brembo
> Brembo wrote:
>> Sam Buckland wrote:
>>> RickyBobby wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Sam Buckland" <not...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:g3plrv$f39$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>> RickyBobby wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can insult me with every clever insult you have ever picked up
>>>>>> from the wonders of the internet but you still have to explain how
>>>>>> some dumb substance that lies there for the taking for free should
>>>>>> suddenly hold us all hostage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Explaining it to you is a waste of time, you fucking idiot. Because,
>>>>> in spite of being told more than once, you still think it's "free".
>>>>>
>>>>> You're one ignorant asshole.
>>>>
>>>> And you are one apologists for the billion dollar per day profit
>>>> making oil industry.
>>>
>>> No, sonny, we've already established that I'm not. We've
>>> decided you're one ignorant asshole.
>>
>> Totally.
>
> Not to change the subject, but, why is your ID "Brembo"?
I brake for curves...
> It's what my (15 mpg) car runs on, and something the "RickyBobby"
> probably never heard of, but it's a strange ID...
Disky business...;-)
RickyBobby
I am not quite insane and I am not quite a moron either. It may cost
something to get those billions of barrels of crude oil out of the ground
but it does not cost anywhere near 134 USD. For 134 USD per barrel you
could turn the hole it was drilled from into the Sistene fucking Chapel.
Stop lying.
gatt
> RickyBobby wrote:
>> And you are one apologists for the billion dollar per day profit
>> making oil industry.
>
> How about the software industry, they make a 25% margin...
They're not subsidized like the oil industry is. Software companies go
tits up all the time.
-c
Felix D.
"gatt" <ga...@livefromtheclocktower2008.us> wrote in message
news:1vnrii....@integratelecom.com...
"Subsidized"? What you think tax breaks to encourage domestic drilling
(blocked off by Democrats anyway) means the government "subsidizes" the oil
industry?
Better go back to your nutty professor and tell him this line isn't working.
Don Homuth
wrote:
>
>"gatt" <ga...@livefromtheclocktower2008.us> wrote in message
>news:1vnrii....@integratelecom.com...
>> Brembo wrote:
>>> RickyBobby wrote:
>>
>>>> And you are one apologists for the billion dollar per day profit making
>>>> oil industry.
>>>
>>> How about the software industry, they make a 25% margin...
>>
>> They're not subsidized like the oil industry is. Software companies go
>> tits up all the time.
>
>"Subsidized"? What you think tax breaks to encourage domestic drilling
>(blocked off by Democrats anyway) means the government "subsidizes" the oil
>industry?
Because it Is subsidizing the awlbidniss. Tax breaks are a form of
subsidy.
Subsidizing a bidniss entity for doing what it would do regardless is
a silly idea. Is there Any chance that the awlbidniss would Not drill
domestically, if they thought there was a buck to be made? And if
there is Not a buck to be made, why should they be provided a profit
margin via subsidy?
All that a subsidy does is provide the awlbidniss with free money not
derived from its basic bidniss activity, and give consumers the fiscal
illusion that products cost less than they really do.
That may be a comforting illusion, but it's still an illusion withal.
This nation could stand to have fewer such fiscal illusions, so that
folks could make better economic choices than they may perceive.
>Better go back to your nutty professor and tell him this line isn't working.
My nutty professor actually Knows something about Economics, in
contradistinction what you demonstrate with this post.
SaPeIsMa
I'll stop your nonsense right there
Plese support your claim that
1) "There is an unlimited supply of oil just underneath the surface of
the earth"
Provide as much geological survey data as you may need
2) "It cost maybe a dollar per barrel to bring it to the wellhead"
Provide as much cost-analysis data as you may need
3) "Then, it cost another dollar to take it to the refinery"
Provide as much cost-analysis data as you may need
4) "and perhaps a third dollar to take it to your local store."
Provide as much cost-analysis data as you may need
Do also provide your costs at a per gallon rate if that helps
When you can support the above claim
We'll address the rest of your nonsense
SaPeIsMa
>
> "Sam Buckland" <not...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:g3pf14$lec$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> RickyBobby wrote:
>>>
>>> There is an unlimited supply of oil just underneath the surface of the
>>> earth.
>>
>> Error number 1
>>
>>> It cost maybe a dollar per barrel to bring it to the wellhead.
>>
>> Error number 2
>>
>>> Then it cost another dollar to take it to the refinery
>>
>> Error number 3
>>
>>> which makes a profit off of it and perhaps a third dollar to take it to
>>> your local store.
>>
>> Error number 4
>>
>> And, of course, you haven't BEGUN to address the cost of actually
>> REFINING it... and storage... and taxes...
>>
>> So, basically, we're back to the fact that you're a fucking
>> idiot.
>
> I am not any sort of idiot. The stuff comes up for free with less
> encouragement than rice or wheat or corn or beans.
Riiiiiiight
Just because you see it happen on The Beverley Hillbillies, does not make it
true in reality
> The only reason that something that is in the ground for all of us for
> free suddenly costs so much is because of opportunitsts who are degrading
> human life so that they can bank tens of billions of dollars over
> something that was always there for free.
>
> Do you debate that oil is everywhere and already mapped or
> do you want to say that it costs 130 dollars per barrel to dig a hole?
>
I just had a well dug at my cabin for water
We went down 200 feet and it cost $12,000
That's just the cost of going down 200 feet
Digging wells for oil is a LOT MORE COMPLEX and EXPENSIVE, bub
> If we could put WalMart in charge of this mess gasoline would be 75 cents
> per gallon which is about what it is worth.
>
You have NO CLUE.
SaPeIsMa
Actually Microsoft makes a 30+% margin
SaPeIsMa
It costs $134 a barrel because people are willing to pay that much for it in
other countries so that they get the oil before someone else does
It's called a FREE MARKET, moonshine.
Long Ranger
"Felix D." <#1Che...@OGPU.org> wrote in message
news:2dOdnb3QJZRcufzV...@comcast.com...
>
> "gatt" <ga...@livefromtheclocktower2008.us> wrote in message
> news:1vnrii....@integratelecom.com...
>> Brembo wrote:
>>> RickyBobby wrote:
>>
>>>> And you are one apologists for the billion dollar per day profit making
>>>> oil industry.
>>>
>>> How about the software industry, they make a 25% margin...
>>
>> They're not subsidized like the oil industry is. Software companies go
>> tits up all the time.
>
Oh yeah, they are definitely subsidized. Taxes on fuel give more to
government from locals on up to the federal level. In other words, your
government makes more off oil than oil companies do. You are an ill-informed
dumb-fuck.
By the way, most real economists credit the Federal Government (under little
Billy Clinton) meddling with Microsoft and the threat of anti-trust suits
from those actions to be the beginning of the end of the "Dot-com Boom", as
long as you are spouting off about software companies going "tits-up'.
Oh, and that "billion dollar per day" profit! The most basic tenent of
business is supply and demand. The domestic supply tap was turned off by
liberals starting in the 70s. Is it any wonder that prices are high? And
guess what? One of the main reasons for phasing out domestic oil was the
fear that production of oil would cause huge environmental impacts. So I
guess it's fine if the Saudis make a mess of their landscape huh? Just don't
do it in my back yard!! But wait, it gets better! The technology used here
in the United States, along with the environmental safeguards required, are
the best in the world for keeping things clean. I guess it's a good thing
that no yuppie babies will be affected. Just some dirt-bag Arab tribesmen or
someone expendable like that?
Anti-oil whiners are such dip-shits!!
Felix D.
"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message
news:hm92641mad6ts6men...@4ax.com...
> Because it Is subsidizing the awlbidniss. Tax breaks are a form of
> subsidy.
Donny boy, it ain't a tax break if you're not allowed to do what it takes to
trigger the break.
I'll bet you're one of those HUATs who thinks we should "nationalize" the
oil companies?
Long Ranger
"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message
news:hm92641mad6ts6men...@4ax.com...
I hope he knows more than you. You have been too long supping at the
Kool-Aid trough.
Don Homuth
wrote:
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message
>news:hm92641mad6ts6men...@4ax.com...
>
>> Because it Is subsidizing the awlbidniss. Tax breaks are a form of
>> subsidy.
>
>Donny boy, it ain't a tax break if you're not allowed to do what it takes to
>trigger the break.
They are allowed to drill domestically. Just not everywhere.
If they are freed up to drill elsewhere, they don't require a tax
break to do that. It'd be just as though they were doing it anywhere
in CONUS.
>I'll bet you're one of those HUATs who thinks we should "nationalize" the
>oil companies?
You'd lose.
Is Ken Darian
You are both, go away and abuse yourself in private.
> It may cost
> something to get those billions of barrels of crude oil out of the
> ground
Really?
Something more than the $1.00 you initially declared?
Do tell!
> but it does not cost anywhere near 134 USD. For 134 USD per
> barrel you could turn the hole it was drilled from into the Sistene
> fucking Chapel.
>
> Stop lying.
You need to be hit HARD with some reality:
http://industry.bnet.com/energy/2008/05/08/cost-of-offshore-drilling-rising-as-fast-as-oil-prices/
A supply shortage for classes of offshore rigs capable of drilling in up
to 10,000 feet of water means that the daily rate that operators pay to
rent a high-end, deep-water drilling rig is now $500,000 to $550,000.
That’s up from a day rate of $450,000 to $500,000 a year ago-and more
than double the price per day on the spot market just three years ago,
according to ODS-Petrodata Consulting & Research.
Expect $600,000 day rates to become more common. Last month, Brazilian
Petrobras awarded Norway’s SeaDrill with contracts for three deepwater
rigs worth up to $4.1 billion, with day rates in excess of $600,000.
Now get the fuck out of here and go see a shrink, you moron.
Is Ken Darian
> Brembo wrote:
>> RickyBobby wrote:
>
>>> And you are one apologists for the billion dollar per day profit
>>> making oil industry.
>>
>> How about the software industry, they make a 25% margin...
>
> They're not subsidized like the oil industry is.
Sure they are - the entire internet was subsidized and its presence thus
enabled many software vendors a huge market to work on, get real.
> Software companies go
> tits up all the time.
So did a lot of wildcat oil companies, even a few larger players like
Harken..