Democrats intent on destroying middle class with $11 gas

[Arraya]

That’s right! Oil is finite. When it gets too short in supply, then price signals begin to start flashing! DUH!! For a bunch of capitalism-loving, brown people hating, business is always right, Escalade conservatives, you sure don’t seem to understand much about bidness.

Now that reality has set in, you people start crying about poor people not being hurt, while the righteous middle-class conservatives who opted for this silly, but doomed, high energy lifestyle of land yachts, hundred mile commutes, and bloated value McMortgages, are left holding the clown bag full of trinkets and worthless Chinese manufactured crap and are now whining that the corporations aren’t getting enough corporate welfare.

I have news. Physics don’t care about your votes, your concerns, your whiny-butt, conservative entitlements, your hypocrisy. It is an inexorable reality. And one day you will realize that Darth Cheney’s specious comment that the American lifestyle is non-negotiable was so much utter BS. Here is the news–You have a new negotiating partner. Its name is “REALITY.” Get used to it.

[cooperthedog]

jficquette:

I should know better than to argue with a fool, but here it goes…

You:
If we had a free energy market oil would be $30 a barrel. A free market means that companies are free to develop resources to meet demand.

Our energy market is not free because the Socialists Democrats in Congress will not allow companies to go out and develop new supplies.

Why will they not do this?? Because the environmentalists contribute to their campaigns and they couldn’t get elected without the money.

Your argument is flawed on many levels.

1) Oil is a global commodity.

2) The US (ANWR & offshore) does not contain enough oil to make any meaningful difference to the price of crude in the global markets. Though it does contain enough to profoundly enrich the integrated oil companies that get access to it… (e.g. Exxon/Chevron/etc. refineries “pay” $5-10 a barrel to extract oil from their own fields, but there isn’t nearly enough oil to meet US gasoline consumption, so they have to pay $140 a barrel on the open (free) market to meet demand. If these companies can replace a fraction of that imported oil with cheap domestic crude (selling the refined product for roughly the same price, since there isn’t enough to make a significant dent in US demand) they will make a killing on those margins).

3) As to free markets, these new supplies are on government land, which last time I checked, was owned by “we the people”, therefore if the majority of the citizenry (via their representatives) doesn’t want drilling, then it is not a free market issue, nor is it socialism.

4) If you think that environmentalists contribute more to campaigns than the oil/energy industry, then you are a fool.

Since you claim to support your arguments with facts, I challenge you to obtain the following, with source:

1) The amount of campaign contributions by oil/energy companies vs. environmentalists.

2) The median estimate of reserves in ANWR and coastal pockets as a percentage of daily world demand (~85 million barrels) and US demand. IE, how many months of oil reserves are there?

3) Which Socialist Democrat presidential candidate said the following, published in the conservative “National Review” (hint: it wasn’t Obama):

“As far as ANWR is concerned, I don’t want to drill in the Grand Canyon, and I don’t want to drill in the Everglades. This is one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world.”
John McCain – 1/16/08

[cooperthedog]

jficquette:

I should know better than to argue with a fool, but here it goes…

You:
If we had a free energy market oil would be $30 a barrel. A free market means that companies are free to develop resources to meet demand.

Our energy market is not free because the Socialists Democrats in Congress will not allow companies to go out and develop new supplies.

Why will they not do this?? Because the environmentalists contribute to their campaigns and they couldn’t get elected without the money.

Your argument is flawed on many levels.

1) Oil is a global commodity.

2) The US (ANWR & offshore) does not contain enough oil to make any meaningful difference to the price of crude in the global markets. Though it does contain enough to profoundly enrich the integrated oil companies that get access to it… (e.g. Exxon/Chevron/etc. refineries “pay” $5-10 a barrel to extract oil from their own fields, but there isn’t nearly enough oil to meet US gasoline consumption, so they have to pay $140 a barrel on the open (free) market to meet demand. If these companies can replace a fraction of that imported oil with cheap domestic crude (selling the refined product for roughly the same price, since there isn’t enough to make a significant dent in US demand) they will make a killing on those margins).

3) As to free markets, these new supplies are on government land, which last time I checked, was owned by “we the people”, therefore if the majority of the citizenry (via their representatives) doesn’t want drilling, then it is not a free market issue, nor is it socialism.

4) If you think that environmentalists contribute more to campaigns than the oil/energy industry, then you are a fool.

Since you claim to support your arguments with facts, I challenge you to obtain the following, with source:

1) The amount of campaign contributions by oil/energy companies vs. environmentalists.

2) The median estimate of reserves in ANWR and coastal pockets as a percentage of daily world demand (~85 million barrels) and US demand. IE, how many months of oil reserves are there?

3) Which Socialist Democrat presidential candidate said the following, published in the conservative “National Review” (hint: it wasn’t Obama):

“As far as ANWR is concerned, I don’t want to drill in the Grand Canyon, and I don’t want to drill in the Everglades. This is one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world.”
John McCain – 1/16/08

[cooperthedog]

jficquette:

I should know better than to argue with a fool, but here it goes…

You:
If we had a free energy market oil would be $30 a barrel. A free market means that companies are free to develop resources to meet demand.

Our energy market is not free because the Socialists Democrats in Congress will not allow companies to go out and develop new supplies.

Why will they not do this?? Because the environmentalists contribute to their campaigns and they couldn’t get elected without the money.

Your argument is flawed on many levels.

1) Oil is a global commodity.

2) The US (ANWR & offshore) does not contain enough oil to make any meaningful difference to the price of crude in the global markets. Though it does contain enough to profoundly enrich the integrated oil companies that get access to it… (e.g. Exxon/Chevron/etc. refineries “pay” $5-10 a barrel to extract oil from their own fields, but there isn’t nearly enough oil to meet US gasoline consumption, so they have to pay $140 a barrel on the open (free) market to meet demand. If these companies can replace a fraction of that imported oil with cheap domestic crude (selling the refined product for roughly the same price, since there isn’t enough to make a significant dent in US demand) they will make a killing on those margins).

3) As to free markets, these new supplies are on government land, which last time I checked, was owned by “we the people”, therefore if the majority of the citizenry (via their representatives) doesn’t want drilling, then it is not a free market issue, nor is it socialism.

4) If you think that environmentalists contribute more to campaigns than the oil/energy industry, then you are a fool.

Since you claim to support your arguments with facts, I challenge you to obtain the following, with source:

1) The amount of campaign contributions by oil/energy companies vs. environmentalists.

2) The median estimate of reserves in ANWR and coastal pockets as a percentage of daily world demand (~85 million barrels) and US demand. IE, how many months of oil reserves are there?

3) Which Socialist Democrat presidential candidate said the following, published in the conservative “National Review” (hint: it wasn’t Obama):

“As far as ANWR is concerned, I don’t want to drill in the Grand Canyon, and I don’t want to drill in the Everglades. This is one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world.”
John McCain – 1/16/08

[cooperthedog]

jficquette:

I should know better than to argue with a fool, but here it goes…

You:
If we had a free energy market oil would be $30 a barrel. A free market means that companies are free to develop resources to meet demand.

Our energy market is not free because the Socialists Democrats in Congress will not allow companies to go out and develop new supplies.

Why will they not do this?? Because the environmentalists contribute to their campaigns and they couldn’t get elected without the money.

Your argument is flawed on many levels.

1) Oil is a global commodity.

2) The US (ANWR & offshore) does not contain enough oil to make any meaningful difference to the price of crude in the global markets. Though it does contain enough to profoundly enrich the integrated oil companies that get access to it… (e.g. Exxon/Chevron/etc. refineries “pay” $5-10 a barrel to extract oil from their own fields, but there isn’t nearly enough oil to meet US gasoline consumption, so they have to pay $140 a barrel on the open (free) market to meet demand. If these companies can replace a fraction of that imported oil with cheap domestic crude (selling the refined product for roughly the same price, since there isn’t enough to make a significant dent in US demand) they will make a killing on those margins).

3) As to free markets, these new supplies are on government land, which last time I checked, was owned by “we the people”, therefore if the majority of the citizenry (via their representatives) doesn’t want drilling, then it is not a free market issue, nor is it socialism.

4) If you think that environmentalists contribute more to campaigns than the oil/energy industry, then you are a fool.

Since you claim to support your arguments with facts, I challenge you to obtain the following, with source:

1) The amount of campaign contributions by oil/energy companies vs. environmentalists.

2) The median estimate of reserves in ANWR and coastal pockets as a percentage of daily world demand (~85 million barrels) and US demand. IE, how many months of oil reserves are there?

3) Which Socialist Democrat presidential candidate said the following, published in the conservative “National Review” (hint: it wasn’t Obama):

“As far as ANWR is concerned, I don’t want to drill in the Grand Canyon, and I don’t want to drill in the Everglades. This is one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world.”
John McCain – 1/16/08

[cooperthedog]

jficquette:

I should know better than to argue with a fool, but here it goes…

You:
If we had a free energy market oil would be $30 a barrel. A free market means that companies are free to develop resources to meet demand.

Our energy market is not free because the Socialists Democrats in Congress will not allow companies to go out and develop new supplies.

Why will they not do this?? Because the environmentalists contribute to their campaigns and they couldn’t get elected without the money.

Your argument is flawed on many levels.

1) Oil is a global commodity.

2) The US (ANWR & offshore) does not contain enough oil to make any meaningful difference to the price of crude in the global markets. Though it does contain enough to profoundly enrich the integrated oil companies that get access to it… (e.g. Exxon/Chevron/etc. refineries “pay” $5-10 a barrel to extract oil from their own fields, but there isn’t nearly enough oil to meet US gasoline consumption, so they have to pay $140 a barrel on the open (free) market to meet demand. If these companies can replace a fraction of that imported oil with cheap domestic crude (selling the refined product for roughly the same price, since there isn’t enough to make a significant dent in US demand) they will make a killing on those margins).

3) As to free markets, these new supplies are on government land, which last time I checked, was owned by “we the people”, therefore if the majority of the citizenry (via their representatives) doesn’t want drilling, then it is not a free market issue, nor is it socialism.

4) If you think that environmentalists contribute more to campaigns than the oil/energy industry, then you are a fool.

Since you claim to support your arguments with facts, I challenge you to obtain the following, with source:

1) The amount of campaign contributions by oil/energy companies vs. environmentalists.

2) The median estimate of reserves in ANWR and coastal pockets as a percentage of daily world demand (~85 million barrels) and US demand. IE, how many months of oil reserves are there?

3) Which Socialist Democrat presidential candidate said the following, published in the conservative “National Review” (hint: it wasn’t Obama):

“As far as ANWR is concerned, I don’t want to drill in the Grand Canyon, and I don’t want to drill in the Everglades. This is one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world.”
John McCain – 1/16/08

[jficquette]

Cooperthedog,

You post is not worth responding to other then to suggest that you go look up any information you are interested in yourself.

John

[jficquette]

Cooperthedog,

You post is not worth responding to other then to suggest that you go look up any information you are interested in yourself.

John

[jficquette]

Cooperthedog,

You post is not worth responding to other then to suggest that you go look up any information you are interested in yourself.

John

[jficquette]

Cooperthedog,

You post is not worth responding to other then to suggest that you go look up any information you are interested in yourself.

John

[jficquette]

Cooperthedog,

You post is not worth responding to other then to suggest that you go look up any information you are interested in yourself.

John

[Portlock]

In combinatorial game theory, a game is partisan or partizan if it is not impartial. That is, some moves are available to one player and not to the other.

Most games are partisan; for example in chess, only one player can move the white pieces.

Partisan games are more difficult to analyze than impartial games, as the Sprague-Grundy theorem does not apply. However, the application of combinatorial game theory to partisan games allows the significance of numbers as games to be seen, in a way that is not possible with impartial games.

[Portlock]

In combinatorial game theory, a game is partisan or partizan if it is not impartial. That is, some moves are available to one player and not to the other.

Most games are partisan; for example in chess, only one player can move the white pieces.

Partisan games are more difficult to analyze than impartial games, as the Sprague-Grundy theorem does not apply. However, the application of combinatorial game theory to partisan games allows the significance of numbers as games to be seen, in a way that is not possible with impartial games.

[Portlock]

In combinatorial game theory, a game is partisan or partizan if it is not impartial. That is, some moves are available to one player and not to the other.

Most games are partisan; for example in chess, only one player can move the white pieces.

Partisan games are more difficult to analyze than impartial games, as the Sprague-Grundy theorem does not apply. However, the application of combinatorial game theory to partisan games allows the significance of numbers as games to be seen, in a way that is not possible with impartial games.

[Portlock]

In combinatorial game theory, a game is partisan or partizan if it is not impartial. That is, some moves are available to one player and not to the other.

Most games are partisan; for example in chess, only one player can move the white pieces.

Partisan games are more difficult to analyze than impartial games, as the Sprague-Grundy theorem does not apply. However, the application of combinatorial game theory to partisan games allows the significance of numbers as games to be seen, in a way that is not possible with impartial games.

[Author]

Posts