[cooperthedog]

Its ironic and not a little hypocritical to chastise those that wish for higher oil/gas prices to bring about needed change.

Most on this board cheered the housing crash which has caused alot of misery and pain for those directly affected by it and indirectly via a weaker economy. In addition, many who wished for a rapid decline in housing, to purge the system, did so in self-interest, allowing them to eventually buy an affordable house, regardless of the overall impact to the economy & society.

I do not see much difference between housing bears and those that wish to see oil increase, or the stock market fall.

As for oil, in my opinion, I would like to see a massive, albeit temporary spike in prices. Even at these levels (140+), our leaders aren’t taking action (congress just let the alt. energy subsidies expire, & many politicians want to drill to solve the problem). We need a true wakeup call to force some change now, before its too late. A little pain now will be better than a true collapse later.

[cooperthedog]

Its ironic and not a little hypocritical to chastise those that wish for higher oil/gas prices to bring about needed change.

Most on this board cheered the housing crash which has caused alot of misery and pain for those directly affected by it and indirectly via a weaker economy. In addition, many who wished for a rapid decline in housing, to purge the system, did so in self-interest, allowing them to eventually buy an affordable house, regardless of the overall impact to the economy & society.

I do not see much difference between housing bears and those that wish to see oil increase, or the stock market fall.

As for oil, in my opinion, I would like to see a massive, albeit temporary spike in prices. Even at these levels (140+), our leaders aren’t taking action (congress just let the alt. energy subsidies expire, & many politicians want to drill to solve the problem). We need a true wakeup call to force some change now, before its too late. A little pain now will be better than a true collapse later.

[cooperthedog]

Its ironic and not a little hypocritical to chastise those that wish for higher oil/gas prices to bring about needed change.

Most on this board cheered the housing crash which has caused alot of misery and pain for those directly affected by it and indirectly via a weaker economy. In addition, many who wished for a rapid decline in housing, to purge the system, did so in self-interest, allowing them to eventually buy an affordable house, regardless of the overall impact to the economy & society.

I do not see much difference between housing bears and those that wish to see oil increase, or the stock market fall.

As for oil, in my opinion, I would like to see a massive, albeit temporary spike in prices. Even at these levels (140+), our leaders aren’t taking action (congress just let the alt. energy subsidies expire, & many politicians want to drill to solve the problem). We need a true wakeup call to force some change now, before its too late. A little pain now will be better than a true collapse later.

[cooperthedog]

Its ironic and not a little hypocritical to chastise those that wish for higher oil/gas prices to bring about needed change.

Most on this board cheered the housing crash which has caused alot of misery and pain for those directly affected by it and indirectly via a weaker economy. In addition, many who wished for a rapid decline in housing, to purge the system, did so in self-interest, allowing them to eventually buy an affordable house, regardless of the overall impact to the economy & society.

I do not see much difference between housing bears and those that wish to see oil increase, or the stock market fall.

As for oil, in my opinion, I would like to see a massive, albeit temporary spike in prices. Even at these levels (140+), our leaders aren’t taking action (congress just let the alt. energy subsidies expire, & many politicians want to drill to solve the problem). We need a true wakeup call to force some change now, before its too late. A little pain now will be better than a true collapse later.

[cooperthedog]

Its ironic and not a little hypocritical to chastise those that wish for higher oil/gas prices to bring about needed change.

Most on this board cheered the housing crash which has caused alot of misery and pain for those directly affected by it and indirectly via a weaker economy. In addition, many who wished for a rapid decline in housing, to purge the system, did so in self-interest, allowing them to eventually buy an affordable house, regardless of the overall impact to the economy & society.

I do not see much difference between housing bears and those that wish to see oil increase, or the stock market fall.

As for oil, in my opinion, I would like to see a massive, albeit temporary spike in prices. Even at these levels (140+), our leaders aren’t taking action (congress just let the alt. energy subsidies expire, & many politicians want to drill to solve the problem). We need a true wakeup call to force some change now, before its too late. A little pain now will be better than a true collapse later.

[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

[cooperthedog]

I don’t agree with banning jficquette. Anyone of any intelligence, regardless of their political leaning, will recognize this sophistry. Just ignore him.

[cooperthedog]

I don’t agree with banning jficquette. Anyone of any intelligence, regardless of their political leaning, will recognize this sophistry. Just ignore him.

[cooperthedog]

I don’t agree with banning jficquette. Anyone of any intelligence, regardless of their political leaning, will recognize this sophistry. Just ignore him.

[cooperthedog]

I don’t agree with banning jficquette. Anyone of any intelligence, regardless of their political leaning, will recognize this sophistry. Just ignore him.

[cooperthedog]

I don’t agree with banning jficquette. Anyone of any intelligence, regardless of their political leaning, will recognize this sophistry. Just ignore him.

[Author]

Posts