Not So Young But Angry Conservatives Unite

Getting sick of the progressively worse slant and obvious bias of the media? Got booted out of other sites for offending too many liberals? Make this your home. If you SPAM here, you're gone. Trolling? Gone. Insult other posters I agree with. Gone. Get the pic. Private sanctum, private rules. No Fairness Doctrine and PC wussiness tolerated here..... ECCLESIASTES 10:2- The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of a fool to the left.

Friday, October 07, 2005

Energy Bill almost blocked, and we have high gas prices...WTF is this?



Refinery Bill Passes Amid Partisan Split
Friday, October 07, 2005

WASHINGTON — The House narrowly approved a Republican-crafted energy bill Friday aimed at encouraging construction of new refineries, although opponents said it would do nothing to ease energy prices while handing unneeded benefits to a profit-rich oil industry.
Supporters of the measure said that hurricanes Katrina and Rita made clear that the country needs more refineries, including new ones outside of the Gulf region. Critics argued it would allow the oil industry to avoid environmental regulations that would lead to dirtier air.

OK, this may be a stupid question, but since we have high gas prices, why in the HELL aren't we more onboard to make refineries to drop the prices? When I last checked, oil was at near $60 a barrel, yet the pump price is not budging. The oil companies so, we don't have enough refineries.... Well, you profiteers, build some more! Put those record profit margins to productive use. Oh wait, the government has to allow them to be built. While this bill narrowly passed, it's disturbing how narrow it was. Oddly enough, almost along partisan lines. Although, there were some RINOs and so-called independents thinking about the caribou or some other animals in the gulf. Screw the caribou, and f-ck the gulf, our money and our livelihood is in dire straits. Build them refineries....

The bill passed 212-210. Its prospects in the Senate were uncertain.
The vote, which was supposed to be taken in five minutes, lasted more than 40 minutes as GOP leaders searched for the last two votes they needed to get the bill approved. They buttonholed lawmakers for last-minute lobbying as Democrats complained loudly that the vote should be closed. Finally two GOP lawmakers switched from "no" to "yes," giving the bill's supporters the margin of victory.
During the fight, some Democrats who had supported the legislation also switched their votes to "no." In the end, no Democrats voted for the legislation.

Leave it to the Demonrats to try and screw us over. I guess they think we need to be MORE like Europe, seeing how they have bicycles and compact cars galore... Oh wait, Europe isn't sitting over much oil. We are. And nice to see the Democrats waffle on their support. 'We voted for the energy bill, before we voted against it, huh huh huh huh....' Typical Kerry type flip flopping....

Rep. Joe Barton (search), R-Texas, said the bill streamlines the maze of permitting requirements for expanding or building refineries and directs the president to single out federal land where a refinery may be built. The changes could lead to construction of a new U.S. refinery within a year, he predicted.

Last refineries were built as the EPA was growing. In 30 years, we can build refineries that are safer and more eco-friendly. But, wait, the EPA says we must all use bicycles and not eat meat. Screw em....

But opponents said the legislation fails to address the rising cost of natural gas -- which will cause heating costs to soar this winter -- or deal with high prices motorists are paying at the pump. Instead, they argued, it will allow the oil industry to avoid environmental rules and force states and communities to accept refineries they don't want.

Violin playing for the Democrats latest shpeel....

"Using Hurricane Katrina as their excuses the Republicans are again pushing their special interest agenda," said Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, including "all the special favors to the industry that were too extreme" for Congress last summer when it passed energy legislation.

And look who speaks out against so-called Special Interests.... This is the moron who said Iraq was about oil. Well, Nancy, how come our gas prices aren't going down, since we "plundered" Iraq? Do you have a viable solution? No? Well, take a nice cup of Shut the F-ck Up then.....

But Barton said the need for more refineries was made obvious by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The hurricanes shut down a dozen refineries and disrupted a fifth of the country's gasoline supply.
The GOP legislation would give the federal government greater say in locating a refinery, at times, critics said, over community or state objections. It directs the president to select a number of closed military bases and other federal land available for refineries.
The bill also would limit to six the different blends of gasoline and diesel fuel that refiners would be required to produce, reversing a trend of using so-called "boutique" fuels to satisfy clean air demands. State officials complained the provision could limit states' ability to implement federal clean air requirements.

More wrangling and whining as impending inflation and fuel prices go up. Thank you EPA. You will be responsible for economic collapse....

"The bill weakens state and federal environmental standards ... and gives a break to wealthy oil companies while doing little or nothing to affect oil prices," complained Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., one of 13 Republicans who voted against the measure.
With prices soaring, "oil companies now have all the profits and incentives they need to build new refineries" without government help, he maintained.

A New York RINO votes against lower gas prices, what a shock! And of course, he drank the Oil is Bad Kool Aid. That oil is bad thing, wasn't so loud when your party and Democrats were taking kickbacks from Standard Oil and overseas bribes from BP and Shell b/f. WWII. Hypocrites....

Barton countered that the legislation would give industry more "certainty" that a refinery project will not be delayed "without lessening any environmental law now on the books. ... The bill sets in motion a chain of events for lowering gas prices for Americans."
Attempts to add requirements that automakers increase vehicle fuel economy and a measure aimed at producing more natural gas were thwarted by GOP leaders who strictly limited the ability of lawmakers to amend the bill.
"Natural gas is an issue this (Congress) needs to deal with," said Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., who was prevented under House rules for the bill from offering a proposal that would have opened offshore natural gas resources to drilling.

Uh-huh, gotcha...

Among the groups trying to kill the bill were the National League of Cities (search), nine state attorneys general, most environmental organizations and groups representing state officials in charge of implementing federal clean air requirements. They said the bill would hinder their ability to ensure clean and healthy air.

Awww, they're worried about the poor wittle animals, and the air. Well, worry more when we don't have money to spend on crap we need, yet the world is pristine and everyone is poor...


  • At 3:49 PM, Blogger Ranando said…

    I've got a great idea.

    You might already know that Willie Nelson's buses run on veg. oil. He also has a Benz that runs on veg. oil and his wife has a VW that runs on soy beans.

    Why don't we have our farmers grow our fuel.

    - No polution.
    - No Saudies.
    - Puts farmers to work.
    - Cars and trucks run as well on veg. oil as they do gas.
    - People who get fired from the big oil companies, can go to work for a whole new industry.
    - Everybody wins except Bush and Cheney, they lose money.

    Just an idea........

  • At 6:19 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    I won't post this on the last thread that we had a discussion about the MSM, about the importance of the "information" being spread by the MSM, in regards to the "public perception" of how the "war in Iraq" is going.
    Yes, I saw you gave me a lecture on "Logic".
    I DO use logic in my discussions, quite frequently. Never having STUDIED logic though (and having had time to amly recover from my time spent in Liberal bastions of "Higher Education"), I could not tell you about the 4 Bastions of logic, or whatever they were that you mentioned.
    However, having said that, even you will (and have acknowledged) the logicality of my arguments.
    For "logic", maybe you should put "common sense" in it's place. Common sense is, generally very logical.
    My point about the whole MSM thing, succinctly stated by David Warren, is that, in the ME, they do not have to actually be winnning a certain event, in order for the perception of winning to be prevalent amongst the general populace, witness the amount of deatgs in the Palestinian vs Israeli conflict, the Palestinian public feels they WON the "freedom" of Gaza, by their suicide bombing terrorists, which viewpoint was aided by the Liberal MSM, not only here, in the US, but worldwide.
    On the other hand, a lot of the American public feels we are "losing" the Iraq War, due to the constant barrage of negativity forced upon them by the MSM. Never do you see positive articles coming out of Iraq.
    You have postulated that this is nothing new, that the MSM is in the business of driving up their ratings by a constant barrage of "the spectacular". I would offer no argument to the contrary on that particular argument.
    However, there comes a time, in which it is neither expedient, nor proper to continue focusing solely on the negative. Such a time is presently upon us. In WW1 & WW2, did the press solely focus on the mistakes being made in those wars? Did they demand to be able to show photos of the American soldiers bodies? Did they solely focus on the deaths?
    Or, were the reports coming out of the more positive variety, thereby instilling confidence in the people back home of the actual victories being won? Only in the "Vietnam conflict" were the press focused on the negative, and we ALL see how that came out. Yes, you may postulate that the US withdrawal saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, a valid point, given the circumstances that they were fighting under. However, it ALSO COST Millions of ASIAN lives, not only in Vietnam, but in many other Asian countries when the Americans withdrew, the communists moved in and slaughtered, not only those who had fought against them, but, especially in S, Vietnam, they slaughtered the Viet Cong forces who were fighting WITH them!
    Ok, my rant there is over, the purpose of my post tonight is yet another example of the damage done by the constant negativity of the MSM, and the advantages gained by Opposing forces, by their continued focus on the negativity.
    The Asians, and their masters, the communist regimes, noticed this negativity and bet everything they had on the willingness of the American public to continue fighting a war in which the American armed forces were sustaining losses. (Also, at this time, the USSR had started financing and backing subversive groups in the US... the "so called" peace movement... this is irrefutable evidence and has been admitted by MANY in the former Soviet KGB, including many LEADERS of the former Soviet KGB)
    Interestingly, the same "peace" movement of this day and time has many of the same people populating the Upper echelon.
    However, I did not mean to go off into all that history tonight, merely to posit another person, this time, one who has actually been there, in the trenches, a *gasp* reporter who has been embedded with US forces in Mosul.
    A person who has seen the fighting, a person who has seen the Iraqi people there going from actively aiding the American forces, to ignoring them, for fear of retaliation from the "insurgents" (I hate that word, these people aren't FREEDOM fighters, they are people who want CONTROL and POWER for themselves! These are people who do not CARE who they KILL, as long as THEY win!) and back again, to actively aiding the US forces anf the Iraqi Police and Army units posted there, people who have come to learn tho HATE the "insurgents", mainly due to their tactics of killing CHILDREN ( They can see, the Americans do NOT do this, they SEE the Americans BUILDING things, the Americans giving up their lives for them, the Americans Leadres of the troops actually out Fighting WITH their troops, not sending their soldiers out to be suicide bombers while hiding in the background, refusing to take that "glorious road into Paradise" WITH them)
    Anyway, once again, I got sidetracked, the post I wanted to make tonight was this, from Michael Yon "The insurgents and criminals brushed aside the entire Mosul police force with what amounted to a loud bark and a stiff backhand. When they attacked two stations, 4-West and 6-West, killing about half a dozen officers in each, the police on duty frantically radioed that hundreds insurgents were storming the stations.

    When the Americans arrived within the hour, they estimated the attacking force consisted of only twenty to thirty enemy fighters at each station. It was not a long or particularly hard battle to recover the stations, but what made the news lead that day was the Mosul police abandoning their stations.

    To an enemy in need of assets, a press that is increasingly disengaged is like an empty car with keys in the ignition--begging to be stolen. How the keys came to be left in the car, and how the inevitable theft managed to go unreported are questions for a different dispatch. To really understand the dynamics of the Battle for Mosul, it suffices to say the enemy started with a media advantage that they continue to exploit even now.

    Insurgent leaders must have spent hours watching western television, particularly news broadcasts. They planned attacks that would create dramatic footage for the nightly news, and in many cases, they provided the camera crew and made the footage available for streaming and downloads on the internet. In light of their other recent media victories, the enemy felt ready to take on the Americans in Mosul"

  • At 6:33 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    You may notice, I simpy ignore most of ranny boys posts, in most instances, I feel this is best as I refuse to be drawn into a discussion with a half-wit. However, every great once in a while, even a half-wit has a moment of clarity... except for his last line.
    I DO agree we need to SERIOUSLY explore the alternative fuels option. But, I also understand that even the OIL companies themselves are, at this time exploring the alternatives, not to Buy them out, as they have done so many times in the past, but they realize that Fossil fuel will not always and forever be the fuel of choice.
    The executives of these companies REALIZE that one day, possibly soon there will be an alternative, maybe due to oil running out, or becoming too prohibitively costly for people to buy (after all, there comes a point in time when people will say NO MORE, we NEED to EAT, we do NOT need OIL!)they owe it, not only to themselves and their continued employment in a huge conglomerate, but they also OWE it to their investors!
    ranny boy veg oil is all fine, and well and good... for now. Having our farmers grow our fuel works, as a temporary solution, but, what happens when a drought comes and destroys the land, ala the great dustbowl in the 20's, in "Flyover" America, as the Celebs would have you believe that the rest of the country between NY and LA is not worthy of their lowliest thoughts? Would you have people choose between fuel or eating then?
    Or would you rather look for a more long term solution, say... fuel cells, run on hydrogen... there's LOTS of hydrogen, in the air, in the oceans, in the plants surrounding us, and it is totally renewable, the atoms making it will never be destroyed, not even by conversion to energy, there will ALWAYS be positively and negatively charged Ions, which will cling together to form atoms.
    Just a thought, if it were up to me, which, I know, it isn't, I would go that way. However, my investment dollars will be in companies actively exploring this option!

  • At 7:00 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Re-reading my posts brings to mind another of Kevin's "arguments" that the use of the Atom Bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was "evil".
    Kevin... being a liberal espouser, one would think that YOU would be FOR something that saved American lives. You have stated that you were FOR US withdrawal in Vietnam, in regards to the effect that it saved US lives.
    You can not have it both ways, your concern for American lives is duly noted, however, your concern for Asian lives is also duly noted. Given the circumstances of the time, you had the choice, save Hundreds of THOUSANDS of American lives, which would have been he cost of an Invasion of Japan, or kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens, by dropping the bomb.
    Now when you look at it, you must ALSO realize that hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives would have been lost anyway, in an invasion, as the Japanese were taught that everyone would be killed in an American invasion, that Americans were EVIL, that they raped and killed everyone in their path, no matter how false that was, that is what they believed, so they would have fought, every man, woman and child, to their death.
    So.. YOU are the US President... YOU are given a choice, based on circumstances, at the time, knowing what you KNOW, what do you do???
    Don't wimp out, Millions of lives, on BOTH sides are dependent on your decision!

  • At 7:07 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    of course, I can't expect an answer to everything Ive thrown at Kevin, I'm betting on a half answer, as usual, to one little point in one of my posts.
    As much as I have enjoyed the discussions, I know it is impossible to expect an answer to every single point, in every single post.
    The only question is which point will he deem as the Weak point in my argument and choose to pick on??? Hmmmmm....

  • At 7:08 PM, Blogger Ranando said…


    Makes sense to me and I agree with you. I just wanted to point out that there are other ways.

  • At 7:13 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Forgive me, lest I be accused of plaigirism, I meant to pst the site which my quotes came from.
    They can be found Here...

  • At 7:19 PM, Blogger Ranando said…

    Via Think Progress:

    Right-Wing House Twists Arms, Thwarts Democracy To Pass Oil Industy Windfall
    Emotions erupted on the floor of the House of Representatives this afternoon as the right-wing-led Congress held open yet another vote to twist arms and pass a bill that would line the pockets of energy company executives. The House leadership held the five-minute vote open for almost 50 minutes until they could convince three lawmakers — Reps. Wayne Gilcrest (R-MD), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL) and Jim Gerlach (R-PA) — to change their minds. The bill passed 212-210. As the vote concluded, opponents of the bill chanted in unity: “Shame, Shame, Shame!”

    Watch in streaming Quicktime (refresh if video doesn’t load)

    The vote was held on the “Gasoline for America’s Security Act of 2005,” a provision sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to nominally “expedite the construction of new refining capacity.” But the bill is essentially a giveback to the oil industry — Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) called it a “leave-no-oilman-behind bill.”

    The antics of right-wingers on the House floor today mirrored their previous strong-arm tactics in passing CAFTA and prescription drug legislation – bills that, like today’s, favored large corporations. In July 2005, the House passed CAFTA with a slim two-vote margin after holding the vote open for an hour and 45 minutes. In November 2003, in the dead of night, the House leadership passed the Medicare prescription drug vote by five votes after holding the vote open for three hours.

    The Center for American Progress released a report today detailing the profiteering of oil executives while American families struggle with higher gas prices.

    Yep, this government is done.

  • At 7:40 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    On a more personal note
    I am investigating changing the engine in my Jeep Wrangler to a hybrid Gas/Elec engine. This will cost approx $5k ( probably more) but, in looking at the figures, Gas costs $3.00 Gal, right now, I am getting a little less than 20 MPG, freeway, (4 cylinder engine, even) driving 30K miles a year, for a gas cost of $4500. With a hybrid engine, I should get at LEAST 60 mpg, driving the same mile, at the same gas cost, the fuel would cost $1500, in less than 2 years, I could pay off the cost of conversion, given no change in gas prices.
    One could ask, why not just buy a new car with a hybrid engine, but... I LOVE my jeep, plus I would be paying MUCH more for a new car, plus... my jeep is paid off!

  • At 7:54 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    see what I mean rannyboy? You follow up a decent, thoughtful post with a totally illogical post. HOW many NEW refineries have been built in the US, in the last 30 years, due to Ecological laws passed by your liberal friends, you know, the tree-huggers? How much oil exploration has been allowed off of the East Coast, due to the same people?
    Yes, Gas prices were lower then, yes, oil prices were lower then, so the Oil company executives made decisions not to invest millions in new refineries... after all their concern is to their stock holders, the very same people who keep the economy in this country going. By investing in new refineries, under the "tree hugger" rules, it would have cost them untold hundreds of thousands of dollars!
    You liberals were happy then, you WON! But now... comes the crunch, the fruits of your labors have been brought home to roost! WHo's to blame??????
    Yeah, go ahead, blame the Oil company executives. That, after all is the usual Liberal Modus Operandi, not to blame the actual people who caused a decision to be made ( the person themself!) but to blame society, to blame anyone else, but themselves!( For confirmation of that, all we have to do is to look at the post 9/11 "discussions" with the Libbypukes blaming the US for its backing of Israel, instead of blaming the people who actually flew the planes, or financed them.
    For another FINE example of that, look at the recent Media Frenzy, blaming FEMA for the debacle in NO after KAtrina, as opposed to blaming the local leaders, the MAyor who sat by and let ALL those school buses become flooded and the countless city vehicles, instead of using them to evacuate the very same people who, days later he was yelling about them being raped and murdered in the Superdome (which, we later found out, simply did NOT happen!)
    Of course there was the legitimate beef about them not having food, nor water, which was due to the fact that the GOVERNOR of Louisiana ordering Red Cross Trucks, containing such needed relief aid, being STOPPED from entering New Orleans, becasue she "didnt want the aid going in, she wanted the PEOPLE OUT"!
    A logical argument, if MAYOR Nagin and SHE had actually enforced their evacuation plan!

  • At 8:01 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Of course, we also notice, you failed to mention the outburst of Pelosi, the witch who purposefulyy ignored House rules on her arguments, and chose, instead to gain a little more face time for herself by refusing to follow the rules, set up for ALl representatives and wasted percious time by standing there yelling out her "arguments", which arguments, it should be noted, had their proper time and place, yet not at the time she was vociferously expounding upon them and refusing to follow proper decorum... yes, it was a farce, but it was, plain and simply, a farce promulgated by the antagonistic, no alternative offering, no answer but refusal to whatever solution is offered, DEMOCRATS!

  • At 8:26 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    also, its interesting how rannyboy alludes to bills being passed in the "dead of night"... would that include the income tax bill, illegally passed by a handful of senators during a Christmas break, when the majority of Senators were not even in town, back in 1913... you know, the "temporary" bill to finance the Mexican war, by a bunch of LIBERALS?
    A few facts may be incorrect, as it has been years since i have studied this, but, after all, you're liberals, what do facts matter to you? :D

  • At 9:17 PM, Blogger Ranando said…


    Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, don't you ever get tried of making a fool out of yourself?

    If you can't discuss issues and agree to disagree then go do what Republicans are best. Go choke your chicken, polish your rocket and/or spank your monkey.

  • At 8:05 AM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Poor rannyboy, got all upset and embarrased again? Can't stand it when you're shown to be wrong? Have no facts to back up your poor, misguided assumptions? Fall back to the Leftist liberal way of mounting personal attacks to draw attention away from your inane arguments!

  • At 5:57 AM, Blogger heropoo said…

    Your blog is excellent - keep it up! Don't miss visiting this site about travel credit card. It pretty much covers travel credit card related stuff.

  • At 3:40 PM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Chef Wes, I cited your hard work on the OU Bomber story. Also, Wes, I have to agree. As the target of many personal attacks, I find it odd that facts are not refuted, and it's just a bitch fest.....

  • At 8:53 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Yes, I saw you gave me a lecture on "Logic". I DO use logic in my discussions, quite frequently. Never having STUDIED logic though...

    Right, which is why I specifically attempted to bracket the statements made by explaining that I wasn't out to bust your balls, just make a point to you since we had our previous discussions of logic (formal logic I might add).

  • At 7:44 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    RE: insurgents

    I hate that word, these people aren't FREEDOM fighters, they are people who want CONTROL and POWER for themselves! These are people who do not CARE who they KILL, as long as THEY win!

    I have no particular feeling toward the word itself, but to be fair, you have to find some irony in what you wrote. IMO, freedom always seems to be at the hand of someone else gaining control and power - a classic case perhaps being the United States.

    Additionally, as not to start the wrong argument with you, I will suggest that perhaps we DO care who we kill along the way. Reality is, however, that we still kill. I'm not sure it makes it much better to kill children (for example) in the process of spreading what we might consider freedom, so long as a tear is shed for those children along the way.

  • At 7:51 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Re-reading my posts brings to mind another of Kevin's "arguments" that the use of the Atom Bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was "evil".

    I suppose I can argue the points that you left me with, but the fundamental statement here is incorrect.

    You have severely altered (by shortening) the context of my post. Actually, I specifically told Nick I would not argue the necessity of lack-thereof of the atomic bombs. They were used and such is history.

    On the anniversary of Hiroshima (a few weeks ago), Nick had a post card which read something of:
    Forecast for today: 3000 degrees C
    Strong winds from the northeast
    Wear sunscreen, tuck your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.

    Something to that extent. I was merely arguing with him that regardless of the necessity of an instrument of war (which I was not arguing), it doesn't make it a GOOD thing, nor something we should celebrate 50 years later.

    Nick somehow believes that the anniversary of the bombs is cause for an American holiday. I was simply suggesting that celebrating the incineration of 100,000 people in a matter of seconds is NOT something to celebrate and that notion was EVIL.

  • At 8:01 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    You have stated that you were FOR US withdrawal in Vietnam, in regards to the effect that it saved US lives.

    Well, I wasn't born until the late 70's, so my opinion of us withdrawing from Vietnam certainly couldn't ever equate to anything.

    I guess from having read the history that I have, my opinion for suggesting that withdrawl was good was solely because the war had no meaning.

    As you wrote to me earlier that 'freedom fighters' simply want control and power. I put a spin on the wording slightly, but only in an effort to make my own point. In this case again, we were simply fighting a war to stop someone elses version of freedom.

    Now personally, I don't see communism as an effective means to govern either, but then again, I was born and raised in the United States.

    On many levels, I can equate one's love or confidence in a governing style to their love or faith in religion. It's an interesting study - very statistically relevant - that people who grow up with a religion, tend to stick to that religion.

    Even if their faith diminishes over time, it still tends to be a religion they hold on to. I would assume a very similar concept holds for government. We grew up in a capitalist-democratic nation, and it makes sense to us, so we want others to have it.

    That notion, however, does not make other countries and their systems wrong. It's just what they have grown into.

    Sorry for the rant, but I guess it was just to say that I disagree with a war when our intention is to change a fundamental system in another way of life.

  • At 12:10 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    This is the moron who said Iraq was about oil. Well, Nancy, how come our gas prices aren't going down, since we "plundered" Iraq?

    Ummm, yea. I've tried to say it before but I know you never listen. There is NOT a direct coroloation between 'plundering' a country with rich oil supplies and our oil prices all of a sudden dropping.

    This fact does not change the notion that we went to war on the grounds of oil.

  • At 12:11 PM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    We're on oil Kevin, stay on topic, mmmm-kay?

    FYI, we celebrated the A-Bomb, and you can bet China, Korea, and other lands that suffered under Japan did also.

    V-E Day, V-J Day, reason to celebrate. Unless you wanted the enemy to win, or think Neville Chamberlain was right....

  • At 12:16 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Awww, they're worried about the poor wittle animals, and the air. Well, worry more when we don't have money to spend on crap we need, yet the world is pristine and everyone is poor...

    Hmm. Well actually, that would be an interesting world wouldn't it. Just think, an insurance adjuster would be as well off as a movie star. It would be like a hippy version of communism.

  • At 12:18 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    We're on oil Kevin, stay on topic, mmmm-kay?

    Right. Well it was actually Chef that posted something about it on this thread, so I responded as such.

    So, lol, Chef - this is from Nick:
    We're on oil Chef, stay on topic, mmmm-kay?

  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    sorry - that was regarding Nick's post, regarding MY post, regarding YOUR post of the atomic bombs.

  • At 1:08 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    FYI, we celebrated the A-Bomb, and you can bet China, Korea, and other lands that suffered under Japan did also.

    V-E Day, V-J Day, reason to celebrate. Unless you wanted the enemy to win, or think Neville Chamberlain was right....

    Well I think Neville died almost 40 years before I was born, so I didn't think much of him at all.

    There is, however, a fundamental difference between celebrating the end of something, even the liberation of something, versus the death of the enemy.

    Yes we celebrate and honor those who served in wartime. Yes we celebrate the liberation of people around the world. But what we do not do, is celebrate the death of the enemy.

    So, I will even agree with you that yes, perhaps we DID celebrate the A-bomb, but 50 years later, we don't. It's still not an argument of what we should vs. should not have done, it's just a matter of simple human decency.

    We won the war, we celebrate that we won the war, that's plenty. We don't need to celebrate how people (both military and civilian) died for the war to end.

    Or would you prefer to re-address your bloggers as that guy that takes pride in knowing that we incinerated the 'nips'? you so proudly put it a few weeks ago.

  • At 1:11 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    ...bear in mind, I didn't say take pride in having won the war. That's a different case.

    But specifically taking pride in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in a two week period. Again, there is no argument of necessity coming from me. But is this something to be proud of? Is that where you hope civiliaztion is going? ...taking pride in the LOSS of human life?

  • At 5:24 PM, Blogger Truthmister said…

    Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

    I have a swingers site/blog. It pretty much covers swingers related stuff.

    Come and check it out if you get time :-)

  • At 6:43 PM, Blogger startonline said…

    Nice blog, keep up the good work!
    I have a site to card credit debt help save.
    It's a free information site on card credit debt help save.
    You should check it out if you have the time :-)

  • At 7:00 PM, Blogger The Conservative UAW Guy said…

    Nice blog.
    I've got a blog where I murder spammers and asshats.
    It pretty much covers killing spammers and stuff.

    Nice post, by the way.
    Keep up your great (as always) work!!!

    Kill a spammer for me, yo!

  • At 7:05 PM, Blogger Johnjon said…

    Wow this must be a good topic. I came across a blog pretty similar to yours earlier today. I also have one that pretty much talks about ad business classified free opportunity posting related stuff. You should check it out sometime.

  • At 7:07 PM, Blogger Johnjon said…

    Hi, I came across a blog pretty similar to yours earlier today. I also have one that pretty much talks about ad business classified free post related stuff. You should check it out sometime.

  • At 1:12 PM, Blogger Staci said…

    I just let the guy who purchases our gas hedges read Kevin's knowledge on oil prices and he laughed his ass off and asked if he was typing satire.

    Yeah Kevin boy, go ahead and lecture ME on the financial world that totally contradicts what is coming out of our Bloomberg computer RIGHT NOW. Just in case you do not know what that is, that is a direct line to monitor the market.

    Again, LMAO.

  • At 2:47 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Ok. Well umm, how about this. On Friday the 14th of October, MY computer feed of the COMMODITIES market said wholesale gas was selling around US$1.65 / gallon or so.

    My father, who is a commodities broker was selling (trading) gas at roughly this price to companies such as exxon, shell, etc.

    However, strangely enough, gas prices seem to be about 2.60-3.00 (and were last Friday as well)

    So please, explain to me why gas is selling roughly $1.00 - $1.50 over market value.

    My first guess was just that with the loss the big oil companies were taking from Katrina and Rita, they were trying to balance out. But, the over-net-price seems to be so much higher now that they should have recomped costs some time ago.

    What gives Staci?


Post a Comment

<< Home