Reply to Thread New Thread |
03-18-2012, 08:44 PM | #1 |
|
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...n-gas-prices/1
I don't think Axelrod has any particular appeal to voters. So his lies won't easily be dismissed. And with any luck, the idiot GOP will hammer this issue until they are blue in the face. Then there's this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...sight-at-pump/ Gasoline not profitable?? Hmm. I suspect tougher EPA standards are partially to blame here too. |
|
03-18-2012, 08:50 PM | #2 |
|
|
|
03-18-2012, 08:54 PM | #3 |
|
When Bush was president the democrats blamed him for higher prices at the pump convinced that Bush could do something to lower the price of gas.
Now that Obumbler is president the democrats state he is not to blame for higher prices at the pump and try to convince the electorate that OShitSomeoneVotedNigger cannot do anything to lower the price of gas market forces beyond its control are involved. The idiot in the white house went so far as to state increased domestic production will have no effect on price, while encouraging Saudi Arabia and Brasil to produce more oil. So drilling here and drilling now won't have any effect but drilling in Saudi Arabia and Brasil will. Damn I needz to gets meez one o dem dar eyebee leeg edjakatans so as I can unstand dat. Because common sense tells me that if increased production in other parts of the world will lower prices, increased production here will also. |
|
03-18-2012, 08:54 PM | #4 |
|
|
|
03-18-2012, 08:56 PM | #5 |
|
As long as the mainstream media keep the people convinced it's not him but rather outside forces he has no control over. |
|
03-18-2012, 09:13 PM | #6 |
|
|
|
03-18-2012, 09:37 PM | #7 |
|
|
|
03-18-2012, 09:43 PM | #8 |
|
When Bush was president the democrats blamed him for higher prices at the pump convinced that Bush could do something to lower the price of gas. Remember, American oil is more expensive to drill for than Saudi oil, as well... |
|
03-18-2012, 10:00 PM | #9 |
|
How much could we add to supply by drilling more in the USA? Could we move world supply by 1%? 5%? We could move the world supply by over 5%. What's next the standard line about it will take ten years. Well if we would have started 4 years ago when the democrats used that line on a regular basis we'd be that much closer, wouldn't we. If Obama gave a fuck he would have approved the Keystone pipeline and created jobs, instead of jerking off while taking it up the ass from the extreme left. |
|
03-18-2012, 10:08 PM | #10 |
|
It's obama's stated objective to 'reduce dependence on foreign oil'. That means domestic oil too. In favor of imaginary cars and fields of pretty pinwheels and mirrors. All of which not only do not exist...but would be next to useless if they did.
He'll be damned if he'll be stopped in this pursuit by anything so pedestrian as reality. |
|
03-18-2012, 10:11 PM | #11 |
|
|
|
03-18-2012, 10:16 PM | #12 |
|
If he was smart, he'd call the energy reserves currently at rest under federal land a shared national resource, and couple expanded us energy production with a nationalized counterpart to the private energy producers..
It's a stupid idea.. But it would address the issue, be completely socialist, probably prove quite popular and give him an incredible amount of power and control.. The Repubs would block it, of course.. and he could rail at them for keeping the "People's Oil" away from them.. and handing it off to a, OMG! GREEDY CARTEL!! Imagine the shitstorm THAT would kick off.. ? And every time a republican brought up energy, he'd just accuse them of being in the pocket of their rich pals! But he's not that smart.. Big energy would shit themselves at the thought of having to compete with an entity that doesn't have to show a profit.. Gas prices could be whatever he wanted. It would be an election year nightmare for the R's.. |
|
03-18-2012, 10:16 PM | #13 |
|
Big Oil has a monopoly on motor fuel which Henry Ford tried to prevent with the early Model T's. |
|
03-18-2012, 10:17 PM | #14 |
|
Maybe the unions would take a pay cut to ease the expense. Anyway, you might be right, we may be able to increase world supply by 5%, in fifteen or twenty years. My guess would be something closer to 2-3%. So, at today's gas prices, assuming OPEC doesn't cut back, and demand remains on it's current path, fifteen years from now gasoline would be maybe 15 cents cheaper than if we didn't drill at all. Clearly, this is not a solution. |
|
03-18-2012, 10:18 PM | #15 |
|
|
|
03-18-2012, 10:19 PM | #16 |
|
Americans are generally poorly versed on energy (Which is why they think boondoggles like PV solar actually work and are cost effective) and quite suspicious of energy producers. They see "cabals" out there... The Speculators play neatly into this scenario..
There would BE NONE of that with a national oil company.. I think he could sell it quite easily.. Use it as a foil to poke the R's with this fall. |
|
03-18-2012, 10:20 PM | #17 |
|
Alcohol Prohibition ended the farmer's' ability to continue alcohol production for the cars as a competitive alternative to petroleum. It costs much more, and you need much more of it to do the same job. |
|
03-18-2012, 10:24 PM | #19 |
|
|
|
03-18-2012, 10:26 PM | #20 |
|
Wall Street would shit itself.. The Oil Majors would shit themselves.. The Republicans would shit themselves..
It'd be like that "brown noise" episode from South Park.. He could EASILY tie to National Security, claim a constitutional mandate and employ the military and the Corp of Engineers and the Geologists in this venture.. He could sell it as high tech jobs creation.. |
|
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|