Anti-Bush People and Oil Prices.


PDA






Skunkabilly
October 25, 2004, 03:53 PM
I'm confused.

Bush is bad because he isn't doing anything about gas prices rising.

Bush is bad because we invaded Iraq for cheap gas.

Someone please educate me.

If you enjoyed reading about "Anti-Bush People and Oil Prices." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dbl0Kevin
October 25, 2004, 03:54 PM
Simple and quick education.....Liberals are hypocrites.

Bush is bad we didn't do anything to stop 9/11

Bush is bad we invaded Iraq when they weren't an imminent threat.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Edmond
October 25, 2004, 03:55 PM
Most people who criticize Bush are doing it just for the sake of doing it, it doesn't make any sense.:uhoh:

Gas prices are kicking me in the @$$. $2.20 for regular!

Skunkabilly
October 25, 2004, 04:09 PM
Before ours was $2.23 but now it's $2.43.

Tactical.

PMDW
October 25, 2004, 04:20 PM
Doesn't go over $2.00 often here.

But then, I only leave the house once or twice a week...

I remember when it was $.87

Rebar
October 25, 2004, 04:22 PM
Someone please educate me.
1) Anything bad that happens, is Bush's and the republican's fault.
2) Anything good that happens, is because of Kerry and the democrats.
3) If the democrats do anything to make something bad happen, see rule 1.

ReadyontheRight
October 25, 2004, 05:17 PM
Ask a Lefty this: Is the ANYTHING that George Bush could do -- short of suicide -- that would make them happy?

jefnvk
October 25, 2004, 05:26 PM
3) If the democrats do anything to make something bad happen, see rule 1.

Case in point: a few days ago, I posted abnout either DU or Kerry's forum. The AWB was Bush's fault, because he is in office right now, according to one all-knowing liberal.

I hear the best people to confuse are the ones with 'Free Tibet' on one side of their car, and 'No War' on the other :D

Gordon Fink
October 25, 2004, 07:23 PM
Wars for natural resources have little to do with making said resources inexpensive for the common consumer. They are about securing the profits from said resources for one elite group or another.

If Powerful Nation-State conquers tiny Backwards State for its vast oil resources, why shouldn’t Big Oil Company charge $2.50 for a gallon of gasoline, if that’s what the consumers in Powerful Nation-State are willing to pay?

You can’t beat the market.

~G. Fink

Daniel964
October 25, 2004, 08:51 PM
WOW ! Only $1.88 here.

Standing Wolf
October 25, 2004, 09:09 PM
I remember when it was $.87

Hah! I can remember gasoline wars when I was a lad: the price was sometimes 9.9 cents per gallon, plus free glasses, and the guy who filled the tank cleaned the windshield and checked the oil, too.

jfh
October 25, 2004, 09:54 PM
the lowest I remember is 14.9, during one incredible gas war in Willmar, MN, about 1955, I think....

But, like you say, that was pumped by the help, and the windshield washed, oil checked.

PMDW
October 25, 2004, 10:42 PM
Hah! I can remember gasoline wars when I was a lad: the price was sometimes 9.9 cents per gallon...

the lowest I remember is 14.9

Yes, but adjusted for inflation, what was it?

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/


According to that site...

"What cost $.14 in 1955 would cost $0.92 in 2003."

My $.87 beats it, as I saw that price in 2002. :)

fletcher
October 25, 2004, 11:43 PM
I'm young, and even I remember seeing diesel for .77 on the highway. Now it's 2.23 :(

Edmond
October 25, 2004, 11:50 PM
Cheapest I saw was $.89 back in 99'.

JerryM
October 26, 2004, 12:00 AM
I would like to hear some wise, logical, and reasonably doeable answer as to how to get the $50 oil prices down to some reasonable level.

Don't waste time saying to nuke 'em, but who has a good solution that can be done in the near time frame?

It appears that OPEC holds most of the cards. However, the Arabs have nothing except oil. If we refused to sell them goods, then they would be hurting. I don't know to what extent that can happen.

I wonder if there will come a time when we say to either drop the price or we will fight.

Jerry

El Tejon
October 26, 2004, 12:04 AM
Jerry, it's already been forecast (on Bob Brinker Sunday morning--AM radio financial advice show I follow, er, ya know, for the nephews:D) that oil will be at $35.00 a barrel in 6 months because of market forces.

atek3
October 26, 2004, 12:06 AM
I saw 69 cent gas at quicktrip in the St. Louis, late 1990's.
Lasted one day only, then the price went back to hovering in the seventies.

Oh ya, gas in the bay area is 2.49 a gallon.

atek3

Malone LaVeigh
October 26, 2004, 12:08 AM
I remember .24 self-serve in the 60s and the awful spike to 39 in the 70s. I guess I'm younger than someone around here, at least.

Now to answer the original question: Bush got us into a stupid war. Whether it was to get cheap fuel or not, it sure didn't do much good in that regard. I personally think it was to get control of a large segment of the oil production in friendly hands, with a corollary effect of keeping prices from exploding when we start seeing the effects of peak oil. It is still too soon to know if the tremendous gamble in money and lives will have a pay-off down the road, but right about now it looks like the probability is very small.

tulsamal
October 26, 2004, 12:11 AM
Like people have already said, the anti-Bush types just like to have an excuse.

The wife and I rarely talk about politics because we "agree to disagree." Tonight I said something about "I don't know what you have against Bush." She said, "I don't think we should have gone into Iraq." I said, "OK, but you voted for Gore in 2000. Are you saying you WOULD have voted for Bush if he hadn't gone into Iraq?" She said no.

Many of the most vocal critics of Iraq are the same way. They will tell you all the mistakes the Administration made in Iraq and how "Bush must be stopped at all costs." But ask them who they voted for 2000. They will not only almost always say Gore but then they will launch into a rant about how Bush stole the election. It only takes a little digging to discover that they would have never voted for Bush NO MATTER what he did or didn't do.

I talked to my sister today on the phone. She lives in CO. I didn't even bother trying to talk her into voting for Bush because she would be the same way. But I asked her to consider voting for Coors for Senator. She brayed laughter and said that was crazy and no way she was voting "for somebody like that!" I asked her what that meant. She said, "he's a Coors and they just have a lot of money and do whatever they want." Hmmm. So I asked her, "does that mean you don't believe in voting for people from 'old money' families? So you WON'T be voting for Kerry, right? They are worth over half a BILLON dollars after all?" But she said that was different. What appeared to be different was one candidate is a Republican and the other a Democrat.

Trying to argue logically with these people will make your brain hurt. Try to argue with one of them about the AWB and you really will be hitting your head on a brick wall. They don't know what it said. They don't know what it banned. They don't even CARE if it was effective or not. But it's just "common sense" to have such a law. Oh, I've got to stop before my head starts to hurt!

Gregg

Dbl0Kevin
October 26, 2004, 12:23 AM
I would like to hear some wise, logical, and reasonably doeable answer as to how to get the $50 oil prices down to some reasonable level.

Very simple really, start drilling for oil in ANWR. It's estimated to be the largest oil deposit in the continental US and holds enough oil to supply us for 30 years. So if we tap ANWR that gives us 30 years to come up with a better source of energy as a long term plan while getting us out from under dependance on mid east oil for the short term.

The only reason this hasn't happened is because of the national democrats and the wacko environmentalists who don't want to upset the "porcupine caribou". The facts are that ANWR is composed of some 2 million acres. The amount that is needed for drilling with modern technology is a whooping 2,000 acres.....or in other words .001%. But you won't hear that from the enviros. Even the Democrats from Alaska support drilling there, but apparently they don't know anything....being that they live in the state or anything. :rolleyes:

JerryM
October 26, 2004, 12:42 AM
Kevin,

I agree that we need to drill, but that is not a short term solution. I do not know how many years it would take until it would produce.

In addition, it might take one or more years just to get it through the political and legal processes.

Jerry

Dbl0Kevin
October 26, 2004, 12:45 AM
Jerry,

You're right, but even still 1-5 years is a short term solution in the scheme of things. In order to develop and transition to a different energy source it will take MUCH longer than that. Since we already have gas stations everywhere as well as millions of cars on the road that require gasoline, and many houses are heated using oil we can't expect to switch over to another power source for quite a few years. If we start now drilling in ANWR we can start getting oil much sooner. That's what I meant by the short term.

macmuffy
October 26, 2004, 01:09 AM
Standing Wolf:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hah! I can remember gasoline wars when I was a lad: the price was sometimes 9.9 cents per gallon, plus free glasses, and the guy who filled the tank cleaned the windshield and checked the oil, too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

checked the air in the tires and only a few short years later
Green Stamps were given out too.

D#$n, I'm getting old.

Langenator
October 26, 2004, 08:02 AM
Best way to bring down the global price of oil: slap a trade embargo on China (if you need a reason, pick one-rampant copyright infringement, unfair trade practices, human rights issues, whatever). The rapidly expanding Chinese economy and its accompanying need for oil is one of the major price drivers right now.

A huge chunk of that economy is based on selling stuff to us. If we stopped buying, their economy would go in the ????ter overnight, a la Tom Clancy's The Bear and the Dragon.

Of course, Wal-Mart would have to find somewhere else to buy all their junk from.

Yowza
October 26, 2004, 11:22 AM
China may not be as much of an issue as it would seem. Apparently their refineries are able to use a lower grade of oil than ours, most likely due to much lower environmental standards and other such issues. So they're not really in competition with us for oil. The oil supplies they buy have increased in price only about half as much as the oil we buy so they're hurting already anyway -- just not as much as we are.

Rick

Sergeant Bob
October 26, 2004, 11:33 AM
El Tejon Jerry, it's already been forecast (on Bob Brinker Sunday morning--AM radio financial advice show I follow, er, ya know, for the nephews) that oil will be at $35.00 a barrel in 6 months because of market forces.
He may be right (I hope). He's seems to be pretty sharp.
He was one of the few who was sending out warnings during the DotCom boom that it couldn't last. He was right on that one.

ObeOne
October 26, 2004, 06:27 PM
Along these lines, I got this from a friend I shoot with

The Election Stats


This was passed on to me, but I can't understand it. Maybe you can,


I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head so
I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one
thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe. Lemme see;
have I got this straight?


Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...


Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...


Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...


Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists-
good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...


Clinton bombs Chinese embassy -- good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps -- bad...


Clinton commits felonies while in office -- good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit -- bad...


No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...


Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...


Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...


Clinton says Saddam has nukes -- good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes -- bad...


Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...


Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...


Milosevic not yet convicted -- good...
Saddam turned over for trial -- bad...


Ahh, it's so confusing!




Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax
burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the
day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government. This
year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since
1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything
special about those dates?


Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are
actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no
explanation and provided no data for this claim.
Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy
men.
Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all
worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn
brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).


Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that
sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out
a way to avoid paying his own.
------------------------------------------------
Telling huh?

:fire:

Obe One

Bruce H
October 26, 2004, 08:44 PM
Part of the oil price now is the dollar which isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Part is pure speculation like the 740 dollar gold years ago. Drilling would be a help for the market ten years from now. The lead time from drilling to gas pump isn't immediate. The rest of the world is catching up with our voracious appetite for crude. I'm not real thrilled with the current price as I farm and just about all of my imputs are petrolium based. Tractors, combines and trucks don't run cheap. What it will bring is better budgeting. What can I cut where to satisfy the price needed here without killing the business. Lots of thought in the days ahead.

Bubbles
October 26, 2004, 10:56 PM
The price of gas/diesel is too low. Why? Because there is a whole #@*(!! fleet of white vanes with "Electrical Contractors Union - Local #201" with Pennsylvania tags in Virginia. The occupants are busily putting up sKerry signs and trashing Bush signs.

If they can afford to drive down here and mess with our politics, the price of fuel is too low. :fire:

If you enjoyed reading about "Anti-Bush People and Oil Prices." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!