# Nancy Pelosi, you ignorant slut... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 27, 2006, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505 "2006-04-27T20:20:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/101 "2006-04-29T14:33:17Z")
> [@Hamadryad](#): > > Just sayin’. Not everyone is able to brush off high gas prices by bitching about stock options and four-year colleges.I don’t care about driving less, but I’d merrily take that right out of her sweet little feminine hands - via your stocks tanking - if it meant that 1000 families could afford that extra gallon of milk. > It’ll never happen. But, you know, fuck YOU for only thinking about gas prices in terms of YOUR benefits, or of the slight detriment to people who can fucking AFFORD SUVs in the first place. > BTW, don’t bother labeling me as socialist or whatnot - I don’t have a particular political philosophy. Yeah, like everybody else on this issue is thinking solely of how it affects _others_ - it’s amazing how selfless the entire world is compared to somebody saving for their retirement. And it’s obvious you didn’t get my point with the “F you…” rant - I’m bitching about, not _for_, all those people - so, yeah, fuck the SUV driver who wants to steal from my child because they think it’s their “right” to pay less than market rates so they can burn the damn stuff at 12mpg. When you get out of fantasy-land, Hama, let me know and we can discuss it without the idiotic “rebuttal” that assumed my response will somehow contain some sort of ditzy label. Frankly, I don’t care about your “political philosophy” - I care about my child and how your beliefs are stealing from her. I don’t care about any hypothetical moms with or without milk - I care about _my_ family, as one is supposed to. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/102 "2006-04-29T15:45:45Z")
The car I drive gets about 20 MPG in the city and 25 MPG on the highway (not as good as a 4-banger Subaru could be but not too bad either.) I’d do even better if I was willing to drive 55 instead of 80 or 85 on my occasional trips out of town, but it already takes me 3 hours to make it to Albuquerque. It’s about 230 miles on the highway, meaning it takes me just about three hours to get there at 80 MPH, and that’s assuming I don’t stop (or get stopped, stupid Border Patrol) for any real length of time. It would take me an extra hour, at least, if I did it at 55. I don’t know what the actual difference in milage would be, as I don’t really want to spend four hours at I-25 constantly getting passed by people doing 80-90. I already can generally make it on something between 9 and 10 gallons, so even saving a gallon both ways would only be six bucks. And when I only make that drive once every month or every other month, that removes the incentive even further, as I’ve spent more money than that on sodas and snacks in the meantime while driving. At current prices, assuming I fill up with three gallons left in the tank (I don’t like to cut it any closer than that), a fillup will cost me about $30 (it’s a 13 gallon tank.) The rest of the time, I can go for a week without using more than a gallon total driving around town. In any case, I don’t see what the politicians hope to accomplish, other than taking the heat off (or putting it on) so that the can be elected/re-elected. Companies like Exxon-Mobile and Chevron are oil companies now, but the people running them have sense enough to know that they need to be energy companies. The way they’ll stay in business, and make money, is to be at the head of the game for whatever new energy source comes out. Trying to force the prices down won’t work. Windfall taxes won’t work. A nuclear war between China and India might do it, but the global economy would probably be in the toilet as a result. So I just laugh at the politicians and their pandering and hope that they’re not stupid enough to actually try to “fix” the “problem.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/103 "2006-04-29T18:11:23Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > So I just laugh at the politicians and their pandering and hope that they’re not stupid enough to actually try to “fix” the “problem.” Me, too. But with the Republicans wanting to mitigate downside risk by giving the oil companies tax breaks, and the Democrats wanting to limit their upside potential by propsing a windfall profit tax, they might as well just get it over with and nationalize the whole industry. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/104 "2006-04-29T18:26:23Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Me, too. But with the Republicans wanting to mitigate downside risk by giving the oil companies tax breaks, and the Democrats wanting to limit their upside potential by propsing a windfall profit tax, they might as well just get it over with and nationalize the whole industry. 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/105 "2006-04-29T19:18:34Z")
I don’t mean to get into the debate here, but I have to admit that I was under the impression that there was a direct connection between Bush/Cheney being in office and higher gas prices. Why? Because the day after the 2004 election, gas prices went up by like 30 cents a gallon here, because “the oil companies could expect four more years of oil-centric energy policy” blah blah etc. So … what’s up with that? Was that just a one-time thing that went back down shortly? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/106 "2006-04-29T21:25:20Z")
> [@chorpler](#): > > I don’t mean to get into the debate here, but I have to admit that I was under the impression that there was a direct connection between Bush/Cheney being in office and higher gas prices. Why? Because the day after the 2004 election, gas prices went up by like 30 cents a gallon here, because “the oil companies could expect four more years of oil-centric energy policy” blah blah etc. > > So … what’s up with that? Was that just a one-time thing that went back down shortly? Can we have a cite for that claim. I don’t recall a price hike here the day after the election. Instability in the Middle East is certainly is a factor in the price of oil, and a good case can be made that Bush’s policies have resulted in a less stable Middle East. But there are lots of other factors that affect oil prices, and I don’t accept that Bush is even the primary factor for oil costing what it does today. Besides, note that Pelosi wasn’t even talking about that. She wants us to think the because Bush and Cheney were in the oil business, they’re in cahoots with oil companies to rip off American consumers. That makes good political theater, perhaps, but doesn’t add to reasoned discourse on the subject. I can accept the position that Bush and Cheney are more ammendable to push for tax breaks for oil companies, but the truth of the matter is that high gas prices hurt Bush and the Republicans, especially going into the midterm elections. They’d have to be suicidal to be secretly working with oil companies to raise gas prices. And even though Bush isn’t up for re-election himself, he’ll be in very deep shit if the Dems take control of the House-- they’ll subpoena his ass faster than oil gushing out of a newly tapped well. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/107 "2006-04-29T21:59:17Z")
Question: Alternative fuel sources and conservation. What are Bush and the American oil companies doing in terms of R&D? Maybe they should take a look at Brazil: [**Brazil’s sugar crop fuels nation’s cars**](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4715332.stm) Then again, why should they? It’s a windfall after all. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/108 "2006-04-29T22:03:30Z")
Well, the quickest way to make a difference is drilling for our own oil, and/or increasing refining capacity. But we aren’t allowed to drill our own areas, no new refineries since 1979, and nuclear power to ease oil and coal use is thwarted at every turn by the environmental group of the day. We can make our own energy. But because of various lobbying groups we aren’t allowed to. Makes as much sense as politics do. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2006, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/109 "2006-04-30T01:53:32Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Question: Alternative fuel sources and conservation. What are Bush and the American oil companies doing in terms of R&D? > > Maybe they should take a look at Brazil: [**Brazil’s sugar crop fuels nation’s cars**](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4715332.stm) > > Then again, why should they? It’s a windfall after all. So far, no hybrid/alternative fuel car has proven to save money over its lifetime; high purchase prices easily eat up any fuel savings. Despite that, a good deal of money has been thrown at the problem, both by companies and by the government. ---
**Author:** ![Hamadryad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6de8d8/32.png) [@Hamadryad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamadryad)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2006, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/110 "2006-04-30T02:33:18Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > When you get out of fantasy-land, Hama, let me know and we can discuss it without the idiotic “rebuttal” that assumed my response will somehow contain some sort of ditzy label. As I don’t live in “fantasy-;and,” I’m afraid I will have to decline your most gracious offer. Whadda guy. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2006, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/111 "2006-04-30T14:55:02Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Ms. Pelosi claims that Bush and Cheney are the direct cause for gas being $3/gal now. She did not “suggest that two guys who are heavily indebted to and spent most of their lives working inside the energy business would be the very very last people on earth to acknowledge or do anything that might impact negatively on the profits of the oil industry”. She said Bush caused gas to be $3. Now, if you agree with that, I’d like to see your argument that proves it. I don’t want a “suggestion”, I want so good solid evidence linking “cause and effect” per Ms. Pelosi’s statement. Now you’re just being pedantic to defend your overreaction. > [@](#): > > The world’s demand for oil far outstrips supply. A side topic, but this sentance has no real meaning in economics. Demand and supply are a negotiation that are ultimately interrelated, not fixed quantities. > [@](#): > > Bush did not cause the price of oil to shoot up to $75 over the last couple of weeks. Of course, if you think he did, all you have to do is explain to us exactly how that worked. Don’t be thick. The allegation is not that he pulled some switch that controls prices. The allegation is that when you have leaders of a particular energy industry making energy policy, > [@](#): > > As for the CA energy situation, that was natural gas, my friend, so even if we had evil monopolists twirling their mustaches as they screwed over the helpless public, that has absolutely nothing to do with the price of gasoline in the US of A. I know that “natural gas” and “gasoline” sound very similar, but you’ll have to trust me on this-- they’re two completely different commodities, so I really don’t know how the CA electricity problem of 3 years ago (or whenever it was) relates to the price of gasoline today. You’re going to have do more than say ENRON! to make an argument. Again, feigning thickness is not becoming. The point is that enron is a perfectly nice precedent where friendliness to industry and the refusal to take political action cost consumers millions in a giant scamola (not to mention killed a couple overheated seniors). You just don’t like it because it works against your ethos of corporations can do no wrong. > [@](#): > > Now, if you want to argue that we need more regulation on oil companies, that’s an entirely different debate. If you think we need to trim back the tax subsidies we gave them, I’m with you on that-- in fact I never understood why it was a good idea to give them in the first place. Nah, it’s not really a different debate, see. That is the debate. It’s just not one you enjoy having, so you’d rather have a completely goofy debate. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2006, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/112 "2006-04-30T18:58:34Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Now you’re just being pedantic to defend your overreaction. Only if “pendantic” means sticking to the specific reason I opened this Pit thread. Additionally… > [@](#): > > Nah, it’s not really a different debate, see. That is the debate. It’s just not one you enjoy having, so you’d rather have a completely goofy debate. If I wanted a in indepth debate about energy policy, I would’ve opened a thread in GD. But if you’d like to that, go ahead. I’m here to Pit Ms. Pelosi’s stupid remard. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don’t like it, tough shit. > [@](#): > > A side topic, but this sentance has no real meaning in economics. Demand and supply are a negotiation that are ultimately interrelated, not fixed quantities. This from the guy who just called my pedantic! Would you rather I said: The price of oil is rising because demand at the lower price outstrips the current supply. Do you feel better now? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Don’t be thick. The allegation is not that he pulled some switch that controls prices. The allegation is that when you have leaders of a particular energy industry making energy policy, I think you forgot to add the final clause to that sentence. > [@](#): > > Again, feigning thickness is not becoming. The point is that enron is a perfectly nice precedent where friendliness to industry and the refusal to take political action cost consumers millions in a giant scamola (not to mention killed a couple overheated seniors). You just don’t like it because it works against your ethos of corporations can do no wrong You know, for a pretty smart guy you can be pretty stupid sometimes. Firstly, I have never said or even implied that “corporations can do no wrong”. If I have, I’m sure you can produce a quote from me to back up that ridiculous charge. Secondly, the roots of the Enron situation (wrt to CA or otherwise) long predates Bush, and lies deep in the Clinton presidency, if it doesn’t even predate him. Hint: Ken Lay became CEO in 1985. You act if as if the Enron debacle, which started when it decared bancruptcy in 2001, started only 10 months prior when Bush was sworn in. And your insistence of dumping the Enron scandal on Bush negelcts the factor Arthur Anderson played. But that’s another debate, too, and if you want to have it you’re free to open a GD thread on the subject. If you decide to do so, I suggest you do some research first-- you seem to have only a superficial understanding of the subject. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/113 "2006-05-01T15:08:18Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Well, lets look at just how “ridiculous” my statement was, shall we? First of all, the 18% figure I quoted was what I remember hearing on a news report, and it was just for the past quarter. Wanting more details, I looked at the [MSN Money page](http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/common/findInd.asp?Industry=Telecom&enter=Go&NextPage=%2Finvestor%2Finvsub%2Fresults%2Fcompare.asp&iMenu=&dl=) to get an idea of how far off base my claims were, after all, I’m one of those crazy people who think that business have a right to profit and crazy shit like that, I’m liable to say anything! Now, where to find a representative sample of “good” businesses? Hmm, if only there were some type of index of historically well performing companies…Hey! The Dow Jones! Listed below are the companies that make up the Dow. (I think SBC Communications is in there too, but for some reason I couldn’t find them using the above tool, their might have been a merger or something that I missed, so they are omitted) Quarterly net profits were not listed on that website, but average for the past 5 years and for the past year were listed, so those are the numbers that follow each company name respectively. The first column is the stock symbol: > > MMM 3M Corporation 13.1 15.4 > AA Alcoa 4.2 5.8 > AIG American Int’l Group 9.9 9.6 > MO Altria (was Philip Morris) 14.8 14.7 > AXP American Express 11.3 13.6 > BA Boeing 3.8 4.9 > CAT Caterpillar 5.8 7.9 > C CitiGroup 16.9 19.7 > KO Coca Cola 20.8 21.5 > DD E.I. DuPont de Nemours 8.5 7.2 > **XOM Exxon Mobil 9.3 10.9** > GE General Electric 11.3 11.4 > GM General Motors -.02 -4.5 > HPQ Hewlett-Packard 2.4 3.1 > HD Home Depot 6.6 7.2 > HON Honeywell 3.3 6.2 > INTC Intel 16.8 20.4 > IBM International Business Machines 8.0 9.3 > JPM JP Morgan Chase 8.4 11.0 > JNJ Johnson & Johnson 18.4 21.3 > MCD McDonalds 10.4 12.0 > MRK Merck 19.0 21.7 > MSFT Microsoft 28.3 31.6 > PFE Pfizer19.1 23.4 > PG Procter and Gamble 11.3 12.6 > SBC SBC Communications N/A N/A > UTX United Technologies 15.55 18.00 > VZ Verizon Communications 6.6 9.8 > WMT Wal-Mart Stores3.4 3.6 > DIS Walt Disney 5.4 8.4 > This averages out to a 5 year net profit of 10.78%, and a one year net profit of 12.34%. Exxon/Mobil’s numbers (bolded above) are 9.3 and 10.9 respectively. Gee, they look positively…average. (FYI, the oil and gas industry average is listed as well, those numbers are 7.7 and 9.1) Even if you expand the pool by using the percentages for the S&P 500 (6.2 and 8.3), Exxon/Mobil’s net profit margin is still pretty dam average. > > Looks like I’ve proved my point, wouldn’t you say **bup**? No. I never contested that they were average. I think what you’ve shown is that you thought 18% was average; in other words, and were wrong. In other words, you didn’t know what you were talking about - bringing out a data point you were wrong about, and using it to prove that that was average, which it wasn’t. In other words, you’ve shown that you start with a presupposed conclusion. Then , whatever thing you find must support it. Nice critical thinking skills. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/114 "2006-05-01T17:51:09Z")
> [@bup](#): > > No. > > I never contested that they were average. I think what you’ve shown is that you thought 18% was average; in other words, and were wrong. > > In other words, you didn’t know what you were talking about - bringing out a data point you were wrong about, and using it to prove that that was average, which it wasn’t. > > In other words, you’ve shown that you start with a presupposed conclusion. Then , whatever thing you find must support it. > > Nice critical thinking skills. I clearly proved that XOM’s profit margins are about average, and have been for the last 5 years. Ignoring the data that I presented because you just can’t admit that you were wrong isn’t going to get you any points here. I made a statement, you questioed it, I qualified what I meant and provided data supporting my position. You’ve presented nothing except snide comments and inuendo. If you want to continue this discussion, bring some facts and figures. Until then, you lose, big guy. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/115 "2006-05-01T18:36:01Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > I clearly proved that XOM’s profit margins are about average, and have been for the last 5 years. Ignoring the data that I presented because you just can’t admit that you were wrong isn’t going to get you any points here. I made a statement, you questioed it, I qualified what I meant and provided data supporting my position. You’ve presented nothing except snide comments and inuendo. If you want to continue this discussion, bring some facts and figures. Until then, you lose, big guy. **Weirddave** , I missed you and your idiocy. You said 18% - I said that’s not average. I never said Exxon/Mobil wasn’t average (except recent record profits). You got caught passing on false knowledge - in two ways. It was wrong, and it demonstrated you don’t know dick about the subject you were bombasting about. Own up to it, little guy. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/116 "2006-05-01T19:31:48Z")
> [@bup](#): > > I’m guessing she meant that very oil-biz friendly anti-environment policies, and the Iraq war, and less successful “jaw-boning” than Clinton did with the Saudis, have left us at this juncture. Ah, yes, the [jawboning](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154734,00.html). 😃 > [@](#): > > In 2000, when he was seeking the Republican nomination for president and oil was nearing $28 a barrel, Bush criticized the Clinton administration for high fuel prices and said the president must “jawbone” oil producing nations and persuade them to drop rates. Having claimed the existence and personal control of this magic wand, I’d say Bush is obligated to demonstrate its use. Seriously, though, energy policy is a long-term thing. We’re stuck with the Hummers on the road that everybody’s been buying the past few years, and they’ll be guzzling gas for a few years to come. The thing is, we’re already into the long term, where Bush’s energy policy is concerned. The Dems certainly share some of the blame, but only a minute fraction of it, IMHO. It’s been 16 years since the last time they tried increasing the CAFE standards (can’t remember if it got killed by filibuster or GHWB veto), and they’ve controlled Congress and the White House together for exactly two of those years - and even then, such a measure could have been killed by a filibuster. Nonetheless, they should have tried then. But the GOP has been free to propose such remedies at any time during those years, knowing full well that if they proposed it and gave it a modicum of support, it would have sailed right through Congress. Of course, the GOP doesn’t believe in conservation until its back is _already_ against the wall. But the most effective use of CAFE standards, gas taxes, etc. is to drive down demand _before_ we hit the wall with respect to supply. And we’ve hit it. Right now, supplies are so tight that hiccups in the market from a bunch of unstable or semi-hostile places - Nigeria, Iran, Venezuela, not to mention Iraq - can cause oil prices to jump. The slack’s already gone. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/117 "2006-05-01T19:35:34Z")
> [@bup](#): > > **Weirddave** , I missed you and your idiocy. > > You said 18% - I said that’s not average. I never said Exxon/Mobil wasn’t average (except recent record profits). > > You got caught passing on false knowledge - in two ways. It was wrong, and it demonstrated you don’t know dick about the subject you were bombasting about. > > Own up to it, little guy. Focus on a single minor point at the expense of ignoring the actual agrument being made. God, is it any wonder you never win an argument? Don’t ever change, bup. If you ever got a clue you might be dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/118 "2006-05-01T19:46:01Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > How about the fact that their profit magin is running about 18%, again, that’s about standard for a well run company in most industries. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/119 "2006-05-01T20:29:27Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Ah, yes, the [jawboning](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154734,00.html). 😃 > Having claimed the existence and personal control of this magic wand, I’d say Bush is obligated to demonstrate its use. Wow. FoxNews has it’s uses, doesn’t it? 🙂 > [@](#): > > Seriously, though, energy policy is a long-term thing. We’re stuck with the Hummers on the road that everybody’s been buying the past few years, and they’ll be guzzling gas for a few years to come. The thing is, we’re already into the long term, where Bush’s energy policy is concerned. > > The Dems certainly share some of the blame, but only a minute fraction of it, IMHO. It’s been 16 years since the last time they tried increasing the CAFE standards (can’t remember if it got killed by filibuster or GHWB veto), and they’ve controlled Congress and the White House together for exactly two of those years - and even then, such a measure could have been killed by a filibuster. Nonetheless, they should have tried then. > > But the GOP has been free to propose such remedies at any time during those years, knowing full well that if they proposed it and gave it a modicum of support, it would have sailed right through Congress. Of course, the GOP doesn’t believe in conservation until its back is _already_ against the wall. But the most effective use of CAFE standards, gas taxes, etc. is to drive down demand _before_ we hit the wall with respect to supply. > > And we’ve hit it. Right now, supplies are so tight that hiccups in the market from a bunch of unstable or semi-hostile places - Nigeria, Iran, Venezuela, not to mention Iraq - can cause oil prices to jump. The slack’s already gone. I don’t understand why we need to legislate higher CAFE standards as a way of controling gas prices. If we, as a society, really wanted higher mileage cars we’d buy them without the need for the government to force us to do so. I can see higher CAFE standards as a way of controling pollution, but anyone who wants to spend less on gas should be buying the highest mileage car he or she can. Instead, we’ve all known that higher gas prices are coming for a few years now, and we’re still buying those Hummers and Expeditions. Anyone who can afford to by a big SUV gets no sympathy from me when gas prices goes up. In fact, the cheaper gas is, the more we’re going to dependent on it for our economy. The best way to kick the imported oil habit is for the price to rise to where alternative fules become viable sooner. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/120 "2006-05-01T21:45:59Z")
> [@bup](#): > > 🙂 So, you demanded proof, and I went looking for it. What oh what did I post: > [@me](#): > > Well, lets look at just how “ridiculous” my statement was, shall we? \*\*First of all, the 18% figure I quoted was what I remember hearing on a news report, and it was just for the past quarter. \*\* Hmm. Looks like I started out by admitting that what you were querying me on was heresy. Doesn’t look like a strong start for me. > [@me](#): > > Wanting more details, I looked at the MSN Money page to get an idea of how far off base my claims were, after all, I’m one of those crazy people who think that business have a right to profit and crazy shit like that, I’m liable to say anything! Well, that’s refreshing, a poster on these boards who is actually willing to look at the facts WRT his claims, regardless of his previous bias. Very unusual! > [@me](#): > > Quarterly net profits were not listed on that website, but average for the past 5 years and for the past year were listed, so those are the numbers that follow each company name respectively. Oh my. A flat out admission that I couldn’t find any data to support my claim. How tragic. I guess I’m done, unless…I’m willing to be honest! YES! I go on to clearly state what the data shows and then to present the data to back that up. Amazing! A poster arguing honestly! Unheard of! Still, who could take issue with that? Apparently you can, because in the grand tradition of endless disagreeing about what the definition of “did not have sex” is, you focus on the 18% as average figure(you know, the part I already admitted I’ve been unable back up with cites) and ignored the greater point entirely (That XOM does not show profit levels indicative of any gouging or profiteering, and in fact their profit levels are about average for Dow companies.) Jesus Christ! Just once I’d like to see a thread on these boards demonstrate a reasonable give and take on the actual issue instead of dissolving into pedantic squabbling over the whyness of which verses the whichness of why. What a waste of time. If you have any data suggesting that XOM’s profit margins are not pretty damn average, _which was the entire point in the first place_, present it. If you want to pursue a different subject, start your own thread on that subject. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505.md?page=7)