Both. They know we’re ruled by madmen, plus they know that, thanks to Iraq, they’ve probably got a window of opportunity to beef up their defenses. Of course no one, excepting some Iranians knows whether they’ve a bomb program or not. All our real (as opposed to made up) intelligence can’t even prove the existence of 100 atoms of 70% U[sup]235[/sup] in Iran, much less enough to begin building an atom bomb.
Did you notice Bush’s sudden concern with acquiring executive power to set automotive cafe standards today?
The man cares, he REALLY does. 
Yup, a Pomeroy voting Red-Stater. Good to know you’re taking time to see past a label.
Fear us mortal! We trogs are lesser than you since we live in a “rural” state. The Congressional delegation should make you proud! Of course, this means you’re in agreement with us even though we are a “Red State”.
Kind of confusing when your narrow definitions are shattered, huh?
So is North Dakota red or blue?
Is North Dakota more sensible than you as a whole? based on the evidence, I’d say so. Now shut the fuck up and find a new weak argument.
Well… duh.
I hate to rain on a great conspiracy theory Steve (OH NOES! Cheney met with oilmen in a meeting about energy policy! Run from the black helicopters!), but maybe you can explain why Exxon/Mobil just paid $1.35/share on their stock, an nice return, to be sure, but nothing out of the ordinary to write home about. 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. Where is all this money that is being being “ripped off” from us going? Oh, and by the way all of you oil-companies-are-evil-for-gouging-us-at-the-pump people; federal, state and local taxes make up about 42% of the retail cost of gas, where is your outrage at that? Surely if the evil here is the $3/gal price of gas, that’s a good place to start, wouldn’t you think? If 58% of the price of a gallon of gas is going to a business that provides jobs and drives the economy while at the same time showing average profit margins, and 42% of the price of a gallon of gas is going to an inefficeint, wasteful government buerocracy that generally does little or nothing except strive to justify it’s own existence…well, I know where I would look for cuts.
Unless this isn’t really about the cost of the gas, and is more about scoring political points, valid or not…Nah, couldn’t be that. Nevermind.
Mind reminding me how Bush has pushed conservation over the past 5 years? Was it Cheney laughing at the notion? Was it that the dribble of oil from Alaska would actually help anything? Was it his hydrogen pipe dream? Was it the opposition to better mileage standards? Maybe higher taxes a few years ago would have gotten conservation sooner and the money to us, instead of to the Saudis. (Oops, a bit goes to Exxon-Mobil. I’m sure they’re crying about that.)
And now you whine about how they aren’t responsible?
So, when is Cheney going to release the minutes of that oil summit again?
You know where federal gas taxes go? Look here.
In 1997 83.9% of federal taxes went to roads, 15.5% went to mass transit and 0.5% went to other trust funds. So, you want our roads to fall apart? Throw road workers into unemployment? Good job. And yeah, every penny of oil prices goes to good old Americans - good old Americans in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Nigeria. But the execs of Exxon do well, and that’s all that counts to the likes of you.
John, aren’t you in the least bit curious as to why Cheney fought so hard to keep his energy summit with big oil a secret?
Why are we still giving subsidies to the oil companies? Do they really need corporate welfare and special tax breaks?
Why are they having record-breaking profits on the backs of the American people?
No, I don’t blame all of this on the current Administration. But there has been a terrible lack of leadership that could have made a difference.
Why hasn’t he lead the country in asking people to sacrifice for the war effort rather than to go about our lives as usual? I’m old enough to remember Victory Gardens, gasoline rationing and food rationing. And I know enough of history to know that difficult times can draw people together and unify a country.
What would have happened if Bush had suggested that it would be an act of patriotism to park the SUVs, if possible, and drive smaller cars – or to use those SUVs for car pooling only? Maybe it would be an act of patriotism to wear two or three sweaters in the winter and don’t use as much heat and set the room temps higher in the summer. These are things he can still do!
Someone run a hand up his backside and make his mouth move!
What would have happened to oil company profits if Americans had curtailed their use of gasoline and oil by 20-25%?
On the contrary, I will shout it from the rooftops until the mid-term elections. The 30 percenters are not happy about gas prices, and they can be manipulated to stay home in November. We will continue to bash Bush and any Republicans who support him with every club in our bag until we take back the House and Senate. Do you really think we were asleep during the last two or three elections, when Karl taught us how to manipulate the red staters? I’d say we have a couple of winning issues; between gas prices, government spending and Iraq, there is a good chance most of your sheeple friends will stay home in disgust. Happy days are here again!
I never said they wanted to nuke us til we glow, and as far as I know, they don’t. They want to be in the “nuclear club.” This is nothing like an academic club in high school, by the way. It was my understanding that it was always sort of a long-range goal, but recently Iran has made it a priority. I don’t know if that is hostility to Bush, or the fact that the Mullahs are threatened for the first time in over 25 years and needed an issue. We are not the only ones with cynical manipulative politicians.
I think John Mace forgot to read the part of Wealth of Nations wherein Adam Smith discusses how competing entities hate to compete. If you simply ignore most of what modern economics has to say, then yes, of course politics never has anything to do with the perfect free market (except perhaps unduly constraining it: but it would never work on behalf of corporations against the consumer! That’s unpossible crazytalk!)!
But is it really that crazy to 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? That they would have greenlighted every possible thing to help an industry dodge regulation and oversight? Is this really what’s being maintained? How long have we been talking about energy problems in this country now?
The re-branded Bush certainly seems to think that there are things that can be done to help. He’s making a lot of noise right now about all sorts of things HE is going to do to help this crisis, from setting fuel efficiency standards (now to be the direct authority of the President, just like the choice to torture!). Is he an ignorant slut? Is it wrong then, to suggest that this new tune seems years too late in coming, which shouldn’t surprise us out of President oilman?
After all, we have a similar situation with the manufactured energy crisis in California. Were companies actually colluding to drive up prices to take windfall profits? Yes. Were they big friends of, donors to, and supporters of the President? Yes. Did the President do any of the things people were urging him to that would have helped end the crisis (at the cost of all those windfall profits?). No. End result? “ha ha: burn economy burn, we’re rich!”
But of course, that sort of thing never happens, and is never aided or abbeted either by policies that help it happen, or criminally negligent blind eyes. Because that part of Adam Smith is sitting on a shelf, unskimmed by our virtuous expert on economics.
I’m simply amused by the sight of the same poster who defends the appointment of Tony Snow as WH spokesman on the grounds that his job is primarily political spin concurrently claiming outrage over the statements of an official whose job is primarily political spin.
Still claiming not to be a Republican, John, ol’ boy?
I know very much where that tax money goes, thankyouverymuch. Aparently you have trouble with your reading comprehension, because even thought you quoted what I said, you obviously completely missed it:
Maybe you don’t think that $3 a gallon is a bigger problem then all those things that gas taxes pay for. Fine and dandy, that’s your decision to make, but don’t pretend that what we’re dealing with here is all big, bad corporate greed and a screw the little guy mentality when the numbers show that Exxon/Mobil is posting decent but not spectacular earnings. Your arguments just don’t square up with the facts.
Funny article. I especially liked this tidbit from it …
You know what MIGHT help, if Washington had the will and the balls to do it??? Reign in the oil speculators. Nah, that’s too obvious. :rolleyes:
I’m still fuming because the same level of outrage does not seem to be aimed at the other side of the house.
Maybe, to plagiarize, from now on, our stock answer to everything should be “yeah yeah Pelosi is teh suxx0r” with a rolleyes thingy.
It looks like Repubs can use any tactic they please and no one can call them on it without being a whiner. Look how they whine when it’s done to them. In fact, I was one of the first in THAT thread to say Snow was a lying scumbag. Oh the humanity! 
I’m curious as to why only one half of the old Curtin-Ackroyd SNL-skit exchange is ever used. The thread title could just as easily have been “Nancy Pelosi, you pompous swine-ass!”, and would in addition have received extra points both for not unoriginally repeating a cliche and for showing deeper awareness of our cultural history.
But we’ll never know.
Is that the long-anticipated acknowledgment that you are, in fact, on one side of the house?
Who else here is amused by the sight of a so-called adult *fuming * over his discovery of political spin in Washington?
Shit if I know. Maybe if I start eating a lot more, I can sit on both sides
Besides, I always knew there was spin, it’s the crap that only “THEM” are allowed to do it.
I’m afraid it’s you who need to go back and refresh yourself on Econ 101, but let me first deal with the way you mischaracterized my complaint here.
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, on to Econ 101. Oil is commodity, the price of which is set by the international market. Bush doesn’t set the oil price, nor does the CEO of EXXON. It’s set by traders all over the world who bid on oil futures virtually every minute of every day. The world’s demand for oil far outstrips supply. Remember the Supply Demand curve? Econ 101. Every dollar/bbl increase in oil translates to something like 3-4 cents/gal of gasoline. 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.
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.
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.
Damn. You’re *not * John. Sorry. :smack: