I love this: President Bush, saying he was unaware of predictions of $4-a-gallon gasoline in the coming months, told reporters Thursday that the best way to help Americans fend off high prices is for Congress to make his first-term tax cuts permanent.
LMAO!! WOW HIS TAX CUTS ARE MOSTLY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD $4 GAS!!! What an idiot.
Posted by Relentless. on :
He was unaware of predictions of$4 gas because all his advisors are saying $7.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: He was unaware of predictions of$4 gas because all his advisors are saying $7.
and laughing
Posted by bond006 on :
Unaware of$4 agallon gas? he most likley knows the date it will be $4 a gallon
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
What a liar...this man coming from the oil industry and then claiming to be aloof on oil prices?
and THIS is our president?
Posted by glassman on :
his oil co. failed... and he sold out a couple weeks before... the SEC sealed the record of the investigation into his "timely" sale... his father saw to that...
his baseball enterprise is his only claim to success other than getting into offices...
and that involved getting the govt to use eminent domain to take away the land for Arlington stadium, and the ball team never paid the City what it promised to pay for the land... the city apparently just forgave the debt...
Bush's economic policy: You do what we say, and we'll do what we wanna do." Posted by Propertymanager on :
Will $4 gas be enough to cause a SERIOUS recession (or a depression)? Where's the tipping point? I wonder how much is costs to feed a horse?
Posted by bond006 on :
gas prices just figure in to the whole picture don't really look good
I am lucky my business just keeps getting better.
It is just a bad business but necessary.
Posted by PCola77 on :
I love this: President Bush, saying he was unaware of predictions of $4-a-gallon gasoline in the coming months, told reporters Thursday that the best way to help Americans fend off high prices is for Congress to make his first-term tax cuts permanent.
LMAO!! WOW HIS TAX CUTS ARE MOSTLY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD $4 GAS!!! What an idiot.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Will $4 gas be enough to cause a SERIOUS recession (or a depression)? Where's the tipping point? I wonder how much is costs to feed a horse?
Depends. Do you have land to grow hay?
You can grow approx 3 tons of hay per acre of land. More in good climates, less in bad soil.
A horse will eat approximately 10% of their body weight in hay a day.
You can cut costs by letting a horse graze all day but that will take room also. Horses need at least an acre per head for a paddock to ensure they have enough grass and if you want the land to be healthy you should rotate the horses to a different paddock every week to let the grass grow back after being cropped and also give the land a little time to break down the wastes.
It is more complicated then that but it is the short answer.
Posted by glassman on :
you should also have some goats to cut down on parasites..
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
And chickens too.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
$3.79 around here, I can't wait till Memorial day. You heard that, didn't you?
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Hit $4.00 here today...effers
Posted by T e x on :
Boycott EXXON...lol, said this long time ago--you get enough folks to simply say, "No" to EXXON? price will tumble...
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Thats the problem Tex...no one's united anymore...divided we fall, and we are falling fast
Posted by T e x on :
Good point
one sort of leader persuades examining our common points...
another sort encourages blowing up the commonality.
Posted by bond006 on :
boycotts are illegal tex leader always run the risk of going to jail.
Posted by osubucks30 on :
$3.89 at my local gas station. But at another gas station I seen it at $3.95!
Posted by PCola77 on :
quote:Originally posted by bond006: boycotts are illegal tex leader always run the risk of going to jail.
I don't think that is true in a case like this. We would not be a competitor trying to keep competition away or disadvantage a competitor. I don't think retail boycotts are illegal in any sense. If you know of somewhere taht lays it out, let me know, but I do think you are wrong about that.
Boycotts. A group boycott -- an agreement among competitors not to deal with another person or business -- violates the law if it is used to force another party to pay higher prices.
Boycotts to prevent a firm from entering a market or to disadvantage a competitor also are illegal. Recent cases involved a group of physicians charged with using a boycott to prevent a managed care organization from establishing a competing health care facility in Virginia and retailers who used a boycott to force manufacturers to limit sales through a competing catalog vendor.
Are boycotts for other purposes illegal? It depends on their effect on competition and possible justifications. A group of California auto dealers used a boycott to prevent a newspaper from telling consumers how to use wholesale price information when shopping for cars. The FTC proved that the boycott affected price competition and had no reasonable justification.
Posted by glassman on :
nice DD Pcola Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Thats the problem Tex...no one's united anymore...divided we fall, and we are falling fast
how did this happen?
what is the commonality?
Posted by PCola77 on :
We're divided because everyone's out for themselves. Myself included. I want to be as successful as i can for myself and my family, and screw the rest of you guys
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Thats the problem Tex...no one's united anymore...divided we fall, and we are falling fast
how did this happen?
what is the commonality?
Posted by glassman on :
We're divided because everyone's out for themselves. Myself included. I want to be as successful as i can for myself and my family, and screw the rest of you guys [Razz]
LOL.. if it was that simple? i wouldna asked...
why did the DOJ authorise all of the corporate consolidations in clear violation of the antitrust laws?
i'm not just talking about oil either.
IMO? it's been counterproductive to US competitiveness too..
people blame the EPA for Americas non-competitiveness when in reality it's been consolidation that has destroyed most of it...
investors like it for about a year. they get good benefits from their investment in consolidation, but then they don't have the kind of growth in the small caps that they need to make the big profits. because the big co's stomp all over the little ones...
sure oil has gone up and made the oil co's profitable investemnts, but that is the exception tot eh rule...
look at MSFT and GE... they just sit there...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:Boycott EXXON...lol, said this long time ago--you get enough folks to simply say, "No" to EXXON? price will tumble...
If you believe that Exxon is making big profits, why don't you put all your money into Exxon stock? That way, you'll be filthy rich and you can use your massive profits from your Exxon stock to pay for your fuel at the gas pumps.
Posted by cottonjim on :
PM, I bet that Exxon and other large oil companies come out and announce record profits for the year. It will be the same damn thing they did last year when gas prices spiked. they make money because of the bloated price of oil period, somebody is making money out of this mess, profits are not just sucked into a vacume.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by cottonjim: PM, I bet that Exxon and other large oil companies come out and announce record profits for the year. It will be the same damn thing they did last year when gas prices spiked. they make money because of the bloated price of oil period, somebody is making money out of this mess, profits are not just sucked into a vacume.
they also openly admitted that they cut production of gasoline from oil because their "downstream" margins are tight.... this reduces gasoline supply which causes traders to "buy up" gasoline prices which the oiltraders see and then "buy up" oil prices... it's been going like this for a couple years now.
Exxon currently pumps about half of it's own oil and buys the other half on the world market...
IF there were more compettitors pumping and refining this sort of "play" would not happen....
the other half of the oil supply story is that most of the world oil market is now "state owned" and the states DO reduce production to manipulate supply...
Mexico's oil production is in a dangerously steep decline. Why should that matter to the United States? Because Mexico exports 1.2 million barrels of oil per day to the United States, which is 8 percent of the U.S. supplies.
Mexico ranks third behind Canada and Saudi Arabia in exports to the United States. In an already tight oil market it would be difficult for the United States to find another million- plus barrels. And if we could, it would likely come from a shakier supplier.
In a recent televised address, Mexico's President Felipe Calderon warned, "We must act now, because time, and oil, is running out on us." Analysts estimate at the current rate of consumption Mexico's oil production could last 9.2 years and exporting will end in less time.
Oil companies and auto manufactuer's made the conditions for American life of commuting long distances to work and limiting or getting rid of good public transportion. And real estate developemnet ,suburbs.
All this was built around cheap fuel and car priced with in most folks budget. And that is going away fast
Posted by bond006 on :
Like I said start your boycott I will join but you can lead
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:Oil companies and auto manufactuer's made the conditions for American life of commuting long distances to work and limiting or getting rid of good public transportion.
Oil companies and auto makers respond to demand. They do not "make the conditions for American life". The American public (including me) wants to travel where they want, when they want and that is not public transportation.
Again, if anyone thinks that the oil companies are making obscene profits, buy oil company stocks and you can receive your share of the profits!!! The truth is that oil companies only have a profit margin of 7% to 8% and that is not even close to the best return out there.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:Boycott EXXON...lol, said this long time ago--you get enough folks to simply say, "No" to EXXON? price will tumble...
If you believe that Exxon is making big profits, why don't you put all your money into Exxon stock? That way, you'll be filthy rich and you can use your massive profits from your Exxon stock to pay for your fuel at the gas pumps.
lol, haven't we been through this before? Look at the DANG CHART:
The truth is that oil companies only have a profit margin of 7% to 8%
there you go again quoting whatever you hear without paying attention to actual facts. that is the downstream margin...
the FACT is that 1/2 of EXXONS crude supply (upstream) was found and is being pumped outof wells that were still profitable at 30$ per barrel...
Posted by glassman on :
here's the real truth:
Ahead of the pack. Exxon Mobil's profits are 80 percent higher than those of General Electric, which used to be the largest U.S. company by market capitalization before Exxon left it in the dust in 2005. The new economy? Microsoft earns about a third as much money. And next to Exxon, the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart, looks like a quaint boutique, with annual profits of about $11 billion.
On the margin. The oil industry urges people to look beyond its profits to its profit margin: about 7.6 percent of revenues late last year. That's not much higher than the 5.8 percent profit margin for all U.S. manufacturing, and if you exclude the financially troubled auto industry from that analysis, the oil industry actually appears less profitable than most manufacturers, which were earning 9.2 cents on every dollar of sales.
But unrivaled returns on equity. However, profit margins across industries vary greatly based not on how well each business is doing but how capital- or labor-intensive it is. Oil is among the most capital-intensive. But look at the oil industry's profits compared with shareholder equity it has available for investment. The U.S. Energy Information Administration's most recent analysis of the oil industry's performance, released just last month, showed oil industry return on equity of 27 percent—about 10 points higher than that of other manufacturers. And it has been higher throughout this recent era of high world oil prices, just as it was back during the oil shock that hit in 1980. http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/02/01/exxons-profits-measur ing-a-record-windfall.html Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Again, if anyone thinks that the oil companies are making obscene profits, buy oil company stocks and you can receive your share of the profits!!!
Thank you... Exxon went up $1.39 per share (1.55%) today... tidy profit I would say... Did you buy any or just sat there and rant/raved about what you know nothing about? Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Again, if anyone thinks that the oil companies are making obscene profits, buy oil company stocks and you can receive your share of the profits!!!
Thank you... Exxon went up $1.39 per share (1.55%) today... tidy profit I would say... Did you buy any or just sat there and rant/raved about what you know nothing about?
you get *my* point, I'm sure...
I'm not about to park my dough for 3 1/2 years for a measly double...
Posted by bond006 on :
PM you are 1/2 witted
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by bond006: PM you are 1/2 witted
Now you're just being generous Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:I'm not about to park my dough for 3 1/2 years for a measly double...
Thank you Tex, my point exactly. Big oil (as well as big pharma, Walmart, etc) is a popular target for the socialists, but the profits are not out of line with other businesses. That's why you aren't willing to invest your money there.
quote:PM you are 1/2 witted
That may be true, but at least I'm not foolish enough to buy into the socialists constant whining about big oil making obscene profits!
Posted by glassman on :
That may be true, but at least I'm not foolish enough to buy into the socialists constant whining about big oil making obscene profits!
maybe you missed this: Exxon Mobil's profits are 80 percent higher than those of General Electric, which used to be the largest U.S. company by market capitalization before Exxon left it in the dust in 2005. The new economy? Microsoft earns about a third as much money. And next to Exxon, the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart, looks like a quaint boutique, with annual profits of about $11 billion. Posted by Machiavelli on :
He likes to ignore facts most of the time Glass when it doesn't suit his views... lol
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: you get *my* point, I'm sure...
I'm not about to park my dough for 3 1/2 years for a measly double...
who said anything about 3.5 years or investing? lol Your in and your out just like sex... Posted by glassman on :
the "obscenity" here is that nobody ANYWHERE has run out of gas or oil...
there is no shortage, there hasn't been any real disruption in supply.
there HAS been a huge consolidation of the large oil co's . we now have five co's that are larger than the next twenty combined... as of '03:
The largest five oil companies operating in the United States (ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, BP and Royal Dutch Shell) now control: · 14.2% of global oil production (nearly as much as the entire Middle East members of the OPEC cartel). · 48% of the domestic oil production (which is significant given the fact that the U.S. is the 3rd largest oil producer in the world). · 50.3% of domestic refinery capacity. · 61.8% of the retail gasoline market. · These same five companies also control 21.3% of domestic natural gas production.
These figures are in stark contrast to just a decade ago, when the top five oil companies controlled only: · 7.7% of global crude oil production. · 33.7% of domestic crude oil production. · 33.4% of domestic refinery capacity. · 27.0% of the retail market
In 1993, the top five U.S. companies controlled only 12.7% of domestic natural gas production.
that's the real problem... it's not environmental whackos and socialistas, it's anti-trust violations unchecked...
it would only take TWO months of profits for Exxon to build ONE more refinery and that includes the costs of all the envrinnmental impact statemnts too....
sure, more US drilling would help run down world market prices too.. but drilling in ANWAR would have no significant impact on world oil prices, it's too remote... if you want to make a difference? you need to drill on the Gulf side of FLA, AL, and MS.... there's lots of oil there... and FLA is a GOP state.... has been for years...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: and FLA is a GOP state.... has been for years...
I always found that odd to tell you the truth... do not know why it is a GOP state with such a large hispanic population...
Posted by Stupid on :
Hey Glass,no shortage here in central Fl.There are usually 2 or 3 oil tankers sittin of our coast waiting to unload at the refinery we have at the port but the storage tanks are full of crude and I believe the other two are diesel and gas...
Mach,large hispanic population yes.Legal probably not.They are only heard from when they wanna protest something Fidel does.I believe they need to go back to Cuba to complain.They dont wanna try to vote,imigration might catch'em but what do I know.I have only lived here for 43 years and yes,I will leave soon and bring the flag with me.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:that's the real problem... it's not environmental whackos and socialistas, it's anti-trust violations unchecked...
Ridiculous! This is a very simple supply and demand issue. If more oil were being pumped and there was a glut of oil on the world market, prices would come down. If there was less demand, even with the current level of oil supply, prices would come down.
The fact is that China is growing rapidly and if their growth continues for the next 10 years, China will use all of the world's oil production (at today's rate). That means that over the next 10 years, either more pumping of oil needs to occur or prices will dramatically increase. The environmental wackos are preventing the US from drilling for oil in ANWR and off the continental shelf in many locations; have prevented us from adding nuclear power plants; have stopped windfarms off shore; complain that wind turbines kill too many birds, etc, etc, etc. They are directly responsible for many of the problems we have today.
quote:it would only take TWO months of profits for Exxon to build ONE more refinery and that includes the costs of all the envrinnmental impact statemnts too....
If you think the oil companies are making such obscene profits, you should put your money where your mouth is and buy oil company stocks. Better yet, put together a group of investors and start your own oil company! If I believed that there were obscene profits to be made, that is exactly what I would do.
Posted by glassman on :
If more oil were being pumped and there was a glut of oil on the world market, prices would come down
"glut" of oil on the market? where would it sit? ever here of this new thing called "just in time delivery"? the oil co's have
if you read? you'll find world demand is dropping right now.
pumped? yes, have you ever seen an oil pump? they operate at different speeds...
Posted by glassman on :
The fact is that China is growing rapidly and if their growth continues for the next 10 years, China will use all of the world's oil production (at today's rate).
yeah, and i have some magic beans for sale... only one cow.. interested? LOL where do you get this stuf from man? you need to switch your newswire service
Posted by Lockman on :
CITGO has the lowest prices in CT.
I believe that's a Venesula company.
Posted by glassman on :
In Riyadh Saudi Arabia? Gas is 65 cents a gallon in Kuwait City Kuwait? 78 cents. in cairo Egypt? 65 cents in Lagos Nigeria? 38 cents in Caracas Ven.? 12 cents.
maybe just in time delivery works? Posted by Stupid on :
Glass.You left out Cocoa,Fl at Hess $3.83
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by Stupid: Mach,large hispanic population yes.Legal probably not.They are only heard from when they wanna protest something Fidel does.I believe they need to go back to Cuba to complain.They dont wanna try to vote,imigration might catch'em but what do I know.I have only lived here for 43 years and yes,I will leave soon and bring the flag with me.
Just thought I let you know I'm hispanic... and your statement is pretty much stereotypical and very bigoted... so I guess if you saw my parents somewhere like at the supermarket or wherever, you would think they are illegals?. Just to let you know they immigrated here legally in 1970 or 71 and gained their citizenship... but i guess to you all hispanics are illegals... and don't vote (note: me and my parents have been voting for years)...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
The environmental wackos are preventing the US from drilling for oil in ANWR and off the continental shelf in many locations; have prevented us from adding nuclear power plants; have stopped windfarms off shore; complain that wind turbines kill too many birds, etc, etc, etc. They are directly responsible for many of the problems we have today.
Seriously, you must be smoking some of the most potent Weed out there to be dreaming up these conspiracy theories... you make Mel Gibson's character in the movie Conspiracy Theory look like a choirboy lol
quote:If you think the oil companies are making such obscene profits, you should put your money where your mouth is and buy oil company stocks. Better yet, put together a group of investors and start your own oil company! If I believed that there were obscene profits to be made, that is exactly what I would do.
I guess you would say the Getty's and Rockefellers made no money then? Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
There are plenty of people making money speculating on oil commodities right now, I could join them if I wanted to, but I am community minded enough to realize that these folks are basically holding the gasoline suppliers (and thereby the populous of America) hostage by running prices high while the numbers are tight.
(Note I said numbers...there is enough oil...they are using the reports to hijack trade)
I watched the run ups in oil stocks during the start of the war. I took part in the run up on these companies after Katrina. But when a small run up started based soley on a rumor that America was about to invade Iran I finally saw this for what it was...blood money. I made a vow then not to trade in another oil stock and so far I have stood by that pledge.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Interesting video....
yeah that is interesting, i'll do some followup dd.. it is quite possible theres much more oil there than has been "proven"...
i beleive the pumping of nat gas back into wells is to maintain pressure. there may not be as much to actually "haul off" after a short while, if they didn't keep pumping it back into the wells tho...
remember the "good old days when oil was "only" $75 per barrel? Pipeline Closure Sends Oil Higher BP to Halt Production of 400,000 Barrels a Day in Alaska
By Steven Mufson Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, August 8, 2006; Page A01
After noticing an oil spill on a deserted stretch of frozen road in Alaska's North Slope in early March, workers needed three days to find the quarter-inch-wide hole in a pipeline, just where it dipped into a culvert to allow the caribou to pass. News that BP would have to suspend production equal to 8 percent of U.S. petroleum output for an indefinite period helped push the price of crude oil up by 3 percent yesterday, to $76.98 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The price jump underlined the fragility of world oil markets, already anxious about the thin cushion between global supply and demand and potential threats to flows from Iran, Nigeria, Iraq and the hurricane-prone Gulf of Mexico. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/07/AR2006080700131. html Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: I finally saw this for what it was...blood money. I made a vow then not to trade in another oil stock and so far I have stood by that pledge.
Alot of stocks and their industries other then oil can be construed as "blood money"... does that mean we will not participate in our system of Free Market? ...
Posted by glassman on :
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently completed a new assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources of the central part of the Alaska North Slope and the adjacent offshore area. Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the USGS estimates that there are undiscovered, technically recoverable mean resources of 4.0 billion barrels of oil, 37.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 478 million barrels of natural gas liquids
Alaska North Slope may hold 36 bln bbl oil-US DOE Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:52pm GMT
WASHINGTON, Jan 29 (Reuters) - Oil and natural gas production at Alaska's North Slope has been declining since 1988 but the region holds promise if energy prices stay high and Congress opens key areas to exploration, the U.S. Energy Department said in a report released on Tuesday.
Through 2050, the North Slope could yield up to 36 billion barrels of oil and 137 trillion cubic feet of natural gas under optimistic assumptions, the Energy Department said.
that's 38 billion MORE than the already proven reserves.
the Saudi's have 260 billion barrels...
ANWR holds about 6 billion barrels... ANWR is only a drop in the bucket...
Posted by glassman on :
as of last year Russia passed Saudi Arabia as the world leading oil producer...
8.8 million barrels per day (SA) versus Russias 9.5 million per day.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
This guy claims we could have as much as the Saudi's
I don't know if it's true...but I am 100% sure that I don't trust any level or branch of our government OR any media organization...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: This guy claims we could have as much as the Saudi's
I don't know if it's true...but I am 100% sure that I don't trust any level or branch of our government OR any media organization...
agreed, i'm just starting with the basic claims...
ANWR has been a political diversion IMO. it's never been economically important it's just been something to squabble over...
this came out last year:
'Big Five' Oil Companies Limit Exploration
ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2007) — A study released by Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy finds that the "Big Five" international oil companies (IOCs) are spending less money on oil exploration in real terms despite a four-fold increase in operating cash flow since the early 1990s. On the flip side, the study, "The International Oil Companies," finds that second-tier oil companies are spending more in exploration, positioning themselves to be in better shape when it comes to future oil reserves. The study found that the Big Five (ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips), used 56 percent of their increasing cash flow on share repurchases and dividends, which were good for investors in the short term but put at risk the companies long-term oil reserves.
"The handwriting is on the wall. The oil majors are not replacing reserves," said Amy Myers Jaffe, co-author of the report and the Wallace S. Wilson fellow for Energy Studies at the Baker Institute. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071112140720.htm
the big five probably expect to acquire or finance the smaller co's as they develop their finds.... that would be my plan if i were them...
less risk this way... buy your own shares back so you can use shares to purchase and or fund the smaller ones once they begin to develop their new finds
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:Seriously, you must be smoking some of the most potent Weed out there to be dreaming up these conspiracy theories... you make Mel Gibson's character in the movie Conspiracy Theory look like a choirboy lol
C'mon Mach, are you REALLY claiming that the environmental wackos haven't prevented us from building nuclear power plants; drilling for oil in ANWR and off the continental shelf; from putting a wind farm off of Cape Code (aka Ted Kennedy's sailing grounds); etc? That's not even credible!
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Once again PM.
Where you gonna put the waste?
Answer that ONE question and you can build all the nuclear reactors you want.
(But if you do...be prepared for more countries like Iran to point to you as justification for doing the same thing. Is that what you want?)
You wind farm example is one instance of an abuse of power. Show me more to prove to me that wind farms (brought to you courtesy of environmental wackos) are actively fighting wind farm expansion.
Mach,
depends on your def of Blood Money. I would guess you are thinking of diamonds. Yes...to my mind I would be sure a company does not use unsafe labor practices such as can be found in Africa before investing.
My point on oil is that traders are jumping on board to profit from bloodshed and war. In that sense they are promoting violence for the sake of money. I personally believe that a self-respecting community minded trader should stay away from this destabilizing scenario. Don't feed the beast.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
P.S. CNN reporting that Ted Kennedy has just been rushed to the hospital with stroke-like symptoms.
Posted by glassman on :
C'mon Mach, are you REALLY claiming that the environmental wackos haven't prevented us from building nuclear power plants; drilling for oil in ANWR and off the continental shelf; from putting a wind farm off of Cape Code (aka Ted Kennedy's sailing grounds); etc? That's not even credible!
forget the wind farm for now.
Nuke powerplants have not been been blocked by any whackos. none of this stuff has been...
we currently have no place to dispose of spent fuel. nobody wants to have their water being pumped out of an aquifer that runs thru a spent nuke fuel depot... there's nothing whacko about wanting to drink and bathe in clean water...
the fact is that everybody becomes an "environmental whacko" as you put it, when actually confronted with the real costs...
want some cheap rental properties? have you been to Chernobyl recently?
if drilling in ANWR was really profitable? it would already be happening. it's marginally profitable at todays prices. always has been.
it isn't environmental whackos that have blocked all efforts to set up a bigger system, it is everybody. build a nuke reactor in my neighborhood? no thank you i want to sell MY house at a PROFIT someday...
Posted by glassman on :
the wind Farm on Nantucket was also opposed by Mitt Romney... i bet rush forgot to mention that,
or the Fact that Republican Senator Ted Stevens tried to insert an amendment into the Coast Guard funding bill in '06 that would prohibit the Coast Guard from approving the wind-farm project if a "governor of an adjacent coastal State makes a written determination" opposing the proposed site.
or that Congressmember Don Young (R-Alaska) unsuccessfully tried to attach an amendment to the House version of the bill that would have required a mile-and-a-half buffer zone between the turbines and shipping and ferry routes.
or that in October 2004, Virginia Senator John Warner of Virginia (R) introduced an amendment to a defense spending bill that would have authorized a moratorium on all offshore wind projects in federally controlled waters....
these guys aren't environmental whackos. they are TOOLS....
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Wow Glass.
Good DD!
What the hell is it about this wind farm that has everyone so riled up?
Posted by glassman on :
some people don't want it to spoil the view from their oceanside "cottages"...
others are competitors (in some way or another) to the company that wants to build the project...
the Alaska reps are representing oil interests...
alot of the lobbying moneys come from places no one can see...
Trent Lott just quit his US Senate seat in MS cuz he has over a million$ in his campaign fund. He cannot legally spend that money on himself unless he runs again. New laws go into effect requiring him to dispose of that money soon, so instead of losing the money? he just abandoned his state and his Senate seat so he could take that money and use it to lobby. His lobbying co. can direct that money to other campaigns. His lobby company gets PAID to decide which candidates get that money...
even tho the money was donated to his campaigns, he now uses it to fund other campaigns and gets paid to "influence" the recipients... neat gig huh?
Posted by bond006 on :
Nuclear power plants I would put my money on the coal minig lobbist have looked into it yt but we are one of the largest coal producer and user in the world. If we went nuclear who would be the big looser.
I have heard through a good source a friend of mine that researchs this stuff and he says that since we have stopped nuclear we have built 215 coal power plants.
Posted by glassman on :
here's a link to the co that wants put the wind project in:
they have objections to the wiring to carry the energy back to shore, and how it could harm birds etc...
but?
the opposition is not very strong in fundamentals. they just don't want it in their back yard. same story everywhere. it's not whacko. it's simply people looking out for their individual interests...
people that buy homes in west FLA with a Gulf view get real pissed when somebody blocks that view with a beach-front condo. then the condo people don't want to see an oil rig on their horizon...
they use rational EPA rules in ways that they were NOT designed to be used to block progress...
whackos? left wingers? not at all..it's capitalism and free-markets working hard...
Posted by Relentless. on :
Looks like Kennedy just had a stroke.. So you can take him off that list.
Posted by T e x on :
Obama saying it was a "seizure."
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Mach,
depends on your def of Blood Money. I would guess you are thinking of diamonds. Yes...to my mind I would be sure a company does not use unsafe labor practices such as can be found in Africa before investing.
My point on oil is that traders are jumping on board to profit from bloodshed and war. In that sense they are promoting violence for the sake of money. I personally believe that a self-respecting community minded trader should stay away from this destabilizing scenario. Don't feed the beast.
When I mean Blood money I mean it could be from any industry that can have unscrupulous labor practices such as child labor in the fashion industry overseas etc..... pain and suffering... doesn't always have to be death... as for Blood Diamonds... need to clear that up... that was in the 1990's with such wars as in Sierra Leone... movies like Blood Diamond come out and everyone thinks that is in the present time... i see this from time to time at my store from cusomters who think they are "experts" on diamonds... kind of ticks me off... but Blood Money can mean companies/industries tied directly or indirectly to war other then the oil industry as well... anyways it's not going to prevent me from trading in stocks or financial markets because of such things... all stocks/industries imo are tied directly or indirectly to war, unsafe labor practices, human rights violations etc.. etc.. I hope you see what i mean...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:the opposition is not very strong in fundamentals. they just don't want it in their back yard. same story everywhere. it's not whacko. it's simply people looking out for their individual interests...
The opposition is not very strong in fundamentals because their opposition is not about the science. They are just hypocrites. They want us peasants to have wind power in OUR back yard, but not in their sailing area! They want us to ride our bicycles while they fly around in a fuel-guzzling jet. They want us to use those silly, mercury filled light bulbs while they live in huge mansions with a huge carbon footprint (offset by buying carbon credits from a company they own)! Wackos? YOU BET!
Posted by jordanreed on :
Wackos???..hmmmm...I see ONE wacko around here!
Posted by Highwaychild on :
I thought 'Mr. Peabody's coal train done hauled it away' a long time ago.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
That coal to diesel plant in Kentucky is a good start. We need a multi-faceted answer to our oil woes. Another GREAT project is the Warren Buffet Wind Farm that will be built in the midwest. Throw in some nuclear; some drilling offshore and in ANWAR; the new high tech solar panels that will be in production soon; and many other approaches and we will have a much better country.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:the opposition is not very strong in fundamentals. they just don't want it in their back yard. same story everywhere. it's not whacko. it's simply people looking out for their individual interests...
The opposition is not very strong in fundamentals because their opposition is not about the science. They are just hypocrites. They want us peasants to have wind power in OUR back yard, but not in their sailing area! They want us to ride our bicycles while they fly around in a fuel-guzzling jet. They want us to use those silly, mercury filled light bulbs while they live in huge mansions with a huge carbon footprint (offset by buying carbon credits from a company they own)! Wackos? YOU BET!
whackos? yeah (who isn't, except you of course), but they aren't socialists LOL...
you sound envious to me. i guess it's just class envy..
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:you sound envious to me. i guess it's just class envy..
No, Glass, there's no reason to be envious of anyone in the United States - at least not yet. Until the socialists finish destroying the country, we still have the ability to be anything we want to be. If I wanted to go the extra mile to have a mansion or a private jet, I certainly could do it. However, my goals are a little different than that.
I know you socialists don't understand this concept, but you can be anything you want to be in the United States!
Posted by glassman on :
I know you socialists don't understand this concept, but you can be anything you want to be in the United States!
somehow that just doesn't seem logical, seems to me you are calling people who have gone the extra mile socialists.... definitely nonesensical.
Posted by bond006 on :
PM there is no organized socialist party of any size worth talking about.
Now there is a large communist party but they hardley have any power and any of our major parties would not accept any support for them. It would be political death to do so.
This country is so far away from socialism to refer a liberal or a progressive to a socialist is not rational.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
bond,
The "progressives" are socialists. Both Billary and Obama are 100% socialists. They would like nothing more than to socialize medicine; socialize industry (by taking their profits); control the masses with their handouts, etc. That is socialism.
quote:somehow that just doesn't seem logical, seems to me you are calling people who have gone the extra mile socialists.... definitely nonesensical.
What don't you understand about that. These people are wealthy and they are socialists. They don't want to become part of the people, they want to run the show - control the country. They will take from all the hard working middle class, give to the poor, and take the power and billions of dollars for themselves. It's all about the power!
Posted by glassman on :
The "progressives" are socialists. Both Billary and Obama are 100% socialists. They would like nothing more than to socialize medicine; socialize industry (by taking their profits); control the masses with their handouts, etc. That is socialism.
LOL... insurance IS socialism by your definition.. i assum eyou have no insurance at all?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:somehow that just doesn't seem logical, seems to me you are calling people who have gone the extra mile socialists.... definitely nonesensical.
What don't you understand about that. These people are wealthy and they are socialists. They don't want to become part of the people, they want to run the show - control the country. They will take from all the hard working middle class, give to the poor, and take the power and billions of dollars for themselves. It's all about the power!
you need to "brush up" on what socialism is...
you are describing any of several OTHER things, but not socialism....
it could be fascism or oligarchy but that is most definitely NOT socialism.
you don't even know what you are fighting...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Until the socialists finish destroying the country,
Funny, i thought Bush and the GOP did that lol
quote:I know you socialists don't understand this concept, but you can be anything you want to be in the United States!
yes, including being a Socialist... that is something you do not understand.. Freedom of Choice...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: They will take from all the hard working middle class, give to the poor,
Funny thing you do not say the GOP/rich or "Conservatives" take from the poor to make the rich richer.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
Posted by glassman on :
here's the "socialists" at work:
Monday May 19, 2008 New US Farm Bill will anger the world EARTHTRENDS By MARTIN KHOR
The US Congress has just passed a new Farm Bill that continues the system of high subsidies even when food prices and farm profits are at record highs. It will incense the rest of the world.
this bill that Bush says he is against is VETOPROOF.
that's why Bush can afford to be against it.
it will pass no matter whether he signs it or not.
the bill is not adding much that was not already being done. it is increasing some subsidies to poor people and farmers, but it is not substantially different from the last farm bill Bush signed...
this bill has bipartisan support as well multi geographic support.
Farm bill tied to GOP future
By JIM GALLOWAY The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 05/17/08
U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss said he's told President Bush that vetoing the $300 billion farm bill would be a "huge mistake" that could hurt Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.
"He and I have had a couple personal conversations about that. I think it's a huge mistake for him, politically and otherwise," said Chambliss, a Republican who himself faces re-election this year. Chambliss said he pointed out to Bush that the states in the South and West that gave him his strongest support all had agricultural economies.
"These are people that want to vote for John McCain. If they get turned off by Republicans, it's going to make it tough," Chambliss told reporters after a speech to the state GOP convention.
The House and Senate both passed the massive bipartisan bill this week by veto-proof margins. Both Chambliss and U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson have promised to help override the veto that Bush has promised. Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Highwaychild: The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
that is what the GOP and PMS wants to continue.. tradition... he's afraid of the other way around & he's addicted to the Opiate of the Masses...
Posted by glassman on :
"Today, because we have 49 Republicans, we're able to take bad legislation and either shape it, and make it better, or kill it," Chambliss said. "But if we get our number down to where we don't have those 41 votes we need on a regular basis, then this country will be worse off, I promise you."
Only afterwards, in a session with reporters, did Chambliss address Bush's criticism of the farm bill, including Bush's contention that the legislation awards subsidies to high-income farmers.
"That's ridiculous. It really is. I get upset when some of my colleagues say, well we're giving money to rich farmers. We're not doing that," Chambliss said.
The former chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee pointed out that the last farm bill passed in 2002 had no income limit on participation. The new limit would cut off subsidies from farmers with incomes of $750,000 and more.
Chambliss pointed out that 70 percent of the bill's spending goes toward food stamps, school lunches and food banks — which benefit one in every 10 Georgians.
wow, it just doesn't make any sense at all does it? a Conservative Southern GOP Socialist? nah, couldn't be....
so? a farmer and his wife get subsidies UNLESS they make over 1.5 million$ a year? LOL... those daggone Socialists are killing our country...
at least they set a limit this time Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:you are describing any of several OTHER things, but not socialism....
Of course it's socialism and we all know it.
quote:yes, including being a Socialist...
You see, Mach knows it's socialism.
quote:Funny thing you do not say the GOP/rich or "Conservatives" take from the poor to make the rich richer.
Ridiculous! You can't take more income tax from someone who doesn't pay income tax!
quote:pointed out that 70 percent of the bill's spending goes toward food stamps, school lunches and food banks — which benefit one in every 10 Georgians.
As I've said many times before, all of these entitlements need to be stopped and people need to be introduced to WORK! Our society can NOT afford to support all these deadbeats and all this entitlement spending is bankrupting the country. We'll all be paying a high price for this in the near future.
quote:wow, it just doesn't make any sense at all does it? a Conservative Southern GOP Socialist? nah, couldn't be....
I agree with this 100%. It's a shame that anyone that calls himself a conservative would support this bill.
Posted by glassman on :
As I've said many times before, all of these entitlements need to be stopped and people need to be introduced to WORK! Our society can NOT afford to support all these deadbeats and all this entitlement spending is bankrupting the country. We'll all be paying a high price for this in the near future.
we'd pay a higher price now if we canceled it.
but we do have to come up with a plan to pay as we go instead of borrowing from our grandchildren.
some inconvenient facts (for you) about food stamps and nutrition programs:
What is the average income of food stamp recipients?
There are strict income and resource limits for eligibility in the Food Stamp Program.
In fiscal year 2002, approximately 88 percent of food stamp households lived in poverty. Nearly ninety percent of food stamp households have gross incomes at or below the poverty line; 36.1 percent have incomes below half the poverty line.
Who are food stamp recipients?
Over half of food stamp recipients are children aged 17 and under. About one-third (33.2 percent) of children on the program are preschool age (under age 5).
Over 79 percent of benefits go to households with children. The average size of food stamp households with children is 3.3 persons; the average size of all food stamp households is 2.3 persons.
Over one-quarter (27 percent) of food stamp households contain at least one disabled person. 1.7 million seniors receive food stamps, nine percent of all recipients; nearly 19 percent of food stamp households contain at least one elderly person.
Over 90 percent of benefits go to households with either a child, senior, or disabled individual.
How long do people usually receive food stamp benefits?
Half of food stamp participants receive benefits for nine months or less. The average length of participation is less than two years.
Elderly and disabled individuals tend to receive food stamp benefits for longer periods of time. While over 60 percent leave the program within a year, their average length of participation in the program is slightly under two-and-one-half years. Can unemployed people automatically qualify for food stamps?
There are strict eligibility requirements for participation in the Food Stamp Program, based on financial and non-financial factors. Households must have gross incomes below 130 percent of the poverty line and net incomes below 100 percent of poverty, except households with elderly or disabled members. Countable resources (e.g., checking/savings account, cash, stocks/bonds) cannot exceed $2,000. For example, the market value of a car in excess of $4,650 is considered a countable resource, and could make a household ineligible for benefits.
Eligibility in the Food Stamp Program includes work requirements. All non-elderly adults receiving benefits who are able to work are required to be employed or to register for employment. Many must participate in work training and job search programs.
Able-bodied, childless persons between the ages of 18 and 50 are limited to three months of food stamp receipt in a 36 month period unless they are working at least 20 hours a week or participating in an employment and training program.
seems they are either working poor or unable to work....
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: You see, Mach knows it's socialism.
Funny how you take what i say out of context and twist it around... I never said it was Socialism... what i said is people have the right to be a Socialist in this country if they want to unlike you and the GOP who wants to supress people's rights and only be what you want them to be with no choices if you had your way...
quote:Ridiculous! You can't take more income tax from someone who doesn't pay income tax!
Funny, last I checked not all poor people are unemployed so therefor the ones that do work are being taxed... Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:Funny, last I checked not all poor people are unemployed so therefor the ones that do work are being taxed...
Poor people do not pay income taxes, although they do pay payroll taxes for medicare and social security. In fact, not only do they not pay income taxes, many/most get the earned income tax credit which is nothing more than a government handout. However, this is one handout I support because it encourages people to work. Incentives to work are a good thing!
quote:what i said is people have the right to be a Socialist in this country if they want to unlike you and the GOP who wants to supress people's rights and only be what you want them to be with no choices if you had your way...
I am completely against what the GOP (now very liberal) is doing. However, true conservatives (like me) believe in the constitution and are strong on people having free choice (and being responsible for their decisions and actions).
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Poor people do not pay income taxes, although they do pay payroll taxes for medicare and social security. In fact, not only do they not pay income taxes,i guess I imagined the income taxes I paid when I worked a minimum wage job(s) in my youth...
[QUOTE][qb]I am completely against what the GOP (now very liberal) is doing. However, true conservatives (like me) believe in the constitution and are strong on people having free choice (and being responsible for their decisions and actions).
Actually, I would say most of us would see you as fascist then conservative and true liberals do not try to supress people's rights.
Posted by glassman on :
I am completely against what the GOP (now very liberal) is doing. However, true conservatives (like me) believe in the constitution and are strong on people having free choice (and being responsible for their decisions and actions).
OK, so now i just have to ask, WHO are these conservatives that we should be voting for.
do they even exist?
i hear alot of talk about them. they have al kinds of stuff on the radio, but when i listen to them? i mostly hear a bunch of braying....
tell me you aren't going to say vote for Grover Norquist...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
Over $4 for regular here... about $4.20 to $4.30 for premium in NY....
Posted by bond006 on :
I am completely against what the GOP (now very liberal) is doing. However, true conservatives (like me) believe in the constitution and are strong on people having free choice (and being responsible for their decisions and actions).
------------------------------------------------- I just would like to know what is a conservative?
My call on Bush says that he is one he ran as one did pretty much what he said he was going to do and was voted in by people that said they were conservatives.
Looks like a duck sounds like a duck most likley is a duck.
Most conservatives that I have known are Relegious right fascist,homophobic,gun nuts.
By the way a Democrat for the most part has never taken anybody gun away from them,told anybody there relegion and its doctorin should be the law of the land. And believe that equal rights are equal rights for everybody not just a few.
But I really don't know what a conservative is,since every time one gets voted into to office and screws up every thing he touches and takes away our rights,all I hear from people that put him in is he is not a conservative
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by bond006: But I really don't know what a conservative is,since every time one gets voted into to office and screws up every thing he touches and takes away our rights,all I hear from people that put him in is he is not a conservative
Odd how history since the 20th century perhaps has shown the GOP throws the country into dissaray starting with Herbert Hoover imo. And it is always a Dem who has to clean up the mess. Not to say Dems never make mistakes but most are caused or on a GOP's watch.
Posted by Lockman on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by bond006: But I really don't know what a conservative is,since every time one gets voted into to office and screws up every thing he touches and takes away our rights,all I hear from people that put him in is he is not a conservative
Odd how history since the 20th century perhaps has shown the GOP throws the country into dissaray starting with Herbert Hoover imo. And it is always a Dem who has to clean up the mess. Not to say Dems never make mistakes but most are caused or on a GOP's watch.
I think JFK and LBJ got us into a real mess and Nixon had to straighten things out. Carter had us on our knees and Reagan had to fix things. I don't understand what your talking about.
Posted by T e x on :
OOPS!
Posted by Jo4321 on :
Filled up today. Sadly realized that I will need to work 8 hours to pay for filling the tank.
JO
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: [I think JFK and LBJ got us into a real mess and Nixon had to straighten things out. Carter had us on our knees and Reagan had to fix things. I don't understand what your talking about.
Herbert Hoover:
1. Great Depression 2. Stock Market Crash of 1929
Dwight D. Eisenhower (he was ok):
1. Vietnam conflict started in 1959
Richard M. Nixon:
1. Watergate 2. Secret bombings in Cambodia & Laos 3. 1973 Oil crisis 4. His VP (Agnew) charged with various crimes 5. His secret support of the Pinochet led coup in Chile of a elected Government
Gerald Ford:
1. Controversial pardon of Nixon 2. Economy suffered inflation & Recession 3. Did not bail out NYC out of a possible bankruptcy 4. Mayagueyz Debacle
Ronald Reagan:
1. Laizze-faire approach to business leading to untold greed in the 80's 2. The Saving & Loans crisis 3. Iran-Contra Scandal 4. Ignoring detente with regards to the USSR which lead to 40% defense spending increase 5. Increases in Federal Budget Deficit & National Debt (increasing it from about $700 billion to $3 Trillion) which in turn would have it's effects on Bush Sr. when he had to increase taxes 6. Tax cuts for the well off (for the rich as always) while increasing Gov't spending and borrowing. 7. Slow or no response to the HIV/Aids epidemic 8. Involvement with Sadaam Hussein & indirectly with Osama Bin Laden and his minions in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation that would bear consequences in the future 9. High Gold prices 10. High interest rates 11.High Unemployment
Anyways this is just some samplings... I'll leave the Bushs' alone since we know much more about them.... if i left something out or got something incorrectly feel free to post about it...
Posted by glassman on :
Carter had us on our knees and Reagan had to fix things
Nixon did fix a bunch of the Dems mess
but,
Reagan didn't fix a dam thing. Reagan sent Rumsfeld over to Baghdad to encourage Sadam to attack Iran
people love Reagan, but i have no clue why...
and yeah i voted for him, but all he did was give nice speeches...
he wimped out on the marine barrack bombing in Lebanon-1983 look it up...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Carter had us on our knees and Reagan had to fix things
Nixon did fix a bunch of the Dems mess
but,
Reagan didn't fix a dam thing. Reagan sent Rumsfeld over to Baghdad to encourage Sadam to attack Iran
people love Reagan, but i have no clue why...
and yeah i voted for him, but all he did was give nice speeches...
he wimped out on the marine barrack bombing in Lebanon-1983 look it up...
Yah, I didn't want to mention the Lebanon thing since alot of you guys are military or ex military and I figured you would of defended him on anything related... but I'm with you... I don't know why neither other then he was a funny guy... he played a role... he was a actor...
Posted by glassman on :
people like to credit Reagan with the collapse of the USSR, but all he did was give the good speeches as it happened. There is nothing i have ever seen pointed out that credited Reagan with ANY strategic move that caused the downfall of the USSR. it just isn't there.
NIXON? hell yes. he and Kissenger did alot.
the USSR fell because they had alot of bad policies. they did it to themselves. sure we helped, we were there to frustrate them at every possible turn, but we did not:
1) Cause Chernobyl. Chernobyl was huge in making the "People" lose faith in their government. The same would happen here. As a matter of fact? IMO 9-11 SHOULD have caused alot more loss of faith than it has.
2) Soviet Farming practices were criminal. they'd harvest grain wet to "pad" production numbers. then of course it would rot.
Carter did in fact contribute to the fall of the USSR. He officially ended Detente by indirectly funding the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. They produced the Taliban and eventually Osamabinalivetoolong... But Carter's funding of the Mujahadeen was instrumental in drawing the Soviets into a losing military engagement.
there's no evidence that we ever directly funded Osama, but i wouldn't expect any.
we need to stop trying to paint our problems as "GOP" or "DEM". they aren't. We are facing some serious problems right now. and they won't be solved by partisanship
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
quote:
Richard M. Nixon:
1. Watergate 2. Secret bombings in Cambodia & Laos 3. 1973 Oil crisis 4. His VP (Agnew) charged with various crimes 5. His secret support of the Pinochet led coup in Chile of a elected Government
_________________________________________________
There were many things that he did do that were controversial that were brought out by the media.
The question i have always had was would many of these things have been exposed if he had not gotten us out of Vietnam?
He took longer to get us out than many of us would have liked but he did finally did do it and i still think there were many that did not want him to do that.
I also think we will face this same situation when the next politician decides it's time to get out of Iraq and no matter which person is elected i think he will be thinking of what happen to President Nixon after he pulled the troops out of Vietnam.
No President or party will really want to pull the troops out of Iraq for fear that something will come back to bite them because of their decision.
That old saying that It Will Not Happen on My Watch always comes to mind when pulling out troops.
As far as bombings of Cambodia and Laos were concerned those Arc Light strikes (B-52) sure made nice instant swimming pools all they had to do is just add water.
I never was against those bombings whether they were legal or illegal because they saved American lives and casualities.
Posted by bond006 on :
Another thing about the coup in Chile was the exacution of 70,000 people a lot of them were tourist in the wrong place at the wrong time the Spanish Government still has murder warrants out on Pinochet.
As does some other Europian Governments.
If he is still alive
Posted by bond006 on :
Anyway, anybody have an idea when gas will be $5.00 a gallon?
Posted by T e x on :
Just in time for July 4?
Posted by Lockman on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: [I think JFK and LBJ got us into a real mess and Nixon had to straighten things out. Carter had us on our knees and Reagan had to fix things. I don't understand what your talking about.
Herbert Hoover:
1. Great Depression 2. Stock Market Crash of 1929
Dwight D. Eisenhower (he was ok):
1. Vietnam conflict started in 1959
Richard M. Nixon:
1. Watergate 2. Secret bombings in Cambodia & Laos 3. 1973 Oil crisis 4. His VP (Agnew) charged with various crimes 5. His secret support of the Pinochet led coup in Chile of a elected Government
Gerald Ford:
1. Controversial pardon of Nixon 2. Economy suffered inflation & Recession 3. Did not bail out NYC out of a possible bankruptcy 4. Mayagueyz Debacle
Ronald Reagan:
1. Laizze-faire approach to business leading to untold greed in the 80's 2. The Saving & Loans crisis 3. Iran-Contra Scandal 4. Ignoring detente with regards to the USSR which lead to 40% defense spending increase 5. Increases in Federal Budget Deficit & National Debt (increasing it from about $700 billion to $3 Trillion) which in turn would have it's effects on Bush Sr. when he had to increase taxes 6. Tax cuts for the well off (for the rich as always) while increasing Gov't spending and borrowing. 7. Slow or no response to the HIV/Aids epidemic 8. Involvement with Sadaam Hussein & indirectly with Osama Bin Laden and his minions in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation that would bear consequences in the future 9. High Gold prices 10. High interest rates 11.High Unemployment
Anyways this is just some samplings... I'll leave the Bushs' alone since we know much more about them.... if i left something out or got something incorrectly feel free to post about it...
You've listed everything you feel was wrong with the Republican presidency's, but what did the Democrat President's that followed do that fixed anything. As far as Eisenhower starting Vietnam in 1959, JFK and LBJ sure fixed that one! LBJ was a joke and a servant to the same oilmen as Bush. Reagan brought respect back to the presidency, after Jimmy Carter's disaster we needed a man who respected the office and Reagan was that man.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Carter had us on our knees and Reagan had to fix things
Nixon did fix a bunch of the Dems mess
but,
Reagan didn't fix a dam thing. Reagan sent Rumsfeld over to Baghdad to encourage Sadam to attack Iran
people love Reagan, but i have no clue why...
and yeah i voted for him, but all he did was give nice speeches...
he wimped out on the marine barrack bombing in Lebanon-1983 look it up...
Yah, I didn't want to mention the Lebanon thing since alot of you guys are military or ex military and I figured you would of defended him on anything related... but I'm with you... I don't know why neither other then he was a funny guy... he played a role... he was a actor...
All the Gipper did, undone by Indiana Jones...
Indiana Jones movie makes communists see red - Calls for it to be banned from Russian screens
ST PETERSBURG, Russia - Russian Communist party members condemned the new Indiana Jones' film on Friday as crude anti-Soviet propaganda that distorted history and called for it to be banned from Russian screens. "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" stars Harrison Ford as an archeologist in 1957 competing with an evil KGB agent, played by Cate Blanchett, to find a skull endowed with mystic powers.
Posted by glassman on :
those commies have no sense of humor Posted by bond006 on :
Russians are a bunch of idiots they got rid of there old bunch of commies and the sovite way and now they defend its honor?
Posted by Relentless. on :
Every transition leaves many wishing it never happened. Under communism they were a world power with a decent chance of being THE world's power. Now under this pseudo capitalism they are weak. Pretty easy to understand how they can see it the way they do.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: those commies have no sense of humor
au contraire...
quote: * Kniaz Andrei Bolkonski asks Poruchik Rzhevsky: "Tell me, Poruchik, how did you come to be so good with the ladies? What is your secret?" - "It's quite simplement, mon Prince, quite simplement. I just come over and say: 'Hey, wanna boink?'" - "But Poruchik, you'll get slapped in the face for that!" - "Oui, most of them slap, but some of them boink!"
not Henny Youngman, but, hey...don't know any commie one-liners...
Posted by glassman on :
Poruchik Rzhevsky? heck i knew half a dozen guys right here in the US like that BEFORE i joined the Navy, and while i was in? well, let's just say that when you have two days of liberty........
Posted by T e x on :
didn't say it was sophisticated...
lol, when I was a kid? knew a guy who started with, "Do you like apples?"
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: I also think we will face this same situation when the next politician decides it's time to get out of Iraq and no matter which person is elected i think he will be thinking of what happen to President Nixon after he pulled the troops out of Vietnam.
No President or party will really want to pull the troops out of Iraq for fear that something will come back to bite them because of their decision.
That is true. But people won't see or think that. They will just blame whichever party is in power but in this case a GOP president did get us in this mess. Also if and when we pull out no matter whose the President imo it will turn into a Civil War in Iraq. If anything I think the Iraqis are playing nicey nicey more nowadays to escalate our departure and once we leave foughetboutit. But that shouldn't be our problem even though we created it. We need to pull out and concentrate more on Afghanistan and our own countrys' economy etc. Not to mention oil might go down if we pull out therefor affecting rest of economy into recovery (food crisis, dollar weakening etc.).
quote:I never was against those bombings whether they were legal or illegal because they saved American lives and casualities.
You should be because we are always trying to project a image of not being hypocrites and when we bomb illegally we are exactly what we say we aren't but do accuse others of being. Not to mention the civilian casualties we cause from bombs that in those days imo aren't "smart" bombs. They just hit targets are random.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: You've listed everything you feel was wrong with the Republican presidency's, but what did the Democrat President's that followed do that fixed anything.
Your kidding right?
1.FDR: Brought us out of the Depression and into a new economic prosperity. Not to mention gave jobs to alot of people who were unemployed with public works projects. Also gave us a image of respect worldwide since "respect" seems to be more important to you.
2.JFK: Handled the Cuban Missile Crisis pretty well without going to war and again bringing us "respect". All other JFK accomplishments I am pretty sure you know about though you are right about him furthering our involvement in Vietnam but considering it was during the height of the Cold War I don't think it would of mattered who was President, the result would of been the same. 3. Carter: He had a good heart but bad advisors & tried his best with the Iran Hostage crisis without making deals with the enemy. With the exception of his ill fated trip meeting Hezbollah or Hamas recently, he has done more good in his Post-Presidency life then any other President imo. 4. Clinton: read below.
quote:As far as Eisenhower starting Vietnam in 1959, JFK and LBJ sure fixed that one! LBJ was a joke and a servant to the same oilmen as Bush.
I could be wrong but Vietnam does not seem to have ever been gushing millions of barrels of oil unlike Iraq so therefor the LBJ/Oil connection has no meaning in that case. Wouldn't you agree?
quote:Reagan brought respect back to the presidency, after Jimmy Carter's disaster we needed a man who respected the office and Reagan was that man.
False respect actually because in reality he caused more damage then good imo. Plus "respect" does not pay the huge bills he left us with like the National Debt and Budget Deficit that Bush Sr. had to try to resolve with raising taxes and for which Clinton managed to balance the budget and create a Federal surplus of $559 Billion. Name me a GOPer Prez that even got close to that much less Reagan (they tend to cut taxes for the rich or well off of society no less, but they also like to spend and leave office with huge bills). He also had a approval rating of 65% when he left office. Highest of any President since WW2. Not even Reagan had that. We can go on?
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote Iwish:
I never was against those bombings whether they were legal or illegal because they saved American lives and casualities. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote Machiavelli:
You should be because we are always trying to project a image of not being hypocrites and when we bomb illegally we are exactly what we say we aren't but do accuse others of being. Not to mention the civilian casualties we cause from bombs that in those days imo aren't "smart" bombs. They just hit targets are random.
_________________________________________________
I have looked at it through your perspective which is that of many others.
When we use to have operations on the borders and our enemies knew that they were protected across that border.
The enemy was allowed to hit and run on you and once they got into those countries we could not chase them or get any kind of support legally.
They would drive trucks with lights on at night and they even had a tank one time within a couple of hundred yards of us we were not allowed to engage legally.
Another problem was if you overshot the border you would not have any support unless those fly boys would come in and help which was not uncommon. Those guys seem to be willing to risk a lot for the guys on the ground. Whether it be the borders or no fire zones they would pick up a radio conversation and stick their necks out time and time again.
You think we cared in the middle of of fire fight or later if something helped keep our casualities down whether it was legal or not.
I was in a special team for awhile and we were into Cambodia illegally quite a bit i never thought about it at all until something happened then you realize that your small group was on their own. You knew that when you became part of that team but the reality never sunk in until something happens.
Our perspectives during that year of living in the jungles (around 330 days aprox.) puts a whole different view on some of the rights and wrongs seen through other eyes, whether that be good or bad it's called survival.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Quote Iwish:
I never was against those bombings whether they were legal or illegal because they saved American lives and casualities.
I understand what you are saying IWish but I am not talking about you per say. The ones on the ground who make decision by their wits when someone is firing at you. I'm basically talking about the higherups who make decisions in advance when your not being fired upon. If we do not respect the surrounding countries' borders who for the most part are neutral then how can we expect the same if it ever happened in our borders. Not that it will but just saying hypothetically. We want everyone to respect our borders in time of war and in peace but we never do it ourselves. Wouldn't you say that is true? Plus imo the CIA were running the war secretly from Laos/Cambodia and prolonging the war. If the CIA and Military (higher higher ups and not foot soldiers) had their ways indefinitely they would prolong wars because that is their business imo. Just like with the Iraq debacle right now. McCain (a military guy even if retired) wants Iraq to go for another 5 years which I think would be further disastrous for our economy. Besides with what you are saying, why do we not bomb within Pakistans' and Irans' borders then?
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote:
"I understand what you are saying IWish but I am not talking about you per say. The ones on the ground who make decision by their wits when someone is firing at you. I'm basically talking about the higherups who make decisions in advance when your not being fired upon. If we do not respect the surrounding countries' borders who for the most part are neutral then how can we expect the same if it ever happened in our borders. Not that it will but just saying hypothetically. We want everyone to respect our borders in time of war and in peace but we never do it ourselves. Wouldn't you say that is true? Plus imo the CIA were running the war secretly from Laos/Cambodia and prolonging the war. If the CIA and Military (higher higher ups and not foot soldiers) had their ways indefinitely they would prolong wars because that is their business imo. Just like with the Iraq debacle right now. McCain (a military guy even if retired) wants Iraq to go for another 5 years which I think would be further disastrous for our economy. Besides with what you are saying, why do we not bomb within Pakistans' and Irans' borders then?"
_________________________________________________
In reality you should not seperate the American soldier from the rest of our country, but the sad truth is that we do. We seem to fight separate wars in Vietnam and what appears to me in Iraq.
There seems to be the war that many of the upper brass and politicians fight the one that the American citizen fights and the one that the soldier fights especially the infantry etc.
Two out of the three are kind of fantasy wars considering we are figting a guerrilla war.
I do not think most would respect our border if they felt they could take it without consequences.
Would it saves lives by going into Iran, Pakistan etc.? Looking at the history of our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan NO, under other circumstances maybe.
We do not seem to know how to just take out other troops without total involvement in those areas so under that criteria we would just be fighting another war which would mean more casualities not less.
As far as civilian casualities are concerned there will always be civilian casualities in war but many of these civilian casualities are really not civilians some are the direct enemy and some are helping the enemy.
I agree that some will pro-long wars for their benefit but we also get sucked into their game by the way they present their war to us through the media.
I don't think the bombings in Laos or Cambodia prolong anything but that is just my opinion.
As far as Iraq is concerned i think we should put our troops around some of the oil fields set up a refinery pump the oil send the gas back to the US and our allies that are over there, pay the Iraq gov $20 a barrel and let the Iraqis fight to see who governs. If we do not like the outcome do the shock-in-ah again. Once we pay off our dept caused by the war and our true allies debt then give the Iraqis back their oil fields IF they don't shaft us on the oil price, you like that scenario.
Again to win a guirrila war you have to fight a guerrilla war and i do not think the American public will every be up to that idea.
Posted by glassman on :
to win a guirrila war you have to fight a guerrilla war and i do not think the American public will every be up to that idea.
i agree absolutely. in guerrilla warfare? the enemy blurs the traditional civilian military boundaries.
what is going on in Iraq now is apparently US (Petraeus) saturating the region with CASH in an attempt to buy peace... that's not going to work long term. it is nothing more than bribery and will end as soon as the cashflow does...
Posted by Highwaychild on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: to win a guerrilla war you have to fight a guerrilla war and i do not think the American public will every be up to that idea.
guerrilla is what got us here. George Washington and a small army of 2400 men that crossed the Delaware River should attest to that.
Posted by bond006 on :
Originally posted by glassman: to win a guerrilla war you have to fight a guerrilla war and i do not think the American public will every be up to that idea
-------------------------------------------------
Ask Breaker Morant Fought the Bores like the Bore fought and was very sucessful at it.
He was exacuted for it by the British Army.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
Now how am I going to "ask" him?
"very sucessful at it." "exacuted for it" ,you say? ...Must not been too sucessful at it then. lol, j/k around.
Breaker Morant...I'll have to look him up.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Highwaychild: guerrilla is what got us here. George Washington and a small army of 2400 men that crossed the Delaware River should attest to that.
What you forget is that Guerrilla warfare generally works for the enemy when you invade them which is what happened with GW and his 2,400 men. The British had invaded. When we fight a guerrilla war our soldiers are paid to fight, theirs aren't:
[about the unrest in Cuba] Michael Corleone: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael Corleone: It means they could win.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Demand is down, inventories are up...is it enough to end the speculation?
Guess not! Oil hits record again now above $137!!!
Posted by osubucks30 on :
Lets just hope we dont get a big hurricane in the gulf!
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
It's terrible.
Retailers just jump the price one way or the other $4.39 and i am sure another $.20 today at least.
This is killing business except oil related.
I know the long time family business is getting hurt. Those chemicals that are oil and gas based and use energy to process(which is everything) go up by leaps and bounds. Most orders orders are taken months in advance. It just kills unless you can stock hugh inventories way in advance. So much risk what ever way you do it.
Posted by Relentless. on :
The bigger businesses are getting hurt as well. Any product that has to be shipped is doubling in price. I thought we were in Iraq for oil? Beyond all the political BS, the war was supposed to be about oil.. Seems it was.. just not to free oil up. We are looking at the economic version of the perfect storm and I doubt many of us will make it out alive if it really turns.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
[bold]This is killing business except oil related.[/bold]
It's very good for the rental business. More people are renting as the cost of living increases. People also want to live in the city where the drive to work is much shorter.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
There is now doubt about it we are getting it royal.
The oil is still in the same place and the means of getting it out of the ground is still the same as it was at $30.00 a barrel.
The only thing that has changed is the bottom line of the oil company's.
If they are allowed to keep this up no matter what the reason there won't be a country left to worry about.
Might have to for the nations good have to take the oil company's over and manage them for the good of the nation. Then give them back but monitored very closely
Posted by Relentless. on :
That sounds like anything but capitalism. It also sounds like you have more faith in our government than you do in any corporation. Might want to re-think that statement.
Posted by T e x on :
where did I post that "market testimony"? You remember?
That's a big problem--da loopholes...
Posted by Relentless. on :
ummmmmmmmmm... I think it was this thread wasn't it? Lemme look for a bit
Posted by Relentless. on :
yes, thank you; loses the markup in simple cut n paste, but the message comes through--and the links are there:
Some excerpts:
quote:In the popular press the explanation given most often for rising oil prices is the increased demand for oil from China. According to the DOE, annual Chinese demand for petroleum has increased over the last five years from 1.88 billion barrels to 2.8 billion barrels, an increase of 920 million barrels.8 Over the same five-year period, Index Speculatorsʼ demand for petroleum futures has increased by 848 million barrels.9 The increase in demand from Index Speculators is almost equal to the increase in demand from China! (bold, my emphasis, throughout--tex)
quote:In fact, Index Speculators have now stockpiled, via the futures market, the equivalent of 1.1 billion barrels of petroleum, effectively adding eight times as much oil to their own stockpile as the United States has added to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the last five years.10
Now, re food basics:
quote:What they overlook is the fact that Institutional Investors have purchased over 2 billion bushels of corn futures in the last five years. Right now, Index Speculators have stockpiled enough corn futures to potentially fuel the entire United States ethanol industry at full capacity for a year.12 That’s equivalent to producing 5.3 billion gallons of ethanol, which would make America the world’s largest ethanol producer.13 Turning to Wheat, in 2007 Americans consumed 2.22 bushels of Wheat per capita.14 At 1.3 billion bushels, the current Wheat futures stockpile of Index Speculators is enough to supply every American citizen with all the bread, pasta and baked goods they can eat for the next two years!
quote:Might have to for the nations good have to take the oil company's over and manage them for the good of the nation.
SOCIALIST!
Posted by Relentless. on :
Just a weeeee bit more than socialism
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Just a weeeee bit more than socialism
Buy 'em books and buy 'em books Posted by Relentless. on :
Read the books.. don't eat the books
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:Might have to for the nations good have to take the oil company's over and manage them for the good of the nation.
SOCIALIST!
as opposed to what exactly? surely you don't beleive we currently have a free market economy?
half the oil we buy is from state-owned oil wells anyway... th eUS is about the last place left where the oil "belongs" to whoever pumps it out of the ground no matter who's ground it's coming out of...
Posted by bond006 on :
Call me what you want. But the oil industry is far from free enterprise now if they keep going down the same path they are now they will cause riots. At this point they are a small tumor abusing a free country wear they were allowed to to become wealthy.
PM I would even go a step further. If I were president they could run there co.'s anyway they wanted to. But there families would be my guest at the White House.
A little method the Romans used that worked for them for about a thousand years.
But anyway if they don't stop ther manipulation tere is no more country as we know it.
Posted by bond006 on :
And yes I do have more faith in our governments than major corporation I have worked for the federal ans state government my whole life.
As I would rather put my well being any day in the law and regulation of any of our various governments. Instead of the wim of a corporate CEO
Posted by Relentless. on :
Riots??? Who gives a **** about a riot? We are talking about your ability to exist.. My ability to exist.. Gas at fifteen like some moron is predicting will end our ability to exist... How long will three hundred million people survive on this island if we are forced to hunt for a living? And all of that is not the point it is all the pointless synptoms of the point. The point is that this problem is fabricated. That's right! It is not real. Can anyone tell me there is actually a shortage of oil? No you can't. can you tell me it is the oil companies alone creating this issue? Nope.. strike two. This IS an attempt by this and all other governments to further control us... we the people. Government is the problem.. NEVER the solution.
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by bond006: And yes I do have more faith in our governments than major corporation I have worked for the federal ans state government my whole life.
As I would rather put my well being any day in the law and regulation of any of our various governments. Instead of the wim of a corporate CEO
Please understand I mean this in the kindest regards... as we've at times met on the same side of many issues... But for that statement... you ARE a moron. Please spend the next few moments neglecting the anger my name calling has induced. Instead find the initiative to correct your obvious mental malfunctions. Engage in this little exercise: What one entity has been the greatest threat to life... human or any other form?
Posted by bond006 on :
I could not agree with you more.
I was using very mild words .
I really feel a lot worse is coming.A person with any brains can see what is happening and what is at stake. If we break down a lot of us are not going to make it.
No business organization is worth that
Posted by bond006 on :
Nice post you are a man of much talent. I ride for the brand my friend.
You are a good man and I know that we both want the same for our families and country .but we see two different villians at this time .
In many ways I hope you are right because we do have some control over the Government,as long as we still are able to vote.
Posted by Relentless. on :
Well I think that is much of the issue today in real politics. There are two villans we have to decide between. Government or corporations? Same evil deeds and decisions can be laid at either's feet. Perhaps... Perhaps its a symptom of decisions made with "Objectivity". Both seem to pride themselves on their ability to make the right moves based on their "objectivity". Perhaps this leads into my recent postings about government and the media creating "them". The creation of "them" is what is the problem. If we as a people.. and as a people I mean Humans.. not just Americans.. If we can replace the word them with us.. I bet we could solve the world's problems.. In fact I would not be at all suprised if all those naughty christian words like ****, **** ****, *******, *****, and all the others... were in ancient languages for the one word we now know as "them".
Posted by Relentless. on :
And more than that... what I think.. NO.. What I know is we are being forced into this decision.. A fake decision.. With the same controlling monopoly on either side. I know I've brought this up before.. but I'll do it again. It is NOT a choice if the end is scripted and both routes lead to the same end.
Posted by glassman on :
well, i've pointed this out several times recently....
the Clintons went from broke in '01 to 100 million dollars in 7 years and they did it because of public service?
i'd say not....
that's the real problem DQR...
the government isn't for the people, it's for the money...
there's nothing wrong with people becoming wealthy, the problem is whether they earn it or steal it..... it doesn't seem like too many of 'em bother to earn it any more....
Posted by Relentless. on :
Yeah I remember in '01 Clinton's reported was something like $150K. In fact I remember that was part of his angle on him being anti-establishment. All part of the game I think.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Government or corporations?
same thing, different spigot
"Hey, boy--you want Coke or Dr. Pepper?"
May taste different going down, but in da toilet? Not so much...it's still flowing downhill.
You market boyzz need to get on da bandwagon...
Posted by Peaser on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: Boycott EXXON...lol, said this long time ago--you get enough folks to simply say, "No" to EXXON? price will tumble...
Citgo as well. Say "No" to Chaves too...
Posted by Peaser on :
The biggest problem, oil + natural gas, etc... being classified as fossil fuels. What a hoax!!
The stuff replenishes itself in the ground naturally. Good 'ole wells in Texas that were "dry" years ago are once again producing the toxic tea that makes the world go 'round.
Do teachers still teach these lies in schools?
Where'd bdgee go anyhow? That old scientist would be on me like a fly in a cow pie already if still around...
Posted by a surfer on :
A Modern Parable:
A Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (Ford Motor) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.
On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.
The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.
Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people rowing.
Feeling a deeper study was in order; American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.
They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.
Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team’s management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.
They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the ‘Rowing Team Quality First Program,’ with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rowers. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses. The pension program was trimmed to ‘equal the competition’ and some of the resultant savings were channeled into morale boosting programs and teamwork posters.
The next year the Japanese won by two miles.
Humiliated, the American management laid-off one rower, halted development of a new canoe, sold all the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses.
The next year, try as he might, the lone designated rower was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles,) so he was laid off for unacceptable performance, all canoe equipment was sold and the next year’s racing team was out-sourced to India.
Sadly, the End.
Here’s something else to think about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US , claiming they can’t make money paying American wages.
TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US. The last quarter’s results:
TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.
Ford folks are still scratching their heads, and collecting bonuses.
the zac team
Posted by Propertymanager on :
I hope that gas prices continue to rise. I'm looking forward to seeing what price gas will reach before you socialists give up on your wacko environmentalism and global warming nonsense, and start pleading for drilling in ANWR and offshore of the continental shelf. How long will it be before you liberals embrace nuclear power? How long before you want to put windmills in Ted Kennedy's sailing grounds? How long before we get serious about energy independence? I'm betting the price will have to get to $8 per gallon before this happens.
It's too bad that the cap and trade bill didn't survive and pass this week. Another $1.50 per gallon and millions of additional jobs leaving the US is exactly what we need. We need some pain to straighten this country up!
Mike
Posted by Relentless. on :
How long will it be before you realize it's not a supply issue? Jeeze.. gotta imagine that penny is in for an eternal fall.
Posted by Peaser on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: I'm betting the price will have to get to $8 per gallon before this happens.
I can hear the Germans laughing now...
I'm just glad that we're not paying $8 yet.
By 2012 we're supposed to see $10 gas, I forget where I saw that, the day is coming though.
Posted by bond006 on :
That is pure garbage my friend. You will take your politics to the point that you want the whole country to implode just to proveyou are right or insane.
Sounds to me you should head to Argentina with old flight suit when he is out of office.
Posted by bond006 on :
The trouble with this country is we have become sheep.
Where is the spirt of the men that pulled off the Boston tea party.
If you don't like the price and you have it forced down your throat dump out. And tell the owners to go to hell. When they come to get you ambush them.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: I hope that gas prices continue to rise. I'm looking forward to seeing what price gas will reach before you socialists give up on your wacko environmentalism and global warming nonsense, and start pleading for drilling in ANWR and offshore of the continental shelf. How long will it be before you liberals embrace nuclear power? How long before you want to put windmills in Ted Kennedy's sailing grounds? How long before we get serious about energy independence? I'm betting the price will have to get to $8 per gallon before this happens.
It's too bad that the cap and trade bill didn't survive and pass this week. Another $1.50 per gallon and millions of additional jobs leaving the US is exactly what we need. We need some pain to straighten this country up!
Mike
careful what you wish for.
i hadn't realised the rush limbaugh view of the world had become so distorted... i thought you called yourself a Christian, is this the kindof stuff you are really praying for?
the coming social unrest is likely to include slogans like "eat the rich" and "crucify your landlord first"...
and it is coming, and you can thank the "conservatives" that have been running the country for the last 30 years for that.
there is no shortage of oil. except maybe what they took off the market to run the Iraq war.
Posted by Peaser on :
quote:Originally posted by bond006: Where is the spirt of the men that pulled off the Boston tea party.
Dead, buried in Boston...
Well, rivers still get dyed green on St. Patty's Day Posted by Peaser on :
"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
Words from President Abraham Lincoln
Posted by glassman on :
William J. H. Boetcker From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
William J. H. Boetcker (1873 – 1962) was an American religious leader and influential public speaker.
Born in Hamburg, Germany, he was ordained a Presbyterian minister soon after his arrival in the United States as a young adult. He quickly gained attention as an eloquent motivational speaker, and is often regarded today as the forerunner of such contemporary "success coaches" as Anthony Robbins.
An outspoken political conservative, Rev. Boetcker is perhaps best remembered for his authorship of a pamphlet entitled The Ten Cannots; originally published in 1916, it is often misattributed to Abraham Lincoln. The error apparently stems from a leaflet printed in 1942 by a conservative political organization called the Committee for Constitutional Government; the leaflet bore the title "Lincoln on Limitations" and contained some genuine Lincoln quotations on one side and the "Ten Cannots" on the other, with the attributions juxtaposed (the mistake of crediting Lincoln for having been the source of "The Ten Cannots" has been repeated many times since, most notably by Ronald Reagan in a speech he gave at the 1992 Republican convention in Houston).
There are several minor variants of the pamphlet in circulation, but the most commonly-accepted version appears below:
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. * You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. * You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. * You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. * You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. * You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. * You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. * You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. * You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. * And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for them
Posted by Peaser on :
Where's that dang edit button... Posted by glassman on :
i actually thought it was a cool speech... i was wondering when he said it...
before or after sending Sherman to burn Atlanta...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. * You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. * You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. * You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. * You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. * You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. * You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. * You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. * You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. * And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for them
Amen, Brother. Amen.
i actually thought it was a cool speech... i was wondering when he said it...
before or after sending Sherman to burn Atlanta...
And you better not be besmirching the good names of Abe or Willie with that remark.
Posted by bond006 on :
Good speach now we sould email it to President bush
Posted by glassman on :
After. Way after.
Lincoln never said it...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by bond006: Good speach now we sould email it to President bush
yeah, some of US were trying to point this out about Iraq early on...
you can't GIVE people freedom...
there's some recent developments that i haven't verified yet but reports indicate that Bush is balckmailing the Iraqi govt to allow us to establish permanent bases by threatening to "re-invoke" Sadams debts to US that we had previously forgiven....
what's even worse about that is that Bush would be doing this even tho congress passed resolutions stating we wouldn't. (before the GOP lost control)
and? it isn't clear whether he has the proper authority to do this without it being a treaty which must pass a senate ratification vote of 2/3.... the guy is in lalaland...
Posted by glassman on :
the issue is real muddy:
ENGEL: That’s the question, is it permanent bases or is it not, and the details of this have not been published. The U.S. and Iraqi officials I’ve spoken to say they would not be U.S. permanent bases in Iraq, they would be Iraqi bases and that U.S. troops would reside on them as tenants and may even have to pay some sort of nominal rent, so there would be a face saving device. What’s also trying to be worked out is what’s the exact U.S. mission. Would they be able to conduct independent operations without the advice and consultation of the Iraqi government and that has been a point of contention.
I must have missed something? Weren't permanent bases always on the schedule?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: I must have missed something? Weren't permanent bases always on the schedule?
not openly, i think most of US assumed they were,
but the admin has always denied it to the Iraqi's...
still does in fact... U.S. Not Seeking Permanent Iraq Bases, Ambassador Says
By DAVID STOUT Published: June 5, 2008 WASHINGTON — The United States ambassador to Iraq on Thursday dismissed any suggestion that the Bush administration is maneuvering to set up permanent military bases in Iraq.
“I’m very comfortable saying to you, to the Iraqis, to anyone who asks, that, no indeed, we are not seeking permanent bases, either explicitly or implicitly,” Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker said at a State Department news briefing. Mr. Crocker commented at length, and sometimes disdainfully, on a London newspaper report of “a secret plan” whereby the United States would keep 50 permanent military bases in Iraq, keep control of Iraqi airspace and insist on legal immunity for American soldiers and contractors.
my understanding is that Congress (GOP controlled at that) passed RESOLUTIONS condemning the idea, but they were not binding as law...
i beleive al-Maliki is in Iran this weekend seeing if they want to help in kicking US out now:
Iraqi PM in Tehran for talks with Iranian leaders
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI – 5 hours ago
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was in Tehran Saturday for talks that are expected to focus on a proposed U.S.-Iraq security agreement that Iran fears will keep the American military in neighboring Iraq for years. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5leYnvOpPqrVCiXxC65pROPNYBAD915DQ400 Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:i thought you called yourself a Christian, is this the kindof stuff you are really praying for?
I almost never pray about money or anything having to do with money. If you'll re-read my post, you'll see that I didn't say anything about praying.
quote:and it is coming, and you can thank the "conservatives" that have been running the country for the last 30 years for that.
What conservatives? Bill Clinton? George Bush? Who?
quote:the coming social unrest is likely to include slogans like "eat the rich" and "crucify your landlord first"...
"Crucify your landlord first"? That's not a very good slogan, it doesn't even rhyme. Besides, they can't get rid of the landlords. Most low income tenants couldn't possibly manage their own house even if it was given to them - ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS GIVEN TO THEM. All you have to do is look at the Habitat for Humanity houses a few years after the owners get them. UGH!
Besides, low income people today don't have the initiative to revolt. As long as they get their government handout and the beer and cigarettes don't run out - they're perfectly happy to be enslaved by the policies of the left!
Posted by Relentless. on :
If your dream/prayer of $10 a gallon gas comes true, then you will see the very unrest you don't now think is possible. It won't just be the poor people who rent your shacks who take to the streets... It will be middle class folks that grab the pitchforks. Ten dollar a gallon gas means that it's more expensive to work than to sit at home and collect unemployment or welfare checks. It means a spiraling economy where no one has money to rent your roach infested shacks.. It means they will just squat there.. It means there will be so many of them that the cops won't be able to do a damned thing about it. This means you will soon be without a dime.
Maybe it does affect you... Funny notion isn't it? The economy as it works means we are all connected. I'm certain you are about to learn all about it.
Posted by Stupid on :
Ten bucks a gallon...Whew,makes me think twice before I buy a truck and go back to work.
Posted by bond006 on :
PM I am wondering why any sane person would wish what you are wishing. It might happen but why hope it does.
I see every day what happens to humans when the worst comes out in them some never heal.
And to have this mess come out when I am so close to retirement is ironic to say the least
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:It means a spiraling economy where no one has money to rent your roach infested shacks..
Isn't that funny that you assume that I rent shacks and that they are roach infested. The truth is that neither is true. Of course, truth doesn't matter much to the left.
However, you seem very concerned about the price of gas. So, why aren't you advocating doing some things that will actually lower the price of gas, like drilling in ANWR and off the continental shelf?
You can't have it both ways - whining about gas prices but not be willing to do anything to correct the problem!
Posted by T e x on :
So, why aren't you advocating doing some things that will actually lower the price of gas,. . .
correct the market...
PAY Ah 10 SHUN!
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:It means a spiraling economy where no one has money to rent your roach infested shacks..
Isn't that funny that you assume that I rent shacks and that they are roach infested. The truth is that neither is true. Of course, truth doesn't matter much to the left.
However, you seem very concerned about the price of gas. So, why aren't you advocating doing some things that will actually lower the price of gas, like drilling in ANWR and off the continental shelf?
You can't have it both ways - whining about gas prices but not be willing to do anything to correct the problem!
The bit where you assume I'm a lefty at all is just.. well.. adorable. Drill in ANWR.. drill with bits made entirely of baby harp seal teeth for all I care. Use caribou fat for the bit's lubrication and I'm on board. You seem incapable of proving you are anything but inept. And I know you rent roach infested shacks because of your general attitude coupled with your seemingly unavoidable desire to be wrong.
Jeeze.. where is Bdgee.. If I'm going to argue with someone who's perpetually wrong I at least want a mild challenge.
Posted by Relentless. on :
And another thing, the price of oil has not a damn thing to do with ANWR. ANWR has the ability in five years to drop the price of oil by fifty cents. You want to drop the price of oil? Tell ya what: STOP BOMBING EVERY COUNTRY WITH OIL! Revolutionary idea? The price of oil is largely if not WHOLLY due to speculatory investing. Speculation that supply will be interrupted because of what???? WAR. God Damned shocking huh?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:i thought you called yourself a Christian, is this the kindof stuff you are really praying for?
I almost never pray about money or anything having to do with money. If you'll re-read my post, you'll see that I didn't say anything about praying.
quote:and it is coming, and you can thank the "conservatives" that have been running the country for the last 30 years for that.
What conservatives? Bill Clinton? George Bush? Who?
quote:the coming social unrest is likely to include slogans like "eat the rich" and "crucify your landlord first"...
"Crucify your landlord first"? That's not a very good slogan, it doesn't even rhyme. Besides, they can't get rid of the landlords. Most low income tenants couldn't possibly manage their own house even if it was given to them - ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS GIVEN TO THEM. All you have to do is look at the Habitat for Humanity houses a few years after the owners get them. UGH!
Besides, low income people today don't have the initiative to revolt. As long as they get their government handout and the beer and cigarettes don't run out - they're perfectly happy to be enslaved by the policies of the left!
PM, that's just wrong. here's your exact post:
I hope that gas prices continue to rise. I'm looking forward to seeing what price gas will
now, i might not be one of those people that runs around praising the lord and trying to witness everybody, but i happen to believe that hope is a very religious thing...
i understand you are unable to comprehend that since you've posted enough to here to make clear that you have some decidedly sociopathic tendencies.
you said it plain as day, you see? as far as i'm concerned God is everywhere and that's a prayer...
you can't go round all week being a jerk and go into Church on Sunday and "be good" and expect that's enough. and as Relentless pointed out to you? as a landlord? you'll find you aren't needed at all. especially at the end of the month when it's time to decide between food and rent....
if you think the cops are gonna come help? think again, cuz they won't be any better off than your tennants.. we don't pay em that much... maybe if you give 'em a bonus outa your own pocket? you'll get extra help..
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
correct the market...
PAY Ah 10 SHUN!
I've heard many on this board lay the blame for oil at the feet of speculative investing and I'm not saying that it doesn't belong there (at least part of it). But, what do we do about it? I mean in a capitalistic society (which most of the world is headed that way economically speaking), how do you tell people they can only invest in what 'The Man' says you can?
Posted by Relentless. on :
Nah, that's not what I'm saying at all.. pretty sure no one else is either. The speculation is that when we attack.. then invade.. then occupy these "Oil Rich" nations there is a break in the supply. My solution is to stop invading these countries. Why are we about to invade Iran? Because their leader said some bad things? Actually read the words he's spoken and you will see clearly that he has yet to threaten anyone. And what's more? If threatening another nation is grounds for war then this nation should be blown away. We're the ones actually bombing nations without cause. We still haven't found any reason for the war in Iraq and it should trouble you, me and every human on this planet that five years later and we are trying to make excuses that Saddam was a bad guy? Sure every reason Bushy stated was either coincidentally wrong or blatant lies. No one is saying the speculative investors are bad guys who need to be regulated. I'm saying this nation's government is wrong and needs to be hobbled before there is nothing left of the land it governs with brute force and lies. We need to stop making threats towards Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and every other nation that even murmurs opposition to this nation's march towards global conquest.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
[bold]This is killing business except oil related.[/bold]
Quote Propertymanager:
"It's very good for the rental business. More people are renting as the cost of living increases. People also want to live in the city where the drive to work is much shorter."
_________________________________________________
I guess i did generalize on my statement.
But i was looking at the majority of people that would be affected as opposed to the very few that will gain from others losses.
Sure the low rent landlords will gain the most compared to regular landloards.
We will need more people to handle all the new welfare and unemployment claims. I am sure that more liquor, cigarettes and drugs will be sold and stolen. Pharmaceutics will gain also and of course more laws and law enforcement will be needed. But the percentage that gain from those that have lost will be very small and it boils down to we are in deep...... if something does not change.
Like i said these oil prices are just killing business. The business that still survives that relies on oil not only have to worry about their business but they have to worry about the businesses they are selling to because of all the bankruptcies.
These bankrupt companies are taking down others that sold to them and it's real hard to allow for a lot of bankrupcies in the cost of doing business without becoming bankrupt yourself.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:And another thing, the price of oil has not a damn thing to do with ANWR. ANWR has the ability in five years to drop the price of oil by fifty cents.
You're contradicting yourself. If ANWR would drop the price 50 cents and drilling off the continental shelf would drop it more, etc, etc, etc. soon we would be talking about real money.
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:And another thing, the price of oil has not a damn thing to do with ANWR. ANWR has the ability in five years to drop the price of oil by fifty cents.
You're contradicting yourself. If ANWR would drop the price 50 cents and drilling off the continental shelf would drop it more, etc, etc, etc. soon we would be talking about real money.
Fifty cents against $140 is nothing. You contradicted the evolution of our species with your comments.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: correct the market...
PAY Ah 10 SHUN!
I've heard many on this board lay the blame for oil at the feet of speculative investing and I'm not saying that it doesn't belong there (at least part of it). But, what do we do about it? I mean in a capitalistic society (which most of the world is headed that way economically speaking), how do you tell people they can only invest in what 'The Man' says you can?
you're right SF you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
for years? our economy grew and our WHOLE nation prospered with strict controls on public utilities.
the public utility owners didn't like being "regulated" and the "hippies" didn't like the monopoly that was granted to the utilities...
now? we've done away with those controls because the big corps said that competition would offer better deals to the consumers...
well? in telephony that's working... but only because of wireless/cellular... it's not working in the other areas because the largest corps consolidated into even larger corps..
there is no real competition in oil. the only competition is to "buy" a futures contract thru the index market and hold it till you have to replace it with another one. there's no shorting in that market, it's all long...
the "funny" thing about it is that it's pension funds, University trusts, and other little people investment groups buying in heavy that are doing it...
the US is in a world achit right now. Obama ? McCain? they aren't gonna be able to fix this with policies.
the only fix is oil pricing itself right off the shelf.
PM's suggestion that we drill everywhere is very shallow because even if he's correct? those wells dry up fast, that's the real reason the oil co's don't bother. it's not the environmental whackos. it's pure bottom line issues that stop 'em.
MONEY RULES in this country, period. anybody who says different forgot to get off the bus
if you ever get a chance to look at old movies shot on location around the city of LA? you'll see oil rigs everywhere.... they dried up fast... most do... and the big find in Brazil? it's under 10,000 feet of water, and the oil is expected to be about 500 degrees F. that'll be expensive to get too...
Posted by Highwaychild on :
Happy 4th. It's going to be so patriotic.
Posted by glassman on :
yeah, from the article at the beginning:
When taking the question about the $4 milestone, Bush told the reporter, "That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." If you're out there wondering... what your life is going to be like, and you're looking at $4 a gallon, that's uncertain," Bush responded to a question posed at a White House news conference. "And when you couple that with the idea that... taxes may be going up in a couple years, that's double uncertainty."
sheesh... life's the same except more people are worried...
and it only took three months
Posted by glassman on :
here's an article i missed this past winter: Oil prices rise as Venezuela cuts supplies
Feb 12, 2008
LONDON (AFP) — World oil prices headed upwards on Wednesday as traders assessed a move by Venezuela's state oil company PDVSA to cut supplies to US oil giant ExxonMobil.
On Wednesday, New York's main contract, light sweet crude for delivery in March, gained 19 cents to 92.97 dollars a barrel.
In a statement, the Venezuelan oil concern cited "judicial-economic aggression" by ExxonMobil as the reason for its action, which it described as an act of "reciprocity."
The move by Venezuela comes after ExxonMobil, the world's biggest energy company, secured international court orders freezing up to 12 billion dollars in PDVSA assets.
The court orders were issued as part of an international arbitration sought by ExxonMobil to gain compensation for the leftist Venezuelan government's nationalization of key oil fields in the Orinoco basin.
Crude prices had surged higher on Monday after weekend threats by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to cut US oil deliveries.
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: correct the market...
PAY Ah 10 SHUN!
I've heard many on this board lay the blame for oil at the feet of speculative investing and I'm not saying that it doesn't belong there (at least part of it). But, what do we do about it? I mean in a capitalistic society (which most of the world is headed that way economically speaking), how do you tell people they can only invest in what 'The Man' says you can?
i wonder what would happen to the overall commodities trading market if they did away with margin/leverage on long positions? or raised it to some "outrageous figure" like 50%?
the shorts would destroy the prices IMO...
Posted by Relentless. on :
All those margin calls would kill the price.. then add the ensuing shorts to it? Yup we'd be back down to $2.00 a gallon by winter.
Posted by glassman on :
it seems too simple man...
Posted by Relentless. on :
precisely why it will never happen
Posted by glassman on :
even the Saudi's are saying that the price of oil is ridiculaous and they are the ones that make the most money/profit on it...
In a statement following the weekly meeting of the Saudi Cabinet, Mr Madani said the current price of oil was unjustified and pledged action to prevent further "unwarranted and unnatural" price hikes.
But many oil producers, including the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and some of the world's largest fully publicly traded oil firms, say supply is enough and blame speculation for rising prices.
OPEC officials have lined up to say the exporter group does not need to pump more and Jeroen van der Veer, head of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, has blamed market "psychology," not shortages, for record prices.
i heard AGAIN today that OPEC says oil should be at $70/barrel now.. not 130...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: precisely why it will never happen
don't count on any Presidential candidate besides a Ron Paul to say it tho...
it could happen politically, but only if there were some really bad "social unrest" like we had in '68.... and even that would have to be more widespread than it was in '68
Posted by Relentless. on :
yup, agree 100%. It will take ELE to make it happen.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Did you buy any or just sat there and rant/raved about what you know nothing about? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
