Archive

Disgusted with obama administration - Part II

  • wkfan
    Dr Winston O'Boogie;1700210 wrote:At a time when there is more oil available in the US than ever before, protecting public lands for future generations is reasonable. We don't need the oil here and we wouldn't drill for oil in a place like the Grand Canyon even if we did. A great Republican hero - Teddy Roosevelt - would be happy with this. By the way, your article fails to mention that on this same day, Obama cleared offshore drilling permits for multiple states along the Atlantic coast.

    Oil is $50 a barrel.
    Oil is $50 a barrel because the Saudis want it at $50 per barrel to screw the Iran...and dis-incent the US from drilling. Once we stop drilling efforts in our own country because the payback isn't there....the Saudis will turn off the tap quicker than you can say $150 per barrel oil.
  • FatHobbit
    wkfan;1700968 wrote:Oil is $50 a barrel because the Saudis want it at $50 per barrel to screw the Iran...and dis-incent the US from drilling. Once we stop drilling efforts in our own country because the payback isn't there....the Saudis will turn off the tap quicker than you can say $150 per barrel oil.
    Is this a bad thing though? There is a finite amount of oil. If they keep the oil flowing and it isn't feasible to drill here because of low oil prices, doesn't that mean more oil for us later when the supply is running out?
  • Dr Winston O'Boogie
    wkfan;1700968 wrote:Oil is $50 a barrel because the Saudis want it at $50 per barrel to screw the Iran...and dis-incent the US from drilling. Once we stop drilling efforts in our own country because the payback isn't there....the Saudis will turn off the tap quicker than you can say $150 per barrel oil.
    You can just as easily say that oil is at $50 a barrel because North American drillers want it in order to drive less favorable countries out of the market. If a republican were president, conservatives would credit him with low oil prices "he encourages drilling/fracking and doesn't care what the Saudis do". Since it is a democrat (one I disagree with often by the way), it is purely the exercise of the Saudis and the US has nothing to do with it.

    There is more than enough oil in current drilling and in future claims to satisfy our needs. The political criticism of Obama trying to maintain some public land in Alaska that isn't necessary to our oil needs makes it sound like the Anwar oil is the only thing between us and energy amragedden.
  • wkfan
    Dr Winston O'Boogie;1701134 wrote:You can just as easily say that oil is at $50 a barrel because North American drillers want it in order to drive less favorable countries out of the market.
    You could say that...but then you would be wrong.
    Dr Winston O'Boogie;1701134 wrote:There is more than enough oil in current drilling and in future claims to satisfy our needs. The political criticism of Obama trying to maintain some public land in Alaska that isn't necessary to our oil needs makes it sound like the Anwar oil is the only thing between us and energy amragedden.
    I disagree that there is enough oil to satisfy future needs. This is why we need to explore alternative forms of energy.

    That said, the issue with the amount of oil is not the amount, but who controls it. We do not, the middle east OPEC countries do. The US needs to do both...drill for oil in our own country so that we control the flow AND develop alternative forms of energy so that we NEVER never have to depend on the ragheads again for energy.
  • Spock
    wkfan;1700968 wrote:Oil is $50 a barrel because the Saudis want it at $50 per barrel to screw the Iran...and dis-incent the US from drilling. Once we stop drilling efforts in our own country because the payback isn't there....the Saudis will turn off the tap quicker than you can say $150 per barrel oil.
    this.

    Oil can sell for whatever it is sold at. We will use it till it runs out. Nothing is going to replace oil till oil is gone. Necessity is what drives improvements. Once we run out of oil we will use green energy more. Might as well not bust our wallets.
  • Dr Winston O'Boogie
    wkfan;1701180 wrote:You could say that...but then you would be wrong.
    The total world supply is the driver of a commodity price. One producing marketing cannot look at another and say, "you're driving prices". They all do by their very nature.

    Let's be honest though, were Romney elected in 2012, many of the usual suspects would be applauding him with vigor for his efforts in keeping our oil prices low.
  • majorspark
    In light of current events I just remembered this...

    [video=youtube;kwQqNdkyZZo][/video]
  • gut
    majorspark;1701308 wrote:In light of current events I just remembered this...
    Romney appears to have been right about a lot of foreign policy issues, and that was where he was considered weakest.

    I laughed how Obama ridiculed Romney's corporate tax cuts, then spun around after the election and began proposing something similar.
  • Spock
    gut;1701310 wrote:Romney appears to have been right about a lot of foreign policy issues, and that was where he was considered weakest.

    I laughed how Obama ridiculed Romney's corporate tax cuts, then spun around after the election and began proposing something similar.
    there wasn't anyone weaker on foreign policy than Obama. Hell he didn't have experience in anything
  • QuakerOats
    And another lousy quarter of GDP just posted. When you have a marxist tyring to direct a free-enterprise capitalist economy, this is what you get ..........year after year after year. The assault on the economy and those wanting to work rolls on.


    One can only imagine how far, far, far better off the USA would be had Mr. Romney been elected.
  • gut
    QuakerOats;1701373 wrote:And another lousy quarter of GDP just posted. .
    Bwhuwht?!?? Are you saying Obama spiked the football prematurely again?

    I've said before, you move toward socialist Europe with the massive debt, taxes and transfer payments that go with it and expect European-style growth and unemployment.

    But as Pelosi would say, how wonderful for people who don't want to work to be able not to work and pursue their dreams of smoking pot all day while trying to be an artist.
  • QuakerOats
    TedSheckler;1700937 wrote:BREAKING: The Taliban aren't terrorists.

    Isn't it fun to have 30 year-old liberal lawyers running the show, under the tutelage of their liberal community-activist-turned-world-'leader'.


    • THE TALIBAN have claimed responsibility for killing three US contractors days after a White House spokesman called them an 'armed insurgency', despite their presence on an official terror list since 2002.
  • TedSheckler
    QuakerOats;1701401 wrote:
    • THE TALIBAN have claimed responsibility for killing three US contractors days after a White House spokesman called them an 'armed insurgency', despite their presence on an official terror list since 2002.
    But.....

    [video=youtube;1r8Nw9W9hgQ][/video]
  • gut
    This administration has been a complete joke. Little more than the tail wagging the liberal dog. They expend tremendous effort to create a perception of faux transparency - which wouldn't make sense if it didn't make perfect sense.
  • wkfan
    Dr Winston O'Boogie;1701234 wrote:The total world supply is the driver of a commodity price. One producing marketing cannot look at another and say, "you're driving prices". They all do by their very nature.
    Not the total supply...just the currently available supply. Two entirely different things.
    Dr Winston O'Boogie;1701234 wrote:Let's be honest though, were Romney elected in 2012, many of the usual suspects would be applauding him with vigor for his efforts in keeping our oil prices low.
    Totally disagree. Those 'usual suspects' would understand the reason behind the currently low oil prices if Romney had been elected....just as they understand it now. EVERYONE with a brain knows that the POTUS has absolutely no impact on oil prices charged by OPEC and, therefore the price of gasoline charged at the pump (with the exception of gasolines taxes). That is why it was a ignorant to blame GWB for the rise in gas prices during his time in the WH and to applaud KB1 for them falling now.
  • Dr Winston O'Boogie
    wkfan;1701450 wrote:Not the total supply...just the currently available supply. Two entirely different things.



    Totally disagree. Those 'usual suspects' would understand the reason behind the currently low oil prices if Romney had been elected....just as they understand it now. EVERYONE with a brain knows that the POTUS has absolutely no impact on oil prices charged by OPEC and, therefore the price of gasoline charged at the pump (with the exception of gasolines taxes). That is why it was a ignorant to blame GWB for the rise in gas prices during his time in the WH and to applaud KB1 for them falling now.
    I don't disagree with your opinion that the president doesn't control oil prices. I completely disagree with you that he gets credit by his partisans when prices are down and is blamed by his opponents when they go up.

    Saudi doesn't pump oil in a vacuum. The entire world supply - or available supply as you say - determines the price. The companies in the Bakken and Texas oil fields that are cutting way back on costs right now developed the infrastructure to contribute to the current available supply. I work in a commodity market and the exact same thing is at work in our industry.
  • HitsRus
    The difference here is is the huge difference in cost to produce between the Saudis and American oil and the elasticity of demand and fragileness of the oil market. If the Saudi's were to to cut production by just a few percent, the excess oil on the market would be quickly gone, and the price would rise quickly. Absolutely, the price of gasoline depends on the willingness of the Saudis to continue production at their current rate.
  • QuakerOats
    Spock;1701321 wrote:there wasn't anyone weaker on foreign policy than Obama. Hell he didn't have experience in anything
    http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Obama-has-agreed-to-80-percent-of-Irans-demands-in-nuclear-talks-Israeli-officials-tell-Ch-10-389532


    We have elected the enemy.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    That doesn't hold any water when you look into the specifics of the negotiations.
    And, the Israelis have been wrong on everything regarding Iran back to 2005.
    According to Israel right now Iran would have 10-15 nuclear weapons and an ICBM or medium range missile that could strike Israel.

    But, go ahead and believe the Israelis. Their record is so stellar....
  • confucius99
    But, go ahead and believe the Israelis
    You are either an ally or you're not. Which are we?
  • ptown_trojans_1
    confucius99;1701604 wrote:You are either an ally or you're not. Which are we?
    Neither.
    The world doesn't work that way. It is not nice and tidy.
    It all depends on the situation and the issue.

    On Iran nukes, Israel is more a pain. They have been wrong on every aspect of the program.
    On the fight against Hezbollah and Iranian encroachment in Lebanon, they are an ally as we found out this week.
  • BGFalcons82
    Do you think Obama gives a rat's ass about all of the beheadings by ISIL? He feigned caring on his way to his tee time way back when. Now that the JV Team performs them nearly weekly, he's not got much to say. Maybe I expect too much. The world ignored Jews getting slaughtered, so maybe it is que sera sera, eh?
  • majorspark
    BGFalcons82;1701875 wrote:Do you think Obama gives a rat's ass about all of the beheadings by ISIL? He feigned caring on his way to his tee time way back when. Now that the JV Team performs them nearly weekly, he's not got much to say. Maybe I expect too much. The world ignored Jews getting slaughtered, so maybe it is que sera sera, eh?
    Its a shame the good nations of the earth have not yet wiped these vile shit bags off the face of the earth. Time to give them the Jihad they crave. I can only hope we are waiting for more to gather but sadly that is not the case. They will disperse like roaches into the civilian population at the very site of an Abrams tank. It should be known where you hide you will be found and you will die. And if necessary those you hide behind as well. Let them explain it to Allah.
  • majorspark
    ptown_trojans_1;1701657 wrote:On Iran nukes, Israel is more a pain. They have been wrong on every aspect of the program..
    With recent history having an industrialized European nation attempt to exterminate the Jewish race and historical conquests by the Persians against Israel given the recent hostile rhetoric coming from a nation nearly ten times its population just over 1000 miles away who actively arms Israels enemies on their borders I'd be a pain too.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    majorspark;1701925 wrote:With recent history having an industrialized European nation attempt to exterminate the Jewish race and historical conquests by the Persians against Israel given the recent hostile rhetoric coming from a nation nearly ten times its population just over 1000 miles away who actively arms Israels enemies on their borders I'd be a pain too.
    That still does not mean they should take the stance on the high end of the scale in terms of the Iranian program.
    Their intelligence and public statements have been so wrong the last 10 years it makes what they say now a joke.
    Why should the U.S. believe what they say? They have been wrong so many times before.
    Bibi is the king of hyping the threat the last 10 years too.

    I get what you are saying, but if I am a U.S. Intelligence officer, given the Israeli track record, I take everything they say about the Iranian nuclear program with a huge grain of salt.