Pittakos wrote:
jimghunter wrote:
This thread discusses the Content article: Place energy blame where it belongs

Oh to be so naive. Explain again how the liberals are raising gas prices? How they are making billions in profits? Wait, it is the oil companies that are making the profits. I have heard the argument that the cost of oil is going up. Not true, the price of oil is going up. The cost of oil is the same as it has always been, it is a naturally occuring mineral. Seems like I read last week that the price of a barrel of oil went down and the price of gas went up. The liberals are not closing refineries, they are not capping wells, they are not raising the prices of gas. You need to focus on the real reason, focus your anger to the oil executives (like GWB and Dick).
Wow, Jimghunter. You sure put a lot of words into the writers mouth. He did not say that 'liberals' were to blame. He blamed the Senators for pandering to environmentalists who won't let us extract our own resources nor build the refineries needed to process it. He said:
all our senators. Who fear the cost of losing the vote of the extreme radical environmentalists -- who are to blame.
Oil and gas are getting scarce because we aren't developing our own supplies and the Chinese and other developing nations are using more and more of the world supply. Oil execs don't set the price. They only take the money that speculators are willing to give them for it.

Money that is devalued!

We're nearly or already bankrupt; are creating money to cover our obligations; the more we print, the more we need; it's fiat currency unbacked by gold; and every new dollar created dilutes the value of all others in circulation. Double the money supply, and presto - every dollar is worth 50 cents. Double it again, and you get the point. We've been doing it for decades, especially since Nixon closed the gold window in 1971.

At some point, the music stops, the dollar collapses, it becomes worthless paper, and related dollar-denominated paper assets go down with it.

Greenspan and Bernanke have been virtual money-creation machines unmindful of the history they should know. By issuing too much of a good thing for too many years, they fueled asset bubbles. When they burst, they made things worse and may now have headed the economy for collapse.

We're now in an "inflationary recession," - soaring food and oil prices, a weakened dollar, true unemployment over 12%, real inflation nearly as high, weak industrial production, and more.

Already disposable income is falling in a weakened economy in crisis. As things worsen, politicians get blamed, and if conditions get bad enough, voters may respond with their feet, declare a pox on both major parties, and turn to a third alternative around 2010 or 2012. The Republican Party was created in 1854 at a time Democrats and Whigs were the two dominant parties. Exit Whigs, and enter Republicans with Abraham Lincoln its first elected president in 1860.

jimghunter wrote:
This thread discusses the Content article: Place energy blame where it belongs

Oh to be so naive. Explain again how the liberals are raising gas prices? How they are making billions in profits? Wait, it is the oil companies that are making the profits. I have heard the argument that the cost of oil is going up. Not true, the price of oil is going up. The cost of oil is the same as it has always been, it is a naturally occuring mineral. Seems like I read last week that the price of a barrel of oil went down and the price of gas went up. The liberals are not closing refineries, they are not capping wells, they are not raising the prices of gas. You need to focus on the real reason, focus your anger to the oil executives (like GWB and Dick).

You're drinking way too much koolaid. Both Pitt's and Keeper's points are valid. (Well, most of Keeper's is.) BTW, DID you actually read the article? It really didn't say anything about liberals or conservatives.

The Keeper wrote:
Pittakos wrote:
jimghunter wrote:
This thread discusses the Content article: Place energy blame where it belongs

Oh to be so naive. Explain again how the liberals are raising gas prices? How they are making billions in profits? Wait, it is the oil companies that are making the profits. I have heard the argument that the cost of oil is going up. Not true, the price of oil is going up. The cost of oil is the same as it has always been, it is a naturally occuring mineral. Seems like I read last week that the price of a barrel of oil went down and the price of gas went up. The liberals are not closing refineries, they are not capping wells, they are not raising the prices of gas. You need to focus on the real reason, focus your anger to the oil executives (like GWB and Dick).
Wow, Jimghunter. You sure put a lot of words into the writers mouth. He did not say that 'liberals' were to blame. He blamed the Senators for pandering to environmentalists who won't let us extract our own resources nor build the refineries needed to process it. He said:
all our senators. Who fear the cost of losing the vote of the extreme radical environmentalists -- who are to blame.
Oil and gas are getting scarce because we aren't developing our own supplies and the Chinese and other developing nations are using more and more of the world supply. Oil execs don't set the price. They only take the money that speculators are willing to give them for it.

Money that is devalued!

We're nearly or already bankrupt; are creating money to cover our obligations; the more we print, the more we need; it's fiat currency unbacked by gold; and every new dollar created dilutes the value of all others in circulation. Double the money supply, and presto - every dollar is worth 50 cents. Double it again, and you get the point. We've been doing it for decades, especially since Nixon closed the gold window in 1971.

At some point, the music stops, the dollar collapses, it becomes worthless paper, and related dollar-denominated paper assets go down with it.

Greenspan and Bernanke have been virtual money-creation machines unmindful of the history they should know. By issuing too much of a good thing for too many years, they fueled asset bubbles. When they burst, they made things worse and may now have headed the economy for collapse.

We're now in an "inflationary recession," - soaring food and oil prices, a weakened dollar, true unemployment over 12%, real inflation nearly as high, weak industrial production, and more.

Already disposable income is falling in a weakened economy in crisis. As things worsen, politicians get blamed, and if conditions get bad enough, voters may respond with their feet, declare a pox on both major parties, and turn to a third alternative around 2010 or 2012. The Republican Party was created in 1854 at a time Democrats and Whigs were the two dominant parties. Exit Whigs, and enter Republicans with Abraham Lincoln its first elected president in 1860.
Oh yes...devalued dollar... that too.

You're drinking way too much koolaid. Both Pitt's and Keeper's points are valid. (Well, most of Keeper's is.) BTW, DID you actually read the article? It really didn't say anything about liberals or conservatives.

I did make the assumption that there were no right-wing environmentalists. I will not use the word conservative since it also has an environmental aspect, and is therefore an ambiguous term. A conservative environmentalist is opposite of an environmental conservative, which is an oxymoron. But, in the pure sense of the meaning a liberal environmentalist does not exist either if you define liberal as advocating change. A rose is a rose.

jimghunter wrote:
You're drinking way too much koolaid. Both Pitt's and Keeper's points are valid. (Well, most of Keeper's is.) BTW, DID you actually read the article? It really didn't say anything about liberals or conservatives.

I did make the assumption that there were no right-wing environmentalists. I will not use the word conservative since it also has an environmental aspect, and is therefore an ambiguous term. A conservative environmentalist is opposite of an environmental conservative, which is an oxymoron. But, in the pure sense of the meaning a liberal environmentalist does not exist either if you define liberal as advocating change. A rose is a rose.

Well Rose, the Republicans established the ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. So your labels are irrelevant. And your point is pointless.

Your babble about labels is useless. We have a lot of issues facing us today. And your holier-than-thou labels do nothing to address those issues.