When they were high it sure was obamba's fault. Now, not a peep about gas prices on the news or talk radio... lol

This isn't OT. Put OT shit in the OT.

Typical, but give them a day or so and they'll find something to cry about and try and blame Obama for.
Attachments:

OPEC is trying to kill the US shale oil industry. The low gas prices won't last.

Yes they will last. Why cant u.s. shale be back up above 60 dollars a barrel. Other non opec nations are increasing production as well. OPEC is on the ropes trying to protect thier market share. It will be below 75 dollars max for years. I think it may average between 55 and 65. But then again what do I know. We will see, thats my prediction on the record.

You can blame Bush for the low gas prices. If Obama hadn't done everything he could to block oil production prices would be even lower and there would be more jobs according to this report in U.S. News and World Report.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/12/05/blame-bush-for-low-gas-prices

obomber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When they were high it sure was obamba's fault.
> Now, not a peep about gas prices on the news or
> talk radio... lol

Media is owned by anti American libs. Why would they talk about this? Low gas prices represent everything libs hate. American ingenuity, ambition, success, independence, American values and hard work. Libs despise America. To acknowledge the low gas prices would mean that lib policies to kill the US economy have failed and conservative policies are kicking the shit out of Obama.

We are increasing production to kill your US oil industry. US oil production is currently done on private lands and not government lands like before. This plan comes from your president so to rebuild America in his image. Your liberal establishment will cause your country to implode which is good for Islam.

dumbass libturdz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Media is owned by anti American libs.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! What a fucking cretin!!!!!

TheTruth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can blame Bush for the low gas prices.

Well, let's remember that the US average pump price for a gallon for regular was $4.05 in July of 2008. It had been $1.46 when Bush was inaugurated. That's what happens when you elect "oil men". But there's no question that the Great Recession that Bush and his assfuck laissez-faire advisors eventually managed to plunge much of the world into did cause demand to collapse, and all you Econ 101 fans certainly know what that meant.

> http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/12/05/
> blame-bush-for-low-gas-prices

LOL! This is a manufactured hack piece from the ultra-right-wing Heartland Institute, a Koch-funded propaganda mill manned by a bunch of global warming deniers who also believe that second-hand smoke is not dangerous. Co-founder Joseph Bast has no education beyond high school. Nice sourcing, pinhead,

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes they will last. Why cant u.s. shale be back up
> above 60 dollars a barrel. Other non opec nations
> are increasing production as well. OPEC is on the
> ropes trying to protect thier market share. It
> will be below 75 dollars max for years. I think
> it may average between 55 and 65. But then again
> what do I know. We will see, thats my prediction
> on the record.

Gerry will die of AIDS in 2015. But then again what do I know. We will see, thats my prediction on the record.

OPEC will lose. Americans will win. You watch. libtards will wail and gnash their teeth as Detroit goes back to producing what Americans want - big comfortable cars and trucks and American families will prosper. Anyone in US who isnt doing anything but dancing about these low gas prices is completely unAmerican and should get the hell out. Only an absolute libtard hates low gas. Republicans pushing shale for years while Democrats staunchly opposed this for environmental reasons. Dont forget to thank a Republican for today's low gas prices. Youre welcome.

Cite your sources,

> LOL! This is a manufactured hack piece from the
> ultra-right-wing Heartland Institute, a
> Koch-funded propaganda mill manned by a bunch of
> global warming deniers who also believe that
> second-hand smoke is not dangerous. Co-founder
> Joseph Bast has no education beyond high school.
> Nice sourcing, pinhead,

BTW - America refines a ton of gas. That creates jobs. Middle Eastern countries swimming in oil cant even refine it. They are third world idiots, and anyone who takes their threats seriously are libtatds. US rules and will turn the corner on energy by simply outproducing and economically outperforming them. Thats what America does libtards, love it or leave it.

Prove it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cite your sources,

See the link above, goober? Open it and note that the article is filed under "Opinion", not "News". Then click on the author's name to learn about the slimeball who so easily pulled the wool over your eyes.

Saudi Arabia has increased oil output significantly to decrease the per barrel oil price. The point was to undermine the Russian economy which is oil and natural gas based.

This was done at the request of the EU and US.

Once Putin has felt enough pain production will slow again and prices will rise. Expect sky high oil prices just in time for summer.

This is a short term affair.

LibtardEducator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OPEC will lose. Americans will win. You watch.
> libtards will wail and gnash their teeth as
> Detroit goes back to producing what Americans want
> - big comfortable cars and trucks and American
> families will prosper. Anyone in US who isnt doing
> anything but dancing about these low gas prices is
> completely unAmerican and should get the hell out.
> Only an absolute libtard hates low gas.
> Republicans pushing shale for years while
> Democrats staunchly opposed this for environmental
> reasons. Dont forget to thank a Republican for
> today's low gas prices. Youre welcome.

We should have used excise taxes to put a $1.25 per gallon floor under pump prices back in 1980, then added ten cents per year to the tax, using the excess over market prices (when one existed) to fund development of alternative energy sources and technologies. Gas would be $4.75 a gallon today, and even bargain cars would be getting 50 mpg.

LibtardEducator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> US rules and will turn the corner on energy by simply
> outproducing and economically outperforming them.
> Thats what America does libtards, love it or leave it.

OPEC oil is relatively easy and cheap to get out of the ground. Shale and offshore oil are expensive and difficult to get out of the ground, and that's not even counting the potentially very large environmental costs. We might actually be better off in buying oil from the suckers who are willing to sell it to us so cheaply, letting the value of our own oil go up and up and up as it simply sits there in the ground.

Libtard - that was EXACTLY the LAST thing we needed in 1980. Reagan inherited 17 percent interest rates from Carter, and more taxes would have killed the economic recovery that followed in the 80s as Reagan and Republican policies gradually beat back Carter'sand set US off on a huge economic expansion. Look what deregulation of airlines did...put Southwest and JetBlue on the map so ALL could travel, not just the rich. Same idea here, You only want the rich to be able to afford cars and drive. Taxes KILL growth!

Growth was what was needed at the time to save us from the god awful Carter administration - not more liberal social engineering!

I suppose next you'll prpose "drive 55." Another brilliant liberal Carter energy policy!

You notice the pet project Keystone Pipeline has received zero press coverage now that petrol prices have plummeted. No ammo in the chamber/rationale for siphoning dirty oil across the US to moolah-making refineries along the gulf coast.

Why do libs choose Islam over America?

Pop 'n' Oil Bottles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Saudi Arabia has increased oil output
> significantly to decrease the per barrel oil
> price. The point was to undermine the Russian
> economy which is oil and natural gas based.

OPEC simply refused to cut production. OPEC is more than Saudi Arabia. Cutting production would have boosted oil prices, but they want to damage the profitability of both Russian and shale oil production. OPEC is in a much more secure position vis-a-vis low prices than either of those two. Shale isn't profitable now, and extended low prices could cause the industry to collapse, just as it did when prices fell in the 1980's.

> This was done at the request of the EU and US.

OPEC is not an arm of either the EU or the US. Like many businesses, they understand the benefits of maintaining good customer relations, but the idea that OPEC just does whats it's asked or told to do is naive in the extreme.

> Once Putin has felt enough pain production will
> slow again and prices will rise. Expect sky high
> oil prices just in time for summer.

That's like predicting that the sun will rise in the early morning hours.

> This is a short term affair.

In comparison to what? Russia and North Dakota have refused to cut production as well. Neither is on any sort of economic condition to do so. Prices will rise and fall with changes in seasonal demand, but high long-term supplies will rule your "sky high" predictions out.

By sky high I meant over $3 a gallon.

Basically, don't go out and buy a car that gets 10 miles to the gallon and also don't celebrate our president as the "great gas price lowerer" for all to hail.

This is international politics and when OPEC can begin screwing us again after a short reprieve they will.

We currently get the majority of our gas from the western hemisphere not the ME so things may change permanently in the future.

LibtardEducator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libtard - that was EXACTLY the LAST thing we
> needed in 1980. Reagan inherited 17 percent
> interest rates from Carter,

No, Volcker ramped up interest rate targets to bring monetary policy into alignment with Reagan's desire to "wring inflation out of the economy". That plan sent the economy into what was then the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. Our northeast manufacturing corridor was savaged and never recovered. Unemployment was above 10% for ten straight months. Carter had nothing to do with any of it.

> ...and more taxes would have killed the economic
> recovery that followed in the 80s...

Reagan's first term was an economic disaster. The second was better if you can ignore the 1987 stock market crash, the burgeoning S&L crisis, and pushing people into home-equity debt.

As an FYI, Reagan cancelled the final third of his 1981 tax cuts in 1982 as part of what is still the largest peace-time tax increase in US history. He also enacted significant tax increases in 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1987. His signature 1986 tax legislation was intended to be revenue neutral, but it ended up being a two-year tax increase instead.

> Look what deregulation of airlines did...

Look what deregulation of financial services did.

> Taxes KILL growth!

Spending and deficits promote it. Do you favor spending and deficits?

> Growth was what was needed at the time to save us
> from the god awful Carter administration - not
> more liberal social engineering!

GDP in Carter's first three years grew by 4.6%, 5.6%, and 3.2%. Then the 1979-80 Arab oil crisis came along. In Reagan's first three years, GDP grew by 2.6%, -1.9% (that's a negative number) , and 4.6%.

> I suppose next you'll prpose "drive 55." Another
> brilliant liberal Carter energy policy!

That was Nixon's work, numbskull.

Gas was $1.87 a gallon in 2008.

<>

So what...there are many self educated people who have far more wisdom than most PHDs. But since you would like something more leftward leaning....

Try this
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/washington/19drill.html?ref=us&_r=0

Heck I'll even give you the leftie propaganda.
http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/land/oilshalebasics.php

There's plenty more...but it's probably above your education and comprehension level.

"LOL! This is a manufactured hack piece from the ultra-right-wing Heartland Institute, a Koch-funded propaganda mill manned by a bunch of global warming deniers who also believe that second-hand smoke is not dangerous. Co-founder Joseph Bast has no education beyond high school. Nice sourcing, pinhead,"

So what...there are many self educated people who have far more wisdom than most PHDs. But since you would like something more leftward leaning....

Try this
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/washington/19drill.html?ref=us&_r=0

Heck I'll even give you the leftie propaganda.
http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/land/oilshalebasics.php

There's plenty more...but it's probably above your education and comprehension level.

Pop n Oil Bottles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By sky high I meant over $3 a gallon.

LOL!!! Until this latest drop, the pump price for regular had not been BELOW $3.00 in four years.

> Basically, don't go out and buy a car that gets 10
> miles to the gallon and also don't celebrate our
> president as the "great gas price lowerer" for all
> to hail.

It was dumb to buy a 10 mpg car fifty years ago already. All that's been noted re Obama meanwhile is that the fag-tard right-wingers loved to blame him when gas prices were high and offer only wall-to-wall crickets now that prices are low. It's the stupidity and hypocrisy of the right-wing that's on the table here.

Otherwise, Obama has supported expanding and diversifying our energy sources and efforts. Unlike Koch-bots of course, he'd like to see care taken for the environment as well. We all have to live here after all. He's promoted and invested in wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, along with clean-coal and carbon-sequestration. He took large tracts of offshore areas off the shelf and made them available for leasing. That had to be scaled down after BP's wonderful decimation of the Gulf of Mexico by being too cheap to install safety equipment that is standard elsewhere. That's private sector ingenuity for you.

> This is international politics and when OPEC can
> begin screwing us again after a short reprieve
> they will.

OPEC has not been able to act as a cartel since the 1980's. The idea that they are more than one of many major players in the game is quite a stretch.

> We currently get the majority of our gas from the
> western hemisphere not the ME so things may change
> permanently in the future.

Ecuador and Venezuela are members of OPEC.

2013 US crude oil imports in millions of barrels per day...

OPEC: 3,493
Non-OPEC: 4,237

Oil trades in a global commodity market, so to one degree or another, every supplier ends up being in much the same boat as all the others.

LOL...Wrote

"Well, let's remember that the US average pump price for a gallon for regular was $4.05 in July of 2008. It had been $1.46 when Bush was inaugurated. That's what happens when you elect "oil men". But there's no question that the Great Recession that Bush and his assfuck laissez-faire advisors eventually managed to plunge much of the world into did cause demand to collapse, and all you Econ 101 fans certainly know what that mean."

Your gas prices don't come close to government figures which in 2012 showed gas prices in the Bush and Obama administrations were about the same.
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_21545019/trick-question-who-had-higher-gas-prices-obama

libs hate America. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gas was $1.87 a gallon in 2008.

Like it was just one price all year long. What a doofus.

Average mid-month prices for regular in 2008...

Jan -- $3.04
Feb -- $3.04
Mar -- $3.26
Apr -- $3.35
May -- $3.69
Jun -- $4.01
Jul -- $4.05
Aug -- $3.71
Sep -- $3.87
Oct -- $3.11
Nov -- $2.03
Dec -- $1.65

That's what the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression can do.

Republicans are little bitches.

TheTruth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what...there are many self educated people who
> have far more wisdom than most PHDs. But since you
> would like something more leftward leaning....

There are many ignorant right-wing goobers who simply make stuff up. Many of them work at phony propaganda places like the Heartland Institute. You've just been snookered by them is all.

> Try this...

It says that Bush called for an end to offshore drilling bans (Obama actually did end them) and a new open season on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Obama did not do that).

> Heck I'll even give you the leftie propaganda.

It says that shale oil is poorly understood by the public and more dangerous than most people think. Particularly I suppose when fracking is involved.

> There's plenty more...but it's probably above your
> education and comprehension level.

LOL! Go away kid, ya bother me.

TheTruth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your gas prices don't come close to government
> figures which in 2012 showed gas prices in the
> Bush and Obama administrations were about the
> same.

Moron. The figures I posted are entirely correct, which is why you can't actually challenge any of them. Every single one of them came from the US Energy Information Administration. You lose. In fact you are disqualified for being entirely too stupid to play.

And by the way, boasting that the worldwide economic collapse that you created served to lower gas prices is kind of feeble even for a complete idiot.

Please... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> libs hate America. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gas was $1.87 a gallon in 2008.
>
> Like it was just one price all year long. What a
> doofus.
>
> Average mid-month prices for regular in 2008...
>
> Jan -- $3.04
> Feb -- $3.04
> Mar -- $3.26
> Apr -- $3.35
> May -- $3.69
> Jun -- $4.01
> Jul -- $4.05
> Aug -- $3.71
> Sep -- $3.87
> Oct -- $3.11
> Nov -- $2.03
> Dec -- $1.65
>
> That's what the worst economic collapse since the
> Great Depression can do.

Holy shit! I forgot how low gas was with Bush. It reached record highs under Obama. Thankfully, republican policies and states are producing and refining more than ever against the will of libs and their Islamic comrades.

W.C. Oil Fields
"There are many ignorant right-wing goobers who simply make stuff up. Many of them work at phony propaganda places like the Heartland Institute. You've just been snookered by them is all."

You attack their credentials but offer nothing to refute them...how credible is that?

"It says that shale oil is poorly understood by the public and more dangerous than most people think. Particularly I suppose when fracking is involved."
That's true but it supports Bush as the supporter of fracking.

"LOL! Go away kid, ya bother me"
Thanks for the compliment...that's nice when you're over 70. :)

They just finished the Seaway Twin pipeline from Cushing to the Gulf Coast. In the past American oil companies manipulated U.S. stocks of refined products and crude oil to set off and sustain a speculative spike in the price of crude.

Well they can control the levels of these domestic market driving dynamics with absolute perfection now with the Seaway Twin pipeline.

If they want it to go up it will go up. Its not the saudis that fuck us these days, they are just a beneficiary. Its our own oil corp. But they need one thing to bring up the gas prices pain on America to satisfy thier greed again, Republicans in the White House.

They can do all they did during Bush again very easily once the glut stabilizes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2015 12:07PM by Gerrymanderer2.

"OPEC is not an arm of either the EU or the US. Like many businesses, they understand the benefits of maintaining good customer relations, but the idea that OPEC just does whats it's asked or told to do is naive in the extreme. "

No, BUT, US has huge influence. Reagan knew that and sold Sauddis AWACS, and they agreed to let the bottom drop out of oil in the 1980s for a while. Reagan did this to screw Russia AND give is 65 cent gas which stimulated the economy. Worked on both counts, look it up idiot.

Its called having a foreign policy that supports domestic economic policy.

Libtatds should look into it.

LibtardEducator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "OPEC is not an arm of either the EU or the US.
> Like many businesses, they understand the benefits
> of maintaining good customer relations, but the
> idea that OPEC just does whats it's asked or told
> to do is naive in the extreme. "
>
> No, BUT, US has huge influence. Reagan knew that
> and sold Sauddis AWACS, and they agreed to let the
> bottom drop out of oil in the 1980s for a while.
> Reagan did this to screw Russia AND give is 65
> cent gas which stimulated the economy. Worked on
> both counts, look it up idiot.
>
> Its called having a foreign policy that supports
> domestic economic policy.
>
> Libtatds should look into it.

You dont know shit. An oil super tanker was named after your
ast national security advisor for a reason you stupid fuck.

Everything was based on oil. Every God damn Bush decision. Hamed Karzai was appointed president because his ties to Chevron. You name it everything was oil based. So much so it was sickening.

Reagan repealed the 55 limit Carter kept in place. Nixon only wanted it as a TEMPORARY measure. As for "alternative energy." Republicans are all over it - but Democrats oppose nuclear. Remember the big no nukes" idiots. All big idiot liberals and same ones oppsing Keystone pipeline.

Riiiiight. ALL a big right wing conspiracy. Still blaming Romney too for your problems too? What a delusional loser you are. Dont even understand how the real world works. OK, fine if you believe that. Republicans will gladly take credit for low gas prices but liberal media doesnt want to talk about it. And Afghanistan has NOTHING to do with it!

Cant wait til Republicans are sworn in later this month and hand you your ass!

Lastly, and per Forbes...among other sources, like history books, stats show Reagan-era economic growth was far more than double the Obama rate. Read up on it. Liberals have been trying to debunk the fact Reagan expanded the economy like no other. Its all BS in line with their wacko conspiracy theories.

Now they hate the fact gas prices are low because it doesnt support their naive environmental agenda...and try and blame low gas prices on Bush? Good luck winning that arguement.

The previous Republicans weren't subservant to oil barons, they were oil barons. They viewed foriegn policy through the lenses of a oil executive with his own super power army. What dont you understand about the fact that every policy decision they made or did not make was within those very li ited parameters.

The thing about oil men is, they've learned long ago that Americans are worth nothing if a dollar can't be squeezed out of them. Even if the Saudi's get the biggest cut.

Yeah, now Nixon and Reagan were oil barons. I cant educate stupid, sorry.

Yeah...

Hahaha, Rajeswar is losing it. Fucking anti American G2 Pakistani.

hahaha. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hahaha, Rajeswar is losing it. Fucking anti
> American G2 Pakistani.


You have to bring up what you think is his real name and ethnicity. I bet you feel like a tough guy.

I don't even agree with G2 opinions.

Gas prices will bear out if fracking helps lower price of gas or not, this ones easy. Roght now, looks pretty good for fracking. Check back in a year.

The Saudis care more about thier market control and share than they do the price. They will try to keep U.S. fracking on the ropes, that means under 70 dollars a barrel max may be the new norm. I think 70 is the ceiling. The Saudis will say we're going to pump this much no matter what. OPEC can follow suit or cut production without us. Which they wont because if they do then OPEC itself will no longer exist. If the U.S. fracking industry wants to enter the market let them limit thier production they say. The Saudi's wont do it.

They know America cant profit under 45-50 dollars a barrel so they're secure. They see thier control of oil and thier market share as a national security existential necessity.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2015 01:05PM by Gerrymanderer2.

The only thing he's done is try to keep the gas prices as high as hell, so we all could buy crappy electric cars from his well off buds. Ride stink buses , walk and get mugged, ride bikes and get hit by cars, live in crime infested close in projects.

With his threatened veto's of anything that could bring cheaper fuel prices across the board, Keystone pipeline,war on Coal, now no fracking.

So where else has he been the last 6 years?? Not anywhere close to being a friend of Cheap "GAS" YOU "ASS" Ole's !

Adoption of electric vehicles in the United States would devastate the price of oil. You think the Saudis are shitting bricks now wait until electric vehicles start decreasing demand for oil in the U.S. market. Oil will be cheaper than water.

The Saudis may be the big producer but we're the big consumer. We hold a lot of power if we utilize it.

"only thing he's done is try to keep the gas prices as high as hell, so we all could buy crappy electric cars from his well off buds. Ride stink buses , walk and get mugged, ride bikes and get hit by cars, live in crime infested close in projects.

With his threatened veto's of anything that could bring cheaper fuel prices across the board, Keystone pipeline,war on Coal, now fracking?"

WELL SAID! I think real the question is who you gonna bet on...Saudis who are barely able to maintain control in the face of Islamic extremism, and desparately cant afford to tick off the United States? Or good old fashioned American ability to compete and innovate - SUPPOSEDLY with great Republican power to support them at every turn (yeah right)? Sorry, Im betting on the latter.

libs hate America. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Holy shit! I forgot how low gas was with Bush.

You've forgotten who your Mom was as well, I'm sure.

> It reached record highs under Obama.

No, asshole. US average pump prices for regular have NEVER been higher than they were in July 2008. You could look it up, but not of course at the dumbass Heartland Institute. You right-wing goobers are so full of worthless bullshit. They just don't come much dumber than you braindead droolers.

Bring on electric vehicles - AND more nuclear power. Liberals oppose nuclear, NOT Republicans.

Tesla P85D is 691 horsepower and 864 pounds of torque of instant full power acceleration. It produces a full G of pull off the line and goes 0-60 in about 3.2 seconds.


It will leave anything you can imagine standing at the line wondering what happened. A heavy sedan too. Electric cars will smoke you. They take off like a roller coaster.

Obama gas prices. Highest in US history.
Attachments:

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tesla P85D is 691 horsepower and 864 pounds of
> torque of instant full power acceleration. It
> produces a full G of pull off the line and goes
> 0-60 in about 3.2 seconds.
>
>
> It will leave anything you can imagine standing at
> the line wondering what happened. A heavy sedan
> too. Electric cars will smoke you. They take off
> like a roller coaster.

A car for the 1% by a company that stays alive by tax breaks and powered by coal and nuclear.

Dumbass libturd. Got it.

TheTruth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You attack their credentials but offer nothing to
> refute them...how credible is that?

Get a grip, asshole! You pulled out the bullshit Heartland Institute opinion piece in a failed attempt to refute previous devastating evidence of your stooge-like incomprehension concerning Carter and Reagan. You retort was pure and absolute bullshit. Defend it or admit what a uselsss historical dumbfuck you are.

> Thanks for the compliment...that's nice when
> you're over 70. :)

That's shameful. You don't come across as more than 7.

American innovation at its finest.

Can't wait for the model x!

aND loL "AKa" w.C.oILfIELDS cOuLd pOssIbLY aFFoRD oNE yOU gOObER


nOW ALL yOU LiBS sMOKE poT GeT hiGH aS UsUaL kEEp DReAMiNg bOuT dEm wINdmILLs

LibtardEducator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, BUT, US has huge influence. Reagan knew that
> and sold Sauddis AWACS, and they agreed to let the
> bottom drop out of oil in the 1980s for a while.

LOL! The US did sell AWACS to the Saudis In 1986. By that time, OPEC was in disarray and the "bottom" under oil prices was long fucking gone.

> Reagan did this to screw Russia AND give is 65
> cent gas which stimulated the economy. Worked on
> both counts, look it up idiot.

I don't have to look stuff up, moron. I know what, 50 times as much about everything as you do just as is.

> Its called having a foreign policy that supports
> domestic economic policy.

Reagan's domestic policy was based on dumbfuck supply-side economics designed to steal from the poor and give to the rich. And ignore the burgeoning AIDS epidemic of course. God's punishment of gays, after all. If Bush-43 had not come along, Reagan would still be in the conversation for worst President of all time. "I'm going to cut taxes, increase defense spending, and balance the budget in three years." What a mindless simpleton.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Hamed Karzai was appointed president because his ties to Chevron.

It wasn't the restaurant in Baltimore? I'm shocked. Shocked, I say!

LibtardEducator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reagan repealed the 55 limit Carter kept in place.

Fucked trying to cover up your earlier fuck-up. The 55 mph limit under the National Maximum Speed Law was in effect between 1974 (Nixon) and 1987 (Reagan) -- in his SEVENTH fucking year as President. Carter was only in for four years, you know.

> As for "alternative energy." Republicans are all
> over it - but Democrats oppose nuclear.

Obama's broaden-the-base energy policy included $54 billion in loan guarantees to back the construction nuclear power plants. Congress has not acted on that in the wake of the earthquake/tsunami meltdowns in Japan. Meanwhile, no new nuclear plant licenses had been issued since 1978. Until Obama issued two in 2012.

> All big idiot liberals and same ones oppsing
< Keystone pipeline.

Phase-1 of the Keystone Pipeline was completed in mid-2010. Phase-2 was completed in early 2011. Phase-3 was completed in early 2014. Just guessing here, but I'll bet you don't know the difference between the Keystone and the Keystone XL.

FootballIsOn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gas prices will bear out if fracking helps lower
> price of gas or not, this ones easy. Roght now,
> looks pretty good for fracking. Check back in a
> year.

It works the other way around. The price of oil has to be high enough to cover and justify the expenses of fracking. If the price stays too low for too long, everyone in Montana and North Dakota will lose their shirts. Just as happened with the last shale-boom in the 1980's.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Saudis may be the big producer but we're the big
> consumer. We hold a lot of power if we utilize it.

It's easy enough for the Saudis to say we are going to pump more or less oil out of the ground. It isn't as easy for us to say that we are only going to drive halfway to work from now on.

Obama gas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama gas prices. Highest in US history.

Dorkbrain bullshit. Your assfuck picture is of one gas-gouger station where, in Hawaii? The yardstick is the average US pump price per gallon of regular, and that has NEVER been higher than it was in July 2008.

W.C. Oil Fields Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Saudis may be the big producer but we're the
> big
> > consumer. We hold a lot of power if we utilize
> it.
>
> It's easy enough for the Saudis to say we are
> going to pump more or less oil out of the ground.
> It isn't as easy for us to say that we are only
> going to drive halfway to work from now on.

Yeah, but if people say I'm going to drive the electric car this week they're fucked.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> W.C. Oil Fields Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The Saudis may be the big producer but we're
> the
> > big
> > > consumer. We hold a lot of power if we
> utilize
> > it.
> >
> > It's easy enough for the Saudis to say we are
> > going to pump more or less oil out of the
> ground.
> > It isn't as easy for us to say that we are only
> > going to drive halfway to work from now on.
>
> Yeah, but if people say I'm going to drive the
> electric car this week they're fucked.


Nope, they're not because electric vehicles are and will be for the foreseeable future a trivial component, our oil imports continue to rise even with higher US production, and their cost of production is 1/3 of ours.

I seriously doubt our imports have risen irrespective of increased production. That's why there's a glut remember.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I seriously doubt our imports have risen
> irrespective of increased production. That's why
> there's a glut remember.

We are and have been turning away imports. Alaska recently started exporting oil to North Korea. Why is this? Because of conservative policies like fracking on private lands. As much as you libtardz continue to stifle economic progress by banning drilling on public land, Americans gave you libs a big FUCK YOU, and started fracking. America is too great for a bunch of Islamic loving, American hating libs to bring down.

Eat shit and die already with your Arab friends. Go nuclear and we have much less need for oil to fuel vehicles. Then you and your 1 percent liberal ideologues can have all the electric cars you want and you hsve no thread or anything to do.

Congress has not acted on nuclear because, up to know the House was controlled by the Democrats your retard.

By the way, I know you are unAmerican because you have been posting the whole football game while the rest of normal people wewe watching it.

Also, I know about Keystone BEER. Ever heard of it? It's swill real American workers drink becuase they work real jobs you pussy who thinks he's an economist. What were you, a GS-9 at OMB? And still blaming Romney for US problems.

Get a life, you suck, and all your dumb liberal Anti-american ideas!

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I seriously doubt our imports have risen irrespective of
> increased production. That's why there's a glut remember.

You would be correct. US crude oil imports have fallen by about 20% since 2008.

dumbass libturdz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I seriously doubt our imports have risen
> > irrespective of increased production. That's
> why
> > there's a glut remember.
>
> We are and have been turning away imports. Alaska
> recently started exporting oil to North Korea. Why
> is this? Because of conservative policies like
> fracking on private lands. As much as you libtardz
> continue to stifle economic progress by banning
> drilling on public land, Americans gave you libs a
> big FUCK YOU, and started fracking. America is too
> great for a bunch of Islamic loving, American
> hating libs to bring down.


No, it's because Obama changed the law allowing us to start exporting oil. God you're stupid. That is literally definitively because of Obama.

LibyarxEducator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Congress has not acted on nuclear because, up to
> know the House was controlled by the Democrats
> your retard.

Actually Republicans have controlled the House since Jan 2011. You might remember the mini-recession that resulted at the time.

> By the way, I know you are unAmerican because you
> have been posting the whole football game while
> the rest of normal people wewe watching it.

Football is a militaristic, hurt-other-people, land aggression game. Like the gladiators of Rome, it appeals to the worst and most barbaric elements of society. Both on and off the field.





>
> Also, I know about Keystone BEER. Ever heard of
> it? It's swill real American workers drink becuase
> they work real jobs you pussy who thinks he's an
> economist. What were you, a GS-9 at OMB? And still
> blaming Romney for US problems.
>
> Get a life, you suck, and all your dumb liberal
> Anti-american ideas!

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dumbass libturdz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I seriously doubt our imports have risen
> > > irrespective of increased production. That's
> > why
> > > there's a glut remember.
> >
> > We are and have been turning away imports.
> Alaska
> > recently started exporting oil to North Korea.
> Why
> > is this? Because of conservative policies like
> > fracking on private lands. As much as you
> libtardz
> > continue to stifle economic progress by banning
> > drilling on public land, Americans gave you libs
> a
> > big FUCK YOU, and started fracking. America is
> too
> > great for a bunch of Islamic loving, American
> > hating libs to bring down.
>
>
> No, it's because Obama changed the law allowing us
> to start exporting oil. God you're stupid. That
> is literally definitively because of Obama.

Hahahaha! Exporting condensates is not lifting a ban on crude oil. It's the oil from cracking. You know, from republican states and republican policies. Besides, this would mean you support republican policies and big oil. Hahaha! You still think Ron Paul isn't a republican?
You're an idiot. Go back to Pakistan Rajeswar.

LibyarxEducator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
..........
>
> Congress has not acted on nuclear because, up to
> know the House was controlled by the Democrats
> your retard.
>
Hmm..this Democratic reticense about nuclear power would come as a surprise to the people of Burke, Ga., where two new plants, backed by guarantees from the Obama administration, are scheduled to come online by 2017 (http://www.11alive.com/news/article/226884/3/nuclear-reactor-approval-means-thousands-of-east-georgia-jobs -- even took the time to find a small word story from Gannett for you). These will be the first new plants since Three Mile Island, and there are five additional new plants in various stages of review and licensure.

The truth is that nuclear power is enjoying a renaissance under the Obama administration. You are confusing (nothing surprising there) ardent environmentalists with Democrats and "Liberals" in general. I, for one, am both a "Liberal", and a supporter of nuclear power. You see, I have what we call an "education", which included much more science and math than the "Jesus shows us Arithmetic" primer with which you completed your studies.

For a good little conservative, you don't show much of a mastery of Sun Tse. Mom must not have taught you about that during your home schooling career.

W.C. Oil Fields Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I seriously doubt our imports have risen
> irrespective of
> > increased production. That's why there's a glut
> remember.
>
> You would be correct. US crude oil imports have
> fallen by about 20% since 2008.


It has decreased over recent years but that's a temporary condition reflecting a decrease from the peak. The gap between domestic production and consumption is expected to remain and will increase even with higher US production. i.e., there's a deficit between US production and US consumption which continues to need to be filled by imports. As we begin to deplete the easy/less costly resources now targeted, US production will need to move to more less productive/higher cost areas. To the extent that imports are available at lower cost from cheaper production sources, they'll likely represent a higher percentage than the reference case used below.

Quote

U.S. use of imported petroleum and other liquid fuels continues to decline in AEO2014 mainly as a result of increased domestic oil production. Imported petroleum and other liquid fuels as a share of total U.S. use reached 60% in 2005 before dipping below 50% in 2010 and falling further to 40% in 2012. The import share continues to decline to 25% in 2016 and then rises to about 32% in 2040 in the AEO2014 reference case, as domestic production of tight oil begins to decline in 2022 (Figure 12)."

LibyarxEducator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eat shit and die already with your Arab friends.
> Go nuclear and we have much less need for oil to
> fuel vehicles. Then you and your 1 percent liberal
> ideologues can have all the electric cars you want
> and you hsve no thread or anything to do.
>
> Congress has not acted on nuclear because, up to
> know the House was controlled by the Democrats
> your retard.
>
> By the way, I know you are unAmerican because you
> have been posting the whole football game while
> the rest of normal people wewe watching it.
>
> Also, I know about Keystone BEER. Ever heard of
> it? It's swill real American workers drink becuase
> they work real jobs you pussy who thinks he's an
> economist. What were you, a GS-9 at OMB? And still
> blaming Romney for US problems.
>
> Get a life, you suck, and all your dumb liberal
> Anti-american ideas!

Sounds like the wackjob has really gone over the edge. The game must have riled up whatever tiny reservoir of testosterone he has left. Maybe now he'll be forced to get the help he so desperately needs.

That loser actually has a fact to correct! First time ever! It was the Senate Democrats not House controlled until end of this month. That is why nothing got done.

"Reticence" and "renaissance" my ass! Here's another fact. The whole "no nukes" movement was huge liberal program. Look it up. It set us back decades!

NOW you want to admit the Liberals were wrong on nuclear power? Better late than never I guess, but you cost us 30 years of progress toward energy independence.

The reason why the other five plants are being held up is because the libtards are fighting them too - and throwing every obstacle they can in the way.

I accept your "coming around" though. I wont charge you for this history lesson on the "No nukes" movement. You have nobody to blame but yourselves.

LibyarxEducator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, I know about Keystone BEER. Ever heard of it?

Yes. It's skunk-piss, ranking right down there with Buckhorn amd Olde English.

> It's swill real American workers drink because
> they work real jobs you pussy who thinks he's an
> economist. What were you, a GS-9 at OMB? And still
> blaming Romney for US problems.

No, much higher than that. Up where people are capable (as you aren't) of understanding concepts, such as the fact that Romney is shorthand for a pernicious and destructive force that is loose in society.

Lngtime environmental activist named Anna Gyorgy wrote a book. She says she it is a testament to grass-roots "democratic action."

In it she describes the anti-nuke movement she witnessed and participated in and points to timeliness of that same grass-roots organizing against the natural gas pipeline project currently proposed to confront global climate disruption.

And last tme I checked Jackson Browne isnt a Republican either.

Keystone beer is shorthand for the whole other America that want cheap energy out there you don't understand and doesn't accuse anyone of being pernicious and evil, just stupid. Like we actually drink that stuff.

Lighten up G2.

vYuT4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It has decreased over recent years...


The ones that were under discussion.

> ...but that's a temporary condition reflecting a
> decrease from the peak. The gap between domestic
> production and consumption is expected to remain
> and will increase even with higher US production.
> i.e., there's a deficit between US production and
> US consumption which continues to need to be filled
> by imports. As we begin to deplete the easy/less
> costly resources now targeted, US production will
> need to move to more less productive/higher cost
> areas. To the extent that imports are available
> at lower cost from cheaper production sources,
> they'll likely represent a higher percentage than
> the reference case used below.

All well and good, though projections of flows in volatile commodities are always to be taken with a grain of salt. We waste an awful lot of oil on transportation energy. Any sort of breakthrough in hydrogen, electric, or biomass technology could sharply alter the curves in the graph. What is fairly evident though is that the past was quite different from the present. That alone is enough to make me think that the future is apt to be as well.

W.C. Oil Fields Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> vYuT4 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It has decreased over recent years...
>
>
> The ones that were under discussion.
>

Which was in response to the statement that imports will continue to increase even with the recent increases in US production.

>
> All well and good, though projections of flows in
> volatile commodities are always to be taken with a
> grain of salt. We waste an awful lot of oil on
> transportation energy. Any sort of breakthrough
> in hydrogen, electric, or biomass technology could
> sharply alter the curves in the graph. What is
> fairly evident though is that the past was quite
> different from the present. That alone is enough
> to make me think that the future is apt to be as
> well.


"Breakthroughs" are rare and much less likely. Even if they did happen, the transportation sector takes long periods of time to respond due to long-lived existing equipment and infrastructure. That tends to be on the order of decades, not years (unless maybe in the case of some dire driving need, e.g., required due to war, etc.). They also become less likely with low prices because less emphasis is placed on finding and implementing them. e.g., We could justifiably go to nat gas or hydrogen-based transportation now but the costs would be huge, would take many years, and there's not a driving need forcing it so we won't. Also, certain inherent aspects of fuels/energy sources don't change even then and as a liquid fuel with a high energy content relative to alternatives, oil continues to have various advantages versus alternatives. That's why we started using it to begin with versus electricity, gas, steam, solid fuel, etc., which all existed.

More likely are increases/decreases due to economic and other social/political factors. The EIA reference case assumes rather modest economic growth. Increase economic activity, consumption increases, and that gap increases. Lower world oil prices to the point that cost/risk of financing for US projects increases, there will be less activity, higher costs, less production, and that gap increases. Which is kind of the whole point of the Saudi strategy now.

LibtardEducator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That loser actually has a fact to correct! First
> time ever! It was the Senate Democrats not House
> controlled until end of this month. That is why
> nothing got done.
>
> "Reticence" and "renaissance" my ass! Here's
> another fact. The whole "no nukes" movement was
> huge liberal program. Look it up. It set us back
> decades!
>
> NOW you want to admit the Liberals were wrong on
> nuclear power? Better late than never I guess,
> but you cost us 30 years of progress toward energy
> independence.
>
> The reason why the other five plants are being
> held up is because the libtards are fighting them
> too - and throwing every obstacle they can in the
> way.
>
> I accept your "coming around" though. I wont
> charge you for this history lesson on the "No
> nukes" movement. You have nobody to blame but
> yourselves.

You write like someone whose entire understanding of nuclear power comes from reading the occasional groundless screeds of tea party bloggers with "some college" listed as their educational attainment.

I haven't "come around" or changed my thinking on this since I was an engineering student during the Carter administration. And I certainly couldn't learn anything from the likes of you.

While I support advocacy and people's right to express their interests as healthy to democracy (you know, the thing that your sacred constitution was written for), the truth is that the "no nukes movement" was only tangentially responsible for the nuclear hiatus in the U.S. from the late 1970s until midway through the last decade. The "liberal program" (???) your narrative so stupidly blames only impacted the Energy companies in so far as they feared lawsuits, community objections, and stockholder backlash.

From the Washington Public Power Supply System ("Whoops" to the media) debacle in Washington state, through the ineptness of Long Island Power and Light, to Three Mile Island, this industry has been plagued with insipid slogans ("Electricity will be too cheap to meter"), incompetent management (who would build a plant on Long Island with virtually no evacuation routes?), poor public relations (TMI) and wildly optimistic budgets. If you want to lay the blame at some group's feet, I'd suggest the culprit you seek is the grossly overpaid senior management of XYZ Power Company. You know, those job creating, risk taking 1%ers who needed loan guarantees from the Obama Energy department before they'd turn the first shovel of dirt.

Oh, one more thing...if you want to argue, and least have a modicum of understanding about the situation. The five plants in the pipeline for approval...aren't being opposed by any "libtards".

9wTWJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The EIA reference case assumes rather modest economic growth.

Yes, yes...conservative, plain vanilla, and MOR. A strength and a weakness at the same time. What I'm suggesting is that this is not a self-contained system, nor are the equilibria that the system may seem to come to necessarily stable. From experience, I would expect that any sort of fine-grained conclusions are apt to turn into examples of over-confidence in the stability and reliability of the model.

W.C. Oil Fields Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 9wTWJ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The EIA reference case assumes rather modest
> economic growth.
>
> Yes, yes...conservative, plain vanilla, and MOR.
> A strength and a weakness at the same time. What
> I'm suggesting is that this is not a
> self-contained system, nor are the equilibria that
> the system may seem to come to necessarily stable.
> From experience, I would expect that any sort of
> fine-grained conclusions are apt to turn into
> examples of over-confidence in the stability and
> reliability of the model.


Obviously so.

The original point though was that the current talking point belief that the recent increases in US production will eliminate our dependency on imports and put the Saudis, et al., out of business is greatly overstated.

Obama and the Democrats are working overtime to get the gas prices back up.. Way up, just hang in there.

You have no modicum of political understanding yet think you are educated. If you always supported nuclear power, your party sure didn't.

Don't believe me, you beloved Washington Post even admits the GOP base has always been enthusiastic about nuclear energy, while the Democratic base is skeptical (at best, libtards remain staunchly opposed.)

They go on to admit, Republican politicians support assistance to the industry such as loan guarantees for nuclear developers, while many Democrats oppose them.

WHAT? Read that lasy sentence again slowly. Washington Post, not me.

So either you are wrong or your party mouthpiece which actually is more right than you are on this. Go ahead, challenge your own party on this! Youll lose as they appease the far left. Only reason why any Democrats have come around at all on this is what they call climate change.

Republicans never gave up on it. Thank them if you ever get an electric car.

Pew poll found...

Larger shares of Republicans (62 per cent) vs Democrats (45%) support expanding the use of nuclear power to generate electricity.

Yet, how could scientists and caveman Republicans be on the same side of this?

So if you are a Democrat claiming to support nuclear power, you are certainly in a minority.

Build them all in your backyard. We support it. I want them in Alabama and Texas and Oklahoma. All of them.

We'll see what you supposedly support. You repukes have no idea what you're talking about half the time.

What are you even talking about? They already ARE in our backyard! Where do you live? In Fairfax? We have two nke plants nearby in Calvert Cliffs MD and near Lake Anna. Where did you think they were?

No put your money where your mouth is. I want them built in deep red jurisdictions only.

They are anyway because its best to keep them away from civilized populations of people. But this is a way for todays republicans to prove how republican they are.

Look at it this way. If theres radiation leakage and poisoning, Republicans are retards anyway. It may fix em up hopefully. What if radiation turns the average Republican into a well rounded and informed intellectual.

Radiation turned the Republican into a Liberal. Lets do it.

It'll probably turn you into ax welding super republitards tho that would have to be put down. Still, its a price we're willing to pay.

And now you want only Republican RED districts to take all the risk and provide you free energy? Typical socialist thinking. Yeah, that will happen.

Hey put your money where your mouth is. On this very thread all you do is say how pro nuclear you are. Now you want it built everywhere not just near you? Thats not very pro nuclear.

See when it comes to the details and down to it becoming shovel ready Republicans are all talk.

LibtardEducator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OPEC will lose. Americans will win. You watch.
> libtards will wail and gnash their teeth as
> Detroit goes back to producing what Americans want
> - big comfortable cars and trucks and American
> families will prosper. Anyone in US who isnt doing
> anything but dancing about these low gas prices is
> completely unAmerican and should get the hell out.
> Only an absolute libtard hates low gas.
> Republicans pushing shale for years while
> Democrats staunchly opposed this for environmental
> reasons. Dont forget to thank a Republican for
> today's low gas prices. Youre welcome.


LOL funniest thing I've read all day. Just curious though, do you wear a tin foil helmet?

Dont Worry Be Happy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama and the Democrats are working overtime to
> get the gas prices back up.. Way up, just hang in
> there.

I thought they were already working overtime to take away your guns. And raise your taxes. And ruin this Great White Country by importing millions of brown-skinned basket cases. These must be very busy people.

Obama has ruined the economy by record corporate profits, record stock market reducing unemployment, reducing the deficit - by almost any metric Obama has ruined the US economy by making it better.

Thanks Obama

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No put your money where your mouth is. I want them
> built in deep red jurisdictions only.
>
> They are anyway because its best to keep them away
> from civilized populations of people. But this is
> a way for todays republicans to prove how
> republican they are.

Virginia was pretty damn red when the Lake Anna plant was built. And the one in Surry.

How might you explain that?

WJFTj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...by almost any metric Obama has ruined the US economy
> by making it better.

I was afraid he'd do that!

The price per barrel has fallen worldwide notwithstanding Obama and other Democrat's efforts otherwise.

Obama likes high gas prices. He is quotes as saying he likes high gas prices.

The only reason prices are falling is that Saudi Arabia sees that America is fracking, and the tar sands and the oil sands projects, and everything else that Democrats hate.

Wait until the Republicans, who were voted into power by a majority of smart Americans, vote in the Keystone Pipeline. Then gas will drop even lower, even before ground is broken.

(Democrats don't understand economics like that; in fact, most Democrats are on record saying that the Keystone pipeline won't cause gas prices to fall until the petroleum is already flowing through it).

Fairfax Conservative Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (Democrats don't understand economics like that;
> in fact, most Democrats are on record saying that
> the Keystone pipeline won't cause gas prices to
> fall until the petroleum is already flowing
> through it).

The Keystone Pipeline is already complete. Has been for a year, And when it reached the Chicagoland area and Canadian tar began to be refined there, their gas prices were the highest in the country.
.
Attachments:

gas prices ALWAYS drop in winter

supply and demand

prices still 2x that of buscsh 1,2 clinton in winter

democrats always have no clue what history is, and could care less

VNCmv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> democrats always have no clue what history is, and
> could care less


They just rewrite it to fit their desired narrative.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey put your money where your mouth is. On this
> very thread all you do is say how pro nuclear you
> are. Now you want it built everywhere not just
> near you? Thats not very pro nuclear.
>
> See when it comes to the details and down to it
> becoming shovel ready Republicans are all talk.


Why do you deny the science Gerry?



Nuclear power is the greenest option, say top scientists

STEVE CONNOR SCIENCE EDITOR Sunday 04 January 2015

Nuclear power is one of the least damaging sources of energy for the environment, and the green movement must accept its expansion if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, some of the world's leading conservation biologists have warned.

Rising demand for energy will place ever greater burdens on the natural world, threatening its rich biodiversity, unless societies accept nuclear power as a key part of the "energy mix", they said. And so the environmental movement and pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace should drop their opposition to the building of nuclear power stations.

In an open letter to be published next month in the journal Conservation Biology, more than 65 biologists, including a former UK government chief scientist, support the call to build more nuclear power plants as a central part of a global strategy to protect wildlife and the environment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nuclear-power-is-the-greenest-option-say-top-scientists-9955997.html

You idiots deserve the thorough Republican fucking you get every time they have an resemblance of power. That's when during bush gas prices quadrupled into crazy speculative price spikes without a care in the world by the administration. I used to fee sympathy for ordinary Americans.

Now I don't, half of this country likes getting fucked, they're asshole baby boomer Republican sadists. They enjoy it. They think the more they're getting fucked the better it is for the country. It's like some sick demented psychosis.

Well, I've joined that bandwagon. I don't care what you sorry sons of bitches pay at the pump. I hope they rape you until the cows come home.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You idiots deserve the thorough Republican fucking
> you get every time they have an resemblance of
> power. That's when during bush gas prices
> quadrupled into crazy speculative price spikes
> without a care in the world by the administration.
> I used to fee sympathy for ordinary Americans.
>
> Now I don't, half of this country likes getting
> fucked, they're asshole baby boomer Republican
> sadists. They enjoy it. They think the more
> they're getting fucked the better it is for the
> country. It's like some sick demented psychosis.
>
>
> Well, I've joined that bandwagon. I don't care
> what you sorry sons of bitches pay at the pump. I
> hope they rape you until the cows come home.


That wouldn't be a problem if we had nuclear cars now would it?

Damnnnnnnn, oil at $49.98 a barrel. Thanks Obama!

Halliburton isn't doing so well :(...

Dick Cheney's golden child Halliburton's stock goes almost identical with the price of oil. Who woulda thought.
Attachments:

Dems have been very vocal in recent years pushing policies to tackle global warming, which involve curbing fossil fuel use, restricting oil and natural gas drilling and producing more green energy. These policies tend to drive up energy costs, including gas prices.

That's what you Republicans like to say but the policies of Democrats and the facts on the ground have been the opposite. That's why we have 49 dollars a barrel of oil.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's what you Republicans like to say but the
> policies of Democrats and the facts on the ground
> have been the opposite. That's why we have 49
> dollars a barrel of oil.


Exactly what policies would those be?

The only significant thing that Obama has done either way during his administration with respect to oil supply was the moratorium for the Gulf.

Beyond that most of the rest has been toward restrictions.

Yeah, restrictions have been through the roof.
Attachments:

Democrats hate shale because they say its bad for the environment, so that graph is because a few idiots finally came around. Republicans were already on board the shale train.

And who gives a crap about Dick Cheneys wealth. If he isn't diversified he's a fool, but something tells me he is, and will always have more money than you loser who spends all his time here. He probably wrote a book you could read and learn from instead of covet whatever money he has.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, restrictions have been through the roof.


What has happened independent of policy is independent.

Again, specifically, what policies would those be?

Democrats don't hate anything. We want to be energy independent by all means necessary. You want to drill baby drill and drive bigger SUV's.

That's the only difference.

See this, this is why your Republican politicians would never let this happen.
Attachments:

Halli is in a deep dive baby. Dive bitch dive. Did they relocate back from Dubai by the way? I know they were worried about prosecutions for a little while there.

dumbass libturdz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> obomber Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When they were high it sure was obamba's fault.
> > Now, not a peep about gas prices on the news or
> > talk radio... lol
>
>
> Low gas prices represent
> everything libs hate. American ingenuity,
> ambition, success, independence, American values
> and hard work. Libs despise America. To
> acknowledge the low gas prices would mean that lib
> policies to kill the US economy have failed and
> conservative policies are kicking the shit out of
> Obama.


Saudi Arabia over producing petroleum to hurt all other oil producing countries to include the U.S. shale operations (which at this price level results in losses) represents American ingenuity and hard work? Laughable concept.

That said, I very much believe in reasonable pipelining and drilling strategies in the U.S. when the price point is favorable again. A Republican win in 2016 can with an R congress can help along those lines.

By Steve Rothwell | The Associated Press | Posted 3 hours ago

NEW YORK — After six months of falling oil prices, investors are starting to worry that the prolonged slump is signaling a weaker global economy

That fear shook financial markets Monday as oil plunged again, dipping below $50 for the first time in more than five years and triggering a big sell-off, not just among energy stocks but across the entire stock market.

Stocks had already endured a weak opening because of concerns that Greece could leave the eurozone, adding to worries about the poor outlook for growth in that region. As oil slid further, the selling accelerated, pushing the Standard & Poor's 500 index to its biggest loss in months.

QUESTIONS ABOUT RECOVERY

Since the decline began, investors have been working on the assumption that lower oil prices, caused by a glut in supply, will be a boon to the U.S. economy. On Monday, that thesis was discarded as prices plunged further and investors started to fret about the wider implications of the drop.

"The lower that oil prices go, the more it reinforces into the market's mind that perhaps this is more of a demand issue than a supply issue," said Burt White, chief investment officer at LPL Financial. That raises questions "about the robustness of this recovery."

The S&P 500 index dropped 37.62 points, or 1.8 percent, to 2,020.58. That was the biggest one-day slump for the index since Oct. 9. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 331.34 points, or 1.9 percent, to 17,501.65. The Nasdaq composite fell 74.24 points, or 1.6 percent, to 4,652.57.

ENERGY COMPANIES LEAD BROAD SELL-OFF

Energy stocks led the drop, plunging 4 percent, as the price of oil closed down $2.65 at $50.04 a barrel, after dipping below $50 during trading. But the declines were broad, and even airline stocks, usually a beneficiary of lower oil prices, ended the day lower.

Most analysts and economists predict that, on balance, a decline in oil prices helps the wider economy because it reduces energy costs for industrial companies. Lower gas prices also put more money in the pockets of consumers.

But there are downsides as well. As the price of oil slumps, some companies in the energy industry will go out of business. Not only will that cost jobs in the sector, but it will also cut spending on things like plants and equipment.

Transocean, a company that provides offshore drilling services to oil companies, was among the biggest decliners in the S&P 500 index on Monday. The company's stock slumped $1.28, or 7.1 percent, to $16.84.

WORRIES ABOUT EUROPE

Another area for concern is Europe.

Investors were already worried about the poor growth prospects in the euro region and the impact on global growth. Now they also have to contend with renewed speculation that Greece may withdraw from the eurozone.

European stock markets slumped, and the euro plunged against the dollar on reports that German Chancellor Angela Merkel no longer believes it would be too risky for the 19-member eurozone if Greece dropped out of the currency bloc. Elections in Greece this month could be won by the Syriza party, which wants to renegotiate the terms of the country's international bailout, threatening its place in the euro group.

The currency was already under pressure from expectations that the European Central Bank will expand its monetary stimulus as the region's economy struggles.

On Monday, the euro was trading at $1.1939 after falling to a five-year low of $1.1862.

The outlook for economic growth in Europe and other regions matters to companies in the U.S., as nearly half the sales from S&P 500 companies are generated outside of the U.S.

"Our companies do a lot of business with Europe, we sell a lot of goods and services there," said Scott Wren, senior global equity strategist at the Wells Fargo Investment Institute. "Anything that hurts consumer confidence and business in Europe is going to hurt economic growth."

In U.S. government bond trading, prices rose as investors moved to buy the safest assets. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note, which falls when prices rise, dropped to 2.04 percent.

GROWTH FORESEEN FOR U.S. MARKET

Despite the increase in volatility, analysts are still confident in the outlook for growth in the U.S. and believe that the stock market will hand investors positive returns this year. Some even recommend adding to stock holdings when prices fall.

Just one week ago, the S&P 500 index closed at an all-time high of 2,090.57. The energy sector aside, company earnings should remain strong, and the economy is still growing. Last quarter the U.S. economy expanded at an annual rate of 5 percent.

"When you get some pullbacks, we'll definitely be pounding the table recommending that (our clients) put some sideline cash to work," Wren said.

In metals trading, prices for precious and industrial metals ended mixed. Gold rose $17.80 to $1,204 an ounce, silver rose 45 cents to $16.21 an ounce and copper fell five cents to $2.77 a pound.

In other energy trading, Brent crude, a benchmark for international oils used by many U.S. refineries, fell $3.31, or 5.9 percent, to close at $53.11 a barrel in London.
I report. You decide.

Do you think we care about all that babbling bullshit, Or do you think we understand any of it? Because We Don't! Now give me some more CHEAP GAS!

AND REMEMBER YOU ASSHOLES.. BUSH DID IT. Ya he did ,,Thats right , thats right

Obummer sure didn't do it.. Thats right, thats right.

Democrats sure did not do it, thats right, thats right.

BINGO! Someone has the correct answer!

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Democrats don't hate anything. We want to be
> energy independent by all means necessary...

...except for that involving "Big Oil", coal, fracking, tar sands, deep water oil and gas in the Gulf, near-shore resources off the East Coast, West Coast, and Florida, any production in ANWR, nuclear, bird-killing windmills, large-scale hydro requiring dams which affects natural fish migration, anything involving the use of or potentially affecting any water resources, corn-based ethanol production which displaces food resources, pipelines, rail transportation, tankers, and anything which generates Earth-killing CO2.

That about got it covered? lol

Who Gives A Shit Gas Is Cheap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you think we care about all that babbling
> bullshit, Or do you think we understand any of it?
> Because We Don't! Now give me some more CHEAP GAS!


Its not complicated. When theres a a Republican president gas prices go through the roof and when theres a Democratic president they crash through the floor. At the end of the day thats all you need to know.

So Obama said he will veto the Keystone XL pipeline bill headed to his desk which is also opposed by Democrats.

Somebody explain to me HOW Obama and Democrats are behind low gas prices again?

They are doing everything they can to stop Keystone, with Republicans anything but silent and putting their money where there mouths are.

Fuck you and your Keystone. Send us real jobs bills. We dont have time for games.

Dont give these Republican rats a milimeter for free. Make them beg like the dogs they are.

So you started this thread to try and claim low gas prices were Obamas doing and constantly claim Democrats supported the shale boom. What about today's news?

Just the opposite as today's veto threat of Keystone XL by Obama and Democrats show who is really behind getting this oil to market. Republicans pro, of course.

I can cite CNN, Fox, or anything on this if you want me too. You must feel pretty stupid and and/or betrayed right now.

And dont try to change the topic...we already know you hate Republicans.

Obama declared war on America and vowed to raise energy prices. Thank goodness private companies started fracking and developing energy sources in spite of the moronic idiot. That's why gas prices have fallen. No thanks to the commie dictator-wannabe.

Keystone will not affect oil prices or create jobs. Both those things are lies. You want the keystone, fuck you. What you got for me?

You get nothing, zero, zilch, nada, a big fuck you right back.

"Democrats Block Keystone Bill, Landrieu's Plea Rejected"

Film at 11.

Dont expect you to love Republicans, just admit you were wrong about Democrats.

They just handed you your ass, with a litlle help from a NEW Republican Congress.

Regret starting tiis thread now and getting nasty? BTW - get used to it.

We're going to show you how its done. Time for the bitter taste of your own medicine on steriods.

I'm sure there will be a battle between Obama and Congress over this, but who is on what side has been made clear today. Be happy, and just enjoy low gas prices which generally benefit all of us. Perhaps the only thing we all have in common.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keystone will not affect oil prices or create
> jobs. Both those things are lies. You want the
> keystone, fuck you. What you got for me?


It's going to build itself?

Magic fairies like the ones that fly out of your ass?

Build it then all you have is shit tar sands crap if oil tops 70 dollars again that will mostly be exported. No jobs, no effect on oil prices.

It can be built at any time. It is completely worthless.

Since you Republicans only work in terms of obstruction. Maybe they can make a compromise. Personally if I were Obama after the way you've treated him I wouldn't give you jack shit. But thats just me.

Nt9cG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Keystone will not affect oil prices or create
> > jobs. Both those things are lies. You want the
> > keystone, fuck you. What you got for me?
>
>
> It's going to build itself?
>
> Magic fairies like the ones that fly out of your
> ass?


Those are temporary irrelevant jobs. Stop distracting the American people with these garbage proposals. Produce a real jobs bill. Its time to GOVERN and stop taking the American people for stupid.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Build it then all you have is shit tar sands crap
> if oil tops 70 dollars again that will mostly be
> exported. No jobs, no effect on oil prices.
>
> It can be built at any time. It is completely
> worthless.


So it would create jobs during construction then. Thanks.

As well as create greater through-put at refineries which means more shift workers, truck drivers, etc., etc.

It's not intended to affect oil prices.

Don't let your mindless hatred of "Big Oil" and CO2 confuse you so. It make you look (even more) stupid.


>
> Since you Republicans only work in terms of
> obstruction. Maybe they can make a compromise.
> Personally if I were Obama after the way you've
> treated him I wouldn't give you jack shit. But
> thats just me.


Talk to Harry "Obstructionist" Reid and Obama's veto pen.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nt9cG Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Keystone will not affect oil prices or create
> > > jobs. Both those things are lies. You want
> the
> > > keystone, fuck you. What you got for me?
> >
> >
> > It's going to build itself?
> >
> > Magic fairies like the ones that fly out of
> your
> > ass?
>
>
> Those are temporary irrelevant jobs. Stop
> distracting the American people with these garbage
> proposals. Produce a real jobs bill. Its time to
> GOVERN and stop taking the American people for
> stupid.


So virtually all construction jobs are irrelevant. Interesting logic (or lack thereof).

They're not mutually exclusive you know.

Admit it. The only basis for you to whine about Keystone has nothing to do with jobs or energy. It's just an extension of the dumb "Big Oil" idiocy.

No jobs, maybe 35 permenant jobs at the most to pump the canadian tar shit over our plains.

Those are temporary jobs. Is this all the Republicans have to offer? 2000 temporary jobs?

Seriously? Youve been posting graphs showing how more tar sands oil would contribute to more supply over time (hmm, sound a little like crazy Reagan supply side economics?) and claiming Obama was behind it!

Now you say "no effect."

No oil for you then!

Admit when youve lost and maintain a shred of respect. Obviously you think you are educated. Some of us are willing to take that at face value even if Democrats and Republicans disagree. FFU does not check degrees and I assure you the rabble that posts here cares not if you have a PhD. They do care though of you dont even watch the news, and may call you on it.

>Posted by: Obama Did It .. What A laugh ()

Date: January 04, 2015 01:08PM


The only thing he's done is try to keep the gas prices as high as hell, so we all could buy crappy electric cars from his well off buds. Ride stink buses , walk and get mugged, ride bikes and get hit by cars, live in crime infested close in projects.

With his threatened veto's of anything that could bring cheaper fuel prices across the board, Keystone pipeline,war on Coal, now no fracking.

So where else has he been the last 6 years?? Not anywhere close to being a friend of Cheap "GAS" YOU "ASS" Ole's !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And there he goes again Vetoing the Keystone pipeline. Doing everthing he can to screw the people now getting cheap gas. We will remember the Democrats in Nov 2016 just as we remembered them in Nov 2014.

My 10 mile a gallon gas guzzler got me to my blue collar job today, and my 6 kids safely to school. I'm glad gas prices are so low. Thank God. (Not a party.)

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those are temporary jobs. Is this all the
> Republicans have to offer? 2000 temporary jobs?

This is why we laugh at your dumb ass...

Many jobs are "temporary" on that basis dumbshit. ALL construction jobs are temporary. Are you saying that they're irrelevant? Seasonal sales jobs. Software development and systems implementation jobs. Most of the project-based jobs claimed under the stimulus act were temporary. Etc., etc. All irrelevant right? lol

Face it. The only reason for your opposition to Keystone has nothing to do with jobs or anything other than the dumb "Big Oil" shit you're been fed.

Winter Weather Warning for Prius Drivers - ConsumerAffairs.com


www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/01/prius_winter.html
Jan 29, 2008 - One Vermont Prius driver, suffering through a recent January ... "would probably just start spinning in place and eventually spin out of control.

Real jobs bills repukes. Time to take some responsibility and govern not distract.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Real jobs bills repukes. Time to take some
> responsibility and govern not distract.


Obama's farce of a jobs proposal concentrated on infrastructure repair and construction and things like building solar and wind farms.

Guess what Gerr, they would be "temporary." Were "irrelevant" too huh?

Dumbass. lmao

Real jobs. Not just a pipeline to nowhere. Real jobs. Time to govern.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Real jobs. Not just a pipeline to nowhere. Real
> jobs. Time to govern.


Sucks when you can't answer and have to post stupid shit like this huh?

And so I must finally weigh in. We have attempted to educate a libtard here and done quite well my patriotic comrades. I feel with the Democratic Keystone veto, his libtardness has been thoroughly exposed and thwarted on this particular issue. Thank you for supporting me in this effort, and my work here is done.

Until the next time I feel the need to weigh in and educate some insane liberal stupidity, (trust me, you gotta be pretty stupid for me to act) I bid thee goodnight. Keep up the good fight educating libtards comrades, wherever they may be, and until we meet again when you look up in the sky, LiibtardEducator may be there, but only if the liberal stupidity reaches epic proportions, Im busy.

LibtardEducator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And so I must finally weigh in. We have attempted
> to educate a libtard here and done quite well my
> patriotic comrades. I feel with the Democratic
> Keystone veto, his libtardness has been thoroughly
> exposed and thwarted on this particular issue.
> Thank you for supporting me in this effort, and my
> work here is done.
>
> Until the next time I feel the need to weigh in
> and educate some insane liberal stupidity, (trust
> me, you gotta be pretty stupid for me to act) I
> bid thee goodnight. Keep up the good fight
> educating libtards comrades, wherever they may
> be, and until we meet again when you look up in
> the sky, LiibtardEducator may be there, but only
> if the liberal stupidity reaches epic proportions,
> Im busy.


You'll always have a job. Libtard stupidity is endless.

Want And Need CHEAP GAS! Here This LOUD and CLEAR DEMOCRATS! Now that we have had a taste of cheap gas for the first time in years. YOU FUCKERS BETTER KEEP IT COMING ON. AND DONT TRY ANY BULLSHIT TO STOP IT!

Keystone Pipeline Veto Huh?? WE Will Remember That Shit In 2016!

Real jobs pukes. No one cares about a pipeline to nowhere. College tuition debt, minimum wage. Start governing stop distracting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2015 07:48PM by Gerrymanderer2.

Don't worry. Starting now with Congress, and the White House in 2016, governing will be easy.

Obviously you do, who started this thread thumping your chest about Obama being responsible for low gas prices. And touting North Ametican oil production you give him credit for. How do you think all that North American oil gets to the Gulf to be refined an creat American jobs and to market. Today, he says he wants to veto the pipeline. To quote Hillary "it takes a pipeline."

Your link is worthless. Cite another source you glory hole cocksucker.


You people are fucking helpless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prove it Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Cite your sources,
>
> See the link above, goober? Open it and note that
> the article is filed under "Opinion", not "News".
> Then click on the author's name to learn about the
> slimeball who so easily pulled the wool over your
> eyes.

Sorry to interrupt this program, but Senate opening of 114th Congress being rebroadcast on CSPAN2. We're baaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Real jobs pukes. No one cares about a pipeline to
> nowhere. College tuition debt, minimum wage. Start
> governing stop distracting.


Jobs might not be in such short supply like they once were in Michigan and elsewhere. But good-paying jobs still are. That’s why the Teamsters support the Keystone XL pipeline project that would allow North America to produce more of the world’s oil supply. And that’s why Michigan’s elected officials should too.

Completing the final segment of the pipeline from Nebraska to the Canadian border would employ upwards of 2,500 Teamsters and would infuse millions of dollars into local economies. That’s not just where the pipeline is being built either — it’s right here in Michigan, where suppliers could see substantial growth.

How’s that possible? Because a project of this magnitude will require thousands of pieces of equipment like American-made vehicles to be purchased, and those vehicles will need to be kept up with new parts. Similar projects have resulted in automotive companies building facilities to service vehicles. There is no reason to think that wouldn’t happen here as well.

For communities closer to the construction of the pipeline, workers living nearby will add handsomely to their local tax bases. Rent, food and the everyday living expenses will pump dollars into the wallets of local residents. Infrastructure improvements will also need to be made as part of the project to shore up roads and improve wetland areas.

As it stands, the southern portion of the pipeline has already been completed and produced millions of hours of work and positive economic benefits for the local communities in which it was constructed. The project is a shot in the arm to many rural towns that need it the most.

In total, the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would contribute approximately $3.4 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product. It would support a combined total of 42,100 jobs and approximately $2 billion in earnings nationwide.

As for the project’s environmental concerns, the environmental review has been exhaustive. It will be safer than any other domestic oil pipeline system built under current code, as a result of 59 special conditions the federal pipeline safety regulators developed for the Keystone project, to which pipeline owner TransCanada voluntarily agreed.

It is understandable that many elected officials have wanted to move forward with care on the Keystone XL pipeline. But enough is enough. Seven years of review by 10 federal agencies, as well as numerous state and local agencies, is sufficient. Keystone has had the most exhaustive review and analysis of any infrastructure project in U.S. history.

There are even more positives, as the pipeline would allow greater oil security for North America and make us rely less on other oil-rich parts of the world, where conflict continues to reign. That shouldn’t be discounted.

America needs more good-paying jobs that support middle-class families. This project supplies them. It is like a private sector economic stimulus that could fuel improvements in small towns across the Midwest. But it needs lawmakers like incoming Sen. Gary Peters and Sen. Debbie Stabenow to take a brave stand for hardworking people in Michigan. Getting the U.S. back on track is worth it.

James P. Hoffa is general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Real jobs pukes. No one cares about a pipeline to
> nowhere. College tuition debt, minimum wage. Start
> governing stop distracting.


The United States has climbed out of the great recession, but we need to keep creating good jobs. U.S. manufacturers are doing their part — hiring 740,000 additional workers since 2008 and paying nearly $25 per hour. They want to do even more.

Think how manufacturers will help grow the U.S. economy if after more than six years of examination, review and debate, this pipeline is finally approved. Manufacturers can hire tens of thousands of workers to build a modern, state-of-the-art pipeline, delivering a project that will increase U.S. energy supplies.

Let the construction begin and manufacturers will build. They will buy tires, iron castings, electric components, textiles, concrete and asphalt. They will also buy native seed for land restoration. They will buy these supplies from Oregon, from Arkansas, from Louisiana, Ohio and Indiana, from all across the country, creating jobs in small and large businesses all along the way.

Let the construction begin and manufacturers will hire laborers, welders, mechanics, clerks, engineers and office managers. Although some argue that the bulk of hiring will be insufficient — only 42,000 temporary construction-related jobs and far fewer permanent ones — think about it this way: Putting 42,000 people to work is like employing every undergraduate and graduate student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Creating more than 42,000 jobs — even temporary jobs — is no small matter, especially when the United States faces historically low labor participation rates like we do now.

Let the construction begin, and see the benefits to local communities as they absorb the more than $2 billion in worker payments from Keystone XL jobs. Let the construction begin and offer men and women new job opportunities. Let these new employees put their skills to work and use their earnings to buy cars and clothes, to pay for college tuition or a family vacation. Communities along the pipeline route will also see property tax revenues increase substantially; revenues that will pay for better schools, parks, libraries and infrastructure.

Let the construction begin because the exhaustive, laudable and necessary environmental reviews have concluded that Keystone XL pipeline has met and in many cases exceeded environmental requirements. Its 1,700 miles of pipe will be added to the half a million pipeline miles crisscrossing the country already, delivering oil and natural gas to refineries and ports.

Doug Oberhelman is the chairman and CEO of Caterpillar Inc. and former chair of the National Association of Manufacturers.

Real jobs pukes. Keystone will not solve America's problems. Stop with the distractions and start with the solutions.

CEO of Cateroillar? You mean this would create more than 35 "temporary jobs"? Gerr, how could you lie to us!

No pipeline. Start debating the minimum wage, college tuition, balancing the budget once and for all. You're the new majority congress, act like it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2015 08:38PM by Gerrymanderer2.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Real jobs pukes. Keystone will not solve America's
> problems. Stop with the distractions and start
> with the solutions.


"The U.S. State Department's Preliminary Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, issued in March 2013, estimated 3,900 direct jobs and 42,000 direct and indirect jobs during construction."

Gerry's idea of a "real job" is an SEIU protester.

2400 temporary construction jobs and 35 permenant jobs. The rest is fucking bullshit. Stop the lies.

Start governing you losers.

K99GC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerry's idea of a "real job" is an SEIU protester.


SEIU supports the crap tar sands pipeline to China that wont pump shit if oil isnt above 65 dollars a barrel

Keystone is already built, whats left is XL and its irrelevant in all aspects. It may sit empty for the forseable future if oil doesnt rebound. Start governing!

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Real jobs pukes. Keystone will not solve America's
> problems. Stop with the distractions and start
> with the solutions.


"The total direct, indirect, and induced employment in the proposed Project area states (approximately 12,000 average annual jobs) would result in approximately $405 million in total earnings. This accounts for about 20 percent of all earnings supported by the proposed Project. The remaining 80 percent, or $1.6 billion, would occur in other locations around the country. See Figure 4.10.1-2 for earnings and employment by industry."

If you didn't want to talk oil, which certainly involves the pipeline, why did YOU start THIS thread? Wanna debate governance and budgets? Start another thread and cut your losses here!

405 million divided by 12000 is 33k in total earnings averaged. Is that your jobs initiative? 33k for 12000 people for a year? Come on this is pathetic.

Yes the fact is that keystone is a distraction from Republicans lacking a meaningful agenda that works to help Americans.

It is a keystone of thier lack of an ability to govern.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes the fact is that keystone is a distraction
> from Republicans lacking a meaningful agenda that
> works to help Americans.
>
> It is a keystone of thier lack of an ability to
> govern.


Table 4.10-5 Total U.S. Employment and Earnings by Industry Supported by
Construction of the Proposed Project
Industry
Employment (average annual jobs) Earnings (thousands of 2010 dollars)a
Current
(2010)
Total Effects of
Proposed Projecta Current (2010)
Total Effects of
Proposed Projecta
Jobsb Jobsb
Share of
2010 Total $1,000c $1,000c
Share of
2010
Total
Farm 2,665,000 300 0.01% 77,215,000 7,400 0.01%
Forestry, Fisheries, &
Support, including Farm
Support 835,800 100 0.01% 22,548,000 3,800 0.02%
Mining 1,185,500 300 0.02% 83,081,000 28,300 0.03%
Utilities 579,000 100 0.02% 73,306,000 18,400 0.03%
Construction 8,914,200 6,800 0.08% 479,541,000 419,500 0.09%
Manufacturing 12,206,900 4,600 0.04% 891,607,000 308,900 0.03%
Trade 23,808,200 4,400 0.02% 1,009,713,000 172,100 0.02%
Transportation &
Warehousing 5,504,400 2,000 0.04% 295,408,000 110,400 0.04%
Information 3,210,700 600 0.02% 294,252,000 40,100 0.01%
Finance & Insurance 9,651,300 2,200 0.02% 647,655,000 131,400 0.02%
Real Estate & Rental 7,459,200 1,600 0.02% 148,119,000 31,200 0.02%
Professional Services &
Management of
Companies 13,765,700 5,100 0.04% 1,110,322,000 343,300 0.03%
Administrative & Waste
Services (private only) 10,478,800 2,300 0.02% 353,648,000 71,100 0.02%
Educational Services
(private only) 4,076,600 500 0.01% 146,724,000 18,000 0.01%
Health & Social
Services (private only) 19,062,300 2,700 0.01% 1,000,258,000 141,000 0.01%
Arts, Entertainment &
Recreation Services 3,777,100 600 0.02% 100,953,000 13,600 0.01%
Accommodations &
Food Services 12,048,000 5,700 0.05% 278,844,000 103,300 0.04%
Other Services 9,858,700 1,800 0.02% 330,361,000 62,100 0.02%
Government &
Government Enterprises 24,680,000 400 < 0.01% 1,642,674,000 29,900 < 0.01%
Total 173,767,400 42,100 0.02% 8,986,229,000 2,053,800 0.02%

This bullshit is the entire republican agenda for thier new congress. This is it, this is all they got.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This bullshit is the entire republican agenda for
> thier new congress. This is it, this is all they
> got.


TheKXL pipeline would be good not only for Nebraska’s
economy, but also forthe American economy generally.
To see the potential ofKXL’s economic benefits,we need
only look to the 485mile southern leg of the pipelinewhich
connectsCushing, Oklahoma to ports on the GulfCoast.
This portion of the project did not need presidential
approval to begin construction asit does not cross an
international border and is almost complete.The
construction of the southern leg employed approximately
4,000 people.
2 Forthe rest of the pipeline, the State
Department has estimated over 42,100 jobswould be
created both directly and indirectly fromthe pipeline’s
construction.
3 State-specific estimates have predicted that
between 5,500 and 7,500 of those jobswould be in
Nebraska.
4Additionally, theCanadian EnergyResearch
Institute calculated that current pipeline operationsin
conjunctionwith the construction and operation of the
KXLwould create 179,000American jobs by 2035.
5 Forthe
Table of Contents
Section Page
Introduction 2
Benefits of Keystone XL 2
Impact of the first Keystone Pipeline 5
Conclusion 6
Endnotes 6
Figure 1: Map of original Keystone & Keystone XL pipelines
Myth: Building the KXL will not
create many jobs in Nebraska.
Fact: The two-year construction
period alone is expected to
create between 5,500 and 7,500
direct and indirect jobs per year
in Nebraska, increasing labor
income by $375.6 million and
contribute $817.4 million in
overall economic activity.
Source: GossInstitute for Economic Research,
“The Economic Impact of theKeystone XL
Pipeline on the State of Nebraska.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-
2019/WashingtonPost/2013/01/17/
Health-Environment-Science/Graphics/
KeystoneXLFinalStudyJanuary152013.pdfPlatte Institute Policy Study | Keystone XL Policy Brief
3
sixstates along the route, the economic impact of this $20
billion investment is expected to create roughly $5.2 billion
in property taxrevenue overthe operating life of the
pipeline, all ofwhich can be put towardslocalroads,schools,
and communities.
6 In Nebraska specifically, direct
TransCanada spending during the first year ofKXL
construction has been projected to be approximately $580.2
million.Thiswould lead to overall economic activity of
$817.4million, not including additional laborincome of
$375.6million. Forthe fifteen yearsfollowing
construction—when the pipeline is actually in operation—
the benefitswould continue,withTransCanada still directly
spending $570.5million in the state.Thiswould create an
average of 302 newjobs—both directly and indirectly—per
year overthose fifteen years, adding $580.3million in direct
and indirect laborincome and boost Nebraska’s GDP by
roughly $679.3million overthatsame time period. Overall,
between construction and operation,KXL is expected to
generate approximately $1.8 billion of neweconomic
activity in Nebraska,with the construction period creating
over 5,500 direct and indirect jobs per year and the first 15
years of operation creatingmore than 300 direct and
indirect jobs per year, all increasing laborincome directly
and indirectly by $956million.
7Thissame periodwould
also have a substantial effect on state and local taxrevenues:
• $58.6million in property taxes (in largely rural counties)
• $39.1million in salestaxes
• $20.1million in individual income taxes
• $3.3million in corporate income taxes
• $13.5million in othertaxes
•Atotal of $134.6million in state and local taxes8

Ha! This is just DAY ONE of the new agenda where, as promised, Keystone Pipeline is front and center. Just the beginning. I think that is what you call "putting your money where your mouth is?" Welcome aboard!

Theres nothing else. You Republicans have nothing but building a shit oil pipeline for an international conglomarate. Thats it. We've gone through 6 years of economic recovery and this is still all you got.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Theres nothing else. You Republicans have nothing
> but building a shit oil pipeline for an
> international conglomarate. Thats it. We've gone
> through 6 years of economic recovery and this is
> still all you got.


The president's destination -- the Copper Mountain solar power plant in Boulder City, Nev. -- represents a less controversial backdrop than the alternatives despite the fact it only employs 10 full-time workers.

The facility is not among those that received the kind of multi-million-dollar loans that kept Solyndra afloat while it bled money. But Copper Mountain did benefit from about $60 million in state and federal tax incentives. And, like many clean energy projects, it's not producing a whole lot of permanent jobs.

The light staffing is all that's needed, said Scott Crider, spokesman for parent company Sempra U.S. Gas & Power, since "it's a relatively simple plant to operate." Plus, the set-up keeps costs down, he said.

The Solar 1 plant employed 350 temporary construction workers while it was being built.

Yeah but that plant isnt beholden to saudi price manipulation, doesnt have to give the shieks a cut, doesnt cause air pollution and wont leak and contaminate our underground lakes of freshwater reserves.

>


Re: Gas prices drop, Republicans unusually silent...

Posted by: Gerrymanderer2 ()

Date: January 06, 2015 08:51PM


This bullshit is the entire republican agenda for thier new congress. This is it, this is all they got.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You fucking shit for brains asshole will you STFU Now! Go on back to your Reefer pipe and Shut UP Cause You have Got Nothing. ZIP ZERO .

The Shepherds Flat wind project in Oregon, which is getting a $490 million cash grant from the federal government. The project, backed by General Electric, Google, and other companies, will create just 35 permanent jobs.. Cost of each one of those long-term jobs: about $14 million. Even if we include the 400 temporary construction jobs the project created and count them as permanent jobs, taxpayers are still spending about $1.1 million per wind-related job.

This is fucking completely outrageous. Gerry the Gerbil and a liberal dumbfuck is trying to give Obozo the Monkey Boy credit for oil prices going down.

Fracking which your cocksucking hero opposes led to the Saudis trying to put it out of business by increasing oil production is causing a glut of oil on the world market.

Gruber under estimated you stupid fuckers..

Great action photos! Look at all those jobs he's creating!

I bet Dick Cheney wishes he thought of Solyndra! He''d be much richer than actually having to work and drill to provide us a product we actually want!

Romney must be behind all this cheap oil somehow! What an evil plot! Im sure Gerr will mske the connection for us!

Gerry doesn't consider a project a success unless it cost taxpayers over $1 million per job.

No more than that... two million per job at least.

Gerr,

My friend, you are giving us liberals a bad name. We got our asses handed to us tonight on FFU pal. Plain and simple, Obama exposed us today. Left us naked.

PLEASE, as A fellow Democrat and liberal, Mr. Gorbachav, PLEASE Give up this thread!

We can live to fight another day, and fight on elsewhere in other threads.

But Ronnie Ray-gun and his allies has us on this issue, and I must abandon you.

Wait... Gerrymander2 and your butt buddy who started this silly thread... doesn't cheap oil lead to gasp... more global warming....

Obozo is causing the seas to rise since you credit him with gas prices going down...

Dems are crying trying to raise Gas taxes to get the price back up.

Lots of illegals needing EBT cards, Section 8 and other bennies, we cant keep up with the demand. More Taxes Needed.

...Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work.

"Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,"

Can you educate these liberals on who Steve Chu is? And in what administration he served?

Im afraid they rode the short bus and dont even know who he is and position he occupies. Odd, I know, as they often claim to have advanced degrees.

Theres no evidence for any of these assertions. This is a Canadian tar sands pipeline. Please focus. Understand the complexities. It takes as much energy from gas to turn tar sands into usable oil as it produces. It is literally the crappiest oil on the face of the earth. All canada is doing is turning thier natural gas into oil so they can export it. Irrespective of the resulting polution during the processing. Now they want to pump it across our heartland have our refineries process it more so they can send it onward to china.

Thats all good and well but whats most dumbfounding is this is the Republican economic agenda. A pipeline for the shitiest oil on the olanet that only flows at high prices.

The absurdity and ineptitude of the GOP as a party is breathtaking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2015 09:59PM by Gerrymanderer2.

Or one that scares the shit out of the Saudis and gets THEM to produce more oil at lower prices without us ultimately even having to even pump much. Kind of what Star Wars did...a mind game to gets your adversary into a game you want them to play, which we know is to our advantage.

Sorry if your head just exploded.

Game...Set...Match.

Goodnight.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Theres no evidence for any of these assertions.
> This is a Canadian tar sands pipeline. Please
> focus. Understand the complexities. It takes as
> much energy from gas to turn tar sands into usable
> oil as it produces. It is literally the crappiest
> oil on the face of the earth.


First, no, it doesn't. Stop reading Media Matters or whatever slanted shitrag you're getting this stuff from. If you want to play the usual stupid game of tallying up the full end-to-end "fuel cycle" you can make the numbers come out however you want for anything. That includes solar and electric vehicles.

Second, even if it did, taking it to a liquid fuel suitable for transportation purposes (which is where oil is used almost exclusively) holds value both economically and in terms of practical and market/supply considerations. Building solar plants does squat as far as providing transportation fuels. No, your electric cars aren't a significant component and won't be for the foreseeable future.

ExplainsAlot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can you educate these liberals on who Steve Chu
> is? And in what administration he served?
>
> Im afraid they rode the short bus and dont even
> know who he is and position he occupies. Odd, I
> know, as they often claim to have advanced
> degrees.


Occupied. It's Moniz now. Who's much better.

I actually worked with the guy back in the day at DOE.

WrongAgain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or one that scares the shit out of the Saudis and
> gets THEM to produce more oil at lower prices
> without us ultimately even having to even pump
> much. Kind of what Star Wars did...a mind game to
> gets your adversary into a game you want them to
> play, which we know is to our advantage.
>
> Sorry if your head just exploded.
>
> Game...Set...Match.
>
> Goodnight.


I dont think keystone xl is going to have a substantial contribution to the Jedi mind trick you're referencing.

Using that genius logic there would be no profit and economic incentive to get the oil. "Takes as much energy to get as it produces." That's ridiculous.

Hmmm. Have you seen the price of Saudi oil today? And how much tar sands has flowed? Far fetched, but might actually make some sense.

Remember, you are the hig conspiracy theorist. Maybe someone smarter than you found a way to lower gas prices. Hint: it wasnt Obama.

JJxmG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Using that genius logic there would be no profit
> and economic incentive to get the oil. "Takes as
> much energy to get as it produces." That's
> ridiculous.


Actually that is the logic for extracting oil. The net gain in energy. What planet are you on?

Tar sands basically breaks even. Some of the worst oil on earth. If Canada didnt have gas to waste they would't be producing it.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tar sands basically breaks even. Some of the worst
> oil on earth. If Canada didnt have gas to waste
> they would't be producing it.


You have no idea what you're talking about, you're just repeating bs that you've read somewhere. Now just STFU before I have to embarrass you further.

Conventional oil is 25 to 1 of energy it produces to energy it takes to produce.

Tar sands is 2.9 to 1.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JJxmG Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Using that genius logic there would be no
> profit
> > and economic incentive to get the oil. "Takes
> as
> > much energy to get as it produces." That's
> > ridiculous.
>
>
> Actually that is the logic for extracting oil. The
> net gain in energy. What planet are you on?


No, it's not. It's getting energy in a usable form for an intended purpose(s) at an economically feasible cost.

"Net gain in energy" can be anything you want depending on what you want to count. Which is why dumb balance analyses are done by opponents to make whatever it is look as bad as possible. Which is why nobody who knows what they're talking about pays any attention to such nonsense. Very few, if any, means of generating energy result in a "net gain in energy." Virtually all result in net losses on that same basis. But in the end they provide usable energy at a feasible cost which makes them worthwhile. Again, that includes solar, wind, batteries for electric cars, etc.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Conventional oil is 25 to 1 of energy it produces
> to energy it takes to produce.
>
> Tar sands is 2.9 to 1.


Your bullshit is 1,000,000:1. It approaches a perpetual machine of 100% bullshit efficiency.

Bullshit, wtf are you talking about. Not all energy production has anywhere close to such a devastating cost of production. U.S. shale looks like heaven on earth compared to it.

At least with shale, advancements in technology will continue to drive down energy consumption for extraction. Tar sands will always need gas to turn it into oil.

We have tar sands in the US. 12 to 19 billion barrels of it in Utah we can tap if we need to waste our natural gas on it. What do we need pipelines to Canada for?

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bullshit, wtf are you talking about. Not all
> energy production has anywhere close to such a
> devastating cost of production. U.S. shale looks
> like heaven on earth compared to it.


If the costs were that "devasting" then it wouldn't be economically feasible and they wouldn't be doing it.


>
> At least with shale, advancements in technology
> will continue to drive down energy consumption for
> extraction. Tar sands will always need gas to turn
> it into oil.

No, it probably won't. Fracking hasn't taken off because of advances in technology. It's using enhanced recovery approaches which have been around since probably WWII. The boom in shale isn't due primarily to technology (although there is some), it's more related to finding large areas which are suitable the application of such techniques and the value of the recovered product being at a level to make it economically feasible. Just as I said above - getting energy in a usable form for an intended purpose(s) at an economically feasible cost. It has little to nothing to do with the "net energy gain." Whether it needs gas or not largely is irrelevant.

Oh its very relevant. Not to mention it requires 3 barrels of water for every barrel of oil to produce. But still it is what it is and will continue to be what it is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2015 11:23PM by Gerrymanderer2.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We have tar sands in the US. 12 to 19 billion
> barrels of it in Utah we can tap if we need to
> waste our natural gas on it. What do we need
> pipelines to Canada for?


Because, generally speaking, tar sands there are much more rich, they have huge amounts in single areas which makes it practical to build the infrastructure to mine it and process it, they have the water resources nearby required to process it, it tends to be in a more loosely bound form which is easier to mine and extract... Among others...

A lot of our tar sands look more like a rock. It's also in areas where you and your pals would shit out a tar baby if anyone wanted to go after it. In addition to more limited water resources in the West, socioeconomic considerations, etc.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh its very relevant. Not to mention it requires 3
> barrels of water for every barrel of oil to
> produce. How Canada has such abundant resources
> for tar sands production to the tune of 1 million
> barrels per day is amazing. But still it is what
> it is and will continue to be what it is.
>
> The pipeline wont mean shit for the price of oil
> or jobs in America.


So now that your shit's been shot down as far as "net energy gain" you're back to the jobs bullshit. lol

You don't have a clue wtf you're talking about.

Obviously the president realizes you can only work with Republicans by holding incentives for purposes of negotiation. The pipeline will be approved. The question is what are Republicans willing to do for the American people in return.

It now his job to compromise like every good president has done, Its not his personal railroad or a one way street. Dont try to put any bullshit back on the GOP you stupid fuck, they won in 2014. As you fuckers were saying "elections have consequences" Now SHUT UP Dammn It.

And what consequences did elections have when he wiped the floor with you two years ago?

PjVhP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OPEC is trying to kill the US shale oil industry.
> The low gas prices won't last.


Been a year, and its just down further. Why are you wrong on literally everything?

fagnut wrong again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Been a year, and its just down further. Why are
> you wrong on literally everything?

Same reason it votes Republican. Inability to think clearly, follow logic, etc.

But you knew that.