2012
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2012/01/31/exxon-beats-estimates-as-100-oil-paints-over-rough-patches/


2011
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/27/news/companies/exxon_mobil/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Exxon Mobil reported quarterly earnings of $10.3 billion on Thursday, a surge of 41% from a year earlier.
Why? Higher prices for oil and natural gas.

2010

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/29/news/companies/Exxon/index.htm

Exxon Mobil profit nearly doubles
By Ben Rooney, staff reporterJuly 29, 2010: 12:29 PM
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. reported quarterly earnings Thursday that easily beat analysts' expectations on higher crude prices.

2009 wasn't that great but...
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/04/06/90299/exxon-tax/

ExxonMobile paid no federal income tax in 2009

2008
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/30/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm

Exxon 2008 profit: A record $45 billion
The oil company rides $147 crude to set an all-time high despite oil price collapse in back half of the year.

2007
Money.usnews.com/money/business-economy/articles/2008/02/01/exxons-profits-measuring-a-record-windfall

Exxon Mobil's staggering $40.6 billion earnings for 2007 drive the truth home: There's no business on the planet that gushes forth more profit than selling oil—nothing even close.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil reported the largest annual profit in U.S. history Friday, making $45.22 billion on the back of record oil prices.

2006
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8N0VRD80&show_article=1

HOUSTON (AP) - Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. on Thursday posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company—$39.5 billion—even as earnings for the last quarter of 2006 declined 4 percent.

..it gets a bit repetitive.....

2001
http://money.cnn.com/2001/01/24/companies/earns_oil/



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2012 06:55PM by Atom.

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "If the president and Congress were really serious
> about any of this, the Bell System break up would
> like like a blip on the map compared to big oil
> going down in a million pieces. But that wont
> happen because too many in Congress get too much
> money from big oil."
>
> I totally agree,,,if we had a congress that
> actually cared about the people who vote them into
> office, they would be threatening to nationalize
> or force a co-op on the oil industry in the
> interest of national security,,,
>
> Our military, paid for with tax payer dollars, has
> a lot of influence in the global oil market via
> the implied threat it provides,,,
>
> Iraq causing problems in Kuwait? Not for long,,,
> Iran blocking oil passage with their bullshit
> navy? Not for long,,,
>
> We, the American taxpayer, do more to stabalize
> global oil prices for our friends AND ENEMIES than
> any nation on earth, and our own oil companies
> look to exploit us at every turn,,,


More insanity. Everything the government nationlizes turns to shit. The government doesn't care about turning a profit, but we, the taxpayers end up paying for the losses. They aren't free. Every analysis has shown that the profit margin on oil is about the same as other commodity-based industries and less than many other types of industries. Why aren't you whiners complaining about the obscene profit margins of an iPad or iPhone which are astronomically higher as a percentage of cost than a gallon of gasoline.

Poppin' Jay Fox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Why aren't you whiners complaining
> about the obscene profit margins of an iPad or
> iPhone which are astronomically higher as a
> percentage of cost than a gallon of gasoline.


If I could grind one up, drop it in the tank and get decent mileage out of an iAnything.......I'd complain.

Till then I'll just sit back and watch others decide to waste their money on one.

If you want cheaper gas get the government to stop forcing the gas companies to make so many different blends of it. There are 50 different blends that they have to make according to where its being sold, the current season ect. All of that adds significantly to the cost of a gallon. Also state and federal taxes on a gallon of gas are high. VA has one of the lower rates around 40 cents, some states add almost 70 cents a gallon in taxes.

The oil industry makes pennies in profits per gallon. They dont post huge profits by gouging the public, they post it by selling enormous amounts. They dont want 5 dollar a gallon gas either knowing people will cut back on its use, they want it to be as cheap as possible so you will use more. But its more fun to just demonize them then actually look at why gas is so high

if you want cheaper gas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> they want it to be as cheap as possible so you
> will use more. But its more fun to just demonize
> them then actually look at why gas is so high

Nah, ECON 101 says the supply/demand/price curves rule. The oil company, if it was standalone in the world, would want the price at the "sweet-spot" for the supply and demand - that for sure is not the lowest possible price.

--------

ExxonMobil is the result of merging Exxon and Mobil with, actually, Exxon just taking over Mobil and that's that. Exxon was a BIG producer of oil - so much so that they simply produced oil and sold it. Mobil, on the other hand, was sufficiently small that not only did they produce oil and sell it, they bought it, too (to sell again).

When the two companies became one, the buying and selling of oil contracts became part and parcel of ExxonMobil The Behemoth, too. So ExxonMobil goes "out there" on the oil commodity markets and buys oil as well as selling it. Since it IS a commodity "market" (though often just phone calls between bigwigs), the price varies all over the place based on random whims of thousands of people and companies out there.

That is to say, someone buys the oil BEFORE it's out of the ground. They turn around and sell it to someone else, often before it gets to a depot. It gets sold again to someone else, often as it's going onto a ship (say, or a pipeline). Before that ship gets to where it's going, that oil can be sold and bought again - repeatedly. It gets to whereever it's going and gets refined, often being sold and bought again. Since all this takes real time, the price varies on-the-fly just because of events in the world that have NOTHING to do with the price of THAT oil AS the oil is moving from producer to consumer.

Eventually it reaches the gas station...and, strangely, as it's sitting there in the gas station's tanks, the price STILL can fluctuate!

----------

Oil traders are...interesting.

And THEY are the ones to look at when discussing oil/gasoline pricing.

Olde Farte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Nah, ECON 101 says the supply/demand/price curves
> rule. The oil company, if it was standalone in the
> world, would want the price at the "sweet-spot"
> for the supply and demand - that for sure is not
> the lowest possible price.
>
> --------
>
> ExxonMobil is the result of merging Exxon and
> Mobil with, actually, Exxon just taking over Mobil
> and that's that. Exxon was a BIG producer of oil -
> so much so that they simply produced oil and sold
> it. Mobil, on the other hand, was sufficiently
> small that not only did they produce oil and sell
> it, they bought it, too (to sell again).
>
> When the two companies became one, the buying and
> selling of oil contracts became part and parcel of
> ExxonMobil The Behemoth, too. So ExxonMobil goes
> "out there" on the oil commodity markets and buys
> oil as well as selling it. Since it IS a commodity
> "market" (though often just phone calls between
> bigwigs), the price varies all over the place
> based on random whims of thousands of people and
> companies out there.
>
> That is to say, someone buys the oil BEFORE it's
> out of the ground. They turn around and sell it to
> someone else, often before it gets to a depot. It
> gets sold again to someone else, often as it's
> going onto a ship (say, or a pipeline). Before
> that ship gets to where it's going, that oil can
> be sold and bought again - repeatedly. It gets to
> whereever it's going and gets refined, often being
> sold and bought again. Since all this takes real
> time, the price varies on-the-fly just because of
> events in the world that have NOTHING to do with
> the price of THAT oil AS the oil is moving from
> producer to consumer.
>
> Eventually it reaches the gas station...and,
> strangely, as it's sitting there in the gas
> station's tanks, the price STILL can fluctuate!
>
> ----------
>
> Oil traders are...interesting.
>
> And THEY are the ones to look at when discussing
> oil/gasoline pricing.


And with all of that if you took away all the different blends and the high taxes you would still have gas at half price. Everything passes through several hands before it gets to the consumer thats nothing specific to oil. Fluctuating prices is also nothing specific to oil.

Also that article trying to over simplify it and imply world events have nothing to do with oil prices is just flat out wrong. Uncertainty that can threaten the supply has a lot to do with the price. If the supply is uncertain companies will start out bidding each other to ensure they have a supply for their consumers and it drives the price up as they scramble to get as much as they can just in case

"More insanity. Everything the government nationlizes turns to shit. The government doesn't care about turning a profit, but we, the taxpayers end up paying for the losses. They aren't free. Every analysis has shown that the profit margin on oil is about the same as other commodity-based industries and less than many other types of industries. Why aren't you whiners complaining about the obscene profit margins of an iPad or iPhone which are astronomically higher as a percentage of cost than a gallon of gasoline."

First, I don't NEED Apple products and I don't buy them, exactly because of the reasons you stated,,,

Second, I said to threaten them,,,theres no escaping the fact our military makes them money, which you chose to ignore in your rebuttle,,,I guess we could figure out a way to charge them for it's use,,,

And Nationalizing the oil industry could be done by simply keeping the infrastructure in place and eliminating or controlling the board rooms of the oil companies until they can figure out a way to restrain costs to the consumer,,Again, it's a national security issue,,,

Based on your comments, I guess you would be all for a privatized military,,,

Hatemotor Wrote:


> And Nationalizing the oil industry could be done
> by simply keeping the infrastructure in place and
> eliminating or controlling the board rooms of the
> oil companies until they can figure out a way to
> restrain costs to the consumer,,Again, it's a
> national security issue,,,

Yea lets just be a communist country and nationalize everything.

If you did any research you would know that most of the companies make most of their money in the rest of the world and not in the US. You would also know they pay billions in US taxes a year. Furthermore most of the ones with stocks, Exxon in particular gives the vast majority of its profits back to its share holders through dividends. They are also the leading spender in alternative energy research and invest billions a year.

But why do that when we can just have the government have hostile take overs of businesses. Next we can have limits on the number of children, out law guns, and give everyone a fixed income no matter what job they do. Its worked real well in the rest of the communist countries right

So do you or don't you accept the fact our military plays a huge role in the global oil business?

And our military consumes ALOT of oil, which adds to the national debt,

I think the US taxpayer deserves a home town discount, that's my point,,,

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So do you or don't you accept the fact our
> military plays a huge role in the global oil
> business?
>
> And our military consumes ALOT of oil, which adds
> to the national debt,
>
> I think the US taxpayer deserves a home town
> discount, that's my point,,,


Our military isnt used for the benefit of of big oil, they do use a lot of oil though. Although now the Administration is making the Navy start to buy alternative jet fuel which is 5 times more expensive.

I do agree though that countries should start giving us free oil if they want our protection or help and that we should have just taken the Oil from Iraq and what we used there and told them it was the price of their freedom instead of paying them back for it.

We also get screwed big time by Nato operations since that basically just means it will be 80 percent US military under the command of some foreign general.

That said, I dont for 1 second believe in the nationalization of oil companies in the US

Good,,,we agree completely on the military aspect,,,

I'd prefer not to nationalize anything unless it's a dire situation,,,

That said we have to at least stop subsidizing profitable companies, not just oil companies either,,,

I'm lookin at you GE,,,and the 16 other biggest companies in this country that not only didn't pay a dime in taxes but GOT money from the government,,,

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good,,,we agree completely on the military
> aspect,,,
>
> I'd prefer not to nationalize anything unless it's
> a dire situation,,,
>
> That said we have to at least stop subsidizing
> profitable companies, not just oil companies
> either,,,
>
> I'm lookin at you GE,,,and the 16 other biggest
> companies in this country that not only didn't pay
> a dime in taxes but GOT money from the
> government,,,


GE is the one I really have a problem with with how they sell military technology to who ever wants it.

We dont actually give oil any money we just give them about a 4 billion a year tax break which isnt that much and they still pay 20+ billion a year in taxes to the US. They arent actively trying to exploit every last loop hole like the companies that pay the 0 percent rate and most of their profits go to their shareholders some of the largest of which are teachers unions that use it to help fund their pensions in several states among other things.

I do think our corporate tax rate is to high, but I dont agree with the companies who figure out a way to pay 0. About 20 percent flat tax for US businesses would be fair and eliminate the ability to get out of them all together which would also encourage businesses to move here giving us one of the lower rates and help create some jobs.

Agree,,,

I really think we have to do something to give small businesses a tax break,,,

It's just getting too expensive to start alot of the niche businesses that cater to diverse interests,,between overpriced commercial property and the non-corporate tax rate, and a bunch of other things, it's just not worth it any more,,,

I fear the day when corporate communism rules the land and they sell only the things that make the biggest profits,,,

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agree,,,
>
> I really think we have to do something to give
> small businesses a tax break,,,
>
> It's just getting too expensive to start alot of
> the niche businesses that cater to diverse
> interests,,between overpriced commercial property
> and the non-corporate tax rate, and a bunch of
> other things, it's just not worth it any more,,,
>
> I fear the day when corporate communism rules the
> land and they sell only the things that make the
> biggest profits,,,

I dont really view corporations as evil, its all about who runs them. Theres definitely people that abuse the power and exploit it but that can be said for anything. Some companies are definitely better than other though. For example MGM brings their profits from Macau and reinvests them in America actually bringing money in for a change.

But I do agree there should be incentives to help small businesses and start up businesses. The more they can grow the more jobs there are which is better for every one. Especially with the economy right now something like 0 percent capital gains taxes on small business/start up business investments for the next year or two could help give them a boost

The Corporate Tax-Dodge Code

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/corporate-tax-dodge-code

mao Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hatemotor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Agree,,,
> >
> > I really think we have to do something to give
> > small businesses a tax break,,,
> >
> > It's just getting too expensive to start alot
> of
> > the niche businesses that cater to diverse
> > interests,,between overpriced commercial
> property
> > and the non-corporate tax rate, and a bunch of
> > other things, it's just not worth it any
> more,,,
> >
> > I fear the day when corporate communism rules
> the
> > land and they sell only the things that make
> the
> > biggest profits,,,
>
> I dont really view corporations as evil, its all
> about who runs them. Theres definitely people
> that abuse the power and exploit it but that can
> be said for anything. Some companies are
> definitely better than other though. For example
> MGM brings their profits from Macau and reinvests
> them in America actually bringing money in for a
> change.
>
> But I do agree there should be incentives to help
> small businesses and start up businesses. The
> more they can grow the more jobs there are which
> is better for every one. Especially with the
> economy right now something like 0 percent capital
> gains taxes on small business/start up business
> investments for the next year or two could help
> give them a boost

70% of companies are just after one thing, the money in your wallet. That's the sad fact.

If companies can away with something and get more profit they do it in a second. Maybe not as bad as third world companies that will sell anything but that's only because American business men can go to jail for not following regulations.

Without the regulations businesses would rob Americans blind.

Even with regulations.

Wall Street sold worthless bonds to foreign investors twice in the last 15 years. That's why the Fed pumped 7.7 trillion dollars into European banks. The were threatening Wall Street banks with massive lawsuits.

The last refinery to be completed in the United States was in 1976

Since then automobile traffic has over doubled. http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html

Over the last quarter-century, the number of refineries in the United States dropped to 149, less than half the number in 1981. Because companies have upgraded and expanded their aging operations, refining capacity during that time period shrank only 10 percent from its peak of 18.6 million barrels a day. At the same time, gasoline consumption has risen by 45 percent.

Don't reference info from "Gas Buddy", they're idiots. And if you do, you're an idiot.

Consumption has outpaced production and that increases demand.


Historically here is where we're at on prices in current dollars.



In January 2011, motor gasoline taxes averaged 48.1¢/gal and diesel fuel taxes averaged 53.1¢/gal,http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/Resources/campaigns/GasPrices_2011/Pages/StatisticsDefinitions.aspx which accounted for 14% of the price of gasoline and 15% of the price of diesel.http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/



It costs over 10 billion dollars and 12 years of jumping through EPA restrictions to build a new refinery. Right now Yuma AZ is the closest to coming on line.

Two new oil refineries are being developed in the United States: Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma, LLC is building an oil refinery in Yuma, Arizona and Hyperion Energy Center is building a refinery in Union County, South Dakota.

Which refinery will actually become operational first appears to be a matter of who can jump through the hoops the quickest. Arizona Clean Fuels was originally scheduled to open in 2009. But it took SEVEN YEARS TO GET AN AIR QUALITY PERMIT.

According to the US Energy Information website, Arizona Clean Fuels is now expected to open in 2012. But the latest information on the company’s website says “Next major milestone, expected within the next few months, will be the announcement of the EPC contractor.” There have been no press updates posted on their site since 2009.

The Hyperion Energy Center oil refinery is an even bigger mega-project. Located on over 3.600 acres of land, the $10 billion refinery will produce 400,000 barrels of fuel per day and promises over 1,800 oil refinery jobs. (And over 4,000 construction jobs). They bill themselves as a “Greenfield refinery” that will produce ultra-low sulfur gasoline, ultra-low sulfur diesel and ultra-low sulfur aviation fuel. Construction is slated to begin in 2012.

Hyperion and Arizona Clean Fuels both face extreme opposition from environmental groups, but have so far defeated court challenges by the Sierra Club and other groups. The Sierra Club is so determined to shut down the Hyperion project they have devoted an entire web site to the cause.

When you add the cost and delays caused by overly stringent and ever-changing EPA regulations and the constant court challenges of environmental groups to the tremendous expense of actually constructing a new oil refinery, it’s a wonder that Arizona Clean Fuels and Hyperion were able to find investors at all. (And its little wonder that more oil companies and investors aren’t taking the gamble).

factoring all the EPA, demand supply, taxes, and political obstacles in the past 30 years we are lucky we're not in the $7.00 per gallon range.

That is where we're headed. Get use to it dumbfucks.

Odd that the EPA and Greenies rather us use old outdated refineries that i assume can only output higher emission gasoline’s compared to what it is currently possible of being produced by a new refinery.

in the last 3 years there were definitely things Obama could have done to prevent prices reaching the current levels and climbing.

1)Not impose a moratorium on Gulf Shore drilling
2)Expediting the openings of the Yuma and Hyperion refineries
3)Approve the Keystone XL pipeline

IMO, this hasn't affected people drastically yet because of the multiple home refinances people have been doing over the past few years which has increased disposable income to can be used to offset higher gas prices at the pump and rising food crises.

It wont surpise me Obama's if approval ratings start trending down.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2012 11:07AM by Hay Zeus.

Crude oil is up almost another $1. We have excess capacity. I read oil consumpion is now the lowest in more than 10 years. Consumer demand is down because of the higher prices. We make fewer things here so we don't need as much energy. What we have too much of is money printing, globally. Crude oil is up more than 40% since the beginning of October when the central banks started the next round of money printing with the Federal Reserve's Operation Twist. When you go out and publicly state that you want the dollar to fall by 33%, one of the results is that everything priced in dollars is going to inflate. We're starting to hear more mumbling about Obama releasing oil from the SPR again. It hasn't even been a year since the last one.

The three things Obama could of done to keep gas prices low are:

1) Chevy Volt.
2) Explore alternative fuels.
3) Better MPG on current cars.

When there is more gas, because of less consumption, than the price goes down!

Voltaire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The three things Obama could of done to keep gas
> prices low are:
>
> 1) Chevy Volt.
> 2) Explore alternative fuels.
> 3) Better MPG on current cars.
>
> When there is more gas, because of less
> consumption, than the price goes down!

Could have? thats what he IS doing

1)His budget has subsidy money for the volt
2)Solyndra didn't work out very well for him
3)CAFE standards are already emliminating certain models of vehicles from manufacuring fleets such as the Ford Ranger and driving up production costs. Most people can't afford to buy new cars every few years.

The current president want's high gasoline prices. His secretary of ENERGY has said that the US needs European prices for gas to drive innovation for alternative fuels. Why you sheeple won't put the blame on the commie in the WH instead ofa corporation that is set up to maximize profits is laughable. Sad, but laughable.

Demand for gas in the US doesn't drive down the price of gas anymore. The oil companies just sell it to countries whos economies aren't in the tank like ours is. China and India will take whatever gas they can get their hands on.

And, so someone posted previously, world oil is valued in dollars. As the dollar is weakened by the Fed buying it's own debt (by printining money), the value of the dollar keeps going down, which makes oil cost even more.

This administration hasn't done one thing right on the oil issue. It's either incompetence or purposeful. Either way, we need new leadership and the current oil crisis is a perfect example of why.

Voltaire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The three things Obama could of done to keep gas
> prices low are:
>
> 1) Chevy Volt.

The car is overpriced even with government money kicked in and sucks. You get about 20 miles on its electric charge when using it in full electric mode before it switches back to its fuel mode.

> 2) Explore alternative fuels.

Oil companies put the most money into this and they are being explored a lot. It takes time to come up with a new system and the technology isnt there yet.

> 3) Better MPG on current cars.

When the technology is ready it will happen.

> When there is more gas, because of less
> consumption, than the price goes down!

Heres what he really could have done.

Approve the pipeline, get rid of all the different blends they have to make, not have energy policies that drive up the price of gas that he himself as said they do, bring down inflation.

As our dollar becomes worth less and less with all the money we are printing oil in the us goes up just like with every other commodity. The more anti oil your seem the higher prices will be

You all put a ton of effort into being wrong.

He could require that Market Speculators have to put down more cash when bidding the futures. I heard Stuart Varney of Fox Business Channel use a numer but i froget what it was specifically.

I tried to research it but I all could find was 6% cash on hand was needed for a total bid. That seems ridiculous to me and the number should be much higher, at least 20% but maybe 50%??

By increasing the amount of cash needed on hand for a bid, speculators will reduce the size of their bids

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Financial_Tsunami/Oil_Speculation_II/oil_speculation_ii.html

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You all put a ton of effort into being wrong.

It's all politics and oil really has been the global market's first product. Amazingly, every other raw material falls short.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2012 04:34PM by Juxtaposition.

Juxtaposition Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's all politics and oil really has been the
> global market's first product. Amazingly, every
> other raw material falls short.

I agree with respect to the modern economy, many ancient wars were fought over salt.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He could require that Market Speculators have to
> put down more cash when bidding the futures. I
> heard Stuart Varney of Fox Business Channel use a
> numer but i froget what it was specifically.
>
> I tried to research it but I all could find was 6%
> cash on hand was needed for a total bid. That
> seems ridiculous to me and the number should be
> much higher, at least 20% but maybe 50%??
>
> By increasing the amount of cash needed on hand
> for a bid, speculators will reduce the size of
> their bids
>
> http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Financial_Ts
> unami/Oil_Speculation_II/oil_speculation_ii.html


This is probably the easiest most effective way to influence the cost of oil,,,

And other commodities as well,,,

It was tried last year. The regulators hiked margin requirements on commodity futures.

Stocks and commodities both fell. Hiking margin requirements caused the banks and hedge funds to raise collateral by selling assets, includng oil, gold, silver, and stocks.

This was soon after Bernanke gave his press conference in April where he was peppered with questions about the rising cost of food and gas.

what was it raised to? Has it been lowered since then?

It was done repeatedly last year.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cme+margin+requirement+hike+oil&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBR

Obama may have also tapped the SPR.

Oil finally fell after QE2 ended on June 30.

Bernanke is still forcing down interest rates which is causing investors to seek out other investments.

Another document, from Sept. 2, 2009, offers an eerily accurate prediction of today's high prices, made by Sadad al Husseini, Aramco's former executive vice president.

"In his view, the bearish energy analysts arguing that the oil price shocks of last summer are not likely to be repeated anytime soon are making inaccurate assumptions," the cable said, warning that the former Aramco executive saw political uncertainty and a perception of tight supplies as fuel for speculators.
The cable said that "al Husseini predicted that another oil price shock would likely hit sometime in the next year or two."

A McClatchy investigation earlier this month showed the extent to which financial institutions now influence the price of oil. Until recently, end users of oil — such as airlines, refineries and other consumer of fuel — accounted for about 70 percent of oil trading as they tried to hedge against price fluctuations.
Today, however, speculators who'll never take possession of a barrel of oil account for that 70 percent of oil futures trading, and the volume of speculative trading has grown fivefold.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/25/114759/wikileaks-saudis-often-warned.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy

Historically Gallup has been the most accurate polling agency.

It has Obama down 4 points to Romney and just 1 point ahead of Santorum.

Gallup tends to not weight their samples as heavily in favor of Democrats as other pollsters.

Obama is in big trouble will lose in a landslide all due to a phantom economic recovery that will be fully exposed as a sham by November, and sky high fuel prices and real unemployment rate.

Voters simply have had enough of his incompetent bravado and a seething backlash awaits him at the ballot box.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152918/Romney-Santorum-Closely-Matched-Against-Obama-Nationally.aspx

Les Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another document, from Sept. 2, 2009, offers an
> eerily accurate prediction of today's high prices,
> made by Sadad al Husseini, Aramco's former
> executive vice president.
>
> "In his view, the bearish energy analysts arguing
> that the oil price shocks of last summer are not
> likely to be repeated anytime soon are making
> inaccurate assumptions," the cable said, warning
> that the former Aramco executive saw political
> uncertainty and a perception of tight supplies as
> fuel for speculators.
> The cable said that "al Husseini predicted that
> another oil price shock would likely hit sometime
> in the next year or two."
>
> A McClatchy investigation earlier this month
> showed the extent to which financial institutions
> now influence the price of oil. Until recently,
> end users of oil — such as airlines, refineries
> and other consumer of fuel — accounted for about
> 70 percent of oil trading as they tried to hedge
> against price fluctuations.
> Today, however, speculators who'll never take
> possession of a barrel of oil account for that 70
> percent of oil futures trading, and the volume of
> speculative trading has grown fivefold.
>
> Read more here:
> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/25/114759/wikil
> eaks-saudis-often-warned.html#storylink=cpy#storyl
> ink=cpy

The first place i would start is Goldman Sachs, that outfit is the poster child for darkside of capitalism......the fact that a lot of execs go work for Treasury at some point is not comforting.

Those Gallup numbers are good for Obama. Keep down any conscious or subconscious hubris.

It's gonna be an epic battle for sure. Some great political theater coming our way. Top that off with a respectable Redskins team and I'll be one happy camper.

Or Santorum will win and I'll be going to war.

Newt is promising $2.50 gas if elected.

Newt 250 Cent Gas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Newt is promising $2.50 gas if elected.

Did he say how? Its not like he takes over office and on Jan 21 oil is suddenlt $2.50 gal

That's a sure sign he's given up. I think Palin or Bachman pulled the same thing.

To bad because Newt was the most entertaining clown up there.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's a sure sign he's given up. I think Palin
> or Bachman pulled the same thing.
>
> To bad because Newt was the most entertaining
> clown up there.

I miss Bachmann and her crazy eyes.

Eyes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I miss Bachmann and her crazy eyes.

She's running for re-election - I'm sure her eyes will be in The Media plenty.

I find her to be very easy on the eyes.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find her to be very easy on the eyes.

Bachmann??? You're kidding me. She looks like a plastic surgeon nightmare.

Let's face it, the Republican party is full of outdated ideas and the core basis is nothing more than a sham.

Maybe we should ask Greece if balancing a budget and cutting deficits are outdated ideas?

4 More years! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's face it, the Republican party is full of
> outdated ideas and the core basis is nothing more
> than a sham.


As opposed to the sham that is known as Social Security......

Delano Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4 More years! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Let's face it, the Republican party is full of
> > outdated ideas and the core basis is nothing
> more
> > than a sham.
>
>
> As opposed to the sham that is known as Social
> Security......

Or the unconstitutional sham known as Obamacare......

B, Hussein O. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Delano Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 4 More years! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Let's face it, the Republican party is full
> of
> > > outdated ideas and the core basis is nothing
> > more
> > > than a sham.
> >
> >
> > As opposed to the sham that is known as Social
> > Security......
>
> Or the unconstitutional sham known as
> Obamacare......

How can you be against Obamacare but yet support the Republican ideal of Christianity? Or are the Christian views of the Republican party just a sham.

4Freedom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> How can you be against Obamacare but yet support
> the Republican ideal of Christianity? Or are the
> Christian views of the Republican party just a
> sham.


How is being for higher taxes on someone else a Christian value? How is asking the government to take of someone a Christian value? Both are liberal statist values. All hail the state! They will take care of us. Christian values are about what I do, or YOU do to help others, not what the state does or doesn't do. Your lack of understanding on what true Christians values are is typical of the left.

Poppin' Jay Fox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How is being for higher taxes on someone else a
> Christian value?

Christianity is all about taxes. What is a tithe if not a tax on church members?

> How is asking the government to
> take of someone a Christian value?

How is it not? As a Christian, why would you concern yourself with who it is that takes care of the needy, as long as they are cared for?

> Christian values are about what I do,
> or YOU do to help others, not what the
> state does or doesn't do.

Brother Santorum would vigorously disagree with you about that.

> Your lack of understanding on what true
> Christians values are is typical of the left.

Look in the mirror friend, ‘cause you don’t understand much about Christianity, either.

Theologian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Poppin' Jay Fox Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How is being for higher taxes on someone else a
> > Christian value?
>
> Christianity is all about taxes. What is a tithe
> if not a tax on church members?
>
> > How is asking the government to
> > take of someone a Christian value?
>
> How is it not? As a Christian, why would you
> concern yourself with who it is that takes care of
> the needy, as long as they are cared for?
>
> > Christian values are about what I do,
> > or YOU do to help others, not what the
> > state does or doesn't do.
>
> Brother Santorum would vigorously disagree with
> you about that.
>
> > Your lack of understanding on what true
> > Christians values are is typical of the left.
>
> Look in the mirror friend, ‘cause you don’t
> understand much about Christianity, either.


Wrong on all counts. Just another liberal trying to regergitate that which it can not comprehend. Thinking you're a Christian or promoting Christian values because the government is borrowing trillions of $$$$ a year is the hollow message of the left. The liberal's Godless mantra has come full circle. Obama and the state is your god. You worship with rabid fervor and attack to silence anyone who doesn't agree. Good luck with that comrade.

Poppin' Jay Fox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Theologian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Poppin' Jay Fox Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > How is being for higher taxes on someone else
> a
> > > Christian value?
> >
> > Christianity is all about taxes. What is a
> tithe
> > if not a tax on church members?
> >
> > > How is asking the government to
> > > take of someone a Christian value?
> >
> > How is it not? As a Christian, why would you
> > concern yourself with who it is that takes care
> of
> > the needy, as long as they are cared for?
> >
> > > Christian values are about what I do,
> > > or YOU do to help others, not what the
> > > state does or doesn't do.
> >
> > Brother Santorum would vigorously disagree with
> > you about that.
> >
> > > Your lack of understanding on what true
> > > Christians values are is typical of the left.
> >
> > Look in the mirror friend, ‘cause you don’t
> > understand much about Christianity, either.
>
>
> Wrong on all counts. Just another liberal trying
> to regergitate that which it can not comprehend.
> Thinking you're a Christian or promoting Christian
> values because the government is borrowing
> trillions of $$$$ a year is the hollow message of
> the left. The liberal's Godless mantra has come
> full circle. Obama and the state is your god.
> You worship with rabid fervor and attack to
> silence anyone who doesn't agree. Good luck with
> that comrade.

Nice attempt @ obfuscation, friend, but you fail to make a cogent argument in support of your jaundiced thesis. You are clearly incapable of anything beyond name-calling and parroting right-wing talking points.

It's time for your medication....

So now that the economy is improving and jobs are coming back the republican party is saving "God is at stake" in this election. YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!

What happened to the "Death Squads" that Palin, Rush and Beck were yelling about?

I want more! $4.00 gas, high unemployment, slow growth, 47 million food stamp recipients, $1.3 trillion deficit, $15.4 trillion debt, illegal immigrants, anemic housing market, unprecedented regulations, new record federal spending, incredible corruption, lower bond ratings, Jimmy Carter- type malaise, increasing medical costs, Michelle Obama nutrition lectures, Looney Supreme Court nominees, apologies for American excellence, union power, and continuous lefty protests. Yes, we need Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and four more years of El Exigente, Barack Hussein Obama, to continue in office!

Fucking liberals improving the economy and creating jobs just so Obama can get re-elected! Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama...

Libs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fucking liberals improving the economy and
> creating jobs just so Obama can get re-elected!
> Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama...


Only a fucking idiot would see 350,000 people losing their jobs and drawing unemployment benefits that we don't have as a good thing. And you are a fucking idiot.

Stupid liberal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libs Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fucking liberals improving the economy and
> > creating jobs just so Obama can get re-elected!
> > Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama...
>
>
> Only a fucking idiot would see 350,000 people
> losing their jobs and drawing unemployment
> benefits that we don't have as a good thing. And
> you are a fucking idiot.

What are you talking about??? The US economy ADDED 290,000 in January. The employment rate has also decreased and is the lowest in three years.

I want more! $4.00 gas, high unemployment, slow growth, 47 million food stamp recipients, $1.3 trillion deficit, $15.4 trillion debt, illegal immigrants, anemic housing market, unprecedented regulations, new record federal spending, incredible corruption, lower bond ratings, Jimmy Carter- type malaise, increasing medical costs, Michelle Obama nutrition lectures, Looney Supreme Court nominees, apologies for American excellence, union power, and continuous lefty protests. Yes, we need Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and four more years of El Exigente, Barack Hussein Obama, to continue in office!

Pancks(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I want more! $4.00 gas, high unemployment, slow
> growth, 47 million food stamp recipients, $1.3
> trillion deficit, $15.4 trillion debt, illegal
> immigrants, anemic housing market, unprecedented
> regulations, new record federal spending,
> incredible corruption, lower bond ratings, Jimmy
> Carter- type malaise, increasing medical costs,
> Michelle Obama nutrition lectures, Looney Supreme
> Court nominees, apologies for American excellence,
> union power, and continuous lefty protests. Yes,
> we need Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and four more
> years of El Exigente, Barack Hussein Obama, to
> continue in office!

You are adroit in your clever facetiousness sir! More so than I.

The economy doesn't matter. Obama will win because of the idiot republican candidates. Santorum and Romney??? What jokes.

Bob Dole is voting for Bob Dole.

Bob Dole Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Dole is voting for Bob Dole.

Wow, talk about having no life at all. Most useless post I've ever seen.

The clown car that is the GOP primaries keeps chugging along.

Meanwhile, 216K private sector jobs were added last month. Domestic oil output is the highest in eight years. The U.S. is producing so much natural gas that the government may approve an export terminal.

I wonder if President Obama's speechwriter has begun crafting his 2nd Inaugural Address yet?

<((((<>))))><((((<>))))><((((<>))))><((((<>))))><((((<>))))><((((<>))))>



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2012 12:40PM by Inquiring_Minds.

Sure as night follows day, food inflation will soon follow energy prices. My guess is that the prices will start to climb sharply in the middle of the year. As with crude oil, they fell off late last fall after the Fed paused the printing press. They tend to lag crude oil by six months or more.

Spike in Food Prices projected by 2013

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/spike-in-food-prices-projected-by-2013/

In 2008 and in 2011, the world was rocked by riots and by revolutions coinciding with spikes in food prices. Now researchers are projecting that by 2013, food prices will soar to unparalleled heights, causing widespread hunger in the most vulnerable populations and social unrest, with an enormous potential for loss of human life.

The computer modeling that generated the prediction of a food crisis was first published by the New England Complex Systems Institute in September. The modeling has gained considerable credibility by accurately predicting food prices over the last 10 months. The research indicates that the crucial factors behind food price increases are the conversion of corn crops to ethanol and investor speculation on the agricultural futures market.

Lefty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The economy doesn't matter. Obama will win
> because of the idiot republican candidates.
> Santorum and Romney??? What jokes.

The Republicans threatened to fire Bernanke. He's going to keep printing to keep his job. The Repubicans also just introduced a bill in Congress to restrict the Fed's purchases of assets.

Les Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lefty Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The economy doesn't matter. Obama will win
> > because of the idiot republican candidates.
> > Santorum and Romney??? What jokes.
>
> The Republicans threatened to fire Bernanke. He's
> going to keep printing to keep his job. The
> Repubicans also just introduced a bill in Congress
> to restrict the Fed's purchases of assets.

Let's face it. The only thing Republicans want to pass in Congress right now are abortion and banning gay marriage laws.

As of last week the Democrat party & Obama were vey noncommital on Gay Marriage part of their platform.

"On Wednesday morning, the chairman of the 2012 Democratic National Convention, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, called for the party's platform to push for the legalization of gay marriage. That's a position opposed by Obama -- though he's said his views on the issue are "evolving" -- and one that many Democrats ostensibly would not want to have highlighted a few months before the general election."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/07/news/la-pn-gay-marriage-platform-democrats-20120307

Lefty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Les Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lefty Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The economy doesn't matter. Obama will win
> > > because of the idiot republican candidates.
> > > Santorum and Romney??? What jokes.
> >
> > The Republicans threatened to fire Bernanke.
> He's
> > going to keep printing to keep his job. The
> > Repubicans also just introduced a bill in
> Congress
> > to restrict the Fed's purchases of assets.
>
> Let's face it. The only thing Republicans want to
> pass in Congress right now are abortion and
> banning gay marriage laws.


There have been exactly 2 abortion bills considered by the House this Congress. That is 2 out of 462 measures. Total debate time: 80 minutes out of THOUSANDS.

Keep beating that nonsense drum and I will keep beating you the way the GOP will beat the Dems in November. If the Dems are so poised to take it all, why is Obama too afraid to spread the wealth? Why'd he cut off the SDCC and the NDCC?

well? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Let's face it. The only thing Republicans want to
> > pass in Congress right now are abortion and
> > banning gay marriage laws.
>
> There have been exactly 2 abortion bills
> considered by the House this Congress. That is 2
> out of 462 measures. Total debate time: 80
> minutes out of THOUSANDS.

Perhaps what Lefty meant to point out are the 80+ anti-abortion bills passed or under consideration by GOP-controlled legislatures and Governors across the country.

> I will keep beating you the way the GOP will beat the Dems in
> November.

Thank you for injecting much levity into this discussion. You are so funny!

<((((<>))))><((((<>))))><((((<>))))><((((<>))))><((((<>))))><((((<>))))>

Inquiring_Minds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Let's face it. The only thing Republicans
> want to
> > > pass in Congress right now are abortion and
> > > banning gay marriage laws.
> >
> > There have been exactly 2 abortion bills
> > considered by the House this Congress. That is
> 2
> > out of 462 measures. Total debate time: 80
> > minutes out of THOUSANDS.
>
> Perhaps what Lefty meant to point out are the 80+
> anti-abortion bills passed or under consideration
> by GOP-controlled legislatures and Governors
> across the country.

Probably, but that lack of knowledge is representative of the vast brain dead left.

> > I will keep beating you the way the GOP will
> beat the Dems in
> > November.
>
> Thank you for injecting much levity into this
> discussion. You are so funny!

Levity? Too bad for you it is reality? Obama has hung the Congressional Dems out to dry. He is too worried about his own race.

well? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Levity?

Yes, as in; "It is truly amusing that you believe the disorganized, dysfunctional Imploding Party of No will beat anyone but themselves come November."

The Democratic Party will easily hold the White House & Senate, and will very likely regain the House.

<((((<>))))><((((<>))))><((((<>))))><((((<>))))><((((<>))))><((((<>))))>

Obama back to negative poll numbers sigh i guess america started thinking clearly again after the last 2 laughable tiny employment reports.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gas-prices-sink-obamas-ratings-on-economy-bring-parity-to-race-for-white-house/2012/03/11/gIQAuhYO6R_story.html

Voters Evenly Divided On Obama’s Handling of Economy

"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% of Likely U.S. Voters rate the president’s handling of economic issues as good or excellent, up two points from a month ago and his best showing since mid-February 2010. Forty-two percent (42%) still rate Obama’s performance in this area as poor, but that's the lowest level of criticism since last June."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/march_2012/voters_evenly_divided_on_obama_s_handling_of_economy

Says You Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voters Evenly Divided On Obama’s Handling of
> Economy
>
> "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey
> finds that 42% of Likely U.S. Voters rate the
> president’s handling of economic issues as good
> or excellent, up two points from a month ago and
> his best showing since mid-February 2010.
> Forty-two percent (42%) still rate Obama’s
> performance in this area as poor, but that's the
> lowest level of criticism since last June."
>
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol
> itics/obama_administration/march_2012/voters_evenl
> y_divided_on_obama_s_handling_of_economy

Rasmussen report? What is it?

ANOTHER DUMMY THREAD.

Inquiring_Minds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Democratic Party will easily hold the White
> House & Senate, and will very likely regain the
> House.

Yet can't break away in a single poll. Hmmm. Levity indeed!

well? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet can't break away in a single poll. Hmmm.
> Levity indeed!

National polls are meaningless. State polls are where it's at, but the Imploding Party of No can't seem to coalesce around a single terminally flawed candidate who'll lose to President Obama in November. Be patient.

Really Beautiful Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yet can't break away in a single poll. Hmmm.
> > Levity indeed!
>
> National polls are meaningless. State polls are
> where it's at,

Like in FL where Obama is behind both Romney and Santorum? Or North Carolina where it is a tie? Obama will not extend beyond his 2008 wins and will likely lose more states than he won then. Bet on it.

I'll game book it for you. Romney gets the nomination. Romney tries to avoid debating Obama. Obama and Romney do two debates in which Obama completely destroys Romney. In the debates Romney will choke on a lot of his famous "I'll bet you $10,000" or "I like firing people" type lines.

Romney and Santorum are not presidential material.

Game Book Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll game book it for you. Romney gets the
> nomination. Romney tries to avoid debating Obama.
> Obama and Romney do two debates in which Obama
> completely destroys Romney. In the debates Romney
> will choke on a lot of his famous "I'll bet you
> $10,000" or "I like firing people" type lines.
>
> Romney and Santorum are not presidential material.


Quite the little fantasy you got going on there. Silly kooky liberals and their fantasies. I bet the shellacking of aught 10 was a shock.

Periscope UP! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Game Book Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'll game book it for you. Romney gets the
> > nomination. Romney tries to avoid debating
> Obama.
> > Obama and Romney do two debates in which Obama
> > completely destroys Romney. In the debates
> Romney
> > will choke on a lot of his famous "I'll bet you
> > $10,000" or "I like firing people" type lines.
> >
> > Romney and Santorum are not presidential
> material.
>
>
> Quite the little fantasy you got going on there.
> Silly kooky liberals and their fantasies. I bet
> the shellacking of aught 10 was a shock.

I'll let you on a little secret. Gingrich doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting nominated to debate Obama.

Game Book Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll game book it for you.

Really, I just won.

> Romney gets the
> nomination.

Check.

> Romney tries to avoid debating Obama.

Tell me, are all Obama supporters this stupid? You act like this is up to Romney. I'll tell you more later and why you already lost and owe me.

> Obama and Romney do two debates

OK, here we are at another example of why you are in over your head and you really have no idea what you are talking about.

We have this thing called the Commission on Presidential Debates. The candidates don't agree on the location or format or even the number of debates. It is already established for them by the Commission.

http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=2012-2

You can thank me any time for schooling you here. I just made you less stupid completely gratis on my part.

> Romney and Santorum are not presidential material.

Obama is far from Presidential material yet he occupies the office. In your opinion, was George W. Bush Presidential material?

well? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Obama and Romney do two debates
>
> OK, here we are at another example of why you are
> in over your head and you really have no idea what
> you are talking about.
>
> We have this thing called the Commission on
> Presidential Debates. The candidates don't agree
> on the location or format or even the number of
> debates. It is already established for them by
> the Commission.
>
> http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=2012-2
>
> You can thank me any time for schooling you here.
> I just made you less stupid completely gratis on
> my part.

Bwahahahahahahah. This must be amateur hour at the DNC. Obama supporters must be the most clueless people in America. How can you pretend to know a damn thing about politics, campaigns and elections and not know a damn thing about the Commission on Presidential Debates.

So, does this braindead moron have the balls to come back here and post in this thread. Not likely. That, you can take to the bank!

Ok so there will be three debates where Obama wipes the floor with Romney. Just makes Obama's election easier.

For the record, neither candidate has to attend a presidential debate. There is no law or are debates in the constitutions. Debates are attended as a matter of protocol.

Game Book Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok so there will be three debates where Obama
> wipes the floor with Romney. Just makes Obama's
> election easier.

I will simply get drunk playing the drink everytime Obama says "uhh" game. Obama barely came off better against a decrepit and inept McCain. What does that tell you?

> For the record, neither candidate has to attend a
> presidential debate. There is no law or are
> debates in the constitutions. Debates are
> attended as a matter of protocol.

And there is not law about political parties in the constitution. Oh, you are trying to somehow salvage your stupid statement above. Your attempt to make yourself look better will be marked as a failure, just as your assertion about two debates. Look, you clearly don't have the knowledge to compete here.

The above poster must be right - amateur hour at the DNC. LOL.

well? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Game Book Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ok so there will be three debates where Obama
> > wipes the floor with Romney. Just makes
> Obama's
> > election easier.
>
> I will simply get drunk playing the drink
> everytime Obama says "uhh" game. Obama barely
> came off better against a decrepit and inept
> McCain. What does that tell you?
>
> > For the record, neither candidate has to attend
> a
> > presidential debate. There is no law or are
> > debates in the constitutions. Debates are
> > attended as a matter of protocol.
>
> And there is not law about political parties in
> the constitution. Oh, you are trying to somehow
> salvage your stupid statement above. Your attempt
> to make yourself look better will be marked as a
> failure, just as your assertion about two debates.
> Look, you clearly don't have the knowledge to
> compete here.
>
> The above poster must be right - amateur hour at
> the DNC. LOL.

Sounds like you are already drunk.

Wow, this well?/Gambling Man/Periscope UP! poster is one petty little troll.

So bereft of self-esteem that s/he must post gratuitous insults on FFU and demeaning other posters in a pathetic quest for edification.

You are to be pitied.

Petty Little Troll Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, this well?/Gambling Man/Periscope UP! poster
> is one petty little troll.
>
> So bereft of self-esteem that s/he must post
> gratuitous insults on FFU and demeaning other
> posters in a pathetic quest for edification.
>
> You are to be pitied.


Aww, did I embarrass you? Or, maybe you are ashamed one of your fellow Obama supporters comes off as so uninformed?

I actually pity the man that opens his mouth without even having a basic understanding of the facts. I think you (Petty Little Troll aka Game Book) know who I am talking about.

Game Book Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Game Book Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Ok so there will be three debates where Obama
> > > wipes the floor with Romney. Just makes
> > Obama's
> > > election easier.
> >
> > I will simply get drunk playing the drink
> > everytime Obama says "uhh" game. Obama barely
> > came off better against a decrepit and inept
> > McCain. What does that tell you?
> >
> > > For the record, neither candidate has to
> attend
> > a
> > > presidential debate. There is no law or are
> > > debates in the constitutions. Debates are
> > > attended as a matter of protocol.
> >
> > And there is not law about political parties in
> > the constitution. Oh, you are trying to
> somehow
> > salvage your stupid statement above. Your
> attempt
> > to make yourself look better will be marked as
> a
> > failure, just as your assertion about two
> debates.
> > Look, you clearly don't have the knowledge to
> > compete here.
> >
> > The above poster must be right - amateur hour
> at
> > the DNC. LOL.
>
> Sounds like you are already drunk.


Aww man, did I miss an Obama statement where he umm's and uhh'd his way through it? I am sure there will be more.

Don't worry, I am sure you drank enough of the Obama Flavor Aid to be drunk for the both of us!

None of the above.

I just call out pusillanimous pissants like you when I encounter them.

well? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Petty Little Troll Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wow, this well?/Gambling Man/Periscope UP!
> poster
> > is one petty little troll.
> >
> > So bereft of self-esteem that s/he must post
> > gratuitous insults on FFU and demeaning other
> > posters in a pathetic quest for edification.
> >
> > You are to be pitied.
>
>
> Aww, did I embarrass you? Or, maybe you are
> ashamed one of your fellow Obama supporters comes
> off as so uninformed?
>
> I actually pity the man that opens his mouth
> without even having a basic understanding of the
> facts. I think you (Petty Little Troll aka Game
> Book) know who I am talking about.

well?,

LOL, wrong!

Petty Little Troll Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> None of the above.
>
> I just call out pusillanimous pissants like you
> when I encounter them.


Pusillanimous? Says the coward who can't back his stuff up without changing his name? Hint: Wait more than two minutes between making posts with different names.

Do you want me to apologize to you for making fun of your amateurish political ramblings? Will that stop you from whining? Also, just because I made fun of your lack of knowledge does not mean you can somehow rehabilitate yourself with your fifty cent SAT words. Your lack of intellect has been exposed and it is too late to rectify that.

Game Book Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Petty Little Troll Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Wow, this well?/Gambling Man/Periscope UP!
> > poster
> > > is one petty little troll.
> > >
> > > So bereft of self-esteem that s/he must post
> > > gratuitous insults on FFU and demeaning other
> > > posters in a pathetic quest for edification.
> > >
> > > You are to be pitied.
> >
> >
> > Aww, did I embarrass you? Or, maybe you are
> > ashamed one of your fellow Obama supporters
> comes
> > off as so uninformed?
> >
> > I actually pity the man that opens his mouth
> > without even having a basic understanding of
> the
> > facts. I think you (Petty Little Troll aka
> Game
> > Book) know who I am talking about.
>
> well?,
>
> LOL, wrong!


What pains you the most is that you know I have been correct all along.

well? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Game Book Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > well? Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Petty Little Troll Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Wow, this well?/Gambling Man/Periscope UP!
> > > poster
> > > > is one petty little troll.
> > > >
> > > > So bereft of self-esteem that s/he must
> post
> > > > gratuitous insults on FFU and demeaning
> other
> > > > posters in a pathetic quest for
> edification.
> > > >
> > > > You are to be pitied.
> > >
> > >
> > > Aww, did I embarrass you? Or, maybe you are
> > > ashamed one of your fellow Obama supporters
> > comes
> > > off as so uninformed?
> > >
> > > I actually pity the man that opens his mouth
> > > without even having a basic understanding of
> > the
> > > facts. I think you (Petty Little Troll aka
> > Game
> > > Book) know who I am talking about.
> >
> > well?,
> >
> > LOL, wrong!
>
>
> What pains you the most is that you know I have
> been correct all along.

I hate to break it to you well?, but first off I have no clue who "Petty Little Troll" is. I am sure, however, that Petty Little Troll is getting a good laugh out your comments knowing you are completely wrong.

Game Book Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Game Book Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > well? Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Petty Little Troll Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Wow, this well?/Gambling Man/Periscope
> UP!
> > > > poster
> > > > > is one petty little troll.
> > > > >
> > > > > So bereft of self-esteem that s/he must
> > post
> > > > > gratuitous insults on FFU and demeaning
> > other
> > > > > posters in a pathetic quest for
> > edification.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are to be pitied.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Aww, did I embarrass you? Or, maybe you
> are
> > > > ashamed one of your fellow Obama supporters
> > > comes
> > > > off as so uninformed?
> > > >
> > > > I actually pity the man that opens his
> mouth
> > > > without even having a basic understanding
> of
> > > the
> > > > facts. I think you (Petty Little Troll aka
> > > Game
> > > > Book) know who I am talking about.
> > >
> > > well?,
> > >
> > > LOL, wrong!
> >
> >
> > What pains you the most is that you know I have
> > been correct all along.
>
> I hate to break it to you well?, but first off I
> have no clue who "Petty Little Troll" is. I am
> sure, however, that Petty Little Troll is getting
> a good laugh out your comments knowing you are
> completely wrong.


Oh, you want to play that game. Petty Little Troll confirmation post in 3....2....1......

So, does Petty Little Troll know how many Presidential debates the Commission sets?

Game Book Wrote:

> I hate to break it to you well?, but first off I
> have no clue who "Petty Little Troll" is. I am
> sure, however, that Petty Little Troll is getting
> a good laugh out your comments knowing you are
> completely wrong.


And I hate to break it to you GB, but I'm not gambling man or well. So it appears there's plenty of wrong coming out of your keyboard. Carry on.....

I don't time to wait around for Pretty Little Troll to post again. I have things I need to get done before 5pm. I'll check back in a little while.