Thinking of Voting Democrat in November

there are ways to comply with or get around existing regs. "Not that I've heard of. Why would they. The perfect cop-out." "the costs of those new refineries would be paid for by the consumer" "What a boost to the economy that would be!"

Cro-Mag I don't see where you have time to work in construction as closely as you follow the laws, regulations, development costs, investment loaning procedures, zoning and restriction of oil refineries. The fact is that you don't know what you're talking about. You're guessing and fudging facts everwhere else to hymm the story together... just like a Kennedy.

Are you insinuating that this USA oil refinery would be able to get around the law? Not on greenpeaces watch! On top of that the "not in my neighborhood" theory would make it very difficult to build this thing in a strategic location. Then you have the "Terrorism Target" and "Five Mile Island" theories... then people get cancer and sue the government... on and on and on. Its not all peach's and cream like you think it is. I don't even know where-else to start nitpicking that post apart and my hands are tired... if your going to bash on Bush in a sportsmens website use your head and do your research! Otherwise have your wife tell you to shut up for me.
 
JRB, Bud had it right, you are an A$$. As the latest Johnny come lately, you sure do stir alot of s#!t. Instead of telling members that have been here much longer than yourself and contribute much more to this site than you have so far that they should leave, maybe you should be rethinking YOUR membership here and find yourself a more suitable place to hang out. I'm sure there are other sites that would welcome your keen insight into world events and what is and is not the RIGHT way to think and act.

And by the way, whether it's the enviro-nuts or the right wing religious fanatics, every movement has a lunatic fringe that doesn't know when to say " I think we've gone a little too far". If the oil industry was a little more environmentally responsible in the way they operated, maybe we wouldn't be spending billions on cleaning up "super fund" sites. As a "SPORTSMAN" you TOO should be concerned about your environment. GET IT?
 
My little tirade /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif was not directed at you personally Cro, your post was just the last straw that set me off. The crappy gas prices have the anti-capitalist tone showing up in post after post. Sometimes I get tired of people thinking if something in this world sucks it means there is a group of cigar sucking execs in a board room sitting around plotting against them. Then comes the general class envy, punish the wealthy, the demand for redistribution of wealth etc. etc. I think this is the stuff of our downfall as is the natural course of a human democracy.

Not that collusion is never a problem. Like I said above the place to look is in the development costs of refining capacity. Maybe production IS being used as an indirect way to fix prices. I don't know. It should be obvious to some bean counter-geek at FTC. I'll tell you this, if the oil companies are in cahoots to sandbag the addition of refining capacity they are certainly not being very stealthy about their scam. We just went up about another 20 cents.! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

I don't pretend to know how long it takes to see a return from a new refinery. I can only imagine the politics, the permitting, the feasibility studies, it probably takes years just to break ground. And I don't plan to research it long enough to know. That's why I put little qualifiers in my posts like:

"Tell me they are lying about not being able to build more refining capacity and I'll show you illegal collusion"

But I know enough not to doubt it too hard. For instance, in Michigan where I grew up there's a big push to Declare ALL oil drilling under Lake Michigan off limits forever. This is not platform drilling, they took that off the table years ago, we're talking horizontal drilling from oil fields well away from the shoreline. The basis is pollution at the oilfields and associate refineries and pipelines. Regular oilfields are allowed, but these are associated with the words "Lake Michigan" so they don't want it done. Part of the problem is the crappy job MDEQ does enforcing the drill site cleanups. So what we have is people wanting the government to forbid drilling forever, because the government is doing a crappy job of regulation enforcement. What???? There are probably whole counties or Municipalities that have outright banned the possibility of a refinery forever.

I just seem to see lots of posts by people who KNOW the oil companies are screwing them and your post seemed to have that tone. Usually this stuff comes from liberals who ASSume that ALL business is evil.

Gawdamm JRB's Outta control!!!!! Downboy!!!! :eek:
 
JRB, I've been hunting and fishing for over 40 years, served our country as a US Marine for over 20 of those years. I spend about 3 days a week on average hunting and fishing now that I retired, (going to be 50 this year and it seemed like the time to have some fun for a change). I consider myself a conservative independant voter.

I don't think PETA would have me.

The beauty of a Discussion forum is that people can have differing views, and discuss them civily. If you want every one to be on your side and agree with you all the time, if you allow no rebutal, then you wont have a discussion forum, you'll have a pulpit. Or maybe a dictatorship. I don't mind you disagreeing with me. I stood ready for over 20 years to defend your right to express your opinion, so go for it. One thing however, if you attack the person instead of the idea, your argument loses weight and credability. We don't have to agree, we don't even have to be friends, but we do have to be civil and respectful of each other.
 
Weedwacker,

No prob. on this end. I was simply pointing out some of the things I have been mulling over and was just throwing out a few ideas to see what others thought.

jrb, :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Impressive resume HuntedOne. I never said "my way or the highway" I said tossing out unfounded claims about Bush, or Republicans in general, would be better suited and better recieved on those other websites... unless you are just instigating or just that confused.

I can't believe that someone would have the audacity to try and tie the current gas prices directly to the president. No matter who it is, even if it was an environmental hippy democrat that was sitting as president, I wouldn't be pointing the finger at him as much as the Congress & EPA & Past administrations! To compare Bush's campaign contributions to oil prices?!?!?! WHAT!!! Thats probably one of the lowest income total the campaign has seen in months; it gets higher is when the stock market picks up week to week because investors and companies feel safe under republican leadership!

Geeze, the reason I snapped off on you guys is because the BS is getting too deep in here. You throw out a lot of unfounded stuff then expect only respect and dignity in return... all the while you defame a president that we need re-elected DESPERATLY. Thats the thing that irritates me about Democrats, they never argue with facts, they argue with emotion! If you want to slam on Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens with half hazard facts, thats fine, I just think the PRESIDENT deserves better. I belong to several political debate forums... they are full of helpless liberalist points of view... its usually hard to find them here on hunting or racing websites!

I apologize to anyone that got their feelings hurt, it just really pains me to see people who should be supportive of the cause are so confused and bitter about our canidate. I see I told someone to shut up... I apologize for that but (I THINK) I stand be everything else I said.
 
jbhunter: in 2001 Bush tried to tie that gas crisis to Clinton /Gore.He said Clinton/Gore was in bed with big oil.He said alot of things just to get where he is.Kerry will say alot of things to try and get him there..It's our unpleasant job to sift through all the BS and vote according to there records, not there lip squeak.
 
Wasn't Bush already in office in 2001? How could he be accusing Clinton/Gore of being in bed with big oil to get into office if he already won? George Bush whose the left's annointed Big Oil badman went and accused Clinton and Gore of being in bed with big oil???? Are you sure? Are you talking about Gore's ties to Occidental?
 
Democrats crawl in bed with big business all the while pretending to care about the Average Joe and gets a free pass...... that's our "TAS" for you!! (biased media/shill for the Democratic Party)

Giving it some thought ..... I think an apt name for ABC, NBC, and SeeBS is "USTAS" a US equivalent of TAS, the old "news agency" (Propaganda Department for the old Soviet Union)!!

USTAS ... works for me!!

Clinton/Gore 96 got a whole floor of the ARCO Tower ........ that's in bed with big oil.

Bush tried to open ANWAR and the Dems and a few cross over weanny Republican Senators voted it down in the Senate....... that's trying to increase supply...... SUPPLY and DEMAND ....... fools call it crap but when the "store is empty" ....... "you aint' got none"!!! Prices will skyrocket!! AND THEY ARE!!

Gore has/had stock in Occidental Petroleum...... and I got no bitches on that, but don't do all this pretending........and finger pointing....

Clinton gave ARCO a fat deal in China....... God only knows what Gore did for Occidental ....

It just so happens that China is buying oil..... and building materials like there is "no tommorow".

Now, if Clinton had not unleashed ARCO, maybe that demand would not be met and oil and refined products would be cheaper today since China could still be searching for a qualified company to carry "their pail of oil! Hmmmm?????

BUT, Bush is in bed with BIG OIL?? And not the Democrats???

That's the brain fart of the century!! ...... Ranks right up there with "what is the government going to do for me today"!!

PS: Clinton VETOED ANWAR ...... !

Mark
 
Weedwacker, I stand corrected,it was 2000, and this is what Bush said( sounds almost exactly like Kerry today)" My opponent is giving major oil companies a huge tax break.".." What I think the president ought to do is get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we exspect you to open your spigots."Nor should domestic price gougers consider themselves safe from presidential
retaliation"And in fact if there is collusion amomgst big oil [The President]ought to intercede there as well"
 
Hey jrb, this is an excerpt from the AOL newsite today. "Bush Hails Job Growth In Key Election States.

"On another economic issue, Bush responded to criticism that his administration is not doing enough to ease gasoline prices, which have surged to an average of more than $2 a gallon. Bush noted three steps Washington was taking to address the high prices."

"To protect consumers against high prices, he said, the Energy Department had set up a hotline to gather complaints of price gouging. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is meeting with world petroleum producers in Amsterdam this weekend to discuss what they can do to help the U.S. and global economy. Third, Bush said, federal regulations have been changed to allow American refineries to improve and expand so that gasoline can get to the market quickly."

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/article.adp?id=20040522102209990003

My quote: The basic point I am making is that there are ways to comply with or get around existing regs. Yes, it may cost a few bucks but it can be done.

I call that effecting change. You did see where I extrapolated that further down in my post?

My quote: Are oil companies willing to spend the time and money to try to comply with or change said regs. so new refineries can be built? Not that I've heard of.

Strange how one of the most powerful lobby groups in the world can't get things done but it looks like Pres. Bush is going to try to make things happen in a hurry. Now if he would just set his sights on ANWR.

Your quote: Are you insinuating that this USA oil refinery would be able to get around the law?

I don't recall making any statements that stated getting around the law. Effect change! See above.

Your quote: The fact is that you don't know what you're talking about. You're guessing and fudging facts everwhere else to hymm the story together... just like a Kennedy.

Isn't it a wonderful thing when everything comes together at the right time. Even though no fingers point at the oil companies I still find that the lack of effort on their part speaks for itself. And as far as being compared to that rat Kennedy, that was just sad on your part. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Your quote: if your going to bash on Bush in a sportsmens website use your head and do your research! Otherwise have your wife tell you to shut up for me.

I don't see anywhere in my posts where I bashed the Pres. of these United States at all. I'm an ardent supporter. Looks like my head was seeing a few things that others may not have.

Oh, and by the way. I saw your apology about telling someone to shut up. That was me. Tempers flare from frustration. Nothing personal. But I was amazed to see this little excerpt that tends to re-inforce the points that I was trying to make.

So I will call this my attempt to put up, not shut up. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Cro-mag
 
In myy opinion... if I'm hunting and I forget my orange in the truck but still want to hunt & need to "Get Around" laws... as you said... I would hunt that one time without orange and try to remember next time. THATS what I understood "Get Around" to mean, apparenlty you mean rewriting laws and regulation? I guess that was the misunderstanding... those oil refineries are going to have to walk the line! Thats for sure!
 
TAC: I'm not sure if you were refuting or backing up my skepticism with that link. That article pointed out the FAR LEFT'S accusations of Gore's ties to the Elk Hills sale. There's nothing from the Bush administration or the right in there. MO if you remember Bush saying that during the campaign I believe you. It has a ring of empty politics to it and is in keeping with some of the things Bush has done that have pissed so many of us on the right off. But, here's the difference as I see it.

Bush while trying to get elected spouts off about how the dems should tell the arabs to open up the spigot. He got into office, he called the arabs and said open up the spigot (as every president does) and the left goes and trumps up a big effort to paint it as a conspiracy to arrange a fall in gas prices timed just before the election as a trick to hold power. The press lapped it up.

If you guys are trying to make the point that both sides are exactly the same, you need to picture the firestorm and media buzz that would have ensued if Bush had been tied to the Elk Hills sale in the same way Gore was. It would have been world wide, front page, day after day after day,........... day in, day out.........
 
A good example of that double standard from the media is coming up when John Kerry will delay the acception of the party nomination in order to milk money from special interest groups for an extra 30 days. What would happen if a Republican did that? We all know it would be front page news for that thirty days and there would be a dollar counter ticking at the bottom of every news cast until he accepted the nomination.... lets see what happens when Kerry does it. I'm sure some soldier will fall out of his HumVee, break his big toe and deserve front page news over this Kerry controversy.
 
Weedwacker,

Like you, I didn’t remember there being a oil crisis leading up to the 2000 elections or Bush criticizing gore about being in bed with big oil (claims now being leveled at him).

I did a search and could not find any references to Mo’s claim. However I did find the article that I posted where the lefty radicals were upset with Gores connection to Elk Hills and Occidental during the 2000 election.

I was teasing you facetiously being a stickler on facts… since you were correct.
 
More than one person has noted that no new refineries have been built in the last ~30 years because all the permits/fines/greenpeace/treehuggers/EPA/etc. preclude the venture from being cost effective for the oil companies.

Now at the same time, most oil companies realized the most profitable 1st quarter that has been experienced in 10-13 years... and their product is selling for 100% more than it did 3 years ago. I do have a picture of a gas station placard that reads "Regular unleaded, 87-octane, $0.989". I took that picture in January of 2002.

How can a refinery not be cost effective when the gas is selling for $2.199/gal?

My guess is that the oil companies don't want to risk compromising the record profits they're getting, because it wouldn't be "cost-effective" to lower the price of gasoline.
:rolleyes:

Presidential matters aside... Who HONESTLY doesn't think we're getting hosed?
 
In 2000, while Clinton was president and the primaries were on, the typical spring price hikes hit. They were bigger than they had been in the past, and were heard pretty much the same things then that we are now.

The president should open the reserves to lower prices. It won't do that, but people think it will so it makes great political grandstanding. At the time, sKerry correctly stated that doing so was not the right thing to do. Now he stands silent while those on his side make that demand of Bush.

It's a conspiracy, the oil companies are making record profits, the gas stations are profiteering, etc.

And like every other year, at the end of summer, the special blend mandates ended for winter, peak driving dropped off, and pump prices dropped.

There is nothing new under the sun in all this. Only the names of the players have changed.
 
I honestly do not have a problem paying more for gasoline, sure I wish it were cheaper but I understand the reasons behind it and I don't lose sleep because oil exec's are getting richer.

I know some people in here shrugged off the FACTS that were mentioned about the rate of inflation being routed AROUND the gasoline prices to protect the innocent consumers. Gasoline and milk prices are up but are not up to an equivelant standard with our cars or cereal.

I have no problem with capatilism, democracy or earning everything I have. I don't expect anyone to take care of me because the gas prices are up; I'll remain in the same social/economic bracket I'm in because EVERYONE has to buy gas.... its not that big of deal but the liberals have made a huge issue out of it so here we are. It will all come out in the wash by November, partially because of the summer blends ending, partially because of politics coming to a head and partially because babies tend to cry themselves to sleep.

Sorry in advance if that offends anyone but I just wanted to seperate myself from the "sky is falling" arguments about gas prices.
 
Gas prices, shmas prices. If you want to vote for Kerry do it for the right reason.......

Because he has a slinky lil daughter /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
NYHETER-17s29-kerry-3_368[1].jpg


Dad must be sooooo proud!!!!!!
 
Back
Top