Conserve Energy

From : fclaugus

Q: i agree with those who said that boycotting will never work and it will not influence the price of gas not even one cent. we should instead conserve more gas. we can live closer to work walk to work use public transportation buy a smaller vehicle drive slower ride a bike ... etc. if you can afford to drive your suv 20 miles to work every day you have nothing to worry about. however those of us who cant afford to do so are probably wishing you werent hogging all the gas so to speak. therefore get a place closer to work and start thinking about what you are going to do when gas hits $10 a gallon. im sure you want be driving 20 miles to work then it would make no sense. we need to wake up and get ready for the future of even higher energy costs and do whatever we can now to be ready. fred .

Replies:

From : tbone

lol and our current president isnt even good at that. ratings show far more than you care to admit to but i can see why you would want to deny it. typical liberal. tout polls only when they agree with your views. typical conservative deny their value when they dont agree with your views. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote typical conservative deny their value when they dont agree with your views. difference between you and me. i deny their value either way. you accept their value only one way. .

From : napalmheart

john graesser wrote i guarantee there is a point where you would definately consider moving closer to work. maby not $10 a gallon but maby $20 or $30. everyone has a price so to speak. i was only saying that more people should prepare themselves for higher energy costs instead of just complaining about them. you cant expect our oil supply to last forever. we are already on the downward spiral back in the 1970s was when they started finding less and less new oil deposits each year. once the current oil is gone there isnt enough new oil being found just to maintain current demand. synthetic oil cant replace the vast amounts of oil being burned it hardly could cover the lubrication needs of the world. all those $300000 dollar houses that are 20 miles from anywhere will be worthless in 20-30 years since nobody will have the fuel to get to them. there is no shortage of oil just a limited amount of cheap oil. canada is now beginning to produce significant oil supplies from shale rock deposits. with the increase in oil prices this source now becomes viable. i believe they estimate colorado alone has 8x the oil as saudi arabia. this may be so but there definately is a shortage of refineries. we havent built one in the us for 30 years thanks to those damn greens... jk ... too many damn regulations not to mention the expense. but they have been expanding existing refineries. the major problems are market uncertainty and greatly increased demand from india and china. napalmheart this is not a collectivist myth; but a truth. trust me on this one; i know. you are right about refineries being expanded. not only expanded but modernized. not only modernized but much more effient and enviromentally friendly to a degree. that degree being that the refineries can up their capacity by being less enviromentally friendly just by the flick of a switch. next time we should not elect politicians who make money in the oil business and use oil executives to draft energy policies. why should i trust someone that cant recognize a collectivist myth for what it is who should we elect those who would have us bend to the will of the un and their socialist fellow travelers .

From : tbone

john graesser wrote i guarantee there is a point where you would definately consider moving closer to work. maby not $10 a gallon but maby $20 or $30. everyone has a price so to speak. i was only saying that more people should prepare themselves for higher energy costs instead of just complaining about them. you cant expect our oil supply to last forever. we are already on the downward spiral back in the 1970s was when they started finding less and less new oil deposits each year. once the current oil is gone there isnt enough new oil being found just to maintain current demand. synthetic oil cant replace the vast amounts of oil being burned it hardly could cover the lubrication needs of the world. all those $300000 dollar houses that are 20 miles from anywhere will be worthless in 20-30 years since nobody will have the fuel to get to them. there is no shortage of oil just a limited amount of cheap oil. canada is now beginning to produce significant oil supplies from shale rock deposits. with the increase in oil prices this source now becomes viable. i believe they estimate colorado alone has 8x the oil as saudi arabia. this may be so but there definately is a shortage of refineries. we havent built one in the us for 30 years thanks to those damn greens... jk .... too many damn regulations not to mention the expense. but they have been expanding existing refineries. the major problems are market uncertainty and greatly increased demand from india and china. napalmheart this is not a collectivist myth; but a truth. trust me on this one; i know. you are right about refineries being expanded. not only expanded but modernized. not only modernized but much more effient and enviromentally friendly to a degree. that degree being that the refineries can up their capacity by being less enviromentally friendly just by the flick of a switch. next time we should not elect politicians who make money in the oil business and use oil executives to draft energy policies. why should i trust someone that cant recognize a collectivist myth for what it is who should we elect those who would have us bend to the will of the un and their socialist fellow travelers oh i see so instead we should elect another war monger retard and get a few thousand more of our fine young men and women killed for no valid reason at all. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : napalmheart

john graesser wrote i guarantee there is a point where you would definately consider moving closer to work. maby not $10 a gallon but maby $20 or $30. everyone has a price so to speak. i was only saying that more people should prepare themselves for higher energy costs instead of just complaining about them. you cant expect our oil supply to last forever. we are already on the downward spiral back in the 1970s was when they started finding less and less new oil deposits each year. once the current oil is gone there isnt enough new oil being found just to maintain current demand. synthetic oil cant replace the vast amounts of oil being burned it hardly could cover the lubrication needs of the world. all those $300000 dollar houses that are 20 miles from anywhere will be worthless in 20-30 years since nobody will have the fuel to get to them. there is no shortage of oil just a limited amount of cheap oil. canada is now beginning to produce significant oil supplies from shale rock deposits. with the increase in oil prices this source now becomes viable. i believe they estimate colorado alone has 8x the oil as saudi arabia. this may be so but there definately is a shortage of refineries. we havent built one in the us for 30 years thanks to those damn greens... jk ... too many damn regulations not to mention the expense. but they have been expanding existing refineries. the major problems are market uncertainty and greatly increased demand from india and china. napalmheart this is not a collectivist myth; but a truth. trust me on this one; i know. you are right about refineries being expanded. not only expanded but modernized. not only modernized but much more effient and enviromentally friendly to a degree. that degree being that the refineries can up their capacity by being less enviromentally friendly just by the flick of a switch. next time we should not elect politicians who make money in the oil business and use oil executives to draft energy policies. why should i trust someone that cant recognize a collectivist myth for what it is who should we elect those who would have us bend to the will of the un and their socialist fellow travelers oh i see so instead we should elect another war monger retard and get a few thousand more of our fine young men and women killed for no valid reason at all. the messes of the last 25 years have to be cleaned up. thats whats happening now. .

From : tbone

john graesser wrote i guarantee there is a point where you would definately consider moving closer to work. maby not $10 a gallon but maby $20 or $30. everyone has a price so to speak. i was only saying that more people should prepare themselves for higher energy costs instead of just complaining about them. you cant expect our oil supply to last forever. we are already on the downward spiral back in the 1970s was when they started finding less and less new oil deposits each year. once the current oil is gone there isnt enough new oil being found just to maintain current demand. synthetic oil cant replace the vast amounts of oil being burned it hardly could cover the lubrication needs of the world. all those $300000 dollar houses that are 20 miles from anywhere will be worthless in 20-30 years since nobody will have the fuel to get to them. there is no shortage of oil just a limited amount of cheap oil. canada is now beginning to produce significant oil supplies from shale rock deposits. with the increase in oil prices this source now becomes viable. i believe they estimate colorado alone has 8x the oil as saudi arabia. this may be so but there definately is a shortage of refineries. we havent built one in the us for 30 years thanks to those damn greens... jk ... too many damn regulations not to mention the expense. but they have been expanding existing refineries. the major problems are market uncertainty and greatly increased demand from india and china. napalmheart this is not a collectivist myth; but a truth. trust me on this one; i know. you are right about refineries being expanded. not only expanded but modernized. not only modernized but much more effient and enviromentally friendly to a degree. that degree being that the refineries can up their capacity by being less enviromentally friendly just by the flick of a switch. next time we should not elect politicians who make money in the oil business and use oil executives to draft energy policies. why should i trust someone that cant recognize a collectivist myth for what it is who should we elect those who would have us bend to the will of the un and their socialist fellow travelers oh i see so instead we should elect another war monger retard and get a few thousand more of our fine young men and women killed for no valid reason at all. the messes of the last 25 years have to be cleaned up. thats whats happening now. if you truly believe that then i feel sorry for you. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : napalmheart

john graesser wrote i guarantee there is a point where you would definately consider moving closer to work. maby not $10 a gallon but maby $20 or $30. everyone has a price so to speak. i was only saying that more people should prepare themselves for higher energy costs instead of just complaining about them. you cant expect our oil supply to last forever. we are already on the downward spiral back in the 1970s was when they started finding less and less new oil deposits each year. once the current oil is gone there isnt enough new oil being found just to maintain current demand. synthetic oil cant replace the vast amounts of oil being burned it hardly could cover the lubrication needs of the world. all those $300000 dollar houses that are 20 miles from anywhere will be worthless in 20-30 years since nobody will have the fuel to get to them. there is no shortage of oil just a limited amount of cheap oil. canada is now beginning to produce significant oil supplies from shale rock deposits. with the increase in oil prices this source now becomes viable. i believe they estimate colorado alone has 8x the oil as saudi arabia. this may be so but there definately is a shortage of refineries. we havent built one in the us for 30 years thanks to those damn greens... jk ... too many damn regulations not to mention the expense. but they have been expanding existing refineries. the major problems are market uncertainty and greatly increased demand from india and china. napalmheart this is not a collectivist myth; but a truth. trust me on this one; i know. you are right about refineries being expanded. not only expanded but modernized. not only modernized but much more effient and enviromentally friendly to a degree. that degree being that the refineries can up their capacity by being less enviromentally friendly just by the flick of a switch. next time we should not elect politicians who make money in the oil business and use oil executives to draft energy policies. why should i trust someone that cant recognize a collectivist myth for what it is who should we elect those who would have us bend to the will of the un and their socialist fellow travelers oh i see so instead we should elect another war monger retard and get a few thousand more of our fine young men and women killed for no valid reason at all. the messes of the last 25 years have to be cleaned up. thats whats happening now. if you truly believe that then i feel sorry for you. if you truly believe that the immediate past president did a good job and the current president is a retard i feel sorry for you. .

From : tbone

the messes of the last 25 years have to be cleaned up. thats whats happening now. if you truly believe that then i feel sorry for you. if you truly believe that the immediate past president did a good job and the current president is a retard i feel sorry for you. clinton did do a good job but feel free and attempt to prove me wrong. as for our current president all you have to do is listen to him speak to see what he is and his current approval ratings say it all. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : eugene nine

tbone wrote the messes of the last 25 years have to be cleaned up. thats whats happening now. if you truly believe that then i feel sorry for you. if you truly believe that the immediate past president did a good job and the current president is a retard i feel sorry for you. clinton did do a good job ... high approval doesnt mean good job that means good acting. .

From : miles

tbone wrote clinton did do a good job but feel free and attempt to prove me wrong. clinton already proved it. as for our current president all you have to do is listen to him speak to see what he is and his current approval ratings say it all. i listed to clinton for 8 years. i saw what he was and good riddance. ratings only show how good a politician can bs with a smile. clinton was a master at saying what people wanted to hear even if it meant telling a different story to different crowds. .

From : napalmheart

tbone wrote clinton did do a good job but feel free and attempt to prove me wrong. clinton already proved it. as for our current president all you have to do is listen to him speak to see what he is and his current approval ratings say it all. i listed to clinton for 8 years. i saw what he was and good riddance. ratings only show how good a politician can bs with a smile. clinton was a master at saying what people wanted to hear even if it meant telling a different story to different crowds. excellent post. clinton was a phony. he acted like he knew what he was doing and took credit for things he didnt deserve to while not getting blame where he should have. .

From : js

stephen harding wrote you may not like the direction dubya is leading but irrespective of polls he is leading whereas clinton never did choosing instead it seems to follow poll numbers. yeah quite a democratic concept. i have a suggestion fight terrorism fear - commit suicide. js .

From : stephen harding

tbone wrote clinton did do a good job but feel free and attempt to prove me wrong. as for our current president all you have to do is listen to him speak to see what he is and his current approval ratings say it all. ngs trimmed clinton didnt have much challenges. he was the first president since fdr that didnt have to fight the cold war and he chose to ignore the rise of terrorism. his policies toward the new no-communist russia represents perhaps the biggest us foreign policy failure of the 20th century. granted his predecessor put in place some poor policy towards russia but clinton did nothing to change them even after it became abundantly clear what was happening. but he resided over a great economy although some of it was illusion as in the dotcom bubble. he is a likable guy and the nation largely slept enjoying a nice ride while ignoring the rise of a new set of challenges. you may not like the direction dubya is leading but irrespective of polls he is leading whereas clinton never did choosing instead it seems to follow poll numbers. smh .

From : tbone

tbone wrote clinton did do a good job but feel free and attempt to prove me wrong. clinton already proved it. once again you speak and manage to say nothing at all. as for our current president all you have to do is listen to him speak to see what he is and his current approval ratings say it all. i listed to clinton for 8 years. i saw what he was and good riddance. ratings only show how good a politician can bs with a smile. clinton was a master at saying what people wanted to hear even if it meant telling a different story to different crowds. lol and our current president isnt even good at that. ratings show far more than you care to admit to but i can see why you would want to deny it. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote clinton did do a good job but feel free and attempt to prove me wrong. clinton already proved it. as for our current president all you have to do is listen to him speak to see what he is and his current approval ratings say it all. i listed to clinton for 8 years. i saw what he was and good riddance. ratings only show how good a politician can bs with a smile. clinton was a master at saying what people wanted to hear even if it meant telling a different story to different crowds. excellent post. clinton was a phony. he acted like he knew what he was doing and took credit for things he didnt deserve to while not getting blame where he should have. lol like i said nothing to back up your bullshit. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote clinton did do a good job but feel free and attempt to prove me wrong. as for our current president all you have to do is listen to him speak to see what he is and his current approval ratings say it all. ngs trimmed clinton didnt have much challenges. did he really not have many challenges or did he just make the correct decisions to prevent problems from becoming major challenges and public disasters like our current leader has done. he was the first president since fdr that didnt have to fight the cold war and he chose to ignore the rise of terrorism. really according to history regan ended the cold war and iirc there was another president between regan and clinton although his name has slipped my mind right now bmfg and we can see the great job he did. as for ignorong the the rise of terrorism what exactly would you have him do send us to war his policies toward the new no-communist russia represents perhaps the biggest us foreign policy failure of the 20th century. granted his predecessor put in place some poor policy towards russia but clinton did nothing to change them even after it became abundantly clear what was happening. oh really and 9/11 happened when seems like the current idiot had even less of a clue of what was abundantly clear and with our nothern and southern borders almost completely open to just about anyone including terrorists along with funding cuts to those patrols to make it even easier yet yea we are much better off now lol!!! as for the policies toward russia as you have said most of them were instituted by regan and bush sr but please tell exactly what changes would you have had clinton do and exactly what benefits would have come from them and at what risk then please list all of the changes listed by bush jr and all of the benefits from them. it is easy to cough up this bullshit when you dont intend to back it up. but he resided over a great economy although some of it was illusion as in the dotcom bubble. he is a likable guy and the nation largely slept enjoying a nice ride while ignoring the rise of a new set of challenges. more complete bullshit. the economy was great and it was helped along by the mood and confidence of the people of the country and the president does have a strong effect on that. about the only real disaster he was responsible for was nafta. yes he was a likable guy because he seemed to care for just about everyone not just the rich like our current president does. as for the rise of a new set of challenges please list a few and exactly when they made themselves known. you may not like the direction dubya is leading but irrespective of polls he is leading whereas clinton never did choosing instead it seems to follow poll numbers. lol now this has to be just about the dumbest thing i have read in this ng so far. i guess that you would prefer to be lead off of a cliff then to be left playing it the garden a few miles from its edge. sorry to burst your bubble but you cannot be the leader of the free world for 8 years and not lead but you can do it in a manner where people are happy and not even realize that they are being lead something that the current leader has no clue how to do. i would rather have no leader at all than be lead by an idiot and that is exactly what we have right now. the polls reflect far more than the public agreement with the presidents decisions they also reflect the peoples satisfaction with the status of their lives and these polls say it all. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote tbone wrote clinton did do a good job but feel free and attempt to prove me wrong. clinton already proved it. once again you speak and manage to say nothing at all. what is it exactly that you said lol and our current president isnt even good at that. ratings show far more than you care to admit to but i can see why you would want to deny it. typical liberal. tout polls only when they agree with your views. .

From : miles

tbone wrote did he really not have many challenges or did he just make the correct decisions to prevent problems from becoming major challenges and public disasters like our current leader has done. he had few challenges. the economy for the most part runs itself. the president can do very little. even the feds up and down with the rates does little. the economy was growing when clinton took office. clinton did leave us with numerous disasters n. korea for starters. oh really and 9/11 happened when seems like the current idiot had even less of a clue clinton was in office 8 years and did nothing. bush jr. was in office 8 months and he had already issued a directive to the military to create a plan for taking out al queda prior to 9/11. clinton did zilch. his foreign policy was dismal. he gave to n. korea gave to china and anyone else that coughed up bucks for his and cohorts campaigns. sure all those people loved him. but the expense was severe. more complete bullshit. the economy was great and it was helped along by the mood and confidence of the people of the country and the president does have a strong effect on that. the economy grew because of billions being invested into high risk stocks. those stocks were mostly just paper. many companies that were heavily invested in never produced any goods or service. yet people were on the bandwagon of quick riches and couldnt resist the craze. never before have so many people been willing to dump so much cash into such high risk areas. it had nowhere to go but down. there was way too much cash out there without anything backing it up. you have disagreed with this but have not once explained how clinton made the economy grow. just setting the mood and bam the economy takes off because of a smiling bsing president good grief. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote typical conservative deny their value when they dont agree with your views. difference between you and me. i deny their value either way. you accept their value only one way. i guess that would be because most of them do not agree with you typical greedy extreme right wing viewpoint. hell even many of the ones from fox the right wing press dont agree with your views and that is sad. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote you think that because of your own extreem right wing bias. everyone is biased to some degree but fox is way over the top. cbs and others are way over the top. youre refute that because they agree with your own bias. sound familiar it works both ways tbone. deal with it. if what you said were true then this country would have to also be significantly left biased and if that were true then why do we have this idiot running the country and why is congress controlled by the right for now anyway it is not me that has to deal with it that would be you. i didnt say that but they are far less biased than fox. about the only one more biased than fox are you and budd. ya cbs abc nbc are only a tad biased. well im glad to see that you came to your senses in some way. fox has liberal commentators lol you mean those fall guys. they are just the straight men in the comedy known as fox . if they were actually liberals and reported even half of the total screwups from the current administration they would have been fired a long time ago. cbs abc and nbc have no conservative commentators whatsoever. none! no they just dont need to declare them in a lame attempt to cover for their extreme bias. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote i guess that would be because most of them do not agree with you typical greedy extreme right wing viewpoint. hell even many of the ones from fox the right wing press dont agree with your views and that is sad. i see. so the polls work for you just in recent times. got for ya tbone. polls have been done for decades. ah yes the old right wing press rhetoric. one station is conservative biased and you have a problem with it. so many others liberal biased and theyre ok. why because they agree with your warped liberal mind. oh ya you already said you dont think cbs is liberal biased nor anyone else. theyre all balanced huh good grief. .

From : miles

tbone wrote you think that because of your own extreem right wing bias. everyone is biased to some degree but fox is way over the top. cbs and others are way over the top. youre refute that because they agree with your own bias. sound familiar it works both ways tbone. deal with it. i didnt say that but they are far less biased than fox. about the only one more biased than fox are you and budd. ya cbs abc nbc are only a tad biased. fox has liberal commentators to which you discounted conveiniently cbs abc and nbc have no conservative commentators whatsoever. none! .

From : tbone

tbone wrote i guess that would be because most of them do not agree with you typical greedy extreme right wing viewpoint. hell even many of the ones from fox the right wing press dont agree with your views and that is sad. i see. so the polls work for you just in recent times. got for ya tbone. polls have been done for decades. and they worked for me then as well. ah yes the old right wing press rhetoric. one station is conservative biased and you have a problem with it. lol sorry miles but it is far more than a little. so many others liberal biased and theyre ok. you think that because of your own extreem right wing bias. everyone is biased to some degree but fox is way over the top. why because they agree with your warped liberal mind. yea mine and now around 70% of the nation lol!!! oh ya you already said you dont think cbs is liberal biased nor anyone else. theyre all balanced huh good grief. i didnt say that but they are far less biased than fox. about the only one more biased than fox are you and budd. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote did he really not have many challenges or did he just make the correct decisions to prevent problems from becoming major challenges and public disasters like our current leader has done. he had few challenges. no he created few challenges unlike our current idiot. the economy for the most part runs itself. hahahahahahahaha thanks miles i needed that laugh. the president can do very little. then what is the purpose of those tax cuts that we cant afford oh thats right nothing but making the rich even richer. but you are correct in saying that this president can do very little very little correctly anyway. even the feds up and down with the rates does little. hahahahahahahaha please stop miles im laughing to hard to breath. i guess you havent been following either the stock or housing markets. the economy was growing when clinton took office. clinton did leave us with numerous disasters n. korea for starters. more complete bs. clinton didnt start the crap in n. korea and exactly what was he going to do about it oh really and 9/11 happened when seems like the current idiot had even less of a clue clinton was in office 8 years and did nothing. how do you know were you in the oval office with him bush jr. was in office 8 months and he had already issued a directive to the military to create a plan for taking out al queda prior to 9/11. so he says and if so perhaps that is what caused them to act when they did so 9/11 could be bushs fault after all. another fact is that we did have that information that something was in the works and even how and he did nothing about it including even bothering to reading it. all he seems to be interested in doing is making life easier for the rich pushing the national dept to record levels and killing off the poor in bogus wars. clinton did zilch. did he or did it just seem that way because he actually knew what he was doing even if this were true and it isnt i would rather have that than the disaster this current idiot is creating. his foreign policy was dismal. and yet our current presidents is about 1000000 times worse. he gave to n. korea gave to china and anyone else that coughed up bucks for his and cohorts campaigns. sure all those people loved him. but the expense was severe. more horseshit and what exactly has bush done besides piss them off. i dont see any less of a threat in fact it is now worse than ever. more complete bullshit. the economy was great and it was helped along by the mood and confidence of the people of the country and the president does have a strong effect on that. the economy grew because of billions being invested into high risk stocks. more bullshit. while it ultimately wound up that way that is not how it started. those stocks were mostly just paper. many companies that were heavily invested in never produced any goods or service. yet people were on the bandwagon of quick riches and couldnt resist the craze. yep the typical thinking of most americans and the reason the gubberment has to stay as involved as it is. never before have so many people been willing to dump so much cash into such high risk areas. it had nowhere to go but down. there was way too much cash out there without anything backing it up. and during that time there were many high paying jobs out there and these companies were still making money which just goes to show that greedy scumbags like you are what destroys the free market system. when people make money they have money to spend and do so which grows the economy. when greedy scumbags hord it all the economy has nothing to grow with. you have disagreed with this but have not once explained how clinton made the economy grow. sure i have but you are far to simple minded to understand it. there are opportunities out there and some of them can cause some serious pin action cramer term that can make a lot of people some good money but unless someone is willing to take the risk when they appear nothing will come of it. when people are happy with the country and what is going on they tend to have more confidence and take the risks on these opportunities because if they fail they feel that all will not be lost and the president and the image he projects does have a lot to do with that. our current leader sounds and acts like a retard and has made it more than clear that the rich are all he is interested in and that suppresses peoples attempts to take those risks because the down side is far to great since with the cutting or elimination of just about every social plan available they truly could lose everything. just setting the mood and bam the economy takes off because of a smiling bsing president good grief. no that is only part of the picture but your ignorance and greed prevent you from seeing the obvious. -- if at first you dont succeed y

From : miles

tbone wrote no he created few challenges unlike our current idiot. bull. clinton caused major challenges as well as ignore those that already existed. clintons n. korea policies were a major mistake that has caused challenges today for instance. then what is the purpose of those tax cuts that we cant afford oh thats right nothing but making the rich even richer. make them richer dang liberal backasswards mentality once again. it is their money. tax cut bush just rolled back the massive tax increases of clintons. it was their money. you seem to be under the misguided assumption that bush gave them something that wasnt already theirs in the first place. communism is redistribution of wealth that you hold so dearly. no thanks hahahahahahahaha please stop miles im laughing to hard to breath. i guess you havent been following either the stock or housing markets. the feds up and down with the long term interest rates has only minor effects on the economy. housing skyrocketed this past year even though the fed was increasing its rates. its cooled slightly but not because of the feds. more complete bs. clinton didnt start the crap in n. korea and exactly what was he going to do about it oh you best go look up clintons policies with n. korea. clinton was in office 8 years and did nothing. how do you know were you in the oval office with him lol you keep touting all the great things he did and deny the bad things he did. so tell us were you in the oval office so he says and if so perhaps that is what caused them to act when they did so 9/11 could be bushs fault after all. that is one of the most blind absurd statements ive ever heard from even a liberal. another fact is that we did have that information that something was in the works and even how and he did nothing about it how do you know were you in the oval office too funny. dang hypocritical liberal. the economy grew because of billions being invested into high risk stocks. more bullshit. while it ultimately wound up that way that is not how it started. bull. thats exactly what got things rolling. people invested heavily into new high risk tech stocks that went nowhere. .

From : miles

tbone wrote if what you said were true then this country would have to also be significantly left biased and if that were true then why do we have this idiot running the country and why is congress controlled by the right for now anyway it is not me that has to deal with it that would be you. maybe the voters know something that you dont did you by chance pay any attention to the recent elections in california as usual liberals keep saying wait till the elections and watch the conservatives die. california is one of the most liberal states in the country. yet the liberals predictions were once again dead wrong. conservatives won yet again despite all the left biased medias predictions. deal with it. no they just dont need to declare them in a lame attempt to cover for their extreme bias. oh but they do declare them. their political affiliations are known. cbs nbc and abc have only liberal left wing commentators. they have zero conservatives on their programs. why if they are not over the top biased .

From : miles

tbone wrote you keep making these half-assed accusations but have yet to back a single one of them up. half-assed only because you have no knowledge of politics in general outside of the liberal medias headlines! are you actually trying to tell me that clinton didnt sign any failed agreement with n. korea go look up what he signed in 1994 then come back and explain to me how my accusations are half-assed. clinton gave n. korea our $s with the idea that n. korea would comply. they have never complied with any agreement...but clinton thought theyd be different for him. a completely absurd move by him. hes an idiot for signing such an agreement and were now paying for it in new challenges. now what has bush done except insult them on international tv insult lol. ahhh poor n. korea. ya we should give them more $s like clinton did so they wont make nukes etc. be nice and trust them right good grief. the problem is that it served no valid purpose. purpose it is the peoples money in the first place. you seem to think that tax cuts are a gift. so if i steal your truck then next year i give it back youll thank me for giving you the gift of your old truck back right clintons massive tax increases as you call them did nothing to slow the economy so what was the point you tell me. what was the point of one of the largest tax hikes in history. ya it was a massive tax hike. whats more it wasnt just a tax on the rich which you love so much to no end. you seem to be under the delusion that freedom is free. not so. you seem to be under the delusion that your freedom is paid for only by the wealthy. tax the hell out of them and then if they still have money left tax them some more. its is so easy for liberals to say how compassionate they are...as long as their compassion is through the use of someone elses money and not their own. you speak mounds but only at the expense of others and not yourself. then they should pay the same in their taxes and if they dont like it get the fuck out of the country. lol many of them do just that and you whine about those that do. tax the heck out of those that employ the masses and they go elsewhere and you whine about it. good plan ya got. communism is redistribution of wealth that you hold so dearly. no thanks more complete crap and it appears the only lame defense for your greed. how is it crap what you want is exactly redistribution of wealth. a very communist concept despite your calling it crap because of the ill political connotations. you hate to admit what you believe so strongly in because of such negative connotations. like i said you dont follow the housing market. oh but i do. it skyrocketed last year and part of this year. its falling back down to normal levels. you really think its because of the feds rate increases you need to understand what rates the fed controls. home interest rates are not directly effected by what the feds do. mortgage rates are keyed to long term bonds which are traded on the open market. the feds only control shorter term rates. do some research. housing skyrocketed while the fed was raising its rate. so i think it is you that needs to follow the market a bit better! why should i look it up. you made the claims back one up for a change. then tell us all what he should have done. claim did clinton have anything to do with the geneva agreed framework in 1994 yes or no geez tbone. you continue to argue about what you have no knowledge of. there is nothing either blind or absurd about it. if you threaten some group you had better make sure you have all of your bases covered in case they decide to respond to it and bush dropped the ball any way you try and spin it. threaten some group you mean al queda too funny. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote no he created few challenges unlike our current idiot. bull. clinton caused major challenges as well as ignore those that already existed. clintons n. korea policies were a major mistake that has caused challenges today for instance. you keep making these half-assed accusations but have yet to back a single one of them up. please explain to us exactly what he did and should have done instead. now what has bush done except insult them on international tv then what is the purpose of those tax cuts that we cant afford oh thats right nothing but making the rich even richer. make them richer dang liberal backasswards mentality once again. it is their money. why because they just decided to take it. you take more you pay more simple as that. tax cut bush just rolled back the massive tax increases of clintons. the problem is that it served no valid purpose. clintons massive tax increases as you call them did nothing to slow the economy so what was the point especially when we have an expensive bs war going on. i guess that the republicans were the financially responsible party. i guess that was just another old fashioned attribute left by the wayside. it was their money. you seem to be under the delusion that freedom is free. it isnt and sometimes the cost is money. if they feel the need to take such a disproportionatly large amount of the money then they should pay the same in their taxes and if they dont like it get the fuck out of the country. funny how just about none of them leave including you. why do you think that is miles you seem to be under the misguided assumption that bush gave them something that wasnt already theirs in the first place. that is because he did. communism is redistribution of wealth that you hold so dearly. no thanks more complete crap and it appears the only lame defense for your greed. hahahahahahahaha please stop miles im laughing to hard to breath. i guess you havent been following either the stock or housing markets. the feds up and down with the long term interest rates has only minor effects on the economy. like i said you dont follow the stock market. housing skyrocketed this past year even though the fed was increasing its rates. its cooled slightly but not because of the feds. like i said you dont follow the housing market. more complete bs. clinton didnt start the crap in n. korea and exactly what was he going to do about it oh you best go look up clintons policies with n. korea. why should i look it up. you made the claims back one up for a change. then tell us all what he should have done. clinton was in office 8 years and did nothing. how do you know were you in the oval office with him lol you keep touting all the great things he did and deny the bad things he did. so tell us were you in the oval office i didnt deny anything. you are the one making the claims about all of the bad without backing a single one of them up never mind explaining the correct procedure he should have followed. so he says and if so perhaps that is what caused them to act when they did so 9/11 could be bushs fault after all. that is one of the most blind absurd statements ive ever heard from even a liberal. there is nothing either blind or absurd about it. if you threaten some group you had better make sure you have all of your bases covered in case they decide to respond to it and bush dropped the ball any way you try and spin it. another fact is that we did have that information that something was in the works and even how and he did nothing about it how do you know were you in the oval office too funny. dang hypocritical liberal. i didnt need to be it was in the . oh thats right the extreme left wing stations that you ignore lol! the economy grew because of billions being invested into high risk stocks. more bullshit. while it ultimately wound up that way that is not how it started. bull. thats exactly what got things rolling. people invested heavily into new high risk tech stocks that went nowhere. lol not at first they didnt. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote if what you said were true then this country would have to also be significantly left biased and if that were true then why do we have this idiot running the country and why is congress controlled by the right for now anyway it is not me that has to deal with it that would be you. maybe the voters know something that you dont and then again with what has been happening and the current lack of popularity of the right maybe they didnt did you by chance pay any attention to the recent elections in california yes i did. as usual liberals keep saying wait till the elections and watch the conservatives die. california is one of the most liberal states in the country. yet the liberals predictions were once again dead wrong. conservatives won yet again despite all the left biased medias predictions. deal with it. lol get real miles. while the right won they didnt win by much and even fox is worried with the results of that election. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote and then again with what has been happening and the current lack of popularity of the right maybe they didnt wrong. california is a very liberal state. go look up what took place last month in local elections despite your liberal rhetoric. lol get real miles. while the right won they didnt win by much rofl. ah yes. the liberals loose and then try to turn it around and make some gains from it saying they didnt loose by much. too funny. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote you keep making these half-assed accusations but have yet to back a single one of them up. half-assed only because you have no knowledge of politics in general outside of the liberal medias headlines! or more like i dont follow your half assed extreme right wing viewpoint. bias is a wonderful thing. are you actually trying to tell me that clinton didnt sign any failed agreement with n. korea i didnt say clinton was perfect or never made any mistakes such as nafta but i did ask you what he should have done or what bush has done regarding this so far and neither question has been answered. go look up what he signed in 1994 then come back and explain to me how my accusations are half-assed. clinton gave n. korea our $s with the idea that n. korea would comply. they have never complied with any agreement...but clinton thought theyd be different for him. as did everyone else who tried to make a deal with them but since they already have nukes and were willing to try and use them what other choice did he have a completely absurd move by him. hes an idiot for signing such an agreement and were now paying for it in new challenges. and the man you voted for is any better with this bogus war he started in iraq. btw i see that n. korea is getting ready to launch a icbm what exactly is the current idiot doing about that now what has bush done except insult them on international tv insult lol. ahhh poor n. korea. ya we should give them more $s like clinton did so they wont make nukes etc. be nice and trust them right good grief. well since all they are dirt poor and all they really have is their pride insulting them the way the current moron did is not a good thing. there is a difference between trusting them and publicly showing them an ounce or respect. i know that you like to blame clinton for all the bad in the world but he has not been the president for 6 years now. it is time for the current president to start taking responsibility for what is happening now. going by your horseshit clinton had to sign that agreement because of conditions created by reagan and bush sr. the problem is that it served no valid purpose. purpose it is the peoples money in the first place. you seem to think that tax cuts are a gift. they are when given to people that simply dont need them. heres the thing miles they are still rich which means that even with these taxes they are still taking much more money than they possibly need and that is by definition greed!!!!! so if i steal your truck that is exactly what people like you are doing with the unrealistic salaries they pay themselves so what exactly is your point then next year i give it back youll thank me for giving you the gift of your old truck back right lol complete bullshit. unless you did something or were somehow responsible for me being able to buy the truck you have no point. clintons massive tax increases as you call them did nothing to slow the economy so what was the point you tell me. what was the point of one of the largest tax hikes in history. how about to help pay down the record dept caused by reagan. ya it was a massive tax hike. whats more it wasnt just a tax on the rich which you love so much to no end. and yet the tax cut by a right wing idiot is mostly for the rich imagine that. you seem to be under the delusion that freedom is free. not so. you seem to be under the delusion that your freedom is paid for only by the wealthy. only nope but if they take the most they should pay the most. tax the hell out of them and then if they still have money left tax them some more. more complete horseshit. it is not now nor was it ever a matter of taxing all of their money away. its is so easy for liberals to say how compassionate they are...as long as their compassion is through the use of someone elses money and not their own. you speak mounds but only at the expense of others and not yourself. what makes you think im so poor that it wouldnt effect me or are you saying that only right wing greedy bastards like you have any money then they should pay the same in their taxes and if they dont like it get the fuck out of the country. lol many of them do just that and you whine about those that do. really lets have some names. it seems that the rich owners of many of these companies who have moved operations overseas to increase their greed levels are still living in this country. tax the heck out of those that employ the masses and they go elsewhere and you whine about it. good plan ya got. more right wing fear tactics and complete bullshit and many of them do not employ the masses. the companies that some of them work for do and will be going nowhere. communism is redistribution of wealth that you hold so dearly. no thanks more complete crap and it appears the only la

From : miles

tbone wrote or more like i dont follow your half assed extreme right wing viewpoint. bias is a wonderful thing. so the 1/2 assed extreme left bias appeals to you! i didnt say clinton was perfect or never made any mistakes such as nafta but i did ask you what he should have done or what bush has done regarding this so far and neither question has been answered. i see. clinton fs up badly with a botched absurd deal he made with n.korea and your question is what is bush gonna do to clean up bushs mess. look whats going on now to see what bush and other countries are doing with n. korea. you already denied clinton made the mess. funny how liberals do that so much. as did everyone else who tried to make a deal with them but since they already have nukes and were willing to try and use them what other choice did he have bull. at the time clinton made the deal the agreement was a non-nuke proliferation. the nuke facilities that were known about were sealed and outside inspections were done. n. korea secretly continued their nuke program in disregard of the agreement made with clinton. well duh thats all n. korea has ever done with any agreement. clinton was a fool to give our $s for such a 1/2 assed agreement. he made a huge mess that we now have to clean up. btw i see that n. korea is getting ready to launch a icbm what exactly is the current idiot doing about that no. they wont launch. theyre trying to test the uss and other countries resolve. its for show. if they fueled the icbm then they gotta launch within a few days or de-fuel it. still clinton made the mess but your only complaint is what bush will do to clean up clintons mess. well since all they are dirt poor and all they really have is their pride insulting them the way the current moron did is not a good thing. insult them geez tbone. youre a riot. ya theyre just a poor country with tons of pride and everyone else is all bad. we should be all nice to them just like clinton was. ya that worked. major mess now but what the heck. there is a difference between trusting them and publicly showing them an ounce or respect. i know that you like to blame clinton for all the bad in the world but he has not been the president for 6 years now. clinton made a mess out of just about all of his absurd foreign policies. he gave hand outs to people that would just assume kill us in an attempt to buy their friendship. doesnt work that way tbone and were seeing the results of clintons completely failed foreign policies. ya i know the liberal mindset. clintons gone so your only thought is what is bush gonna do to clean up clintons messes. the damage clinton did lasts far more than just the years he was in office. someones gotta clean up after him. they are when given to people that simply dont need them. tax cuts are a gift giving back something that was stolen from them is a gift good grief. the warped mindset of the liberal mind is amazing. what the gov. gives back is a gift. geez. heres the thing miles they are still rich which means that even with these taxes they are still taking much more money than they possibly need and that is by definition greed!!!!! taking more than they need huh once again the communist mind of a liberal speaks out! they have too much so its your duty to make sure its taken from them. thats greed! take what is not yours in the first place and then call it a gift if you give any back. that is exactly what people like you are doing with the unrealistic salaries they pay themselves so what exactly is your point so gov. should set salary caps to make sure nobody makes too much huh or just tax at 100% over a set limit which has the same effect. ah yes the perfect communist economy. too bad the very concept you keep spewing was tried and failed in other countries. how about to help pay down the record dept caused by reagan. too bad it did no such thing. you and i already had a discussion on that and you failed to prove the debt went down any year clinton was in office. and yet the tax cut by a right wing idiot is mostly for the rich imagine that. no it was not. that is just liberal propaganda. the highest % cuts went to the lower and middle classes despite your rhetoric. you just read what people like kerry and gore who are filthy rich tell you rather than look at the actual rate changes made. only nope but if they take the most they should pay the most. they do. far more. yet you want more of their money with no defined end. more complete horseshit. it is not now nor was it ever a matter of taxing all of their money away. you have no limit. they have money gov. needs more money so tax them some more. you have never once said what the tax rate should be. just that it needs to be higher. what makes you think im so poor that it wouldnt effect me or are you saying that only right

From : tbone

tbone wrote and then again with what has been happening and the current lack of popularity of the right maybe they didnt wrong. california is a very liberal state. go look up what took place last month in local elections despite your liberal rhetoric. well miles. if half truths help you to feel better go for it. california is also a huge state with many people in many areas with big money and if you think that they are all democrats or even controlled by democratics then you really are the idiot that you make yourself out to be. the fact is that these ares have pretty much always been controlled by republicans and they usually win with land slide proportions but not this time. lol get real miles. while the right won they didnt win by much rofl. ah yes. the liberals loose and then try to turn it around and make some gains from it saying they didnt loose by much. too funny. read above and next time perhaps you should do a little research. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote or more like i dont follow your half assed extreme right wing viewpoint. bias is a wonderful thing. so the 1/2 assed extreme left bias appeals to you! not at all but with your extreme right bias anything less appears to you to be extreme left. i didnt say clinton was perfect or never made any mistakes such as nafta but i did ask you what he should have done or what bush has done regarding this so far and neither question has been answered. i see. clinton fs up badly with a botched absurd deal he made with n.korea and your question is what is bush gonna do to clean up bushs mess. exactly what is bush going to do to clean up his multiple messes. i think that you had better read that agreement again and show me specifically where clinton authored it. while he may have been the one to sign it it was a team that created it. and ill ask again what should he have done instead look whats going on now to see what bush and other countries are doing with n. korea. you already denied clinton made the mess. funny how liberals do that so much. that is because the right blames them for everything and magically shifts time line to make it seem like it was the lefts fault. i am looking at what is go

From : miles

the commercial with the ping pong balls and set mouse traps i wonder how long it took to set it up. i noticed that they were in rectangular sections. im guessing they had deviders set up between the sections during set up. it made the dominoes look like old school. beekeep .

From : tbone

tbone wrote not at all but with your extreme right bias anything less appears to you to be extreme left. hmm...kinda sounds like youre being a bit hypocritical in your own bias! oh ya you think youre a moderate! lol that is because i am but like i said with your extreme right bias you would never be able to see it. exactly what is bush going to do to clean up his multiple messes. i think that you had better read that agreement again and show me specifically where clinton authored it. he signed it tbone!! geez...you put the blame on bush for anything and everything because hes the guy at the top. well guess what during clintons years he was the guy at the top and he approved of fought for and signed the deal that created this mess. once again you have not given a shread of proof that he caused anything. and by that i mean that you have no proof that his doing nothing would have any positive effect on the situation. as we can see from what happened with bush just cutting them off has a very negative effect and probably would have resulted in the same thing then. i guess that with the current evidence it looks more and more like he made the correct decision. while he may have been the one to sign it it was a team that created it. and ill ask again what should he have done instead refused to give n. korea a single dime. yea we can see how well that works. they have proven time and again never to keep their word on any deal. they have proven time and again to use funds given them for purposes other than agreed upon. but they did shut down the reactor seal up the spent rods and allowed inspectors in that is until bush cut them off. now were they 100% following the agreement well no but neither were we and sometimes you have to pick the better of two evils. n. korea is almost totally dependent on outside sources for their energy. no way could they have created any nukes without the funds and other economic relief given to them brokered by the us. complete bullshit. they already had a reactor capable of creating fuel the one they restarted and they could get the funds for that as this country has many enemies. that is because the right blames them for everything and magically shifts time line to make it seem like it was the lefts fault. thats because clinton fed up badly with n. korea yet you refuse to blame clinton for any of the messes we now face that are a direct result of his bungled foriegn policies. because the evidence at hand shows that doing what you suggested would have accelerated their nuclear development just like it did when bush cut them off. the current disaster we are now facing is directly due to bush no matter how you try and spin it. you keep saying that i refuse to blame clinton for anything but what exactly do you blame bush for hell you even blame this iraq disaster on clinton. i am looking at what is going on now. n. korea is now going full tilt developing not only the warheads but icbms to carry them here. yea good plan from bush. bush they started their nuke program while clinton was in office. really care to back that one up i think that you will find that was happening well before clinton. clinton gave them the funds they used to do so. and you blame bush again care to back that up good grief. clinton did no wrong to you even though you say he did some things wrong you make an excuse for him. i make no excuses for that disaster called nafta never did and never will. fine but for n. korea there is no excuse. the mess we have now is clintons fault as far as n. korea goes. just because you want to believe that doesnt make it true. yep and all under the plan that clinton signed and they stayed that way until bush turned another problem into the current major disaster. what n. korea totally ignored the agreement and began nuke development. lol they did no such thing. they did shut down the reactor capable of making the fuel and they did lock away most of the waste and let the inspectors in. now they did continue some limited secret development against the agreement but far less than if it didnt exist and we have been known to do such things ourselves. as for beginning development more complete crap as bush sr was also dealing with this and iirc even reagan had to deal with some of it. you have no clue and attempt to rewrite history to excuse clinton and put the blame on bush. they did not stay that way under clinton. not one bit. the only one rewriting history and shifting time lines is you miles. and we didnt hold up to our end of the agreement either mainly due to funding and other crap like that. gee i wonder if the right controlled congress had something to do with that!!! what clinton signed a deal and funds poured into n. korea. now you say the problems are because of a right controlled congress g

From : miles

tbone wrote that is because i am but like i said with your extreme right bias you would never be able to see it. you moderate lol only cuz the word liberal is a dirty word to those of you that are! oh ya liberals now call themselves progressives. moderate ya just like bush is a conservative. once again you have not given a shread of proof that he caused anything. and by that i mean that you have no proof that his doing nothing would have any positive effect on the situation. oh now thats funny. thats your excuse for clinton well we dont know what n. korea would have done if he didnt give them a ton of $s so theres no proof his absurd actions had any effect. good grief. the warped mind of a liberal...opps progressive. as we can see from what happened with bush just cutting them off has a very negative effect and probably would have resulted in the same thing then. i guess that with the current evidence it looks more and more like he made the correct decision. per your logic we have no proof that n. korea wouldnt have done just the same...except for one small detail. we do have proof. n. korea admitted they never ever stopped their nuclear program after signing the deal with clinton. but they did shut down the reactor seal up the spent rods and allowed inspectors in that is until bush cut them off. now were they 100% following the agreement well no but neither were we and sometimes you have to pick the better of two evils. they moved their work elsewhere tbone. n. korea admitted that they never ever stopped their program. just did it behind said inspectors eyes. thats already known yet you seem hell bent at making excuses for what clinton did. you just cant admit that giving n. korea tons of $s thinking they would abide by the agreement was just plain stupid. you also refuse to accept the fact that n. korea never complied with the agreement. you seem to think they did until bush was involved. good grief. because the evidence at hand shows that doing what you suggested would have accelerated their nuclear development just like it did when bush cut them off. bull! n. korea was already working on their program. they never ever stopped after making the agreement with clinton. the only thing that changed is it became publicly known they were already breaking the agreement. really care to back that one up i think that you will find that was happening well before clinton. so why did clinton give them more money then n. korea never once stopped their nuke program. they just hid it and fooled people like yourself into thinking they complied. we know that to not be the case. i make no excuses for that disaster called nafta never did and never will. you make excuses for what clinton agreed to with n. korea. lol they did no such thing. they did shut down the reactor capable of making the fuel and they did lock away most of the waste and let the inspectors in. geez you are naive. they did that for show to make fools like you believe they were complying. it is already well known they never ever stopped their nuke program. they just hid it from people like you. i didnt put the blame on republicans but budget concerns did hold us way back on our end of the deal with them and the republicans did have control at the time. n. korea never complied and its the republicans that didnt hold up the agreement geez. you are hell bent at blaming anything on bush republicans etc. clinton made the deal. it was a horribly bad idea. explain to me how clintons deal was so great and wonderful. and neither did we but that is not the point. the point is that it would have happened anyway and who knows what they might have sold to whom to fund these projects. so giving the tons of $s helped things how oh ya just slowed them down a few years. good use of our $s. stolen huh lol!!!! how exactly did they earn that much money and dont how did the gov. earn it by providing for all of its citizens ah yes. the radical liberals belief that we work for the government because the government will take care of us. get a clue tbone. take responsibility for yourself and allow others to do the same. every time a liberal falters they blame someone else. its the governments fault for not properly solving all their problems...to a liberal. of course you do because we both know that is a fantasy that hasnt existed since the days of barter. redistribution of wealth has never ever reduced poverty. it has gained votes from the far left who react only on emotions though. sure they do because the ones running it make the rules and set the salaries including their own but there is an investor backlash about it now. do you pay yourself the same as your workers and remember even your salary costs your company money. the sad thing miles is that it is not that small and really doesnt have to be big

From : js

ive read a lot of bullshit from a lot of asses online... but sir you take the cake. do you really believe everything youre typing here or are you just being argumentative for fun js miles wrote tbone wrote that is because i am but like i said with your extreme right bias you would never be able to see it. you moderate lol only cuz the word liberal is a dirty word to those of you that are! oh ya liberals now call themselves progressives. moderate ya just like bush is a conservative. once again you have not given a shread of proof that he caused anything. and by that i mean that you have no proof that his doing nothing would have any positive effect on the situation. oh now thats funny. thats your excuse for clinton well we dont know what n. korea would have done if he didnt give them a ton of $s so theres no proof his absurd actions had any effect. good grief. the warped mind of a liberal...opps progressive. as we can see from what happened with bush just cutting them off has a very negative effect and probably would have resulted in the same thing then. i guess that with the current evidence it looks more and more like he made the correct decision. per your logic we have no proof that n. korea wouldnt have done just the same...except for one small detail. we do have proof. n. korea admitted they never ever stopped their nuclear program after signing the deal with clinton. but they did shut down the reactor seal up the spent rods and allowed inspectors in that is until bush cut them off. now were they 100% following the agreement well no but neither were we and sometimes you have to pick the better of two evils. they moved their work elsewhere tbone. n. korea admitted that they never ever stopped their program. just did it behind said inspectors eyes. thats already known yet you seem hell bent at making excuses for what clinton did. you just cant admit that giving n. korea tons of $s thinking they would abide by the agreement was just plain stupid. you also refuse to accept the fact that n. korea never complied with the agreement. you seem to think they did until bush was involved. good grief. because the evidence at hand shows that doing what you suggested would have accelerated their nuclear development just like it did when bush cut them off. bull! n. korea was already working on their program. they never ever stopped after making the agreement with clinton. the only thing that changed is it became publicly known they were already breaking the agreement. really care to back that one up i think that you will find that was happening well before clinton. so why did clinton give them more money then n. korea never once stopped their nuke program. they just hid it and fooled people like yourself into thinking they complied. we know that to not be the case. i make no excuses for that disaster called nafta never did and never will. you make excuses for what clinton agreed to with n. korea. lol they did no such thing. they did shut down the reactor capable of making the fuel and they did lock away most of the waste and let the inspectors in. geez you are naive. they did that for show to make fools like you believe they were complying. it is already well known they never ever stopped their nuke program. they just hid it from people like you. i didnt put the blame on republicans but budget concerns did hold us way back on our end of the deal with them and the republicans did have control at the time. n. korea never complied and its the republicans that didnt hold up the agreement geez. you are hell bent at blaming anything on bush republicans etc. clinton made the deal. it was a horribly bad idea. explain to me how clintons deal was so great and wonderful. and neither did we but that is not the point. the point is that it would have happened anyway and who knows what they might have sold to whom to fund these projects. so giving the tons of $s helped things how oh ya just slowed them down a few years. good use of our $s. stolen huh lol!!!! how exactly did they earn that much money and dont how did the gov. earn it by providing for all of its citizens ah yes. the radical liberals belief that we work for the government because the government will take care of us. get a clue tbone. take responsibility for yourself and allow others to do the same. every time a liberal falters they blame someone else. its the governments fault for not properly solving all their problems...to a liberal. of course you do because we both know that is a fantasy that hasnt existed since the days of barter. redistribution of wealth has never ever reduced poverty. it has gained votes from the far left who react only on emotions though. sure they do because the ones running it make the rules and set the salaries including their own but there is an in

From : miles

js wrote ive read a lot of bullshit from a lot of asses online... but sir you take the cake. do you really believe everything youre typing here or are you just being argumentative for fun you gotta love good ol tbone! .

From : tbone

tbone wrote that is because i am but like i said with your extreme right bias you would never be able to see it. you moderate lol only cuz the word liberal is a dirty word to those of you that are! oh ya liberals now call themselves progressives. moderate ya just like bush is a conservative. bush is an idiot but he does belong to the conservative party. while liberal may have been a dirty word at one time with the mess conservatives have made of things it is now seen by many as a complent so thank you miles i will take the compliment even thow you are still wrong. once again you have not given a shread of proof that he caused anything. and by that i mean that you have no proof that his doing nothing would have any positive effect on the situation. oh now thats funny. thats your excuse for clinton well we dont know what n. korea would have done if he didnt give them a ton of $s so theres no proof his absurd actions had any effect. good grief. the warped mind of a liberal...opps progressive. actually we didnt then but do now thanks to bush. as we can see from what happened with bush just cutting them off has a very negative effect and probably would have resulted in the same thing then. i guess that with the current evidence it looks more and more like he made the correct decision. per your logic we have no proof that n. korea wouldnt have done just the same...except for one small detail. we do have proof. n. korea admitted they never ever stopped their nuclear program after signing the deal with clinton. no they didnt but it did slow down. there is a big difference between stopping and slowing and the current situation clearly shows that not only would they not have slowed down they would have gone full tilt and probably sold weapons to terrorist organizations to help fund it just like now thanks to bush. now why didnt we go after n. korea who actually is a threat the answer is simple we would get our asses kicked and bush wouldnt want that on his record. too bad it pretty much happened anyway. but they did shut down the reactor seal up the spent rods and allowed inspectors in that is until bush cut them off. now were they 100% following the agreement well no but neither were we and sometimes you have to pick the better of two evils. they moved their work elsewhere tbone. n. korea admitted that they never ever stopped their program. just did it behind said inspectors eyes. thats already known yet you seem hell bent at making excuses for what clinton did. i am not the one making excuses that is you blaming anyone else for bushs disasters besides the man himself. you just cant admit that giving n. korea tons of $s thinking they would abide by the agreement was just plain stupid. where is all this money please give the actual dollar figures for the cash given and not the value of the crude or food or the cost of the light water reactors we never built. you have also not come up with a better plan and until you do.... you also refuse to accept the fact that n. korea never complied with the agreement. you seem to think they did until bush was involved. good grief. i didnt say that you did. while they didnt fully comply they did partially that is until bush took care of that. now we are worse off than ever. because the evidence at hand shows that doing what you suggested would have accelerated their nuclear development just like it did when bush cut them off. bull! n. korea was already working on their program. they never ever stopped after making the agreement with clinton. the only thing that changed is it became publicly known they were already breaking the agreement. lol more spin and denial. the only thing give me a break. everything that clinton did manage to accomplish has been fully reversed. now we and the inspectors are out the camera are off the reactor capable of making weapons grade fuel is once again operational and the waste fuel has been dug up. yea not much different now. really care to back that one up i think that you will find that was happening well before clinton. so why did clinton give them more money then because he really didnt have much choice as demonstraited by bushs decision. n. korea never once stopped their nuke program. they just hid it and fooled people like yourself into thinking they complied. we know that to not be the case. but they did lock up the spent fuel shut down the reactor installed cameras in it for us to monitor it and allowed inspectors in so while they didnt fully comply they did a hell of a lot more than if we told them to screw off like you want and bush did. since i dont currently see two light water reactors operating over there either which were due to be completed by 2003 it looks like we didnt fully comply either. i make no excuses for that disaster called nafta never did

From : tbone

js wrote ive read a lot of bullshit from a lot of asses online... but sir you take the cake. do you really believe everything youre typing here or are you just being argumentative for fun you gotta love good ol tbone! i think he was talking to you especially since he attached it to your last post and if not he needs to be more clear on who he is speaking to. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote i think he was talking to you especially since he attached it to your last post and if not he needs to be more clear on who he is speaking to. doesnt matter. my reply is just the same. .

From : miles

bush is an idiot but he does belong to the conservative party. bull. the current republican party is anything but conservative. that should make liberals like yourself happy...except politics get involved and so your liberal party is against what they were once for. no they didnt but it did slow down. so are you telling me that clintons action of giving n. korea money in a bogus agreement for them to stop their nuke program was a good thing try not to bring up your hatred of bush in your answer. im asking strictly about what clinton did. i am not the one making excuses that is you blaming anyone else for bushs disasters besides the man himself. you are blaming bush for n. korea and making excuses for clinton giving them money. get a clue tbone. n. korea never stopped their nuke program despite your watering it down calling it slowed to make clinton look better. clinton fed up badly in his stupid arse deal he made. quit making an excuse for him just because you hate bush. i didnt say that you did. while they didnt fully comply they did partially that is until bush took care of that. now we are worse off than ever. partially is that your attempt to make what clinton did acceptable to you they did not partially comply. they allowed bogus inspections while they continued their work elsewhere. they conned a very stupid democratic administration. but i know your hatred will cause you to spin it around excuse clinton and just rant at bush. good grief. lol more spin and denial. the only thing give me a break. everything that clinton did manage to accomplish has been fully reversed. what the hell exactly did clinton accomplish with n. korea bogus inspections to con people such as yourself into thinking they stopped their program they rolled right on along. they now have nukes. they were not developed just since bush. not even close. clinton didnt slow their progress down one bit. so why did clinton give them more money then because he really didnt have much choice as demonstraited by bushs decision. had no choice they rolled right on along while conning people full of hate such as yourself. ya bush should have given them more money right geez such arrogance by you lately! or just pure hatred. but they did lock up the spent fuel shut down the reactor installed cameras in it for us to monitor it and allowed inspectors in they didnt need any of that!! they wanted nukes for weapons and they got them despite these bogus agreements that obviously have you totally conned. they didnt even partially comply. they conned you and your party! lol i make no excuses. it is what it is. you do make excuses for clinton. he made a bad deal. but your hatred of bush allows you to make sure clinton did good on n. korea. we know that to be totally false by their own actions from day 1 of the signing. but you fell for n. koreas smoke and mirrors. lol they did no such thing. they did shut down the reactor capable of making the fuel and they did lock away most of the waste and let the inspectors in. rofl. they got the fuel anyways. they didnt just quickly produce it after bush got involved. you need to read up on exactly how n. korea got their cutrent fuel for their nukes. and secured the waste that could have been sold to terrorists to fund their projects installed cameras in their reactor so that we could see that they were not secretly making more fuel allowed inspectors in which made it much one small problem tbone. they did get fuel despite all this. they sure have you conned! while clintons plan did not stop them from continuing in their nuclear program what bush did made a bad situation a complete disaster. lol n. korea moved right on along with their nuke program and obtained fuel. but ya bush should have continued giving them money. this is just getting to dang funny! 1. attempt a diplomatic method to slow down or stop nuclear development by making it worth it for them to stop. clinton actually clinton did no such thing. he paid them off thinking n. korea could be bought off. they couldnt and took our money and still developed their nukes despite your claims it was all bushs fault. clinton failed to get japan russia and china and other asian countries directly involved in pressuring n. korea to stop. bush has gotten all of those countries into direct talks and finding a solution. n. korea is backed into a corner and clawing seeing who will fall for their bluff. people such as yourself clearly will. 3. cut them off completely and allow them to create the weapons and give them a reason to use them against us. bush n. korea wont use anything against us or anyone else. bush has gotten most other asian countries strongly against n. korea who relies on them for almost all of their energy needs. more right wing bullshit. i have no problem with people taking c

From : tbone

bush is an idiot but he does belong to the conservative party. bull. the current republican party is anything but conservative. that should make liberals like yourself happy...except politics get involved and so your liberal party is against what they were once for. lol can you spin any faster. even i didnt understand that one. no they didnt but it did slow down. so are you telling me that clintons action of giving n. korea money in a bogus agreement for them to stop their nuke program was a good thing try not to bring up your hatred of bush in your answer. im asking strictly about what clinton did. i actually dont hate bush. i think that he is a nice guy for the most part and honestly believes he is doing the right thing but he is still an idiot and has screwed up far more than he has gotten right and his current polls put me in the majority here. clinton did what he felt he had to do because it was either that or lauch a pre-emptive strike which would have cost us much more in both money and lives. i am not the one making excuses that is you blaming anyone else for bushs disasters besides the man himself. you are blaming bush for n. korea and making excuses for clinton giving them money. i am blaming bush for our current state with n. korea not with what they did in the past. get a clue tbone. n. korea never stopped their nuke program despite your watering it down calling it slowed to make clinton look better. clinton fed up badly in his stupid arse deal he made. quit making an excuse for him just because you hate bush. i am not making excuses for anyone. he did what he could do at the time. i didnt say that you did. while they didnt fully comply they did partially that is until bush took care of that. now we are worse off than ever. partially is that your attempt to make what clinton did acceptable to you they did not partially comply. they allowed bogus inspections while they continued their work elsewhere. they conned a very stupid democratic administration. but i know your hatred will cause you to spin it around excuse clinton and just rant at bush. good grief. pkb miles. lol more spin and denial. the only thing give me a break. everything that clinton did manage to accomplish has been fully reversed. what the hell exactly did clinton accomplish with n. korea bogus inspections to con people such as yourself into thinking they stopped their program they rolled right on along. they now have nukes. they were not developed just since bush. not even close. clinton didnt slow their progress down one bit. and you know this how oh thats right you dont. now what benefit did bush create so why did clinton give them more money then because he really didnt have much choice as demonstraited by bushs decision. had no choice they rolled right on along while conning people full of hate such as yourself. ya bush should have given them more money right geez such arrogance by you lately! or just pure hatred. no actually he should have launched a pre-emptive strike but didnt. instead he wasted hundreds of billions in a useless war against someone who was no threat to us at all and stretching our army so thin that if n. korea actually started something we have no way to stop it. yea really smart moves there. but they did lock up the spent fuel shut down the reactor installed cameras in it for us to monitor it and allowed inspectors in they didnt need any of that!! they wanted nukes for weapons and they got them despite these bogus agreements that obviously have you totally conned. they didnt even partially comply. they conned you and your party! they didnt conn me as i had nothing to do with it. lol i make no excuses. it is what it is. you do make excuses for clinton. he made a bad deal. but your hatred of bush allows you to make sure clinton did good on n. korea. we know that to be totally false by their own actions from day 1 of the signing. but you fell for n. koreas smoke and mirrors. if it makes you feel better to believe this bullshit go for it. the only one with true hate here is you for clinton as you blame him for everything including the war in iraq. lol they did no such thing. they did shut down the reactor capable of making the fuel and they did lock away most of the waste and let the inspectors in. rofl. they got the fuel anyways. they didnt just quickly produce it after bush got involved. you need to read up on exactly how n. korea got their cutrent fuel for their nukes. lol you dont need fuel to develope nukes anymore only to make them functional. the point is that now that they know how to make them with their ability to make fuel fully restored they can crank out many of them and we have no idea how many that is thanks to bush. and secured the waste that could have been sold to terrorists to fund t

From : miles

tbone wrote and you know this how oh thats right you dont. are you blind n. korea publicly admitted that they never ever stopped their nuke program. they admitted having no intention of ever doing so despite their agreements with clinton. once again you show your complete lack of any political knowledge and instead allow emotions to make your decisions for you. wow!!!! because if you cant survive on it what exactly is the point of doing it so any job no matter what level what skill etc. should be paid enough to totally support that person that is absurd! they are entry level jobs. most people start out there and work their way up. except for some far left wingers who think goverments job is to take care of them through the use of other peoples money. who was talking about a large family here how about a reasonable apartment a dependable means of transportation and bowling night on wed! so an entry level minimum wage job should provide all that huh good grief. you really are an asshole miles. ahh yes the typical foul mouth of a liberal comes out once again. no thats a little to high. i would say $10 an hour part time and $15 an hour full time should be enough. $15/hour for totally unskilled entry level job ok. say we increase minimum wage to $15/hr. you really think those peoples lives will all of a sudden improve greatly with a substantially higher buying power no way tbone. if you increase minimum wage to such a high level then the cost of goods go up as do salaries above that level. youre right back where you started. markets have a way of doing that ya know! there is no rhetoric only your spin. far more than the ceos of these large companies are making more than that when you add in all their un-reported income stock option and bonuses. so exactly how many people are making these grossly high salaries that you refer to how many tbone what % of the population once again you dont answer even a simple question so ill ask again what exactly is an absurd salary for an unskilled worker and by what justification do you come up with this now it sounds like you are deciding how much someone should make. more than double what the market rate for the job currently is would be an absurd salary. lol please miles. we are talking about a couple of billionaires and while they are generous they are hardly going broke doing it. why should they go broke oh ya cuz they are still rich and therefore greedy so your type has the need to take some more from them. lol never said that they were but mortgage rates are effected by them just the same. the entire market is effected by the fed rates. however your notion that they are effected in the same direction is wrong. mortgage rates can go up or down after a fed rate hike. they do not simply follow along. more complete bullshit. mortgage rates are going up because the short term rate is now damn close to it and is now forcing them up. opps mortgage rates just fell yesterday. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote and you know this how oh thats right you dont. are you blind n. korea publicly admitted that they never ever stopped their nuke program. they admitted having no intention of ever doing so despite their agreements with clinton. once again you show your complete lack of any political knowledge and instead allow emotions to make your decisions for you. once again you resort to spin and bias. while we may know now that they didnt stop we had no such knowledge then and clintons other choices available to him were no better and most far worse in cost to the usa although you try and spin what he did do as the worst by using the results of bushs actions as your proof too funny. and then there is the bias. do we really have that knowledge that they never stopped sure with your bias you will believe anything negative and deny anything positive but where did we get the information that they never stopped how about from the same people that lied when they said that they did lol!!! what makes you sure that they are anymore truthfull now then they were then besides your bias btw i guess that you were also wrong about those missles as they have launched a few of them but then again that would be only one of many that you have been wrong about so far. wow!!!! because if you cant survive on it what exactly is the point of doing it so any job no matter what level what skill etc. should be paid enough to totally support that person for a full time job taken by an adult damn right. that is absurd! only to your greed. they are entry level jobs. most people start out there and work their way up. yep and when they do they should then be able to get a bigger apartment maybe a house nicer car and better things they should not have to work up to the ability to just survive. except for some far left wingers who think goverments job is to take care of them through the use of other peoples money. back to the extreme right wing spin of lumping everything negative into the other side. who was talking about a large family here how about a reasonable apartment a dependable means of transportation and bowling night on wed! so an entry level minimum wage job should provide all that huh good grief. yes it should and saying all that is complete ignorance. a one bedroom or studio apartment a second hand yet dependable car and something as inexpensive as bowling is hardly all that for someone willing to work 8 or more hours a day. gee miles now it looks like you are the one determining how much others should make. you really are an asshole miles. ahh yes the typical foul mouth of a liberal comes out once again. i guess the truth hurts huh miles. no thats a little to high. i would say $10 an hour part time and $15 an hour full time should be enough. $15/hour for totally unskilled entry level job ok. say we increase minimum wage to $15/hr. you really think those peoples lives will all of a sudden improve greatly with a substantially higher buying power yep like i said it happened during the tech bubble and the increased purchasing from the increase in high paying jobs created yet more jobs and made many a lot of money. it wasnt until typical american greed jumped in and started dumping billions into nothing companies for the quick unearned buck that caused it to fail. no way tbone. if you increase minimum wage to such a high level then the cost of goods go up as do salaries above that level. youre right back where you started. markets have a way of doing that ya know! maybe in the past but not so much anymore. why because most manufacturing is now not done here so the cost of most goods will not increase because if the american operated companies try it so that the rich leaders can continue their greed the foreign owned and operated ones will wipe them out. that is what you really fear not being able to take an infinite amount of money for doing no more work and probably even less than the workers you are taking it from. there is no rhetoric only your spin. far more than the ceos of these large companies are making more than that when you add in all their un-reported income stock option and bonuses. so exactly how many people are making these grossly high salaries that you refer to how many tbone what % of the population lets see. iirc the top 3% of the population controlls 95% of the money so in reality it take damn few to spoil it for the rest. how about that winner ceo / chairman of home depot. 256 million a year and for what the stock has been losing money the whole time and when an interviewer asked him after his disasterous stock holders meeting to justify his salary or if he was willing to take a cut due to the performance of the company stock he got very defensive and looked like she called his mother a whore. then when you look at the combined income an

From : miles

tbone wrote once again you resort to spin and bias. while we may know now that they didnt stop we had no such knowledge then and clintons other choices available to him were no better and most far worse in cost to the usa although you try and spin what he did do as the worst by using the results of bushs actions as your proof too funny. giving them money for nothing was a good thing huh your arrogance is just getting out of hand lately! the world found out that n. korea was not complying so yes bush as well as many other countries stopped sending money. you seem to spin it that bush therefore caused all the problems with n. korea. so let me get this straight. upon learning the truth about n. koreas actions bush should have continued sending money lets get your spin straight here tbone. what should bush have done if not cut the funds as far as not knowing about n. korea when clinton made the deal...hog wash. n. korea has a long standing history of completely ignoring any international agreements and using tactics as they did to fool the world into thinking otherwise. it was predictable and many told clinton just that to which he ignored. and then there is the bias. do we really have that knowledge that they never stopped ahh yes your ignorance of what they did must mean they might have sorta maybe kinda barely stopped yes tbone the world learned they never stopped. youre just not giving a damn and therefore toss out that maybe they didnt to support your cause. wow!!!! because if you cant survive on it what exactly is the point of doing it working your way up tbone!!! what a concept huh ya i know. you want government to take away responsibility for yourself. just pay any unskilled worker $15+/hour from the start. what the heck. how to piss off a liberal. work your ass off from the ground up and become successful through ones own hard work and efforts. works every time. for a full time job taken by an adult damn right. that is absurd! only to your greed. greed get a better job work your way up or quit whining. greed is your type who expects handouts for nothing. continually wanting what someone else has. i guess the truth hurts huh miles. hurt nah humerous that you resort to foul language and name calling every chance you get. yep like i said it happened during the tech bubble and the increased purchasing from the increase in high paying jobs created yet more jobs and made many a lot of money. it wasnt until typical american greed jumped in and started dumping billions into nothing companies for the quick unearned buck that caused it to fail. huh higher wages were because of increased demand for that type of labor. not because of some government induced artificial controls placed upon them. a free market was at work. maybe in the past but not so much anymore. why because most manufacturing is now not done here so the cost of most goods will not increase because if the american operated companies try it so that the rich leaders can continue their greed the foreign owned and operated ones will wipe them out. that is what you really fear not being able to take an infinite amount of money for doing no more work and probably even less than the workers you are taking it from. you have no clue do you most manufacturing is now outsourced huh geez. you need to learn just whats been outsourced and whats been insourced and the numbers and market of each. especially look into the huge number of insourced jobs. now who is the one setting limits and what exactly creates the market rate um market dicates market rate. supply/demand. ya i know in your socialistic world governments job is to set wages where you think they should be. i prefer market. it worked in your great clinton years to which youre so proud of. as you call it besides other greedy bastards much like yourself. funny how you cry and complain about me wanting to set limits on what people can make but you and others like you do it every day. i dont set any such limits. market sets the wages. that depends on where they are to begin with. like i asked you before and you of course deleted please show me any time where the long term rates were lass than the short term ones. what the hell does that have to do with it your bs about mortgage rates being determined by fed rates or the fed rates being the primary influence on them or anything close to that line of thought is pure bs. opps mortgage rates just fell yesterday. really from what to what and are we talking about fixed rate or some custom bank created variable fixed rates tbone. fed rates went up and mortgage rates dropped. why because investors pulled out from stocks and went with bonds. next week it could easily go the opposite back and forth. just because the fed rates go up does not mean mortgage rates will. very little effect

From : miles

tbone wrote well miles. if half truths help you to feel better go for it. california is also a huge state with many people in many areas with big money and if you think that they are all democrats or even controlled by democratics then you really are the idiot that you make yourself out to be. the fact is that these ares have pretty much always been controlled by republicans and they usually win with land slide proportions but not this time. wtf california has pretty much always been controlled by republicans who have won by land slide proportions huh california has been a very strong liberal state for decades. republican state oh geez. read above and next time perhaps you should do a little research. california a mostly republican by a landslide state rofl .

From : tbone

tbone wrote once again you resort to spin and bias. while we may know now that they didnt stop we had no such knowledge then and clintons other choices available to him were no better and most far worse in cost to the usa although you try and spin what he did do as the worst by using the results of bushs actions as your proof too funny. giving them money for nothing was a good thing huh at the time it was the only thing. we have been shown by bush what telling them to screw off does and there was no way that he clinton could have mustered enough support for a pre-emptive strike back then as most americans were still wearing our rose colored glasses. your arrogance is just getting out of hand lately! so is your ignorance but if i can deal with that you can deal with me. the world found out that n. korea was not complying so yes bush as well as many other countries stopped sending money. you seem to spin it that bush therefore caused all the problems with n. korea. so let me get this straight. upon learning the truth about n. koreas actions bush should have continued sending money lets get your spin straight here tbone. what should bush have done if not cut the funds he should have launched a pre-emptive strike as he would have had full support with the aftermath and fear of 9/11. he calls n. korea part of the axis of evil and yet turns a blind eye to them when he finds out that they are in fact a true threat unlike saddam who was no threat at all where he did strike. btw im still waiting for that dollar amount on all this money we supposedly sent them. as far as not knowing about n. korea when clinton made the deal...hog wash. n. korea has a long standing history of completely ignoring any international agreements and using tactics as they did to fool the world into thinking otherwise. it was predictable and many told clinton just that to which he ignored. did he ignore it or did he know that the other choices he had would have cost us much more. i do realise your extreme bias will not let you see that. and then there is the bias. do we really have that knowledge that they never stopped ahh yes your ignorance of what they did must mean they might have sorta maybe kinda barely stopped yes tbone the world learned they never stopped. youre just not giving a damn and therefore toss out that maybe they didnt to support your cause. once again your bias only lets you see 1% of the picture. how did we know that they didnt stop was there some top secret international investigation did they have some accident that tipped us off no.... then how do we know perhaps because they told us!!! i find it funny that you call them complete liars when they say that they stopped but now they are saying the complete truth when they say they didnt even slow down. funny how bias allows you to do that. i think that they lied then and are lying now as well to make themselves look like someone to fear. probably the same reason they are launching those missles you said that they would never launch. wow!!!! because if you cant survive on it what exactly is the point of doing it working your way up tbone!!! what a concept huh ya i know. you want government to take away responsibility for yourself. just pay any unskilled worker $15+/hour from the start. what the heck. once again miles you make assumptions that simply make an ass out of yourself. i am probably at the same tax bracket as you are. granted i dont currently own a business that i can rape to the day i die like you intend to do but i dont live above my means either. as for the $15 an hour i would hardly call that living the high life at $31000 before taxes where you would have no desire to do better. while i fully agree with your idea of working your way up not everyone can live with mommy and daddy until they work their way up to a salary that they can support themselves on. it is not for the government to take away responsibility it is to give the little guy the ability to take responsibility something you and those like you say they should do while at the same time prevent them from doing it. how to piss off a liberal. work your ass off from the ground up and become successful through ones own hard work and efforts. works every time. which one works every time working your ass of to be sucessful or pissing of a liberal by doing it it really doesnt matter because you are as usual wrong on both counts. not everyone who works their ass off becomes all that sucessful and in most cases due to people like you and liberals dont get pissed by someone becomming successful due to hard work and efforts they get pissed when people like you use it as an excuse to take as much as possible. for a full time job taken by an adult damn right. that is absurd! only to your greed. greed get a better job work your way up or quit

From : tbone

tbone wrote well miles. if half truths help you to feel better go for it. california is also a huge state with many people in many areas with big money and if you think that they are all democrats or even controlled by democratics then you really are the idiot that you make yourself out to be. the fact is that these ares have pretty much always been controlled by republicans and they usually win with land slide proportions but not this time. wtf california has pretty much always been controlled by republicans who have won by land slide proportions huh california has been a very strong liberal state for decades. republican state oh geez. once again you either resort to spin or are just stupid. there are regions that are controlled by republicans and in these regions the republican candidates usually win with landslide proportions. this was a regional election. read above and next time perhaps you should do a little research. california a mostly republican by a landslide state rofl like i said do a little research next time. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote once again you either resort to spin or are just stupid. there are regions that are controlled by republicans and in these regions the republican candidates usually win with landslide proportions. this was a regional election. landslide huh lesse murphy sanders and now bilbarely all won by a few % margins or less. all of them were considered longshots in a city mostly populated by democrat city officials. landslide .

From : miles

tbone wrote at the time it was the only thing. it was bribing them how about not giving them money for nothing and there was no way that he clinton could have mustered enough support for a pre-emptive strike back then as most americans were still wearing our rose colored glasses. you still are. he should have launched a pre-emptive strike as he would have had full support with the aftermath and fear of 9/11. pre-emptive strike huh lol. good grief. he calls n. korea part of the axis of evil and yet turns a blind eye to them when he finds out that they are in fact a true threat unlike saddam who was no threat at all where he did strike. diplomacy has a chance with n. korea. other nations have more at stake most notably japan. btw im still waiting for that dollar amount on all this money we supposedly sent them. hmm tbone. did we or didnt we send them some money on one hand you say clinton did the only thing he could give them money. on the other you bash bush for starting trouble by taking it away. well if it wasnt much anyways then clinton nor bush did much to effect anything either way. im waiting for the $ amount that bush took away that caused all the trouble according to you. whats that saying about cake again too funny. did he ignore it or did he know that the other choices he had would have cost us much more. i do realise your extreme bias will not let you see that. not giving them money was a better choice. you think it was a good idea for clinton to try to bribe n. korea best choice rofl. once again miles you make assumptions that simply make an ass out of yourself. i am probably at the same tax bracket as you are. granted i dont currently own a business that i can rape to the day i die like you intend to do but i dont live above my means either. rape my own business lol. so its ok to invest over the years in another business and retire on that but investing in my own business and retiring on is greed. good grief are you messed up! which one works every time working your ass of to be sucessful or pissing of a liberal by doing it they are mutually inclusive of each other. youve proven that. once again you make lame assumptions that you cannot possibly hope to back up. greed has nothing to do with the bs you just said. greed is taking more than you would ever need for no other reason than you can. hmm...taking whats not yours from someone else is stealing....and greed. dumping tons of money on a few that already have far far more than they could possibly spend does nothing but make many poor and cripples the economy pretty much like now. so this is why the economy is growing considerably lately this is why tax funds have skyrocketed lately to pay for those wonderful social programs you tout despite the tax cuts yep. not all of it but much more than you and your kind would ever admit to. most manufacturing has not been outsourced. most of the outsourced jobs have been in such things as call centers in india. the manufacturing jobs that have been outsourced are dwarfed by the number of such jobs insourced. look it up. more complete crap. i know that you like to talk about all of these magical insourced jobs but most of it is a complete farce. it is huh please provide proof that more jobs have been outsourced than insourced. and once again you would be wrong. prove to me that mortgage rates follow the fed rates. hmm fed rates just went up. guess what tbone mortgage rates are now lower than prior to the last fed rate increase. your belief is a bit flawed. lol complete bullshit and i dont see any numbers here. if mortgage rates in your area fell slightly it is more due to the rapidly deflating housing bubble in your area and has little to nothing to do with the stock market but they still didnt fall below the short term rate and if the fed raises it again watch how fast those mortgage rates go back up. in my area huh the rates vary only slightly from state to state. simple fact is tbone the mortgage rates dropped nationwide after the last fed rate increase. they simply do not always go in the same direction. they follow the long term bond market....period. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote sorry miles but it seems that you have spun yourself. you are the one that keeps making the money claim but have yet as usual to back it up with an amount too funny! hmm...then i guess bush and other countries couldnt have cut the funds since they didnt exist to begin with. yawn. we did what oil exactly did the usa give them from alaska or texas does it really matter where it came from yes because you stated we gave them oil. now please explain yourself. when you give something to someone do you always make it or do you buy it sometimes too funny. it could have come from canada or the mid east for all that matters. we gave them canadas or mid easts oil how much did we give n. korea of someone elses oil anyways we can buy oil from anyone and give it to anyone we please now cant we. i do understand you might not understand that concept with the poverty wages you pay your employees but it can and does happen. the point is that we gave them oil and food how much lol a question you have never been able to answer in any thread. there were two funding programs. look those up then come back to tell me just how much oil and food we gave them. oil lol...too funny. once again you try and make a point and as usual fail to back it up and then expect me to do it for you too funny. either put up or shut up miles. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote sorry miles but it seems that you have spun yourself. you are the one that keeps making the money claim but have yet as usual to back it up with an amount too funny! hmm...then i guess bush and other countries couldnt have cut the funds since they didnt exist to begin with. we did what oil exactly did the usa give them from alaska or texas does it really matter where it came from yes because you stated we gave them oil. now please explain yourself. it could have come from canada or the mid east for all that matters. we gave them canadas or mid easts oil how much did we give n. korea of someone elses oil anyways the point is that we gave them oil and food how much what exactly did we give them through what programs you have no idea do you there were two funding programs. look those up then come back to tell me just how much oil and food we gave them. oil lol...too funny. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote at the time it was the only thing. it was bribing them how about not giving them money for nothing bush did that one and we now see the results with missle launch tests and threats. yea we are much better off now. and there was no way that he clinton could have mustered enough support for a pre-emptive strike back then as most americans were still wearing our rose colored glasses. you still are. better than the right wing blinders you are still wearing. he should have launched a pre-emptive strike as he would have had full support with the aftermath and fear of 9/11. pre-emptive strike huh lol. good grief. still wearing those blinders i see. funny how we can waste hundreds of billions and thousands of american lives on someone who never did anything to us and was no threat at all but do nothing against the one who really is a threat or at least was made one by our current idiot in charge. he calls n. korea part of the axis of evil and yet turns a blind eye to them when he finds out that they are in fact a true threat unlike saddam who was no threat at all where he did strike. diplomacy has a chance with n. korea. other nations have more at stake most notably japan. first you keep making the claim that n. korea never holds up its side of an agreement and always lies and now claim that diplomacy has a chance of working there. how can diplomacy ever have a chance of working if the one you are signing agreements with always lies if that is the case then it will not work any better now than it did for clinton then. hahahahaha you really are too funny. btw im still waiting for that dollar amount on all this money we supposedly sent them. hmm tbone. did we or didnt we send them some money that is your claim not mine and i am still waiting for the exact figure. on one hand you say clinton did the only thing he could give them money. your spin is getting weak. where did i say that clinton gave them money he gave them aid not cash on the other you bash bush for starting trouble by taking it away. no i blame bush for taking away the aid we were giving them and then sticking his head in the sand when it came to the results of doing that. where did i mention money well if it wasnt much anyways then clinton nor bush did much to effect anything either way. im waiting for the $ amount that bush took away that caused all the trouble according to you. whats that saying about cake again too funny. i would say that you are the one being funny but in reality you are just sad. you keep trying to spin it into clinton giving them tons of cash that they then used to develope nuclear weapons which is complete bs. we gave them oil and food and any $$$ they used to develope the nukes if they actually have anything they came up with on their own and would have done it anyway. the real concern is who they would have made deals with and what deals they would have made to buy the oil and food they needed if we didnt give it to them and who they are getting ready to make deals with now that we have stopped. did he ignore it or did he know that the other choices he had would have cost us much more. i do realise your extreme bias will not let you see that. not giving them money was a better choice. you think it was a good idea for clinton to try to bribe n. korea best choice rofl. lol yea and diplomacy will work there now. not giving them anything is the plan of an idiot like we have now because if we dont others will and not everyone is our friend or doing it for the best of intentions. once again miles you make assumptions that simply make an ass out of yourself. i am probably at the same tax bracket as you are. granted i dont currently own a business that i can rape to the day i die like you intend to do but i dont live above my means either. rape my own business lol. so its ok to invest over the years in another business and retire on that but investing in my own business and retiring on is greed. good grief are you messed up! no you are just greedy and depending on spin to hide it. how exactly are you investing in your own business any more than your other workers the fact is that you are not and yet i bet you are not offering your employees any pension plans never mind their full salary until the day they die. when i invest in other companies i buy stock. if the company pays a dividend it is based on their profits so if they make no real money they dont pay it and it doesnt cost themanything. when i retire ill sell mist of my stocks which again costs the companies nothing. you intend to pay yourself your full overpriced salary while doing nothing to earn it regardless of how well the company is doing which amounts to taking what is not yours stealing. sorry miles but what you are doing is not what others do by investing in other companies.

From : tbone

tbone wrote that is your claim not mine and i am still waiting for the exact figure. no it is your claim as well. you are blaming the problems with n. korea on bush for stopping the flow of money to n. korea and crediting clinton for giving them the funds in the first place. youre playing both sides to suit your needs. too damn funny! sorry miles but it seems that you have spun yourself. you are the one that keeps making the money claim but have yet as usual to back it up with an amount too funny! your spin is getting weak. where did i say that clinton gave them money he gave them aid not cash aid lol. ill give you a clue. there were two separate funds clinton put us money into. got any idea what those were and what they were for of course you dont nor do you care. more spin. why dont you tell us which funds and exactly what they did were the handed over directly to n. korea and if so exactly how much was in them your spin is getting beyond weak to just lame. we gave them oil we did what oil exactly did the usa give them from alaska or texas does it really matter where it came from it could have come from canada or the mid east for all that matters. the point is that we gave them oil and food not cash and you have yet to prove anything different because you cant. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote when you give something to someone do you always make it or do you buy it sometimes too funny. ok so we bought some oil from canada or mid east or ..hmmm you have no idea do you and we gave it to n. korea huh where do you make this shit up anyways keep going though. its dang funny stuff! we can buy oil from anyone and give it to anyone we please now cant we. did we please explain which exact program fund we purchased oil and gave to n. korea through please tell me the mechanism for doing so. again there were two funds setup. neither had to do with oil being purchased by the usa and given to n. korea. you must know of a 3rd fund. do tell. i do understand you might not understand that concept with the poverty wages you pay your employees but it can and does happen. lol so now you resort to ranting about what you have no idea of. you have no clue how much employees make. just a trolling whine from good ol tbone. .

From : miles

tbone wrote tbone wrote when you give something to someone do you always make it or do you buy it sometimes too funny. ok so we bought some oil from canada or mid east or ..hmmm you have no idea do you and we gave it to n. korea huh where do you make this shit up anyways keep going though. its dang funny stuff! yawn like i said miles put up or shut up. iows you really have no idea but felt the need to argue so you made it all up about giving oil or whatever else you think we gave from who knows where to n. korea. at least you admit you have no idea what we gave how much we gave where it came from and how it was distributed. already told you that there were exactly two programs the usa was involved with to provide aid to n. korea. clintons idiot pal albright met in n. korea to set both of them up. but you already knew that right sure ya did. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote when you give something to someone do you always make it or do you buy it sometimes too funny. ok so we bought some oil from canada or mid east or ..hmmm you have no idea do you and we gave it to n. korea huh where do you make this shit up anyways keep going though. its dang funny stuff! yawn like i said miles put up or shut up. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote tbone wrote when you give something to someone do you always make it or do you buy it sometimes too funny. ok so we bought some oil from canada or mid east or ..hmmm you have no idea do you and we gave it to n. korea huh where do you make this shit up anyways keep going though. its dang funny stuff! yawn like i said miles put up or shut up. iows you really have no idea but felt the need to argue so you made it all up about giving oil or whatever else you think we gave from who knows where to n. korea. at least you admit you have no idea what we gave how much we gave where it came from and how it was distributed. already told you that there were exactly two programs the usa was involved with to provide aid to n. korea. clintons idiot pal albright met in n. korea to set both of them up. but you already knew that right sure ya did. once again miles you just said a whole lot of nothing so the same still goes put up or shut up. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote once again miles you just said a whole lot of nothing so the same still goes put up or shut up. iows you want someone else to do your homework. you have said nothing to support your claim of oil and food from the usa going to n. korea. exactly what programs were these funded through who set these programs up oh ya i already told you who you blab about me lol. always the same with you. someone has to get the facts out to you so you can then rant about them. read up on albrights meetings in n. korea to learn just what clinton gave n. korea. but you already know all that right too funny. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote once again miles you just said a whole lot of nothing so the same still goes put up or shut up. iows you want someone else to do your homework. no i want you to back up one of your bogus points for a change. you are the one making the claim that clintion gave n. korea tons of cash that they then used for nuclear development but have yet been able to even give a dollar amount. you have said nothing to support your claim of oil and food from the usa going to n. korea. and i dont have to as that is what the agreement we signed with them specified. crude food and a light water reactor to replace their existing one within a given period of time provided they followed certain guidelines. exactly what programs were these funded through who set these programs up oh ya i already told you who you blab about me lol. it doesnt matter what method was used to get them what we promised. you are making the claim that we gave them cash as in complete control over these unregulated funds now back it up. always the same with you. someone has to get the facts out to you so you can then rant about them. your arguments would carry more weight if you ever backed up even a single one of them but you never do. you make claims that we gave them cash and then mention funds but never link those funds as simple cash accounts that they used for nuclear development. sure you try and make it appear thats what they did but until you can provide facts to prove it it is nothing more than your typical extreme right wing half truths and smoke and mirrors. read up on albrights meetings in n. korea to learn just what clinton gave n. korea. but you already know all that right too funny. i did but unless i missed something please show me exactly where we gave them cash to use as they wished and exactly how much. like i keep saying miles put up or shut up. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote no i want you to back up one of your bogus points for a change. you are the one making the claim that clintion gave n. korea tons of cash that they then used for nuclear development but have yet been able to even give a dollar amount. what the hell difference does an exact $ amount mean our discussion isnt about an amount. its the fact clinton did give them a free ride and bush cut them off from it. youve already blasted bush for that. hmm bush cant take something away that clinton didnt give but that wont stop you from trying. and i dont have to as that is what the agreement we signed with them specified. which agreement is that exactly how much oil or food or whatever else you say we gave. it doesnt matter what method was used to get them what we promised. you are making the claim that we gave them cash as in complete control over these unregulated funds now back it up. we did not send shipments of oil over there as you seem to believe. your arguments would carry more weight if you ever backed up even a single one of them but you never do. hmm...so when or where was your backing up of these absurd claims about oil and food shipments to n. korea back them up. sure that was the intent of the agreements...but not what happened at all. care to detail these shipments to back up your claim .

From : tbone

tbone wrote no i want you to back up one of your bogus points for a change. you are the one making the claim that clintion gave n. korea tons of cash that they then used for nuclear development but have yet been able to even give a dollar amount. what the hell difference does an exact $ amount mean it means that you are makimg the accusations but are as usual unable to back them up. our discussion isnt about an amount. maybe not but the fact that you cannot give an amount cuts down on the credibility of your accusations. its the fact clinton did give them a free ride here you go with those accusations again. exactly how much of a free ride did clinton give them and bush cut them off from it. youve already blasted bush for that. hmm bush cant take something away that clinton didnt give but that wont stop you from trying. no i blast bush for his typical idiotic cowboy diplomacy. please explain to me exactly how we are better off now. and i dont have to as that is what the agreement we signed with them specified. which agreement is that exactly how much oil or food or whatever else you say we gave. you are the one who brought it up. did you forget already it doesnt matter what method was used to get them what we promised. you are making the claim that we gave them cash as in complete control over these unregulated funds now back it up. we did not send shipments of oil over there as you seem to believe. i never said that we did and this still does not back up your accusations. is this a desperate attempt to spin from the fact that you really dont know wtf you are talking about your arguments would carry more weight if you ever backed up even a single one of them but you never do. hmm...so when or where was your backing up of these absurd claims about oil and food shipments to n. korea back them up. i dont have to back them up that was what the agreement specified. i never said that we directly sent them food or oil but they did get it just the same at our expense. you are making the claim that we just gave them a huge wad of cash and they used it to develope nukes instead so how about you backing that up for a change. sure that was the intent of the agreements...but not what happened at all. yawn back it up. lets see some links giving exact amounts we gave and what they spent it on other than what the agreement specified. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote it means that you are makimg the accusations but are as usual unable to back them up. i see. youre the one that stated we gave all sorts of who knows what from who knows here to n. korea! i stated the 2 programs that albright made with n. korea you mention nothing and im the one that made it up too funny. maybe not but the fact that you cannot give an amount cuts down on the credibility of your accusations. hmm. you made the statement about oil and food. you have failed to mention through what programs and methods used how much when or anything to lend credibility to your absurd statements. but you still whine about me dang funny stuff right there! ya lots of credibility you got there! no i blast bush for his typical idiotic cowboy diplomacy. please explain to me exactly how we are better off now. cowboy diplomacy with n. korea he acted along with several other nations to cut the funding going to n. korea. oh ya he couldnt couldnt have done that because it was just oil and food and really wasnt much anyways right you are the one who brought it up. did you forget already uh no. i never brought up the usa giving oil and food to n. korea. that was you. so youre not going to state through what means that was done to back up your statement i already told ya who signed the deal with n. korea. what have you stated oh ya...nothing. i never said that we did and this still does not back up your accusations. is this a desperate attempt to spin from the fact that you really dont know wtf you are talking about you most certainly did. you stated we gave them oil and food but failed to state through what means we did that. you have no clue what you were talking about when you made that claim! i on the other hand did mention the two programs that were in place and who signed under clinton to put them into place. you just made some bs up and now squirm to accuse me. too funny. i dont have to back them up that was what the agreement specified. hmm. you dont have to back up any of your claims agreement specified what agreement oh ya you dont know and cant say. but youll come back that you dont have to because its just the way it is. lol. yawn back it up. lets see some links giving exact amounts we gave and what they spent it on other than what the agreement specified. i already told you the two programs albright put into place. now lets see something that mentions this oil and food program you talk about. lets see just something from you that suggests that oil and food was ever delivered to n. korea. .

From : eugene nine

fclaugus wrote i agree with those who said that boycotting will never work and it will not influence the price of gas not even one cent. we should instead conserve more gas. we can live closer to work walk to work use public transportation buy a smaller vehicle drive slower ride a bike ... etc. if you can afford to drive your suv 20 miles to work every day you have nothing to worry about. however those of us who cant afford to do so are probably wishing you werent hogging all the gas so to speak. therefore get a place closer to work and start thinking about what you are going to do when gas hits $10 a gallon. im sure you want be driving 20 miles to work then it would make no sense. we need to wake up and get ready for the future of even higher energy costs and do whatever we can now to be ready. fred ok i have to drive 20miles each way to work. my house is valued anywhere between 70-80k houses nearer to my work go from 200-300k will you pay the difference so i can move closer .

From : steve w

i agree with those who said that boycotting will never work and it will not influence the price of gas not even one cent. we should instead conserve more gas. we can live closer to work walk to work use public transportation buy a smaller vehicle drive slower ride a bike ... etc. if you can afford to drive your suv 20 miles to work every day you have nothing to worry about. however those of us who cant afford to do so are probably wishing you werent hogging all the gas so to speak. therefore get a place closer to work and start thinking about what you are going to do when gas hits $10 a gallon. im sure you want be driving 20 miles to work then it would make no sense. we need to wake up and get ready for the future of even higher energy costs and do whatever we can now to be ready. fred moving closer to work is not an option for myself or my wife. jobs are in opposite directions anyway. one is 28 miles the other is 16. no way im walking or expecting her to walk no public transportation available nor is there likely to be any ever.vehicles we own are paid for and since we both need 4x4 due to working hours when the town doesnt plow the roads and responding to fire calls in the boonies smaller vehicle wont work. drive the speed limit unless in route to a call. bike is out for the same reason as walking. plus it would not be fun riding in a foot of snow or pouring rain. as for your envy of others. why gas is available to anyone who wants to buy it. that is another reason why boycotting these stations will never work they will just sell the product elsewhere or idle a refinery until it is profitable to run it again. -- steve w. life is not like a box of chocolates its more like a jar of jalapenos- what you do today could burn your ass tomorrow! ----== posted via feeds.com - unlimited-unrestricted-secure usenet ==---- http//www.feeds.com the #1 group service in the world! 120000+ groups ----= east and west-coast server farms - total privacy via encryption =---- .

From : tbone

20 miles i wish i was that close. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving i agree with those who said that boycotting will never work and it will not influence the price of gas not even one cent. we should instead conserve more gas. we can live closer to work walk to work use public transportation buy a smaller vehicle drive slower ride a bike ... etc. if you can afford to drive your suv 20 miles to work every day you have nothing to worry about. however those of us who cant afford to do so are probably wishing you werent hogging all the gas so to speak. therefore get a place closer to work and start thinking about what you are going to do when gas hits $10 a gallon. im sure you want be driving 20 miles to work then it would make no sense. we need to wake up and get ready for the future of even higher energy costs and do whatever we can now to be ready. fred .

From : my names nobody

i agree with those who said that boycotting will never work and it will not influence the price of gas not even one cent. we should instead conserve more gas. we can live closer to work walk to work use public transportation buy a smaller vehicle drive slower ride a bike ... etc. if you can afford to drive your suv 20 miles to work every day you have nothing to worry about. however those of us who cant afford to do so are probably wishing you werent hogging all the gas so to speak. therefore get a place closer to work and start thinking about what you are going to do when gas hits $10 a gallon. im sure you want be driving 20 miles to work then it would make no sense. we need to wake up and get ready for the future of even higher energy costs and do whatever we can now to be ready. fred these are two totally different issues weather you conserve energy or not will not effect big oil companies price gouging of an necessary commodity. many drivers are already conserving as much energy as they can. they are doing everything they can living as close as they can to work driving very small economy cars to and from work etc. yet they still have to buy fuel and they are still very bothered by the big oil companies gouging them. what the big oil companies are doing now is the same thing that enron did a few years ago. using fuel and electricity are no longer discretionary for most people in north american. they cant stop using electricity and most cant stop driving. even if you walk to the grocery store the groceries are still getting there in a truck that burns fuel. the farmer who grew the groceries burns lots of fuel too over 120 gallons a day in just one combine. public transportation still needs fuel... fuel use is not the same as drinking coke or eating twinkies nobodies lives are catastrophically disrupted if coke wants to charge $300 for a can of coke. big oil companies are now charging over $70 per barrel for oil that cost them less than $20 to drill/pump/deliver. big oil companies price gouging of an necessary commodity is a big problem for everyone weather you conserve energy or not weather you like it or not. .

From : helen abuse roman gov

my names nobody wrote big oil companies price gouging of an necessary commodity is a big problem for everyone weather you conserve energy or not weather you like it or not. heres some info. but the rich are always going to stay rich no matter who is without food clothing or shelter. the masses serve as a huge bumper to protect the rich and so it goes. the rich also includes doctors drug corps et al whose ceos get obscenely grossly disgusting incomes for life and for their families. john d. rockefeller said competition is a sin and thats the altar at which they all worship including liarberal democrats who mouth off to the contrary while raking in more than they could ever use or need e.g. killer kennedy whos selection to the senate parallels this nations downward spiral. ---- what do oil companies make on a gallon of gasoline an industry-wide study in the late 1990s showed that oil industry profits amounted to an estimated 7.3 cents on each gallon sold.1 more recently conocophillips reported that during the third quarter of 2005 earnings from its u.s. refining and marketing operations amounted to 9 cents per gallon. this compares with a national average retail price of $2.60 per gallon during the third quarter the period of highest gasoline prices in 2005. a multitude of factors can affect an individual oil companys profit on gasoline sales. profitability factors include the efficiency of the firms refining distribution and marketing system as well as its source of raw material. in times of rising oil prices companies that own and produce a considerable portion of the crude oil used in their refineries may benefit more than other companies that must purchase most or all of their supplies on the open market. crude oil generally represents the single greatest cost component of gasoline which explains why gasoline prices rise and fall so quickly with changes in the world price of crude oil. for example at conocophillips crude oil costs make up 85 to 90 percent of the total costs of running its refineries. as an international commodity crude oil is bought and sold 24 hours a day so its price is changing constantly. in the matter of a day or two crude oil prices can move up or down by several dollars depending upon supply and demand factors. in general crude oil accounts for roughly half of gasolines price as shown in the graphic. other price components include refining distribution pipelines and tanker trucks and marketing service stations and convenience stores. these so-called downstream costs have been falling as companies have made operations more efficient. when gasoline reaches the pump another major factor comes into play - federal state and local taxes which average about 20 percent or more of the pump price. the federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon while state taxes vary from 14 cents in wyoming to more than 44 cents per gallon in new york. 1 estimate was based on an average pump price between january 1997 and september 1999. the estimate was derived by dividing the net income of the gasoline-related operations of major oil companies by the total number of gallons sold by those companies. study was conducted by the american petroleum institute. find out more out at... http//www.conocophillips.com/room/otherresources/energyanswers/oilprofits.htm .

From : fclaugus

i agree with those who said that boycotting will never work and it will not influence the price of gas not even one cent. we should instead conserve more gas. we can live closer to work walk to work use public transportation buy a smaller vehicle drive slower ride a bike ... etc. if you can afford to drive your suv 20 miles to work every day you have nothing to worry about. however those of us who cant afford to do so are probably wishing you werent hogging all the gas so to speak. therefore get a place closer to work and start thinking about what you are going to do when gas hits $10 a gallon. im sure you want be driving 20 miles to work then it would make no sense. we need to wake up and get ready for the future of even higher energy costs and do whatever we can now to be ready. fred moving closer to work is not an option for myself or my wife. jobs are in opposite directions anyway. one is 28 miles the other is 16. no way im walking or expecting her to walk no public transportation available nor is there likely to be any ever.vehicles we own are paid for and since we both need 4x4 due to working hours when the town doesnt plow the roads and responding to fire calls in the boonies smaller vehicle wont work. drive the speed limit unless in route to a call. bike is out for the same reason as walking. plus it would not be fun riding in a foot of snow or pouring rain. i guarantee there is a point where you would definately consider moving closer to work. maby not $10 a gallon but maby $20 or $30. everyone has a price so to speak. i was only saying that more people should prepare themselves for higher energy costs instead of just complaining about them. you cant expect our oil supply to last forever. as for your envy of others. why gas is available to anyone who wants to buy it. that is another reason why boycotting these stations will never work they will just sell the product elsewhere or idle a refinery until it is profitable to run it again. i dont envy others. i can afford all the gas i need and i was only being dramatic to prove a point. sorry if i wasnt clear. and you are right boycotting will never work. if you dont want to pay high gas prices then dont buy gas. i know this is impractical and insensitive but it is the cold hard truth. fred .

From : fclaugus

i agree with those who said that boycotting will never work and it will not influence the price of gas not even one cent. we should instead conserve more gas. we can live closer to work walk to work use public transportation buy a smaller vehicle drive slower ride a bike ... etc. if you can afford to drive your suv 20 miles to work every day you have nothing to worry about. however those of us who cant afford to do so are probably wishing you werent hogging all the gas so to speak. therefore get a place closer to work and start thinking about what you are going to do when gas hits $10 a gallon. im sure you want be driving 20 miles to work then it would make no sense. we need to wake up and get ready for the future of even higher energy costs and do whatever we can now to be ready. fred these are two totally different issues weather you conserve energy or not will not effect big oil companies price gouging of an necessary commodity. many drivers are already conserving as much energy as they can. they are doing everything they can living as close as they can to work driving very small economy cars to and from work etc. yet they still have to buy fuel and they are still very bothered by the big oil companies gouging them. what the big oil companies are doing now is the same thing that enron did a few years ago. using fuel and electricity are no longer discretionary for most people in north american. they cant stop using electricity and most cant stop driving. even if you walk to the grocery store the groceries are still getting there in a truck that burns fuel. the farmer who grew the groceries burns lots of fuel too over 120 gallons a day in just one combine. public transportation still needs fuel... fuel use is not the same as drinking coke or eating twinkies nobodies lives are catastrophically disrupted if coke wants to charge $300 for a can of coke. big oil companies are now charging over $70 per barrel for oil that cost them less than $20 to drill/pump/deliver. big oil companies price gouging of an necessary commodity is a big problem for everyone weather you conserve energy or not weather you like it or not. price is set at a level at which supply meets demand. as long as we have record demand we will have record prices. better get used to high prices and prepare for the future. fred .

From : fclaugus

my names nobody wrote big oil companies price gouging of an necessary commodity is a big problem for everyone weather you conserve energy or not weather you like it or not. heres some info. but the rich are always going to stay rich no matter who is without food clothing or shelter. the masses serve as a huge bumper to protect the rich and so it goes. the rich also includes doctors drug corps et al whose ceos get obscenely grossly disgusting incomes for life and for their families. john d. rockefeller said competition is a sin and thats the altar at which they all worship including liarberal democrats who mouth off to the contrary while raking in more than they could ever use or need e.g. killer kennedy whos selection to the senate parallels this nations downward spiral. ---- what do oil companies make on a gallon of gasoline the government makes much more in taxes than the oil companies make in profit... go figure .

From : ed

over the long term we cannot conserve enough to make a difference. our population is growing the world population is growing and the proportion of the world population using fuel is growing even faster. there are only two true long term solutions that i can see. one is use of alternative fuel--probably solar energy. the other is population control. at the rate we are going our planet will not be able to support us all indefinitely. ed fclaugus wrote i agree with those who said that boycotting will never work and it will not influence the price of gas not even one cent. we should instead conserve more gas. we can live closer to work walk to work use public transportation buy a smaller vehicle drive slower ride a bike ... etc. if you can afford to drive your suv 20 miles to work every day you have nothing to worry about. however those of us who cant afford to do so are probably wishing you werent hogging all the gas so to speak. therefore get a place closer to work and start thinking about what you are going to do when gas hits $10 a gallon. im sure you want be driving 20 miles to work then it would make no sense. we need to wake up and get ready for the future of even higher energy costs and do whatever we can now to be ready. fred these are two totally different issues weather you conserve energy or not will not effect big oil companies price gouging of an necessary commodity. many drivers are already conserving as much energy as they can. they are doing everything they can living as close as they can to work driving very small economy cars to and from work etc. yet they still have to buy fuel and they are still very bothered by the big oil companies gouging them. what the big oil companies are doing now is the same thing that enron did a few years ago. using fuel and electricity are no longer discretionary for most people in north american. they cant stop using electricity and most cant stop driving. even if you walk to the grocery store the groceries are still getting there in a truck that burns fuel. the farmer who grew the groceries burns lots of fuel too over 120 gallons a day in just one combine. public transportation still needs fuel... fuel use is not the same as drinking coke or eating twinkies nobodies lives are catastrophically disrupted if coke wants to charge $300 for a can of coke. big oil companies are now charging over $70 per barrel for oil that cost them less than $20 to drill/pump/deliver. big oil companies price gouging of an necessary commodity is a big problem for everyone weather you conserve energy or not weather you like it or not. price is set at a level at which supply meets demand. as long as we have record demand we will have record prices. better get used to high prices and prepare for the future. fred .

From : tony d

john graesser wrote i guarantee there is a point where you would definately consider moving closer to work. maby not $10 a gallon but maby $20 or $30. everyone has a price so to speak. i was only saying that more people should prepare themselves for higher energy costs instead of just complaining about them. you cant expect our oil supply to last forever. we are already on the downward spiral back in the 1970s was when they started finding less and less new oil deposits each year. once the current oil is gone there isnt enough new oil being found just to maintain current demand. synthetic oil cant replace the vast amounts of oil being burned it hardly could cover the lubrication needs of the world. all those $300000 dollar houses that are 20 miles from anywhere will be worthless in 20-30 years since nobody will have the fuel to get to them. there is no shortage of oil just a limited amount of cheap oil. canada is now beginning to produce significant oil supplies from shale rock deposits. with the increase in oil prices this source now becomes viable. i believe they estimate colorado alone has 8x the oil as saudi arabia. .

From : fclaugus

over the long term we cannot conserve enough to make a difference. our population is growing the world population is growing and the proportion of the world population using fuel is growing even faster. before too long we will have another relitively inexpensive way to power our cars. hydrogen bio fuels electricity etc hopefully this technology comes sooner rather than later. there are only two true long term solutions that i can see. one is use of alternative fuel--probably solar energy. the other is population control. at the rate we are going our planet will not be able to support us all indefinitely. ed just like in nature when a species such as ourselves becomes overpopulated the weak will die out and the strong will survive. and those of us who know how to be self sufficient will have an advantage. fred .

From : fclaugus

john graesser wrote i guarantee there is a point where you would definately consider moving closer to work. maby not $10 a gallon but maby $20 or $30. everyone has a price so to speak. i was only saying that more people should prepare themselves for higher energy costs instead of just complaining about them. you cant expect our oil supply to last forever. we are already on the downward spiral back in the 1970s was when they started finding less and less new oil deposits each year. once the current oil is gone there isnt enough new oil being found just to maintain current demand. synthetic oil cant replace the vast amounts of oil being burned it hardly could cover the lubrication needs of the world. all those $300000 dollar houses that are 20 miles from anywhere will be worthless in 20-30 years since nobody will have the fuel to get to them. there is no shortage of oil just a limited amount of cheap oil. canada is now beginning to produce significant oil supplies from shale rock deposits. with the increase in oil prices this source now becomes viable. i believe they estimate colorado alone has 8x the oil as saudi arabia. this may be so but there definately is a shortage of refineries. we havent built one in the us for 30 years thanks to those damn greens... jk ... too many damn regulations not to mention the expense. .

From : tbone

john graesser wrote i guarantee there is a point where you would definately consider moving closer to work. maby not $10 a gallon but maby $20 or $30. everyone has a price so to speak. i was only saying that more people should prepare themselves for higher energy costs instead of just complaining about them. you cant expect our oil supply to last forever. we are already on the downward spiral back in the 1970s was when they started finding less and less new oil deposits each year. once the current oil is gone there isnt enough new oil being found just to maintain current demand. synthetic oil cant replace the vast amounts of oil being burned it hardly could cover the lubrication needs of the world. all those $300000 dollar houses that are 20 miles from anywhere will be worthless in 20-30 years since nobody will have the fuel to get to them. there is no shortage of oil just a limited amount of cheap oil. canada is now beginning to produce significant oil supplies from shale rock deposits. with the increase in oil prices this source now becomes viable. i believe they estimate colorado alone has 8x the oil as saudi arabia. this may be so but there definately is a shortage of refineries. we havent built one in the us for 30 years thanks to those damn greens... jk ... too many damn regulations not to mention the expense. lol would you want one in your back yard. the sad truth is that the oil companies let the greens win this one because now they can use it as an easy excuse to legally gouge the rest of us. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : bryan collier

just like in nature when a species such as ourselves becomes overpopulated the weak will die out and the strong will survive. and those of us who know how to be self sufficient will have an advantage. thats right. only the strong and well-prepared will survive in a world without fuel. and when it becomes a free-for-all ill be there with all the weapons and ammo to take whatever i want while the helpless look on in fear. if i want food ill take it. if i see a woman i want ill take her while her cowardly husband is forced to watch. anyone who gets in the way is turned into a sieve. .

From : christopher thompson

so you are a proponant of anarchy -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango 06 liberty crd will the highways on the internet become more few --george w. bush concord new hampshire; january 29 2000 just like in nature when a species such as ourselves becomes overpopulated the weak will die out and the strong will survive. and those of us who know how to be self sufficient will have an advantage. thats right. only the strong and well-prepared will survive in a world without fuel. and when it becomes a free-for-all ill be there with all the weapons and ammo to take whatever i want while the helpless look on in fear. if i want food ill take it. if i see a woman i want ill take her while her cowardly husband is forced to watch. anyone who gets in the way is turned into a sieve. . 222 317323 125l1jlrmf4acb0@corp.super.com i is already boycotting dem. in 1146594451.260535.210480@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com on 2 may 2006 112731 -0700 filleh wrote snip petro-economic urban legend http//www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/gasout.asp the only practical way of reducing gasoline prices is through the straightforward means of buying less gasoline not through a simple and painless scheme of just shifting where we buy it. the inconvenience of driving less is a hardship too many people apparently arent willing to endure however. .

From : napalmheart

i agree with those who said that boycotting will never work and it will not influence the price of gas not even one cent. we should instead conserve more gas. we can live closer to work walk to work use public transportation buy a smaller vehicle drive slower ride a bike ... etc. if you can afford to drive your suv 20 miles to work every day you have nothing to worry about. however those of us who cant afford to do so are probably wishing you werent hogging all the gas so to speak. therefore get a place closer to work and start thinking about what you are going to do when gas hits $10 a gallon. im sure you want be driving 20 miles to work then it would make no sense. we need to wake up and get ready for the future of even higher energy costs and do whatever we can now to be ready. fred these are two totally different issues weather you conserve energy or not will not effect big oil companies price gouging of an necessary commodity. many drivers are already conserving as much energy as they can. they are doing everything they can living as close as they can to work driving very small economy cars to and from work etc. yet they still have to buy fuel and they are still very bothered by the big oil companies gouging them. what the big oil companies are doing now is the same thing that enron did a few years ago. using fuel and electricity are no longer discretionary for most people in north american. they cant stop using electricity and most cant stop driving. even if you walk to the grocery store the groceries are still getting there in a truck that burns fuel. the farmer who grew the groceries burns lots of fuel too over 120 gallons a day in just one combine. public transportation still needs fuel... fuel use is not the same as drinking coke or eating twinkies nobodies lives are catastrophically disrupted if coke wants to charge $300 for a can of coke. big oil companies are now charging over $70 per barrel for oil that cost them less than $20 to drill/pump/deliver. big oil companies price gouging of an necessary commodity is a big problem for everyone weather you conserve energy or not weather you like it or not. gouging what gouging the profit margin of oil is lower than the margin on many everyday products. .

From : napalmheart

john graesser wrote i guarantee there is a point where you would definately consider moving closer to work. maby not $10 a gallon but maby $20 or $30. everyone has a price so to speak. i was only saying that more people should prepare themselves for higher energy costs instead of just complaining about them. you cant expect our oil supply to last forever. we are already on the downward spiral back in the 1970s was when they started finding less and less new oil deposits each year. once the current oil is gone there isnt enough new oil being found just to maintain current demand. synthetic oil cant replace the vast amounts of oil being burned it hardly could cover the lubrication needs of the world. all those $300000 dollar houses that are 20 miles from anywhere will be worthless in 20-30 years since nobody will have the fuel to get to them. there is no shortage of oil just a limited amount of cheap oil. canada is now beginning to produce significant oil supplies from shale rock deposits. with the increase in oil prices this source now becomes viable. i believe they estimate colorado alone has 8x the oil as saudi arabia. this may be so but there definately is a shortage of refineries. we havent built one in the us for 30 years thanks to those damn greens... jk ... too many damn regulations not to mention the expense. but they have been expanding existing refineries. the major problems are market uncertainty and greatly increased demand from india and china. .

From : napalmheart

john graesser wrote i guarantee there is a point where you would definately consider moving closer to work. maby not $10 a gallon but maby $20 or $30. everyone has a price so to speak. i was only saying that more people should prepare themselves for higher energy costs instead of just complaining about them. you cant expect our oil supply to last forever. we are already on the downward spiral back in the 1970s was when they started finding less and less new oil deposits each year. once the current oil is gone there isnt enough new oil being found just to maintain current demand. synthetic oil cant replace the vast amounts of oil being burned it hardly could cover the lubrication needs of the world. all those $300000 dollar houses that are 20 miles from anywhere will be worthless in 20-30 years since nobody will have the fuel to get to them. there is no shortage of oil just a limited amount of cheap oil. canada is now beginning to produce significant oil supplies from shale rock deposits. with the increase in oil prices this source now becomes viable. i believe they estimate colorado alone has 8x the oil as saudi arabia. this may be so but there definately is a shortage of refineries. we havent built one in the us for 30 years thanks to those damn greens... jk ... too many damn regulations not to mention the expense. lol would you want one in your back yard. the sad truth is that the oil companies let the greens win this one because now they can use it as an easy excuse to legally gouge the rest of us. collectivist myth. .

From : helen abuse roman gov

fclaugus wrote price is set at a level at which supply meets demand. as long as we have record demand we will have record prices. better get used to high prices and prepare for the future. fred well considering that wages are currently about 5 times what they were twenty to twenty-five years ago whats the whinning about when gas prices join right in there im not defending these high gas prices but gas prices arent the only prices that have gone astronomical! .

From : tbone

no just an idiot. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving so you are a proponant of anarchy -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango 06 liberty crd will the highways on the internet become more few --george w. bush concord new hampshire; january 29 2000 just like in nature when a species such as ourselves becomes overpopulated the weak will die out and the strong will survive. and those of us who know how to be self sufficient will have an advantage. thats right. only the strong and well-prepared will survive in a world without fuel. and when it becomes a free-for-all ill be there with all the weapons and ammo to take whatever i want while the helpless look on in fear. if i want food ill take it. if i see a woman i want ill take her while her cowardly husband is forced to watch. anyone who gets in the way is turned into a sieve. .

From : matt macchiarolo

gouging what gouging the profit margin of oil is lower than the margin on many everyday products. true but exxon-mobil increase profits in the 1st quarter 2006 by 6.3% over the same quarter last year but increased production by 5%. if you plug in the numbers they had almost $103 million in profit more than their rate of increase in production. just enough for the executive bonuses. .

From : miles

matt macchiarolo wrote true but exxon-mobil increase profits in the 1st quarter 2006 by 6.3% over the same quarter last year but increased production by 5%. if you plug in the numbers they had almost $103 million in profit more than their rate of increase in production. just enough for the executive bonuses. and you think that most of that profit was from gasoline sales in the usa .

From : matt macchiarolo

what country do you think buys the most fuel matt macchiarolo wrote true but exxon-mobil increase profits in the 1st quarter 2006 by 6.3% over the same quarter last year but increased production by 5%. if you plug in the numbers they had almost $103 million in profit more than their rate of increase in production. just enough for the executive bonuses. and you think that most of that profit was from gasoline sales in the usa .

From : none2u

theres enough space for people for another 10000 years of expansion. theres enough gas and oil for a hundred at least. fusion will be in play in 40-50 i believe. solar is good so is wind. and they will be better faster cheaper. someone will build self sufficient houses en mass by then. water is easy to getand will be easier. theres no issues itll just cost more. the us governments more likely to go bankrupt before anarchy rules. theres no issues as long as we dont get the a-bomb on our head over the remaining middle east oil. conservation will happen when its economical for us to do so. or technology makes waste obsolete. most if not all of the problems are caused by business and government greed and politicians. no long term planning and shortsightedness. it has nothing to do with the peoples unwillingness to conserve or live next door to a nonexistent job. or take public transportation on a nonexistent train system. from here on out all commodities will cost more. were picking up the slack of the rest of the world. matt macchiarolo wrote true but exxon-mobil increase profits in the 1st quarter 2006 by 6.3% over the same quarter last year but increased production by 5%. if you plug in the numbers they had almost $103 million in profit more than their rate of increase in production. just enough for the executive bonuses. and you think that most of that profit was from gasoline sales in the usa .

From : my names nobody

fclaugus wrote price is set at a level at which supply meets demand. as long as we have record demand we will have record prices. better get used to high prices and prepare for the future. fred well considering that wages are currently about 5 times what they were twenty to twenty-five years ago whats the whinning about when gas prices join right in there im not defending these high gas prices but gas prices arent the only prices that have gone astronomical! whos wages in 1970 what was a welders wages what are they now in many places they are paying welders less today than they were in 1970. that is not the only job that pays less today than it did 30-35 years ago... .

From : robs440

you must live where theres lots of water........some of us dont think water is easy to get! theres enough space for people for another 10000 years of expansion. theres enough gas and oil for a hundred at least. fusion will be in play in 40-50 i believe. solar is good so is wind. and they will be better faster cheaper. someone will build self sufficient houses en mass by then. water is easy to getand will be easier. theres no issues itll just cost more. the us governments more likely to go bankrupt before anarchy rules. theres no issues as long as we dont get the a-bomb on our head over the remaining middle east oil. conservation will happen when its economical for us to do so. or technology makes waste obsolete. most if not all of the problems are caused by business and government greed and politicians. no long term planning and shortsightedness. it has nothing to do with the peoples unwillingness to conserve or live next door to a nonexistent job. or take public transportation on a nonexistent train system. from here on out all commodities will cost more. were picking up the slack of the rest of the world. matt macchiarolo wrote true but exxon-mobil increase profits in the 1st quarter 2006 by 6.3% over the same quarter last year but increased production by 5%. if you plug in the numbers they had almost $103 million in profit more than their rate of increase in production. just enough for the executive bonuses. and you think that most of that profit was from gasoline sales in the usa .

From : johnr66

over the long term we cannot conserve enough to make a difference. our population is growing the world population is growing and the proportion of the world population using fuel is growing even faster. there are only two true long term solutions that i can see. one is use of alternative fuel--probably solar energy. the other is population control. at the rate we are going our planet will not be able to support us all indefinitely. ed yes! the human population should not have been allowed to exceed 500 million 1/12th of what it is today. anything we do to reduce consumption of anything is stifled by increasing population. john .

From : none2u

what country do you think buys the most fuel you mean the 23% of the worlds fuel we buy the same country that produces 24% of the worlds needed goods uses 23 % of the worlds fuel . get it. i hope so . im so sick of bashing america rhetoric. what country do you think buys the most fuel matt macchiarolo wrote true but exxon-mobil increase profits in the 1st quarter 2006 by 6.3% over the same quarter last year but increased production by 5%. if you plug in the numbers they had almost $103 million in profit more than their rate of increase in production. just enough for the executive bonuses. and you think that most of that profit was from gasoline sales in the usa .

From : matt macchiarolo

whos bashing america i was bashing exxon... what country do you think buys the most fuel you mean the 23% of the worlds fuel we buy the same country that produces 24% of the worlds needed goods uses 23 % of the worlds fuel . get it. i hope so . im so sick of bashing america rhetoric. what country do you think buys the most fuel matt macchiarolo wrote true but exxon-mobil increase profits in the 1st quarter 2006 by 6.3% over the same quarter last year but increased production by 5%. if you plug in the numbers they had almost $103 million in profit more than their rate of increase in production. just enough for the executive bonuses. and you think that most of that profit was from gasoline sales in the usa .

From : napalmheart

gouging what gouging the profit margin of oil is lower than the margin on many everyday products. true but exxon-mobil increase profits in the 1st quarter 2006 by 6.3% over the same quarter last year but increased production by 5%. if you plug in the numbers they had almost $103 million in profit more than their rate of increase in production. just enough for the executive bonuses. what was the rate of increase of production costs the factors you mentioned arent static. ken .

From : miles

napalmheart wrote what was the rate of increase of production costs the factors you mentioned arent static. from what ive read their profit margins have not gone up. they have sold more product. the only way to reduce our costs is to cut demand. .

From : tbone

once again. you either prove that you dont know shit or are trying to hide the truth behind smoke and mirrors. you do know what a profit margin is right since they base their profit margin on a percentage markup on the cost of crude the higher the price of crude goes the more they make. selling more has nothing to do with it. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving napalmheart wrote what was the rate of increase of production costs the factors you mentioned arent static. from what ive read their profit margins have not gone up. they have sold more product. the only way to reduce our costs is to cut demand. .

From : miles

tbone wrote once again. you either prove that you dont know shit or are trying to hide the truth behind smoke and mirrors. you do know what a profit margin is right since they base their profit margin on a percentage markup on the cost of crude the higher the price of crude goes the more they make. selling more has nothing to do with it. i see. so you think their profit margins have gone up what 30% in the past year look again. selling more product has everything to do with it. demand worldwide has skyrocketed. none the less im not on the side of the oil companies. washington needs to get rid of the absurd tax benefits theyve enjoyed for over a decade and bush himself has asked congress to do so. note that these tax benefits were not a bush invention. they existed long before he took office. .

From : tbone

christopher thompson wrote i have to agree but at the same time not really miles. the thing is i was always taught that you were responsible for the safe operation of your vehicle. thats true. none the less the station should foot the bill for repairs if the attendant forgot the pump handle and gave the receipt indicating service was done. well since the op basically stole the fuel im not so sure about that. iirc the attendant accidentally charged him $100 for $10 worth of fuel and then spent 1/2 an hour trying to refund the difference. the op then stated that the attendant gave him back a receipt showing a refund of $100 the full amount after pumping the fuel. now unless the attendant clearly stated that he was done and was giving the fuel to the op for the delay like that would ever happen it must either be assumed that the transaction was not complete or that the attendant screwed up and the op was going to drive away with the fuel that he didnt pay for. then again the op possibly didnt state it clearly and in fact did pay for the fuel but even still i would think that in a half an hour of waiting he would have checked to make sure the pump was removed from the filler tube. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : joe

over the long term we cannot conserve enough to make a difference. our population is growing the world population is growing and the proportion of the world population using fuel is growing even faster. there are only two true long term solutions that i can see. one is use of alternative fuel--probably solar energy. the other is population control. at the rate we are going our planet will not be able to support us all indefinitely. ed yes! the human population should not have been allowed to exceed 500 million 1/12th of what it is today. anything we do to reduce consumption of anything is stifled by increasing population. john ive got good for you old buddy. the cows are already out of the barn. europes birth rate is 1.1 per woman. china is 1.0 and the u.s. is 1.8. africa doesnt use birth control but its suffering genocide and disease. the population hasnt started down yet. instead were just getting older. after about 40 years its going to start down. its too late to save the world from overpopulation because the birth rate has already peaked and were on the way down. .

From : joe

that is one great and informative posting/website about korey jerome kruse isnt it i attached all the court criminal documents on kruse to prove my claims. barbara schwarz looking for the original mark marty rathbun. no impostor please! -- http//www.thunderstar.net/schwarz/ i am concerned about dave touretzkys activities. he also has bomb instructions on the net http//www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/ victoria tory christman was on drugs and also experimented with heroin. if not for scientology she might have died. she now defames l. ron hubbard scientology and scientologists who salvaged her from her destructive lifestyle. http//www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/vtibin/shtml.dll/search.html i made my typical totally evaluative decision without any real facts. tory christman 27 jun 2001 message-id 3b3a9693.6bb0fc7@worldnet.att.net . 222 317577 4od7g.571$9a7.471@fe07.lga fclaugus wrote price is set at a level at which supply meets demand. as long as we have record demand we will have record prices. better get used to high prices and prepare for the future. fred well considering that wages are currently about 5 times what they were twenty to twenty-five years ago whats the whinning about when gas prices join right in there im not defending these high gas prices but gas prices arent the only prices that have gone astronomical! whos wages in 1970 what was a welders wages what are they now in many places they are paying welders less today than they were in 1970. that is not the only job that pays less today than it did 30-35 years ago... its about time too for some of those goldbrickers.... .

From : joe

napalmheart wrote what was the rate of increase of production costs the factors you mentioned arent static. from what ive read their profit margins have not gone up. they have sold more product. the only way to reduce our costs is to cut demand youre kidding right sold more product no they cant make any more. when you sell the same amount of product for way more money that counts as sales volume. it just looks like more product but its only more in dollars. whats increasing the price we all know is crude oil. the reason profits are going up is that crude oil costs about $5 a barrel but its worth about $70. the people who control the holes in the ground are experiencing all this profit and most of the majors control some holes in the ground and that is reflected in their profits. they price downstream products based on the price of imported crude. that puts them all on the same basis price-wise even though some companies control more holes than others. some usenet idiot may ask why dont they just sell it for $5 a barrel and thats a good question. the answer is that if they did wed burn more of it than they have for sale and theyd run out. .

From : miles

tbone wrote how much has the price of oil gone up in the past year miles since they claim that there refineries are already near max output reduced production due to the hurricanes and reserves that are above normal how are they selling all that much more. then there are the sudden price increases due to one bullshit excuse or another so dont tell me that their margins are so fixed. they are getting rich over fear paranoia and gouging and our current gubberment will not do a damn thing about it. that is your typical unresearched corporate hating mind spewing rhetoric as always. now go do some research on their profit margins. its available. you really believe that demand for oil has not skyrocketed the past 2 years worldwide if so you havent a clue. global demand for oil has skyrocketed. mostly from china but theyre not the only reason. you also have no idea just how big the oil industry is and how many 1000s of companies it involves around the world. all you know is the few big names such as exxon and mobile. look at companies such as schlumberger to get an idea. they dont even sell oil but they certainly do have a huge effect on the cost of it. bush is the one pushing for price gouging legislation. however even such laws would do nothing to the current prices. an emergency has to be declared. several states already have such laws for gas company gouging. none have been enacted with current prices. .

From : miles

joe wrote youre kidding right sold more product no they cant make any more. when you sell the same amount of product for way more money that counts as sales volume. it just looks like more product but its only more in dollars. demand for oil has skyrocketed the last 2 years. chinas growth has been the primary source but not the only reason. what you are referring to is us gas refining not oil prices. whats increasing the price we all know is crude oil. because of massive global demand increases. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote how much has the price of oil gone up in the past year miles since they claim that there refineries are already near max output reduced production due to the hurricanes and reserves that are above normal how are they selling all that much more. then there are the sudden price increases due to one bullshit excuse or another so dont tell me that their margins are so fixed. they are getting rich over fear paranoia and gouging and our current gubberment will not do a damn thing about it. that is your typical unresearched corporate hating mind spewing rhetoric as always. now go do some research on their profit margins. its available. you really believe that demand for oil has not skyrocketed the past 2 years worldwide if so you havent a clue. global demand for oil has skyrocketed. mostly from china but theyre not the only reason. no shit miles i thinkm that i mentioned the rise in oil prices but you seem to have forgotten the spikes in fuel prices for no valid reasons just bs speculation. you also have no idea just how big the oil industry is and how many 1000s of companies it involves around the world. all you know is the few big names such as exxon and mobile. look at companies such as schlumberger to get an idea. they dont even sell oil but they certainly do have a huge effect on the cost of it. more bullshit and spin. bush is the one pushing for price gouging legislation. however even such laws would do nothing to the current prices. an emergency has to be declared. several states already have such laws for gas company gouging. none have been enacted with current prices. there is a big difference between pushing it creating it and enforcing it. while he may push for it dont count it being created any time soon unless they think that it can help the part during the mid-term elections and dont ever count on it being enforced at least not by the current party. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote miles wrote you also have no idea just how big the oil industry is and how many 1000s of companies it involves around the world. all you know is the few big names such as exxon and mobile. look at companies such as schlumberger to get an idea. they dont even sell oil but they certainly do have a huge effect on the cost of it. more bullshit and spin. oh really guess that proves my point that you have no concept of just how big the oil industry is and who is involved. you just know the few big names exxon mobile etc. no clue at all. tbone there are 1000s of companies from small to huge. i named you one that is huge doesnt sell oil but has a huge effect on its cost. you choose to only have comprehension of the few main players. the industry is far larger than exxon and mobile and the like. far larger. there is a big difference between pushing it creating it and enforcing it. while he may push for it dont count it being created any time soon unless they think that it can help the part during the mid-term elections and dont ever count on it being enforced at least not by the current party. lol the current party is the one pushing for such legislation not the dems and yet you still find a reason to whine about it. good grief. .

From : whitelightning

whos wages in 1970 what was a welders wages what are they now in many places they are paying welders less today than they were in 1970. that is not the only job that pays less today than it did 30-35 years ago... its about time too for some of those goldbrickers.... well in that case put your name at the top of the list. whitelightning .

From : napalmheart

napalmheart wrote what was the rate of increase of production costs the factors you mentioned arent static. from what ive read their profit margins have not gone up. they have sold more product. the only way to reduce our costs is to cut demand youre kidding right sold more product no they cant make any more. when you sell the same amount of product for way more money that counts as sales volume. it just looks like more product but its only more in dollars. whats increasing the price we all know is crude oil. the reason profits are going up is that crude oil costs about $5 a barrel but its worth about $70. the people who control the holes in the ground are experiencing all this profit and most of the majors control some holes in the ground and that is reflected in their profits. they price downstream products based on the price of imported crude. that puts them all on the same basis price-wise even though some companies control more holes than others. some usenet idiot may ask why dont they just sell it for $5 a barrel and thats a good question. the answer is that if they did wed burn more of it than they have for sale and theyd run out. sales volume is measured in unit volume gallons barrels etc. not dollars or euros. ken .

From : tbone

tbone wrote miles wrote you also have no idea just how big the oil industry is and how many 1000s of companies it involves around the world. all you know is the few big names such as exxon and mobile. look at companies such as schlumberger to get an idea. they dont even sell oil but they certainly do have a huge effect on the cost of it. more bullshit and spin. oh really guess that proves my point that you have no concept of just how big the oil industry is and who is involved. you just know the few big names exxon mobile etc. no clue at all. more right wing bullshit and spin. sure there are many involved but i dont see record proffits being reported from them. the money still points to exxon mobile ect regardless of how you try and spin it. tbone there are 1000s of companies from small to huge. i named you one that is huge doesnt sell oil but has a huge effect on its cost. are they now bringing in record profits to the tune of billions per month. if this huge one that you mentioned was the cause then exxon mobile ect would be bringing in the same money they always were not record profits like they are now. no matter how you try and spin it the money points the way. you choose to only have comprehension of the few main players. the industry is far larger than exxon and mobile and the like. far larger. no i just choose to ignore your lame blame game. are mobile exxon ect the only ones to blame of course not and i never said that they were but it still doesnt change the fact that they are taking full advantage of it and giving it to all of un in the ass. how about that $400000000 retirement payout last month. where do you think that money came from talk about greed. there is a big difference between pushing it creating it and enforcing it. while he may push for it dont count it being created any time soon unless they think that it can help the part during the mid-term elections and dont ever count on it being enforced at least not by the current party. lol the current party is the one pushing for such legislation not the dems and yet you still find a reason to whine about it. good grief. more complete spin. why would the dems go against this the answer is that they wouldnt not unless there is some other garbage attached to it and thats if it ever even comes to an actual vote. any way you want to spin it the right is just making noise in a lame attempt to make themselves look better because so far they really have done a shit job of things and the people are getting tired of dealing with it and mid term elections are coming up fast. at this rate the dems might take back control of congress and the reps damn well know it. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : xclimation

john graesser wrote i guarantee there is a point where you would definately consider moving closer to work. maby not $10 a gallon but maby $20 or $30. everyone has a price so to speak. i was only saying that more people should prepare themselves for higher energy costs instead of just complaining about them. you cant expect our oil supply to last forever. we are already on the downward spiral back in the 1970s was when they started finding less and less new oil deposits each year. once the current oil is gone there isnt enough new oil being found just to maintain current demand. synthetic oil cant replace the vast amounts of oil being burned it hardly could cover the lubrication needs of the world. all those $300000 dollar houses that are 20 miles from anywhere will be worthless in 20-30 years since nobody will have the fuel to get to them. there is no shortage of oil just a limited amount of cheap oil. canada is now beginning to produce significant oil supplies from shale rock deposits. with the increase in oil prices this source now becomes viable. i believe they estimate colorado alone has 8x the oil as saudi arabia. this may be so but there definately is a shortage of refineries. we havent built one in the us for 30 years thanks to those damn greens... jk ... too many damn regulations not to mention the expense. but they have been expanding existing refineries. the major problems are market uncertainty and greatly increased demand from india and china. napalmheart this is not a collectivist myth; but a truth. trust me on this one; i know. you are right about refineries being expanded. not only expanded but modernized. not only modernized but much more effient and enviromentally friendly to a degree. that degree being that the refineries can up their capacity by being less enviromentally friendly just by the flick of a switch. next time we should not elect politicians who make money in the oil business and use oil executives to draft energy policies. .

From : xclimation

wages are not 5 x what they were 20 to 25 years ago. when adjusted for inflation they are less. check the facts on this. also 20 years ago; one had an hour on the clock for lunch worked on average 40 hours per week had 2 weeks vacation cheaper health insurance better retirement benefits etc. fclaugus wrote price is set at a level at which supply meets demand. as long as we have record demand we will have record prices. better get used to high prices and prepare for the future. fred well considering that wages are currently about 5 times what they were twenty to twenty-five years ago whats the whinning about when gas prices join right in there im not defending these high gas prices but gas prices arent the only prices that have gone astronomical! .