Well, get used to it. Obama is going to be our President for the next eight to ten years.
Whew. That’s a long time to govern 57 states.
UPDATE: My mistake. It’s actually 58, if you watch the clip.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Powered by WordPress.
My response: giggle and quote to my husband.
Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/21/2008 @ 12:55 amMy husband: *eyebrow raise* So he’ll have a ten year term limit over the 58 states, or what?
Of course, that is 58 states, not counting Alaska or Hawaii.
GaryC (644bb3) — 7/21/2008 @ 2:36 amWhere his staff won’t let him go.
GaryC (644bb3) — 7/21/2008 @ 2:37 amYou are all obviously forgetting about the two year conversion. If elected President, Obama may decide to run past the swearing in and attempt to enter the oval office. If he makes it, a guaranteed two extra years.
Apogee (366e8b) — 7/21/2008 @ 2:40 amThis is the kind of stuff that the media built the myth of George Bush being an idiot from.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/21/2008 @ 5:21 amChimpy McHilterburton is a genocidal dictator. No way will he ever allow there to be a free election to choose his successor, voluntarily.
JD (75f5c3) — 7/21/2008 @ 6:15 amPass the ammo and the box of MREs, please…
I need to finish puttin’ up stores to ready for the eventual siege…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 7/21/2008 @ 6:29 amMaybe it’s just me and my uncouth, flyover-country ways, but had I been that interviewer, I’d have immedeately replied with “Eight to ten?? Do you not even know how long a president can serve for?? *Look off camera* Why did you let him sit down if he was high??”
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 7/21/2008 @ 6:42 amWhen you add in the length of this campaign it will be ten years with the Messiah. And it will sure as hell feel like it, too.
Icy Truth (36dec9) — 7/21/2008 @ 6:52 amIf Senator McCain had said this, our friends on tyhe left would be screaming
Dana R Pico (3e4784) — 7/21/2008 @ 7:30 am“Senile! Senile! Senile!”“Uhh, this might constitute evidence that John McCain is too old to be president.”You have a friend on the left? Commie lover. đ
Icy Truth (36dec9) — 7/21/2008 @ 7:45 amYes, I’m sure Barack the Magnificent meant that his eight years will just feel like ten. Or maybe he’s including his senate time as part of the full fabulous package.
gajim (e39b35) — 7/21/2008 @ 7:47 amToo bad Letterman doesn’t have a Great Moments in Presidential Candidates’ Speeches bit. This would be right at the top with some Bush’s classic flubs.
Dana (f3e2a8) — 7/21/2008 @ 7:49 amHere’s a scenario: legalize thoose 12 million illegals who will vote socialist/marxist for Urkel. Make a constitutional amendment that overrules the two term limit. Or perhaps kiss islamofascist ass and still get attacked so that martial law is declared. With NYC/DC and LA radioactive, rule out elections and declare yourself Castro/Hussein/Stalin redux. Chief justice Guinier will back you. Maybe while you’re at it make it a law that black votes count as ten for each black as Lani once proposed. Tale money from rich neocons and pay reparations to the Michelles, sharptons, wrights et al so they can buy fresh fruit and high end German cars.
madmax333 (d052b2) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:00 amOne needs to maintain his Gaffes in Executive Summary format to keep track, as well as his Under the Bus tosses.
Mike O (9bbccc) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:24 amBut then, using Obamath, he’s already served the public for 20 years.
Icy Truth (36dec9) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:28 amI don’t understand the fuss…
There are the 50 we know about, plus Guam, Puerto Rico, Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Afghanistan, and Afghanistan.
Larry Sheldon (86b2e1) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:38 amThen let’s give him a gold watch and send him off to the Old Politician’s Home.
Maybe he can grab Jimmeh along the way – he keeps getting outside the Alzheimer’s fence.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:39 amThat’s 8 to 10 years in the first term. He gets a longer term to make up for 400 years of slavery and oppression. Only then does he need to stand for re-election.
Not that there will be an opponent (he is standing for RE-election). His Volunteer Civil Defense Corps, along with the brave Obama Youth, will heroically defeat the wreckers and hoarders who would wickedly spread such disunity.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/21/2008 @ 9:08 amit seems like george w. bush has been president for 8-10 years, why shouldn’t a democratic president get equal time?
assistant devil's advocate (878dfb) — 7/21/2008 @ 9:27 am20, Using your logic, W is equal time to the 8 years of Clinton corruption.
PCD (5c49b0) — 7/21/2008 @ 9:34 amAnd during those eight to ten years, McCain will be working as a surly guard at the Iraq-Pakistan border…
Grazmut (b43399) — 7/21/2008 @ 9:51 amWell, the American People always get the Government they want/deserve!
Scott, in his saterical tone, might be hitting the nail squarely on the head.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 7/21/2008 @ 10:02 amGot to get me some MRE’s, I think I’m good on ammo.
Of course, with a sufficient supply of ammo, everything else can be acquired, can’t it?
Washington DC will be split into eight states, for a total of 16 additional Senators and 8 members of congress.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 7/21/2008 @ 10:27 amAttention Deficit Addict,
Perception is the real reality; feelings count for more than facts; truth is subjective. Yep, you’ve earned your cupcake for today.
Icy Truth (36dec9) — 7/21/2008 @ 10:34 amThis is worthy of a post?
Please answer all the following questions correctly and you win a prize:
How many years will the foreign policies of GWB effect this nation in toto? Use the most conservative time frame. Or if you really want to have fun, use the longest conceivable time frame. Both answers at this moment would be correct possible outcomes. You don’t even have to use numbers.
Use x = number of years foreign polices of GWB will impact U.S.A (or FPOGWIU).
Y = Least number of years FPOGWIU
Z = Maximum number of years FPOGWIU
So
X >= Y
or
X = 8 or X 8 years
What would x equal if he remains a senator.
X = the career expectancy of a Obama as a Senator. X is anything from whatever time he’s dealt with them so far to when he retires as a Senator.
What would x equal if let’s say he becomes a diplomat or other representative of the U.S. Government. Again, X is anything from whatever time he’s dealt with them so far to when he retires in whatever capacity he’s in.
Or what would x equal if he becomes a private citizen and goes back to teaching Constitutional law? See above
But X would also be contingent on the political durability of those individuals as well obviously so take into account whatever term limits are in place in Afgahnistan, Iraq and France and the variables inherent within those time frames as well as life expectancy and whether those folks stay in government in some way.
Thx for reading.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/21/2008 @ 10:36 amTime to start a new list for Things Peter Doesn’t Understand
1. Foreign Policy
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 10:42 am2. Basic Mathematics
3. Spelling.
Drummer, I’m beginning to think you have a crush on me.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/21/2008 @ 10:49 amEverything just got 2 1/2 times worse within this thread.
Icy Truth (36dec9) — 7/21/2008 @ 10:56 am4. Human relations
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 11:00 am5. Sarcasm
Peter:
If you divide Obama’s three names into three equal parts, you get 6 6 6.
So let X = THE FREAKING ANTI-CHRIST.
Number of years the Anti-Christ will rule the earth, according to Revelations = 7 years.
Now this guy (who has got some nerve, let me tell you) is trying to squeeze in an extra 1-3 years. Not only is it unconstitutional, he’s trying to get around the Bible, too.
Yes, I am insane. But isn’t it weird how I still make way more sense than you do?
Glen Wishard (02562c) — 7/21/2008 @ 11:05 amJames Danforth Quayle blundered when he corrected a student’s correct spelling of “potato” to potatoe” and he was pilloried for it. That pales in comparison to the rank ignorance and arrogance of the “Empty (but Oh So Eloquent) Suit.”
quasimodo (b903f8) — 7/21/2008 @ 11:06 am<blockquote>3. Spelling.
If I used spell check Drummer 90% of your comments would go out the
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/21/2008 @ 11:09 amwindwwindow.Add punctuation to the list . . . unless a computer program titled “spell check Drummer” actually exists.
Icy Truth (36dec9) — 7/21/2008 @ 11:18 amBetter underline “Spelling”.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 11:42 amIcy, they usually do when Drum shows up…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 7/21/2008 @ 11:47 amFunny thing is that the error in spelling was actually printed on the card handed to him by the judge at the National Spelling Bee.
I think Quayle can be forgiven for accepting a professional’s word on the matter.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 11:47 amWhy, thank you, Scott. I live to fuck up your day. You’ll let me know when you want the full-scale abuse to start, won’t you?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 11:48 am#36 – Scott Jacobs
It is both presumptuous to speak for me and rude to steal Peter’s thunder.
Icy Truth (36dec9) — 7/21/2008 @ 11:56 amThat’s it. I’m going to sbegin using spelll cheek. youse guys are so skrewed.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/21/2008 @ 12:02 pmI shall keep that in mind, should I attempt to do so, Icy…
I was REPLYING to you. Responding.
It’s sad to see that my time away saw such a lowering of standards here.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 7/21/2008 @ 12:03 pmThey had to be lowered, just to allow you back in. Haven’t you gotten the memo?
Oh, wait, you weren’t supposed to know that people were talking about you while you weren’t here.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 12:11 pmFuck up my day?
Dear child, you barely rate as an annoyance, and only then because I have to take the time to scroll past your ignorant blather and insipid insults that surve no purpose but to amuse you…
You certainly have a high opinion of yourself.
I can’t help but wonder if the reason for that is an attempt at compensation for the lack of regard others hold for you…
But please, if it fills your empty, sad life with joy, please… Feel free to start “the full-scale abuse”. I will do my best to prented to care.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 7/21/2008 @ 12:14 pmI can tell. Especially since your first comment here was to pick up a day-old comment and (misunderstanding it) try to use it to insult me.
And, not for nothing, but you might want to “dear child” someone who doesn’t already have grandkids who are smarter than you. Not to mention more emotionally secure.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 12:18 pmLook: I said “presumptuous to speak for me” to assure Drumwaster that I was not referring to him, and I said “rude to steal Peterâs thunder” to ensure that Peter did know I was referring to him. Just having my post show up immediately following his may not have been enough in his case. Of course, “rude to steal Peter’s thunder” could also have a double meaning.
Icy Truth (36dec9) — 7/21/2008 @ 12:27 pmI never had the remotest idea that you would have been referring to me, Scott’s delusional fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding.
But when he mixes up his meds like this, one has to make allowances for the levels of stupidity above and beyond his normal levels.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 12:31 pmOn the other hand, if you apply the same math to his Iraq withdrawal timelime it looks almost reasonable.
roy (7a7bfb) — 7/21/2008 @ 12:34 pmYou guys are funny đ
Oiram (983921) — 7/21/2008 @ 12:39 pmSpeaking of withdrawal timetables, how is the Kosovo Exit Strategy going?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 12:45 pmYou mean the same Kosovo where we lost zero American lives?
Oiram (983921) — 7/21/2008 @ 12:50 pmYeah, that ultra-severe threat to American national security where we bombed women and children indiscriminately from 10,000 feet, as ordered by the same man who almost declared war on a nuclear-capable nation that was actually an ally. (He’s a spokesman for the current Democratic candidate for President today, unless he’s been thrown under that bus, too.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 1:06 pm#50 – Oiram
You mean the same Kosovo where we lost zero American lives?
— Transcript from The News Hour with Jim Lehrer (PBS), May 5, 1999:
Two American pilots died today when their Apache helicopter crashed in Albania. They were identified as Army Chief Warrant Officers David Gibbs of Ohio and Kevin Reichert of Wisconsin. They were the first American casualties of the Kosovo campaign. President Clinton offered words of sympathy at an air base in Germany.
— So, NO; not the Kosovo inside your head . . . the real one.
Icy Truth (36dec9) — 7/21/2008 @ 1:07 pmOh, I forgots the importance of sending in our military where they will be safe from conflicts.
G (722480) — 7/21/2008 @ 1:12 pmSorry, two pilots.
Bush has had to send out how many sympathy cards now? 4000 is it?
As far as what’s in my head, it hurts. Not just the loss of lives but the loss of our money. Yours and mine. But we went over that in too much length last week.
Kosovo comparison……..get real my friend.
Oiram (983921) — 7/21/2008 @ 1:16 pmNot just the loss of lives but the loss of our money. Yours and mine.
— Better a thousand dollars of my tax money for the military than one penny for HillShrillWillShillFor-A-Vote’s “Woodstock Museum”, or the “Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York” ($2.6 million in earmarks, so far)! That Chuck Rangel earmark courtesy of Representative Jeff Flake, the man who will assume John McCain’s Senate seat when McCain is elected in November.
Also, the comparison with Kosovo is to point out that a UN peacekeeping force has been in place there since 1999; their presence has allowed the people there to avoid becoming the victims of genocide
Icy Truth (36dec9) — 7/21/2008 @ 2:02 pmBy “courtesy of” I mean that Jeff Flake is responsible for publicly EXPOSING the earmarks for Rangel’s vanity building. I think we all know who is responsible for submitting them to the Congress, as well as which party voted to approve them.
Icy Truth (36dec9) — 7/21/2008 @ 2:06 pmHeh. “Civil Defense Corps”. How 1950’s.
Larry Sheldon (86b2e1) — 7/21/2008 @ 2:12 pmUN peacekeeping force. UN I see.
$2.6 million of your tax dollars translates into minute fractions of your penny going to something you don’t approve of.
Oiram (983921) — 7/21/2008 @ 2:19 pmHow many dollars do you think of our money is going to a war on the wrong people in the name of 9/11?
A mismanaged War at that.
A thousand?
Priorities Please.
On the “wrong” people? Not a penny.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 2:30 pmYour pretty confident there spending Americans Money Drum. Your misplaced confidence has turned us into a debtor nation.
Thank You very little
Oiram (983921) — 7/21/2008 @ 2:39 pmWe should start a new list for you, with “Economics” and “History” right at the very top.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 2:48 pmYour Economics and Your History are really making for a bad decade here Drum.
Oiram (983921) — 7/21/2008 @ 2:50 pmYour pretty confident there spending Americans Money Drum
Would that be the money authorized by the Democrat controlled congress?
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 7/21/2008 @ 2:52 pmHow can you assert that, given your clear lack of knowledge about either?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 2:56 pmA true G.O.P. Spin Meister.
When times are bad for the president blame the Democrat Controlled Congress.
Makes me laugh every time.
Oiram (983921) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:03 pmNice little link from over at the Weekly Standard blog. That’ll drive some traffic. Nice going Patrick.
WLS (68fd1f) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:09 pmScott,
At what point did you first cross (s)words with Drumwaster? You’re both conservatives, correct? What’s the deal?
Leviticus (6b0d65) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:19 pmFunny how the “bad times” for the President (and the rest of us – cv gas and oil prices) all started with the November ’06 takeover of Congress, innit?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:21 pmNot that that precludes conflict, of course: after all, I’ve crossed words with Levi, and both of us are liberals.
Leviticus (6b0d65) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:21 pmOutside of thei loonwaffle assertions, do Oiram and Peter have anything od substance to add. At least Wrangler makes me laugh, and Petranos Esp and MKDP are teh krazy.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:22 pmLeviticus #67,
Drumwaster is not a conservative. He is a foul-mouthed piece of garbage who has learned to use Google and a thesaurus although he either does not understand what he reads or just prefers to make shit up. Think of a cross between Petrano, Esq. and Levi.
nk (a4be1f) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:24 pm“Funny how the âbad timesâ for the President (and the rest of us – cv gas and oil prices) all started with the November â06 takeover of Congress, innit?”
Gas started going up and up after Bush took office and long before the Democrats took control of congress. Google it if you don’t remember how much you were paying in 2004 vs. 1998. Bush is finally making a business out of oil. It took him 20 years to turn a profit, but his plan is finally working. Of course 95% will have to suffer, but hey a profit is a profit.
Oiram (983921) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:28 pmHow in hell would YOU know? You’ve been either ignoring or misquoting everything I write, with the random elementary-playground-level insult thrown in for flavor.
I’ve seen beer belches with greater intellectual depth than you are capable of…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:29 pm$2.6 million of your tax dollars translates into minute fractions of your penny going to something you donât approve of.
— $2.6 million, which works out to 1.9 cents per individual taxpayer, is no big deal? In addition to all of the other earmarks these clowns put through? It adds up.
Icy Truth (36dec9) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:30 pmThe prices in November, 2006 (before the Dems took over) versus those in July, 2008 are the ones under discussion. Gas prices have almost doubled in the last twenty months. The housing market has collapsed. Consumer confidence has plummeted. The dollar has almost been plowed under.
All since San Fran Nan and Real Estate Reid took over Congress.
Add in single-digit approval ratings for Congress (the lowest since they started asking the question), and you have quite a lot to be proud of…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:32 pmPrice of crude oil in November 2006 – $51 per barrel.
Price of crude oil in July 2008 – $130 per barrel.
Thanks to “No Drill” Democrats!
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:35 pm“The prices in November, 2006 (before the Dems took over) versus those in July, 2008 are the ones under discussion.”
Dosn’t matter what came before that??? Seriously? Wow
Oiram (983921) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:39 pmBeer Belches is really what your spewing here.
Gee, what was the price of crude Pre Bush?
Oiram (983921) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:42 pmBlaming Democrats for ills Bush created by invading a country and actually lowering taxes on the rich. Too funny. Too funny.
And for you info, it’s the oil companies that are not drilling on land they already own and control. Tell them to deal with the money they have in the bank (land leases) first.
Oiram (983921) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:43 pmPrice of crude oil in January 2007 – $46 per barrel.
Price of crude oil in July 2008 – $130 per barrel.
Thanks you, âOil makes us sickâ Democrats!
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:47 pmThe price in late October, 2006 for a gallon of gasoline was $2.419.
What is it after two years of Democrats writing the Federal budget? After two years of even more areas being declared “off limits” to drilling?
But let’s look at the differences between your time periods, compared with percentage of increase over time, shall we?
Price of gasoline in January 1997 – $1.42
Price of gasoline in October 2006 – $2.42
Increase over 9 yrs, 9 mo (117 months) – 70%
Price of gasoline in November 2006 – $2.41
Price of gasoline in July, 2008 – $4.34
Increase over 1 year, 8 months (20 months) – 80%
Which of these is more dramatic?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:55 pmWe need to add “Geology” to your list. Do you really think that every acre of a large plot is going to produce an active well? Or that wells that are too close together won’t cause problems for both? (Think of people sitting down to eat at a crowded table.)
Oh, wait. You didn’t actually think, did you, since this is just another Dem talking point that bears no closer relation to reality than Obama’s claims to expertise…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 3:59 pmMy God Drum your right, Bush’s war had nothing to do with this. It was the slight democrat margin lead in congress, what was I thinking.
All hale Bush/Cheney they are our saviors.
Maybe we should allow them another term.
What a joke
Oiram (983921) — 7/21/2008 @ 4:04 pm…itâs the oil companies that are not drilling on land they already own and control.
Exactly where is this land and how much oil lies underneath?
Perfecrt Sense (9d1b08) — 7/21/2008 @ 4:07 pmIf this situation exists, is likely they are not drilling because they cannot obtain permits.
Do you really think the ocean is going to provide enough oil for generations to come???
Oiram (983921) — 7/21/2008 @ 4:09 pmAnd at what cost to environment??
Oh wait scratch that last sentence, I forgot who I was talking to.
Do you really think the ocean is going to provide enough oil for generations to come???
Perfecrt Sense (9d1b08) — 7/21/2008 @ 4:21 pmYes
And at what cost to environment??
It can be done at a completely acceptable “cost” that is extraordinarily cheap relative to the benefits. Of course to raging lunatics, any “cost” such as seeing lights 10 miles offshore is an unacceptable cost, no matter the benefits.
“Do you really think the ocean is going to provide enough oil for generations to come???”
One generation worth of about 2-3 million barrels/day, it’s a mere multi-trillion opportunity. Look at it this way, we can drill our way to saving social security and medicare for the next century *and* pay for a massive shift to nuclear and renewables and post-fossil-fuel era by 2040. Works for me.
“And at what cost to environment??”
Travis Monitor (483b36) — 7/21/2008 @ 4:22 pmPractically nil. Natural gas doesnt wash up on shore. Rigs 50 miles out dont either. Efforts are inplace to minimize impact. Sea creatures love rigs and in some cases great ecosystems worthy of diving and fishing tourist expeditions result. To argue great eco-harm from a few drilling rigs out at sea is to be an idiot and not part of the reality-based community.
Hello Scotty. Glad to have you back.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/21/2008 @ 4:38 pm“Not that that precludes conflict, of course: after all, Iâve crossed words with Levi, and both of us are liberals.”
Levic you are a liberal, Levi is a cancer
Lord Nazh (899dce) — 7/21/2008 @ 4:53 pm“Iâve seen beer belches with greater intellectual depth than you are capable of⌔
– Drumwaster
In re: my “What’s the deal?” comment…
Nevermind.
Leviticus (4b79dd) — 7/21/2008 @ 5:18 pm*rolleyes*
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 5:21 pm#90
love2008 (1b037c) — 7/21/2008 @ 5:37 pmI believe that comment was meant for NK Leviticus. Not you.
Refer to comment #71.
Oiram spewed: Do you really think the ocean is going to provide enough oil for generations to come???
And at what cost to environment (sic)??
Oh wait scratch that last sentence, I forgot who I was talking to.
What we know now is that there are enough verified offshore sources of oil to last until the alternative energy that the Dems keep yammering about becomes viable for everyday life in the United States, a nation whose rise to world leader was fueled by petroleum. But Dems don’t want to seem to want to wait for alt-energy; they want to kill the oil industry NOW and are willing to roll the dice, hoping that standing pat on American production levels won’t cripple the economy to a point at which the R&D for new technologies doesn’t push it forward perpetually.
As for “the environment,” here’s a little secret the Greenies won’t tell you unless you ask them: The last catatrophic offshore oil disaster in the USA happened when Marvin Gaye’s “I Heard It Through the Grapevine” was topping the charts. The Exxon Valdez incident doesn’t count: that was a maritime accident caused by a drunk at the wheel. All you fans of newfangled technology that’s gonna save us all seem to have forgotten that the oil giants didn’t get to where they were because they employ chimpanzees to get oil out of the ground.
What used to be a dangerous proposition is not so much anymore, but the pols and the Gaia-worshippers want to sell us all on the idea that as soon as drilling starts, we’ll be watching whales hit the shores choking on balls of black goo. Thanks in part to the folks that want to believe that oil is from the Dark Ages, we’ve got $4 gas, and now people are asking, “Will the whales suffer much if they choke on the goo?”
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 7/21/2008 @ 5:50 pmFirst, we need to stop with the anti-green phrases that have crept into our lexicon. It’s just wrong.
It pierces the ozone worse than Obama’s hot blasts of artificially constructed waste. Drill it through your thick skull. Stuff it where the sun don’t shine. Don’t let it rain on your parade.
And BTW, Obama wants the price of gas to go even higher so you can’t afford it. How ya like Dem apples ??
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/21/2008 @ 6:36 pmDrummer what a crock. Convenient of you not to mention what happened to the price of oil in 2004, 2005 and 2006 before the Democratic majority came in:
US Energy Information Administration gasoline price chart per gallon. 1993 to 2008.
Can you guess what was going on (and going very badly in those three years) that might’ve caused the oil markets to get nervous? It makes no sense to conveniently pick out Nov. 2006 until the present without presenting the whole picture. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the prices began to get shaky and begin an upward trajectory in 2004.
2-0-0-4.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/21/2008 @ 7:21 pmAlso the embrace of this weak transparent logic undermines your other arguments. In case you were wondering.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/21/2008 @ 7:28 pmYes, I can. And do you see how the oil prices started dropping again as 2006 wore on? Look at the prices in April of ’06 ($2.96), compared with October of that same year. That six-month period was the market settling back down, added to the conclusion of summer traveling (maxing out prices in the first week of August at $3.08), and the prices dropped down to $2.25.
Like I said (and I don’t care where you are getting your numbers from, as long as they were measured consistently), the price almost doubled from October, 2006 to present. 20 months, and your own web site shows the increase to be from $2.24 to $4.11, an increase over that 20 month period of more than 83%.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 7:32 pmYou also forgot that Katrina and Rita hit during 2005, right in the center of that 2004, 2005, 2006 period you are so worried about. Do you think damaging most of the Gulf Coast’s production capacity would have had anything to do with gas and oil prices for that period of time?
If not, why not?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 7:35 pmDrummer: DO you know Newtons first law of motion?
A particle will stay at rest or continue at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force
Tell me looking at that chart when the price began to go up.
The price of a gallon of gas went up from $1.49 to $2.39 between Jan 2003 and Dec. 2006. An increase of over 60%. With a rubber stamp Republican majority in the House and Senate and a Republican President. It seems the trend was well on its way no (according to Newton’s first law). And was gaining strength exponentially as the deficit has grown, the fed interest rate has been continually cut to jump start the economy and subsequently the dollar has plummeted in value.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/21/2008 @ 7:59 pm“I believe that comment was meant for NK Leviticus. Not you.”
– love2008
I know who he meant it for. I happen to have a lot of respect for nk – he’s earned it, over the course of several years.
Leviticus (48c207) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:01 pmPeter, the exchange rate of the dollar accounts for less than half the rise in the price of oil.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:01 pmAll you guys who expect the 22nd to be repealed are missing the point. It isn’t necessary to repeal amendments anymore.
You just need 5 justices who feel that the international standard of President-for-life should be incorporated into our Living Constitution.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:04 pmYeah Katrina counts, of course it does. Speculators feared that the supply of oil was threatened in the gulf. Just as the instability in the middle east with Iraq and Iran in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 made the speculators anxious (and rich) as well. See how that works. So if anyone is responsible for the spike in the price of oil it’s the Republicans who began a phoney war and then couldn’t even do it right.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:05 pmThe first week of November, 2006. That’s what I’ve been saying…
If you plug all those figures into a graph, you will see rises and falls, but the last fall was in fall of 2006, and this current rise starts in November, ’06.
Thanks for pointing that out…
That is 60% over almost four years (3y11m). The current price spike, which actually starts the first week of November (not December) of that year, is an increase already well over 80% in less than half that time (20 months from Nov 06 to present).
Don’t start arguing math with me, pal. On this issue, you cannot win, no matter what equivalent era you choose.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:05 pmSay no more.
Literally.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:07 pmIf you plug all those figures into a graph, you will see rises and falls, but the last fall was in fall of 2006, and this current rise starts in November, â06.
No it doesn’t. It begins in 2003.
That is 60% over almost four years (3y11m). The current price spike, which actually starts the first week of November (not December) of that year, is an increase already well over 80% in less than half that time (20 months from Nov 06 to present).
Considering that the price averaged about $1.15 per gallon between 1993 and 1999 and usually below $1.10 for most of that decade (it reached a high of $1.31 late in 1999). I think a 60% rise between 2003 and 2006 in the heart of the Bush revolution is glaring and troublesome indicator and good sign that factors were impacting the price.
On this issue, you cannot win.
I just did.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:22 pmđ
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:23 pmYou cannot, cannot pin this on the Democrats w/o attributing responsibility to the Republicans as well. And since you see that that logic is flawed in regards to the Republicans, then you’ve just admitted your own logic in regard to the Democrats is flawed.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:27 pmAnd ends in 2006, as I pointed out, as the market dropped to the previous low. Look at your own source, fer heaven’s sake…
Please, go plug these numbers into a graph and see how it falls rather precipitously between August and October, 2006. Fully 25% in those three months.
Then it takes off again after the election, but doesn’t fall like it had done many, many times before. As I pointed out, it has jumped 80+% in just the last 20 months. What event happened in November of ’06, and continues through to today that would have such a dramatic impact on oil prices, if it is not the Don’t Drill Democrats running things?
Be specific, and provide evidence to support your claims.
But you are deliberately ignoring the even higher rise that took place twice as fast as your example, and refusing to recognize the impact of those political factors that control oil prices.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:40 pmTry the graphs at this site. Notice the low point in November of ’06 (which ever scale you use), and see how it rockets upward 50% in the first six months of a Democratic Congress, drops a few percentage points as the weather cools off, then rockets up again starting in September of last year.
Look for yourself at the data. Spreadsheets are hard to interpret sometimes, but a graph is bold print.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:49 pmThe election is between a Marxist and a Socialist.
Alta Bob (a6d8ba) — 7/21/2008 @ 8:56 pmBut at least we have the chance to make sure that the right lizard gets in…
(wondering how many will catch the reference…)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 9:07 pmThe election is between someone whom you falsely believe to be a Socialist and someone who we know is a Marxist.
Icy Truth (28d384) — 7/21/2008 @ 9:25 pmDon’t black guys always refer to terms of time as “blank to blank years”?
Jake (dbb320) — 7/21/2008 @ 9:37 pm21: so you are admitting that GW is corrupt?
JoeBloe (76e5f0) — 7/21/2008 @ 10:28 pmto the rest: I understand 1 or 2 or a few mistakes, but I think it is the multiple times that McCain seems to say something wrong that should worry people.
Checkaslovakia(twice)
Iraq-Pakistan border
“I’ll have to get back to you on my position”
Pastor Haggee (MC courted him)
Vladimir Putin president of Germany(twice)
“I will veto every beer”
“I will not oppose a reckless withdrawl from Iraq”
do I need to go on?
I mean if I was a Republican I would be frightened of this guy, wondering will he really do what we want? Or, will he go back to those ‘maverick days’. Especially since GW is making things very awkward for MC, he might go postal on y’all just to get back at the crappy way he’s been treated.
Heck, Barr looks better and better all the time!!!!!!!
JoeBloe— are you implying that Obama has only “once or twice” said something that is insane or contradictory?
Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/22/2008 @ 2:11 amFox – JoeBlow is just blowing shite out its arse.
JD (75f5c3) — 7/22/2008 @ 5:25 amFolks don’t let the liberal get your eye off the ball. Feel sorry for the fool – BLAMING BUSH FOR EVERYTHING IS ALL HE HAS LEFT.
His rhetorical toolbox is empty. He’s like Perot’s running mate in the debate “I’m out of ammo.”
The fact is that we need to ask: What is the CORRECT POLICY for RIGHT NOW, GOING FORWARD. I can blame Clinton for vetoing ANWR, we can blame Pelosi for promising lower gas prices and then letting them double, and we can go around in circles. But the real question is – WHERE DO WE GO NOW.
I have yet to hear a single substantive reason why drilling offshore and in ANWR is a bad idea. The claim that it does environmental harm is bogus, the claim that it doesnt help immediately or doesnt solve everything is an insanely dumb strawman (this is about helping provide 1-2 million barrels/day more domestically for the next few *decades*), and the claim that it won’t matter is similarly contrary to facts.
So please, liberals, give us your best shot: What’s wrong with drilling offshore and in ANWR as part of our energy policy?
Travis Monitor (9e3371) — 7/22/2008 @ 8:34 am“The election is between a Marxist and a Socialist.”
A choice between the two Obamas? … I guess the Socialist Marxist Obama will win.
I dont agree with that characterization on McCain. McCain is running on tax reductions, ending earmarks, limiting spending, winning against the terrorists, putting in Roberts/Alito type judges, and is prolife.
And I’m not a squish saying this, if you doubt, read this:
Travis Monitor (9e3371) — 7/22/2008 @ 8:44 amhttp://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/07/big-government-conservatism-is-oxymoron.html
“I mean if I was a Republican I would be frightened of this guy”
Why should we worry? The man combines the rhetorical heights of Dole, with the syntactical precision of GHWBush, and the surefooted lack of malapropisms of GWBush. He’s part of a proud GOP tradition of making up for Reagan. (that’s satire for you libs.)
What you fail to grasp is this: OBAMA’S TELEPROMPTER SPEECHES MEAN NOTHING. They are plagiarized pap written by Axelrod Productions. Obama is just an actor. If this was a screen test for the better actor to play the President, Obama wins.
But for a real President, we know what McCain is communicating and what he stands for. He has a record of service for decades, he has form positions and his views are out there and are more consistent than Obama’s vague, flipfloppery attempts to repackage far-leftism into something else. In short, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. McCain has a record, Obama has a bunch of plagiarized words that sound great but its not even the REAL OBAMA; he goes flat and dull and leftist off teleprompter.
Most of those mistakes you claim are so gosh important he corrected himself on immediately then and there. BFD. Now if you are going to disqualify a guy for President because he makes gaffes, then “57 states” Obama is out too.
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/
Travis Monitor (9e3371) — 7/22/2008 @ 9:08 amhttp://no-bama.blogspot.com/
Peter wrote: DO you know Newtons first law of motion?
Sure I do! Hit it, Hal!
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 7/22/2008 @ 9:23 amHa ha. Nice.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/22/2008 @ 9:40 amWell, it’s going to take 10 years before we start getting any oil there. Meanwhile, the magical clean, green technologies that haven’t been implemented and/or haven’t yet been invented? Those will all be online January 20, 2009. And we won’t need any more stupid oil.
Plus, oil is icky. Bicycles are cool.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 9:52 amAnd one of those factors was Katrina. George Bush hates
black peopleeveryone.And let’s not talk about increasing demand in China and India where new industrial revolutions are taking place. BOOOOSSSH, I tell you!
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 9:58 amHere’s an interesting graph.
Peter, how does the President of the United States set the price of oil on the international markets?
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 10:05 amActually, high gas prices are good for America. It’s only bad when there’s a sudden spike. And we can deal with that by throwing money around and leaning on automakers. Combine that philosophy with Pelosi’s secret, yet commonsense plan and we’ll all be cruising carefree again in no time. Plus, more rickshaws = more jobs. Win-win, baby!
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 10:11 amYou’re making my argument nicely. Thank you. Keep going…
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/22/2008 @ 10:36 amPeter,
These guys above are hugely engulfed in the right wing agenda. Jesus himself could come down from heaven and explain the graphs and logic etc to them and they would still argue.
But don’t stop trying, you make them re-think their silly logic.
I love the one about how the moment the Democrats take a slight control over congress they magically cause gas prices to go up.
Keep up the fight Pete
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 10:44 amPablo sarcastically wrote: Plus, oil is icky. Bicycles are cool.
Mao sure thought so.
(Going off on a tangent alert!)
Speaking of which, it was a couple of years ago that healthcare behemoth Kaiser Permanente started their mega-annoying “Thrive” ad campaign, in which traditional medical therapy is de-emphasized in favor of touchy-feely pseudo-new age approaches to “wellness” like eating more fruits and veggies and playing with your children to get more exercise. Even worse than the TV ads are the radio spots with West Wing actress Allison Janney — I have to switch stations for sixty seconds.
The worst of all the Kaiser ads was one that played a couple of years ago depicting what is, in reality, a leftist utopian vision of the future. Most jarring to the senses is the final shot of a freeway full of bicycles and rollerbladers — no motor vehicles. Blogger “Cartoon Nazi” describes it well here.
L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 7/22/2008 @ 10:51 amYeah, who cares about the actual facts? I even offered a website that will make the actual graphs for you to deny.
Better try some Benadryl for that allergy to truth.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 10:52 amPeter,
Is this your point?
Because it really isn’t much of one when one looks at the factors that have actually caused the rise in oil prices. You insinuate that the invasion caused it. Is that your point?
Oiram,
Pelosi promised to lower them, and they’ve doubled since she did so. She thinks she has the power to control the price of oil, which makes her a fool. And you support her. Guess what that makes you.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 10:54 amGreat graph drum.
But can you refresh my memory what the Democrats slight marginal lead in congress had to do with gas price increases that started in Bush’s time??
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 10:57 amHas anyone entertained the idea of what gas prices would be like if Republicans controlled congress?
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:00 amPerhaps $7 per gallon (as long as were taking figures our of our butt)
Oh and it would be easier for the mind numbing drilling to go on which would lower gas prices in 10 years to $6.99 1/3 per gallon (again as long as were throwing numbers out of our butts)
Oh, no. Gas prices started increasing in the 70’s. I blame Carter.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:00 amYou blame Carter for the U.S. running out of Gas in Texas. That’s funny.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:01 am“Slight Marginal Lead” = “Democratic leadership in both chambers”.
Remind me again which party the Speaker of the House belongs to? How about the Senate Majority Leader? Which party has control of the legislative agenda of Congress (determining which bills get presented for floor votes, and which bills are to die in committee)?
Think HARD.
And those gas price increases reached a two-year low in the week before the Democrats were elected. It is only in the last twenty months that prices have spiked more than 80%.
Ignore it all you want, but the numbers are irrefutable.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:04 amWhat does the majority party in Congress have to do with gas prices? Ask Nancy.
One day we’ll see that plan. Just you wait. It’s only been 2 years and 3 months. Patience.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:04 amTexas is not out of gas. Hater.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:05 amCome on Drum………. your better than that give me specifics.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:05 amCompared to 1895…….. Texas has two drops.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:06 amNice to see that you are admitting to your hatred to actual facts.
Why not deal with the reality that is, instead of your “BlameBush” dreams?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:06 amWell I’ll let you figure it out, but if a Democratic Congress can effect the price of gasoline in two years, than a Republican President with a rubber stamp Republican rubber stamp Congress certainly can as well (and did). And I’m being kind with that 60% between 2003 and 2006, because if you look at the % change in the average price of a gallon of gas between December 2001, when it was $1.14 (rounded up from 113.7 cents) and December 2006, when it was $2.39 (rounded up from 238.7 cents) it went up a staggering:
110%
All thanks to a Republican President and a his do nothing blinkered afraid of their own shadow rubber stamp Republican Congress. Before the Majority Dem COngress was even sworn in.
—-> 110%
Ka-Ching! Can you hear the cries of joy and greed from the American Oil Co.s and oil equipment supplier Halliburton and the less than ethical oil speculators (and Ahmenijhad and his merry Iranian Ayatollahs and Hugo Chavez and the Saudi Arabians who fund AQ and Islamofascist underpinning whabbism, and Putin and the Russian State oil cartel and Nigeria). I tell you. Get all those folks in one room, supply some booze and a polka band and you’ve got yourself one hell of a swingin’ apocalyptic par-tay!!
The word dysfunctional doesn’t even begin to do any of this crap heap justice.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:07 amYou had great links yesterday to support the war in Iraq. They were full of holes of course (Thanks Peter), but you had them.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:08 amWhere’s the links for Democrats raising gas prices to $4.50???
Pablo you could join in to if you like (I don’t hate you :O)
On what? There are lots of links provided, plus a link to a graph maker that plugs the data into a visual display.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:08 amGraph was beautiful Drum. It showed gas prices going up on Bush’s watch.
But I want to know directly what Congress did to make us pay $4.50 per gallon.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:10 amShow me ANY period in history of that GOR Congress where prices went up 83% in only 20 months?
Why not take it back to the late seventies through to 2006? You’ll be able to find 500% increases, but you still won’t find a spike of 83% in less than two years, which is what we have been going through in present time.
Keep moving the goalposts all you want, but the facts won’t go away just because you are ignoring them.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:12 amHow about the “don’t drill” laws passed? How about their refusal to let the supply increase, instead preferring to make prices even higher through taxes?
Maybe you can ask Chuck Schumer about that magical Saudi oil?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:14 amit also shows those prices spiking, starting with the November, ’06, election. Which party took control of Congress with that election?
Think HARD.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:15 amDon’t you anti-environmentalists get it? Drilling won’t lower gas prices and will only perpetuate our dependence on filthy carbon-based fuels. You knuckleheads are attaching drilling measures to every damn bill indiscriminately. Algore knows what is best for everyone. How do I know- a moonbat site just sent me more spam delineating the efficacy of green energy. And besides, the effing greedy oil companies have a plethora of areas to drill which in their infinite wisdom they just avoid making any effort. So wise up and go with the flow. We actually need to shut down the oil and gas fired industries with haste. Just say no the rethuglican and BusHitler propaganda. We don’t need more gasoline or lower prices. We demand mass transit and alternative energies, execept NIMBY stuff is taboo. No wind farms in Nantucket Sound and more jet fuel for the jetsetting elite who know what is best for the world. By MORE carbon credits and support your Nobel/Oscar/Emmy and popular vote-winning/robbed by SCOTUS his High Lordship Goracle and also Urkel Obamalamadingdong’s hope! and Change! and fresh fruit for rich black families!\
madmax333 (e38a8d) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:15 amBut it’s all the Democrats fault right?
I know your smarter than thinking the oil companies raised prices “In spite” of the Democrat congress……….or are you???
Hmm……maybe that’s what the speculators were speculating on??? Could it be? “Gas prices are going to go up because of the Democraticaly lead congress…… so let’s speculate are way into the largest profit we’ve ever seen”. (One mansion wasn’t enough for all the CEO’s, three or four is the ticket).
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:16 amNah, I was making a counter argument to Drummer’s original one that puts the rise in the price of gasoline purely on the backs of the Democratic Majority Congress elected in 2006. You guys should probably touch base before you contradict one another although you’ve already done that nicely and made my point when you say outside factors , such as Katrina and the need for oil in China and India, effected the price of Gasoline. So again thank you and I ask you, not change your tune midstream and retain you intellectual integrity and keep on following that line of thinking.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:17 amOh this is too sweet. Please please keep going!!
LOL.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:19 amBecause you can’t answer the question, right?
They can. Ask Nancy. And any day now, they’re going to.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:21 amThat’s because I’m not a Texan.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:22 amThey promised to deal with it. And it doubled. Ask Nancy.
So, either Pelosi doesn’t have any idea whatsoever what the hell she’s talking about, or the Democrat Congress is to blame.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:25 amWell Podner, you shooor du look like a texan to me y’all……..EH PABLO.
I don’t need to ask Nancy my good ol buddy….friendo.
I just need someone to show me directly how the Dems have caused such a spike (again Drum thanks for the graphs) in gas prices starting in October 2006 (was it).
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:26 amPrecisely.
Dec. 2001 —>$1.14 per gal
Dec. 2006 —>$2.39 per gal
Percent change —-> 110%
Please cancel those vacation plans and a college education for your children and pay the nice portly oil man with the TEN gallon cowboy hat and the dollar signs for pupils on your way out.
Come again!! (HAW HAW HAW!!!)
Ka Ching!!
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:26 amWhich party has been writing the laws for the last eighteen months?
Bush has two options to presented legislation: sign it or veto it.
He doesn’t get to write the laws that are required to overturn prior legislation passed by Congress in the 70s (thus, the Carter reference).
Which party has that authority, as defined by the Constitution?
Think HARD.
Katrina and Rita were in 2005, and the prices still dropped back down to two-year lows in October 2006, just before the Democrats took over the law-writing bodies in our Federal Government.
Keep searching for those events that happened in the first week of November, 2006, continuing through today…
Oh, so it’s really the CEOs that are doing all the speculating, not the pension funds by unions (such as the $210 billion CalPERS fund that handles the pensions for tens of thousands of teachers, police and firemen)?
Got link?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:27 amOiram wrote to fellow traveler Peter: I love the one about how the moment the Democrats take a slight control over congress they magically cause gas prices to go up.
Pelosi said the Dems, if America handed control to them and away from the âRepublican Rubber Stamp Congress.â From a Pelosi press release from April 2006:
âWith record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.
âDemocrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.â
So, the Dems were granted the majority so they could end the war and lower gas prices. Botox Brain Pelosi was put in charge of Congress and Harry the Mumbler the Senate.
How’s that workin’ out?
No, Oiram, it wasnât âmagical,â it was at least ineffectiveness and at worst incompetence. Thereâs no getting around that.
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:27 amRacist
JD (75f5c3) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:28 amCorrection previous post should read:
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:28 amSo there incompetence raised gas prices??
Let me get this straight: They failed in getting us out of Iraq and that caused gas prices magically to go up?
Did I read that right Smithee?
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:29 amWell, Peter is demonstrating that the GOP did it, so I’m sure the same principle applies. Or, you could just Ask Nancy.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:29 amGreat minds think alike, Pablo. I should have hit “refresh” before posting.
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:30 amFIVE YEARS.
Try explaining away the 83% increase over twenty months.
How much higher will prices be after five years of the Dems in office? At 4.15% per month, that would be 250% increase – more than twice as high as your example.
Like I said, irrefutable.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:30 amWell, let’s see Pablo…… does the same “principle ” apply?
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:32 amI don’t know, since Jan. 2001 the Republicans have had the presidency and in large part the congress.
I’m no Einstein, but yes I think the principles do apply.
Drum said “Irrefutuable”
I’m still waiting Drum for proof.
What happened to those multi tasking skills.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:34 amIs the rush limbau site down or something?
Call Anne Coulter maybe she could pull some graphs out of her bonney but for ya.
But now because the Democrats are ruining things, your so-called “principle” no longer applies?
Can you spell P-A-R-T-I-S-A-N H-A-C-K?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:34 amI already did. Read the complete thread here and this one from a few days ago (Bush ends ban on Offshore drilling)
All nice objective numbers here (enough with the GOP crap charts):
U.S. Energy Information Administration Chart
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:35 amFrom Peter’s web link above (comment #95):
Gas price on November 6, 2006 – $2.246
Gas price on July 7, 2008 – $4.165
Increase of 85.44% in a mere twenty months.
Pretend you didn’t see it again, and I’ll quit wasting time on you.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:38 am“The Democrats are running things”
I would tell you Bush is running things, but he can’t even run his toaster.
No right now Drum, it’s Exxon and Chevron that are running things.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:38 am……… oh and China is running things to since we owe them a little scratch.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:38 am…over 5 years. A $1.25 increase.
January 2006 – $2.25 per gal.
July 2008 – $4.10 per gal
A $1.85 per gal increase, in 2.5 years.
Dems get more done in less time! O!
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:38 amNo, Oiram, OPEC is running things.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:39 amBeautiful proof Drum. But it still comes short in showing me how the Democrat Congress (51 % I think it is?) created $4.50 (california prices)
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:40 amThat does it for Oiram.
Peter is still on deck, but is apparently trying to use a baked salmon for a bat.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:40 amThen Opec must be paying their soldiers Exxon and Chevron a nice pretty penny Pablo.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:40 amOiram, displaying Levi’s reading comprehension, wrote:
So there incompetence raised gas prices??
Let me get this straight: They failed in getting us out of Iraq and that caused gas prices magically to go up?
Did I read that right Smithee?
No. Here’s what I wrote:
From The Hill.com, May 23, 2008:
I hope I don’t have to explain this to you any further.
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:41 amFive miserable Neocon driven, fiscally irresponsible, bloated government, oil as a tax increase Republican years. Followed by three more. Please don’t remind me.
The end of the Bush years cannot come soon enough.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:41 amThat’s what I thought Drum. LOL
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:41 amAll talk and no gas. Go buy your Democrat gas at Mobil for $4.50……. your gonna need it.
Hey Smittee
Thanks for pointing out why us Democrats who opposed this war from the start are unhappy with congress (51% Dems 49% Repubs.)
Now go and help Drum figure out how the Democrats made gas prices what they are today.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:46 amYou’re moving goalposts again.
And it only takes 50% + 1 to control a legislative body.
I’ll try again: which party writes the laws? Can you be honest for even a split-second and answer this without trying to turn it around and ignore the question?
Or are you just trolling and not interested in discovering the truth?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:47 am66 % TO OVERRIDE A VETO MAGELLAN;
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:49 amThe truth Drum is in our pocket books……. or rather what’s not in our pocket books đ
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:49 amPeter, I don’t see anything there that shows how the President sets the price of oil. Perhaps I’m missing something and you’ll provide a more direct quote. Or, perhaps it isn’t there, and your reply is a smokescreen designed to obscure the fact that you’ve got nothing to say on the matter.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:50 amSpeaking of goal posts being moved….. for an example see excerpts of Bush’s version of what the definition of success in Iraq is since 2002 Drum.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:51 amIf Drummer’s logic applies so does mine tenfold. You got a problem with the reasoning you’re going to have to take that up with her. You two are contradicting yourselves and you don’t even know it (I keep saying that). I’m out of here for now.
Pablo and Drummer, you’ve effectively made my case. My work here is done. I don’t fee like repeating myself. Consider yourselves served.
And now..I’ll let Drummer have the final word as she just cannot help it. Lemme guess it’ll probably be something with the word “irrefutable” in it and she won’t realize that she’s made my case for me. Over to you D….
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:51 amYou’ve got that exactly backwards, genius.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:52 amTranslated: I’ve got nothing. But I win anyway!
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:52 amBetter than bullshit and no facts we’ve been getting from you.
I’ve been showing you facts. You keep ignoring them, and Peter is off in his own corner, mumbling about how Bush stole his teddy bear.
You don’t have anything but more trolling.
Too bad. You showed such promise, but I imagine your 5th grade teacher thought so, too, just before you dropped out…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:53 amWhich President has continually obstructed with his VETO pen, for fear that his policies will look even more failed than they do already?
Okay…now I’m really out. Later.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:54 amHey student of genius, didn’t you tell me Opec is running things??? Tells me you know that they are making more money than Exxon and Chevron……. so who’s helping who make untold profits?
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:55 amYou can lead a dead horse to water…but you can’t beat it enough huh?
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:55 amWe can’t miss you if you don’t leave, Peter.
BTW, Pat: sorry about not closing my tag in #178. I’m sitting on the naughty chair as we speak.
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:58 amWow, Drum, you sadden me. You had so much swiss cheese info yesterday. Links and graphs all kinds of things. You even got me to “bite” at one point.
You still wont show me directly how democrats have put us in the shape were in today.
Well, good luck Drum. If insulting the future party of America is all you got, your going to need help.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:59 amStill avoiding the question, I see. Anything to avoid the responsibility…
Bush does not write the laws. He can only suggest.
Which party is it that writes the laws that you claim are being vetoed?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 12:00 pmAnd Drummer admits defeat:
and
Ah…and there you have it the clarion call of someone here who’s lost an argument on their home turf. The word “troll” is thrown out and the insults begin.
Classic form D. Just classic. A bit beneath you, but textbook…
(You usually don’t give in to these techniques as quickly as most round these parts. That’s why I like you.)
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/22/2008 @ 12:01 pmOh, really? Let’s look at some more numbers.
Perhaps you’ll be so kind as to point out which of the 10 bills he’s vetoed is relevant to this conversation.
I don’t know, but it seems you’re about to figure that out vis a vis an imaginary horse.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 12:02 pmPeter, could not of said it better myself.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 12:02 pmOh, and 2 of those 10 vetoes were overridden. So, you’ve only got 8 to sort through. Should be child’s play.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 12:03 pmBy controlling the legislation. Is that not clear to you?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 12:04 pmNot that any of you were wondering, but when they start screeching this kind of drivel, it is usually a good indication that they are patently not serious. RECORD WINDFALL PROFITS ARE EVIL !!!
JD (75f5c3) — 7/22/2008 @ 12:04 pmAnd, Exxon is only the 16th largest oil company in the world, whose assets (proven reserves) are vastly overshadowed by each of the first 5.
Liberals, and the Dems in Congress, have no idea how international economic systems work – very few of them know economics at all. All they are going to do is chase more economic activity off-shore as they have with IPO’s due to SARBOX.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 7/22/2008 @ 12:17 pmIf you want to back a little farther, in 1971 I bought Shell gas in Owensboro, KY for 20 centa a gallon.
Hazy (c36902) — 7/22/2008 @ 12:18 pmHey Drum, you still haven’t shown me legislation that helped increase Gas immediately on October 2006.
Still waiting.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 12:41 pmAhhhh……. Exxon is only the 16th largest company in the world…..boo $%^#ing hoo Drew.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 12:42 pmStill not clear Drum………
And still waiting……
In fact, it’s probably not so clear to you as well……..go google some more.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 12:43 pmJD said “RECORD WINDFALL PROFITS ARE EVIL !!!” with a tone of sarcasm.
Record windfall profits on a level playing field are a beautiful thing, makes me proud to be an American.
Record windfalls through manipulation and deception without accountability are ruining this country.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 12:51 pmCare to expand on that? And is an 8% profit margin unreasonable to you?
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 12:58 pmYeah 8% is beyond reasonable. Especially when you consider that everything revolves around fuel and your competition is only 5 other companies.
Go ask McDonald’s if they wouldn’t mind only making a nickel per hamburger providing everyone needed burgers to survive and that they were competing against only five other burger joints without oversight and regulation.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 1:02 pmI think they would take that deal in a MC SECOND.
oiram,
McDonalds’ profit margins are 15% of sales.
DRJ (297528) — 7/22/2008 @ 1:07 pmThanks DRJ. 15% is enough to make them rich. 8% is all the Oil companies to make them wealthy beyond all of their dreams. Control them a little, apply anti trust laws and tax them a fare percentage share and they will be forced to live with riches……of course more people will be able to reach their middle class goals and afford there gas prices. The inflation that we are seeing today and will explode tomorrow might go back to normal levels.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 1:16 pmoiram,
You can decide what you believe are acceptable limits on personal and business earnings, and you can go one step further and advocate that government effectively mandate those limits. But when you take that extra step, you realize you’re advocating socialism, right?
DRJ (297528) — 7/22/2008 @ 1:27 pmDrumwaster needs to step in and request a definition for socialism. Just so we’re all on the same page here . . .
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/22/2008 @ 1:36 pmAll, I know, Is it would sure be nice of the democrats to actually do something direct to address the gas prices.
G (722480) — 7/22/2008 @ 1:41 pmOiram: Have you given or will you ever give more in taxes to support your humanitarian leanings ?
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/22/2008 @ 1:42 pm$
Not really.
But you do realize that if you privatize everything, and lift all means of regulation, that you run the risk of our roads being so potholed that you can’t drive to your business right? That’s just one overused example of why we need government on our sides.
Socialism has it’s problems, but don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 1:43 pmBelieve me DRJ I say the same thing about Conservatism.
Vermont:
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 1:47 pmJust because someone who thinks there should be more fair percentage tax on higher earnings doesn’t mean he should give it up willfully without government mandate.
I don’t fault the wealthy for creating loopholes, they are making the most out of what’s in front of them.
But I do fault a government that looks the other way when it should be policing these activities.
True, Vermont Neighbor. It would not be government ownership of goods but it would be government planning and control of that segment of the economy. Windfall profits taxes on oil have their roots in Nixon’s price controls and, in my opinion, are both ineffective and socialist.
DRJ (297528) — 7/22/2008 @ 1:48 pm#215
Barry wants prices high. So China, India and a couple other places can catch up with the US of A. He wants to cripple this godforsaken country he and Michelle call home, and empower other countries with tools and support. And oil.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/22/2008 @ 1:49 pmoiram #217,
The Democratic Congress has refused to appropriate additional federal funds for the Highway Trust Fund even though there will be a shortfall between funds on hand and funds needed beginning in 2009. Furthermore, increases in fuel efficient cars are expected to further reduce money paid into the Fund. In short, the Democratic Congress isn’t doing anything to repair potholes.
DRJ (297528) — 7/22/2008 @ 1:59 pmDRJ, thanks again for that info and for the link.
I think what Oiram doesn’t see is that there are loopholes for those less fortunate: welfare, medical ER treatment and numerous govt. programs that assist those in need. His rationale that he ‘doesn’t pay more at tax time’ is simply a self-serving everyone-but-me statement typical of liberals. It could easily apply to any individual or corporation.
Speaking for his own lack of tax donations while demanding same from faceless companies, Oiram writes, “there should be more fair percentage tax on higher earnings [and] doesnât mean he should give it up willfully without government mandate.”
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/22/2008 @ 2:03 pmThe Democratic Congress has refused to appropriate additional federal funds for the Highway Trust Fund even though there will be a shortfall between funds on hand and funds needed beginning in 2009.
(The key word there being “additional”)
Funds are there. Sure maybe not enough.
Tax on high gas prices right now are helping.
If we do go to more efficient cars (please God make it so) Adjustments will have to be made.
Do you trust private enterprise to make those adjustments for our roads?
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 2:05 pmIf I start making 200,000 per year and the government asks me to pay my fare share I will.
Until then I play the cards I’m dealt.
As far as loopholes for the less fortunate……. you just helped my argument. “Loopholes for the less fortunate”.
And what do you think they do with this government assisted money Vermont? Sock it aways for a rainy day? I think not, they spend it. They might even spend on things that make you and me more money. I like that.
Oiram (983921) — 7/22/2008 @ 2:10 pmIf we get more efficient cars the adjustment that the government will use is to raise fuel taxes to compensate for the shortfall.
Hazy (c36902) — 7/22/2008 @ 2:50 pmoiram ##217 and 224,
What you advocate is to take another’s property solely to promote what you see as a more fair division of property. Don’t you think that violates the takings clause of the Constitution?
In any event, I hope someday you will earn $200,000 but when that happens, I submit it will be because you earned it. You will no doubt be working just as hard then as you are now, and if you want to help others with your money there are many ways you can do that other than compelled government giving.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 7/22/2008 @ 3:52 pmOther than the Department of Defense, is there any Executive Branch that has successfully handled the job that it was created to handle?
I can’t think of one.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 4:11 pmThat should read, “is there any Executive Branch Department or Federal Agency that has successfully handled the job that it was created to handle?”
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 4:12 pmIn what sense? The Department of Justice successfully prosecutes criminals, maintains the Courts, etc. Treasury collects taxes, writes checks, keeps the books. State operates our embassies and consulates. The FAA runs the air traffic control system. The Postal Service delivers billions of pieces of mail. The Coast Guard catches smugglers and rescues people.
Perfectly? No – but success != perfection.
Defense is mostly successful, but looking back there have been many screw-ups and even outright failures, e.g. Vietnam (with much assistance from other agencies).
I’m not sure what Commerce, Labor, Agriculture, Interior, and Energy are supposed to do.
Education, HHS, HS, VA, Transportation, HUD… all losers to some degree.
Rich Rostrom (09ec82) — 7/22/2008 @ 5:14 pmThe NIH has does some fabulous work, and the American taxpayer has advanced the practice of medicine and biomedical research more than any other apparatus will ever dream of doing. I think it does it’s job as well as should be expected.
There’s an argument as to whether that’s something we ought to be paying the government to do, but it works pretty well.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 8:24 pmI have had personal experience with the NIH and I second Pablo’s comment. It is the only place in the world committed to researching and treating people with rare diseases that are largely ignored by mainstream medicine.
DRJ (297528) — 7/22/2008 @ 8:32 pmThis, for instance, and the follow-up that the NIH is driving on it is too huge for words. Groundbreaking doesn’t quite cover it. The next couple of decades are going to bring a sea change in personalized health care and you, the taxpayer, are making it happen.
They’re also the only entity big enough to strongarm the various research fiefdoms into playing nice with each other.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 8:51 pmIf I start making 200,000 per year and the government asks me to pay my fare share I will.
Until then I play the cards Iâm dealt.
— At 548 times per day, if you can ‘make’ 200,000 in a year the government should give you (literally) a fucking medal.
Icy Truth (d645e2) — 7/22/2008 @ 11:19 pm