View Single Post
  #21   Report Post  
Doug Kanter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Not knowing of a President Idiot, I cannot answer the question.
However, price controls would have the opposite effect of that
intended, they would make gasoline scarce by removing the incentive to
produce more oil.
Nice theory, but the recent price hikes are in no way connected with
"incentives to produce more". You know that.

Indeed. We're being gouged by OPEC and by the Big Oil companies, and
they're laughing with each jingle of the gallon counter at the local
pump.

This is far worse terrorism than Osama and his pals could ever
perpetrate, and we have a POTUS who has neither the brains nor the balls
to see it for what it is and do something about it. But, then, why would
we expect Bush to economically penalize his family and friends in the
oil business, and jeopardize his relationships with the Saudis?

Meanwhile, the simple-minded righties defend "the free market," but
there is no "free market," not for oil. It is a manipulated market.


Perhaps this is exactly what OBL was planning all along. Lure a moron
into a war, knowing full well that it would cause the price of oil to go
through the roof.



I'm not really much of a conspiracy theory maven, but...one of Osama's
stated goals was to bring down the US economy. Well, guess what...OPEC,
which mainly consists of states who have an ax to grind with us, and Big
Oil, which mostly consists of whore and thieves, many of which are
multinational, are sucking this country's economy dry.

But why should we interfere with "the free market," that doesn't really
exist, at least not for oil.

Can you imagine trying to explain to Bush that the prices we're paying for
oil now are helping Osama and friends more than anything he has done to
hurt the terrorists?

D'oh.


About a buck from every fillup goes directly to the Saud family, whose
younger members have alliances that our own intelligence services have
described as "dubious" (to be polite on TV).