| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
John H. wrote: From what I've heard, the energy bill is mostly pork and white-wash. I've driven through France, and I've seen the nuclear reactors every 25 (seemingly) miles. I've not heard of a lot of reactor incidents in France, yet we seem afraid of nuclear energy. I'm astounded that we are still talking the advantages of 'clean coal' technology. Harry Byrd must have had a big hand in the drafting of the bill. I've got to agree. Byrd along with others, are assuredly behind the clean coal technology. While it IS much better than old coal-fired plants, it is still a terrible burden on the environment, with deep coal mines being depleted, and having to go to strip mines to get the stuff near the surface. There was a show on PBS called Appalacians. It was a hell of a show. Anyway, I also agree that we must make nuclear energy viable in the US, at least until other technologies become significantly viable. |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... John H. wrote: From what I've heard, the energy bill is mostly pork and white-wash. I've driven through France, and I've seen the nuclear reactors every 25 (seemingly) miles. I've not heard of a lot of reactor incidents in France, yet we seem afraid of nuclear energy. I'm astounded that we are still talking the advantages of 'clean coal' technology. Harry Byrd must have had a big hand in the drafting of the bill. I've got to agree. Byrd along with others, are assuredly behind the clean coal technology. While it IS much better than old coal-fired plants, it is still a terrible burden on the environment, with deep coal mines being depleted, and having to go to strip mines to get the stuff near the surface. There was a show on PBS called Appalacians. It was a hell of a show. Anyway, I also agree that we must make nuclear energy viable in the US, at least until other technologies become significantly viable. Congratulations Kevin. That was a nice post. See, you don't have to include foul language and insults in all your posts to prove a point. Keep it up. |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr Wizzard wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message news  Mr Wizzard wrote: Well, if this "mysterious insertion" broke laws, then yeah, there should be outrage. However, as presented, its clearly not that it was inserted that is being focused on, its that fact that it was the `OMFG, it was *Halliburton*!` mentality. I'll bet if if was some Clintonesque social program that was mysterious inserted, it wouldn't be an issue for you. Ok, ok, maybe that was a cheap shot, but again, look at how this article is/was being presented: "Republican Pigs are at it again", and Halliburton. If the origanl author was truely even keeled, and concerned about the PROCESS, then it would have read more "neutral" - something like: "Mysterious provision shows up in energy bill" No offense, but Halliburton and most of the rest of the companies involved in "Big Oil" are a big part of our problem in terms of oil prices and our situation in the Middle East. They're no different than Enron was. Whoa! - there is a *BIG* difference, Halliburton isn't breaking any laws. How are companies involved in "Big Oil" part of the problem in terms of oil prices? I'd like to know this. further, what wertern country has the cheapest oil prices? Lets see, England its like $9/gal, Eurpope $5, right? Other places? chart please ? BIG OIL is involved in oil prices at least two different ways. 1) The reason we just sat back and said "OK, that will be fine" when the Arabs nationalized all the oil fields 30-40 years ago is that BIG OIL still holds 49% shares in that oil production. It's a deal made in heaven, the price of oil goes to $60 a bbl, $29 of that finds its way to Exxon, Chevron, or Bush Energy Co, and the "Arabs" get all the blame. 2) Once OPEC announces a gouging price hike, American companies pumping oil in the US waste *no time* jacking the prices for domestic crude up to the level set by our "terrorist enemies" in Arabia. BIG OIL has a huge upside, and almost no downside (at least for now) with skyrocketing prices. As the prices shoot upward, oil pumped by existing infrastructure (with a stable production cost) can be sold for a lot more money. The downside to increased prices is often decreased demand. That has not proven to be true for oil producers so far. They have yet to raise the price high enough to where they aren't able to sell every drop they can pump and refine. Until prices get so high that a decrease in volume more than offsets an increase in gross margin, they will continue to climb. BIG OIL is enjoying record-smashing profits at present. You would have to hunt long and hard to find a BIG OIL exec who isn't elated every time the price of oil goes up another couple of bucks a bbl. |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
P. Fritz wrote: "Mr Wizzard" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Mr Wizzard wrote: wrote in message ups.com... According to JimH's analogy, this is on topic, because boats use energy. More proof that Republicans are pigs at the trough. Majority Leader Tom DeLay may have faded from the front pages, but he's still up to his dirty tricks. Yesterday, Rep. Henry Waxman revealed that DeLay slipped "a $1.5 billion giveaway to the oil industry, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas" into the energy bill. So help me understand here So what exactally is "wrong" with things that favor Haliburton, and having oil as our best interest? To this day, I honestly don't understand this. Be it awarding Haliburton with contracts in Iraq, or this, (or any other thing that favors Haliburton, and/or the oil industry). Isn't this actually a "good" thing ? I mean, as I understand it, Haliburton is a very experienced at oil exploration/consulting etc., and they are State side, and hire mostly Americans, right ? I mean, they are the best equipped to do the job, so what's the problem? Further, what is wrong with haveing oil as one of this country's best interests? Who does it benefit to "not" have oil as our best interest? (and how)? What, you want $9/gallon gas like in Europe and such? Having oil in our best interest (be it wartime, *or* peacetime) is a very noble thing. And it should go to the most experienced, best equipped company, and even better if the company is an American company comprised or American workers operating on American lands. (not the French - they got caught in an illegal $60B oil deal with one Mr Saddam Hussien). I take it that you didn't get this part: The provision was "mysteriously inserted" into the text of the energy bill "after the conference was closed, so members of the conference committee had no opportunity to consider or reject this measure." It was inserted AFTER THE CONFERENCE WAS CLOSED, so no one, republican or democrat, was able to consider or reject it. Well, if this "mysterious insertion" broke laws, then yeah, there should be outrage. However, as presented, its clearly not that it was inserted that is being focused on, its that fact that it was the `OMFG, it was *Halliburton*!` mentality. I'll bet if if was some Clintonesque social program that was mysterious inserted, it wouldn't be an issue for you. Ok, ok, maybe that was a cheap shot, but again, look at how this article is/was being presented: "Republican Pigs are at it again", and Halliburton. If the origanl author was truely even keeled, and concerned about the PROCESS, then it would have read more "neutral" - something like: "Mysterious provision shows up in energy bill" Kevin, being the "King of the NG idiots" that he is, pretends like this has never happened before, when in fact, it is a common practice in D.C. that has gone on for decades by both parties when they have been in power. Is it a good or wise practice......hell no, but kevin whining about 'republican pigs' is just his child like mentality run amok. P. Fritz, being whomever he is, apparently believes that his political party should strive to misbehave at least as badly as all political parties have in the past. Would this be an indicator of being so devoid of a moral compass that one is reduced to seeking out the examples of others, rather than an examination of conscience, to determine right vs. wrong? Possibly not, but it could be close. |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr Wizzard wrote: "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Mr Wizzard" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Mr Wizzard wrote: wrote in message ups.com... According to JimH's analogy, this is on topic, because boats use energy. More proof that Republicans are pigs at the trough. Majority Leader Tom DeLay may have faded from the front pages, but he's still up to his dirty tricks. Yesterday, Rep. Henry Waxman revealed that DeLay slipped "a $1.5 billion giveaway to the oil industry, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas" into the energy bill. So help me understand here So what exactally is "wrong" with things that favor Haliburton, and having oil as our best interest? To this day, I honestly don't understand this. Be it awarding Haliburton with contracts in Iraq, or this, (or any other thing that favors Haliburton, and/or the oil industry). Isn't this actually a "good" thing ? I mean, as I understand it, Haliburton is a very experienced at oil exploration/consulting etc., and they are State side, and hire mostly Americans, right ? I mean, they are the best equipped to do the job, so what's the problem? Further, what is wrong with haveing oil as one of this country's best interests? Who does it benefit to "not" have oil as our best interest? (and how)? What, you want $9/gallon gas like in Europe and such? Having oil in our best interest (be it wartime, *or* peacetime) is a very noble thing. And it should go to the most experienced, best equipped company, and even better if the company is an American company comprised or American workers operating on American lands. (not the French - they got caught in an illegal $60B oil deal with one Mr Saddam Hussien). I take it that you didn't get this part: The provision was "mysteriously inserted" into the text of the energy bill "after the conference was closed, so members of the conference committee had no opportunity to consider or reject this measure." It was inserted AFTER THE CONFERENCE WAS CLOSED, so no one, republican or democrat, was able to consider or reject it. Well, if this "mysterious insertion" broke laws, then yeah, there should be outrage. However, as presented, its clearly not that it was inserted that is being focused on, its that fact that it was the `OMFG, it was *Halliburton*!` mentality. I'll bet if if was some Clintonesque social program that was mysterious inserted, it wouldn't be an issue for you. Ok, ok, maybe that was a cheap shot, but again, look at how this article is/was being presented: "Republican Pigs are at it again", and Halliburton. If the origanl author was truely even keeled, and concerned about the PROCESS, then it would have read more "neutral" - something like: "Mysterious provision shows up in energy bill" Kevin, being the "King of the NG idiots" that he is, pretends like this has never happened before, when in fact, it is a common practice in D.C. that has gone on for decades by both parties when they have been in power. Is it a good or wise practice......hell no, but kevin whining about 'republican pigs' is just his child like mentality run amok. Yup, I totally agree. And again, to humor him (or whomever the author was), and to lower ones self to his level and argue his the "emotional-riden" merits, he still loses: how does the 'mysterious insertion' NOT benefit us ?? Inserting things into bills after debate and discussion has been closed does not benefit us in two very important ways: 1) It makes a mockery of representative government and the rule of Constitutional principles. 2) It furhter obfuscates a democratic process that should be transparent. If the inserted items are going to "benefit us", they should be included in the bill when it is considered, debated, and prior to finalization by the bi-cameral conference committee. We elect our representatives to make decisions that will "benefit us", and the standard of "benefit" should be whatever our elected representatives feel is beneficial, (not whatever some government stooge thinks would be desirable and then slips into the bill to trick congress into voting on it). |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 29 Jul 2005 09:55:36 -0700, wrote:
John H. wrote: On 29 Jul 2005 06:37:17 -0700, wrote: John H. wrote: Apparently you didn't see all the Democrats hailing the energy bill in the House today. Seventy-five Democrats voted for it. -- Apparently you didn't see that it was slipped in AFTER THE CONFERENCE WAS CLOSED, meaning no one, democrat or republican was able to consider or reject it. Was it slipped in AFTER the vote on the House floor? No? Well then all those Democrats had a chance to vote "NO". The thing is, the bill was read and debated AT THE CONFERENCE. The vote is after they all allegedly know what's in the bill. But, alas, the republicans in office now, being the slight-of-hand dirty pigs that they are, on purpose, had this entire clause inserted afterwards. Do you really think that the whole clause, which they worked on for months, was just accidently left out, then someone thought, oh, hell, we forgot this part... OR, do you think it was that they knew the bill would have a much greater failure rate if they did everything above board? The bill was also debated on the House floor (live on C-Span!). Are you saying the sneaky Republicans inserted this AFTER the debate and vote in the House? Or, are you saying that none of the Democrats (or their innumerable staffers) who voted FOR the bill read it? And, not one of the Democrats who voted against the bill read it and told their buddies? John Kerry, as much as I dislike the guy, made several mentions of things in the bill that had been changed in conference. He (or one of his staffers) must have read the bill. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 29 Jul 2005 10:56:56 -0700, " wrote:
Mr Wizzard wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message news Mr Wizzard wrote: Well, if this "mysterious insertion" broke laws, then yeah, there should be outrage. However, as presented, its clearly not that it was inserted that is being focused on, its that fact that it was the `OMFG, it was *Halliburton*!` mentality. I'll bet if if was some Clintonesque social program that was mysterious inserted, it wouldn't be an issue for you. Ok, ok, maybe that was a cheap shot, but again, look at how this article is/was being presented: "Republican Pigs are at it again", and Halliburton. If the origanl author was truely even keeled, and concerned about the PROCESS, then it would have read more "neutral" - something like: "Mysterious provision shows up in energy bill" No offense, but Halliburton and most of the rest of the companies involved in "Big Oil" are a big part of our problem in terms of oil prices and our situation in the Middle East. They're no different than Enron was. Whoa! - there is a *BIG* difference, Halliburton isn't breaking any laws. How are companies involved in "Big Oil" part of the problem in terms of oil prices? I'd like to know this. further, what wertern country has the cheapest oil prices? Lets see, England its like $9/gal, Eurpope $5, right? Other places? chart please ? BIG OIL is involved in oil prices at least two different ways. 1) The reason we just sat back and said "OK, that will be fine" when the Arabs nationalized all the oil fields 30-40 years ago is that BIG OIL still holds 49% shares in that oil production. It's a deal made in heaven, the price of oil goes to $60 a bbl, $29 of that finds its way to Exxon, Chevron, or Bush Energy Co, and the "Arabs" get all the blame. 2) Once OPEC announces a gouging price hike, American companies pumping oil in the US waste *no time* jacking the prices for domestic crude up to the level set by our "terrorist enemies" in Arabia. BIG OIL has a huge upside, and almost no downside (at least for now) with skyrocketing prices. As the prices shoot upward, oil pumped by existing infrastructure (with a stable production cost) can be sold for a lot more money. The downside to increased prices is often decreased demand. That has not proven to be true for oil producers so far. They have yet to raise the price high enough to where they aren't able to sell every drop they can pump and refine. Until prices get so high that a decrease in volume more than offsets an increase in gross margin, they will continue to climb. BIG OIL is enjoying record-smashing profits at present. You would have to hunt long and hard to find a BIG OIL exec who isn't elated every time the price of oil goes up another couple of bucks a bbl. It would seem like the appropriate response for Democrats such as yourself would be to buy up the shares of Exxon and make your own decisions about the greater good. You could even make some money in the interim. Do no Democrats own shares of big oil companies? Are only Republicans and Bush able to buy shares of Exxon? Hell, for a mere $60 you'll get invited to the next share-holders' meeting where you can suggest that all shareholders forfeit any profits. :) -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
John H. wrote: On 29 Jul 2005 10:56:56 -0700, " wrote: Mr Wizzard wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message news
Mr Wizzard wrote:Well, if this "mysterious insertion" broke laws, then yeah, there should be outrage. However, as presented, its clearly not that it was inserted that is being focused on, its that fact that it was the `OMFG, it was *Halliburton*!` mentality. I'll bet if if was some Clintonesque social program that was mysterious inserted, it wouldn't be an issue for you. Ok, ok, maybe that was a cheap shot, but again, look at how this article is/was being presented: "Republican Pigs are at it again", and Halliburton. If the origanl author was truely even keeled, and concerned about the PROCESS, then it would have read more "neutral" - something like: "Mysterious provision shows up in energy bill" No offense, but Halliburton and most of the rest of the companies involved in "Big Oil" are a big part of our problem in terms of oil prices and our situation in the Middle East. They're no different than Enron was. Whoa! - there is a *BIG* difference, Halliburton isn't breaking any laws. How are companies involved in "Big Oil" part of the problem in terms of oil prices? I'd like to know this. further, what wertern country has the cheapest oil prices? Lets see, England its like $9/gal, Eurpope $5, right? Other places? chart please ? BIG OIL is involved in oil prices at least two different ways. 1) The reason we just sat back and said "OK, that will be fine" when the Arabs nationalized all the oil fields 30-40 years ago is that BIG OIL still holds 49% shares in that oil production. It's a deal made in heaven, the price of oil goes to $60 a bbl, $29 of that finds its way to Exxon, Chevron, or Bush Energy Co, and the "Arabs" get all the blame. 2) Once OPEC announces a gouging price hike, American companies pumping oil in the US waste *no time* jacking the prices for domestic crude up to the level set by our "terrorist enemies" in Arabia. BIG OIL has a huge upside, and almost no downside (at least for now) with skyrocketing prices. As the prices shoot upward, oil pumped by existing infrastructure (with a stable production cost) can be sold for a lot more money. The downside to increased prices is often decreased demand. That has not proven to be true for oil producers so far. They have yet to raise the price high enough to where they aren't able to sell every drop they can pump and refine. Until prices get so high that a decrease in volume more than offsets an increase in gross margin, they will continue to climb. BIG OIL is enjoying record-smashing profits at present. You would have to hunt long and hard to find a BIG OIL exec who isn't elated every time the price of oil goes up another couple of bucks a bbl. It would seem like the appropriate response for Democrats such as yourself would be to buy up the shares of Exxon and make your own decisions about the greater good. You could even make some money in the interim. Do no Democrats own shares of big oil companies? Are only Republicans and Bush able to buy shares of Exxon? Hell, for a mere $60 you'll get invited to the next share-holders' meeting where you can suggest that all shareholders forfeit any profits. :) -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD C'mon John. Do you dispute my answer about the relationship between BIG OIL and high oil prices? Looks like no, but you don't pass the opportunity to make a snide remark about how I should buy stock in Exxon. Whazzup with that? FYI- I'm *not* a democrat. In fact, I'm not affiliated with any political party. |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 29 Jul 2005 11:28:28 -0700, " wrote:
John H. wrote: On 29 Jul 2005 10:56:56 -0700, " wrote: Mr Wizzard wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message news
Mr Wizzard wrote:Well, if this "mysterious insertion" broke laws, then yeah, there should be outrage. However, as presented, its clearly not that it was inserted that is being focused on, its that fact that it was the `OMFG, it was *Halliburton*!` mentality. I'll bet if if was some Clintonesque social program that was mysterious inserted, it wouldn't be an issue for you. Ok, ok, maybe that was a cheap shot, but again, look at how this article is/was being presented: "Republican Pigs are at it again", and Halliburton. If the origanl author was truely even keeled, and concerned about the PROCESS, then it would have read more "neutral" - something like: "Mysterious provision shows up in energy bill" No offense, but Halliburton and most of the rest of the companies involved in "Big Oil" are a big part of our problem in terms of oil prices and our situation in the Middle East. They're no different than Enron was. Whoa! - there is a *BIG* difference, Halliburton isn't breaking any laws. How are companies involved in "Big Oil" part of the problem in terms of oil prices? I'd like to know this. further, what wertern country has the cheapest oil prices? Lets see, England its like $9/gal, Eurpope $5, right? Other places? chart please ? BIG OIL is involved in oil prices at least two different ways. 1) The reason we just sat back and said "OK, that will be fine" when the Arabs nationalized all the oil fields 30-40 years ago is that BIG OIL still holds 49% shares in that oil production. It's a deal made in heaven, the price of oil goes to $60 a bbl, $29 of that finds its way to Exxon, Chevron, or Bush Energy Co, and the "Arabs" get all the blame. 2) Once OPEC announces a gouging price hike, American companies pumping oil in the US waste *no time* jacking the prices for domestic crude up to the level set by our "terrorist enemies" in Arabia. BIG OIL has a huge upside, and almost no downside (at least for now) with skyrocketing prices. As the prices shoot upward, oil pumped by existing infrastructure (with a stable production cost) can be sold for a lot more money. The downside to increased prices is often decreased demand. That has not proven to be true for oil producers so far. They have yet to raise the price high enough to where they aren't able to sell every drop they can pump and refine. Until prices get so high that a decrease in volume more than offsets an increase in gross margin, they will continue to climb. BIG OIL is enjoying record-smashing profits at present. You would have to hunt long and hard to find a BIG OIL exec who isn't elated every time the price of oil goes up another couple of bucks a bbl. It would seem like the appropriate response for Democrats such as yourself would be to buy up the shares of Exxon and make your own decisions about the greater good. You could even make some money in the interim. Do no Democrats own shares of big oil companies? Are only Republicans and Bush able to buy shares of Exxon? Hell, for a mere $60 you'll get invited to the next share-holders' meeting where you can suggest that all shareholders forfeit any profits. :) -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD C'mon John. Do you dispute my answer about the relationship between BIG OIL and high oil prices? Looks like no, but you don't pass the opportunity to make a snide remark about how I should buy stock in Exxon. Whazzup with that? FYI- I'm *not* a democrat. In fact, I'm not affiliated with any political party. Change references to Democrats to liberals. My point is that liberals tend to shout about BIG OIL and how bad it is. My question is, "Do no liberals own shares in Exxon?" If they *do* own shares in Exxon, and they feel they are making too much money, why are they not stating same in shareholders' meetings. That would certainly make the news! -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT Republican Pigs at Trough | General | |||
| Delay the king of crooks | General | |||
| OT More from the Republican Pigs. | General | |||
| Republican myths | General | |||
Linear Mode
