"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
DSK wrote in
:

But it's the Democrats and their envirolunatics who are responsible
for
the increased prices during summer.

That's right Fred. Democrats are to blame for everything bad
in the whole world, including warm beer, your neighbors
barking dog, and the awful sound of fingernails on a blackboard.

You'd reply rationally if you had a point to make.

If our Republican President hadn't have chosen to invade Iraq, the mid-
east wouldn't be in such turmoil and barrel oil prices would be half or
less than what they are today.

That's rational.

Do you have a rational point to make about Democrats being responsible
for the highest profits the oil companies have experienced in their
entire existence?

Were you going to say something about regulation before I pointed out
the oil companies MADE MORE PROFIT THIS PAST YEAR THAN ANY OTHER TIME IN
HISTORY???

jps

And the prices of everything are higher then most of history. Gas is lower
compared to most items. And you are very ignorant of world oil markets if
you think that the price would be less than 1/2 per barrel! China has to
get the oil for their massive manufacturing base somewhere.

"Don White" wrote in message
...
RCE wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...

DSK wrote:

RCE wrote:


He's not funny. As a supposed representative of the human race, he's
alarming.


If Fred agreed with any of my expressed opinions, and still acted the
way he does, I'd find him alarming too. But if he did think more along
the lines I do, he couldn't possibly act the way he does. So I think
he's funny.

But then I always have had a cruel sense of humor. Fred is like a
spastic kitten trying to unravel the strands of reason from the ball of
yarn of life, I laugh when he keeps konking his head and getting mad at
the yarn.

FWIW I agree he's a sorry excuse for a representative of the human race.
If 3,000 years of civilization have brought us to guys like Fred D, then
we might as well have stayed in caves.

Regards
Doug King


If you guys keep this up, & Fred is who we think he might be.... expect
another round of threats to visit your houses, kick you in the nuts...etc
etc. I'm gonna rush down to my closest sporting goods store and buy a
jock strap/cup combo.


I'd have to brush up on my old Navy days lingo, just to try to
communicate with him.

RCE
Did you watch 'Motor Week' tonight? They were raving about the 2006 BMW
M5. So many features my head was swimming. Got a kick out of the 'paddle
type gear shifters' on the steering column.


I didn't see it on TV, but I think this must be it:

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2531a.shtml.

There were a couple of errors I noticed, although not important issues. One
had to do with the rear seats not folding. You can order optional folding
rear seats.

The other is the elimination of what they call "Launch Control" in the US
versions. Although not the same as the European LC, the US versions do have
a toned down "crippled" version of launch control that becomes automatically
enabled after the break-in period (1200 miles). It's one of several little
secret surprises in the car's software that they don't advertise or tell you
about. It works, but is really impractical to use unless you are at the
drag strip.

Now that I've completed the required 1200 mile "run-in" procedure that is
specified, I've been given the go-ahead by the dealership to let it rip, so
to speak. I tried the "S-6" mode once (highest level of performance and
required driver skills). I doubt I'll ever do it again unless I am on an
isolated race track. The car is just insanely fast and powerful and a
driver not skilled to handle it can get in trouble real fast. Like most
cars, it has DSC (Dynamic Stability Control) that brakes any wheel that
starts to spin and backs off the throttle until traction is regained. Unlike
many cars it also has a second setting called MSC (or something like that)
that allows a level of wheel spin, drifting and high lateral G forces, but
will kick in if things get too far out of hand. Then, for the purist and
experienced driver, you can turn the system off completely and rely on your
driving skills to maintain control. I learned quickly that I am not in that
league, especially with 500 hp on tap.

I plan to attend the M-5 performance driving school in South Carolina
sometime in the next few months. It's a 2 day course that comes with the
purchase of the car and those that have attended say it's a blast and a half
and well worth attending, not just for high performance cars like the M5,
but for drivers of all types of cars.

RCE

In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
DSK wrote in
:

But it's the Democrats and their envirolunatics who are responsible
for
the increased prices during summer.

That's right Fred. Democrats are to blame for everything bad
in the whole world, including warm beer, your neighbors
barking dog, and the awful sound of fingernails on a blackboard.

You'd reply rationally if you had a point to make.

If our Republican President hadn't have chosen to invade Iraq, the mid-
east wouldn't be in such turmoil and barrel oil prices would be half or
less than what they are today.

That's rational.

Do you have a rational point to make about Democrats being responsible
for the highest profits the oil companies have experienced in their
entire existence?

Were you going to say something about regulation before I pointed out
the oil companies MADE MORE PROFIT THIS PAST YEAR THAN ANY OTHER TIME IN
HISTORY???

jps

And the prices of everything are higher then most of history. Gas is lower
compared to most items. And you are very ignorant of world oil markets if
you think that the price would be less than 1/2 per barrel! China has to
get the oil for their massive manufacturing base somewhere.

Please tell me what the price of oil was prior to the invasion of Iraq.

Never mind, I'll tell you. It was under $30/barrel. Most of Clinton's
years it averaged near $20/barrel.

It's Bush's war that pushed oil prices to where they are today.

Ignorant? Yes, you are.

jps

In article . net,
says...

"-rick-" wrote in message
. ..
CalifBill wrote:
Someone who was not a nutcase dictator. And he fixed the election. Do a
little research. May be his local opposition that ice's him.

Chavez or Bush?

Chavez and the DNC both fixed elections. Bush was very beatable, probably
the most beatable incumbant in history. But the DNC blesses Kerry as the
Dem's candidate? Had to be a fix to lose the election.

Boy, even in hindsight your vision is foggy.

jps

In article ,
says...
jps wrote in
:

It's Bush's war that pushed oil prices to where they are today.

The companies would not be profitable if they did not provide a product at
a price the market is willing to bear. If you don't like the price or the
product, don't buy it.

Non-sequitur Fred. Look it up.

jps

In article ,
says...
jps wrote in
:

Do you have a rational point to make about Democrats being responsible
for the highest profits the oil companies have experienced in their
entire existence?

The companies would not be profitable if they did not provide a product at
a price the market is willing to bear. If you don't like the price or the
product, don't buy it.

Were you going to say something about regulation before I pointed out
the oil companies MADE MORE PROFIT THIS PAST YEAR THAN ANY OTHER TIME IN
HISTORY???

The companies would not be profitable if they did not provide a product at
a price the market is willing to bear. If you don't like the price or the
product, don't buy it.

Non-sequitur Fred. Look it up.

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"-rick-" wrote in message
. ..
CalifBill wrote:
Someone who was not a nutcase dictator. And he fixed the election.
Do a
little research. May be his local opposition that ice's him.

Chavez or Bush?

Chavez and the DNC both fixed elections. Bush was very beatable,
probably
the most beatable incumbant in history. But the DNC blesses Kerry as the
Dem's candidate? Had to be a fix to lose the election.

Boy, even in hindsight your vision is foggy.

jps

Why do you say that? You think Kerry was a good choice? Best Choice in
your view?

In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"-rick-" wrote in message
. ..
CalifBill wrote:
Someone who was not a nutcase dictator. And he fixed the election.
Do a
little research. May be his local opposition that ice's him.

Chavez or Bush?

Chavez and the DNC both fixed elections. Bush was very beatable,
probably
the most beatable incumbant in history. But the DNC blesses Kerry as the
Dem's candidate? Had to be a fix to lose the election.

Boy, even in hindsight your vision is foggy.

jps

Why do you say that? You think Kerry was a good choice? Best Choice in
your view?

If you bother to think back for a moment, you will remember that Kerry
came blazing to the forefront in Iowa -- not because of what the DNC did
but because people there (and lots of other places) thought that his
military service and heroism would counteract the "war president."

I thought so too but I wanted the primary races to remain competitive
for many more weeks into the year, for fear that Kerry would dive to the
middle as soon as Dean's chances faded.

Of course, that's exactly what happened. Kerry dove to the middle and
lost all his luster.

That, and the little dirty tricks launched by the Swift Boaters.

Jog your memory at all?

jps

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 06:37:22 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 12 Apr 2006 21:59:25 -0700, "
wrote:

Driving home this evening, I listened to a local talk radio station
discussing the probable fuel prices during the next few months. They
kept referring to an article in USA Today that projected $4/gallon
gas
prices (would probably run $5 at a fuel dock).

Anybody actually see this story and know the details?

I can't find it online- does anybody have a website address to check?

Self-fulfilling prophecy. This is a market driven by speculation and
insider information.

I saw the article yesterday and just put it away. Watching CNBC
yesterday, you had prices going from $2.62 to $6 a gallon.

My guess is it will hit a high around $2,90 and settle back once the
refineries come back on-line.

Hugo Chavez says $50 a barrel for oil is sufficient.

Unfortunately, Hugo Chaves doesn't control the price of oil. I know
he likes to think he does, but he doesn't.

At what price does harvesting oil shale and oil sand become economical.
That is the price OPEC will not want oil to reach.


You have a good point. I recently saw a documentary on shale oil and if I
recall correctly, the price is right around 50 dollars per barrel to
justify the cost. Developers must be waiting for a long term
stabilization of oil prices before having at it.

RCE

IF I remember correctly I thought it was Canadian oil sands and slightly
higher than $50 was the price point. Oil shale is harder to mine and
process. Also most of the regions that contain oil shale in this country
are under government control and that makes it harder to get at. As a
political statement we need to have in place laws outlining the sale and
recovery methods so that it won't take 10 years to get them through
congress.

That would go a long way toward stabilizing oil prices and relieve consumers
minds about our oil independence. At a certain price point we would become
100% energy independent as we process our own shale oil reserves.

The ONLY reason for the gas prices is because they can!

That's it in a nutshell.

Ray
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
oups.com:

Dropping them in October may be too late to be of
much PR benefit to the party hoping to maintain a congressional
majority. There's no direct connection between who's in office and oil
prices, but John Q Public is more likely to vote "for change" if he's
feeling unhappy

But it's the Democrats and their envirolunatics who are responsible for
the increased prices during summer.