On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 15:07:14 -0400, "Don White"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:23:44 -0500, HK wrote:

BAR wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
...
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush, saying he was unaware of
predictions of $4-a-gallon gasoline in the coming months, told
reporters Thursday that the best way to help Americans fend off high
prices is for Congress to make his first-term tax cuts permanent.

...

Analysts have said that gasoline could reach $4 a gallon by this
spring, due to strong demand and a change in formulation, among
other reasons.

When taking the question about the $4 milestone, Bush told the
reporter, *"That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."*

Strong demand. What a crock of ****. Last spring, it was "on fears of
renewed violence in Baghdad". Prices are effected by events in a
country from which we get pretty much zero oil?


Can somebody please explain to me why high oil prices is perceived as
a unique problem to the USA with Bush at the center of the cause?

Political blame for US election advantage.

The sad thing is that Bush leaves office as soon as the next President
is sworn in on 1/20/09. Why is everyone running against Bush?




The sad thing? There will be dancing in the streets when the IDIOT heads
back to Crawford, or wherever he plans to go to take up his video games,
booze, coke, and drunken driving.

Oh...it is the *failed* Bush-GOP policies against which the Dems will
run. Got it?

Harry, does your mother know you're telling lies about her?

You're still past tense.
--
John H



Back to bringing families into the foolishness here eh Johnny?
Time for an extended Goofy cruise..... from now until May would just about
do it.


Show me what was disrespectful of Harry's mom, Don.

You must really have a problem with understanding what you read. Whether or
not Harry's mom knows he lies about her is not disrespectful of her.

For example. Does your wife know that both of your BFF are liars?

Now, did I say anything disrespectful of your wife?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:01:04 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:29:41 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:52:23 -0500, BAR wrote:


Solution:

- build nuclear power plants
- build the wind farm off of Cape Cod
- drill to pump oil out of all of the oil fields within the US
- drill the hell out of the coast of Florida before the Chinese do
- build more refineries

I'll plagiarize that every chance I get.

Don't make yourself look silly.....

1) I pay bills at 2 locations: one coal fired, one nukular fired. The
nukular bill is about 1/3 higher. That isn't much of a "deal." I,
also, have a problem with sweeping the radioactive waste under the
carpet.

Which provides the cleaner energy? What other monies will be spent to clean
up after the coal? Is the difference in price due to the difference in
production cost or for some other reason?


2) I don't mind ****ing off the Kennedy's, but geographically I hope
it is not cutting off one's nose to spite one's face (the studies say,
not). Wind is a good way to go, though, and I suspect that the project
will be approved this year and we may see a turbine in place in about
4 years....

We are way behind. Take a trip through Denmark. You'll see what wind use is
all about. I don't believe it's possible to stop anywhere in the country
and not see a wind mill farm.

3) We might need those reserves for something regarding national
defense. Don't squander the nest egg for a big night on the town....

Don't know if he meant to pump out the old fields or drill and pump new
ones. You made a good point. Once things really get tight, we'll need the
oil to power our bombers and submarines.

4) Another geographically challenged thought.

But one that makes good sense. Do you think the Chinese are *not* working
with the Cubans to drill off the coast of Florida?

5) Tell the oil companies to stop CLOSING refineries. Has anybody
figured out that we have 1/2 the refineries we used to have and that
"lack of capacity" has the oil companies weeping all of the way to the
bank?

The oil companies closed old, small, inefficient refineries.

Certainly, America can develop technologies that will make oil
unnecessary. Then we would have an economic advantage far exceeding of
the current countries with significant oil reserves.

Go NUCLEAR!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
Don White wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:23:44 -0500, HK wrote:

BAR wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
...
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush, saying he was unaware of
predictions of $4-a-gallon gasoline in the coming months, told
reporters Thursday that the best way to help Americans fend off
high
prices is for Congress to make his first-term tax cuts permanent.

...

Analysts have said that gasoline could reach $4 a gallon by this
spring, due to strong demand and a change in formulation, among
other reasons.

When taking the question about the $4 milestone, Bush told the
reporter, *"That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."*
Strong demand. What a crock of ****. Last spring, it was "on fears
of
renewed violence in Baghdad". Prices are effected by events in a
country from which we get pretty much zero oil?

Can somebody please explain to me why high oil prices is perceived as
a unique problem to the USA with Bush at the center of the cause?
Political blame for US election advantage.

The sad thing is that Bush leaves office as soon as the next President
is sworn in on 1/20/09. Why is everyone running against Bush?



The sad thing? There will be dancing in the streets when the IDIOT
heads
back to Crawford, or wherever he plans to go to take up his video
games,
booze, coke, and drunken driving.

Oh...it is the *failed* Bush-GOP policies against which the Dems will
run. Got it?
Harry, does your mother know you're telling lies about her?

You're still past tense.
--
John H



Back to bringing families into the foolishness here eh Johnny?
Time for an extended Goofy cruise..... from now until May would just
about do it.

Did you lazy son drink all of your beer again?


Speaking of idiots...........

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 11:40:00 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


Can somebody please explain to me why high oil prices is perceived as a
unique problem to the USA with Bush at the center of the cause?


Only perceived that way by some.
OTOH, Bush, and Clinton, and Reagan did very little to rein in the
profligate waste of oil, and seek alternatives.



Everybody wants someone else to fix problems, because we have "the right
to do whatever we want". yawn............


Well, since my guess is as good as any, I'll offer my opinion.

The primary reason for the dramatic world-wide increase in the price of oil
is, IMO, ..... China.
As China has gone through it's rapid industrialization and modernization,
there have been several shortages of basic materials leading to spikes in
prices. Quality stainless steel plate is becoming difficult to order for my
son's business with huge increases in price when you can get it. The same
was (still is to a degree) true with concrete. China was buying up
everything that the world could produce.

As China continues to industrialize and more and more of her population hang
up their bicycles in favor of newly affordable automobiles, oil prices will
continue to rise regardless of what any individual country, including the
USA, does. All we can do is find alternatives to oil which is a daunting
challenge.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 11:40:00 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


Can somebody please explain to me why high oil prices is perceived as a
unique problem to the USA with Bush at the center of the cause?


Only perceived that way by some.
OTOH, Bush, and Clinton, and Reagan did very little to rein in the
profligate waste of oil, and seek alternatives.



Everybody wants someone else to fix problems, because we have "the right
to do whatever we want". yawn............


Well, since my guess is as good as any, I'll offer my opinion.

The primary reason for the dramatic world-wide increase in the price of
oil is, IMO, ..... China.
As China has gone through it's rapid industrialization and modernization,
there have been several shortages of basic materials leading to spikes in
prices. Quality stainless steel plate is becoming difficult to order for
my son's business with huge increases in price when you can get it. The
same was (still is to a degree) true with concrete. China was buying up
everything that the world could produce.

As China continues to industrialize and more and more of her population
hang up their bicycles in favor of newly affordable automobiles, oil
prices will continue to rise regardless of what any individual country,
including the USA, does. All we can do is find alternatives to oil which
is a daunting challenge.

Eisboch



Demand from China certainly explain a long term trend. But, it absolutely
does NOT explain the weekly ups & downs.

I'd like your thoughts on this article, please. Assume it's true, since it
is.

http://www.thetimes.co.za/Business/A...aspx?id=672709

On Mar 1, 3:26*pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:01:04 -0500, Gene Kearns





wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:29:41 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:52:23 -0500, BAR wrote:

Solution:

- build nuclear power plants
- build the wind farm off of Cape Cod
- drill to pump oil out of all of the oil fields within the US
- drill the hell out of the coast of Florida before the Chinese do
- build more refineries

I'll plagiarize that every chance I get.

Don't make yourself look silly.....

1) I pay bills at 2 locations: one coal fired, one nukular fired. The
nukular bill is about 1/3 higher. That isn't much of a "deal." I,
also, have a problem with sweeping the radioactive waste under the
carpet.

Which provides the cleaner energy? What other monies will be spent to clean
up after the coal? Is the difference in price due to the difference in
production cost or for some other reason?

2) I don't mind ****ing off the Kennedy's, but geographically I hope
it is not cutting off one's nose to spite one's face (the studies say,
not). Wind is a good way to go, though, and I suspect that the project
will be approved this year and we may see a turbine in place in about
4 years....

We are way behind. Take a trip through Denmark. You'll see what wind use is
all about. I don't believe it's possible to stop anywhere in the country
and not see a wind mill farm.

3) We might need those reserves for something regarding national
defense. Don't squander the nest egg for a big night on the town....

Don't know if he meant to pump out the old fields or drill and pump new
ones. You made a good point. Once things really get tight, we'll need the
oil to power our bombers and submarines.

4) Another geographically challenged thought.

But one that makes good sense. Do you think the Chinese are *not* working
with the Cubans to drill off the coast of Florida?

5) Tell the oil companies to stop CLOSING refineries. Has anybody
figured out that we have 1/2 the refineries we used to have and that
"lack of capacity" has the oil companies weeping all of the way to the
bank?

The oil companies closed old, small, inefficient refineries.

Certainly, America can develop technologies that will make oil
unnecessary. Then we would have an economic advantage far exceeding of
the current countries with significant oil reserves.

Go NUCLEAR!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree, but the problem is that it isn't an instant fix by a long
shot. It takes a hell of a long time to get a nuke plant built, and
online. Was watching an economist and energy expert talking about this
just today, and he, like me is all for nuclear energy, but in the
meantime thinks, as do I that we need to do more to get solar and wind
farms up and running to offset the lag time in getting nuke plants
operational.

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:16:03 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 1, 3:26*pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:01:04 -0500, Gene Kearns





wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:29:41 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:52:23 -0500, BAR wrote:

Solution:

- build nuclear power plants
- build the wind farm off of Cape Cod
- drill to pump oil out of all of the oil fields within the US
- drill the hell out of the coast of Florida before the Chinese do
- build more refineries

I'll plagiarize that every chance I get.

Don't make yourself look silly.....

1) I pay bills at 2 locations: one coal fired, one nukular fired. The
nukular bill is about 1/3 higher. That isn't much of a "deal." I,
also, have a problem with sweeping the radioactive waste under the
carpet.

Which provides the cleaner energy? What other monies will be spent to clean
up after the coal? Is the difference in price due to the difference in
production cost or for some other reason?

2) I don't mind ****ing off the Kennedy's, but geographically I hope
it is not cutting off one's nose to spite one's face (the studies say,
not). Wind is a good way to go, though, and I suspect that the project
will be approved this year and we may see a turbine in place in about
4 years....

We are way behind. Take a trip through Denmark. You'll see what wind use is
all about. I don't believe it's possible to stop anywhere in the country
and not see a wind mill farm.

3) We might need those reserves for something regarding national
defense. Don't squander the nest egg for a big night on the town....

Don't know if he meant to pump out the old fields or drill and pump new
ones. You made a good point. Once things really get tight, we'll need the
oil to power our bombers and submarines.

4) Another geographically challenged thought.

But one that makes good sense. Do you think the Chinese are *not* working
with the Cubans to drill off the coast of Florida?

5) Tell the oil companies to stop CLOSING refineries. Has anybody
figured out that we have 1/2 the refineries we used to have and that
"lack of capacity" has the oil companies weeping all of the way to the
bank?

The oil companies closed old, small, inefficient refineries.

Certainly, America can develop technologies that will make oil
unnecessary. Then we would have an economic advantage far exceeding of
the current countries with significant oil reserves.

Go NUCLEAR!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree, but the problem is that it isn't an instant fix by a long
shot. It takes a hell of a long time to get a nuke plant built, and
online. Was watching an economist and energy expert talking about this
just today, and he, like me is all for nuclear energy, but in the
meantime thinks, as do I that we need to do more to get solar and wind
farms up and running to offset the lag time in getting nuke plants
operational.

Loogy, you should have started talking to the liberals about 20 years ago!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mar 1, 4:20*pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:16:03 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Mar 1, 3:26*pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:01:04 -0500, Gene Kearns

wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:29:41 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:52:23 -0500, BAR wrote:

Solution:

- build nuclear power plants
- build the wind farm off of Cape Cod
- drill to pump oil out of all of the oil fields within the US
- drill the hell out of the coast of Florida before the Chinese do
- build more refineries

I'll plagiarize that every chance I get.

Don't make yourself look silly.....

1) I pay bills at 2 locations: one coal fired, one nukular fired. The
nukular bill is about 1/3 higher. That isn't much of a "deal." I,
also, have a problem with sweeping the radioactive waste under the
carpet.

Which provides the cleaner energy? What other monies will be spent to clean
up after the coal? Is the difference in price due to the difference in
production cost or for some other reason?

2) I don't mind ****ing off the Kennedy's, but geographically I hope
it is not cutting off one's nose to spite one's face (the studies say,
not). Wind is a good way to go, though, and I suspect that the project
will be approved this year and we may see a turbine in place in about
4 years....

We are way behind. Take a trip through Denmark. You'll see what wind use is
all about. I don't believe it's possible to stop anywhere in the country
and not see a wind mill farm.

3) We might need those reserves for something regarding national
defense. Don't squander the nest egg for a big night on the town....

Don't know if he meant to pump out the old fields or drill and pump new
ones. You made a good point. Once things really get tight, we'll need the
oil to power our bombers and submarines.

4) Another geographically challenged thought.

But one that makes good sense. Do you think the Chinese are *not* working
with the Cubans to drill off the coast of Florida?

5) Tell the oil companies to stop CLOSING refineries. Has anybody
figured out that we have 1/2 the refineries we used to have and that
"lack of capacity" has the oil companies weeping all of the way to the
bank?

The oil companies closed old, small, inefficient refineries.

Certainly, America can develop technologies that will make oil
unnecessary. Then we would have an economic advantage far exceeding of
the current countries with significant oil reserves.

Go NUCLEAR!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree, but the problem is that it isn't an instant fix by a long
shot. It takes a hell of a long time to get a nuke plant built, and
online. Was watching an economist and energy expert talking about this
just today, and he, like me is all for nuclear energy, but in the
meantime thinks, as do I that we need to do more to get solar and wind
farms up and running to offset the lag time in getting nuke plants
operational.

Loogy, you should have started talking to the liberals about 20 years ago!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You'd be surprised how many liberals are for those exact same things.
It's just that you on the right side (as well as many on the left)
tend to lump everyone together that doesn't 100% toe the line, ie:
you're either with us, or against us.

Analysts have said that gasoline could reach $4 a gallon by this
spring,

Analysts wanna scare the price up that high... Bush knew...another
lie.

On Mar 1, 5:09*pm, "JimH" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...







"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 11:40:00 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Can somebody please explain to me why high oil prices is perceived as a
unique problem to the USA with Bush at the center of the cause?

Only perceived that way by some.
OTOH, Bush, and Clinton, and Reagan did very little to rein in the
profligate waste of oil, and seek alternatives.

Everybody wants someone else to fix problems, because we have "the right
to do whatever we want". yawn............

Well, *since my guess is as good as any, I'll offer my opinion.

The primary reason for the dramatic world-wide increase in the price of
oil is, IMO, * ..... *China.
As China has gone through it's rapid industrialization and modernization,
there have been several shortages of basic materials leading to spikes in
prices. *Quality stainless steel plate is becoming difficult to order for
my son's business with huge increases in price when you can get it. *The
same was (still is to a degree) true with concrete. * China was buying up
everything that the world could produce.

As China continues to industrialize and more and more of her population
hang up their bicycles in favor of newly affordable automobiles, oil
prices will continue to rise regardless of what any individual country,
including the USA, does. *All we can do is find alternatives to oil which
is a daunting challenge.

Eisboch

Agreed. *Supply and demand. *If you can control the supply when demand is
high and you can then test the price ceiling (which we have yet to see).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Everyone says 4 dollars... I will throw my prediction in, I think we
will test 5 dollars a gallon before the end of the year.