Bush says you depend too much on Mideast Oil..here are the facts.

[MonsterMark]

Well stated with first-hand knowledge and astute observation. Here's someone that has experienced a BuSh-like power grab.

So vote him out of office (can't) or impeach him (won't) as you so desperately desire.

 

[RB3]

Well stated with first-hand knowledge and astute observation. Here's someone that has experienced a BuSh-like power grab.

Baloney. Romania was a Communist state run by a Soviet puppet. Nicolae Ceausescu took office in 1965, was executed in 1989. There weren't any rights in Romania when he took office. He wasn't elected in a Democratic election. He wasn't term limited to eight years. The Eastern European communist governments fell in conjunction with the fall of the Soviet Union, brought about by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

The parallels between Romania and Bush are non-existent. Being from somewhere doesn't mean you have any special understanding of how things really are, as far too many Americans demonstrate.

 

[barry2952]

Like BuSh isn't a puppet of the RWWs.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

But then in paragraph 3, you lose me. Profits are not at record highs. You need to look at the profit margins. And of course, all your posts have to find a vast conspiracy with Bush at the center....how does someone you fancy is so stupid manage to run all these conspiracies??

Well, it's hard to not get that impression when I read news like this........

Published on Friday, May 2, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
War Propels Exxon Profits to Record $7 Billion
by Terry Macalister

ExxonMobil, the world's biggest privately owned oil group and a target of street protesters, celebrated May Day by reporting the largest quarterly corporate profits in history at $7.04bn (£4.4bn).

The company, whose petrol stations around Europe are subject to boycotts by StopEsso campaigners angry about its stance on global warming, made £2.2m an hour - double that of rival BP.

Crucial to the surge in profits was the rising global price of oil, which averaged record highs across the three-month period, buoyed by fears of a supply gap due to the war in Iraq.

The net income figure of $7.05bn included special items and compared with last year's figure of $2.09bn. The company has rewarded shareholders with an 8% rise in dividend.

Fadel Gheit, oil analyst with New York brokerage Fahnstock & Co, said groundbreaking profits had been driven by the Iraq war and strikes in Venezuela and Nigeria. "They [Exxon] had a very strong wind in their sail and they happened to have a very big sail. But if you look at the detail, the US refining and marketing figures fell from the fourth quarter and the US chemicals results were also very disappointing," he said.

The StopEsso campaign denied that the huge Exxon profits suggested its boycott was not working. "All you are seeing is the oil industry getting its first benefits from the war in Iraq. Our action has now spread to nine countries and in terms of brand damage we are winning," said a spokeswoman for the campaign.

Exxon has been pilloried by environmentalists for taking a sceptical stance on global warming and has been blamed by them for encouraging US president George Bush not to sign the Kyoto treaty.

Analysts believe the record first-quarter figures from the top oil companies, including Shell today, will not be repeated because oil prices have already started to fall as the conflict in Iraq comes to an end.

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

Or this........

Exxon Mobil posts largest quarterly profit ever
U.S. oil giant reports quarterly sales of $100 billion; Shell profit also soars


Updated: 1:35 p.m. ET Oct. 27, 2005
IRVING, Texas - High prices for oil and natural gas propelled Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC to their best quarterly results ever on Thursday, with Exxon becoming the first U.S. company ever to ring up quarterly sales of $100 billion.

To put Exxon’s performance into perspective, its third quarter revenue was greater than the annual gross domestic product of some of the largest oil producing nations, including the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. The world’s largest publicly traded oil company also set a U.S. profit record with net income of almost $10 billion, according to Standard & Poor’s equity market analyst Howard Silverblatt.

Both Exxon and Shell said their performances were buoyed by higher crude-oil and natural-gas prices, even as output suffered due to a busy hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico.

Exxon’s net income ballooned 75 percent to $9.92 billion, compared with $5.68 billion a year ago. The previous oil-industry earnings record was Exxon’s 2004 fourth-quarter profit of $8.42 billion. Revenue grew to $100.72 billion from $76.38 billion in the prior-year period.

At Shell, third-quarter net income attributable to shareholders grew 68 percent to $9.03 billion, compared with $5.37 billion a year earlier. Including income attributable to minority interests, profit rose 67 percent to $9.39 billion at the Anglo-Dutch company. Revenue rose 8 percent to $76.44 billion, in spite of an 11 percent decline in oil and natural gas output.

“We are capturing the benefits of high oil and gas prices and refining margins,” Shell Chief Financial Officer Peter Voser said, referring to the profit margin on each barrel of crude that is refined into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.

Excluding certain items, Exxon’s profit was $8.3 billion, or $1.32 per share, or slightly below the $1.38 per share expected by analysts polled by Thomson Financial.

Shell said adjusted earnings on a current cost of supplies basis — a measurement that strips out the fluctuating value of the company’s oil and gas inventories — was $7.37 billion, sharply higher than analysts’ forecasts.

Exxon said the hurricanes slashed U.S. production volumes by 5 percent from a year ago, while global daily production slipped to 2.45 million barrels of oil equivalent from 2.51 million barrels.

 

[RB3]

Well, it's hard to not get that impression when I read news like this........




Or this........

Well, then I guess you didn't read too carefully. The first article says Exxon's profits fell in the US, but were boosted by overseas earnings. It also says it was a temporary uptick and not likely to repeat. Neither mentions what the profit margin (the return on investment) was.

 

[RB3]

Like BuSh isn't a puppet of the RWWs.

Being from somewhere doesn't mean you have any special understanding of how things really are, as far too many Americans demonstrate.

Thanks for proving my point. And so quickly too.

 

[Frogman]

Baloney. Romania was a Communist state run by a Soviet puppet. Nicolae Ceausescu took office in 1965, was executed in 1989. There weren't any rights in Romania when he took office. He wasn't elected in a Democratic election. He wasn't term limited to eight years. The Eastern European communist governments fell in conjunction with the fall of the Soviet Union, brought about by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

The parallels between Romania and Bush are non-existent. Being from somewhere doesn't mean you have any special understanding of how things really are, as far too many Americans demonstrate.

How little you know... It's not the form of government I refer to, but rather the big man in charge. Do you seriously think he preserved the rights his subjects had when to took office? No, he did not. He slowly pecked at them until they were virtually non existent.

Romania had economic ties to the Soviet Union, because it switched sides from the NAZIs to the Soviet Union in the WWII. Yes, it shared the same form of government, but that's about all.

The people of that country had no rights In Romania before Ceasescu? Once again, how little you know.

With all respect sir, anyone can use google, but first walk in my shoes before you tell me how it was over there under a dictatorship, OK? Ok. Been there, lived through it. I really don't think you have a leg to stand on, telling me the "parallels" between the two are non existent.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Well, then I guess you didn't read too carefully. The first article says Exxon's profits fell in the US, but were boosted by overseas earnings. It also says it was a temporary uptick and not likely to repeat. Neither mentions what the profit margin (the return on investment) was.

From Exxon's own website:

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION
FOURTH QUARTER 2005
-------------------------
(millions of dollars)


Fourth Quarter Twelve Months
-------------- ---------------
2005 2004 2005 2004
------- ------ ------- -------
Capital and Exploration Expenditures

Upstream
United States 542 520 2,142 1,922
Non-U.S. 3,852 2,774 12,328 9,793
Total 4,394 3,294 14,470 11,715
Downstream
United States 213 175 753 775
Non-U.S. 535 496 1,742 1,630
Total 748 671 2,495 2,405
Chemical
United States 61 79 243 262
Non-U.S. 108 177 411 428
Total 169 256 654 690

Other 20 12 80 75

Worldwide 5,331 4,233 17,699 14,885


Exploration expenses charged to income
included above
Consolidated affiliates
United States 54 41 157 192
Non-U.S. 278 268 795 891
Equity companies - ExxonMobil share
United States 0 9 0 9
Non-U.S. 0 16 17 27
Worldwide 332 334 969 1,119


Attachment VI


EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION
NET INCOME
------------------------


$ Millions $ Per Common Share
---------------- ------------------

2001
--------------------
First Quarter 5,000 0.72
Second Quarter 4,460 0.66
Third Quarter 3,180 0.46
Fourth Quarter 2,680 0.39
Year 15,320 2.23

2002
--------------------
First Quarter 2,090 0.30
Second Quarter 2,640 0.40
Third Quarter 2,640 0.39
Fourth Quarter 4,090 0.60
Year 11,460 1.69

2003
--------------------
First Quarter 7,040 1.05
Second Quarter 4,170 0.63
Third Quarter 3,650 0.55
Fourth Quarter 6,650 1.01
Year 21,510 3.24

2004
--------------------
First Quarter 5,440 0.83
Second Quarter 5,790 0.89
Third Quarter 5,680 0.88
Fourth Quarter 8,420 1.31
Year 25,330 3.91

2005
--------------------
First Quarter 7,860 1.23
Second Quarter 7,640 1.21
Third Quarter 9,920 1.60
Fourth Quarter 10,710 1.72
Year 36,130 5.76

$17.7 million hardly puts a dent in $10.7 billion. ~0.16% of their profits "reinvested"?? Pretty damn lame IMO.

 

[RB3]

From Exxon's own website:



$17.7 million hardly puts a dent in $10.7 billion. ~0.16% of their profits "reinvested"?? Pretty damn lame IMO.

They'd be delighted to invest more if the Liberals would allow them to build new refineries and drill new wells.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

From Exxon's own website:



$17.7 million hardly puts a dent in $10.7 billion. ~0.16% of their profits "reinvested"?? Pretty damn lame IMO.

CORRECTION!! I misread the decimal place, that is $17.7Billion invested, not Million. So obviously, the $10.7B "net income" (profit) must already have the $17.7B "Capital and Exploration Expenditures" taken out / accounted for.

Not as "lame" as I had thought, but the point still stands. These ARE record profits that already account for any expenditures / reinvestment.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Also note that only 17.8% of their "Capital and Exploration Expenditures" in 2005 were spent in the US. They don't appear to have the US's interests at heart.

Yeah, I do agree they need to build more refineries. However, I don't feel it's the "liberal" lawmakers who are to blame, all they are doing is voicing their constituents' concerns. It really comes down to a battle over coastline. The oil companies want it because its the best place to build refineries (to get tankers in-and-out), and all the yuppy, rich, selfish coastal dwellers want their sandy beaches and fresh smelling air. Meanwhile the government (again led by the oil-man) is reluctant to give the oil companies any incentives to invest in clean refinery technology because that'd cut into their profit margins.

 

[RB3]

How little you know... It's not the form of government I refer to, but rather the big man in charge. Do you seriously think he preserved the rights his subjects had when to took office? No, he did not. He slowly pecked at them until they were virtually non existent..

They were largely non-existent to begin with. It was a communist dictatorship. And dictators, unlike Presidents, can pretty much do what they please.

Romania had economic ties to the Soviet Union, because it switched sides from the NAZIs to the Soviet Union in the WWII. Yes, it shared the same form of government, but that's about all..

And once again, that form of government was a communist dictatorship wherein individual rights were suborned to the state.

The people of that country had no rights In Romania before Ceasescu? Once again, how little you know.

With all respect sir, anyone can use google, but first walk in my shoes before you tell me how it was over there under a dictatorship, OK? Ok. Been there, lived through it. I really don't think you have a leg to stand on, telling me the "parallels" between the two are non existent.

And for your information, I didn't just use Google. Do you have any idea how many trips I've made to Eastern Europe? Are you aware that I've known, and have trained, Romanian government officials? I have spent many (happy) hours with many former communist government officials from all over the former iron curtain countries and the "'stans" that were formerly part of the Soviet Union; and I have discussed with them their lives under the communist regimes.

You are offering YOUR opinion. It is NOT shared by everyone from your country or from Eastern Europe. And I know that because I've been there and talked to them. And you still fail to see the difference between an elected President and a Communist Dictator.

It is obvious from your posts that you are just another Bush hater. Lucky for you, that won't get you shot in the US, as hating the dictator might have once upon a time in Romania. Can you see that difference?

 

[RB3]

Also note that only 17.8% of their "Capital and Exploration Expenditures" in 2005 were spent in the US. They don't appear to have the US's interests at heart.

And again, how can more be spent in the US until drilling is allowed, or new refineries are allowed to be built?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

And again, how can more be spent in the US until drilling is allowed, or new refineries are allowed to be built?

No argument there (see edited post above)

 

[FreeFaller]

How little you know... It's not the form of government I refer to, but rather the big man in charge. Do you seriously think he preserved the rights his subjects had when to took office? No, he did not. He slowly pecked at them until they were virtually non existent.

Romania had economic ties to the Soviet Union, because it switched sides from the NAZIs to the Soviet Union in the WWII. Yes, it shared the same form of government, but that's about all.

The people of that country had no rights In Romania before Ceasescu? Once again, how little you know.

With all respect sir, anyone can use google, but first walk in my shoes before you tell me how it was over there under a dictatorship, OK? Ok. Been there, lived through it. I really don't think you have a leg to stand on, telling me the "parallels" between the two are non existent.

Before any Libbies jump on any sort of bandwagon here...remember that Ceausecu was a Communist...i.e. Left winger. So now that we have that out of the way.

While I have been to dictatorships and former dictatorships and seen what that type of government can do to a people I have never actually lived under one. Therefore I can highly respect your position. You have an intimate knowledge of what totalitarianism is like. So I will not argue your experiences.

However your interpretation of the Bush administrations polices is where I feel you are at fault. The possibility of a democratic society falling into a dictatorship via the free will of the people has and will happen again. There is no group of people more apathetic towards freedom than the free. This threat is constant and pervasive. The United States, while being a Federal Republic (mishmash of Republic and Democracy), was formed with the idea that it's sovereignty resided with the people and that the government existed for the people. A quality quite unlike any other democratic form of government before. It required the people to police the government via their representatives. Something very different from Post WW2 Romania. The freedoms handed over to governmental control were already lost at that point. The people just didn't know it.

There is a spirit in America that would make this very difficult to replicate here. Americans have a different "new-world" view that very nearly prohibits the restriction of freedom. People like us, both LW and RW, quibbling on even a small level like this forum are actually feeding this spirit. It's funny how few people actually see how much we need each other.

People on this site keep placing the office of the President on a pedistal that it does not deserve. Power in this government resides in the Congress. These are not puppets or shadowy figures...they are your neighbors. They live in your towns and listen to your voices. Bryan was right when he said "vote him out"... That's the difference between a Romania/U.S. Comparison. We have real true power over the government.

Food for thought: The only head of government in the United States who failed to follow George Washington's example and cede power after eight years was...Franklin Delano Roosevelt...a Democrat.

 

[MonsterMark]

And again, how can more be spent in the US until drilling is allowed, or new refineries are allowed to be built?

You have to crawl into the mind of a liberal RB. The 'intent' is more important than the 'result'. As long as they are drilling 'dry holes', that would show intent and they would be happy. We are not supposed to be drilling where we know oil to be, only in places where 'they' feel it is ecologically acceptable. And forget the thought of building another refinery.

I had a friend tell me the other day the dangers posed by the new electric hybrids. Even opening the hood can endanger your life. But once again the libs will lead us down the path of 'feel good' vs 'do good'. Results have never mattered to out lefty brethren.

 

[Frogman]

It is obvious from your posts that you are just another Bush hater. Lucky for you, that won't get you shot in the US, as hating the dictator might have once upon a time in Romania. Can you see that difference?

I see your point, but I still think you're full of :q:q:q:q.

So, unlike in a communist regime, (where I agree, such opinions would earn you one ounce of lead between the eyes), someone states their opinion of a president, and all of the sudden they are a "hater"? Dear lord, in that case, following your logic, I hate ALL humans.

I really don't care who you've "trained" in Romania. You did NOT live there, oppressed and rightsless (is that even a word? ). The government officials you "trained" were happy and secure in their lives. Practically everything was subsidized for them by the government. I'm sure they just opened up to you, and didn't fear any reprisals should thy have told you how they felt. My point is simple. LIVE there before you tell me what your "trainees" told you about the wonderful, happy, rights laden citizens living there.

That is all.

 

[RB3]

I see your point, but I still think you're full of :q:q:q:q.

So, unlike in a communist regime, (where I agree, such opinions would earn you one ounce of lead between the eyes), someone states their opinion of a president, and all of the sudden they are a "hater"? Dear lord, in that case, following your logic, I hate ALL humans.

I really don't care who you've "trained" in Romania. You did NOT live there, oppressed and rightsless (is that even a word? ). The government officials you "trained" were happy and secure in their lives. Practically everything was subsidized for them by the government. I'm sure they just opened up to you, and didn't fear any reprisals should thy have told you how they felt. My point is simple. LIVE there before you tell me what your "trainees" told you about the wonderful, happy, rights laden citizens living there.

That is all.

And my point is that having lived in Romania does not give you the right to claim there is no difference between Bush and a Communist Dictator. And yep, that claim makes you a Bush hater in my view.

Furthermore, you have it the opposite of what the Eastern Europeans told me...they told me they lived in a Dictatorship devoid of rights. And that is NOTHING LIKE America under Bush; and you of all people should realize that and stop drawing such outlandish parallels.

 

[Frogman]

Bryan was right when he said "vote him out"... That's the difference between a Romania/U.S. Comparison. We have real true power over the government.

Food for thought: The only head of government in the United States who failed to follow George Washington's example and cede power after eight years was...Franklin Delano Roosevelt...a Democrat.

Sorry for the doublepost. Last one, I promise. Then I have to go get ready for a weekend trip to sunny AZ.

FF, I appreciate your level headed response. "We" did "vote Ceausescu out. Ok, executed his ass, but nevertheless, he was out of office. As far as Voting Bush out... That's most likely not going to happen even if the people tried.

I agree with what you said about the "spirit" of this country. Hell, I fought for it. I would rather be proven wrong than right about this whole "Dictator Bush" thing, believe me. After all, Republicans, Democrats, etc, we're all in this together, should something like a dictatorship ever emerge.

Yes, our society will not stand for the complete removal of its' rights. At least not all at once. I beg you to look at how our rights are slowly being taken away, one by one. Once a specific right has been taken away from us, and since we don't quibble, because after all, it's in the name of Patriotism, and anti-terrorism, another will be taken away... then another, then another.

It's already begun, good sir.

 

[FreeFaller]

Rightsless? I think you mean Disenfranchised... :biggrin:

 

[FreeFaller]

FF, I appreciate your level headed response. "We" did "vote Ceausescu out. Ok, executed his ass, but nevertheless, he was out of office. As far as Voting Bush out... That's most likely not going to happen even if the people tried.

Worked with Gray Davis

I agree with what you said about the "spirit" of this country. Hell, I fought for it. I would rather be proven wrong than right about this whole "Dictator Bush" thing, believe me. After all, Republicans, Democrats, etc, we're all in this together, should something like a dictatorship ever emerge.

Yes, our society will not stand for the complete removal of its' rights. At least not all at once. I beg you to look at how our rights are slowly being taken away, one by one. Once a specific right has been taken away from us, and since we don't quibble, because after all, it's in the name of Patriotism, and anti-terrorism, another will be taken away... then another, then another.

It's already begun, good sir.

What freedoms are you saying are being taken away?

I point again to the Roosevelt administration during WW2 and it's blatant restriction of freedom and use of propaganda. Given, everything worked out for the best but how can a person demonize one and not the other. We live in a society with freedoms unimagined even 40 years ago. We have access to information that our founding fathers could not have even comprehend...so I ask again...what freedoms are we losing?

We have never been more free.

 

[Calabrio]

If world market prices continue to rise,
and the cost of doing business remains the same.
Of course you will see profits.

But I don't remember the liberals calling for federal benefits for Oil companies during the 90s when they were losing money.

 

[fossten]

Also note that only 17.8% of their "Capital and Exploration Expenditures" in 2005 were spent in the US. They don't appear to have the US's interests at heart.

Yeah, I do agree they need to build more refineries. However, I don't feel it's the "liberal" lawmakers who are to blame, all they are doing is voicing their constituents' concerns.

These liberal lawmakers talk out of both sides of their mouths, and that doesn't bother you. They complain about high oil prices and dependence upon foreign oil, yet vote against drilling and building.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Monkey see, monkey do. Keep following your leaders.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

These liberal lawmakers talk out of both sides of their mouths, and that doesn't bother you. They complain about high oil prices and dependence upon foreign oil, yet vote against drilling and building.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Monkey see, monkey do. Keep following your leaders.

'Tis better to follow one who talks out both sides of their mouth, than to follow someone who talks out their a s s, or craps out their mouth.

 

[fossten]

'Tis better to follow one who talks out both sides of their mouth, than to follow someone who talks out their a s s, or craps out their mouth.

Thank you for acknowledging the veracity of my point.