Get ready for high gas prices, brought to you by Obama and the Democratic party.

[shagdrum]

Consumption. Total petroleum products consumption in 2008 declined by almost 1.2 million bbl/d, or 5.8 percent, from the 2007 average, the largest annual decline since 1980 (U.S. Petroleum Products Consumption Growth). The major factors behind the fall in consumption were a rapid rise in retail prices to record levels during the first half of 2008 followed by a weakening economy in the second half. Motor gasoline consumption in 2008 declined by 320,000 bbl/d, or 3.4 percent. Despite the cold weather that gripped much of the Lower-48 States in December, distillate fuel consumption in 2008 fell by 5.4 percent from the previous year as a result of precipitous declines in transportation consumption of diesel fuel. Major reductions in airline capacity during the fourth quarter contributed to the 100,000-bbl/d, or 6.2-percent, drop in jet fuel consumption. Total petroleum products consumption in 2009 is projected to fall by a further 460,000 bbl/d, or 2.4 percent, because of continued economic weakness. Consumption of both motor gasoline and distillate fuel are projected to decline by about 100,000 bbl/d each. Jet fuel is forecast to fall by a further 60,000 bbl/d. The expected economic recovery in 2010 is projected to boost total petroleum products consumption by 220,000 bbl/d, or 1.1 percent.

Nothing there disproves my claim that, "The drop [in the price of oil] this year was quite a bit different for a number of reasons. In fact, it confirms it; "weakening economy in the second half". Pretty unique.

I don't understand this - by saying that we would open up most of the US to drilling, the economy got better?

You seemed to understand the idea of a short term psychological effect on the market in the econ stimulus thread.

US can't afford to drill in the areas opened up - even at $80 a barrel or more. OPEC likes to keep oil in that range - they make good money, and they make sure we don't drill, no matter how many areas we open up. OPEC isn't served by having oil at $120 a barrel.

So OPEC is manipulating the market. Doesn't prove that the oil companies are, in fact it may work against that idea.

Due to supply and demand forces, oil should be close to $80. It is half that due to an artificial bubble that is effecting the oil companies and refineries. They are the tool of the market correction to get it back to that market equilibrium level.

What they now do is get more capacity out of existing refineries, without building new ones.

That only goes so far. After a point, you cannot get any more refining capacity out of 30+ year old refineries. So in times of high demand, it works as a bottlneck that helps artifically inflate prices. We have seen the effects of this more and more every year during the summer.

Building new refineries probably isn't in the near future for the US, it doesn't make very good business sense to be building in an area that is forecasted to be shrinking.

Those estimates will change when the economy turns around, if it is allowed to.

And either way, business should make that decision, not the government. When government makes that kind of decision, prices get artificially inflated due to government basing their concerns more on political concerns then on economic/business concerns.

That is why they keep expanding the output of the ones we have. They are far more efficient than they were in the past.

Again, that has it's limits. It has effectively plateaued. Also, fewer refineries means less economic stability due to regional concerns, as Katrina showed.

Also EPA standards make it difficult to build new ones.

Which is the problem! The EPA (an unconstitutional organization) effectively limits refineries to a certian number and forces them to shut down at different times of the year to retool for refining of different blends for different parts of the country.

All-in-all there currently is a situation of 'what if you build a refinery and nobody came?'

Right now, yes. But that doesn't justify the EPA not allowing refineries to be built. When the situation changes and it would normally become profitable to build a refinery, businesses won't be allowed to do so due to EPA standards. Even at near $150 dollars a barrel, it is not worth the cost to build refineries due to unneccessary and unconstitutional EPA regulations. Considering how long it takes to build a refinery and get in running at full output (years, maybe over a decade), businesses should be allowed to build them ASAP so that when we need them, we will have them.

Change the blends - why?

EPA mandates on gasoline and some state mandates (California).

No shag, somethings at least should be left for the day we enter our MadMax society phase. Once they have torn apart our western plateaus for fossil fuel, we have off shore rigs dotting the eastern seaboard, and you can see 'grasshoppers' from the Mississippi to the base of the Rockies... Then we can start to strip things we can't get back. Obviously you have never watched the sun rise in Arches. Just because you can't appreciate natural beauty doesn't mean most of us can't. Those capitalists can sit in Ogallalla and see oil being pumped up for miles and miles. Let them sit there and watch the sun rise above a holding tank, counting their cash. There is enough room in the US for both sides of this.

Your little rant here is based on the assumption that exploration and drilling will "tear up" the landscape permenately. You need to validate that assumption. You are also imposing your own priorities on society. You need to justify why your priorities should be given precedent over others. I for one, value my standard of living more then maintaining the abstract and subjective beauty of some random national park I will never see.

 

[shagdrum]

They are backing up the pipeline of oil because the demand for gas at the pump is down. They factor in the retooling between the refineries and go down a group at a time so the levels are kept constant. No refineries are operating at capacity right now, because the demand is off. Some are running short shifts or have taken shifts down.

Still explained by free market forces. No sign of a conspiracy to artificially inflate prices.

They can't afford to maintain a certian scale of opperation due to lack of demand, so they are cutting back.

Right now there isn't a bottleneck at the refinery level - if anything there is a bottleneck at the consumer level. As the quote stated 'weak product demand' is why they are slowing down at the refineries.

Wouldn't really be a bottleneck at the consumer level. A more accurate analogy would probably be trying to poor more water into a glass then the glass can hold.

No shag, read closer - they shut down 'earlier' that is what happened due to the lower demand for gasoline. They were able to move their maintenance schedules up, because there isn't a gasoline pipeline fill problem right now. (and I went back and highlighted it - sorry - probably right before you posted your answer).

The wording is a little unclear. It could mean earlier as in "earlier then normal", or earlier as in "earlier this year". It is a little vague. I didn't consider your possibility, but I don't see anything in the context that would suggest your interpretation is more valid then mine.

Nope, it does make sense. If demand is low, it is the time to take your refinery off-line for maintenance. You do that in hopes that as spring and summer approaches that demand will increase, and you will be running at capacity to meet the higher demand.

I never said it didn't "make sense", I said it didn't logically follow the premise laid out; it was a non sequiter. They are two different things.

Gas doesn't sell at barrel rates - oil should be at about $70 a barrel right now, but OPEC was slow in responding to the weakening demand worldwide.

No argument there.

And Shag - none of this made sense to me - I went by supply and demand. Maybe you are confusing me with another liberal . I stated that we were using less oil - so prices fell with the lack of demand... Am I wrong there? Supply and demand had far more to do with the lowering prices that then the perception by OPEC that we might open or close areas for drilling.

And you are stating in the first paragraph of this last quote that the refineries are scaling back to meet current demand. That isn't bottleneck at all. That is just the opposite isn't it? They actually have more capacity - but are curtailing production. Scaling supply to meet demand.

No argument on any of that, but you were earlier working under this assumption from post number 15:

What is odd is gas is going up - why? Because the refineries have curtailed some activities. So, while oil reserves are huge, gas reserves are down. They have cut back because they see the fall in the job market, and with that they know the demand for gas will be down. They currently are 'artificially' raising the price of gas. Didn't you wonder why with oil so low, gas has been creeping back up?
​

There is nothing "odd" here and no "artificial" raising of the price of gas. Free market/supply and demand forces explain all of that. If that is the case, then it cannot be an "artificial" raising of the price.

Your article provided me with some info I didn't know about the specifics of this year versus other years. I was going more by what histortical trends have been. Current price fluctuations and differences in prices are easily explained by free market/supply and demand forces and OPEC and government actions effecting prices. There is no indication, even with all the information you have given, that there is anything "artificial" going on with any part of the business end of this (outside of OPEC production cuts).

 

[foxpaws]

I for one, value my standard of living more then maintaining the abstract and subjective beauty of some random national park I will never see.

And I for one, value my standard of living which includes the abstract and subjective beauty of some random national park I may never see, but because of the farsightedness of men like Theodore Roosevelt, at least others may see it.

I haven't shivered in the depths of Mammoth Cave - but that doesn't mean I want to see it as a depository for nuclear waste.

We can keep our national treasures, while still providing for the needs of our citizens Shag, because many of those citizen's needs include preserving those wonders.

 

[foxpaws]

There is nothing "odd" here and no "artificial" raising of the price of gas. Free market/supply and demand forces explain all of that. If that is the case, then it cannot be an "artificial" raising of the price.

Your article provided me with some info I didn't know about the specifics of this year versus other years. I was going more by what histortical trends have been. Current price fluctuations and differences in prices are easily explained by free market/supply and demand forces and OPEC and government actions effecting prices. There is no indication, even with all the information you have given, that there is anything "artificial" going on with any part of the business end of this (outside of OPEC production cuts).

There is somewhat - with crude at less than $38 a barrel and plenty of oil available, consumer demand very low, and the refineries cutting back on shifts, you would think we would be seeing gas at less than $1.40 per gallon, similar to a couple of months ago, when crude was around $50 a barrel (mid November). But, the refineries have done what OPEC does - cutting down on production to increase the end price. Now, this will fix itself, as you said shag - there is competition between them, so eventually one of them will break from the pack and cause the price to level where it should be. But right now the price is artificially high for some reason.

 

[SoonerLS]

Change the blends - why?

The regional blends create artificial shortages and surpluses. Even if we had enough refining capacity on a national level, it wouldn't affect fuel prices as it should. F'rinstance, refineries in Oklahoma and Texas can't sell gasoline in California or Massachusetts when they have surpluses, because their regional blends aren't compatible.

Remember what happened after Katrina when the regional blend mandates were relaxed--the gas prices evened out (my local gas prices are normally $0.20 less than in the DFW area, but in the post-Katrina period, they were the same). Of course, gas prices generally rose due to the loss of refining capacity, but they were at least moving from market forces instead of artificial constraints.

The different blends also add cost to the price of fuels--neither the chemicals used in the blends nor the seasonal retoolings needed to produce them are free. They also reduce the amount of energy per unit of fuel, so consumers see a drop in fuel mileage (it's particularly noticeable in the winter blends).

BTW, we haven't built any new refineries in 30-ish years, but Shell broke ground on an addition to its refinery in Port Arthur, Texas last year; this addition is large enough that it's comparable to building a new refinery.

 

[shagdrum]

But, the refineries have done what OPEC does - cutting down on production to increase the end price. Now, this will fix itself, as you said shag - there is competition between them, so eventually one of them will break from the pack and cause the price to level where it should be. But right now the price is artificially high for some reason.

And here is the part of the argument where you start making assumptions based your own biases and stop looking at market forces.

They are cutting production because of decreased demand! The cannot afford to operate at such a massive scale with demand (and consumption, and thus their income) so low. They have to cut back. They are not cordinating anything to artificially adjust the price. It is market forces of supply and demand. Too much supply (or potential supply) and not enough demand.

Their overhead cannot be sustained at current levels of demand and supply, so they cut costs by decreasing output. Pure market forces; no "conspiracy" going on to price fix.

Things will not change by one of them "breaking"...they have no pact to begin with. You are assuming that and assuming that the downturn in production is not due to market forces when it clearly is.

If the explaination is due to purely market forces, it is not artificially created. It is the market adjusting itself. Prices are too low (at least on the barrel of oil end of things) and the end price of a gallon of gas needs to be at a certian level for the refineries to be able to afford to stay in business. The market finding it's own equalibrium price.

 

[fossten]

Shag, you need a translator when you explain things to Fox. God bless your patience.

For example, any time you say 'market forces' to a liberal, the liberal hears 'greedy thieving corporations.'

Any time you say 'government interference,' the liberal hears 'working together for the common good.'

See?

 

[luxuryrules]

Who's to say? Their actions and the justification and defense of those actions speak for themselves.

And I don't care what their justification is, they are taking away right that they are not constitutionally allowed to take. It is unconstitutional, unethical and an abuse of power.

Can you show me how it is unconstitutional for them to do this? if you think it's unethical, that's fine. I don't. I guess my opinion is wrong.

So...just because everyone else is doing it means it is not in some way unrealistic? There are massive protests over the high price of gas all across europe. In the long term, it is not economically sustainable. Technology can only get so far in terms of efficientcy before you have to start making compromises in reliability, comfort and (most importantly) safety; forcing a lifestyle change to meet an arbitrary (and unrealistically high) efficency standard.

I think you misunderstand. It's impossible to conserve our way to energy independence, this is true (and if you argue with that then you, sir, need your head examined, lol). But conspicuous overconsumption is certainly not going to help the cause. If I don't make enough money to pay rent at the end of the month, I'm certainly not going to make that rent payment by saving money. But it would also be financially irresponsible of me to go out and buy a steak dinner for myself five nights a week at one of our local restaurants. It's just common sense (well, to me anyways).
I know Europe has protested, and the price remains the same. However, what has happened is because those taxed fuels have forced people to live more efficient lifestyles, that means when the price of fuel goes even higher, they have already blunted the effect of the price increase because they are using less of it. Just because taxes have driven the price of fuel everywhere else through the roof doesn't mean they don't still react to market forces - my friend in England had fuel range from $5.30ish to $8.70ish last year.

Market forces have not show (or dictated) that. The reason oil prices are so high in other countries is taxes and fees imposed by the government, not supply and demand.

The government here artificially limits (and bottlenecks) supply, allowing OPEC to have undue influence on price. When market forces are allowed to work, prices are not as artifically inflated.

The price may be artificially high now, and was artificially high last summer, for those reasons. However, that does not mean it won't ever become naturally high - especially if we don't start building refineries now or very soon, the bottleneck you have discussed will become a serious issue and a reality for high fuel prices.

Now here's the kicker. We are using fuel at a much faster rate than it is returning to the planet. That means, by definition, the cost will eventually rise. There is no way around that. When you have an increasing number of people trying to consume a shrinking number of resources, the price MUST go up. I'm sorry, but that is how the market works. It may not be happening yet, but it will, and when it does, we can choose to be ready or we can choose to try and maintain an unsustainable lifestyle.

 

[shagdrum]

Can you show me how it is unconstitutional for them to do this? if you think it's unethical, that's fine. I don't. I guess my opinion is wrong.

Actually, the burden of proof here is on you. Where is it in the constitution allowed for them to do anything of this nature? Where are they allowed the power to "protect the natural beauty around us", especially at the expense of so much liberty?

Until you can at least make a case for that action somhow being constitutional, it is by default, unconstitutional. The evidenciary burden of proof is on you. And the fact that they are taking an action doesn't mean that the action is constitutional. It just means that no person or organization is able (and willing) to challenge the constitutionality of it.

I think you misunderstand. It's impossible to conserve our way to energy independence, this is true (and if you argue with that then you, sir, need your head examined, lol).

I'll agree with that (though your justification is rather weak).

But conspicuous overconsumption is certainly not going to help the cause.

Who is to say it is overconsumption in the aggregate? The free market is the best mechanism for determining efficiency in the aggregate. What justification is there that your view of efficiency is better then the current system and not simply unrealistic wishful thinking?

I know Europe has protested, and the price remains the same. However, what has happened is because those taxed fuels have forced people to live more efficient lifestyles, that means when the price of fuel goes even higher, they have already blunted the effect of the price increase because they are using less of it. Just because taxes have driven the price of fuel everywhere else through the roof doesn't mean they don't still react to market forces - my friend in England had fuel range from $5.30ish to $8.70ish last year.

I highlighted something that you seemed to gloss over. They FORCE society to do something. A democracy is morally forbidden from forcing society as a whole to do anything. If a government does force something on a society, then it is not acting as a democracy, simple as that.

All your arguments of a greater good being served as justification for imposing higher efficiency standards are backwards. You need to convince society or you don't get your way. It is that simple. To try and justify the imposition of any agenda on society is to try and justify totalitarianism.

Also, Europeans are not blunted from the effects; that is why they are having protests!

The price may be artificially high now, and was artificially high last summer, for those reasons. However, that does not mean it won't ever become naturally high - especially if we don't start building refineries now or very soon, the bottleneck you have discussed will become a serious issue and a reality for high fuel prices.

We do need to build more refineries in the long run, but as pointed out, right now no one would even if allowed to by the government because demand is too low.

Now here's the kicker. We are using fuel at a much faster rate than it is returning to the planet.

We don't know that. That conclusion is based more in assumption and speculation then anything else. We don't know exactly how fuel is created (empirically), because we cannot repeat and replicate any theory to test it (it takes way too long). So we speculate based off indirect inferences made from other data.

We have seen oil wells we though we had drained completely start filling up again after a few years.

Ever hear of the theory of abiotic oil?

We don't know if we are running out of oil; we assume it.

The biggest basis for those assumptions are computer models which are notoriously wrong. According to computer models in the 1960's and even early 1970's, we should have run out of all natural resources before I was born in 1980. The computer models have always been wrong on this. We have absolutely no clue how much oil is in the earth, and very little idea of how quickly (or slowly) it reproduces that oil, or even how the oil is created in the first place.

 

[luxuryrules]

Actually, the burden of proof here is on you. Where is it in the constitution allowed for them to do anything of this nature? Where are they allowed the power to "protect the natural beauty around us", especially at the expense of so much liberty?

Until you can at least make a case for that action somhow being constitutional, it is by default, unconstitutional. The evidenciary burden of proof is on you. And the fact that they are taking an action doesn't mean that the action is constitutional. It just means that no person or organization is able (and willing) to challenge the constitutionality of it.

Here you are once again getting into strict vs loose interpretation of the Constitution. Madison & Jefferson couldn't agree on it, and we will have to disagree as well. I don't see it as unconstitutional, you do. The difference between us is that I'm getting it my way

Who is to say it is overconsumption in the aggregate?

I do. Until a year or two ago, I was surrounded by soccer moms driving Expeditions carrying nothing more than themselves and their Frappucinos and cell phones. Driving a 15mpg truck when a Corolla (or even a Town Car!) will get the job done more efficiently is overconsumption, plain and simple.

The free market is the best mechanism for determining efficiency in the aggregate. What justification is there that your view of efficiency is better then the current system and not simply unrealistic wishful thinking?

I agree. I just hold the opinion that we can better prepare ourselves for what the free market will eventually do. I can see already the point where you disagree is that you seem to think we will have oil readily and cheaply available forever. For the sake of humanity, I hope you are correct. I'm just a pessimist and would rather prepare for a worst-case scenario.

I highlighted something that you seemed to gloss over. They FORCE society to do something. A democracy is morally forbidden from forcing society as a whole to do anything. If a government does force something on a society, then it is not acting as a democracy, simple as that.

And, really, the government is not forcing anybody to be more efficient. Remember, all that is happening here is that they are talking about preventing offshore drilling - that isn't 'forcing us to pay more for fuel' (while that is a side effect) but rather, the government is simply acting to protect some of its' constituents' intangible assets; namely, the natural beauty of our coastline.

All your arguments of a greater good being served as justification for imposing higher efficiency standards are backwards. You need to convince society or you don't get your way. It is that simple. To try and justify the imposition of any agenda on society is to try and justify totalitarianism.

That's fine. I don't have to convince society to change. Expensive fuel will do that job for me (you saw how four dollar fuel made six month waiting lists for hybrids). I just advocate planning ahead.

Also, Europeans are not blunted from the effects; that is why they are having protests!

This is how it works. If I consume 100 gallons of fuel a month and the cost of fuel doubles, that increases my monthly fuel expense by $200. My exposure to market fluctuations has cost me $200.
Now, if I live in Europe where fuel is already expensive, I might decide to buy a smaller and more practical car and only consume 50 gallons of fuel a month. The same double in the cost of fuel would only cost me $100 a month. My exposure to market fluctuations has only cost me $100.

That is how they are less exposed than we are - the cost of fuel skyrocketing has less of an effect on the individuals' wallets because they use much less of it.

Now, again, let's return to 'convincing society to change'. I fully acknowledge that people are stupid and unable to think for themselves or plan ahead for the future. Think of how many people are way upside down in debt on account of spending more than they can afford. Sadly, I won't get my way of convincing anybody to plan ahead. All I can do is watch the market at work destroy the people as they reap the benefits of their irresponsible decisions. Fundamentally you will prove to be correct that I won't convince society to change no matter how hard I try. I could have also screamed about people buying $400k houses on $25k salaries and nobody would have listened, but I would have proved myself correct

And lastly, my parting opinion regarding running out of oil. As I said above, I sincerely hope you are correct - that will prevent a lot of economic and political turmoil in the future. I fear, however, that you are incorrect, and I think it's relatively harmless to plan for the worst by encouraging a little responsible decision making.

 

[fossten]

And, really, the government is not forcing anybody to be more efficient. Remember, all that is happening here is that they are talking about preventing offshore drilling - that isn't 'forcing us to pay more for fuel' (while that is a side effect) but rather, the government is simply acting to protect some of its' constituents' intangible assets; namely, the natural beauty of our coastline.

There is so much wrong in this statement, I almost don't know where to begin.

It's not just offshore drilling, it's also coal deposits, ANWR, and oil shale in Colorado.

Offshore drilling is miles from the coastline and not visible from the beach. Even if it is visible, you're advocating truncating the energy supply our economy DEPENDS ON in favor of a little vanity. That's silly, it's a talking point, and it's disproportionate in importance.

The government has no business restricting how much energy we citizens can harvest. It's our oil, not the government's. If the government decides to restrict production for one agenda which benefits one group of people and hurts another group of people, that is wrong and illegal.

Much of the land where oil is produced domestically is owned by environmental groups like Greenpeace, who benefit from higher prices; thus the need to restrict domestic production. Meanwhile, Joe Average gets raped at the pump.

The untapped oil supply worldwide is increasing in ratio to our usage. I've proven this before. Do a search in this forum.

 

[shagdrum]

Here you are once again getting into strict vs loose interpretation of the Constitution. Madison & Jefferson couldn't agree on it, and we will have to disagree as well. I don't see it as unconstitutional, you do. The difference between us is that I'm getting it my way

You don't seem to really understand the various ways to constitution is (and has been) interpreted. To compare the more "strict" and "loose" interpretations today to those in Madison and Jefferson's day grossly mischaracterizes both sets of approaches.

Both Madison's and Jefferson's views were basically varying degrees of the same approach; an approach that today would fall (most closely) into the originalist school of thought.

The more "loose" approach to interpretation today is called the "living constitution". Basically, this approach is so loose that it makes "interpretation" of the constitution a tool to rewrite the constitution to favor your own agenda. It is a means to subvert the constitution (and thus the rule of law) and force and agenda on society.

You still need to provide a constitutional justification. Otherwise you are trying to justify totalitarianism.

I do. Until a year or two ago, I was surrounded by soccer moms driving Expeditions carrying nothing more than themselves and their Frappucinos and cell phones. Driving a 15mpg truck when a Corolla (or even a Town Car!) will get the job done more efficiently is overconsumption, plain and simple.

Purely incedental, anecdotal evidence. How do you know that those soccer moms didn't have a family large enough (or some other circumstance) to mandate an SUV? You only saw them in a single circumstance that they didn't need an SUV. You cannot logically make a determination about weather they are being efficient or not in owning and driving and SUV on the whole. Unless you are expecting them to use two vehicles and only drive the SUV when absolutely necessary, which would be highly inefficent.

And your argument doesn't in any way prove that the nation is overconsuming in the aggregate. All it proves is that soccer moms in your area might be "overconsuming", depending on the standard.

I just hold the opinion that we can better prepare ourselves for what the free market will eventually do.

Ever heard the term, "necessity is the mother on invention"?

When and if that time comes the market will respond accordingly, as it always naturally has. In the meantime, it is immoral and evil for the government to try and make it artificially necessary.

And, really, the government is not forcing anybody to be more efficient.

No, the government is not forcing any single person to be more effiecient...they are forcing everybody in society to be more efficient.

Remember, all that is happening here is that they are talking about preventing offshore drilling - that isn't 'forcing us to pay more for fuel' (while that is a side effect)

Ok, so they aren't directly forcing people to be more effecient. They are restricting supply, which artificially increases price and indirectly forces society to be more effecient.

the government is simply acting to protect some of its' constituents' intangible assets; namely, the natural beauty of our coastline.

Nice spin, too bad it is based on the logical fallacy of equivocation. "Intangible assets" don't include "the natural beauty of our coastline". "Intangible asset" is an accounting term; "natural beauty" is not something that would ever be included on a balance sheet.

It you wanna have an honest debate, feel free to post. But, if you are going to simply spin and distort to make your point, why don't you do us all a favor and not post. You are simply wasting everyone's time here and only dragging down the debate by forcing us to deal with clearing up your obfuscation.

This is how it works. If I consume 100 gallons of fuel a month and the cost of fuel doubles, that increases my monthly fuel expense by $200. My exposure to market fluctuations has cost me $200.
Now, if I live in Europe where fuel is already expensive, I might decide to buy a smaller and more practical car and only consume 50 gallons of fuel a month. The same double in the cost of fuel would only cost me $100 a month. My exposure to market fluctuations has only cost me $100.

That is how they are less exposed than we are - the cost of fuel skyrocketing has less of an effect on the individuals' wallets because they use much less of it.

You are ignoring the fact that they are having protests! That would suggest that they are still exposed enough that market fluctuations cause pain for them. The biggest difference is that they are maxed out as far as effeciency is concerned (due to higher taxes on fuels, mileage standards, etc.); even after making tradeoffs for certian things like safety.

Now, again, let's return to 'convincing society to change'. I fully acknowledge that people are stupid and unable to think for themselves or plan ahead for the future. Think of how many people are way upside down in debt on account of spending more than they can afford. Sadly, I won't get my way of convincing anybody to plan ahead. All I can do is watch the market at work destroy the people as they reap the benefits of their irresponsible decisions.

Like the housing and credit crisis', when it comes to fuel and necessary efficency, the market is always self correcting and self balancing. When (and if) prices start naturally rising due to naturally decreasing supply, more cost effective alternatives will come to market. "Necessity is the mother of invention."

And lastly, my parting opinion regarding running out of oil. As I said above, I sincerely hope you are correct - that will prevent a lot of economic and political turmoil in the future. I fear, however, that you are incorrect, and I think it's relatively harmless to plan for the worst by encouraging a little responsible decision making.

If I am incorrect, the market will ultimately take care of itself and bring more cost effective alternatives to the forefront.

 

[luxuryrules]

It you wanna have an honest debate, feel free to post. But, if you are going to simply spin and distort to make your point, why don't you do us all a favor and not post. You are simply wasting everyone's time here and only dragging down the debate by forcing us to deal with clearing up your obfuscation.

Funny, it seems everybody here who disagrees with you eventually becomes characterized as an individual who is spinning and distorting. But since you have about five others here that are of like mind (and similarly closed-minded), that serves to simply create a circle of hatefulness that feeds on itself. I thought I could come in as something of an objective third party and play devil's advocate for a bit on some of these discussions (which I do find to be entertaining, and I enjoy reading & learning some of the minutia that gets lost in history).

Waste of time? You tell me. You and a handful of others on here are spending an awful lot of time filling up a forum whining about what the current administration is doing. Now, that in and of itself is not a waste of time, but what do you hope to accomplish? Is somebody in the Obama team going to come to our humble website, read about how they are liberals and socialists and say "oh, my goodness, we are incorrect!" and suddenly reverse their policies?

Now, you obviously have the time to sit and research to find information that supports your conclusions. I don't. So I will submit that simply because you can sit on here more than I can, do more research than I can, then you must be correct. Woe is me for offering an alternative point of view.

So how about this. If you are so smart, why don't you go and change things yourself? You clearly have it all figured out, and you've sold me on the fact that you seem to think you're infallible. Now go out and do some good

 

[shagdrum]

Funny, it seems everybody here who disagrees with you eventually becomes characterized as an individual who is spinning and distorting.

Yeah, interesting thing is, it is their own actions that characterize them as such.

you've sold me on the fact that you seem to think you're infallible.

No, I just pick my battles and only comment strongly on things I know quite a bit about. Otherwise, I am very differencial.

You are here for an admitted 2 week (by now three?) and you have this whole forum and those in it figured out. What arrogance!

This forum has been around for years and for most of that time has either been dominated by leftists or moderate liberals. As I have already spelled out already for you, the unnecessary insults, rudeness, etc. started from the left on this forum in an attempt to smear and dishonestly marginalize their opponents, conservatives. It was a means of debate for the left here (about all they had to debate with). When the conservatives didn't take too kindly to it, and started calling them on it, the leftists ratcheted up the insults, rudeness and mock indignation. When called on that by the conservatives (who, by this point were tired of being treated in a disrespectful manner and thus stopped trying to be nice when calling the left on their underhanded and rude tactics), the left started whining. When they got no sympathy, they left (no pun intended).

Most of the "insults" and "rudeness" you see now are directed towards those who used to come in here and use dishonesty, deciet, rudeness, smears, etc as a means of debate. There is a history there that you are unaware of.

You are drawing conclusions based on sorely inadequate information. The pedulem has swung the other way in this forum now, and for the first time that I can remember, conservatives tend to dominate this forum. It will eventually even out, but the dishonest/decietful rudeness as a means of argument will be mostly gone (that left with the leftists).

You come in here and start criticizing people when you don't know the situation at all. Given that fact and the arguments you have been making on the issues, it is rather clear that you argue from a point of ignorance on the subjects you are arguing on. Nothing wrong with that, but understand that a lot of people here do know what they are talking about much more then you, if you are arguing from that position. To come in here and in a smug, condecending manner talk down to others when you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about is highly arrogant.

Condesention and arrogance don't make up for ignorance. It only shows you to be presumptuous and foolish.

 

[fossten]

This forum has been around for years and for most of that time has either been dominated by leftists or moderate liberals. As I have already spelled out already for you, the unnecessary insults, rudeness, etc. started from the left on this forum in an attempt to smear and dishonestly marginalize their opponents, conservatives. It was a means of debate for the left here (about all they had to debate with). When the conservatives didn't take too kindly to it, and started calling them on it, the leftists ratcheted up the insults, rudeness and mock indignation. When called on that by the conservatives (who, by this point were tired of being treated in a disrespectful manner and thus stopped trying to be nice when calling the left on their underhanded and rude tactics), the left started whining. When they got no sympathy, they left (no pun intended).

This is ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

This post should be a sticky entitled, "NOOBS READ THIS BEFORE WHINING!"

 

[foxpaws]

You are drawing conclusions based on sorely inadequate information. The pedulem has swung the other way in this forum now, and for the first time that I can remember, conservatives tend to dominate this forum. It will eventually even out, but the dishonest/decietful rudeness as a means of argument will be mostly gone (that left with the leftists).

Condesention and arrogance don't make up for ignorance. It only shows you to be presumptuous and foolish.

So, if the left leaves, and then it evens out between the conservative and the really conservative?

And do you really think that Mr Luxury is suffering from condensation? And would that cause presumptuousness and foolishness? Maybe it has something to do with moisture dripping onto the keyboard.

 

[fossten]

So, if the left leaves, and then it evens out between the conservative and the really conservative?

And do you really think that Mr Luxury is suffering from condensation? And would that cause presumptuousness and foolishness? Maybe it has something to do with moisture dripping onto the keyboard.

Are you going to play spell Nazi? That's very petty, especially coming from the dependent clause and run-on sentence goddess. But then again, when you have no meritable argument, you have to resort to something.

 

[luxuryrules]

And do you really think that Mr Luxury is suffering from condensation? And would that cause presumptuousness and foolishness? Maybe it has something to do with moisture dripping onto the keyboard.

You might be on to something, the moisture dripping onto my keyboard is screwing with what I type

You are here for an admitted 2 week (by now three?) and you have this whole forum and those in it figured out. What arrogance!

This forum has been around for years and for most of that time has either been dominated by leftists or moderate liberals. As I have already spelled out already for you, the unnecessary insults, rudeness, etc. started from the left on this forum in an attempt to smear and dishonestly marginalize their opponents, conservatives. It was a means of debate for the left here (about all they had to debate with). When the conservatives didn't take too kindly to it, and started calling them on it, the leftists ratcheted up the insults, rudeness and mock indignation. When called on that by the conservatives (who, by this point were tired of being treated in a disrespectful manner and thus stopped trying to be nice when calling the left on their underhanded and rude tactics), the left started whining. When they got no sympathy, they left (no pun intended).

Most of the "insults" and "rudeness" you see now are directed towards those who used to come in here and use dishonesty, deciet, rudeness, smears, etc as a means of debate. There is a history there that you are unaware of.

That is a very very elaborate way of saying "they started it first."

Very mature.

 

[foxpaws]

Are you going to play spell Nazi? That's very petty, especially coming from the dependent clause and run-on sentence goddess. But then again, when you have no meritable argument, you have to resort to something.

Yes, goddess, you finally got that right foss .

I am terrible with those things - I know it - I don't edit here, or have my amazing proof reader to help me out... (I bow to Sam... proofreader extraordinaire, he digs through my commas, dashes, parens, and ellipses and creates cohesiveness out of chaos).

Shag types fast and misspells a lot, but his sentence structure on the fly is sooo much better than mine - It doesn't matter, but this one was sooo close, and it was so fun, I just couldn't resist...

 

[fossten]

Yes, goddess, you finally got that right foss .

I am terrible with those things - I know it - I don't edit here, or have my amazing proof reader to help me out... (I bow to Sam... proofreader extraordinaire, he digs through my commas, dashes, parens, and ellipses and creates cohesiveness out of chaos).

Shag types fast and misspells a lot, but his sentence structure on the fly is sooo much better than mine - It doesn't matter, but this one was sooo close, and it was so fun, I just couldn't resist...

You apparently have real self esteem issues. Do you have a talking mirror in your bedroom?

As I've said before, you think you're clever, but your 'jokes' fall flat. Those who live in glass houses and all that...

 

[XLRVIII]

then again, when you have no meritable argument, you have to resort to something.

you mean like, picking on someones grammar?

(grins)

 

[ford nut]

You apparently have real self esteem issues. Do you have a talking mirror in your bedroom?

As I've said before, you think you're clever, but your 'jokes' fall flat. Those who live in glass houses and all that...

Ahh humor is in the eye of the beholder.....I think she is funny and clever.
I don't see the self esteem issues ......sounds like a cheap insult to me.

 

[fossten]

you mean like, picking on someones grammar?

(grins)

There is a difference between pointing out someone's hypocrisy and simply picking on their grammar for no reason.

 

[fossten]

Ahh humor is in the eye of the beholder.....I think she is funny and clever.
I don't see the self esteem issues ......sounds like a cheap insult to me.

Well at least I didn't call her a whore like you did Bristol Palin.

 

[shagdrum]

That is a very very elaborate way of saying "they started it first."

It I had wanted to simply say, "they started it first", I would have said that. I wrote that for a reason. There is a history there that you are completely unaware of an cannot make an informed decision on what is going on here without knowing about. There is a decided difference between the "rudeness" and "insults" coming from the left.

The left use rudeness, insults deception, dishonesty, mock indignance, ridicule, etc to make their argument. The argument hinges on those things.

the "rudeness" and "insults" coming from the right are completely separate from the arguments they are making and are in reaction to the habitual dishonesty and underhandedness that comes from the left.

In short, the rudeness from the right is reactionary and differentiated from their arguments, while the rudeness from the left is a means of making an argument. One is above board and honest, and one is deceitful.

Very mature

What is immature is holding very strong opinions about things you know nothing about. That suggests that your passions and emotions dictate your thinking, which is how kids and young adults usually think.

You have a bad habit of coming in here and talking down to people who know much more on the subject in question then you do. That action is inherently arrogant and rude. Two more character attributes that tend to be identified with immaturity.