Ed, You crack me up. I think I just found my new best friend.

You and I share more than you know..... after 8 years and almost 4000 posts, on Tuesday I was unceremoniously "retired" from the ranks of active posters on the VMF. For nothing more than asking why a friend of mine with equal time and over 16k posts was beingtreated like crap by the moderators/site owner.

Dave

 

I beat you Dave. I think they banned me for life. At first it was only 30 days then I see now they are saying Big All and its for like 30 years. Well, I guess thats what I get for not donating money to the forum. I better donate quick to this one before they get rid of me. LOL

 

Hey Ed,

This may be a little off topic and surprising to you but I am a conservative... a very strong fiscal conservative.

I agree whole-heartedly about stopping government subsidies to both Big Ag and Big Oil. Corn-based ethanol is a scam. But worse are our oil subsidies. Just today Exxon and Shell posted the largest quarterly profits EVER IN THE HISTORY OF ANY US CORPORATION.... EVER... and we continue to subsidize these guys with billions of our tax dollars each year!!! This is not capitalism. It is corporate socialism.

You are correct about Kennedy lowering taxes during Vietnam but let's not forget the relevant history; Under Eisenhower (a conservative) the highest marginal tax rate during the Korean War was RAISED to, hope you are sitting down, 90%!!! That's right, Eisenhower, a conservative, raised tax rates up to the 90% to pay for the Korean War! Kennedy, (a liberal) LOWERED the highest marginal rate to the 64% (if memory serves me correctly)... but Vietnam was never "officially" considered "a war" (even though everyone knows it was). So, as you can see, the liberal vs. conservative labels do nothing but obscure the real discussion - how are we going to pay for the irresponsible spending of our federal government during the years 2001 through 2007 that has landed us at a ~ 10 TRILLION dollar debt? That's right - our so-called conservative republicans spent very, very, very liberally during this period so spare me the inaccurate rhetoric of Republicans being conservative because for the past several years they were the worst liberals we have experienced in decades! This is not debatable by anyone with a brain.

As for drilling offshore, there are several facts that I do not think you are up to date on:

> Our own US Dept of Energy stated that if we open up offshore drilling the impact would not be felt until 2030.... that is 22 years from now.

> The oil companies are not drilling on the off shore land they have leases on already!!! In fact, when bills were recently introduced in the US House of Representatives to force oil companies to drill on these off shore sites for which they already have leases, the Republicans in the house blocked the legislation! Here the Republicans are BLOCKING MORE DRILLING TODAY!!! WHY? Probably for the "oil depletion allowances".

> The amount of oil we could get from off shore drilling, by the estimates of many economists, would lower fuel prices on today's current estimates of $4/gallon by a whopping 25 to 35 cents! The same impact of John McCain's suggestion of repealing the summer gas tax... what a joke. Not exactly $2/gallon gas now is it?

> AND THE BIGGEST REASON WHY DRILLING WILL NOT INCREASE GAS SUPPLY - Our refineries are already operating at maximum capacity! How can we refine more oil to gas (or as a former petroleum engineer friend of mine used to say "crack more fossils to gasoline") when the refining capacity is already maxed out???

Try reading up on the tax breaks Oil companies receive from the "Oil Depletion" allowance and you will see why they want more leases... it means more tax savings for them!

It reminds me of T. Boone Pickens pushing for public acceptance of wind power. He has already invested billions in wind farms but the infrastructure for hooking these wind farms up to the grid will cost billions more. Pickens is pressing the public to "foot the bill" for the tax dollar sponsored construction of the necessary infrastructure for him to hook up "His" wind farms to the grid. Again, this is not capitalism but corporate socialism disguised as capitalism and patriotism.

And BTW, it was Jimmy Carter (not a great president but a d@mn smart one) who created the strategic petroleum reserves. And it was "W" that bought a ridiculous amount of oil at $120/barrel to enhance the reserves earlier this year further hurting our debt, the dollar and consumer oil supply.

Again, I would advise you do not buy into the rhetoric that the oil compainies and their puppets (i.e. Bush, Hannity, Limbaugh, Fox News et al.) are broadcasting. There is an overabundance of facts available that deflate their arguments about off shore drilling having a sizable impact on gas prices. If you do not believe me, I suggest you do the research and satisfy your own curiosity.

BTW, I'm only guessing, because of your homophobic statement (I am straight and married to a beautiful woman who was a homecoming queen so please spare me the gay insults), that you listen to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc. who are not truly conservative. If my guess is true then you will never be apprised of what true scholars have to say about matters such as geopolitics if you continue to listen to these clowns. But this is only a guess.

Not all scholars are liberal - not by a long shot. Again don't take my word for it - take former Republican congressman, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation and author of the recent book "Reclaiming Conservatism" Mickey Edward's comments - "Limbaugh would not recognize conservatism if it jumped up and bit him". So many today call themselves "conservative" but do not know the first thing about conservatism. Too often, they confuse it with being a Republican and if there is anything the last 7 years have taught us is that Republicans are not always conservative. In fact, most of the Republicans have been down right liberal!!

Mickey Edwards now teaches and does research at one of the most elite Ivy League schools, Princeton University (pretty elite huh? - just like Yale and Harvard, the colleges "W" graduated from - boy how we forget how elite the Bushes are when we see "W" clearing brush down in Crawford donning a cowboy hat. What a tough guy... silver spoon and all).

Not trying to be preachy - I'm just tired of the facts about our economy and oil being obscured by rhetoric from disreputable sources.

 

I would check the market value in Germany. If the car is worth significantly more there, I would take it,
use if for 10 years and then sell it there. Parts are not an issue. MU, Summit and many others will ship
overseas. If you do sell it there in 10 years, I would bet that you would get enough to buy a nicer
stang( no reflection on your ride which looks pretty sorted ) on your return.

Summing up, agree with Fordication................

Jav

 

Our own US Dept of Energy stated that if we open up offshore drilling the impact would not be felt until 2030.... that is 22 years from now.

> The oil companies are not drilling on the off shore land they have leases on already!!! In fact, when bills were recently introduced in the US House of Representatives to force oil companies to drill on these off shore sites for which they already have leases, the Republicans in the house blocked the legislation! Here the Republicans are BLOCKING MORE DRILLING TODAY!!! WHY? Probably for the "oil depletion allowances".

> The amount of oil we could get from off shore drilling, by the estimates of many economists, would lower fuel prices on today's current estimates of $4/gallon by a whopping 25 to 35 cents! The same impact of John McCain's suggestion of repealing the summer gas tax... what a joke. Not exactly $2/gallon gas now is it?



All of these are lies. Watch roughnecks on TV. They will bring in 9 wells in less than 6 months. When I was younger it took us an average of 5 months to bring in a well and another few to get it to market. You bought into the liberal mantra and the DOD never actually said any of that. The donks supposedly took what they said out of context. I would have to see the actual quote but I assure you that Bush said lets drill and oil has dropped over $20 a barrel since then. As for the refinery we are at 85% capacity and we are not at full capacity as long as there are no storms. Ethanolfrom corn is a joke. We should be getting it from sugar cane. Texas has over 5000 megawats of wind power on the market now and is working on another 14000 before too long. 5K is equivalent to8 coal fired boilers. We have enough room on the grid for that. Pickens has a good idea but natural gas for autos will never work out of us.

As for the rest of what you wrote you may be conservative but all of your articles are directly from Move On Orgs talking points. You should not read that trash. It will make you ***** shrink.

 

BTW gas has dropped here 55cents a gallon in the last month. All because bush said lets drill and congress is talking about stopping the speculators from using oil as a commodity. If we drill, get rid of speculators, and start using sugar cane for ethanol we will never have to use arab oil again in 5 years or less. As for the reserves, Carter did indeed start the SORs but Bush has only done what congress has asked him to do in referrence to buying oil at high prices. With Iraq production going up 10% each month by the end of the year gas will be below $3 a gallon here.

 

Taking it and selling it over there is definatly an idea. The germans loved my old truck. Thanks for the idea, that may be the best way to go

 

Good luck on selling your car overseas - given the weak dollar and the strength of the Euro, you may stand to make a good profit on the "currency exchange" differences!!!!


Contrary to Ed's belief, the weak dollar is not a liberal conspiracy... it is a fact.

As for Ed - I am afraid some of your facts are not factual!

I can only recommend that you read the following and learn that I am not lying nor drawing my information from "liberal" sources as you contend:


1st> http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

Pay specific to the 1st sentence of the 5th paragraph which reads, "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

2030 IS CORRECT! - THE U.S. Dept. of Energy, DOE (not DOD - I think you are confused - the DOD is the Dept of Defense) stated 2030!

These are "OFFICIAL ENERGY STATISTICS FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT" and this is a GOVERNMENT WEBSITE! Are you asserting that the US Government's DOE is a liberal organization??? What are your facts?

And your claim that 2030 was taken out of context is incorrect, too. Read the concluding sentence which states, "In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices."

WHAT PART OF "NOT BE ECONOMICALLY ATTRACTIVE" IS CONFUSING??? A government liberal conspiracy??? Hardly. Most economists I know are rather conservative.


2nd> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372495,00.html

If you do not believe me, would you believe Fox News? The article is entitled," House Republicans Block Move to Require Oil Drilling on Federal Land".

The lead paragraph reads, "WASHINGTON — House Republicans blocked Democrats on Thursday from requiring oil and gas companies to drill on the millions of acres of government land and water on which they already own federal leases."

ARE THESE SENTENCES CONFUSING TO YOU? Did I understand you to assert that Fox News is a liberal organization? This begs an explanation.


3rd> http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Stor...7D&siteid=mktw

Regarding refining capacity, we are speaking past each other. It is common for refineries to shut down part of their plant to change over processes for different production. For example, change is needed each year to produce the California summer blends that state requires. Furthermore, these refineries are old and frequently need repairs. Therefore, refining capacity is seldom truly 100% in absolute terms. But they are producing as much as they can! In this sense, their capacity is "maxed" out!!!

But your assertion that capacity is limited due to the availability to crude oil is not accurate. The bottle neck is the refining capacity or, in other words, the ability of the plant to produce the gasoline and not the capacity to procure crude oil.

This above link/article from CBS Marketwatch and the Wall St. Journal states, "The U.S. imported almost 10 million barrels of crude a day in the week ended March 5, which isn't enough to meet rising demand. It's the ability to refine that oil into usable products that's a bigger issue, analysts said."

What was true in past years, including 2004, stands true today.

So are you saying that the Wall St. Journal is a liberal rag???

4th> http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...50038020080424

AS THE ARTICLE STATES, it was Pelosi that asked Bush to STOP buying the expensive oil for the strategic Pet. Reserves, not the other way around!

Also, Rupert Murdoch stated that invading Iraq will yield $20/barrel oil. Are you going to assert that Reuters and Murdoch are part of the liberal conspiracy, too??? Now this is getting hilarious.


I do not know where you get your facts but many are simply not accurate. Are you making up your facts like Bill O'Reilly does?

While I agree that we should be using sugar cane or another cellulosic based ethanol source (8-12 to 1 energy output versus 1 to 1 for corn) I must make you aware there is no way biofuels can replace our imported oil even if we used all of our farm land for energy production and quit producing food (which would be beyond stupid).

Oh and BTW, we get most of our oil from Canada and Mexico. Saudi Arabia is 3rd and Venezuela and Nigeria are 4th and 5th on most lists. So if you wish to unfairly demonize the Arabs, may I suggest you, instead, demonize the terrorists and OPEC, and leave the majority of those Arabs, who are not terrorists nor oil barons, alone. This only inflicts unjust crap on undeserving poor people who had no control on where and to whom they were born.

As for your recommendation of watching "Roughnecks", a mid-1990s BBC TV show on the nuts and bolts of the oil rig process as a source for reliable information on oil economics is just plain laughable.

Do you also recommend learning advanced math skills from Ernie and Bert on "Sesame Street"?.

As for ***** talk, what is your fixation on gays and the *****??? My avatar is an attempt at humor, not an indictment. Are you having problems with a man crush on some guy with whom you work? Are you struggling with latent homosexual tendencies? Please realize that there are over 1500 species that demonstrate homosexual behavior so, if this is accurate, and only you would know, you are not alone out there.

Is this what passes for reliable intelligent discussion in your mind? Asserting that your fictions are facts and trying to compare me to some ***** shriveling liberal just because you lack credible sources to support your legless assertions?

Grow a brain, turn off talk radio and learn to see things less in Good vs Evil, black vs white, Republican vs. Democrat, Liberal vs Conservative terms (you may come across the term "Manichean" if you read some more - look it up). There is more to life than "we good, them bad" as the syllogisms in your arguments seems to reflect. GEEEEZ.

 

You do know that I can bring about 1000 links to refute every one you post dont you. I am talking from experience and if you think my facts are wrong then why not google oil rig data off of any internet. Can you explain why oil has now dropped $30 a barrel in a matter of weeks. I can.

 

As for ***** stuff I was having fun with your avatar. Never thought you would take it seriously.