[quote]Is there a problem with you articulating your own views? Do you have any views of your own? If you recall I commented on what you posted of her work.[/quote] I have tried to explain to you again and again how big oil is taken us for a ride, but you either refuse to accept the truth, don’t believe me, or don’t understand. Therefore, I thought, maybe, Ms. Anne Korin could do it, if not her, maybe Mr. Pickens.
[quote]Show me how[/quote] I'll have Ms. Anne Korin call you.
[quote]I must disagree with you sir. Higher prices will spur on development but until we come up with something that will replace oil all it will do is hurt the consumers.[/quote] Boy, big oil really got you bamboozled.
[quote]Right, let the illegal immigrants do the work.[/quote] It is time for America to turn the page--alternative energy should replace fossil fuel like the computer replaced the typewriter.
[quote]The supply and hence the price, remains the same. But then you get cheating (again, see OPEC, 1970s and 90s). However, instead of paying OPEC all that money to drill, they are paying the American Lease holders (in some cases the Federal government) to drill. Thus the money goes to Americans, not foreign nations.[/quote] Now, I agree--creating American jobs is almost always a good idea.
Testimony by Anne Korin, co-directior institute for the analysis of global security: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, about ten years ago, Osama bin Laden stated that his target price for oil is $144 a barrel and that the American people, who allegedly robbed the Muslim people of their oil, owe each Muslim man, woman, and child $30,000 in back payments. At the time, $144 a barrel seemed farfetched to most. Today, bin Laden is a mere $20 a barrel short of his target and there is l
[quote]When American oil companies are allowed to drill domestically with few restrictions they can produce more oil at a lower price. This brings down the world price of oil because there is more supply. Because China and India both started expanding their society by modernization at the same time the balance of the reserves was reduced. More people competing for oil drives the price up unless more oil comes on the market.[/quote] What if OPEC decrease their supple whenever the America
[quote]Do you wish to elucidate on this statement?[/quote] Well, if you have contempt for someone or something, you have a tendency to disregard the truth and are more willing to lean toward bias opinions and propaganda.
[quote]Educate yourself, young 'un, quit bitching about the way we write his name and do a google on what we're talking about. The man's a facist and he's got you hypnotized with his shiny new show.[/quote] In politics, right-wing, the political right, and the Right are positions that seek to uphold or return to traditional authorities and/or the liberties of a civil society and the preservation of the domestic culture, usually in the face of external forces for change. In general, the
[quote]You are cofusing oil with gas. Their profits on gas are fixed at 9.9 cents per gallon but if they don't have to buy as much oil from other countries to produce that gas then they can keep more money for themselves hence increasing their overall profit.[/quote] Profit 1: the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions; especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost 2: net income usually for a given period of ti
[quote]The conservatives want the oil to be drilled in America so the American oil companies can make some money and as they do the price of oil will drop because more of what we were buying from other nations we will be getting domestically. This will increase the world supply and the speculators will bet the price will go down and set the price of oil lower. Proof of this was when the President dropped the presidential ban on off shore drilling. Within minutes the price of oil dropped ten doll
[quote]Which all goes to prove my point. Fox is number 1, not for growing viewership, bue due to declines on the other networks. People (mostly non-viewers I suspect) rate CNN higher, but neither gets a good mark. People dont trust them to be honest. Why? Their bias has been exposed and yet they continue to deny it. When someone catches you in a lie, they are a lot less likely to believe you. The MSM has been lying a long time. Why is talk radio so popular? They state up front they are
[quote]The English translation is if we allow Mr. Murdoch to do to BBC what he did to CNN people will not watch us any more and we can’t compete with the truth without a left lean. CNN is a left leaning biased network and it is not being challenged in the UK but Fox New is. This is how people avoid competition. This is why we got rid of the fairness doctrine in the US and the UK has not.[/quote] If you don’t know, have the courage to admit it and you will be well on the road toward lear
[quote]You really need to study the topic you wish to discuss or debate. In the UK they have laws that prohibit the news from doing anything more than reporting the facts, the presenter is not allowed to comment in any way or it is biased and can be fined under their laws. With that said when Fox News and American based News organization broadcasted the war they rooted for America to win. This might have violated UK laws. This does not mean that Fox News is biased in their reporting of the news,
[quote]That is why the MSM is losing viewer and readership. People are tired of being sold their snake oil.[/quote] CNN's once dominant credibility ratings have slumped in recent years, mostly among Republicans and independents. By comparison, the Fox News Channel's believability ratings have remained steady both overall and within partisan groups. Nonetheless, among those able to rate the networks, more continue to say they can believe all or most of what they hear on CNN than say that
[quote]By this reasoning, we should avoid CNN (Ted Turner), CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC because their owners/CEOs are raving liberals. So in the order of fairness, watch one of the above, and then Fox and balance the 2.[/quote] Look over carefully the fellow who is trying to sell you his way of life and make sure his way is as good as your own.
[quote]Now why has the supply stagnated? Here we have 2 causes. One is Opec. They like the price, and so they are resistant to increase supply when they see supply as being finite, and the way to make a lot of money is to sell every drop at a very high price (they are correct, except they fail to see competitors - alternative energy - entering the market - their ostrich syndrome).[/quote] Don’t you think the oil companies like the prices? And don’t you think the oil companies are doing
[quote]Maybe they are not controlling the price as has been advanced by others? And that those controlling the price are not market savy like Oil companies and would rather milk the golden goose till it's dead instead of thinking long term?[/quote] If not the oil companies, who are those controlling the price of oil?
[quote]Is that the "change" Obama is talking about? Remove the sense of humour?[/quote] No!
[quote]They would make the same amount in profits if the oil was a dollar a barrel by selling volume which they have been doing for decades. The record profits are made by volume sales since the profits are fixed they can’t make more money when the price goes up or less money when the price goes down.[/quote] Now that really makes a lot of sense. So tell me this--why is gas hovering around $4 dollars/gallon since, according to you, it wouldn’t affect their profit?
[quote]Maybe you should try critical thinking the other thing is not working so well for you. Both the Dr. and I agree that commentary is biased. All commentary is biased it is not news. Your statement was that the news was biased. Try to Google reading comprehension. Study it. Then re-read what was written.[/quote] According to Matt Wells, the Murdoch-owned Fox News Channel, whose determinedly patriotic stance during the Iraq conflict brought it critical notoriety but commercial succes
[quote]Well, based on your two emotional responses and your choice to ignore the information presented to you, I would have to accurately think that; although you understand the principle; you have not learned to put it into practical application. This calls your judgment and credibility into question. Due to your intellectual dishonesty or lack of reading comprehension, or your chosen ignorance, you have demonstrated your inability to discern fact from fiction and allow your emotions to guide y
[quote]You either did not read, did not comprehend, or are pretending to ignore the reality. It calls for nothing other than the willingness to admit you are wrong. Fox NEWS is not biased. Fox COMMENTARY is. Learn the difference and free your mind.[/quote] I apologize and you are right--Fox commentary is bias.
[quote]Just playing devil's advocate here but what if the American oil companies can only sell oil for the next 30 years, well before the full amount of oil is gone? If you could sell more oil, at a slightly lower price, for the next 30 years and make more money for that 30 years wouldn't you? The bottom line is that any oil exec can see that the times, they are-a chanin', and alternative, renewable energy is the wave of the future. That being said the American oil companies are going to be on a
[quote]No, that was argued back in the 70s - the inelasticity of Oil. We found that it is indeed elastic. The only difference in WalMart and the oil companies is where they get their products. It is the same. Crude is replenished (just not as fast as it is consumed), but it is made feasible to extract (where it was not before) due to higher prices and the advance of technology. In the market, that is the same as being replenished. It cannot last forever, but forever is a long time - not 10-20 ye