Originally Posted by poet

Well, to tell you the truth...I only knew of him from another forum, from which he was banned and I was reprimanded for lack of decorum. I sought him out, to gloat, and found myself here. Not bad. But not the cat's meow, either. Stupidity abounds. Ignorance abounds. Bigotry and racism abound.
And all your claims concerning him are falling on deaf and biased ears. And why, pray tell does he need you to be Sir Galahad to his Maid Marian? Is he not a man, and capable of defending himself and his rhetoric?
And pardon me, but you'd do better than to try to pigeonhole me, and put me in a box. I can run rings around most of you conservatives and Republicanistas, as I did JP at the other place. I'm a XXXXXXn intellectual and well-versed on a variety of topics.

You were talking to me, genius. Specifically you said:

Oh, please, before you give him too much credit....JP is as biased, close-minded and bigoted as they come. This is not our first time to the dance.
He's anti-liberal, and I'm hyper-anti-conservative. Oil and water.

You responded to MY post. You were talking to ME. If you want to go pick a fight with JP and have him "defend himself" try responding to one of HIS posts. Now you are busting my chops for responding back???

If you are going to start running rings, you had best get on it. I'm not going to lie...so far you are looking a little intellectually wimpy.

Originally Posted by daewoo

You were talking to me, genius. Specifically you said:



You responded to MY post. You were talking to ME. If you want to go pick a fight with JP and have him "defend himself" try responding to one of HIS posts. Now you are busting my chops for responding back???

If you are going to start running rings, you had best get on it. I'm not going to lie...so far you are looking a little intellectually wimpy.

LOL. Here you are running to his defense. I'm perfectly clear to whom I'm speaking to. The question is why you felt the need to defend him. Is something going on between you two that we need to know about?
Offer something (of substance) up...we'll see who fares better. Your ball.

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

I guess if you want to be "fair and balanced", you'd make that same statement about liberals and MSNBC and CNN, right?

So, "you are just as bad as we are" is your defense?

Originally Posted by poet

LOL. Here you are running to his defense. I'm perfectly clear to whom I'm speaking to. The question is why you felt the need to defend him. Is something going on between you two that we need to know about?
Offer something (of substance) up...we'll see who fares better. Your ball.

Uh...yes...it was perfectly clear who you were speaking to....ME. You told me about JP...somebody I have been debating against since 2006, and I disagreed with your assessment.

See, you said something that I disagreed with...to me...and I lodged my disagreement. This is a debate forum. That is what we do here. It is the entire reason for the forums existence. If you look at the top you will see the word "debates".

I can see why you two butt heads. As I said earlier, JP tends to respond to facts and logic. I dont know about your facts, if you know any, but what seems to pass for logic with you is sorely lacking.

Originally Posted by daewoo

Uh...yes...it was perfectly clear who you were speaking to....ME. You told me about JP...somebody I have been debating against since 2006, and I disagreed with your assessment.

See, you said something that I disagreed with...to me...and I lodged my disagreement. This is a debate forum. That is what we do here. It is the entire reason for the forums existence. If you look at the top you will see the word "debates".

I can see why you two butt heads. As I said earlier, JP tends to respond to facts and logic. I dont know about your facts, if you know any, but what seems to pass for logic with you is sorely lacking.

Interesting. And you have yet to debate anything..rather you "spin" your "wheels", in lieu of debate. I asked you for a topic...instead you choose to defend your defense of the defenseless, to "a fault". I sense something more than mere cameraderie afoot....perhaps, "hero worship", based on the fact that you 'charged him up' in a thread about "hot rods". Therefore, one can assume your "honor" has been "vicariously" impugned. I think you should think twice about attempting to match wits with me....you, like JP, will come out on the "losing end". Just ask him.

Originally Posted by poet

Interesting. And you have yet to debate anything..rather you "spin" your "wheels", in lieu of debate. I asked you for a topic...instead you choose to defend your defense of the defenseless, to "a fault". I sense something more than mere cameraderie afoot....perhaps, "hero worship", based on the fact that you 'charged him up' in a thread about "hot rods". Therefore, one can assume your "honor" has been "vicariously" impugned. I think you should think twice about attempting to match wits with me....you, like JP, will come out on the "losing end". Just ask him.

This is moronic. My entire exchange with you started because I was attempting to debate the issue at hand in post #43...and arguing on the opposite side of JP...when you felt compelled to start this idiocy.

If you want a different debate topic, start a new thread. Changing topic in the middle of an existing thread is generally considered bad form. I will respond to pretty much anything that is not in the religion or gay rights forum. Those 2 are pretty much a pig pen of stupidity.

Originally Posted by daewoo

This is moronic. My entire exchange with you started because I was attempting to debate the issue at hand in post #43...and arguing on the opposite side of JP...when you felt compelled to start this idiocy.

If you want a different debate topic, start a new thread. Changing topic in the middle of an existing thread is generally considered bad form. I will respond to pretty much anything that is not in the religion or gay rights forum. Those 2 are pretty much a pig pen of stupidity.

Hmmm. Your opinion. Rationalization. Deflection. Excuses. Proselytizing. Ad hominem attacks. Self-righteousness. In a fell swoop. And then a caveat.
Amusing. You're the one attempting to criticize my critique....so you start a new thread, or masturbate...something you really know something about. Your ball.

Originally Posted by daewoo

To be fair, I am not sure MSNBC belongs on that list. While all of their shows are certainly not "fair and balanced", they were also not trying to pretend that Olbermann was some kind of independent. They also do seem to try to put forth a balance of opinions. Yea, they have Cris Mathews, a clear liberal, doing Hardball, but their morning show is Joe Scarborough and I dont see many people claiming he is a flaming liberal (and when they do they usually shut up when they look at his background).

As far as fox news goes, Rupert Murdoch (their founder) has said that fox news is NOT a news station, it is an entertainment station. Their programming is blatantly biased. Polls have repeatedly shown that Fox news watchers are some of the worst informed people in the country. BUT...they keep pretending that they are fair and balanced and are a legitimate news outlet.

I dont think this is necessarily a problem with Fox news so much as it is a problem with the people that watch fox news. They see the garbage that fox puts out and they think they have the facts. They form opinions and make decisions based on those facts. Politicians pander to them based on those opinions and decisions.

I think that the biggest knock that I have on the major news media is their bias in NOT reporting stories. When gas was $4/gallon, Bush was crucified. The major media is giving Obama a pass. That's a blatant double standard.
The bias shown during the 2008 election cycle is also well-documented. The major media beat up on McCain and favored Obama, no question.
They also missed the entire "is Obama black enough?" debate that took place before Obama became the Democratic nominee. Their political correctness often trumps their news.

It is the XXXXXX who defend fox news as a reliable and balanced news source that make people hate fox. Take yourself for example, JP, you did not jump on and start extolling the virtues of fox. You pointed out that other sources are also biased. That is a reasonable position to take. Pretending that they are not biased is not.

I like Fox News. I don't try to delude myself into thinking that their line up of pundits and hosts don't have their own beliefs, however. The combination of some news and lots of eyecandy works, IMO.

Personally, I think google news is the best source for news. I have it open in another tab (the business section). The first story listed is about Obamas budget plan. At the bottom of that little section it says "view all 8,869 stories" Click on that and it will actually take you to over 8000 stories on the same topic. Click on 2 or 3 of them from different sources and you can get a pretty good overview of what is going on.

I get e-mail updates continuously from the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. Articles that catch my eye are read and I might to a dogpile.com search to find more info.

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

I think that the biggest knock that I have on the major news media is their bias in NOT reporting stories. When gas was $4/gallon, Bush was crucified. The major media is giving Obama a pass. That's a blatant double standard.

I am not sure I buy that. The situation is different now than it was then. When you are looking at $4 per gallon gas right after you have invaded a country in the middle east, I dont think it is unreasonable to ask if there is a connection there. Obamas policy in the middle east is to stand around looking confused. It is hard to take that and parlay it into a "your fault gas prices are high" argument.

The bias shown during the 2008 election cycle is also well-documented. The major media beat up on McCain and favored Obama, no question.
They also missed the entire "is Obama black enough?" debate that took place before Obama became the Democratic nominee. Their political correctness often trumps their news.

That was pretty much blatant self interest. The press had to work with whoever ended up getting elected, and there was no possible way it was going to be McCain. Bush and the republican congress teamed up to be such a terrible disaster that the democrats could have run a talking chimp and still won. There was pretty much no question from day one that the next president was going to be whoever the democrats nominated.

That being the case, the media is not going to XXXX off the guy who decides who gets what white house access.

I like Fox News. I don't try to delude myself into thinking that their line up of pundits and hosts don't have their own beliefs, however. The combination of some news and lots of eyecandy works, IMO.

I am not fond of fox. During the Bush presidency I watched a lot more fox news than I do now because the Bush white house gave fox access that nobody else could get. Granted they used it as the white house propaganda branch, but fox got information that nobody else had, and they had stories hours before anybody else.

Now I rarely watch fox because CNN and MSNBC seem to enjoy the same benefits that fox once did. Frankly there are a bunch of shrill CINO whiners and whack jobs over at fox that make the viewing experience unpleasant because they are not even trying to do the news anymore.

Originally Posted by daewoo

I am not sure I buy that. The situation is different now than it was then. When you are looking at $4 per gallon gas right after you have invaded a country in the middle east, I dont think it is unreasonable to ask if there is a connection there. Obamas policy in the middle east is to stand around looking confused. It is hard to take that and parlay it into a "your fault gas prices are high" argument.

The gas spike under Bush was caused by Katrina more so than the war in Iraq. Surely you don’t believe that bush caused the hurricane, do you.
The price of oil now is more related to politics than it ever was under Bush. Obama’s banning of offshore drilling, the lack of a coherent energy policy, etc., all conspire to create uncertainty. And uncertainty breeds speculation.

That was pretty much blatant self interest. The press had to work with whoever ended up getting elected, and there was no possible way it was going to be McCain. Bush and the republican congress teamed up to be such a terrible disaster that the democrats could have run a talking chimp and still won. There was pretty much no question from day one that the next president was going to be whoever the democrats nominated.

No argument there. The 2008 election was an “It’s the economy, stupid” result. Alfred E. Newman could have run and won…Oh wait, he did.

That being the case, the media is not going to XXXX off the guy who decides who gets what white house access.

And the Obama Networks were rewarded with Whitehouse interviews, tours, etc. It was sickening, IMO, the level of XXX-kissing that went on.

I am not fond of fox. During the Bush presidency I watched a lot more fox news than I do now because the Bush white house gave fox access that nobody else could get. Granted they used it as the white house propaganda branch, but fox got information that nobody else had, and they had stories hours before anybody else.

I watch “Fox and Friends” while eating breakfast. Like I said, I enjoy the eye candy.

Now I rarely watch fox because CNN and MSNBC seem to enjoy the same benefits that fox once did. Frankly there are a bunch of shrill CINO whiners and whack jobs over at fox that make the viewing experience unpleasant because they are not even trying to do the news anymore.

I can’t stand watching Obama in any forum. His smug, smarter than thou demeanor makes me want to bitchslap those pot-handled ears off his head.

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

The gas spike under Bush was caused by Katrina more so than the war in Iraq. Surely you don’t believe that bush caused the hurricane, do you.
The price of oil now is more related to politics than it ever was under Bush. Obama’s banning of offshore drilling, the lack of a coherent energy policy, etc., all conspire to create uncertainty. And uncertainty breeds speculation.

I would argue that the cause of the gas spikes under Bush and Obama were both caused by the same thing, but it was not politics, it was peak oil. We have reached a point where we cannot increase production enough to meet demand increases.

If you look at the current boost, people keep blaming it on the situation in Libya. If you look at the actual prices and timelines, though, a very different reality emerges. We saw very limited price increases as protests broek out in Egypt and Yemen. When it became apparent that libya was going to fall as well, we saw a pretty decent little boost, but it only lasted about a week. Then the Sauds came out and said they would produce more in order to offset lost libyan production. This led to a retraction in oil prices. Where they started to jump was when Saudi Arabia failed in their vow. They simply could not produce enough extra oil to make up the lost libyan output. The Sauds were supposed to have several million barrels a day of spare capacity, and yet they were unable to increase their production at all when they needed to.

The world is starting to catch on to the fact that the cheap hydrocarbons are gone.

Remember when Bush was in office and we had the oil spike? He went to Saudi Arabia personally and asked them to increase production. Not only did they fail to do so, but within 2 weeks of his return, the US government started adding to the strategic petroleum reserve as quickly as they could. They literally started a bulk buying program for our strategic reserves when oil prices were over $140/bbl.

No argument there. The 2008 election was an “It’s the economy, stupid” result. Alfred E. Newman could have run and won…Oh wait, he did.

Yep. The 2008 election was all about punishing the Republicans. Moderates abandoned the republicans en mass and fiscal conservatives did not bother to show up to vote because they felt they had been betrayed by the republicans (which they had).

And the Obama Networks were rewarded with Whitehouse interviews, tours, etc. It was sickening, IMO, the level of XXX-kissing that went on.

Business as usual in the media

I can’t stand watching Obama in any forum. His smug, smarter than thou demeanor makes me want to bitchslap those pot-handled ears off his head.

To be entirely honest, I have never seen him give a speech. The transcripts are usually available within 10 minutes of the end. I can read it faster than I can listen to him say it and there are no pauses while the crowds applaud whatever stupidity has just squirmed its way out of his mouth.

Originally Posted by daewoo

I would argue that the cause of the gas spikes under Bush and Obama were both caused by the same thing, but it was not politics, it was peak oil. We have reached a point where we cannot increase production enough to meet demand increases.

If you don't allow exploration, you can't find new sources. If you can't find new sources, you have less reserves. Couple that with the consolidation of refineries under fewer owners and the fact that no new refineries are being built and you create a crisis.

If you look at the current boost, people keep blaming it on the situation in Libya. If you look at the actual prices and timelines, though, a very different reality emerges. We saw very limited price increases as protests broek out in Egypt and Yemen. When it became apparent that libya was going to fall as well, we saw a pretty decent little boost, but it only lasted about a week. Then the Sauds came out and said they would produce more in order to offset lost libyan production. This led to a retraction in oil prices. Where they started to jump was when Saudi Arabia failed in their vow. They simply could not produce enough extra oil to make up the lost libyan output. The Sauds were supposed to have several million barrels a day of spare capacity, and yet they were unable to increase their production at all when they needed to.

Libya's oil production is a few % of demand. It hardly warrants the spikes that we're seeing.

The world is starting to catch on to the fact that the cheap hydrocarbons are gone.

I think we're starting to realize that we aren't the only large consumer any more. China, with our help, has become a great oil resource sucking machine. Oil, phosphate, rare earths, steel, zinc, etc.,

Remember when Bush was in office and we had the oil spike? He went to Saudi Arabia personally and asked them to increase production. Not only did they fail to do so, but within 2 weeks of his return, the US government started adding to the strategic petroleum reserve as quickly as they could. They literally started a bulk buying program for our strategic reserves when oil prices were over $140/bbl.

I recall. Only Bush would buy high. LOL

Yep. The 2008 election was all about punishing the Republicans. Moderates abandoned the republicans en mass and fiscal conservatives did not bother to show up to vote because they felt they had been betrayed by the republicans (which they had).

Yep.

Business as usual in the media

Yep

To be entirely honest, I have never seen him give a speech. The transcripts are usually available within 10 minutes of the end. I can read it faster than I can listen to him say it and there are no pauses while the crowds applaud whatever stupidity has just squirmed its way out of his mouth.

When he pauses, he cocks his head to the side in a smug profile. It makes me want to throw a roundhouse at the TV.

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

If you don't allow exploration, you can't find new sources. If you can't find new sources, you have less reserves. Couple that with the consolidation of refineries under fewer owners and the fact that no new refineries are being built and you create a crisis.

Rig count data and refinery utilization data are published every month. We have not had more than 89% refinery utilization (and that is actual documented capability, not theoretical) for over a decade. Why would anybody build new refineries when we are not even using the ones we have to capacity? Also, the "no new refineries being built" thing is a little misleading. That is green field projects. You cannot get a green field project approved. Even if you can get past environmental regs, NIMBY is still very much alive and well.

We have had plenty of refinery expansions and parallel construction, though. Think about the infrastructure that has to go into a new refinery. MASSIVE electrical service, pipeline extensions, water and wastewater systems. Why go through all that when you can build right up against an existing refinery, share all the infrastructure, and count your project as an expansion instead of a green field project, which does away with 90% of the environmental junk.

As far as exploration goes, frankly I think that the exploration argument certainly points to the end of cheap hydrocarbons. Where are the oil companies fighting to drill? Deep water. They are fighting to be allowed to drill wells that are under 2 miles of water that then go 3 miles into the earth...for a total pipe length of 5 miles to the bottom, and they cant actually touch the top of the well. If there was easier oil out there to be had, they would be all over it.

The project BP was working on when the deepwater horizon exploded had a projected production cost of $128 per barrel.

Libya's oil production is a few % of demand. It hardly warrants the spikes that we're seeing.

I think we're starting to realize that we aren't the only large consumer any more. China, with our help, has become a great oil resource sucking machine. Oil, phosphate, rare earths, steel, zinc, etc.,

On Libya, I agree...but the fact that the Sauds could not bring up production certainly warrants the spike. There simply is not enough oil left out there for us to live the lifestyle we are used to and for developing nations to grow. Too many customers, not enough product, prices go up. The bad thing is that the Chinese can EASILY outbid us.

When he pauses, he cocks his head to the side in a smug profile. It makes me want to throw a roundhouse at the TV.

Like I said, I have never actually seen him give a speech. I have read them, though, and having read them I would like to offer an alternative scenario. It is not a smug profile...that is the face me makes when he thinks, and as he watched the words rolling across the teleprompter he keeps stopping and thinking "Surely they are not going to buy this load of XXXX".

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

The gas spike under Bush was caused by Katrina more so than the war in Iraq. Surely you don’t believe that bush caused the hurricane, do you.
The price of oil now is more related to politics than it ever was under Bush. Obama’s banning of offshore drilling, the lack of a coherent energy policy, etc., all conspire to create uncertainty. And uncertainty breeds speculation.


No argument there. The 2008 election was an “It’s the economy, stupid” result. Alfred E. Newman could have run and won…Oh wait, he did.

And the Obama Networks were rewarded with Whitehouse interviews, tours, etc. It was sickening, IMO, the level of XXX-kissing that went on.

I watch “Fox and Friends” while eating breakfast. Like I said, I enjoy the eye candy.
Wow. Doesn't that speak volumes?
I can’t stand watching Obama in any forum. His smug, smarter than thou demeanor makes me want to bitchslap those pot-handled ears off his head.

I'd love to see you try it. The Secret Service would be on top of you like white on rice. That's the problem. You feel such a sense of entitlement, that you imagine this is pre-Civil War, and you're "Massa, in-charge", and any "darkie" not moving fast enough or actually thinking his or herself equal to you ( in each and every way), allows for you to elicit corporal punishment.
He, along with "yours, truly", is "smarter than thou". Your Nascar mentality doesn't hold a candle to someone who not only went to Harvard Law School, but became president of the Harvard Review...no shabby accomplishment for mice or men, white or black. And you compare yourself to him...or further, moi????
You say your family came from Scotland in 1700's as indentured servants. My forebearers founded Houston. You pride yourself in proclaiming that they weren't slave owners, yet you think that I (and undoubtedly, many blacks) have an entitlement mentality, but if your family wasn't staunch abolitionists, then like the Germans who were silent during the Holocaust, they were part of the problem and not the solution. Indifference = complacency.
And I don't think Obama a "savior" or "Messiah", as those of you on the right choose to refer to him, sacrilegious as that is...that is just another way of demonizing him in the eyes of whites. How dare a black man take on the mantle of "hope and change" (from the status quo)? Usurper? Uppity n-word?
Or threat that must be eliminated? I think all the above, and some more of a kind. The Days of Wine and Roses has come to an abrupt end. We're all in the same boat. And seeing that Lincoln freed all the slaves, your behind best get to "paddling".