The price of gas.

[joeshmo]

Stupid is as stupid does...

A good article on the liar in chief's explanation of gas prices...

'The American people aren't stupid," thundered President Obama yesterday in Miami, ridiculing Republicans who are blaming him for rising gasoline prices. Let's hope he's right, because not even Forrest Gump could believe the logic of what Mr. Obama is trying to sell.

To wit, that a) gasoline prices are beyond his control, but b) to the extent oil and gas production is rising in America, his energy policies deserve all the credit, and c) higher prices are one more reason to raise taxes on oil and gas drillers while handing even more subsidies to his friends in green energy. Where to begin?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... n_newsreel

Wrong!! Solyndra was a sucess!!! We need to give more money to companys like this according to treehuggers.com. What's a half billion dollar loss

[Kreutz]

>> I'll adopt your tactic - I'll bow down to yourn when you bow down to mine - you go first.

Here's the thing dude. You tell me you have 40 years experience in energy. Thats great.

But you're still wrong about letting industry regulate itself. It doesn't work. Never did.

Why were rivers catching fire with astonishing regularity before the EPA?

Why do we have leftover Superfund sites? Did these saints really leave those big messes for everyone?

Why did people (including many scientists) lobby for the creation of the EPA?

Clearly there was a problem your initial glowing review of the little angels in your first post in this thread left out.

The EPA was born out of a necessity; it wasnt a conspiracy, but something people lobbied their reps to create for a reason; ie pollution was getting out of hand because there was no regulation and enforcement.

PS

Dormin, still wanna hear about the government not owning "your" land and what happens if you stop paying it taxes.

Its cool when reality meets ideological optimism.

[ratherfish]

You just don't freakin read what anyone takes their time to respond! Do You?
I worked with the scientists that founded EPA!
Basic regulations YES!!!!!!

Obamatopia through regulations.... HELL NO!!!!

Do me a favor. Just try to think of one thing in your every day life that isn't regulated.

The cayayhoga river "caught fire" ONCE, please name another in the past 25 years! Bet you can't...That was waaaaay before regulations!

You're like Deddie wasserman-Schultz in pants... aren't you?

[Kreutz]

You just don't freakin read what anyone takes their time to respond! Do You?

Pot. Meet kettle. What I was responding to:

Get the GOVERNMENT totally out of the energy business, which it has increasingly controlled for over 100 years, and put the scientists, engineers and investors in charge; and we'll have the biggest economic boom in our history

Do (can?) you read? He is calling for no regulation, unless "totally out of the energy business" means something super secret special I don't know about.

I worked with the scientists that founded EPA!
Basic regulations YES!!!!!!

Hey, you agree with me, look at that. It gets easier as the Limbaughvirus escapes your colon where its been incubating for decades.

Obamatopia through regulations.... HELL NO!!!!

Is Obamatopia in Kenya?

Do me a favor. Just try to think of one thing in your every day life that isn't regulated.

You also concede the government controls everything? Whoa, you're two for two on agreeing with me today! Wunderbar!

The cayayhoga river "caught fire" ONCE, please name another in the past 25 years! Bet you can't...That was waaaaay before regulations!

Well no, I can't because since the EPA was founded 42 years ago its dropped off alot in the last 25 years. Because the EPA more or less works as intended.

Btw it caught fire 13 times, not once. The main impetus for creating the EPA was Silent Spring if I remember correctly. Though flaming rivers can have a negative effect on people too I guess.

You're like Deddie wasserman-Schultz in pants... aren't you?

Ah, maybe? Who dat?

[SHMIV]

And, of course, the problem with a little bit of regulation is that it tends to increase, little by little, until it is no longer a "little bit" of regulation.

[papasan]

unfortunately companies like Enron spoil it for everyone. self-regulating companies is a myth, even if 99% of them are ethical and do it correctly the 1% would be enough to screw the rest of us. and 1% is being very, very generous... i've worked with enough sleaze-balls to know most "business men" are out to rape, rob, and pillage as much as they can get away with.

take away a corporations legal existence as an entity that's sheltering people from taking personal responsibility and you maybe on the right track to lower regulations.

[joeshmo]

Reportedly 13 times, stop pulling numbers out of the air or your arse. Or did you get it from http://www.treehugger.com/clean-water/1 ... -fire.html ,one of your favorite websites amongst others.

[ratherfish]

OK here we go on on another one of Kreuts's liberal lie fests....

You just don't freakin read what anyone takes their time to respond! Do You?

Pot. Meet kettle. What I was responding to:

Get the GOVERNMENT totally out of the energy business, which it has increasingly controlled for over 100 years, and put the scientists, engineers and investors in charge; and we'll have the biggest economic boom in our history

Do (can?) you read? He is calling for no regulation, unless "totally out of the energy business" means something super secret special I don't know about.

I worked with the scientists that founded EPA!
Basic regulations YES!!!!!!

I DON'T agree with you!!!!!
Read MY posts. I was reginal coordinator for EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) For region 9. I helped WRITE the regulations! I left because the agency was no longer protecting the environment as much as it became a regulatory tool for liberals who get horny punishing industry and business!Hey, you agree with me, look at that. It gets easier as the Limbaughvirus escapes your colon where its been incubating for decades.

Obamatopia through regulations.... HELL NO!!!!

Is Obamatopia in Kenya?

NO it's apparently in your mind. For more info read Ameritopia, by Mark Levin....

Do me a favor. Just try to think of one thing in your every day life that isn't regulated.

You also concede the government controls everything? Whoa, you're two for two on agreeing with me today! Wunderbar!
NO! OBAMA is endevoring to expand government control to everything!

Vote for him again... he may be the first in humankind to build your precious utopia! Who knows!

The cayayhoga river "caught fire" ONCE, please name another in the past 25 years! Bet you can't...That was waaaaay before regulations!

Well no, I can't because since the EPA was founded 42 years ago its dropped off alot in the last 25 years. Because the EPA more or less works as intended.

BS! Obama, your savior, put in in overdrive regulating CO2 (that you exhale and plants need) and cowfarts...(methane) and......wait for it! DUST!

It is an abortion that should be killed and rebuilt.

Btw it caught fire 13 times, not once. The main impetus for creating the EPA was Silent Spring if I remember correctly. Though flaming rivers can have a negative effect on people too I guess.

I was there sonny! Silent Spring contained not ONE scientific fact and brought about the end of DDT! A pesticide that could have saved millions more lives than your "nothing but nets" programs for Africa!!!!
It allowed the building of the Panama Canal and if allowed to be produced and used properly to control malaria...malaria would be a distant memory rather than killing millions worldwide!

Another liberal knee jerk reaction that resulted in millions of lost lives.

You need some new news sources friend. You show your liberal brain worm with a simple google of your tree hugger facts!

Just when were the flames flamer? before or after clean water regulation?????

You're like Deddie wasserman-Schultz in pants... aren't you?

Ah, maybe? Who dat?

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz??????
She's the one with the kinky hair and your stones!

Not everyone has the qwerty skills of a small time coder who stand to get a wopping boost from the massive data requirements of Obummercare!

Man you've been slapped down by every non-liberal on the board in this thread. Are you on the annointed ones payroll?

[ratherfish]

Reportedly 13 times, stop pulling numbers out of the air or your arse. Or did you get it from http://www.treehugger.com/clean-water/1 ... -fire.html ,one of your favorite websites amongst others.

Man. This dude even twists and tortures treehugger facts!!!!!

"Forty years ago, Cleveland's Cuyahoga River caught fire. It was not the first time a river (even the Cuyahoga) caught fire,( the others were in Europe!) but like Apollo 8's earthrise photos, it became an important event in the raising of awareness of environmental issues in America. "

FOURTY YEARS AGO!!!!!

Well before the CWA!!!!

Now they're a cow fart regulation brain trust!

[OleMan]

>> I'll adopt your tactic - I'll bow down to yourn when you bow down to mine - you go first.

Here's the thing dude. You tell me you have 40 years experience in energy. Thats great.

But you're still wrong about letting industry regulate itself. It doesn't work. Never did.

Why were rivers catching fire with astonishing regularity before the EPA?

Why do we have leftover Superfund sites? Did these saints really leave those big messes for everyone?

Why did people (including many scientists) lobby for the creation of the EPA?

Clearly there was a problem your initial glowing review of the little angels in your first post in this thread left out.

The EPA was born out of a necessity; it wasnt a conspiracy, but something people lobbied their reps to create for a reason; ie pollution was getting out of hand because there was no regulation and enforcement.

PS

Dormin, still wanna hear about the government not owning "your" land and what happens if you stop paying it taxes.

Its cool when reality meets ideological optimism.

Now you are behaving like a troll. You are stating that I said things I did not say and imputing that your interpretation of what I said is fact despite the fact that I earlier refuted your allegations.

I never said that health and safety should not be governed. I never said that there should be no regulation. I did say that we should get government out of the "business" whereby government excess impedes free market production of a commodity that is critical to the functioning of our society; while the raw materials for that commodity are plentiful. That excess "governing" in the form of using health and safety regulation for a political agenda is "GOVERNMENT" writ large and has a strangling effect that results in higher prices.

I did say that "scientists, engineers and investors" should run the business of energy and I stand by that. After all, who else can research and formulate what to do, how to pay for it, generate the necessary capital funds, and ensure that it is done in a manner that preserves safety and health.

When it comes to the existing government structure, agencies such as the the EPA should be populated largely with objective practitioners of disciplines such as scientists, engineers, etc; and much less so with lawyers, political appointees, and career bureaucrats. The EPA's more recent agenda, contrary to their roots, is largely political.

I could make the same statement of some other agencies like the BATFE and the TSA and get a majority agreement.

Stop the inflammatory style in response to, misleading allegations, else you appear that you just want to generate argument because you enjoy it.

[dorminWS]

PS

Dormin, still wanna hear about the government not owning "your" land and what happens if you stop paying it taxes.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Kreutz, if you really think that the obligation to pay real estate taxes to the tune of a fractional percentage or so a year and/or the fact that by constitutional amendment the citizens of this country very unwisely consented to pay an income tax means that the government owns everything, the truth is that I just don't know where to start in what must surely be the long and arduous process of your edification.

[Kreutz]

And, of course, the problem with a little bit of regulation is that it tends to increase, little by little, until it is no longer a "little bit" of regulation.

Its a balancing act, that is true.

[Kreutz]

PS

Dormin, still wanna hear about the government not owning "your" land and what happens if you stop paying it taxes.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Kreutz, if you really think that the obligation to pay real estate taxes to the tune of a fractional percentage or so a year and/or the fact that by constitutional amendment the citizens of this country very unwisely consented to pay an income tax means that the government owns everything, the truth is that I just don't know where to start in what must surely be the long and arduous process of your edification.

Its a fairly linear thought process actually. You claim you "own" "your land"

own
   [ohn] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or belonging to oneself or itself (usually used after a possessive to emphasize the idea of ownership, interest, or relation conveyed by the possessive): He spent only his own money.
2.
(used as an intensifier to indicate oneself as the sole agent of some activity or action, preceded by a possessive): He insists on being his own doctor.
verb (used with object)
3.
to have or hold as one's own; possess: They own several homes.
4.
to acknowledge or admit: to own a fault.
5.
to acknowledge as one's own; recognize as having full claim, authority, power, dominion, etc.: He owned his child before the entire assembly. They owned the king as their lord.

See, if you really did own "your" land, not paying tribute to the government would not de facto deprive you of said land. Instead if you cannot or will not pay said tribute, you will be forcibly removed and the property auctioned off to someone else. Thats not ownership by any stretch of the imagination.

If anything they own it and you are merely renting it.

And since when does it matter its "just the obligation to pay real estate taxes to the tune of a fractional percentage or so a year"?

Isn't the slightest government intrusion tantamount to slavery/rape to you freedom lovin' types? At least thats how it sounds to me. I mean, if you're OK paying a "fractional percentage" of your income to keep "your" land whats the problem with what, a $400.00 fine for not buying health insurance?

And that not circuitous logic; its an analogy.

I'm really trying to understand your thought process whereby it seems some government control is hunky dory, yet other seemingly equally intrusive burdens are the worst thing in the world.

I just dont see why say a health insurance mandate gets the right up in arms, yet a law allowing indefinite detention of US citizens which utterly craps on the 4A warrants nary a peep.

Again, thats just an analogy. I'm not a circuitous logic enabler, I swear.

[Kreutz]

Now you are behaving like a troll. You are stating that I said things I did not say and imputing that your interpretation of what I said is fact despite the fact that I earlier refuted your allegations.

Dude, the quote function doesn't make new words appear; I quoted what you said.

I never said that health and safety should not be governed.

Sounded like ya did.

I never said that there should be no regulation.

Sounded like ya did.

I did say that we should get government out of the "business" whereby government excess impedes free market production of a commodity that is critical to the functioning of our society; while the raw materials for that commodity are plentiful.

You did say the first sentence, but not the rest. Go back and read it to make sure I'm not altering your words. Was the rest implied? It was not stated explicitly.

That excess "governing" in the form of using health and safety regulation for a political agenda is "GOVERNMENT" writ large and has a strangling effect that results in higher prices.

I did say that "scientists, engineers and investors" should run the business of energy and I stand by that. After all, who else can research and formulate what to do, how to pay for it, generate the necessary capital funds, and ensure that it is done in a manner that preserves safety and health.

When it comes to the existing government structure, agencies such as the the EPA should be populated largely with objective practitioners of disciplines such as scientists, engineers, etc; and much less so with lawyers, political appointees, and career bureaucrats. The EPA's more recent agenda, contrary to their roots, is largely political.

I could make the same statement of some other agencies like the BATFE and the TSA and get a majority agreement.

Stop the inflammatory style in response to, misleading allegations, else you appear that you just want to generate argument because you enjoy it.

Meh, when you word it like that instead of perhaps vaguely implying it we're on the same page anyway so theres nothing to argue about.

[dorminWS]

PS

Dormin, still wanna hear about the government not owning "your" land and what happens if you stop paying it taxes.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Kreutz, if you really think that the obligation to pay real estate taxes to the tune of a fractional percentage or so a year and/or the fact that by constitutional amendment the citizens of this country very unwisely consented to pay an income tax means that the government owns everything, the truth is that I just don't know where to start in what must surely be the long and arduous process of your edification.

Its a fairly linear thought process actually. You claim you "own" "your land"

own
   [ohn] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or belonging to oneself or itself (usually used after a possessive to emphasize the idea of ownership, interest, or relation conveyed by the possessive): He spent only his own money.
2.
(used as an intensifier to indicate oneself as the sole agent of some activity or action, preceded by a possessive): He insists on being his own doctor.
verb (used with object)
3.
to have or hold as one's own; possess: They own several homes.
4.
to acknowledge or admit: to own a fault.
5.
to acknowledge as one's own; recognize as having full claim, authority, power, dominion, etc.: He owned his child before the entire assembly. They owned the king as their lord.

See, if you really did own "your" land, not paying tribute to the government would not de facto deprive you of said land. Instead if you cannot or will not pay said tribute, you will be forcibly removed and the property auctioned off to someone else. Thats not ownership by any stretch of the imagination.

If anything they own it and you are merely renting it.

And since when does it matter its "just the obligation to pay real estate taxes to the tune of a fractional percentage or so a year"?

Isn't the slightest government intrusion tantamount to slavery/rape to you freedom lovin' types? At least thats how it sounds to me. I mean, if you're OK paying a "fractional percentage" of your income to keep "your" land whats the problem with what, a $400.00 fine for not buying health insurance?

And that not circuitous logic; its an analogy.

I'm really trying to understand your thought process whereby it seems some government control is hunky dory, yet other seemingly equally intrusive burdens are the worst thing in the world.

I just dont see why say a health insurance mandate gets the right up in arms, yet a law allowing indefinite detention of US citizens which utterly craps on the 4A warrants nary a peep.

Again, thats just an analogy. I'm not a circuitous logic enabler, I swear.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In the first place, the concept of "ownership" you have invented out of whole cloth does not square with either the definitions you quote or general understanding. The fact that you "own" something does not preclude the possibility that conflicting claims will arise for any number of reasons. But absent some legally-sufficient procedure to change it, you still have a superior possessory interest compared to the rest of the world. Your own quoted definitions contemplate exactly that "ownwership" is that of a home just as you posit is NOT owned by me because it is liable to tax; to-wit: "3.to have or hold as one's own; possess: They own several homes.", just as an example. Of course, I'm sure you know this, and are just advancing these asinine arguments to keep somebody to argue with. That's the primary reason I would have expected the process of your edification to be so long and arduous: you WON'T F#@&in' LISTEN.

In the second place, one big difference between paying taxes and being forced to purchase health care or fined for not doing so is that taxes have been around for the whole of the existance of Anglo-American government and jurisprudence. Obamacare is a brand new and aggregious incursion by the federal government into what has hitherto been none of their damned business. Is that really hard for you to understand; or do you just refuse to acknowledge it?

Damn, Kreutz; if I'd wanted to argue with a teenager at my age, I'd have knocked up the babysitter 12-15 years ago. Grow up!

[OleMan]

" DorminWS"
Damn, Kreutz; if I'd wanted to argue with a teenager at my age, I'd have knocked up the babysitter 12-15 years ago. Grow up![/quote]

You nailed it. A teenager! But watch out, he'll call you a Dude!

[MNMGoneShooting]

Stop the inflammatory style in response to, misleading allegations, else you appear that you just want to generate argument because you enjoy it.

are you guys insinuating that Kreutz like to argue? Say it isn't so!! A bored boy with his toy....

[ratherfish]

" DorminWS"
Damn, Kreutz; if I'd wanted to argue with a teenager at my age, I'd have knocked up the babysitter 12-15 years ago. Grow up!

You nailed it. A teenager! But watch out, he'll call you a Dude!

[/quote]


He actually said "meh"....LOL

[Kreutz]

In the second place, one big difference between paying taxes and being forced to purchase health care or fined for not doing so is that taxes have been around for the whole of the existance of Anglo-American government and jurisprudence. Obamacare is a brand new and aggregious incursion by the federal government into what has hitherto been none of their damned business. Is that really hard for you to understand; or do you just refuse to acknowledge it?

Is it hard for you to understand? Taxes are a requirement forced on you by an external entity that involves you doing something; i.e. paying them under force of law.

Being required to by health insurance....is the same thing. In both cases your capital must leave you and go somewhere else. In both cases failing to do so will warrant further monetary penalties. Just because one is old and one is new does not change the principle. They are fundamentally identical.

Damn, Kreutz; if I'd wanted to argue with a teenager at my age, I'd have knocked up the babysitter 12-15 years ago. Grow up!

You're getting as clever as your friend with the extra chromosome over in Fburg.

[ratherfish]

In the second place, one big difference between paying taxes and being forced to purchase health care or fined for not doing so is that taxes have been around for the whole of the existance of Anglo-American government and jurisprudence. Obamacare is a brand new and aggregious incursion by the federal government into what has hitherto been none of their damned business. Is that really hard for you to understand; or do you just refuse to acknowledge it?

Is it hard for you to understand? Taxes are a requirement forced on you by an external entity that involves you doing something; i.e. paying them under force of law.

Being required to by health insurance....is the same thing. In both cases your capital must leave you and go somewhere else. In both cases failing to do so will warrant further monetary penalties. Just because one is old and one is new does not change the principle. They are fundamentally identical.

Damn, Kreutz; if I'd wanted to argue with a teenager at my age, I'd have knocked up the babysitter 12-15 years ago. Grow up!

You're getting as clever as your friend with the extra chromosome over in Fburg.

Yup yup yup....

We-unz can't all idolize eugenics...duh....the leadership of Hitler...ahuuuuuh... and carry a weapon to protect ourselves from the police like you Mr. Kreutz sir.........

Now... lie about being set up to make a killing off Obamacare....