Obama's energy policy "none of the above"

Senator Thune continues to show leadership in the US Senate by promoting a real energy solution Americans can get behind and support, while exposing President Obama as nothing more than a road block to reasonable, commonsense energy policies that his liberal cronies have been blocking for decades.

The national average price of a gallon of gas when Obama took office in 2009 was $1.84. Today it is nearing $4.

Obama’s planners seem to think Americans want to pay more at the pump. They think that is a great way to get us to drive less and produce a smaller carbon footprint.

A “none of the above” energy agenda is exactly what I would expect from a do nothing president.

82 Replies to “Obama's energy policy "none of the above"”

  1. 73*

    Thune said it best

    Obama says “no to keystone, no to ANWR, no to the gulf, offshore, streamlining permit.”

    1. Anonymous

      But I’ve got my Chevy Volt that starts on fire because of defective batteries. Why on earth would Obama not want to drill in the USA when solyndra is doing so well?

  2. Joe the Shitters Full

    The thought that gas prices would be any cheaper if Republicans were in the White House is bologna. Yeah, the average price was $1.84/gallon when President Obama took office, no one can argue that fact. However, if conservatives are going to throw that number around, who can forget the price of gas the summer of 2008, after nearly eight years of “oil company friendly” policies under the Bush Administration? The average price of gas on July 14, 2008 was $4.11/gallon. (http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/07/gas-prices-1.html) That makes $3.77/gallon look a whole lot better.

    So lets just stop this gas price scare tactic crap. Gas prices would not be any better under a Republican administration. Even if Keystone was approved, the oil produced would be shipped down to the Gulf of Mexico ( an international trade zone ) and put on the open market. More likely to be shipped to Europe or China than to gas tanks of property owners, whose land would be seized.

    1. duggersd

      John Thune never said gas would cost less. He points out Obama has been stifling increasing the amount of oil available on the market. Only a liberal would suggest on the one hand that more oil would not have a downward pressure on the price of oil and on the other hand ask another country to increase production so there will be more oil on hand so it could put downward pressure on the price of oil.

      1. Joe the Shitters Full

        No, he didn’t say that. That would make him a liar. Which I don’t believe him to be. It is just what he and many other conservatives want the general public to believe.

  3. Charlie Hoffman

    Joe do you think that Big Oil is forcing gas higher to thwart all the Middle East money pouring into the POTUS campaign account?

    1. Joe the Shitters Full

      That doesn’t even make sense. If Obama is getting money from the Mid-East, it would only be because our Conservative Supreme Court made it possible. And if the Mid-East is giving money to Obama, you would be stupid to think they aren’t hedging their bets and giving money to the Romney camp.

      Gas prices are high because of multiple factors; Mid-East political tension, increase in China’s consumption, and Wall Street speculators manipulating prices for profit. However, I think the oil companies are smart enough to know that they will get what they want no matter what party is in power.

      1. veldy

        Just curious, you mention above oil being placed on the market and possibly shipped(supply) as having no impact on pricing. You also mention increased Chinese consumption(demand) as having an impact on pricing.
        Did Congress pass an amendment to the law of supply and demand that I missed?

      2. Anonymous

        Joe the Shitter said, “And if the Mid-East is giving money to Obama, you would be stupid to think they aren?t hedging their bets and giving money to the Romney camp.” Lets look at the past election . . . the Chinese gave millions of dollars to Obama’s campaign but not to McCain, so did the Russians.

        1. Joe the Shitters Full

          Anonymous, Lets see your sources. And it better not be Fox News “Pundit Prep.”
          In no way in my above response was I acknowledging Obama received money from the Mid-East. For all I know Hoffman made it up. I honestly don’t know.

  4. Anonymous

    Thune’s only solution to high gas prices is to dole out tax breaks to oil companies and subsidies to ethanol companies. This is also his solution when gas prices are low. Thune is a one-trick corporate welfare pony.

    1. Troy Jones

      Please be specific of the tax “breaks” you would want to remove from oil companies and the impact it would have on gas prices so we can assess their “cost.”

    2. Anonymous

      Annon, you have to be kidding or can’t hear. Thune stated such things as drilling in ANWR, building the Keystone pipeline to bring Canadian oil down here, drilling in the Guld, etc.

      Since Obama won’t allow Keystone, the Canadians are now going to build a pipeline to their west coast to ship the oil to China. Oh, another thing, Obama halted all drilling in the Gulf, thus causing many of the offshore drilling rigs to go to the East coast of South America to drill for Petrobras, a Brazilian oil company owned by George Soros, Obama’s confident who also got a $2 Billion loan from our government.

      1. Les

        Can you tell us where the info on Canada building west is?

        Also tell us where you got the info on the Gulf drillers pulling out to drill in South America.

        Personally I have a financial gain with XL, but I do think the truth is more important than money. Don’t you?

        The Canadians would not have looked to us if there were going to allow the pipeline to the west coast and yes they are upset with us for having stopped XL. Why, because they want it on our ground and not theirs.

        Texas has the same situation going on right now as ND. Need trucks, drivers for frac water and sand. Rig workers are in as much demand as up here.

        But go ahead, give us your sources so I can compare them to my Canadian friends and my recent Gulf Coast experiences.

  5. Troy Jones

    Here is the general reality: Both sides want us to decrease consumption of Middle East oil.

    1) Republicans want to lessen this in ways that do not increase the price of energy. First, they want to do this by focusing on additional supplies of existing technologically viable sources (domestic drilling and exploiting Canadian sources, nuclear, ethanol, etc.). Second, they are more circumstpect on reliance on expensive alternative sources until the technologies are more proven.

    2) Democrats want less consumption of fossil fuels with greater tolerance of more expensive energy. They know so long as fossil fuels are cheaper than alternative sources it will continue to be used. For example, they prefer wind or solar energy that is several times the cost of electricity from coal. There is “reason” in the “madness” behind their electrical car focus (despite it using coal burning electricity) as it puts pressure on our coal facilities creating “demand’ for wind/solar energy which blends its higher cost with the inexpensive coal/nuclear electricity.

    As of today, the preponderanc of energy to power our homes, factories, offices, trains, cars, planes is fossil fuel because it is most cheaper (all in cost meaning cost of the energy and the equipment to convert it to energy). For alternative sources to be economically viable, I recall we need coal and oil to go up another 50% (in other words gas prices above $6).

    Despite public sentiments criticizing the current level of gas/energy, the reality is Democrats need even higher prices to achieve the fundamental shift from current sources to the alternatives. Don’t fool yourself. In private they like higher gas prices without consideration of the impact it has on the economy, jobs or the pocket books of the poor.

    1. Bill Fleming

      The rationale being, I suppose, that if (using the “trickledown,” supply- side, voodo economic construct) oil companies and oil speculators finally make enough cash to satisfy their seemingly insatiable greed, they will finally stop hoarding it and develop cleaner energy alternatives, hopefully before New York, Florida and California become the new lost continents of Atlantis and the Great Plains, the new Sahara Desert. We’re just taking you guys at your word, Troy. LOL.

      1. duggersd

        Bill, are you purposely trying to show a total lack of understanding of basic economics? I do not believe you do and I do not believe really believe your comment. You have a business. How much do you charge for your services? Why don’t you double what you charge? Is it possible that “greed” would lose you more money than it would bring in? Oil companies are no different. As for speculators, we are all speculators to some degree. One day a few weeks ago I purchased a tank of gasoline because I thought the price would likely increase. Since I was not near empty, I speculated that I was better off to buy it sooner rather than later.

        1. Bill Fleming

          The speculators raise the price, Dugger, by convincing people that a commodity is worth more than it actually is.

          And yes. I have a business. Have had one since 1983. So I must know a little about economics. People hire me to help them market things anyway. Of course it’s always possible that the speculators have driven my stock up artificially… oh wait… my wife and I are the only stockholders… never mind.

          1. Bill Fleming

            By the way, duggerSD, do you run your own company? Last I understood, you worked for the school system, right? Do you think your stock is undervalued, or overvalued?

          2. duggersd

            I never questioned you having a business. I asked you why you do not double your rates? Is it a lack of greed or is it greed? That is my point about you understanding a little about economics. If you could double your rates and keep the same number of customers, I dare say you would do it. Otherwise you would have so many you could not keep up because everybody else would have much higher rates. If you don’t believe me, see what happens when a gas station drops its price by .10/gallon. You see a line up for their gas.

            1. Bill Fleming

              My company’s product is not a commodity, duggerSD. You can’t just drill more or plant more or raise more to get more of what we do. You also can’t purchase our services for any price whatsoever unless the team feels like working with you. Same in reverse, people who don’t get along with us will see little to no value in our services. In short, there is no comparison between what we do and what oil and gasoline companies do. None.

              1. duggersd

                OK, Bill, you do not want to answer the question. I did not say it was a commodity or a product. Your product is your time. I get it. You have not answered the question. I am typing this slow so you can read it easier for you to understand. Why don’t your double your rates? I don’t care if you choose who you want to work with. If a client comes into your hovel, why do you charge what you do? I suspect it has to do with competition in part. On another point, yes, I am a teacher. I work for a contract. I have also worked in the private sector in a small business. I have also been an independent contractor. Yes, I do know a little about business on the business side.

          3. duggersd

            Speculators cannot raise the price by themselves. You are assuming the average person out there is stupid. The price of a commodity may go up when a speculator buys a future and it may go down. That is why it is called speculating. Perhaps you remember when Mrs. Clinton made over $100,000 in cattle futures. That is speculating. I know people who have invested in futures markets and lost their shirts. That is because it is called speculating. Also, if you ask someone who actually knows something, you might find out that speculators see to it there is product available down the road.

            1. veldy

              And it’s not speculating if you will have the product to deliver, or if you need to have the product delivered to you. I’m sure most here, if not all, know that would be hedging.

              1. duggersd

                It is speculating because you are buying it at a price today, expecting or hoping it to go up in the future. But it can also go down.

                1. veldy

                  When one engages in speculation,old Dutch proverb applies:”Some days you’re the windshield, some days you’re the bug”.

                  1. duggersd

                    Unless you are the wife of a southern governor investing in cattle futures. Then you are always the windshield!

    2. duggersd

      “Don?t fool yourself. In private they like higher gas prices without consideration of the impact it has on the economy, jobs or the pocket books of the poor.” Where are you getting this “in private” stuff? President Obama and Secretary of Energy Chu have both said in public they want higher energy prices.

      1. Troy Jones

        Well then they are being duplicitous as that President just criticized the spike in gas prices.

        1. springer

          “That president” said before the last election that energy prices would necessarily skyrocket, an often quoted statement. I don’t care what he says in public this year in an attempt to get re-elected. I care what his actions indicate he truly believes. And he IMO wants high prices on anything related to oil/gas, and wants to promote solar, wind, electric cars, all of which have potential somewhere in the future when they are cost effective but not at present. He does not believe America has a right to maintain our lifestyle and economy but that we should bring ourselves down so that we are equal with third world countries, and he is doing all he can to further that agenda and a one world gov’t.

          1. duggersd

            Not to mention Secretary of Energy Chu admitting the administration does not care about high gas prices. http://news.yahoo.com/energy-secretary-chu-admits-administration-ok-high-gas-193900713.html
            The deal is, they need the price of oil to be very high so the greedy green industry contributors to the administration will be able to be competitive with conventional fuels. If the price of gas is $10/gallon, then the Chevy Volt starts to look more attractive until it starts to burn. If the price of oil is extremely high, then businesses like Solyndra can be competitive in energy production. The green speculators are part of the problem as they are artificially keeping the price high. 😉

  6. M.D.

    So if ethanol costs us $5 does Obama not think that increasing the amount of corn available will reduce the price?

    How about producing more electric cars? Does it not bring down the price for a company to mass produce a product?

    His Harvard degree must not be worth the paper its printed on.

    1. veldy

      Mass production would bring bring down the cost of production, unfortunately, the lower cost doesn’t help if no one is buying.
      You didn’t invest in Jerusalem Artichokes, did you?

  7. DUH

    I think Oblabla is either too ignorant to deal with basic economics and energy policies or he is deliberately attempting to dismantle the U.S. piece by piece until all that is left is a 2nd world country. I firmly believe the latter with a sprinkling of the former. The only way to become energy independent is to become energy independent.

    He is simply the worst President ever and his actions are getting very close to treason. Virtually every economic indicator is in the tank. Our foreign policy is a joke and our demestic situation is dire. Oblabla has simply made everything much worse with absolutely no game plan. He caters to rich libs who have no insight in how to run a country. His domestic and foreign policies are as juvenile as I have ever seen. Let’s appologize repeatedly to the radical muslims for innocently burning their fiction but don’t become outraged when U.S. soldiers are killed because of it. Remarkable! He panders to rich libs to further his misguided agenda of which I don’t think he even has one. “Hey, lets just wing it for 4 and see what happens. He cannot be that stupid so he must be that dishonest in his representation of the U.S.

  8. Anonymous

    Man that’s an ugly generic tie Sen. Thune is wearing. Did he get that at Wal Mart? He ought to have Kimberly pick out his clothes.

    If your world view includes the thought that nations compete for resources (of course they do), and that every barrel of middle east oil is one that our economic or political adversaries do not get – then is it not a good thing for us to buy Saudi oil and conserve our own for the day when the Saudi oil is gone? If we pump our limited resources dry (we have 2% of the world’s oil reserves) then we will be at the mercy of those who still have reserves. On the other hand, if we preserve our supplies and those of friendly democracies and instead help the middle east dictators use up their oil now, who’s going to be hurting worse when the dictator oil is gone – rapidly developing China with over 1 billion people, or the US with 300 million people?

    Once again, the Republicans are shooting for short-term political gain and ignoring the long-term consequences of the policies they propose.

  9. Dave R

    There is little the government can do to increase economic growth or reduce gas prices or lower unemployment, etc. The Government does NOT create jobs or stimulate the economy or make energy.

    What the government CAN do is be obstructive/destructive. Gov’t policy can damage economic growth or increase unemployment or raise gas prices.

    Obama’s policies have been obstructive. He imposed an unnecessary moratorium on gulf drilling, and is now “slow-walking” permits to drill in the Gulf. This drives producers away and increases costs. He obstructed the XL pipeline which reduces supply. Thus, while a President can’t do much of anything to LOWER prices, he certainly can INCREASE prices – and that is exactly what President Obama has done.

    Aside note: Democrats have in general been obstructive toward energy policy for quite some time. We should be drilling in ANWAR, off the coasts and Pennsylvania, exploring for oil on more Federal lands, have more refinery capacity, and fracking.

  10. Electrifying South Dakota

    An excellent conversation, and I am glad to see that it has triggered such enthusiastic postings. However, I think it is important to put aside the political rhetoric for a moment and focus on the reality. According to a November 30, 2011, Wall Street Journal article, the United States has become a net exporter of petroleum products, the first time in 62 years! In the first nine months of 2011, the U.S. sent abroad 753.4 million barrels of everything from gasoline to jet fuel, or about 919,000 barrels per day. In fact, the oil industry is excited that we are now pulling 424,000 barrels of oils per day out of North Dakota, but don’t expect that to stay in the U.S. and decrease the price we pay at the gas pump. Indeed, Motiva Enterprises, LLC, a joint venture between Shell and Saudi Arabian Oil Co., is counting on that Oil getting to their new refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, and then on board a ship at the new $400 million dollar terminal being built by U.S. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP, on the Houston Shipping Channel. $1.84 gasoline? We could see that, but only if we clamped down on exports. However, all signs point to further exploration, shipping, and production with little impact at the pump. Drill baby drill? Yes, and the world will thank you!

    1. duggersd

      Notice we are a net exporter of “petroleum products”, not petroleum. We still import petroleum. The products are things that happen after the petroleum is refined.

  11. Doug Wiken

    “Electrifying South Dakota” provides the relevant facts. The retrograde GOP is talking about solving a supply problem that doesn’t exist. No wonder social issues like mandating trans-vaginal ultrasounds so interests them.

    1. duggersd

      You are partially right. There is not a problem with supply. It is a problem with regulation. Truly you do not believe if there is more supply the price would not have downward pressure, do you?

  12. Anonymous

    Wow remember the THUNE CAMPAIGN AGAINST Dashle.Gas is so high on the farm we can bearly makeit.Under Daschle gas was 1.70 like Dashle was top blame for it under Thune rember the last time gas was over three or close to four all hypocrites.

  13. Troy Jones

    Electrifying & Doug:

    Exporting “products” does not change the reliance on imported raw materials (oil). You need raw materials to export a finished product. Apples and oranges.

  14. Electrifying South Dakota

    Troy, my apologies for not putting this more succinctly, but please allow me to try. Oil (a raw material) is being extracted from North Dakota (a State in the United States) at the rate of 424,000 barrels per day. We don’t need to import that oil (a raw material) as it is already here in the United States (the Country you and I most likely live in).

    However, your comment also has merit, in that we do continue to import oil from foreign markets. That is absolutely correct. We do import oil from Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations. I absolutely concede that point..you can call it oranges, bananas, or whatever label you wish to ascribe, but it is all added into the U.S. supply of petroleum. At this point, industry analysts contend that we are a Net Exporter of U.S. oil. We have plenty coming in from abroad, and we have lots of oil being produced in our country. Not wanting to see domestic markets experience a price reduction, our domestic refineries (which are also refining foreign crude) are working diligently to process the oil and get it sent and sold abroad. This isn’t a myth, and the WSJ isn’t a particularly political journal. Supply in the U.S. is currently outstripping domestic demand, and rather than see the market correct itself downward, oil companies are working their tails off to get the oil offshore.

    Thanks again for the great discourse.

    1. duggersd

      Petroleum products and oil are not the same thing. The US still imports oil. In fact, the US is importing 9 million barrels a day. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2011/11/30/america_is_still_a_giant_oil_importer.html
      Please link your source. I suspect you will find it says US is a net exporter “petroleum products”, not exporter of oil. Naturally, what is exported has value added, so that is a good thing. BTW, yes we have oil in ND, but remember this is not coming from federal land. This is private land that Obama has no control over……yet.

  15. Anonymous

    It would be nice to see Sen. Thune at a press conference that involved some Democrats. But he doesn’t work with Democrats, does he? That’s why congress is broken – career politicians more interested in scoring political points for the party than solving problems for the country.

      1. Anonymous

        Johnson’s not a presshound showhorse kind of guy. When’s the last time you saw him at a Democratic-only press conference. With Thune it’s an all partisan finger pointing all the time. And he sure does like to see himself on tv.

  16. Charlie Hoffman

    There are two places where supply and demand are whole heartedly misinterpreted.

    The bedroom and the Halls of Congress. 🙂

  17. Troy Jones

    Electrifying

    See the attached document provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (federal agency) regarding 2010 which says we are a net IMPORTER of oil and oil equivalents (refined products).

    With regard to your statement “At this point, industry analysts contend that we are a Net Exporter of U.S. oil,” I don’t know the context of that statement since we effectively use more oil than we produce by a ratio of almost 4:1.

    Highlights:

    In 2010 the United States imported 11.8 million barrels per day (MMbd) of crude oil and refined petroleum products. We also exported 2.3 MMbd of crude oil and petroleum products during 2010, so our net imports (imports minus exports) equaled 9.4 MMbd.

    . . . 49% of U.S. crude oil and petroleum products imports came from the Western Hemisphere (North, South, and Central America, and the Caribbean including U.S. territories) during 2010. About 18% of our imports of crude oil and petroleum products come from the Persian Gulf countries of Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. Our largest sources of net crude oil and petroleum product imports were Canada and Saudi Arabia.

    http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm

  18. Mitchell

    Obama is absolutely about himself and nothing else. This country is going to go down the tubes if he is reelected. I guess we get what we deserve.

  19. Les

    Prices will come down on all commodities where there is no longer a buyer to ship to, for now there appears to be buyers.

    Currently traders are pushing dollars into those comod’s at an unprecedented rate. Just wait until all those trillions printed hit the commodities!! Exciting times ahead.

    To say the prices can be controlled could be answered by looking back at the international financial industry manipulating the oil markets in the 80’s to bring about the fall of the USSR. Not only did it break Russia, it broke our US oil industry and sent our rigs to the scrap pile for 20 years.

    I am no fan of O but the truth is more important to me than to allow the lies to perpetuate.

    I drove 35,000 miles the summer and fall of 2008 and well remember the prices. Gasoline from 3.80-4.20 and diesel fuel topping for me at 4.65. We hit your 1.84 price a bit later in the midst of a great depression not yet defined Bill. Truth or fiction Bill Clay, you call it.

    1. Anonymous

      Again with the personal attacks… Somethings never change.

      CoryHeidelbergerwithfries continues to only make personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him…

      1. Clay Bill

        Oh … and no one else on this blog ever makes personal attacks? And why, when Cory states the truth, is it an attack?

        1. Arrowhead

          I haven’t ever seen a good conservative make a personal attack on this blog. Scouts honor!

  20. Arrowhead

    If we had better energy policy we would be paying under $1 for a gallon of gas again. Our energy situation is nothing more than a liberal leftist creation.

    1. Les

      I think you woke with pixie dust still in your eyes arrow.

      Does your $1/gal statement mean with the proper elements in place we could have .35 Old Golds again? $2800 Cadillac?

      Me thinks you and Dug went to different schools together.

      The fed has printed $tril beyond comprehension and you guys still don’t think cubic bucks have anything to do with higher commodities.

      $1/gal relates to 2/hour wages, ready for the real step back? We had a great depression we thought couldn’t repeat, you’ll prob get your wish on buck gas if we continue into the super great depression of 2012-2020. Good luck buying it while you maintain your mortgage.

      1. duggersd

        Les, since you are bringing up my name, why don’t you at least tell me what you disagree with? I do not recall saying we would have gas under a dollar. I do believe the price of gas would have downward pressure if there is an increase in production. I think that is essentially what I have said all along. And as for the .35 Old Golds, do they still make them? What does a pack cost nowadays? $5-$6? How much of that is tax? I don’t care if you disagree, but at least tell me what you disagree with.

  21. Les

    Dug, don’t take me so personally….I said…(((“Me thinks you and Dug went to different schools together.

    The fed has printed $tril beyond comprehension and you guys still don?t think cubic bucks have anything to do with higher commodities.” )) Not hard to understand with you adamantly stating how honestly supply and demand regulates the comod markets.

    I think I originally threw you off with DE. I was hoping there would be no response to the red herring she was throwing here, or so it appeared after her earlier post in Kids and Politicians of…..(((D.E. Bishop
    March 2, 2012 at 7:40 pm
    Just because something is commonly done, doesn?t make it right. Isn?t that correct, you anti-birth control and abortion folks?))) That’s a pot stirrer to me.

    1. duggersd

      Les, any fool knows there are several factors in commodity prices. When the fed makes money out of nothing, I get how that is a problem. That is one of the things that gives us inflation. Supply and demand curves will meet in a spot and that will give us a price. We have someone artificially changing supply which puts an upward pressure on the price. And when I am talking about those prices, I guess it is understood we are talking about constant dollars.

  22. Les

    Well Dug, you better forget about those constant dollars, that’s in a gold backed world. They have been gone since Nixon and will not return until the new birth. It’s stagflation Dug, inflated commodity prices and deflated wages, of course that to will probably change.

    Watch that fixed mortgage grow as more of your income goes away on food, fuel and every other thing that is not inflating.

    BTW I hope every fool knows that commodity speculators can and will keep throwing dollars at food and fuel and making money on us independent of supply and demand until they hit the breaking point….if that is the curves you are speaking of, God help us with that kind of market oversight by the CFTC, we have to eat.

    1. duggersd

      Perhaps you are unaware, Les, that when comparing different years, constant dollars are often used to compensate for inflation. For example, if the government spent $100 in 1875, that could be, and I am just pulling a number out of the air, $350 in today’s dollars. In comparison situations, constant dollars are often used.

      1. Les

        Interesting, You say ” constant dollars are often used.” while earlier you say “I guess it is understood we are talking about constant dollars.” What is it Dug, understood or often and when is it which?

        While you’re at it explain how the constant dollar theory handles stagflation? Kind of like our inflation factor doesn’t include food and fuel so it’s really not hard for the poor to eat and get to work? Or, like the Dow representation changing at the whim of the editors of the Wall Street Journal.

        My statement of Nixon throwing gold under the bus is to represent the fiat currency and lies that have allowed the unregulated institutions to throw taxpayer(read bailout) funds into the comods essentially bringing the US down.

        You choose to win an argument over bringing consensus to our nations problems. The problem has been condoned by both parties Dug and until we can find unity it will continue because they have you by that red herring you are so hungry for.

  23. D.E. Bishop

    Les, that’s not a pot-stirrer to me: “Just because something is commonly done, doesn?t make it right. Isn?t that correct, you anti-birth control and abortion folks?’ That?s a pot stirrer to me.”

    That is highlighting a contradiction.

  24. Les

    I call the nose tail and you? Tell me DE, which of the many possible contradictions were you highlighting?

  25. D.E. Bishop

    I’m laughing Les, because I don’t even know any more! I don’t think I really care any more either. I should have just let that comment at 2:25 go. Sorry. It’s not really that important now. Sometimes we get a little caught up in minutiae. Ha!

    1. Les

      I can relate this to a cell call. I am talking and my words are so darn important and poof, the call goes away, lost in the wireless world of dropped calls. I sit in silence wondering of the importance and how little the value now feels.

      Minutiae, glad you brought that up, a long ago resolution to revisit, less minutiae by Les makes for a better conversation.

      See you around the universe DE. 🙂 Maybe West River someday.

  26. Clay Bill

    So many people on here who are SO eager to blame Obama for what’s going on right this minute in terms of energy prices/ exploration/drilling, etc. Obama has not been in office long enough to have a dominant effect on our nation’s energy policy, much less the price of oil or gas.

    Last week, Paul R. La Monica, an assistant managing editor at CNNMoney, wrote:

    ?Americans are rightfully annoyed about rising gas prices. But politicians are making matters worse. They are fueling (pun intended) the anger by constantly talking about how they will lower gas prices.

    Newt Gingrich is the latest, with his promise for $2.50 a gallon gas. President Obama bemoaned the spike in gas prices in a speech Tuesday as well.

    I wish whomever is occupying the White House next January good luck in lowering gas prices. But words and rhetoric aren?t going to do it. Rob Perks, Transportation Advocacy Director for The Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental organization in Washington, said as much in a blistering blog post Tuesday titled ?Empty Promises, Empty Gas Tanks?

    ?As a global commodity, gas prices rise and fall due to a number of factors: crude oil prices, refinery capacity, increasing demand and political unrest in oil-producing countries. It seems like some people think the Constitution guarantees Americans the ?right? to cheap gas, but the only price that is right is whatever the market will bear. That?s why no president can control what we pay at the pump. Any politician that says otherwise is trying to sell the public snake oil,? he wrote.

    1. toad

      I’d rather have someone in the White House who thinks he can affect prices rather than someone in office who thinks he can’t.

      Give me Gingrich any day.

      Obama wanted to affect the price of insurance, carbon emissions, etc how about he affect the price of a gallon of gas.

      It’s not rocket science. If you want cheaper iPods make more of them, if you want cheaper electric cars make more of them, if you want cheaper fuel produce more of it, if you want cheaper items get them from wal-mart…

      The bigger the supply the cheaper everything gets.

      I was just ordering some custom T-Shirts and the more I order the cheaper they are to buy.