My bad, I said ACLU but you're absoluely correct, it was ACORN!
Thanks for reminding me!
What Grade Would You Give Obama for First 100 Days?
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
My bad, I said ACLU but you're absoluely correct, it was ACORN!
Thanks for reminding me!
Dixie Cup, in 1998 republicans controlled both the Senate and the House. The Congress passes the legislation, the President can only approve or veto it. Whatever legislation was passed, it was passed by the Republican Congress, not by a Democratic Congress.
If there was any faulty legislation, it is largely fault of the Republicans. Clinton may be at fault to the extent that he didn’t’ veto it. But republicans must take the lion’s share of the blame, they drafted and passed the legislation.
In any case, they controlled everything from 2000 to 2006. If there thought anything was wrong, they would have tried to correct it, but they didn’t.
Republicans tried their level best to blame Democrats for the subprime fiasco, but it just didn’t work, and with very good reason.
Thanks for the heads-up YukonJack... Regrettably, I am familiar with Joe Porter... What I find interesting at this site is that he/she has taken a more aggressive persona and it appears that he is deliberately seeking to rile-up others (certainly more so than at canada.com).
I think that we can chalk this new attitude up to the notion that he/she is a small fish in a much bigger pond relative to liberal glee club that is/was canada.com forums.
Mind you, it certainly is the case that not too many are putting-up with the attacks.
What he does isn't an attack. How I reply is an attack.
I would liken his commentary to that of a buzzing mosquito.
Forget it. You seem bent upon misunderstanding what I say, so there's no point in continuing. If you don't understand boosting sagging profits by limiting availability of product, that's your problem, not mine.
The facts are that the larger oil companies in North America (not sure about OPEC) cut back refining before tourist season last year (it was in the news about laid-off workers and whatnot), the result was higher fuel prices, oil companies' excuse for higher prices was the usual "shortage" (which was also in the news), higher fuel prices caused the prices of just about everything else to go up, market speculation followed along when they saw demand AND prices going upwards. Yeah, I thought about it, read about it, went through it. Face it, the only shortages are those caused by those who refine the stuff. Then they whine about profits sagging because the prices drop and use the excuse that they can't make money unless the price of a barrel isn't $200. Sorry, I just find it extremely hard to believe them.
There's no conspiracy needed. One copmpany sees the other cutting back refining and causing its pricing to go up and they follow suit. Or American companies hear OPEC's plans and follow suit.
Last edited:
I think that we can chalk this new attitude up to the notion that he/she is a small fish in a much bigger pond relative to liberal glee club that is/was canada.com forums.
Captain, canada.com forum was a liberal forum? Surely you jest. It was a conservative dominated forum, much as this one is. I have put some of the extreme conservatives on the ignore list so I don’t even have to see their posts. However, whatever that is left is still majority conservative.
But that is the kind of environment I find challenging, where I am fighting a bunch of conservatives.
Captain, canada.com forum was a liberal forum? Surely you jest. It was a conservative dominated forum, much as this one is. I have put some of the extreme conservatives on the ignore list so I don’t even have to see their posts. However, whatever that is left is still majority conservative.
But that is the kind of environment I find challenging, where I am fighting a bunch of conservatives.
;-)
You only find it challenging when you aren't having your ass handed to you. So you must be a very sad, lonely and unchallenged woman.
You don't have a clue. Further, you are clearly uninformed not only about the industry, the mechanics related to production, refining and marketing (speculation) and you top it all off with a total lack of knowledge in economics.
You're dead right, there's no point in continuing.. I simply don't have the time to school you in the above, let alone translate the 'intended meaning' of your comments as opposed to what you actually post.
The majority of what you posted is rife with misinformation, innuendo and baseless assumptions.... It is pointless to pursue this with one that refuses to see other than conspiracy... Enjoy your stay on Fantasy Island.. Say 'hi' to tattoo for me, alright?
That said Captain, what do you say about the claims of the laid off refinery workers from out west?
It's no secret that the tar sands have down-sized their operations and have decreased not only their refining capacity, but also their staff at said refineries. The tar sand operations are more susceptible yo fluctuations in the price of a bbl of oil. At $40/bbl, the cost of producing/refining that bbl is close to the value that they will get on the market... Lay-offs? You bet, but not in any way related to Gilbert's conspiracy about laying off personnel just to jack-up the price. It's the opposite. The price tanked and the lay-offs followed. L Gilbert is of the belief that they laid-off the workers in order to jack the price.... That is not correct.
Conventional oil is/has also seen a slow-down in drilling and exploration, however, the refining remains constant other than those operations that require work-overs and/or re-tooling. A big part of the problem is that there has been no new refining capacity dedicated to conventional sources (ie non-tar sands). The facilities are decades old (50-60 years) and they are in desperate need of repair/replacement. NIMBYism essentially eliminates this chance. refining capacity will not be increasing in the future. It will be quite the opposite, The annual capacity will decrease due to problems as suggested above.
If the shut-down is based on repair, it isn't the conspiratorial effort suggested by L Gilbert to slash supply to prop-up the price.
That proposition just doesn't make any sense at at all.
Conventional oil is/has also seen a slow-down in drilling and exploration, however, the refining remains constant other than those operations that require work-overs and/or re-tooling. A big part of the problem is that there has been no new refining capacity dedicated to conventional sources (ie non-tar sands). The facilities are decades old (50-60 years) and they are in desperate need of repair/replacement. NIMBYism essentially eliminates this chance. refining capacity will not be increasing in the future. It will be quite the opposite, The annual capacity will decrease due to problems as suggested above.
If the shut-down is based on repair, it isn't the conspiratorial effort suggested by L Gilbert to slash supply to prop-up the price.
That proposition just doesn't make any sense at at all.
"I think that we can chalk this new attitude up to the notion that he/she is a small fish in a much bigger pond relative to liberal glee club that is/was canada.com forums."
The above refers to post(s) by SirJosephPorter.
No doubt, canada.com was a liberal forum. SirJosephPorter in his former lordly alias of SirRupertMurgartroyd, along with his like minded (small-minded) cronies had me banned there several times. My posts there were no different from my posts here.
Take anything SirJosephPorter says with a big pinch of salt.
The above refers to post(s) by SirJosephPorter.
No doubt, canada.com was a liberal forum. SirJosephPorter in his former lordly alias of SirRupertMurgartroyd, along with his like minded (small-minded) cronies had me banned there several times. My posts there were no different from my posts here.
Take anything SirJosephPorter says with a big pinch of salt.
Sorry, I don't think you have much understanding, but, at least I won't resort to juvenile insults. Fantasy Island? Grow up.
The thing is ... this is NOT canada.com forums. It seems apparent that your constant bickering ruined those forums just as you (both) are doing here. Please take Joey P with you outside and duke it out like men because the gangseeking, snit fits and sniping are getting old really fast.
No doubt, canada.com was a liberal forum.
That is your opinion, Yukon. I think it was a distinctly conservative forum.
My posts there were no different from my posts here.
Now here you are right, the moderators over there were a lot stricter than here, you could get banned for rude, abusive language (that is why you were banned several times). You may have noticed, as a result there was very little obscenity in that forum. They kept the more unruly element out.
That is your opinion, Yukon. I think it was a distinctly conservative forum.
My posts there were no different from my posts here.
Now here you are right, the moderators over there were a lot stricter than here, you could get banned for rude, abusive language (that is why you were banned several times). You may have noticed, as a result there was very little obscenity in that forum. They kept the more unruly element out.
lone wolf, I would be more than happy to ignore him. I HAVE ignored him. I vowed to ignore him. And in spite of his broken promise to ignore me, I still ignore him.
Yet, he comes back at me, time after time trying to be better than not just me, but anyone else.
This forum or canada.com, no difference to the Lordly One.
Yet, he comes back at me, time after time trying to be better than not just me, but anyone else.
This forum or canada.com, no difference to the Lordly One.
I find it quite telling that only our group is included on his ignore list. It seems he came here to cause trouble ... to which he flaunts in several posts. It will backfire on him. A certain Doc Dread and his Viners manipulations discovered that the hard way.