Confirmed: Obama WAS a member of the Socialist New Party - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

 

 

How about an unbiased or less blatantly biased magazine? The National Review with main headlines like :

 

Jeez! If I answered with a clearly biased liberal example to one of your questions you'd have thrown it out without a look. Tell me does anyone but republican sympathizers read this rag? Really?

 

1. In this case spamming is loading the forum ( to the top ) with ridiculous threads that are clearly partisan in nature ( some are dismissed by others from the start they're so ridiculous ).

 

2. Don't like the work when you realize you've got nothing eh?

 

3. Once again does everyone read the national review or does it pertain to a certain partisan demographic? Please find this on a big news site that's read by everyone.

 

4. Funny I don't recall this quote. Perhaps you have a link? I do however remember saying Obama was young and had fresh ideas. Something we need right now. Now I will say this in hindsight. Obama is a bit of a dreamer ( not that there is anything wrong with that ). I've read Science Fiction all of my life and consider " Dreaming " a very important issue to our culture now days. We need people to seriously consider our situation and to be open to new ways of approaching things ( MJ will probably like this one ). However for this time and place I was wrong. Yes SDW and you can quote me! There's nothing wrong with Mr. Obama's thinking. It's just right now we need more action. With Hillary we would have had the same economic policies of the Clinton administration and we can all see from history what that did for the country back in the 90's. 

 

And yes when confronted with the truth you've had to at least run and hide at times so I guess you wouldn't consider me " Reasonable ".

 

5. Sorry but I looked at it many times yesterday and it was for the US. Like I've said there was a link for Canada that you could click on. And looking at the chart I'm pretty sure any " Reasonable " person would see it's more than .50.

 

6. Funny this answer really reminds me of another blind spot in a discussion we had years ago about the difference between real supply and demand unhampered by human generated political shortfalls and what we really have. A supply and demand that's dictated not by how much there is in the ground and how much people are purchasing but by political manipulation for other agenda's. Funny now that you think the shoe's on the other foot you suddenly see this!

 

As far as " Yup " it's nice that you two are in agreement. It's funny ( and refreshing ) to watch the two of you go at it. I'm sure MJ doesn't like me back as we disagree on a great many things. The funny thing is we agree on somethings you and I strongly disagree on. As far as addressing the substance of his post  was it his insults ( which made up the bulk of the post ) or was it his time question?  Which quick draw obviously didn't see that one of the charts showed the entire past year.

 

Yup!

1.  Regardless of what you think of the NR, it presents actual documentation.  How do you respond to that?  Or, do you simply not care?  

2.  No one has done anything your lefty friends wouldn't have done.  My, how quickly forget the multitude of ant-Bush threads.  Seems someone dones't like when the shoe is on the other foot.  

3.  It doesn't have to be on a "big news site."  The documents are real.  The information is real.  I can just as easily dismiss the mainstream media for NOT covering it, which they should be doing.  

4.  You wrote it.  I did several searches, but it returns thousands of posts.  I did find this little tidbit, however:  

LOL!     Looks like someone has changed his tune.  

5.  WTF are you looking at?  The numbers clearly state $3.92 vs. $3.42.   

6.  That doesn't even make sense.  It's always about supply and demand.  There has been more than adequate supply and will continue to be.  The issue is refining capacity, regional blends, regulation, and future market forces/perception, such as the reduction of federal lands open for drilling.  

7.   It's not a question of disliking you, though I suppose I can't speak for MJ.  It's simply the truth.  You make claims and cannot support or even reason through them.  You've claimed that gas has come down almost $1.00 for example.  Yet the charts clearly show it's right around 50 cents.  Instead of just admitting you overstated, you desperately cling to and attempt to justify your claim.  This is  pattern with you, at least in my experience.  Secondly, you never really seem to take a position.  You ask me if Obama is responsible for the decline in gas prices, but you don't make the case yourself.  That's another classic jimmac tactic.  So let's address that.  Can you demonstrate how Obama WAS responsible for the reduction over the past few months.  In fact, can you show ANY action by the Obama administration that would tend to support lower traditional energy prices?  Because let me tell you, I can provide seems of data demonstrating the admin's hostility to oil, gas a and coal.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

1. I think it's highly questionable. Even if this is true is that party still functioning? And what ground shaking consequence is it anyway Senator McCarthy?

 

2. So says you. The guy who wouldn't give up on WMD in Iraq shortly before the invasion ( I told you that would haunt you forever it was so stupid ). It's been clear for sometime now that the wing nuts are so desperate to get rid of Obama they'll say anything ( or try to make something out of nothing like the birth certificate issue ).

 

3. Once again what the hell difference does this make?

 

4. Yes I wrote that and it is taking a long time to heal the damage isn't it? No Republican could have done better with the mess Bush left. And they could have made things a lot worse since they were the ones in charge ( just like Obama is in charge now but things of this magnitude can't be put right overnight ) when it happened. Why trust them with this again? I think it laughable they seem to imply they could have fixed this in 4 short years when it took much longer to get into the situation. Also on this note as I've stated many times the GOP over the last 40 years has been in charge more than the Democrats so things should be going really good by now huh? I mean if they have all of the answers and it's so simple as many of them imply well they've had plenty of chance to fix things how come they're so fucked up? Riddle me that Batman.

 

5. Ok there's no pleasing you so 50. But it will go lower  ( And it wasn't a listing for Canada as you originally claimed was it? ) just watch and see. My thinking is it could get down to any point and you still wouldn't judge Obama by the same standard. You and I both know that.

 

6. Ah the blind spot returns in spite of what you said

 

 

 

But , but if it's  " Always about supply and demand " you can't mix other issues with it like what you didn't like me doing........!

 

 

How can this be if it's always just supply and demand? Obama would have nothing to do with it. You just contradicted yourself! Oh my!

 

And this

 

You really believe this? WOW! But you also don't believe in global warming so I guess that isn't so surprising. Yes there's an endless supply of dead Dinosaurs to power your car.

Yes let's tear everything up so we can perpetuate this century old tech to power our vehicles. Yeah sure I still enjoy driving my Mustang but we really need to get off of the oil tit ( especially when it's foreign )

 

7. Sigh! I was showing how silly it was to blame Obama in the first place. The fact that I have retracted my statement of $1.00 as a concession to you ( will you admit the chart wasn't the prices for Canada? ) and the fact also that you have contradicted yourself on your basic understanding of this issue only shows how debating with you is a huge waste of time.

 

By the way the way because of the way the oil companies have acted over the years I'm hostile to them also. I have no problem with that. Anyone who believes that they aren't gouging the American public when it suits their purpose is in denial.

1.  HOW is it highly questionable?   They have the actual documents from the party proving his membership.  What is questionable about it?  

2.  I assure you, the WMD thing doesn't "haunt" me.  It also has nothing to do with this topic.  

3.  What difference does the authenticity of the documents make?  Are you freaking serious?  

4.  Right, the "damage Bush caused."  Except that just as in the past, you cannot demonstrate ANYTHING Bush did to actually cause this damage.  Your sole point is that Bush was President and was therefore responsible.  You've claimed he was asleep at the switch.  Well, guess what?  Obama's in office now.  It's HIS responsibility, and he's failed.  

5.  No pleasing me?  I'm simply reading the chart you posted, and then comparing it with your deliberately exaggerated claim.  The price may go lower, it may not.  As you know, it mostly has to do with the price of oil, which has been up as much as 15% the past few weeks.  With Iran tensions, it's unlikely oil will go much lower soon.   Regardless of predictions, the central point is Obama's energy policies.  He has been hostile towards fossil fuels.  Under his administration, Federal oil and gas leases are down 50%.  We're not drilling in the Gulf as we should be.  He's promised to put coal out of business.  Why else do you think his popularity is nearly equal to a convicted felon in West Virginia?  The point is that Obama's policies have contributed to higher energy prices.   

6.  Those issues aren't separate.  Federal oil leases, regulation and others all contribute to the supply/demand equation.  

6a:  We are nowhere near running out of oil.  You know it.  I know it.  So save your hyperventilating and strawman arguments.  I wasn't claiming we'd never run out.  

7.  a.  Obama's policies have contributed.  Of that there is no question.  He's not solely responsible.  

     b.   I clearly understand the issue much better than you do.  You can't even comprehend supply and demand.  

     c.  The chart initially said "Canada" when I loaded it.  I was poking fun, but in all seriousness it was prob just a link issue.  Relax.  

     d.  Part c notwithstanding, you conceded because you got caught grossly exaggerating.  Admit it.  

     e.  The oil companies are not the problem.  They make approximately 8 cents per gallon when all is done.  Meanwhile, the feds have their boots on their throats.    The federal and state governments are the problem, with taxes at 10-20% per gallon, regional blend requirements, inefficient Ethanol requirements, and making it virtually impossible to build new gas refineries.  But into the populist anti-oil rhetoric if you wish, but the real villain ins government and lack of energy independence.  

jimmac, I see we're back to normal with you.  

1.  You have not shown why the the premise of this thread is not worthy of discussion.  You have not discredited the source.  You have not discredited the documents the source used.  You did, however, claim that you didn't care if the POTUS was at one time a member of a Socialist party.  

2.  Neither you nor I can't speak (or write) for others.  However, I doubt many would agree that "everything I say is colored" because I, like many others, was wrong about Iraq's WMD.  Regardless, I sort of find it amusing that you've been bringing that up in nearly every thread since 2003 or earlier, as if I was the only person on Earth that thought Saddam had WMD.  Even more amusing is the implication that somehow you had special insight into the subject, or that my being wrong was a result of inferior reasoning/perception skills.  The more likely scenario, as I've previously stated, is that you were the proverbial stopped clock--being correct only twice a day.  But whatever, I enjoy you bringing it up, so carry on.  

3.  I don't think it makes an "Earth shaking" difference.  I do think it is significant that the POTUS was a member of a socialist party, and that his campaign openly denied that same in 2008.  That means his campaign lied.  That means Obama has lied about who he is, just as he apparently did when his literary agent referred to him as "Kenyan-born" for all those years.  He's not who he says.  That is a pretty serious issue, no?  

4.  Jesus.  That's the point, jimmac.  You are the one arguing that Presidents are responsible for everything that happens "on their watch."  I've never argued that.  The problem is you've applied this logic to Bush (while failing to point our specific actions he took) and not to Obama (where I've pointed out dozens of specific actions and policies that contribute to the problem).  

5.  Gas:  Which experts?  Cite some, please.  

6.  Oil:  150 years is "nowhere near running out of oil."  And no, I don't think it's accurate to begin with.  That number has been going up for the last 50 years.  We are finding more supply all the time, and existing wells always seem to contain far more than "proven."   Either way, my position is we need a short, medium and long term energy plan.  Short and mid-term we need more supply of fossil fuels while developing other sources, such as natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, etc.   In the mid-term we need to be as close to energy independent as possible.  One we have accomplished that, we can begin to get off of oil in the long term.  Make sense?  

7.  Why does the number of gallons matter?  Reliable numbers are hard to find, because the oil companies are the ones reporting their profits.  However, the widely circulated number has been about 8 cents a gallon.  Some estimates are even lower.  The Feds take 18 cents, and states take far more in most cases.  Even if the companies made triple that figure, taxes would outweigh their profits.  Once again, you buy into the populist rhetoric about evil, greedy oil companies.  Yes, they make billions.  But...so?  They don't control the price of oil, which is the number one driver of gas prices.  

8.  This is another classic jimmacism:  Argue against a point your opponent is not making.  It's a variation on the strawman, because you're not directly presenting "my" argument, you're just ignoring what I'm actually writing.  Yes, oil companies are very profitable.  I never claimed otherwise.  I simply stated that taxes equal more than their profits...the companies that are actually drilling and refining oil.  You don't see a problem with this?  Of course not. 

jimmac:

First, this is your response to those eight detailed points?  While quantity is not everything, I wrote detailed, 600+ word, point-by-point response.  I shared my views on energy strategy and asked if you agreed, amongst a host of other points. You responded with the above?  Come on.  At least engage in discussion.  

I'm not portraying the oil companies as anything, nor am I implying anything.  I am simply stating that the oil companies make less per gallon than the government takes in taxes.  

You referenced the number of gallons.  I simply don't see the relevance to your argument.  You are stating that the oil companies made a huge profit in a particular quarter.  I'm not disputing that.  I am simply stating, again, that they don't make as much per gallon as the government takes in taxes.  Secondly, the price of oil (as determined by the market and OPEC) is the prime driver of gas prices.  What are you upset about here?  

I am not responsible for you inferring unintended meaning.  In fact, I'm not sure how you could even make that inference, because I openly stated that oil companies make big profits.  However, that does not change the facts of how much they make per gallon of gasoline.  The comment was meant to illustrate that even IF the oil companies are deliberately understating their profit margins (again, that's quite possible), they'd still make less per gallon than the feds and states take.  

Have you been drinking?  You're getting harder and harder to understand.   Let me be as clear as I can:  The fact that the oil companies are very profitable does not change what their profit margin is as compared to the taxes on on the product.  To be even more clear, I don't have any sympathy (nor antipathy) towards these companies.  I do, however, think that people like you get easily caught up in the populist rhetoric along the lines of "those greedy corporations!"   

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

And this post right here demonstrates your profound misunderstanding of business and economics.

 

You're so distracted by the big number ($36B) that you fail to see the bigger picture.

 

Oil companies invest a ton of money into a very capital-intensive business with, often, a lot of price risk (on the buy and sell side), to make about a 9-10% profit margin. The reason the big number you're obsessed with is so big is because they sell so much of what they make. There is huge demand for this wonderful product they sell and they sell a LOT of it.

He's not even making sense.  I am talking about profit margins as compared to taxes, and he's talking about total profitability.  Better yet, he's telling me I'm implying meaning where I am not.  Classic stuff! 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

SDW was discussiing profit. Now you want to classify what kind of profit. Also are seriously suggesting that poor wittle oil companies are strapped and poor?

 

 

Hence my comment to SDW about how many gallons they sell.

 

Please that is so dumb it's stupid. So you're saying that they could be making even more giant profits if they weren't taxed? Yes or no ( no spin please ).The big picture is that they're making big profits. End of story. Trying to spin it any other way is a very republican thing to do MJ.

I was discussing profit per gallon as compared to taxes per gallon.  No one is arguing that the oil companies are cash strapped and poor. You are engaging in several massive strawman arguments at the same time.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

see above for the answer spin master SDW.

You accusing me of "spin," yet you are using strawmen arguments.   Hilarious.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

 

Like I've said what you're suggesting is that they would be making an even more giant profits in the end. Keep digging that hole SDW. And I'm the one that's not making sense? In the end the oil companies are still making giant profits. On the one hand you're trying ( unsuccessfully ) to make it sound like the oil companies are barely making it because of taxes which as we all know just isn't the case. Then because it's obvious you have to admit that they are making giant profits ( just not the super giant ones they'd be making if they weren't taxed ). Give me an extra big break! 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's your original statement concerning this :

 

Please show me where you openly state in the first place that they are making huge profits?

 

How ( we support the rich side of the country ) republican of you.

1.  I am not suggesting anything, actually.  I am simply comparing the profit they make per gallon with the taxes per gallon.  I did this because you appeared to be insinuating that the oil companies were the problem when it comes to gas prices.  The reality is that the market price of oil is the driver of prices.  

2.  Please show you?  OK:  

and

That's twice...on this page.  Is this thing on?  

3.  "How ( we support the rich side of the country ) republican of you."----Are you telling me that you honestly think the Republicans care only for the wealthy, while the Democrats care about the little guy?  Nice 3rd grade understanding of politics there, jimmac.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

You're starting to babble incoherently.

 

 

 

Nope.

 

 

 

You're back to babbling incoherently.

 

Come back when you've grown up, educated and informed yourself and willing to engage in sober, rational discussion as an adult.

It's classic jimmac.  When he gets his ass handed to him (re: how much gas has come down), he throws a tantrum for a few dozen posts.  He accuses his opponent of making implications he/she is not making.  He lobs strawmen about with reckless abandon.  No worries...he'll calm down eventually, though not before bringing up Weapons of Mass destruction and his own age a few times.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

SDW was discussiing profit. Now you want to classify what kind of profit. Also are seriously suggesting that poor wittle oil companies are strapped and poor?

 

 

Hence my comment to SDW about how many gallons they sell.

 

Please that is so dumb it's stupid. So you're saying that they could be making even more giant profits if they weren't taxed? Yes or no ( no spin please ).The big picture is that they're making big profits. End of story. Trying to spin it any other way is a very republican thing to do MJ.

I was discussing profit per gallon as compared to taxes per gallon.  No one is arguing that the oil companies are cash strapped and poor. You are engaging in several massive strawman arguments at the same time.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

see above for the answer spin master SDW.

You accusing me of "spin," yet you are using strawmen arguments.   Hilarious.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

 

Like I've said what you're suggesting is that they would be making an even more giant profits in the end. Keep digging that hole SDW. And I'm the one that's not making sense? In the end the oil companies are still making giant profits. On the one hand you're trying ( unsuccessfully ) to make it sound like the oil companies are barely making it because of taxes which as we all know just isn't the case. Then because it's obvious you have to admit that they are making giant profits ( just not the super giant ones they'd be making if they weren't taxed ). Give me an extra big break! 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's your original statement concerning this :

 

Please show me where you openly state in the first place that they are making huge profits?

 

How ( we support the rich side of the country ) republican of you.

1.  I am not suggesting anything, actually.  I am simply comparing the profit they make per gallon with the taxes per gallon.  I did this because you appeared to be insinuating that the oil companies were the problem when it comes to gas prices.  The reality is that the market price of oil is the driver of prices.  

2.  Please show you?  OK:  

and

That's twice...on this page.  Is this thing on?  

3.  "How ( we support the rich side of the country ) republican of you."----Are you telling me that you honestly think the Republicans care only for the wealthy, while the Democrats care about the little guy?  Nice 3rd grade understanding of politics there, jimmac.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

You're starting to babble incoherently.

 

 

 

Nope.

 

 

 

You're back to babbling incoherently.

 

Come back when you've grown up, educated and informed yourself and willing to engage in sober, rational discussion as an adult.

It's classic jimmac.  When he gets his ass handed to him (re: how much gas has come down), he throws a tantrum for a few dozen posts.  He accuses his opponent of making implications he/she is not making.  He lobs strawmen about with reckless abandon.  No worries...he'll calm down eventually, though not before bringing up Weapons of Mass Destruction and his own age a few times.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

 

Who just had their ass handed to them Mr. spin master? You can pretend you're just making good sense but in black and white it comes up a little short buddy.

 

 

How is spin to point to the per-gallon profit of oil companies as compared to per-gallon taxes?  You are the one who is claiming implied meaning where none exists.  You are the one who got caught claiming gas prices have come down "almost" $1 on "average," when in fact the number was half of that figure.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Anyone who's been reading you at all for the last few years can see someone has been making casual use of " Strawman " with recless abandon and it's not me ).

 

Also yadda, yadda, yadda. Everything that you disagree with is a " Strawman argument ".

 

 

I really don't think you understand the definition of "strawman."   From wikipedia:  

 

 

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

 

 

Quote:

Example:  

Person A: Sunny days are good.

Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death.

In this case B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has made

 

 

You've engaged in strawman-like tactics by claiming both MJ and me are portraying oil companies as poor and cash-strapped.  You've stated that I implied as much.  I have specifically refuted that, though you don't seem to care.  You've gone further, too:  "So you're saying that they could be making even more giant profits if they weren't taxed?"  This is a classic strawman tactic.  I'm fairly certain every participant here sees it except you.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Both your statements about the oil companies and their profitability wasn't in your original statement about the issue SDW ( as I've already shown ). Now you're trying to weasel out of it. You only said them after you realized how weak your argument was.

 

Ah, now we're moving the goal posts.  You asked me to show you where I pointed out that oil companies were profitable.  I did so.  Now, you claim this is not sufficient, because I didn't state it in my "opening post' on the issue.  This is pure silliness.  I am not and have not portrayed the oil companies as anything other than profitable.  It is you who are inferring meaning which was not intended.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

And some say I need to grow up?

 

Yes, some may say that.  Agreed.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're fond of that comment, though it doesn't contribute much to the discussion.  It's vague and devoid of any real meaning, like many of your posts.  

To clarify, my comment on your bringing up age was  a reference to your tendency to use your age to try and bolster your credibility on the boards.  You've often made comments such as "in my [54] years I've seen a lot of things, [this is all part of the cycle]" or something to that effect.  

As for MJ, he and I disagree on many things, sometimes ferociously.  However, I will tell you that in my experience, I wouldn't even consider labeling him "insecure."  If anything,he boldly defends his positions even when it is pointed out that some of them are outside the mainstream.  It would seem his reference had nothing to do with your chronological age, but the immaturity and childishness you consistently demonstrate in your posts.  But hey, that's just my take.  :)  

Originally Posted by jimmac 

 

Who just had their ass handed to them Mr. spin master? You can pretend you're just making good sense but in black and white it comes up a little short buddy.

 

 

How is it spin to point to the per-gallon profit of oil companies as compared to per-gallon taxes?  You are the one who is claiming implied meaning where none exists.  You are the one who got caught claiming gas prices have come down "almost" $1 on "average," when in fact the number was half of that figure.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Anyone who's been reading you at all for the last few years can see someone has been making casual use of " Strawman " with recless abandon and it's not me ).

 

Also yadda, yadda, yadda. Everything that you disagree with is a " Strawman argument ".

 

 

I really don't think you understand the definition of "strawman."   From wikipedia:  

 

 

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

 

 

Quote:

Example:  

Person A: Sunny days are good.

Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death.

In this case B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has made

 

 

You've engaged in strawman-like tactics by claiming both MJ and me are portraying oil companies as poor and cash-strapped.  You've stated that I implied as much.  I have specifically refuted that, though you don't seem to care.  You've gone further, too:  "So you're saying that they could be making even more giant profits if they weren't taxed?"  This is a classic strawman tactic.  I'm fairly certain every participant here sees it except you.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Both your statements about the oil companies and their profitability wasn't in your original statement about the issue SDW ( as I've already shown ). Now you're trying to weasel out of it. You only said them after you realized how weak your argument was.

 

Ah, now we're moving the goal posts.  You asked me to show you where I pointed out that oil companies were profitable.  I did so.  Now, you claim this is not sufficient, because I didn't state it in my "opening post' on the issue.  This is pure silliness.  I am not and have not portrayed the oil companies as anything other than profitable.  It is you who are inferring meaning which was not intended.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

And some say I need to grow up?

 

Yes, some may say that.  Agreed.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're fond of that comment, though it doesn't contribute much to the discussion.  It's vague and devoid of any real meaning, like many of your posts.  

To clarify, my comment on your bringing up age was  a reference to your tendency to use your age to try and bolster your credibility on the boards.  You've often made comments such as "in my [54] years I've seen a lot of things, [this is all part of the cycle]" or something to that effect.  

As for MJ, he and I disagree on many things, sometimes ferociously.  However, I will tell you that in my experience, I wouldn't even consider labeling him "insecure."  If anything,he boldly defends his positions even when it is pointed out that some of them are outside the mainstream.  It would seem his reference had nothing to do with your chronological age, but the immaturity and childishness you consistently demonstrate in your posts.  But hey, that's just my take.  :)  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You know what is it when you have to wait for this new format to catch up so you can make a reply with the previous post quoted? The old format was fine and didn't need fixing at least from the user end of things.

 

Anyway as to the comment yes I'm fond of it as it's a perfect and concise way to discribe the caliber of the replies I'm getting from you two. Also once again I'm not the one who brought age into this. I may have mentioned it before but not recently Also SDW I'm 59 now. ( wink if I could  )

 

As to the rest it was a small joke. Jeez!

 

 

Hardly. I said they were profitable ( in the extreme ) you implied they weren't by bringing up that they only made 8 cents on the gallon. Then I replied by saying " How many gallons ". Then you came back by saying "  Why is that relevent? " And then MJ just proves my point by saying that they sell a lot. You see with Republicans you have to read the fine print of what they're saying. ( wink if I could ).

 

Sometimes one has to bring the fine print out like when I clarified what you were really saying. That they would have made even bigger profits if it wasn't for taxes. Not that they're cash strapped by only making 8 cents on the gallon. Otherwise what was your point by bringing that up?

For the last time, jimmac, I was not implying anything of the kind.  If you continue to claim otherwise, I will assume you're just outright calling me a liar.  In that case, we have nothing left to discuss.  Have a pleasant day.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

It's amazing how this little play is playing out in your head.

LOL!   Indeed.  The best part is he made a new claim, namely that he invented the term "bizarro world" or that he was the first to use it here (pardon me..."discribe" [sic].  It's like an amusement park in here today.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

It's not like you haven't called me that ( and worse ) before ( wink if I could ).

Is that a confirmation?  Are you questioning my integrity?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

I'm just calling it like it is.

Nice dodge.  I ask you again:  Are you saying I'm lying when I state I meant to imply nothing about oil companies?  

I'm not talking about reporting you.  I didn't even consider it.  I'm simply asking:  Are you calling me a liar for my claim?