or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices - Page 4

post #121 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Frank, what does the growth in consumption have to do with it? The rest of the world will also continue to pump more oil, not just the US. More supply is more supply. Even if it takes 10 years for us to add, say, 1mbpd, that would represent a sizable impact to supply.

Because at the current rate, today, it's ~86 MBPD, if there is truly say a hundred year supply of oil in the ground, say at a rate of 100 MBPD, than an increase in U.S. domestic supply of 1 MBPD would only account for 1% of consumption, ten years from now.

So I guess that additional 1% of supply will have some effect on lowering gas prices, by the same amount, 1%.

So that, instead of $10.00/gallon, that extra supply will lower that cost to $9.90/gallon. D'oh!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #122 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Because at the current rate, today, it's ~86 MBPD, if there is truly say a hundred year supply of oil in the ground, say at a rate of 100 MBPD, than an increase in U.S. domestic supply of 1 MBPD would only account for 1% of consumption, ten years from now.

So I guess that additional 1% of supply will have some effect on lowering gas prices, by the same amount, 1%.

So that, instead of $10.00/gallon, that extra supply will lower that cost to $9.90/gallon. D'oh!

According to your good friends at the EIA, frank, peak production of ANWR is going to amount to a price reduction of about
TWO CENTS A GALLON

Quote:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html


The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030 ... Crude oil imports are projected to decline by about one barrel for every barrel of ANWR oil production ... Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.

The median case suggests the effect on gasoline prices in 2025 will be a mere $0.02 a gallon. The immediate effect will be zero as well have to wait a decade to see any oil from ANWR. If this is Bushs and McCains answer to todays high gasoline prices, it is no answer at all.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #123 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

The question remains, provide some evidence that the USGS grossly underestimates oil in the ground.

You have yet to provide any.

Therefore, until such time as you do so, you are a liar.

Q.E.D.

I did. You dimissed it because it was "too old." I then showed several other examples. So it does happen. And as I said, I think you know it. You're just playing games.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #124 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Because at the current rate, today, it's ~86 MBPD, if there is truly say a hundred year supply of oil in the ground, say at a rate of 100 MBPD, than an increase in U.S. domestic supply of 1 MBPD would only account for 1% of consumption, ten years from now.

So I guess that additional 1% of supply will have some effect on lowering gas prices, by the same amount, 1%.

So that, instead of $10.00/gallon, that extra supply will lower that cost to $9.90/gallon. D'oh!

Let's assume we can believe the 1% number: You don't think a 1% difference in worldwide supply would matter? And it's not just about worldwide supply..it's about how much less oil we can import. It's 1% of world production, but far more in terms of US consumption. Also, that's just ANWR. What would drilling other sources produce? 3%? 5%? Perhaps you could explain how much supply would make a difference?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #125 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

According to your good friends at the EIA, frank, peak production of ANWR is going to amount to a price reduction of about
TWO CENTS A GALLON


Those projections aren't worth shit.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #126 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I did. You dimissed it because it was "too old." I then showed several other examples. So it does happen. And as I said, I think you know it. You're just playing games.

You presented a single data point, from 1920, apparently. This data point is not cited in the biased link you provided. The biased link then goes on to compare that apparent 1920 data point to all subsequent oil obtained from the ground.

In 1920, we would need to know what areas of the U.S. the USGS had conducted oil reserve estimates for, and given that it was 1920, what technologies were used at the time, and how many exploratory wells had occured and where these exploratory wells were located.

I then supplied a link to the USGS dated April 2008 that has a Mean estimate of 48.5 BBO for onshore oil reserves;

[CENTER]
Quote:
The USGS divides the petroleum assessments into 'categories of probability': F95, F50 (i.e. median), F5, and Mean (i.e. arithmetic mean). "F" means fractile, as defined by the USGS:

"Probability: Probability (including both geologic and accessibility probabilities) of at least one field equal to or greater than the minimum assessed field size. Results are fully risked estimates. ... F95 represents a 95 percent chance of at least the amount tabulated. Other fractiles are defined similarly."

[/CENTER]

So an F5 number would be several times higher than the Mean of 48.5 BBO, and vise versa for F95.

So for the 5th time, present some evidence that the USGS grossly overestimates or grossly underestimates oil reserves, in any time period.

Remember a single purported data point doesn't constitute proof, unless you can provide the associated assessment areas, and subsequent oil obtained from those assessment areas, and what technologies were assumed economically viable at the time of the USGS assessment(s).

You really do show everyone your ignorance with regard to the subject matter.

But keep digging that hole deeper and deeper, let us all know when you've struck black gold, as I'm having fun.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #127 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let's assume we can believe the 1% number: You don't think a 1% difference in worldwide supply would matter? And it's not just about worldwide supply..it's about how much less oil we can import. It's 1% of world production, but far more in terms of US consumption. Also, that's just ANWR. What would drilling other sources produce? 3%? 5%? Perhaps you could explain how much supply would make a difference?

The basic point is that no change in U.S. oil production will change the then going global price for world crude oil at that time. It's called the "free market." Supply must increase at a greater rate than demand for the price of oil to drop. Given that easily obtained oil is a very fixed finite resource, no one in their right mind, would drain their own oil resource, just to reduce the price that they would subsequently obtain from such a foolish policy.

The U.S. isn't just going to open up a 1 MBPD spigot in a single day, it would take years (if not more than a decade) to go from our current ~5+ MBPD production to ~6+ MBPD. Meanwhile, in that time period our, current 5+ MBPD continues unabated, which would deplete current "proven" reserves in less than 12 years.

You need to wake up, come out of whatever dreams you having, with respect to future U.S. oil production.

Continue posting in the pure belief threads, any topic where objective data can be applied, you really shouldn't post in, as it becomes very easy to defeat your spurious, specious, and wishful thinking.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #128 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Those projections aren't worth shit.

... disprove a thing. Where's your evidence? Other than your own words, that is.

Oh, other than that you don't have a clue on the subject material.

That much has been glaringly obvious for years now.

[CENTER]
SDW's Imaginationland[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #129 of 297
SDW2001:

Quote:
Those projections aren't worth shit.

What projections are worth shit?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #130 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Those projections aren't worth shit.

LOL.

Your screwball opinions are worth LESS than shit.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #131 of 297
Good point.

Facts or projections from reliable sources are required.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #132 of 297
You can't say shit on an airplane.
post #133 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Good point.

Facts or projections from reliable sources are required.

*bump*

*waits for SDW*

eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #134 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You presented a single data point, from 1920, apparently. This data point is not cited in the biased link you provided. The biased link then goes on to compare that apparent 1920 data point to all subsequent oil obtained from the ground.

In 1920, we would need to know what areas of the U.S. the USGS had conducted oil reserve estimates for, and given that it was 1920, what technologies were used at the time, and how many exploratory wells had occured and where these exploratory wells were located.

I then supplied a link to the USGS dated April 2008 that has a Mean estimate of 48.5 BBO for onshore oil reserves;

[CENTER][/CENTER]

So an F5 number would be several times higher than the Mean of 48.5 BBO, and vise versa for F95.

So for the 5th time, present some evidence that the USGS grossly overestimates or grossly underestimates oil reserves, in any time period.


I did. And you dismissed it....again. Also Frank, why is that changes in technology and accuracy should be considered for measuring oil, but not global temperature?

Quote:

Remember a single purported data point doesn't constitute proof, unless you can provide the associated assessment areas, and subsequent oil obtained from those assessment areas, and what technologies were assumed economically viable at the time of the USGS assessment(s).

You really do show everyone your ignorance with regard to the subject matter.

But keep digging that hole deeper and deeper, let us all know when you've struck black gold, as I'm having fun.

I provided a link, and you dismissed it. I then provided examples of several other places on Earth where oil was underestimated. You dismissed those, then focused solely on the USGS. I mean, how can you actually be challenging that "we" have underestimated oil reserves in the past?
Moreover, is it fun to act like an idiot, and have other idiots agree with you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

The basic point is that no change in U.S. oil production will change the then going global price for world crude oil at that time.

That's utterly laughable.

Quote:
It's called the "free market." Supply must increase at a greater rate than demand for the price of oil to drop. Given that easily obtained oil is a very fixed finite resource, no one in their right mind, would drain their own oil resource, just to reduce the price that they would subsequently obtain from such a foolish policy.

You simply are incapable of comprehending the most basic of points: World supply will continue to increase, not just US supply.

Quote:

The U.S. isn't just going to open up a 1 MBPD spigot in a single day, it would take years (if not more than a decade) to go from our current ~5+ MBPD production to ~6+ MBPD. Meanwhile, in that time period our, current 5+ MBPD continues unabated, which would deplete current "proven" reserves in less than 12 years.

Frank: We're going to run out of oil in twelve years.

Quote:

You need to wake up, come out of whatever dreams you having, with respect to future U.S. oil production.

I'll bet you whatever you'd like that we're not going to run out of oil in the US in 12 years. Really...name it.

Quote:

Continue posting in the pure belief threads, any topic where objective data can be applied, you really shouldn't post in, as it becomes very easy to defeat your spurious, specious, and wishful thinking.

Whatever, Frank. I have nothing to prove to a Government Employee like yourself.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #135 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I did. And you dismissed it....again. Also Frank, why is that changes in technology and accuracy should be considered for measuring oil, but not global temperature?



I provided a link, and you dismissed it. I then provided examples of several other places on Earth where oil was underestimated. You dismissed those, then focused solely on the USGS. I mean, how can you actually be challenging that "we" have underestimated oil reserves in the past?
Moreover, is it fun to act like an idiot, and have other idiots agree with you?



That's utterly laughable.



You simply are incapable of comprehending the most basic of points: World supply will continue to increase, not just US supply.



Frank: We're going to run out of oil in twelve years.



I'll bet you whatever you'd like that we're not going to run out of oil in the US in 12 years. Really...name it.



Whatever, Frank. I have nothing to prove to a Government Employee like yourself.

... you don't present any useful information, unless you count "I don't think so." as a sound logical rational and reasoned argument. Hint: It isn't.

Let me just add that I don't think I've ever seen a more incoherent post in PO!

SDW takes home the cake on this one.

And for the 6th time, since your original claim was the USGS grossly underestimates oil reserves, based on a web site's biased juxtaposition of a "purported" 88 year old USGS estimate with an "purported" estimate made 88 years later. You information does not meet the minimum requirements of cited reference(s).

And don't present a straw man argument that is irrelevent to the current discussion.

n00b!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #136 of 297
I'm waiting for the "I know you are but what am I?" or maybe "I'm rubber and you're glue"

It's just so hard to watch.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #137 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

You can't say shit on an airplane.

Oh yea? well... "shit on an airplane"

So there.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #138 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I'm waiting for the "I know you are but what am I?" or maybe "I'm rubber and you're glue"

It's just so hard to watch.

You mean the type of arguments that only SDW can make, no data, no links, no references, no analysis.

To which I say: No problem (as in, SDW does not represent any form of challenge in a quantitative debate).
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #139 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You mean the type of arguments that only SDW can make, no data, no links, no references, no analysis.

To which I say: No problem (as in, SDW does not represent any form of challenge in a quantitative debate).

You forgot the part where he doesn't like and dismisses yours!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #140 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You mean the type of arguments that only SDW can make, no data, no links, no references, no analysis.

To which I say: No problem (as in, SDW does not represent any form of challenge in a quantitative debate).

Uh, yea.. that was exactly what I was referring to.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #141 of 297
You know what's going to funny? Fast forward 10 years from now when global warming has taken its toll on the planet, coastal cities are starting to flood, guess who's going to get the blame from Republicans? That's right. Democrats.

But that doesn't make logical sense, you say? Of course it doesn't.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #142 of 297
Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near

Quote:
The fossil-industry maintains its strangle-hold on Washington via demagoguery, using China and other developing nations as scapegoats to rationalize inaction. In fact, we produced most of the excess carbon in the air today, and it is to our advantage as a nation to move smartly in developing ways to reduce emissions. As with the ozone problem, developing countries can be allowed limited extra time to reduce emissions. They will cooperate: they have much to lose from climate change and much to gain from clean air and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.

post #143 of 297
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #144 of 297
NBC Nightly News reports frankly that we're running out of oil.

But but but...my government told me it was just because of "market speculators" and I can go back to sleep...

post #145 of 297
Quote:


Hey! Really good author. I haven't read that one but I have read " Stand On Zanzbar ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #146 of 297
This thread was so much more fun to read with FrankSargent on my ignore list. I encourage everyone to try it...
post #147 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

This thread was so much more fun to read with FrankSargent on my ignore list. I encourage everyone to try it...



Awwwwwww!

You see I agree with Frank.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #148 of 297
I think we should keep all of this discussion in one thread, somehow a lot of this topic has been discussed in the What Obama Really Believes thread. Both threads were started on the same date, this one several hours later.

Or maybe we'll just keep posting in both threads, I have no control over who posts where, with respect to USofA energy policy. Heck, maybe we need a new thread devoted to USofA energy policy?

Anyway, in the other thread, I added up the USofA's proven oil reserves, ~21.5 BBL and the current USGS estimate of onshore "recoverable" oil reserves of 48.5 BBL, for a total of 70 BBL.

I now have been through another Department of the Interior website, the Mineral Management Service (or MMS), and have found their most recent assessments for offshore "recoverable" oil reserves, see Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Assessment 2006 or just see Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of the Nations Outer Continental Shelf, 2006 (PDF file).

[CENTER]
Quote:
Estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable resources (UTRR) for the entire OCS range from 66.6 BBO at the F95 fractile to 115.1 BBO at the F5 fractile with a mean of 85.9 BBO (figure 2 and table 1). Similarly, gas estimates range from 326.4 to 565.9 Tcf with a mean of 419.9 Tcf. On a barrel of oil-equivalence (BOE) basis 54 percent of the potential is located within the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). The Alaska OCS ranks second with 31 percent.

[/CENTER]

Note that most of the GOM UTRR are in the central and western GOM where offshore drilling is not currently banned.

So now adding ~86 BBO to the previous total of 70 BBO gives a total of 156 BBO, which at the current production rate of ~ 5 MBPD (1.825 BBPY) will last ~85 years.

Or if we ramp up domestic oil production by 1 MBPDPY (0.365 BBPYPY) then we will reach 100% of our oil energy needs, assuming our consumption remains at ~21 MBPD (7.665 BBPY), in 16 years. This will remove _~76 BBO from the 156 BBO leaving 80 BBO. The remaining 80 BBO will be used up in ~10 additional years if production remains at 21 MBPD, or ~20 years using a uniform ramp down to zero.

So to reach oil energy independence would take 16 years plus 10 additional years for a total of 26 years to total depletion, or 36 years to total depletion using a uniform ramp down to zero.

Of course if all the retiring baby boomers get RV's with an SUV in tow, than this 156 BBO will be gone in just, oh I don't know, 10 years? \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #149 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

This thread was so much more fun to read with FrankSargent on my ignore list. I encourage everyone to try it...

... A Reassuring Lie line. BTW, no one noticed that you were gone, for my sake try to keep it that way.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #150 of 297
Quote:
BTW, no one noticed that you were gone

... so very hard to watch...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #151 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You mean the type of arguments that only SDW can make, no data, no links, no references, no analysis.

To which I say: No problem (as in, SDW does not represent any form of challenge in a quantitative debate).

Frank: We're going to run out of oil in 12 years.

Your "analysis" is utter bullshit. You're a condescending, arrogant government employee with too much time on your hands. Speaking of which, you spend a lot of time raping the taxpayer by trolling on AI. Tell us Frank, since you don't "hide behind" your screen name, where exactly do you work? Go ahead. Don't be scared.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #152 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Frank: We're going to run out of oil in 12 years.

Your "analysis" is utter bullshit. You're a condescending, arrogant government employee with too much time on your hands. Speaking of which, you spend a lot of time raping the taxpayer by trolling on AI. Tell us Frank, since you don't "hide behind" your screen name, where exactly do you work? Go ahead. Don't be scared.

I work in the private sector now, doing contract work for the USACE ERDC. But I'm also in semi-retirement, and my current contract work is winding down, the project I'm working on ends this year.

See my recent post above, where I've added the offshore numbers to my "quick and dirty" analysis. Which I think is better than just carping;

Frank: We're going to run out of oil in 12 years.

n00b!

[CENTER]
Where in this picture is SDW? Hint: He's full of cracks.[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #153 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You forgot the part where he doesn't like and dismisses yours!

jimmac, I don't think you've made a single coherent point since you've been posting here. You make wild assertions and predictions, then celebrate on the rare occasion that random chance hands you a victory. Hell, you practically have your own language.

"No one's buying today"

"People are mad at Dubya"

"McCain is no better"

"Obama would probably favor programs for the poor and less fortunate"

"Foreshadowing of things to come"

"We've been through this"

"Things aren't as good as they should be"


You can't use the English language. You apparently don't understand how the "reply-quote" button works. Really...what is it you do here?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #154 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Really...what is it that I do here?

Excellent question.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #155 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

jimmac, I don't think you've made a single coherent point since you've been posting here. You make wild assertions and predictions, then celebrate on the rare occasion that random chance hands you a victory. Hell, you practically have your own language.

"No one's buying today"

"People are mad at Dubya"

"McCain is no better"

"Obama would probably favor programs for the poor and less fortunate"

"Foreshadowing of things to come"

"We've been through this"

"Things aren't as good as they should be"


You can't use the English language. You apparently don't understand how the "reply-quote" button works. Really...what is it you do here?

Blahddy, blah, blah, blah! You're fond of picking on everything except the subject at hand aren't you. People who do that don't have an argument left and they know they're losing.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #156 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Blahddy, blah, blah, blah! You're fond of picking on everything except the subject at hand aren't you. People who do that don't have an argument left and they know they're losing.

Pot. Kettle. jimmac.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #157 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Pot. Kettle. jimmac.


I haven't been the one talking about other subjects like spelling now have I?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #158 of 297
Its quite amusing, in virtually every thread SDW is having it handed to him, and has pretty much gone for personal ad-homs and spellings....And we still have what, 5 months to go. Keep it up chaps, the downward spiral has begun, and the marbles are rolling away one by one.

Hopefully, we can push him to mental breakdown by Christmas.
post #159 of 297
Well here's some depressing news on the subject of oil.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/26/mark...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Oil hits $140 for the first time


Quote:
The largest supply concern came out of Libya, which threatened to reduce production.

According to a report by the Bloomberg news service, Shokri Ghanem, chairman of Libya's National Oil Corporation, said reductions may be made because the market is oversupplied
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #160 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well here's some depressing news on the subject of oil.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/26/mark...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Oil hits $140 for the first time

I wouldn't worry, the oil crash is coming



just make sure you dont have any financial investments that are tied to oil.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices