• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Bush Just Raised Oil Prices Again

Mike

Well-known member
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

VIENNA, Austria -- Oil prices set yet another intraday trading record Tuesday, surging close to U.S.$114 after the U.S. dollar fell and crude oil shipments along one U.S. pipeline were said to be moving below capacity.

Before falling back, light, sweet crude for May delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange was trading at US$113.66 a barrel by afternoon in Europe. That was US$1.45 above the trading record set last week.
_________________________________________________________

How bad does it have to get for the DEMs to allow drilling in ANWAR? :roll:
 

jigs

Well-known member
Mike, you ignorant redneck neocon!

don't you know that the pristine enviroment of Anwar is too valuable as a picturesque landscape, and home to many varieties of life that will be totally lost by drilling??

it is more valuable to keep as it is, rather than get the oil we need.
I would rather see this country bankrupted by high oil than disturb nature.


a simple solution is to ride bikes and walk rather than drive. we all go to solar and wind power for out energy.

and pull out of Iraq...that is the REAL reason for high oil prices...well, when it is not Bushes fault I mean....






The above is a prime example of a Dem, better know as someone "talking out of thier @$$. "
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
And Canada thx you :p

Crude oil futures closed at a record high Monday, powering some of Canada's biggest energy companies to all-time highs.


CBC News
The May contract for crude oil settled at $111.76 US a barrel, up $1.72. That's the highest close for a near-month contract on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

The TSX energy sub-index rose 2.6 per cent, making it by far the best performing sector on the Toronto market.

Oil and gas stocks posted big gains. Canadian Natural Resources jumped $3.93 to $82.32; Suncor climbed $2.93 to $109.75; Talisman rose 62 cents to $20.06; EnCana gained $1.87 to $82.02.

In the cases of both EnCana and Canadian Natural Resources, the closing prices Monday were record highs.

Energy stocks also got a boost from rising natural gas prices. The near-month contract rose 15 cents to $10.05 US per million BTUs. Gas prices have risen by a third since the start of the year.

A forecast from CIBC World Markets on Monday said continuing strength in oil and gas prices will help to push the Canadian dollar back above par - with a potential upside of $1.05 US by the end of this year.

Printer-friendly page
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

VIENNA, Austria -- Oil prices set yet another intraday trading record Tuesday, surging close to U.S.$114 after the U.S. dollar fell and crude oil shipments along one U.S. pipeline were said to be moving below capacity.

Before falling back, light, sweet crude for May delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange was trading at US$113.66 a barrel by afternoon in Europe. That was US$1.45 above the trading record set last week.
_________________________________________________________

How bad does it have to get for the DEMs to allow drilling in ANWAR? :roll:

Mike Why didn't the republicans pass this through(drilling in Anwar) when they had control of both houses for so many years?? As I recall gripes about gas prices started long before they hit $3 / gal. Just wondering.
 

Mike

Well-known member
TSR said:
Mike said:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

VIENNA, Austria -- Oil prices set yet another intraday trading record Tuesday, surging close to U.S.$114 after the U.S. dollar fell and crude oil shipments along one U.S. pipeline were said to be moving below capacity.

Before falling back, light, sweet crude for May delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange was trading at US$113.66 a barrel by afternoon in Europe. That was US$1.45 above the trading record set last week.
_________________________________________________________

How bad does it have to get for the DEMs to allow drilling in ANWAR? :roll:

Mike Why didn't the republicans pass this through(drilling in Anwar) when they had control of both houses for so many years?? As I recall gripes about gas prices started long before they hit $3 / gal. Just wondering.

They just never could get the House, Senate, and Pres. to agree to it all at the same time. I think the House has passed it 5 times and the Senate once, but not at the same time.

Clinton vetoed it several times I believe.

The enviro-whackos are still against it. :shock:
 

jodywy

Well-known member
Yes, the Repubs had control of the House, but did not have total full control of the Senate due to an item known as Cloture. They did not have 60 Repubs in the Senate. Demos used the Cloture item to bargain and obstruct in the Senate.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

Cloture in the Senate requires cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

Information about Cloture in the US Senate below:

Filibusters/Cloture
http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_senaterules.htm#filibusters
The dearth of debate limitations in Senate rules creates the possibility of filibusters. Individual Senators or minority groups of Senators who adamantly oppose a bill or amendment may speak against it at great length, in the hope of changing their colleagues' minds, winning support for amendments that meet their objections, or convincing the Senate to withdraw the bill or amendment from further consideration on the floor. Opposing Senators also can delay final floor action by offering numerous amendments and motions, insisting that amendments be read in full, demanding roll call votes on amendments and motions, and a using a variety of other devices.

The only formal procedure that Senate rules provide for breaking filibusters is to invoke cloture under the provisions of paragraph 2 of Rule XXII. However, cloture cannot be voted until two days after it is proposed, and a simple majority of the Senate is insufficient to invoke cloture.

Cloture requires the support of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, or a minimum of 60 votes (unless the matter being considered changes the standing rules, in which case cloture requires a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting). For this reason alone, cloture can be difficult to invoke and almost always requires some bipartisan support. In addition, some Senators are reluctant to vote for cloture, even if they support the legislation being jeopardized by the filibuster, precisely because the right of extended debate is such an integral element of Senate history and procedure.

Even if the Senate does invoke cloture on a bill (or anything else), the result is not an immediate vote on passing the bill. The cloture rule permits a maximum of thirty additional hours for considering the bill, during which each Senator may speak for one hour. The time consumed by roll call votes and quorum calls is deducted from the thirty hour total; as a result, each Senator does not have an opportunity to speak for a full hour, although he or she is guaranteed at least ten minutes for debate. Thus, cloture does not stop debate immediately; it only ensures that debate cannot continue indefinitely. And even the thirty hours allowed under cloture is quite a long time for the Senate to devote to any one bill, especially since Senators may not be willing to invoke cloture until the bill already has been debated at considerable length.

The link below is to a PDF about Cloture from the Repub website. I suggest downloading it. It is 13 pages long. It has a lot of history about it.
http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Apr2505ConstOptSD.pdf
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
jodywy said:
Yes, the Repubs had control of the House, but did not have total full control of the Senate due to an item known as Cloture. They did not have 60 Repubs in the Senate. Demos used the Cloture item to bargain and obstruct in the Senate.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

Cloture in the Senate requires cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

Information about Cloture in the US Senate below:

Filibusters/Cloture
http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_senaterules.htm#filibusters
The dearth of debate limitations in Senate rules creates the possibility of filibusters. Individual Senators or minority groups of Senators who adamantly oppose a bill or amendment may speak against it at great length, in the hope of changing their colleagues' minds, winning support for amendments that meet their objections, or convincing the Senate to withdraw the bill or amendment from further consideration on the floor. Opposing Senators also can delay final floor action by offering numerous amendments and motions, insisting that amendments be read in full, demanding roll call votes on amendments and motions, and a using a variety of other devices.

The only formal procedure that Senate rules provide for breaking filibusters is to invoke cloture under the provisions of paragraph 2 of Rule XXII. However, cloture cannot be voted until two days after it is proposed, and a simple majority of the Senate is insufficient to invoke cloture.

Cloture requires the support of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, or a minimum of 60 votes (unless the matter being considered changes the standing rules, in which case cloture requires a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting). For this reason alone, cloture can be difficult to invoke and almost always requires some bipartisan support. In addition, some Senators are reluctant to vote for cloture, even if they support the legislation being jeopardized by the filibuster, precisely because the right of extended debate is such an integral element of Senate history and procedure.

Even if the Senate does invoke cloture on a bill (or anything else), the result is not an immediate vote on passing the bill. The cloture rule permits a maximum of thirty additional hours for considering the bill, during which each Senator may speak for one hour. The time consumed by roll call votes and quorum calls is deducted from the thirty hour total; as a result, each Senator does not have an opportunity to speak for a full hour, although he or she is guaranteed at least ten minutes for debate. Thus, cloture does not stop debate immediately; it only ensures that debate cannot continue indefinitely. And even the thirty hours allowed under cloture is quite a long time for the Senate to devote to any one bill, especially since Senators may not be willing to invoke cloture until the bill already has been debated at considerable length.

The link below is to a PDF about Cloture from the Repub website. I suggest downloading it. It is 13 pages long. It has a lot of history about it.
http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Apr2505ConstOptSD.pdf

Yep---the same thing the minority Republicans are now using- which is causing the Congress ability to act on many important bills to come to a standstill...
Whatever happened to the old bipartisan compromise working for the betterment of the country and what the wish's of the majority are, that we had years ago- and that GW promised in his campaigning to achieve, but forgot the minute he took office... :???:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Whatever happened to the old bipartisan compromise working for the betterment of the country and what the wish's of the majority are, that we had years ago- and that GW promised in his campaigning to achieve, but forgot the minute he took office...

You're not only a HIPPO KRIT!!!! You're a dumba$$ too!!!

GW's not in the Senate. :lol: :lol:

Wishes of the Majority? That's called a "Chaotic Democracy".

The wishes of the majority are instilled around who gets voted in. :roll:

What do you want? The country to be run by POLLS? :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Whatever happened to the old bipartisan compromise working for the betterment of the country and what the wish's of the majority are, that we had years ago- and that GW promised in his campaigning to achieve, but forgot the minute he took office...

You're not only a HIPPO KRIT!!!! You're a dumba$$ too!!!

GW's not in the Senate. :lol: :lol:

Wishes of the Majority? That's called a "Chaotic Democracy".

The wishes of the majority are instilled around who gets voted in. :roll:

What do you want? The country to be run by POLLS? :roll:

Presidents of the past used much of their power to work with the leadership of both houses to work out legislation which was needed/beneficial/believed necessary at the time....Even Clinton did at times....
Now all it seems to be is confrontation- and in doing so is further dividing the population.....

The leaders of this country should try to run this country and set policy by what the feelings of the majority of the people of the country want-instead of the current policy of whichever lobbyiest pays the most money-- and especially not doing as GW has by arrogantly promoting a policy of avoiding enforcement of the laws he doesn't like, while often going against the wishes of the nation... ....Best example is illegal immigrants and the continued invasion of our country thru a border that GW refuses to do his sworn duty to secure....

This is the reason I feel the most power should be retained at the community/state levels where voters are closer to the leadership- and have more direct input....

Problem is they have all become politicians- and we have no statesmen or public servants anymore......

On April 9 we listed how liberal interest groups rated all the senators. Today we have ratings from the conservative interest groups. What is most striking is how polarized the Senate has become. With one exception, Ben Nelson (D-NE), even the least conservative Republican is more conservative than the most conservative Democrat. It was not like this at all in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. It is not so much that the Democrats have become more liberal as that the Republican party has been completely purged of the likes of Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, and many other moderate Republicans. While Democrats have rid themselves of people like Sen. James Eastland (D-MS) and Sen. John Stennis (D-MS), there are still plenty of conservative Democrats around and not so many liberal firebrands like Barbara Boxer (D-CA). This incredible polarization is why the Senate has basically ceased to function. It used to be that most senators worked across the aisle. Now if a senator has lunch with a senator from the other party he or she can count on this as forming the basis for an attack ad come reelection time.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/Apr14.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This could be the reason the Administration is still building the national oil stocks daily- and refuses to allow access to them as has been done before during periods of excess prices.....

Source: U.S. Strike on Iran Nearing

Monday, April 14, 2008 9:37 PM

By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size


Contrary to some claims that the Bush administration will allow diplomacy to handle Iran’s nuclear weapons program, a leading member of America’s Jewish community tells Newsmax that a military strike is not only on the table – but likely.

“Israel is preparing for heavy casualties,” the source said, suggesting that although Israel will not take part in the strike, it is expecting to be the target of Iranian retribution.

“Look at Dick Cheney’s recent trip through the Middle East as preparation for the U.S. attack,” the source said.


Cheney’s hastily arranged 9-day visit to the region, which began on March 16, included stops in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Turkey, and the Palestinian territories.


Tensions in the region have been rising.

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/iran_nuclear_strike/2008/04/14/87887.html

The Future of Truck drivers under GW Policy.....

whatdog6.jpg
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The leaders of this country should try to run this country and set policy by what the feelings of the majority of the people of the country want...
In that case, I guess we might as well get rid of the Senate. After all, why should a place like Montana have just as much clout in the Senate as a more populated state? To hell with the rural areas and production agriculture - just give the cities what they want?

I KNOW you don't mean that, OT.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
The leaders of this country should try to run this country and set policy by what the feelings of the majority of the people of the country want...
In that case, I guess we might as well get rid of the Senate. After all, why should a place like Montana have just as much clout in the Senate as a more populated state? To hell with the rural areas and production agriculture - just give the cities what they want?

I KNOW you don't mean that, OT.

Thats the reason the peoples house-- the House of Representatives was set up- and the reason they have shot down many of these things like the NAFTA Mexican trucking, immunity, and the immigration bills that have come out of the Senate/White House- which GW just turned around and ignored their wishes anyway....
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
The leaders of this country should try to run this country and set policy by what the feelings of the majority of the people of the country want...
In that case, I guess we might as well get rid of the Senate. After all, why should a place like Montana have just as much clout in the Senate as a more populated state? To hell with the rural areas and production agriculture - just give the cities what they want?

I KNOW you don't mean that, OT.

Thats the reason the peoples house-- the House of Representatives was set up- and the reason they have shot down many of these things like the NAFTA Mexican trucking and the immigration bills that have come out of the Senate- which GW just turned around and ignored their wishes anyway....
The reason the Senate was set up was to give the states with smaller populations more of a say in government. So that the states with larger populations wouldn't be able to control everything. And you want to do away with that?

The "peoples house" as you call it so affectionately has more members from inner-city slums than it does from western states. Last I heard, there were 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus. They represent more people than all of cow country put together. Do you really want them to call all of the shots?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
Texan said:
In that case, I guess we might as well get rid of the Senate. After all, why should a place like Montana have just as much clout in the Senate as a more populated state? To hell with the rural areas and production agriculture - just give the cities what they want?

I KNOW you don't mean that, OT.

Thats the reason the peoples house-- the House of Representatives was set up- and the reason they have shot down many of these things like the NAFTA Mexican trucking and the immigration bills that have come out of the Senate- which GW just turned around and ignored their wishes anyway....
The reason the Senate was set up was to give the states with smaller populations more of a say in government. So that the states with larger populations wouldn't be able to control everything. And you want to do away with that?

The "peoples house" as you call it so affectionately has more members from inner-city slums than it does from western states. Last I heard, there were 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus. They represent more people than all of cow country put together. Do you really want them to call all of the shots?

Do you really think the rural areas get represented now? I'd just as soon we went back to states rights and small federal government- and leave 90% of the things GW and his ever building drunken sailor spending bureacracy is doing to the states and local governments to handle...And following the Constitution- like leaving declaring wars and ratifying treaties only to Congress...

But that becomes harder for the Big Lobbyiest money to influence- so the Corporate interests and elitists don't want to see that....
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Do you really think the rural areas get represented now?
Not effectively in the House of Representatives - your "peoples house." But they damn sure get represented in the Senate. Montana and Wyoming have just as many votes in the Senate as New York and Florida. South Dakota and Nebraska have just as many votes in the Senate as Texas and California. I'd say that levels the playing field somewhat - just as it was intended to do.

I can't believe you want to do away with that system and let the majority rule. :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
Do you really think the rural areas get represented now?
Not effectively in the House of Representatives - your "peoples house." But they damn sure get represented in the Senate. Montana and Wyoming have just as many votes in the Senate as New York and Florida. South Dakota and Nebraska have just as many votes in the Senate as Texas and California. I'd say that levels the playing field somewhat - just as it was intended to do.

I can't believe you want to do away with that system and let the majority rule. :???:

You may be right about the Senate levelling the playing field- but anymore so much of the Senates work goes toward sponsoring legislation/pork completely on lobbyiest dollars and sometimes completely out of their area- (like our former Montana Senators support of giving taxpayer dollars to the richest reservation in the country which was in Michigan :shock: )...But when it become public, the majority of the people ruled- and he got his arse booted :wink: :lol:

I still think the Federal government needs to be greatly downsized- and many of these issues given back to the states to handle....
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
You may be right about the Senate levelling the playing field- but anymore so much of the Senates work goes toward sponsoring legislation/pork completely on lobbyiest dollars

Is that what they use for the welfare models?
 

Latest posts

Top