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

Here, Chicken Little

Cal

Well-known member
fff said:
Cal said:
fff said:
Because Congress turns to the Attorney General to enforce their rulings. They've subpoenaed Carl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify before Congress. Both just ignored them. Who does the Attorney General work for? The President of the United States. Why do you think Alberto resigned? Because he was going to be implicated in illegal activities.

IMO, after this election Congress needs to set up a special investigation unit, prosecutor, whatever, to investigate all these things and report to the American public. It's mind boggling to see how the Bush-Cheney Administration damaged our country's basic freedoms. Even if no one goes to jail, there should be an accounting, an acknowledgement of what went on and what it's cost this country.
Which basic freedoms have been taken away from you?

Read it again. Oh, right, you just want to twist words. Won't work. I never said ANY basic freedom had been taken away from ME, I said "damaged our country's basic freedoms".

The Bush Administration arrested at least one American citizen and held him for years without an attorney or charges. A basic American right is legal representation and to be charged in a public court. Some civil rights groups claim they held as many as 20 Americans without charges or attorneys.

Our right to privacy has been damaged with all the illegal electronic surveillance done by this Administration.

Now that Bush has claimed those rights for his Administration, do you expect the next one will happily give them up?
Oh, you made it sound like law abiding citizens actually lost basic freedoms. When, of course they didn't.

I am certain that the terrorist organizations that would like to see us (well, maybe not supporters like you) dead appreciate all of the spinning and rhetoric you do to help make their goals within reach, again.

They should also be appreciative of boobs like you that give your all to keep that oil coming in from the Middle East, and keeping a lid on domestic development. Not drilling in ANWR....talk about bending over and getting rammed by special interest zealots.
 

Cal

Well-known member
May 22, 2008
How much have the Democrats cost you at the pump?
Marc Sheppard
Senator Chuck Schumer claims that coercing Saudi Arabia to increase oil production by 1 million barrels a day would drop the per barrel price by $25, saving Americans 62 cent per gallon at the gas pump. Yet, somehow, that same amount of oil coming from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would only ease oil prices by a penny.


In a Senate floor speech he gave on May 13th, the New York Democrat insisted that:


"If Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the world price of crude oil, and crude oil prices could fall by more than $25 dollar per barrel from its current level of $126 per barrel. In turn, that would lower the price of gasoline between 13 percent and 17 percent, or by more than 62 cents off the expected summer regular-grade price - offering much needed relief to struggling families. "


Schumer repeated these words almost verbatim when grilling oil company executives during yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.


Yet Schumer's daily magic number of 1 million barrels is the exact increase experts believe we would today be pumping through the Alyeska pipeline had Bill Clinton not vetoed ANWR drilling back in 1995. And even the most rabid anti-domestic-drilling Democrats don't take issue with that figure.


So then, the increase he demands of "Bush's friends," the Saudis - which he claims would reduce prices by up to 25 percent -- is the exact amount he argued earlier this month would only "reduce the price of oil by a penny" were it coming from ANWR - eco-sacred breeding ground of the Porcupine Caribou.


It doesn't take a Ph.D in economics to know that both figures can't be right.


Nor one in Poli-Sci to know why they're so starkly different nonetheless.
Posted at 01:41 PM
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/how_much_have_the_democrats_co.html at May 23, 2008 - 10:42:41 PM EDT
 

fff

Well-known member
Cal said:
fff said:
Cal said:
Which basic freedoms have been taken away from you?

Read it again. Oh, right, you just want to twist words. Won't work. I never said ANY basic freedom had been taken away from ME, I said "damaged our country's basic freedoms".

The Bush Administration arrested at least one American citizen and held him for years without an attorney or charges. A basic American right is legal representation and to be charged in a public court. Some civil rights groups claim they held as many as 20 Americans without charges or attorneys.

Our right to privacy has been damaged with all the illegal electronic surveillance done by this Administration.

Now that Bush has claimed those rights for his Administration, do you expect the next one will happily give them up?

Oh, you made it sound like law abiding citizens actually lost basic freedoms. When, of course they didn't.

I am certain that the terrorist organizations that would like to see us (well, maybe not supporters like you) dead appreciate all of the spinning and rhetoric you do to help make their goals within reach, again.

They should also be appreciative of boobs like you that give your all to keep that oil coming in from the Middle East, and keeping a lid on domestic development. Not drilling in ANWR....talk about bending over and getting rammed by special interest zealots.

Law abiding American citizens did lose basic freedoms. They were picked up, jailed and kept in solitary confinment for months, years even, before the Supreme Court ruled it illegal. What's to stop the Bush Administration from doing the same thing to you or me? Nothing. Freedom from fear of our own government shouldn't even be something we're even discussing. What's the point of having all the oil we need if our government can come along and arrest you on a whim?

The rest of your post is laughable, an old, tired rehash of Bush talking points that won the election in 2004, but don't seem to be working in 2008. :lol:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
fff said:
Cal said:
fff said:
Read it again. Oh, right, you just want to twist words. Won't work. I never said ANY basic freedom had been taken away from ME, I said "damaged our country's basic freedoms".

The Bush Administration arrested at least one American citizen and held him for years without an attorney or charges. A basic American right is legal representation and to be charged in a public court. Some civil rights groups claim they held as many as 20 Americans without charges or attorneys.

Our right to privacy has been damaged with all the illegal electronic surveillance done by this Administration.

Now that Bush has claimed those rights for his Administration, do you expect the next one will happily give them up?

Oh, you made it sound like law abiding citizens actually lost basic freedoms. When, of course they didn't.

I am certain that the terrorist organizations that would like to see us (well, maybe not supporters like you) dead appreciate all of the spinning and rhetoric you do to help make their goals within reach, again.

They should also be appreciative of boobs like you that give your all to keep that oil coming in from the Middle East, and keeping a lid on domestic development. Not drilling in ANWR....talk about bending over and getting rammed by special interest zealots.

Law abiding American citizens did lose basic freedoms. They were picked up, jailed and kept in solitary confinment for months, years even, before the Supreme Court ruled it illegal. What's to stop the Bush Administration from doing the same thing to you or me? Nothing. Freedom from fear of our own government shouldn't even be something we're even discussing. What's the point of having all the oil we need if our government can come along and arrest you on a whim?

The rest of your post is laughable, an old, tired rehash of Bush talking points that won the election in 2004, but don't seem to be working in 2008. :lol:

Just like ALL of your posts fff.
 

Cal

Well-known member
fff said:
Cal said:
fff said:
Read it again. Oh, right, you just want to twist words. Won't work. I never said ANY basic freedom had been taken away from ME, I said "damaged our country's basic freedoms".

The Bush Administration arrested at least one American citizen and held him for years without an attorney or charges. A basic American right is legal representation and to be charged in a public court. Some civil rights groups claim they held as many as 20 Americans without charges or attorneys.

Our right to privacy has been damaged with all the illegal electronic surveillance done by this Administration.

Now that Bush has claimed those rights for his Administration, do you expect the next one will happily give them up?

Oh, you made it sound like law abiding citizens actually lost basic freedoms. When, of course they didn't.

I am certain that the terrorist organizations that would like to see us (well, maybe not supporters like you) dead appreciate all of the spinning and rhetoric you do to help make their goals within reach, again.

They should also be appreciative of boobs like you that give your all to keep that oil coming in from the Middle East, and keeping a lid on domestic development. Not drilling in ANWR....talk about bending over and getting rammed by special interest zealots.

Law abiding American citizens did lose basic freedoms. They were picked up, jailed and kept in solitary confinment for months, years even, before the Supreme Court ruled it illegal. What's to stop the Bush Administration from doing the same thing to you or me? Nothing. Freedom from fear of our own government shouldn't even be something we're even discussing. What's the point of having all the oil we need if our government can come along and arrest you on a whim?

The rest of your post is laughable, an old, tired rehash of Bush talking points that won the election in 2004, but don't seem to be working in 2008. :lol:
I see....soooo 20 (?) suspected terrorists were locked up and you're worried that you could be locked up as well. I see your point, but I still think we need oil whether you're detained for being a terrorist suspect or not.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Well, as far as the argument about oil, ALL the easy to drill oil is gone, yes, but there is lots of oil here in the USA and these environmental groups need to step aside and we need to be doing whatever it takes to get this country self supporting again. Drilling for oil, building refineries, etc.........

HOWEVER, no one mentions the car companies who need to triple, yes triple, the mpg USA vehicles get..... and don't tell me it can't be done. I know too many people who've worked for these car companies back years ago when they bought out the patents that would increase gas mileage.

Secondly, no one wants to mention all this worthless junk the federal reserve is taking in from banks and giving them real currency in exchange for this worthless stuff so they can turn around and invest it in commodities.... hellooooooo? Taxpayers are getting it up the wazoo twice by the Fed reserve giving out money to stockholder banks of the federal reserve backed by a bailout from taxpayers (nobody wants to talk about JP Morgan who owns controlling stock of the Federal reserve putting taxpayers on the hook for a 29 billion bear stearns buyout, I mean afterall what have they done with the interest they got from printing US dollars?? and don't tell me they turn it all back to the US treasury..... the last report I could find was in 2005 the Federal reserve took in $29 billion in interest and only turned over $275 MILLION back to the US treasury.... big, big difference.)
Then these banks invest in commodities and we get it up the wazoo again with high gas prices........... RAISE the interest rates!!!!!! Actually Congress needs to take back the currency as under the consitution.


Now back to your original post Texan:
Its all wonderful to say that unemployment, CPI, GDP, inflation, and any other rates you want to quote at current today's government reports are LOW.......... what those IDIOTS you quoted on the first page fail to tell you or anyone else.....
IF you figured unemployment the SAME way they figured it in 1930 what would it be today??? (I CAN tell you that www.shadowstats.com has said unemployment today, figured the same way they figured it in 1980 before Clinton changed the way it was figured, its at 13%........ kind of paints a different picture doesn't it????

CPI doesn't include food, utilities and medicine???? Who the hell can live w/o food, utilities or medicine???? Certainly not folks on a fixed income, especially seniors ...... and yet their COLA's are based on this false CPI???

GDP according to shadowstats.com is at MINUS 3% and of course your report doesn't mention that next year they will probably adjust down the GDP for this year....

I'm sick and tired of government lies of these reports. If they don't like what it says, then they throw out this or that or refigure it so that they can get it down to whatever percentage they want.......... I don't know what you call it, but we used to call that "creative accounting" and no it wouldn't hold up to an audit either.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
MoGal said:
figured the same way they figured it in 1980 before Clinton changed the way it was figured,

They did not call him "Slick Willy" for nothing. He changed the way a lot of things were figured. Heck he even changed the meaning of what Sexual Relations meant.
 

Cal

Well-known member
MoGal quote: HOWEVER, no one mentions the car companies who need to triple, yes triple, the mpg USA vehicles get..... and don't tell me it can't be done. I know too many people who've worked for these car companies back years ago when they bought out the patents that would increase gas mileage.
That's absurd! If one of the car companies could build a usable car that people would want to buy, that would pass the epa regs., and get 90mpg, don't you think they would?Such a car would sell like hotcakes, and you think the automakers are, what, protecting big oil??
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Yes Cal, I think the oil companies and car companies share some of their stock with each other. Yes, I do think they've been in bed together for quite a few years and its not been in the "peoples" best interest.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
I think the cost of producing such cars was never fiscally smart until maybe now. Gas has always been super cheap when you adjust it each year for inflation. Only until the last couple years has it made market adjustments that would really show the need for radical changes in gas mileage and much like in the 70's you will probably see Japan leading the direction towards this.

Like I mentioned before Nissan is releasing an all battery powered car in 2010, which very well could start the cycle rolling for car companies to make changes based on Market Needs not government regulations.

Consumers have been the dictator of the car companies in the past, when crew cab trucks and SUV's are the biggest seller of all three Major car companies why would they work towards, lighter, smaller and better gas mileage cars? This was the big threes complaint when the government forced them to develop battery cars in California back in late 90's, they claimed there was no market to sell them, nobody would buy an electric car with gas so cheap, that people wanted a Chevy Suburban not a limited mile range Battery Car, that is how they got the Government mandate to be dropped, lack of saleability.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
But ya know...I was watching that news brief on the NASA channel yesterday and thought of this question:

A robot can be sent on a 10 month journey to a distant planet, land in a CERTAIN spot on that planet, remotely communicate to us on the Earth and do all these wonderful experiments.....and they can't make a car that gets 50 mph on something like waste water or the like??????


I mean the science doesn't make sense UNTIL you turn around a see the BIG OIL companies/hedge funds in the shadows of our economy.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
But ya know...I was watching that news brief on the NASA channel yesterday and thought of this question:

A robot can be sent on a 10 month journey to a distant planet, land in a CERTAIN spot on that planet, remotely communicate to us on the Earth and do all these wonderful experiments.....and they can't make a car that gets 50 mph on something like waste water or the like??????


I mean the science doesn't make sense UNTIL you turn around a see the BIG OIL companies/hedge funds in the shadows of our economy.

I can not rule out conspiracies etc.....They may be real and they may not be.

But economics play a large part. If NASA type technology and products were used the cost of the car would be outlandish and as I showed from an article previously the cost of gas is a small portion of the owning of a car. So if they make a car that gets 75 mpg but it cost you 10,000 more dollars to buy than one that gets 30 is it really economically feasible?

Most people drive less than say 12,000 miles per year. Say they get 28 mpg now but they buy a new car that gets double that at 56 mpg they would only save around $800.00 a year in gas. The cost of technology to double the mileage of a car from 28 mpg to 56 mpg would increase the purchase price way more than it would save on gas.

Another big problem is the EPA, people want cars to get better mileage but the EPA and liberals want them to burn green. Diesel is the most widely used fuel in the world, Diesel cars can get way better mileage than those on gasoline. One of the best fuel mileage cars out there in America is the VW TDI cars like the Jetta TDI. But it is so hard to make a Diesel that will pass EPA regulations that are so strict in the U.S. And now with the new EPA standards on sulphur in Diesel they have pushed Diesel prices to be around 80 cents higher (in my area) than regular gasoline. So now diesel is even less attractive in our country because it is now higher than gasoline when it use to always be cheaper.

All this Global Warming, Save the Planet and be green stuff is costing us. Maybe it is worth it, but at least Liberals should not complain about the high cost of transportation because it is their agenda that has played a large part in driving up the cost.

Typical Liberal vs Conservative issue, Liberals pass laws and stifle expansion but conservatives get blamed because they are Capitalist that increase prices to accommodate these regulations so as to maintain a profit margin that keeps them in business.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I think that fuel for transportation of goods ( trucking of food, etc) farming,production of goods for the economy etc should be at a lower cost for those folks. You want to see this country go in nose first...let those truck STOP!!! :shock: :shock:

Yes fuel is high BUT I see it making people think before they jump in a car to go the mall 5 times a day, make 3 trips to town when it could have been done in one.

Yes, I know we all have had ' those days' where you seem to backtrack yourself 3 times over, but there are way WAY too many people that don't think before they head out.

This will lower the congestion on the roads, lower road deaths, thus ( hopefully) lower our insurance rates.

I'm lucky I don't have to drive to work anymore...just a few meetings every month or so so it really doesn't cause me too much harm @ the gas pump but I see how it's causing hardship on people around me in the valley here.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
One acre grows about 2,000 lbs. of hops. Hops prices have risen nearly tenfold recently due to these higher fuel costs, plus a bit of nasty weather in Europe. . . . The really demoralizing downside to high fuel costs is that your local brew pub is going to ding you, on average, an extra 25 cents for a pint of beer."

Now we are talking serious stuff here! When the price of beer goes up it is realy going to hit hard on the old pocket book. :lol:
 

Latest posts

Top