Thread Tools

**buddhaHybrid** · February 5th, 10:06 PM

Thanks for repeating what I said, I'm sure it will double the effect.

2nd Funny Fact, all the Republican candidates are still conservative. One would think they would have learned their lesson.

***NYY*** · February 5th, 10:30 PM

What are you talking about?

**sNoW PIrAnHa** · February 5th, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddhaHybrid

Thanks for repeating what I said, I'm sure it will double the effect.

2nd Funny Fact, all the Republican candidates are still conservative. One would think they would have learned their lesson.

Repeating what you just said? Get your head out of your ass.

While we said similar things in our posts I explained it better (I didn't assume he was the majority). Additionally, I didn't read your post. After your broad generalization of the democratic party (apparently everyone in the democratic party couldn't care if Hillary or Obama won), I feel your posts (especially in this thread) hold little value. Sorry.

Your funny fact makes little sense. If it was an attempt at humor it failed. If it was an attempt at anything besides a meaningless pile of ****. (Last time I checked Ron Paul, a Republican candidate, wasn't conservative, he was libertarian)

**Number One Andrew** · February 6th, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYY

Clinton is a political opportunist. Libs seemed to forget pretty quickly that she was on the board of directors for Wal Mart. People seem to forget that she supported war with Iraq BEFORE 9/11 and BEFORE Bush "lied" to us. As soon as the wind changes directions, she hops on the other side of the fence and proclaims herself as anti war. She ran for senate in NY when she had absolutely no reason to. She was first lady of Arkansas, she went to college in Boston, she was born in Illinois... But she ran in NY (blue state).

I respect Obama infinitely more than Clinton. It's not just that I would never vote for her. I don't respect her, and think that she's a dirty, manipulative person.

Come now, you must know Obama is worse. He's a sellout and a racist!

**mspainter** · February 6th, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sNoW PIrAnHa

(Last time I checked Ron Paul, a Republican candidate, wasn't conservative, he was libertarian)

My teacher calls him a libertarian all the time.

ericjones80 · February 6th, 03:17 PM

I'm going to write in Ross Perot

**buddhaHybrid** · February 6th, 04:58 PM

Let me explain my stand point: my posts have been pretty ridiculous since I haven't explain why.

It really won't matter which one of them gets into office (thats my opinion). Honestly, I think they will accomplish (or lack thereof) the same thing. Social security is ****ed, as we use to have 35 workers for every retired person in the '40s, now we have about 3, and its only going to decrease while the amount of retired people increases. So, we will either increase taxes a lot or abolish the system... and we won't abolish it b/c the AARP is the MOST powerful voting force AND the 2nd most persuasive lobbying force. After the NRA of course.

Finding an alternative to oil is, IMHO, the biggest issue. War in the Middle East isn't going to end; sorry all, sorry Bush. By ten years we will be having brownouts nationwide that will quickly become permanent blackouts. Any fix of this requires federal intiative and federal dollas. Also, productions have begun to peak (hello grains!) and our economy is hurtin'.

In context of those issues, their (Clinton's and Obama's) plans are pretty much the same. I see those issues as the most important. Thus, I think there will be little difference in our nation regardless of who is elected. Support our troops! Support electrolysis!

**Jinjiro** · February 6th, 05:46 PM

You should read the Conde Nast Portfolio article on why we're not as screwed with oil as you'd think, and why the prices will actually drop by as much as 50% in the near future. I couldn't find it online, but maybe I can scan it.

Basically it boils down to the fact that there is a lag in oil production. The prices we have now are a direct result of actions taken in the early 90s. Back then oil companies decided to halt research on new oil sources and stop putting money into new discoveries and methods. It was cheaper to use the existing oil fields we had access to. It was too expensive to get oil out of these new locations.

Now, however, due to war, politics, and natural disasters, we are not in a good position. Oil companies recognized this a few years ago, and began putting more money into new productions. Before, $30-$50 for a barrel of oil was too high and not worth it for oil companies. Since we're now at like $100 a barrel (or close to it), the $30-$50 barrels are looking great! So companies have gone back to the methods they abandoned. Places like the oil sands in Alberta, Canada are gearing up production. Many say there is more oil in the oil sands than in a lot of the Middle Eastern countries. There is also a lot of oil in shale rock, in places like Colorado, which scientists are working on finding a suitable way of extracting it. China is also finding new oil reserves. Expensive derricks in Texas that were shut down in the 90s have been started back up. Also, alternative energy sources are gaining in popularity. Whether it means more homes are being powered with solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear, or if it means that corn and soy beans are turned into fuel, we will not be relying solely on oil. There are many more examples, but that is all I can think of right now.

Also, back during OPEC's embargo, one of the top OPEC guys urged them to not push it too far. He said Americans will not put up with this - they are resilient, and will find a way around the embargo if OPEC gets too greedy. Sure enough, Americans cut back, drove smaller cars, found alternatives, etc. The same thing can be said today. OPEC, which now controls 40% of all oil in the world, will start to lose their grip.

If the article is right - which I hope it is - we may very well see prices drop back to $2 a gallon or maybe even lower. It is certainly wishful thinking, but the article had plenty of reasoning behind it. We'll have to wait and see.

-Jin

**mspainter** · February 6th, 08:01 PM

Wow jin, I think me and you stand pretty close on these issues. I was going to actually talk about a similar article. We are not nearly out of oil on this planet, although one day we might be. This day would be VERY far ahead in the future.

I will say, however, that alternative energy would still be nice. While I believe the the globe isn't warming because of us, I still think that we don't have to burn as much oil as we do. I think that solar and wind power should be put into effect in much more places of the country. I forgot which country it was, but either France or maybe Denmark runs on about 80% nuclear power!

**buddhaHybrid** · February 6th, 08:19 PM

Nuclear power plants are essentially powered by oil, at least so I was told.

I was basing my dates on the paper by Rich Duncan about his Olduvai Theory and a massive project by magazine National Geographic... One opinion piece and the latter being one I would call rather reliable. Regardless of the truths behind either of ours sources, there is no denying that we need an alternative energy source. I have several ideas, but i'll save them for a seperate thread.

Also, although the return to $2/gal. prices would be heavenly, it is extremely unlikely from an economists standpoint: all oil companies are returning record profits... I doubt generousity will suddenly burst forth. Time will tell... at least you now see the method behind my "madness"

**Jinjiro** · February 6th, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddhaHybrid

Nuclear power plants are essentially powered by oil, at least so I was told.

Wow. Whoever told you that should be shot. I really can't believe I just read that. Nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddhaHybrid

Also, although the return to $2/gal. prices would be heavenly, it is extremely unlikely from an economists standpoint: all oil companies are returning record profits... I doubt generousity will suddenly burst forth. Time will tell... at least you now see the method behind my "madness"

Oil prices aren't really set by the oil companies. It's all based on supply & demand, competition, taxes etc. This is why the prices fluctuate so much, as opposed to other goods which are relatively stable. The execs at Exxon-Mobil aren't sitting in their chairs going "Hmmm...Let's see...We'll make it cost $3.32 today, and then tomorrow we'll make it $3.34....But the day after we'll drop it back to $3.30. Sound good?"

-Jin

***DarkTamer*** · February 6th, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinjiro

Oil prices aren't really set by the oil companies. It's all based on supply & demand, competition, taxes etc. This is why the prices fluctuate so much, as opposed to other goods which are relatively stable. The execs at Exxon-Mobil aren't sitting in their chairs going "Hmmm...Let's see...We'll make it cost $3.32 today, and then tomorrow we'll make it $3.34....But the day after we'll drop it back to $3.30. Sound good?"

-Jin

It's not Exxon-Mobile, it's OPEC. They control supply, demand at the moment is high and will remain so (our society is totally dependent on it... they might as well be selling oxygen), and they have immense amounts of influence on the taxes.

**buddhaHybrid** · February 6th, 10:01 PM

Indeed, there is an enormous demand for oil and a limited (and controlled) supply of it, therefore they can charge higher prices than necessary. They obviously don't have to charge as much as they are if they are recording all-time high profits.

As you said federal and state taxes greatly increase the price.

Edit: didn't see your above post, Dark. Pretty much agreeing though--however good point with OPEC, forgot about their influence on taxes. (and of course that they are the real controller)

***NYY*** · February 6th, 10:24 PM

Lowering gas prices has nothing to do with generosity. It's a business decision, just like any other involving prices.

**buddhaHybrid** · February 6th, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYY

Lowering gas prices has nothing to do with generosity. It's a business decision, just like any other involving prices.

The charity comment was a "joke" on the likelihood of prices going down... I later commented on how it is indeed a business decision and a matter of economics.

**ComradeMolyneux** · February 7th, 01:08 AM

I hate coming into discussions too late...

Buddahybrid, are you still in High School?

**ComradeMolyneux** · February 7th, 01:17 AM

Now that I think of it...

... In places like Pakistan, people are elected because they share the same last name as the person that came before them. This takes place in a lot of 3rd world countries actually.

Is the US any different than the non-developed world? After 20 years of a Bush or Clinton in the White House, I think it's time for someone else to establish their own dynasty no?

***NYY*** · February 7th, 07:38 AM

JEB BUSH!!!

Oh wait...