Wow, The cartoon was just a little ribbing that Im kinda surprised youre still talking about. In addition to that because you suggest that I havent answered all of the questions posed to me even though I dont know all the answers even though I attempted to, Ill bite. There was a question as to why oil jumped from 100 to 170 a barrell or something along those lines. It would probably thrill you to know that I dont know that answer. I dont disbelieve what has been posted in this thread the possibility that they sold too many oil futures and raised the price to cover the mistake.

Where I differ is that, the demand had to be there to cover that spike. Is that to suggest oil is strictly following the laws of Supply and Demand suggesting that fuel is always sold at the optimal price? I think that most times when a sale is made of anything that something is left on the table in one direction or the other. I tried to explain, which noone was interested in hearing, that on a personal level if I had to Id pay up to $10 and Id be willing to bet there are other people who feel the same way and would be willing to pay more for fuel while cutting back for just to and from work usage. Also Ive attempted to explain my view that if Volt technology takes off, that would effectively put coal useage and the power companies in direct competition with the oil companies. So if fuel got to high some people would not have to buy it at all or at least in moderation removing their demand and destroying that monopoly. I also believe in drilling what we have here. You may not have liked those explinations or this clarification, but I have a hard time understanding you believe I havent attempted to answer that question. I dont know all about this, it is just my opion based on the info Ive seen. I could be wrong and I could change my view based on new evidence or depending on what happens.

I am still curious if anyone things price gouging is Supply and Demand driven. I personally feel it is but since Ive never heard anyone anywhere say that Im sure its possible there is another reason.

Ive been in favor of going back into Iraq since we told them to rise up in the Gulf war and abandon them to face that Gov'ts wrath on their own. Frankly I was hoping Clinton would go in. Do you really want to talk about this?

BTW

You dont have to completely agree with someone to point out they have explained something you believed very well and in depth. Both Eric and Proud have explained things here in the past that I thought were better put than I could have and agreed with.

 

Can't be due to 'demand' as investors aren't interested in the oil... they just care about its intrinsic value. That's why congress voted to remove oil from the investment market. The true measure of demand is by its consumption and not the futures market.

Please don't open pro war discussions here. You should have realized by now we aren't interested in your views regarding war. We are just discussing reasons for the government's motives for war... which is different to what the media portrays. Have a look at U2/Greenday's "Saints Are Coming" video and note its significance... "NOT AS SEEN ON TV".

I can tell you still haven't read the thread in its entirety or just failed to understand the important points. I won't respond to any of your posts if I feel I am completely wasting my time.

 

Yeah Im starting to notice a trend of stating one view and not being "interested" in anything that doesnt support it. I will give you credit for answering the question as you see it though and being completely candid about how you feel about differing opinions.

 

We talked about this in the entire thread, many stock market details were pasted and posted here, and so on... Well, it surprises me that you are still thinking it's all supply and demand, but you're right, everyone can have their opinions. People like Proud backed their opinions with data, though.


I don't proclaim to have all the answers, but I do see through the obvious, the least of which is that the obvious is a lie.

 

From Post # 261...


So you say you don't believe the "New World Order" plan?
You also profess to be a conservative, and support those on the right side of the fence.
Perhaps you need to do some more studying on your party of choice and their perrogatives...

A Speech by George H. W. Bush, President of the U.S.A., on the new world order. Given to a joint session of the United States Congress, Washington D.C. on 11 September 1990.

"A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective—a new world order—can emerge: A new era—freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.

A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor, and today that new world is struggling to be born. A world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.

This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and the other leaders from Europe, the gulf and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come."

I chose to link to the Wiki version of the transcript - it has reference data, but if you'd rather watch the actual video, it's on YouTube, and there's about 3300 other references to it - it's NOT a fluke.

At this time, I would like to invite you to do your own research into the other 4 objectives (he says in the spech that this is the 5th objective - see bold text), and also do a little research on the proposed NWO he speaks of.

BTW - the title of the speech is "Toward a New World Order".
Seems pretty indicative of his intent, doesn't it?

I'll give you a chance to digest this, and then we can continue our conversation if you like.

Thanks,
PP

 

Youve gotta be fricken kidding me. Post 261 was a week and a half ago, and youve responded since then with no mention of it. If by new world order you actually meant an attempt to work with other countries to form a coalition to fight terrorism rather than a collaboration of the elite then yeah I guess you could claim victory that the words were used by Bush 41

You and I have a VERY different view of what a conversation is. A conversation is two sided. A conversation doesnt occur when people are "not interested" in what one of the peoples views are or are saying. That is a lecture. This is your liberal SALES pitch campaigning. BTW telling me to I NEED to do some more "studying on my party of choice and their perogatives" is very telling of your position and what side of the fence YOU are on when you were dishonest about being impartial.

Im sure youre very impressed with your arrogant responce to what I said a week and a half ago. So much so, that youve given me a chance to "digest" that the term has been used even if it was used to define a coalition of nations working together to fight terrorism, the word was still used. Im sure any responce is pointless as "not interested" is a convienent responce for opinions of those you demed non liberal and unenlightened. Youre much more impressed with your arrogance than I am.

 

To 5thgen69camaro:

When Bush Sr. used the phrase, he was hardly fighting world terrorism. Terrorism was not on the world stage then as it is now. The global phony conflict on terror began in 2001.

Actually, H. G. Wells wrote a rather interesting essay "THE NEW WORLD ORDER -
whether it is attainable, how it can be attained, and what sort of world a world at peace will have to be." It's an incredible read - you can gain incredible insight into what is happening now with economies from his 40-page essay. This is available on Google, and yes, I will advise for you to read it. Because until we share some common knowledge, we cannot be debating/discussing same issues. He wrote it in 1940. There was no global conflict on terror.

 

Does WHEN I respond REALLY make a difference if a fact is a fact?!?!
Jeebus-cripes friend... I work 50-60 hrs/week as a mechanical engineer for a tier-1 supplier (a trivial task these days to be sure ), I have a 65-acre farm, 3 horses, a kid to raise, soccer practice 2 times/week and games every weekend, about 2 acres at the house to mow ever week, fields to cut/bale hay, I restore cars on a rotisserie, I race several weekends/year, I hunt, I fish, I try to spend time with my parents, etc.. I left the house Sunday to go to Vermont on business for 3 days - getting into the hotel bed at 2:45am Monday morning and still going in for an 8am meeting at the plant Monday. I worked 14 Sunday, 12 Monday, 13 Tuesday, and on Wednesday, I went in to the plant for 8 hours (6am-2pm) then drove 125 miles to the airport, caught 2 planes to get to Greensboro, NC at 9pm that night, and drove another hour to get home at 10:30pm.
IF YOU THINK ALL MY LIFE IS CENTERED AROUND RESPONDING TO YOU ON AN HOURLY BASIS ON THIS BOARD, YOU NEED TO LEAVE THE MESSAGE BOARD AND GO TO A CHAT ROOM! Sorry for the flame, but time has nothing to do with addressing a fact as a fact.
FWIW, I am heading back up to Vermont again next week and will be ther all week working on a plant relocation. I will be up at 3am Monday morning to catch a 5:30 flight out of Greensboro again, and I expect it to be another LONG week. Relocating an entire 90k sq-ft plant packed full of machines and tools that is currently running JIT-style production for automotive companies is not a trivial task. I plan to spend as much time as I can with my wife and kid this weekend since I'll be gone all week next week - so don't expect any responses from me Saturday or Sunday.

As for the material at-hand... I will maintain the higher road... one paved with facts, references, and substantiation. I refuse to post unfounded opinions or random jabber on this board or any other. Obviously, you feel that makes me arrogant. I'm sorry you feel that way.
I feel it makes me more qualified to make a sound decision for myself - nothing more.
If I can share something I've benn made aware of with others, I do so.
If they choose to ignore it - that's their perrogative.
If they debate my position and prove my info was errant or unfounded, then I step up and admit it, and change my position accordingly.
I am indeed a smart person - smart enough to know that I don't know everything and I can be taught from anyone.

So I asked you a question. You answered it. Then I provided you with some hard evidence. You responded with defensive posturing and calling me arrogant, liberal, and campaigning a sales pitch (again). Your rebuttal consisted of ..
1) Telling me I was late responding to you.
2) Trivializing that "Bush41 used those words" (in 1 sentence to boot).
3) Defining a "conversation".
4) Accusing me of selling liberal agenda
5) Calling me arrogant
6) And lastly, you excuse yourself from actually debating or discussing the item by saying "any responce is pointless" because I won't agree, it is not liberal or unbiassed, etc.

Dude, with all my heart - all I have asked you to do is BRING SOMETHING TO THE PARTY. PROVE TO ME that Bush41 isn't part of a plan to consolidate power in the world. PROVE tome that gas prices are not driven by speculators and the financial elite. PROVE to me that oil should not be regulated in some way. PROVE to me that the current administration has not turned a blind eye to the economy. PROVE to me the borrowing to finance a war we can not afford (regardless of the reason for it) has not caused the dollar to fall against other currencies.
I swear - I'm all eyes and ears, and I DO CHANGE MY MIND when called to do so by sound reasoning.

I can/will not excuse a lack of knowledge as a defense for maintaining a bad decision. Making a bad decision because of a lack of knowledge is acceptable the first time around, but when the knowledge is presented to someone, and they still refuse to see it and use it, then they are part of the problem, not the solution.

Now to the topic itself... there are 2 distinct interpretations of that speech;
1) There is the face-value option in which "we all want peace, we all want prosperity, we all want to live in harmony". There is an ASSUMPTION that goes with this option in which we ASSUME that we are all still living in our own countries, under our own governments, and our own laws while we are enjoying the "peace, prosperity, and unity" in the text of that speech.
2) There is an "implied" context of the same speech in which all of the "peace, harmony, and unity" indicate that all citizens are going to be under the same rule, the same law, and the same government.

Bush never said we would all remain individual countries with our own governments. Those who believe this would be so are making an ASSUMPTION that would be the case. IMO, that's more risk than I'd like to take. As an avid gun owner and hunter/fisherman, I don't want to have to turn in all my guns as those in Europe and Asia have done. I don't want to have to give up my jon boat or bass boat or my weekends of fishing in any public waters that I choose to. I don't want to give up my right to own as many cars as I want. Or be forced to have them crushed when they are 5 years old as other countries require. I don't want to live under any other government's rule - period. If I did, I'd already be moved there.

With all due respect - I would never tell you what to do, how to act, or what to believe. But I am going to ASK YOU again, with all the nicety, politeness, and conviction that I have, to go back and read the speech, and then study what the 5 objectives were for that administration, and what New World Order that GHWB spoke of back in 1990 is really all about.

A quick paradoxical story...
A guy was married to this beautiful woman who didn't "share" as much with him as he'd like. After months of not getting enough, he finally did the ugly deed and comitted adultry. This went on for a good while, and finally the wife was getting suspicious. When she asked her husband if he was cheating on her, he immediately looked her in the eye and said with a smart-aleck tone, "Hell yes, every chance I get! You don't nag me near enough, I love getting fussed at, I have so much money left over after being married to you that I think I can suppport 2 or 3 more just like you! Now what do you think?"
The wife looks at him and says with a smart tone, "You're such a smart-@ss. Shut up and take me to dinner."
The man was doing exactly what she suspected him of, he told her the truth in his own way, and she let him go scott-free because he told her the truth... in a paradoxical manner. He presented the truth to her in a way that she would easily misunderstand, and she did.

If you think for one minute that our government does not do the same thing to the citizens - we need to have a completely different conversation. BOTH parties, all sexes, all races, all creeds.

 

No Time really does not have a bearing on facts nor does the source aside from a reputation that person has in terms of what their motives are or anything relevant to the present. But on the other side of that coin, suggesting you put up "facts" simply because thats the way you feel and that youre opinon, to which if I respond any thoughts to the contrary are dismissed as irrellevant or with "not interested", and if I dont respond it at least immediatlly must be because I am still "digesting" the facts as you put it and comming to the reality that I must be wrong. I dont "need" to study the ideas I believe, or because you feel because I disagree with you that I must be ignorant, I do it, and have done it because I want to be informed. Do you have any idea how irritating all of that is? Suggesting that I NEED to do anything such as go to a chat room is completely arrogant AND annoying. I wasnt aware you were a moderator in Future vehicles If I wanted to be in a political chatroom or board I would be there. I have no problem not discussing my political views if noone is interested though I do slip up because it is what I believe. At the same time, when people usually with liberal ideoligy which mostly is against most ideas I believe preset their views as fact I try to speak up.If you think I dismiss ideas because they are yours you obviously dont understand my respect for engineers. I am just one person debating my own personal views outnumbered and outclassed. FWIW one of the smartest people I knew engineered a project I worked on about 10 years ago and the highest honor was when he tried to get me to become one although I decided to get my MCSE at the time. Here was the TRV Tower Restoral Vehicle project. I was a project operator(assembly person) but at any excuse I could get Id ask that engineer whos name was Howard to pull me away and solve problems.http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/mots.htm


Again, all of that is true. You suggested that I needed to study the "facts" of what I believe, when any responce I make is met with "not interested" and any lack of responce means I must be the realization you were right while I am "digesting" what you see as hard evidence. Suggesting I excused myself from anything means you REALLY havent been paying attention. Can you tell me, in all honesty, If I agreed with you that you would still assume and suggest that I am as ignorant as you do. Also if I agreed with you tell me in all honesty that you would still assume my opinions were "unfounded opinions or random jabber". Not only do I think you arrogant, you seem to appointed yourself moderator of politics in the Future Vehicles section as to what is "unfounded opinons and jabber" and who needs to leave the NEW VEHICLES and head to a chat room completely unrelated to the board at all...

You mean support your view or shut up

If he is, then he needs to do a better job of it. Tell me you actually think that think that Super powers are going to hand power over to the US.

Russia who invaded Georgia stole our humvees, Russian Bombers constantly threaten the US before our fighters turn them back Such as the USS Nimitz, when Russia violated Japanese airspace to threaten the carrier

http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/...IA-BOMBERS.php who is performing military exercises with China and Venezuella sending two bombers and naval ships
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/am.../index.htmlwho threatened military action should a missle defence system be installed in the Ukraine
Who demanded the Ukraine not be allowed into NATO
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/...ion/edkara.php
who vowed to counter the US in terms of an Arms Race.
Putin calls the US the Wolf in childerens books.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/may...rld/fg-putin11
Vladimir Putin May 11, 2006“We should not burn money uselessly,” he said. “Our responses should be based on intellectual superiority. They will be asymmetric, less costly, but they will undoubtedly make our nuclear triad [ground, naval and air] more reliable and effective.”Over the next five years, Russia will “substantially increase the provision of strategic nuclear forces with modern long-range planes, submarines and launchers,” Putin said. “Along with the means of overcoming the systems of antimissile defense, which we already have, new types of weapons enable us to preserve what is undoubtedly one of the most important guarantees of lasting peace – namely, the strategic balance of forces.”

Or China who likes to toy with us just to let us know they are a threat

whos Song Class submarine have popped up next to our U.S.S. Kitty Hawk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...red-faced.html
whos


Elite is an over generalized term. As I said Speculators may have been a consideration when the oil companies set the prices but I dont see how they could stay there or even justify them if the demand is not there.

You certainly demand alot of answers, but you havent said whether you think Price Gouging was Supply and demand. Why did gas jump from $2.50 or what ever it was to $3.15 during Katrina when people were afraid the pumps were going to run out of fuel and then back down to what it was when the panic subsided. Why is Georgias fuel prices spiked when they were running out of fuel and their prices are now falling? If Speculators set that high price there and it was such a good idea, then why is that not still the price now? Why was it that when their fuel prices spiked to at least $5/gal and it didnt spike in other parts of the country. My coworker said his friend emailed him from Atlanta telling him prices went to $8 a gallon and they didnt drive because they werent sure they were going to be able to fill up again. I didnt find a source confriming prices hit $8 though.

"Christina Wedge, a resident of the Atlanta suburb Decatur, said her tank was on empty Sunday. When she went to fill up, she passed six stations closed down before finally finding one with gas for nearly $5 a gallon. She got just enough to continue looking for a cheaper price. "

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayof...ta.gas.crunch/

I never said that it shouldnt have any regulation in my opinon or that it should not be regulated in some way.

 

Blind eye in what way? Mad Moneys Jim Cramer while on Jay Leno suggested that Bush should take credit for the good economy during the housing boom. I dont believe it was his to take credit for and thought that when he said it because I dont believe that Bush could claim credit for the housing buble anymore than Clinton could claim credit for the Tech bubble/boom which is commonly misreferenced as and Credited to as Clintons time in office.

The Iraqi war has cost us in terms of financing it and lives. I certainly do not agree with withdrawing before that country can stand on its own. It makes me angry to hear even now that a timeline was a good idea now that the violence is currently down. Had we made an immediate withdrawl rather than a surge the violence would not be currently down. sometimes I wonder when I am in a room full of people who feel the war was about stealing that countries oil to bring our gas prices down when gas prices currently fluctuate between $3-4 a gallon. When that wars news is good it isnt news though. But knowing that things are better and we are making a difference makes the riddicule worth it. The Afgani war has as well, however both were the right thing to do in my opinion. But Im sure youll deem that as off topic while I see the war itself as off topic as far as oil profits and gas prices as unrelated to oil other than it being a strong source for the Iraqi economy.

Im not asking you to change your mind. youre certainly entitled to determine for your opinon what "sound reasoning" is. Infact you already have. If youre going to throw youre opinon out there dont expect people you THINK only disagree with you because they havent looked at different angles to not speak their opinons.

so much for maintaining the higher ground...

I take it at face value. There is nothing in there to suggest to me otherwise.

 

Far from it. The vast majority of people in the United States express beliefs similar to yours - we are fighting terrorism in the two wars overseas, gasoline prices are a direct result of supply and demand, this financial bill is a savior of our retirement investments, and others along the same lines...

I know this is directed at Proud, but Proud never asked you to agree with him simply from what he said. If you happen to agree with Proud, I would hope for your sake that it is strictly from researching things on your own, and not just because he said so.

Forgive me for taking the liberty, but once again, no. Everyone asked you to provide backup for your opinions. Your posts began with how much you disagree with many things that have been posted here. People who posted things here at least provided some backup. You never did. So why are you crying the victim now?

It's put up or shut up. It has never been "support my view or shut up".

That has never been claimed, and that is not the objective of those who are interested in a NWO. One of the objectives is to the contrary of what you wrote above, and that is, to dethrone the US as a world superpower. Hence, what you quoted in your email actually supports it.

The burden was on you to prove that the price of oil going up to $147 per barrel was supply and demand. The burden was on you to prove why the oil jumped and dropped $25 in one day. You never did. Please address that first.

However, price gouging, which you now seem to accept, flies in the face of supply and demand. Are you now backing off your claim? Manipulation of world oil prices is just the same as price gouging. That has been our claim all along. So where exactly do you stand? You can't answer. You change your opinions and you change your mind, always attempting to look like the victim.

But wait a minute. If the market is supply and demand, why does it need to be regulated? Regulation is never advantageous to the free market - everyone loses in the long run.

You mentioned feeling frustrated. I can see why. You do not back up your contrary position, your contrary position is rather fluid and changes. You are arguing against things about which you don't have much clue. This is frustrating to me, no doubt to others too, although I'll let others speak for themselves.

I have no other way to illustrate the futility of these arguments than to envision a college freshman attempting to debate solving a physics problem without any knowledge of calculus. And yet, that's what your position has been demonstrated to be.

 

Just when I thought the thread was needlessly hijacked, along comes muckz with some constructive thought!

Exactly my thoughts... except I couldn't be bothered responding to somebody with a signature boasting of being open-minded... yet all we read from this individual is how the opinions expressed here are against his misguided 'beliefs'. The media have this fish hooked, line and sinker...

 

Can you smart people tell me why oil is down to $87 per barrel and wholesale gas (for Nov delivery) is down to $2.07 today? Are the big whigs getting tired of making money, or are they scared of something? Someone?

Maybe they read this thread?

 

Good question. We're also wondering the same thing. We would also welcome explanations for why the crude price skyrocketed to $140/bbl not that long ago when the oil reserves were full!

If you read Eric Bryant's post in this thread, you would realize there is no linear relationship between the wholesale price of crude oil and gasoline at the pump.

The argument is that the price has dropped in line with the impact and hardships faced by families as a result of:

1 high oil prices
2. high inflation
3. high interest rates
4. instability and overall effect on the world economy

Welcome to the thread, btw!

 

Price gouging (as in gouging when a disaster hits when demand spikes drastically) IS supply and demand which Ive mentioned from the start had you read what I said. I didnt change my answer. I can change my opinon yes, but so far I havent.

I like that