I didn't mean to sound so angry, I can only hide behind not having slept. It was more an annoyance that came through worse during the Ron Paul threads months ago, but I've noticed there are a few massassians who are heavily into economics yet act as if they're talking shop with fellow students or professors in threads intended for laypeople. It'd be like a doctor explaining a condition to someone using the names of enzymes and anatomical parts. I've just got one year of economics at high school level under my belt. All I know is basic supply and demand.

PS, wookie, am I being paranoid or are you using "BHO" to emphasise Obama's middle name? 'Cos if that's the case you are pathetic. It just seems so forced not to use surnames as is done with every other politician.

I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll ignore your post down!

But he didn't post anything new compared to his previous post. My point was already made that the summer driving season is going to drive prices up anyway and that my opinion is that a tax holiday will have virtually no effect on demand. My opinion is that it will simply save people some money on the gas they are going to buy anyway.

Having to stop an summarize things for you all the time slows things down. Please try to keep up.

Don't be elitist Wookie, it's already been established that you're terrible at arguments.

I'll just pop in and say a tax holiday will just **** us in the long run. I'm not going to waste my time to back it up, since points have already been made here and I'm ****ing tired.

Gee, thanks pops. You're a swell mentor.

wookie, i just have to say that if you arent going to argue your points, why say anything at all?

Because he's right, Ford. Once you start realizing that Wookie is right, and his way of looking at things is flawless, we can all move on from this debate and start being prejudiced backwards thinkers.

No, it has been established that I usually don't care to effectively argue my positions however, I have made an exception in this thread and have clearly and rationally posted in this thread. You're the one that has posted terrible arguments in this thread that were rebutted and destroyed by several members. So, pot, kettle, black.

ZING. You just got owned, CoolMatty.

From what I've seen it's the exact opposite. You haven't rationally argued anything, and my points were never rebutted or destroyed by one or a number of members. The only thing anyone attempted to rebuttal was the profit statistic which I never saw any actual source to counteract my own (let's not forget someone else also posted a good statistic that backed mine up). As a matter of fact, the topic drove off what I was discussing into something entirely different. For example, what you tried to post. That's where I stopped bothering, because you were pulling another one of your tactics of arguments where you turn it into something it's not about. Joncy would have a field day. You're borderline TSM_Bguitar now, IMO.

Container, boiler, color.

That was a very weak own, CM. I expected searing wit and attention drawn to Wookies major faults. Instead you just putsed around the issue and avoided the fact that you are wrong.

For shame.

For shame, fellow -ian, for there's no issue other than what Wookie attempts to dream up.

Dude, you must be reading another thread. I specifically defeated you, along with others, and directly posted a source that you said would take hours on google to find. You seemingly fail to understand the different entities responsible for oil production, refinement, and distribution to the end consumer and have apparently dreamed up yourself that because oil producers rape everyone the industry, as a whole, has some ridiculous 100% profit margin.

Now, I don't think you do believe that in the face of all the rational discussion in this thread. I am being polite, refraining from posting in my now usual Ann Coulteresque style of posting, and clearly explaining my position with a willingness to back up my arguments. So now the problem with me is what?

That can be said to 99% of people here in any argument of any kind.

Sorry, I missed this post.



If you have read the thread then you will see I have argued the points. If you haven't read the thread, why say anything at all?

Mmmmmmonster kill!

A. Your "source" was already trashed because, as established, it had nothing to do with the argument at hand. I too can link you to things that have absolutely nothing to do with anything!
B. You seem to assume I am talking about the "different entities" of oil production, refinement, and distribution when I have specifically stated I am not, and thus your judgment on my knowledge of the matter is wholly invalid and irrelevant.
C. This whole secondary argument started because you weren't being "polite".

So I'd say the problem is exactly what I defined multiple times now.

So now it seems that you haven't been reading the thread or logically thinking through response I have already given you. If you care to restate your position in more clear terms then we can go from there rather than just devolve into the typical tit for tat argument. The reason I ask this is it seems to me I adequately addressed these things earlier.

Sorry, missed this too. No mal intent for using his initials although I do find it funny that so many people think it Islamophobic when somebody uses his middle name. He could be the first president ever where it will be politically incorrect to call him by his name.

Again, no, you are being paranoid. If I wanted to emphasize his middle name I'm sure Kirby would agree that I WOULD HAVE used it.

Position: Oil companies (being the ones who actually draw up the crude and ship it to refineries, etc) make craploads of profit and lie about why they're raising prices.

Pretty clear to me.

Okay, so we are in agreement. The problem is that the term "oil companies" has become so generalized that you have to do what you did in this last post and specify who you really mean. You should concede that in most discussions, such as in this thread, people are using the term to incorrectly described the American refiners and distributors. Most then go on to whine about the "obscene profit" which is usually in the 8-10% range. That is a reasonable number, in my opinion.

I will chide you, though, for not being more definitive. It was very clear in my posts how I interpreted your comments. I clearly defined my view and was careful to ensure the reader could delineate precisely what entities I was referring to at any given time. You could have simply clarified your statement rather than allow it to fester.

I did, like twice. Which is why I stopped posting on the matter.

Stop arguing with perfection, CM.

Guys, chill out, he is Senior Enlisted in the US Army.

Not telling the privates the details of what is going on is such a habit that it carries over to the also green environment of this forum.

Took me a second to figure what you really meant as "green environment".

I went 105 MPH on the highway today...twice. It was awesome.

JLee, Arrest that man.

The question is, does she like it fast...

I drive a manual car and..

I constantly keep my RPM's above 5k and just let that petrol burn... Mmmm smells good!

My car runs on a gas/oil mixture! Hah!

Your car has a 2 stroke engine?

Those who will refuse to relook your posts will certainly not agree with this post but you most definitely did not.

In one post where you say oil companies make rediculous profit, you say they won't be hurt if the price per gallon of gasoline is capped at $3.00. So if you were referring to foriegn companies selling crude per barrell why are you talking about restricting the price that domestic companies can charge per gallon?

I think it is extremely unfair for you to act like your posts were so clear and logical when in fact, at the very least, their wording is deeply flawed. But then again I am the one unable to defend my position, not you.

edit, damn I gw'd that first sentence! It's all white now though!

Maybe he owns an old Saab?



Older two stroke engines like that are incredibly fuel inefficient, and emit alot of pollutants.

New two stroke engines don't have these problems. However they're still pretty much banned because there hasn't been enough research done on the feasability of new designs.

^ that video was a let down.. lol such a build up

It's a 50 year old two stroke car.

What were you expecting?

Fair enough. I've seen it happen so often from right-wing pundits and having seen your bookshelf before I figured you might be doing the same. I was mistaken, so I apologise.
There's nothing wrong with using his name in itself, it's that it's frequently only Obama who's middle name is singled out. I don't even know what McCain's middle name is nor did I hear any other runner's middle name except Clinton's and that seems to me to be an effort to allay criticisms that only Obama's middle name is mentioned. It all ties in with the notion that goes somewhat like this: "Oh look it's Hussein!! like that bad guy we knew. And he must also be a Muslim and he's going to destroy our Christian nation with his evil moon god!"
The stories about madrassa's (which he never attended) and how he's a secret pretend Christian were ran with heavily by the press on the right, and even though it's been well debunked, they continue to hammer the fear of muslims angle by emphasising his middle name.

Here's some quotes from Obama and Hillary about the tax. I found it amusing.

[mp3]http://members.cox.net/vinmusic/gastax.mp3[/mp3]

Hahaha. "If we could make the impossible work, it wouldn't matter what 1000 years of economic studies say: I can do anything."