Hillary at her best.....

[Jaimecbr900]

I know we have a political section, but it doesn't get as much traffic as the WL does. Just wanted to see if ANYONE agreed with crazy woman here.

Heard about this this morning, so I had to look into it because it sounded too cooky to be true. Unfortunately, it is true.

This is a portion from her speech yesterday:

"The Democrats know what needs to be done. Again, we're working trying to try push this agenda forward. The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy; alternatives and technology that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence."


Ummm, she wants to WHAAAAA????? "TAKE"???? The PROFITS???? Of a legit company???? For what????? Kidding, right??? Unfortunately, not so.

This is the great white female hope for President???? Wow!!!

Discuss.

[{X}Echo419]

Fascism @ it's finest. and here's the thing:

the very people(shareholders) she talking to and will probally vote for her will be the one's getting screwed. Retires will lose millions in savings b/c the value of the "Evil Oil" companies stock will fall then the same people will want the gov't to bail them out. Democrats will blame different "Rich People" and the viscious will continue to spin.

"Remember children, the gov't knows how to spend and save your money better than you do."

Note: Hitler and the Nazi party came to power via the same means. Jews=Oil Companies and here came the gov't scapegoating them and solving the problem by "looking out" for the people. :2cents:

[TIGERJC]

I know we have a political section, but it doesn't get as much traffic as the WL does. Just wanted to see if ANYONE agreed with crazy woman here.

Heard about this this morning, so I had to look into it because it sounded too cooky to be true. Unfortunately, it is true.

This is a portion from her speech yesterday:

"The Democrats know what needs to be done. Again, we're working trying to try push this agenda forward. The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy; alternatives and technology that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence."


Ummm, she wants to WHAAAAA????? "TAKE"???? The PROFITS???? Of a legit company???? For what????? Kidding, right??? Unfortunately, not so.

This is the great white female hope for President???? Wow!!!

Discuss.
There is no way she could just take the oil companies profits away. She would have to increase taxes on the oil companies, which would screw us (the consumer) more than those greddy oil companies.

[{X}Echo419]

1 more thing.

the "Ignorant Masses" don't understand the difference between PROFITS and PROFIT MARGINS. the Democrats know that(b/c their the 1's running the schools) and they exploit it. :goodjob:

[The Yousef]

capitalism ftl....LOL

[{X}Echo419]

There is no way she could just take the oil companies profits away. She would have to increase taxes on the oil companies, which would screw us (the consumer) more than those greddy oil companies.

if she was President and with a democratically controlled congress she could. :yes:

and you are correct. :goodjob:

[TIGERJC]

1 more thing.

the "Ignorant Masses" don't understand the difference between PROFITS and PROFIT MARGINS. the Democrats know that(b/c their the 1's running the schools) and they exploit it. :goodjob:
Its funny how u generalize everything, but both sides have their own nut jobs

[Jaimecbr900]

The irony is that most shareholders in large Oil companies are not oil tycoons. It is generally retirement/401k/mutual funds. Which in turn means that average Joe's like teachers, policemen, firemen, etc will be the one's fitting the bill if she were to "take" any profits from Exxon/Mobil. The majority of her "followers" couldn't even put those two things together let alone see her for what she really is.....a socialist.

What bugs me is: Last time I checked we were supposed to be a "free" country, right? Exactly what is "free" about EARNING a profit, only to have the gov't TAKE it from you to fund some cock and bull agenda??? :thinking:

I'm just glad that she is like Kerry....open mouth, insert foot....in PUBLIC. :lmfao:

Guilliani just threw his hat in the ring. Maybe he will make some sense for the Democratic party. Maybe. :rolleyes:

[2.0civic]

The irony is that most shareholders in large Oil companies are not oil tycoons. It is generally retirement/401k/mutual funds. Which in turn means that average Joe's like teachers, policemen, firemen, etc will be the one's fitting the bill if she were to "take" any profits from Exxon/Mobil. The majority of her "followers" couldn't even put those two things together let alone see her for what she really is.....a socialist.

What bugs me is: Last time I checked we were supposed to be a "free" country, right? Exactly what is "free" about EARNING a profit, only to have the gov't TAKE it from you to fund some cock and bull agenda??? :thinking:

I'm just glad that she is like Kerry....open mouth, insert foot....in PUBLIC. :lmfao:

Guilliani just threw his hat in the ring. Maybe he will make some sense for the Democratic party. Maybe. :rolleyes:

INDEED

[Jaimecbr900]

There is no way she could just take the oil companies profits away. She would have to increase taxes on the oil companies, which would screw us (the consumer) more than those greddy oil companies.


That's not what SHE thinks. ;)

The problem is not really her selling it....it's ignorant people buying it.

This is where voters need to THINK a little ahead of their own two feet before voting for a nut job like her. She tries to sell this Robin Hood theme of taking from the rich to give to the poor. The one's buying it are the ones looking for a hand out from her, so of course they're gonna cheer about that. Problem is not just that they're looking for a hand out. Problem really is that they are shooting themselves in the foot for buying into that without thinking about, "well.....where exactly is this money gonna COME FROM...???". Ummm, YOUR pocket genius.

Corporate America is not and should not fit the bill everytime a politician goes up to a podium to talk about social reforms. Corporate America is about one thing: "Buy low, sell high". Simple economics. Competition sets the pricing. Consumers set the volume. Smart strategies set the future profits.

Enter politicians.

Now they want to come in and TAKE from companies that have made smart business decisions and pay their investors/stock holders for those smart decisions only to throw that hard earned money into a bottomless pit called socialized welfare. Nothing wrong with that? Then go vote Democrat at the next election. That's their mentality and mindset.

What's next? Taking YOUR property by force??? Hmmmm, how is that much different than this??? Not a far leap at all. Actually, it looks like a logical step to them. Look it up. See who orchestrated some of the largest property acquisitions FOR the "gov't" and their interests. Why? More property taxes=more money to spend.

That's a whole other subject though.

[TIGERJC]

What's next? Taking YOUR property by force??? Hmmmm, how is that much different than this??? Not a far leap at all. Actually, it looks like a logical step to them. Look it up. See who orchestrated some of the largest property acquisitions FOR the "gov't" and their interests. Why? More property taxes=more money to spend.

That's a whole other subject though.
They already do that. If it benefits the gov't in anyway, they could seized you propery for fair market value

[Jaimecbr900]

They already do that. If it benefits the gov't in anyway, they could seized you propery for fair market value

You're absolutely correct.

The catch is.....guess WHO sets "fair market value"???? ;)

THAT is the real problem with Eminent Domain. They knock on your door and offer you peanuts because they have a developer itching to turn your 1 house/1 tax bill into 10 houses/10 tax bills, so the gov't is all for that. If you don't take those peanuts for your property, they can condemn the property and later take it. So you're either gonna take a little now or even less later. Good choices, eh?

[Bajjani]

Q. Hillary is on a sinking boat. Who gets saved?


















A. The nation.

[2.0civic]

Q. Hillary is on a sinking boat. Who gets saved?


















A. The nation.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAAHGQ I JUST ABOUT SPILLED MY COKE

[Bajjani]

HAHAHHAHAHAHAAHGQ I JUST ABOUT SPILLED MY COKE

lol
that would have been pretty funny to see

[{X}Echo419]

Its funny how u generalize everything, but both sides have their own nut jobs

how can you talk about the "general" public without "generalizing"?
both sides do have nut jobs. but you're making 2 mistakes. 1. you assume I am a republican. I am not, I have no affilation with any party. 2. this thread is about Hillary not some republicans too.

[OneSlow5pt0]

its gonna be bad if she wins....Iraq will be worse off when she takes over..because she will pull the troops and Iraq will crumble

[Jaimecbr900]

its gonna be bad if she wins....Iraq will be worse off when she takes over..because she will pull the troops and Iraq will crumble

I just don't see how anyone would even contemplate voting for her. The only reason she's even an issue is because she's the only woman that's made even a slight dent towards the white house. There again, why is it even a remote possibility that she would win??? Because people don't vote for her based on her double talk. They vote just to vote.

[OneSlow5pt0]

I just don't see how anyone would even contemplate voting for her. The only reason she's even an issue is because she's the only woman that's made even a slight dent towards the white house. There again, why is it even a remote possibility that she would win??? Because people don't vote for her based on her double talk. They vote just to vote.

if she wins,its because all the women in the USA,voted for her,id vote for rep. anyways

[Jaimecbr900]

if she wins,its because all the women in the USA,voted for her,id vote for rep. anyways

Not necessarily. There are plenty of men in the Democratic party, although I use that term loosely... ;)

[{X}Echo419]

Not necessarily. There are plenty of men in the Democratic party, although I use that term loosely... ;)

I got my dog nutered and now it's a Democrat. we argue all the time. he wanted heart worm pills and I said that I can't afford them b/c I got F'd on my taxes. :yes: :lmfao:

[OneSlow5pt0]

Not necessarily. There are plenty of men in the Democratic party, although I use that term loosely... ;)

yea,but we dont even know whos gonna run rep. yet...but since the whole usa has turned democrat seems like,she probly will win:cry:

[{X}Echo419]

yea,but we dont even know whos gonna run rep. yet...but since the whole usa has turned democrat seems like,she probly will win:cry:

I thought R.Guilanni(sp) was a republican? :???:

[Bajjani]

Turd sandwhich or giant douche

[OneSlow5pt0]

Turd sandwhich or giant douche

lol,South park FTW

[Jaimecbr900]

I thought R.Guilanni(sp) was a republican? :???:

Giuliani is a Republican and probably the only one that can keep Hillary out of office too.

The only thing I don't like about Giuliani is he is pro gun control, although his state is one of the bloddiest in the nation WITH gun control laws in place. :thinking:

[collins]

jamie, thats some scary sh*t, isnt it?

[Jaimecbr900]

jamie, thats some scary sh*t, isnt it?


Hillary being in office??? Yep.

[B18c1Turboed]

You're absolutely correct.

The catch is.....guess WHO sets "fair market value"???? ;)

THAT is the real problem with Eminent Domain. They knock on your door and offer you peanuts because they have a developer itching to turn your 1 house/1 tax bill into 10 houses/10 tax bills, so the gov't is all for that. If you don't take those peanuts for your property, they can condemn the property and later take it. So you're either gonna take a little now or even less later. Good choices, eh?

Not true, here in GA a case just went thru the suprem court. A City wanted to buy a certain flower shop out and give them 200k. The owners where willing to sell for 450k, the city didnt wanna pay so they took it all the way to supreme court and the flower shop won!!!!



THE STORY
Stockbridge gives up on eminent domain battle

By ADD SEYMOUR JR. ([email protected])
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/05/07
Stockbridge officials say they will drop their two-year effort to condemn and seize a flower shop in the Henry city for a town center project.

[Post comments below]


http://img.coxnewsweb.com/B/06/33/97/image_5097336.jpg (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/henry/stories/2007/02/05/70512464_flowershop.html)
Johnny Crawford/Staff

(ENLARGE) (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/henry/stories/2007/02/05/70512464_flowershop.html)
Stockbridge officials wanted Mark and Regina Meeks' Stockbridge Flowers and Gifts property for a town center project

The decision comes after last week's Georgia Court of Appeals ruling in a case that spurred the Legislature to tighten eminent domain laws in 2006. The law wasn't retroactive and did not apply in this case.

"We're not going to appeal," Mayor R.G. Kelley said. "We look like we're beating our heads against the walls."

Stockbridge officials wanted Mark and Regina Meeks' Stockbridge Flowers and Gifts property for a town center project that would give Henry's largest town a true downtown.

City officials offered the Meeks money but balked at the couple's counteroffer.

The two sides reached a deal instead for the city to buy the property and give the couple retail space in the new town center. But the city backed out of that deal and decided instead to use eminent domain laws to condemn and acquire the property.

A Henry County judge ruled in 2006 that the city went too far in using eminent domain laws because it didn't prove the couple's property would be used for public purposes.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling on Jan. 31.

"It looks to me they didn't go by the law," Kelley said. "The city had a right to do this because it was going to be used for a government building."

Now, Stockbridge officials say they'll just build around the flower shop, which is already surrounded by cleared land.

"We were willing to work with them, but we're happy to keep our property," said Mark Meeks. "I don't think it'll affect us that much."

[Vteckidd]

Not necessarily. There are plenty of men in the Democratic party, although I use that term loosely... ;)
THATS SIG MATERIAL!

[Jaimecbr900]

Not true, here in GA a case just went thru the suprem court. A City wanted to buy a certain flower shop out and give them 200k. The owners where willing to sell for 450k, the city didnt wanna pay so they took it all the way to supreme court and the flower shop won!!!!



THE STORY
Stockbridge gives up on eminent domain battle

By ADD SEYMOUR JR. ([email protected])
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/05/07
Stockbridge officials say they will drop their two-year effort to condemn and seize a flower shop in the Henry city for a town center project.

[Post comments below]


http://img.coxnewsweb.com/B/06/33/97/image_5097336.jpg (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/henry/stories/2007/02/05/70512464_flowershop.html)
Johnny Crawford/Staff

(ENLARGE) (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/henry/stories/2007/02/05/70512464_flowershop.html)
Stockbridge officials wanted Mark and Regina Meeks' Stockbridge Flowers and Gifts property for a town center project



True, but that's only one story. Notice how the city tried to do exactly what I said and KNOW they do to get their hands on a piece of property they really want. These people had to fight for a long time to get them to do what's right. How many people do you think go thru that? The majority fall prey to strong arm tactics and cave in way before that ever happens. Good for those guys that fought and won. Unfortunately, they are part of the minority by far.

It's funny, but notice how they were wanting to use Eminent Domain to get the property to build a "town center" (i.e. a shopping center ;) ). That's kinda stretching it to say that a shopping center is for the good of the "public", don't you think? ;)

Again, see how the gov't can and does use a power that's not even a constitutional power to lay claim to someone's property whenever they see fit? Look how that echoes exactly what Hillary the Socialist Clinton is proposing to do to Exxon/Mobil.

[Leadfoot_mf]

reps to all i could.

she is just scary.

[MachNU]

DAMMIT...this thread got my hopes up i thought someone was going to post that she passed away or got hit by an 18 wheeler or something.... :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant dammit! :(

[Jaimecbr900]

DAMMIT...this thread got my hopes up i thought someone was going to post that she passed away or got hit by an 18 wheeler or something.... :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant dammit! :(


Actually, that's like that joke someone posted a few days ago in here.


Hillary and her driver are going down an old country highway when a old cow steps out in front of their car and they hit it.

The driver gets out and walks up to the nearest farm house to tell the farmer they'd hit his cow and killed it.

He doesn't come back for a long time. Finally when he does, he has his shirt all out, lipstick on all over his face, and smoking a fine Cuban cigar.

Hillary asks, "so, what took you so long....what happened?".

The driver said, "well....I just knocked on the door and when I told the farmer what happened he gave me a fine cigar to smoke, his wife started kissing me, and his twin daughters took me out back and we had wild kinky sex.."

Hillary says, "well, that's odd. What did you say to him?"

The driver replies, "I just told him that I was Hillary Clinton's driver and I'd just killed the old Heffer.....everything else after that happened so fast....."

:lmfao:

[ShooterMcGavin]

I know we have a political section, but it doesn't get as much traffic as the WL does. Just wanted to see if ANYONE agreed with crazy woman here.

Heard about this this morning, so I had to look into it because it sounded too cooky to be true. Unfortunately, it is true.

This is a portion from her speech yesterday:

"The Democrats know what needs to be done. Again, we're working trying to try push this agenda forward. The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy; alternatives and technology that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence."


Ummm, she wants to WHAAAAA????? "TAKE"???? The PROFITS???? Of a legit company???? For what????? Kidding, right??? Unfortunately, not so.

This is the great white female hope for President???? Wow!!!

Discuss.

i think ur taking the meaning of "take" there a little too literally. i think what she's trying to say is, regulate the oil industry so they can't continue to have record setting profits yr after yr, then let the money "saved" go to this alternative fund. now of course, u are still taking away their profits in some sense, just not directly dipping into their banks and taking it :goodjob: :D

[Jaimecbr900]

i think ur taking the meaning of "take" there a little too literally. i think what she's trying to say is, regulate the oil industry so they can't continue to have record setting profits yr after yr, then let the money "saved" go to this alternative fund. now of course, u are still taking away their profits in some sense, just not directly dipping into their banks and taking it :goodjob: :D

The word "take" has over 100 possible meanings according to the dictionary. Not a single one of those describes what you are trying to say.

BTW, the oil industry is already regulated. Even using your example, how do you justify TAKING/using/diverting ANY funds from ANY company's EARNED profits INVOLUNTARILY to go to ANYTHING?

Why can't they continue to make profits? Why not? That is WHY they are in business, isn't it? Who is to say that Oil Companies are NOT ALLOWED to make profits? What's next? Mom and pop bakeries? Tire shops? What gives the gov't ANY right to regulate PROFITS???? Find anywhere in the constitution or any state law which gives the gov't the right to TAKE any PROFITS away from you for any reason. Find it. Then why should she be allowed to propose to TAKE any from oil companies?

Do you know what a profit margin is? What do you think is the typical profit margin for most major U.S. corporations? What do you think the typical profit margin for FINANCIAL institutions is? What was Exxon/Mobil's profit margin AFTER that $39 billion?

Bush is under a perpetual media microscope. He farts, it's on the 12, 3,4,5,6,10, and 11 o'clock news. Hillary proclaims she's going to TAKE money from a company to do what SHE thinks they should do with THEIR profits, and you barely get a blurb in the newspaper. :thinking: Funny how that works.

The Socialist way of thinking is uber gay, period.

[ShooterMcGavin]

lolol i can't tell if ur really pro bush or really anti hilary :D

[ShooterMcGavin]

btw, not making excuses, just stating how it sounds to me. i didn't say it was right anywhere in my post, nor do u have to agree :goodjob:

[Jaimecbr900]

lolol i can't tell if ur really pro bush or really anti hilary :D

I'm actually anti-stupidity. :D

Bush has made some moves as of late that have me wondering where the hell his head is at too.

Hillary just gets under my skin with all this BS she spouts and then all these nutswinging liberal idiots clap and validate every stupid thing that comes out her mouth just because she's who she is. That's gay.

[ShooterMcGavin]

ok gotcha, if hilary gets elected i'm moving back to communist china :goodjob:

[RandomGuy]

The irony is that most shareholders in large Oil companies are not oil tycoons. It is generally retirement/401k/mutual funds.
source plz. That is not accurate ;)

[{X}Echo419]

source plz. That is not accurate ;)

www.nyse.com

www.exxonmobile.com

here's a starting point do your own research. His statment IS accurate :goodjob:

[Jaimecbr900]

source plz. That is not accurate ;)

Sorry for the late reply, but I am correct from what I've read. You'll owe me some reps after this..... ;)
__________________________________________________ __

Investors Seek Meeting with ExxonMobil Execs over Climate Policy
Source: GreenBiz.com

HARTFORD, Conn., and BOSTON, Mass., May 22, 2006 - Seventeen leading U.S. pension fund and other institutional investors controlling $658 billion in assets are pushing for a face-to-face meeting with independent members of the ExxonMobil board of directors as a result of growing financial world concerns that ExxonMobil is "a company that fails to acknowledge the potential for climate change to have a profound impact on global energy markets, and which lags far behind its competitors in developing a strategy to plan for and manage these impacts."

Pension fund trustees from seven states, New York City, and eight other major institutional investors with over 110 million ExxonMobil shares worth an estimated $6.75 billion made the request for the meeting this week. All those seeking the action from Exxon Mobil are members of the Investor Network on Climate Risk. The group of 17 consists of six state treasurers (Connecticut, California, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Maine, Vermont), the California State Controller, the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the New York State Comptroller, New York City Comptroller, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment, Walden Asset Management, The Nathan Cummings Foundation, and the Sheet Metal Workers Pension Fund.

This is from another source: http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0525-02.htm

WASHINGTON - May 25 - Campaign ExxonMobil and US PIRG praised the New York City pension funds for their decisions to support environmental proposals put forward by shareholders calling on ExxonMobil to improve its consideration of environmental issues. The pension funds include the New York City Employee Retirement System, the New York City Teachers Retirement System, the New York City Police Pension Fund and the New York City Fire Department Pension Fund. The Pension funds have $80 billion under management and collectively own roughly 13,500,000 shares in ExxonMobil, or $1.1 billion worth of stock.




These are just two quick examples of LARGE pension/retirment fund(s) that are MAJOR investors in Exxon/Mobil alone. They do this because Exxon is a consistent performer and thereby offers retirees a good dividend return on their retirement fund investment.

Now, if Hillary TAKES all those "profits" away from the company......WHO do you think will NOT receive dividends??? ;)

[{X}Echo419]

Sorry for the late reply, but I am correct from what I've read. You'll owe me some reps after this..... ;)
__________________________________________________ __

Investors Seek Meeting with ExxonMobil Execs over Climate Policy
Source: GreenBiz.com

HARTFORD, Conn., and BOSTON, Mass., May 22, 2006 - Seventeen leading U.S. pension fund and other institutional investors controlling $658 billion in assets are pushing for a face-to-face meeting with independent members of the ExxonMobil board of directors as a result of growing financial world concerns that ExxonMobil is "a company that fails to acknowledge the potential for climate change to have a profound impact on global energy markets, and which lags far behind its competitors in developing a strategy to plan for and manage these impacts."

Pension fund trustees from seven states, New York City, and eight other major institutional investors with over 110 million ExxonMobil shares worth an estimated $6.75 billion made the request for the meeting this week. All those seeking the action from Exxon Mobil are members of the Investor Network on Climate Risk. The group of 17 consists of six state treasurers (Connecticut, California, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Maine, Vermont), the California State Controller, the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the New York State Comptroller, New York City Comptroller, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment, Walden Asset Management, The Nathan Cummings Foundation, and the Sheet Metal Workers Pension Fund.

This is from another source: http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0525-02.htm

WASHINGTON - May 25 - Campaign ExxonMobil and US PIRG praised the New York City pension funds for their decisions to support environmental proposals put forward by shareholders calling on ExxonMobil to improve its consideration of environmental issues. The pension funds include the New York City Employee Retirement System, the New York City Teachers Retirement System, the New York City Police Pension Fund and the New York City Fire Department Pension Fund. The Pension funds have $80 billion under management and collectively own roughly 13,500,000 shares in ExxonMobil, or $1.1 billion worth of stock.




These are just two quick examples of LARGE pension/retirment fund(s) that are MAJOR investors in Exxon/Mobil alone. They do this because Exxon is a consistent performer and thereby offers retirees a good dividend return on their retirement fund investment.

Now, if Hillary TAKES all those "profits" away from the company......WHO do you think will NOT receive dividends??? ;)

pwned! :yes:

[MachNU]

Actually, that's like that joke someone posted a few days ago in here.


Hillary and her driver are going down an old country highway when a old cow steps out in front of their car and they hit it.

The driver gets out and walks up to the nearest farm house to tell the farmer they'd hit his cow and killed it.

He doesn't come back for a long time. Finally when he does, he has his shirt all out, lipstick on all over his face, and smoking a fine Cuban cigar.

Hillary asks, "so, what took you so long....what happened?".

The driver said, "well....I just knocked on the door and when I told the farmer what happened he gave me a fine cigar to smoke, his wife started kissing me, and his twin daughters took me out back and we had wild kinky sex.."

Hillary says, "well, that's odd. What did you say to him?"

The driver replies, "I just told him that I was Hillary Clinton's driver and I'd just killed the old Heffer.....everything else after that happened so fast....."

:lmfao:

..... :???: :thinking: .......i posted that joke a few days ago!!!!! :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

[SKUNK2GUY]

first off hillary clinton is the antichrist (her and tom from myspace) second if they got such crazy profits gas needs to go down those greedy bastards! +1 if you agree

[{X}Echo419]

first off hillary clinton is the antichrist (her and tom from myspace) second if they got such crazy profits gas needs to go down those greedy bastards! +1 if you agree

profits are high, but the margins are not. ex: cost(exploration,paying the OPEC nation, shipping, etc.)-selling price(profits)=profit margin. just be glad the "evil" oil companies don't mark up oil like restaurants do food, then we'd have something to bitch about :yes:

[Jaimecbr900]

first off hillary clinton is the antichrist (her and tom from myspace) second if they got such crazy profits gas needs to go down those greedy bastards! +1 if you agree

You're right about Hillary, but wrong about gas prices.

You know what's keeping gas prices so high? Lack of real competition.

All the greenpeace folks that are constantly fighting to save one owl or two nests are the ones to really blame for high prices. They constantly oppose and win against oil companies digging for more oil domestically. OPEC doesn't have that problem. If you get in their way of digging for oil in that part of the world, they'll lynch your butt. Here, in our beautifully screwed up world of PC, we have to have panels and committees and think tanks and prayer vigils BEFORE an oil company is allowed to even check to see if there's oil. There are areas where there is KNOWN oil fields that CAN'T be tapped because of the tree huggers. They'd rather pay $3/gal than to disturb a sleeping owl.

You put some REAL competition against OPEC and they have no choice but to lower their prices or they won't move their oil. WE are the biggest, next to China, demanders of oil from the Middle East. Imagine what would happen if we suddenly demanded only HALF of the millions of barrels we get now. There's no other country that demands as much oil imports as we and China do. They're not going to stop producing the oil. So the only thing that can happen is to lower the price to be able to compete. VOILA! Problem solved.

Tree huggers have a HUGE lobby in Washington that has a lot of pull. Environmentalists have a lot of Senators by the short hairs because they helped to get him/her elected, so of course they always vote for the tree huggers.

What we really need is someone to step up and tell the tree huggers to :2up: and do what the market is demanding it do. There's nothing wrong with alternative fuel sources, hybrid technology, or fuel efficiency. Just as there's nothing wrong with using the resources we have AVAILABLE either. The funny thing is that we have all these tree huggers wanting to wait to tap oil and in 50 yrs when they're all dead and burried the next generation is probably gonna say, "screw that, I'm gonna tap that oil well...." Kinda like using plastic over your furniture and then taking it off when company comes over......THEY are the only ones that get to truly enjoy the furniture. :lmfao: