Page 3 of 3
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:43 pm
by Cuda
Diogenes wrote:Cuda wrote:Mikey wrote:Typical ignorant response.
Your not liking the source doesn't in any way refute the facts, moron.
The source- in this case- totally discredits whatever bullshit they're peddling as "facts".
You might as well have put up a link to
The Democratic Underground. They're no less wacky and have every bit as much credibility as your so-called source
I'm with Mikey on this one.
At least I will be the next time he or some other takeless lefty decides instead to just malign WND, freerepublic, NRO, newsmax....
There does happen to be a pretty significant difference, although I wouldn't expect a blind-faith, GOP shill such as yourself to see it no matter how obvious it is: NRO, freerepublic, newsmax, etc... don't pretend to be non-partisan.
Leftist partisan groups- such as the one Mikey cites- almost always claim to be non-partisan no matter how obvious a load of bullshit that claim happens to be. No organization with such basic dishonesty at it's core can have any expectation of credibility.
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:50 pm
by Mister Bushice
Cuda wrote:
Leftist partisan groups- such as the one Mikey cites
what part of "TEXACO INTERNAL MEMO" Are you struggling with cognitively?
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:00 pm
by Cuda
What part of "basic dishonesty at it's core" don't you get, Babshice?
If they can't even be honest about who & what they are, nothing they want to "quote" can be trusted to be what its represented as being, or even be trusted to be presented honestly.
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:04 pm
by Mister Bushice
Oh I get it. You didn't even bother to read the memos.
Whatever hatred you have for the leftist publication has nothing to do with the core intent behind the memos written by oil executives, especially when they back up what they eventually went on to do - screw the public over.
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:35 pm
by Diogenes
Mikey wrote:Diogenes wrote:Mikey wrote:Sorry, I forgot to post the link to the whole report. There's a fair amount of documentary evidence there...
...that the companies in question were losing money in the mid 90s and seeking ways to stay afloat?
Got anything recent? Anything to show collusion, 'monopolistic' activities or criminal behavior?
Read the rest of the thread, dumbshit.
Then think about how the oil business works.
A simple no would have worked.
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:37 pm
by Diogenes
Mister Bushice wrote:Cuda wrote:
Leftist partisan groups- such as the one Mikey cites
what part of "TEXACO INTERNAL MEMO" Are you struggling with cognitively?
What part of stolen in the ninties do you not get?
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:53 pm
by Mister Bushice
and again, what part of FUTURE Gasoline Specifications slipped by you?
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:54 pm
by Gunslinger
Mister Bushice wrote:and again, what part of FUTURE Gasoline Specifications slipped by you?
Which one of my posts did you miss of mine, which described a proper response to Dio?
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 11:10 pm
by Dinsdale
Don't get me wrong -- I long ago accepted illegal collusion by the big oil companies as fact, and I think they're being assisted by the government to cripple this nation's economy at the expense of the people who actually do the work in this country, but...
Mikey wrote:
Of course Wyden's just another whacko liberal Democrat flat tax fanatic.
Being one who is quite familiar with the career of Ron Wyden...yeah, pretty much.
Put him and Representative David Wu in charge, and your paycheck would be from the US Treasury every week, not your employer. These guys got their positions because they are truly champions for the Little Guy, and are willing to stick their neck out for their cause, but fiscal responsibility isn't a strong point for either one of those dudes.
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 11:12 pm
by Diogenes
Mister Bushice wrote:and again, what part of FUTURE Gasoline Specifications slipped by you?
The one where they predicted the massive increase in oil consumption by the PRC and other nations, creating scarcity and driving up crude prices.
As far as collusion goes, which memo was the one where they decided to collectivly fix prices?
Takeless Bitch wrote:...a proper response to Dio?
Severe irony.
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 11:39 pm
by Mister Bushice
. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline. One example of a significant event would be the elimination of mandates for oxygenate addition to gasoline. Given a choice, oxygenate usage would go down, and gasoline supplies would go down accordingly
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 11:46 pm
by Diogenes
Mister Bushice wrote:. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline. One example of a significant event would be the elimination of mandates for oxygenate addition to gasoline. Given a choice, oxygenate usage would go down, and gasoline supplies would go down accordingly
And exactly what does that have to do with increased demand for crude in Asia?
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 11:55 pm
by Mister Bushice
Nothing, but it has a lot to do with record profits and high gas prices.
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:13 am
by Diogenes
Not nearly as much as increased demand in Asia.
For the record, I'm all in favor of hearings on the subject.
Just not terribly interested in out of context statements from ten year old stolen memos.
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:10 am
by Mikey
Diogenes wrote:Not nearly as much as increased demand in Asia.
For the record, I'm all in favor of hearings on the subject.
Just not terribly interested in out of context statements from ten year old stolen memos.
Please educate us.
WTF does increased demand for crude in Asia have to do with the lack of refining capacity in the US?
This should be interesting.
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:24 am
by Diogenes
Mikey wrote:Diogenes wrote:Not nearly as much as increased demand in Asia.
For the record, I'm all in favor of hearings on the subject.
Just not terribly interested in out of context statements from ten year old stolen memos.
Please educate us.
WTF does increased demand for crude in Asia have to do with the lack of refining capacity in the US?
This should be interesting.
Nothing, but it has a lot to do with record profits and high gas prices
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:45 am
by Gunslinger
WOW!!
It seems this country still wants to take Rush Limbaugh at his word, instead of finding ways that he would be better off dead.
Continue on, this is sadistic.
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:38 pm
by Mister Bushice
Mikey wrote:Diogenes wrote:Not nearly as much as increased demand in Asia.
For the record, I'm all in favor of hearings on the subject.
Just not terribly interested in out of context statements from ten year old stolen memos.
Please educate us.
WTF does increased demand for crude in Asia have to do with the lack of refining capacity in the US?
This should be interesting.
And so you can see Mikey the answer is: NOTHING. The Oil giants began buying up or squeezing out competition then proceeded to reduce their oil surpluses by not building sufficient refineries to keep up with a growing population demand, or by strong arming state and federal governments to eliminate the fuel additive mandates, like they did in the northwest.
Here in cali they just fucked with the supply.
This limitation of refinery capacity has been going on in Cali for the last 6-8 years, so a ten year old memo is really not all that long ago.
but they will get away with it, because they have the president in their back pockets.
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:34 pm
by Cuda
Mister Babshice wrote:Oh I get it. You didn't even bother to read the memos.
No, as a matter of fact, I didn't bother to read that load of bullshit.
All it takes is one look at that site and the causes it pimps to know what they're all about: They're socialists.
They're opposed to whatever it is Ahnold Schwartzenegger is in favor of, they're opposed to the war in Iraq, as well as capitalism and the capitalist system, and they're pro abortion and they're in favor of socialized health care. I didn't read far enough to find their position on gay marriage, but I think it's safe to assume they're in favor of that too.
No surprise that Mikey, Babshice & B-Monica would be pimping a site that's based on dishonesty, because that's what they're based on too.
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:10 pm
by Mister Bushice
Cuda wrote: I didn't bother to read.....
I didn't read far enough, but I think it's safe to assume.
Exactly. Dismissed.
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:40 pm
by Mikey
Cuda doesn't have the intelligence or the knowledge to actually discuss this issue, or any other for that matter.
That's why his takes are 100% bluster and bullshit.
Why even bother?
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:55 pm
by Diogenes
That's okay.
I read the shit, and it is irrelevant.