idrankwhat

Follow the money. If working harder and producing more gas cuts into your profits, why would you do it? That supposes that working harder and producing more gas would cut into your profits. Here - let me put it so might understand it. If a refinery is operating at 50% capacity and they're making 20 cents net profit for each gallon they produce, do you think they'll make more or less money if they raise production to 80% of capacity? Less, after the increased inventory causes the price of fuel to drop. Same argument works for the idea of building new refineries.

Always with the negative waves. You need something upbeat like Gold nears record high as oil sets a new one

Follow the money. If working harder and producing more gas cuts into your profits, why would you do it?

Damn. I even checked a couple of sources. Must have been lousy ones. Typical political bullshit, say it enough and people think it's true. Snopes rules. I've got a few more. I'll check those out first. Thanks. Oh crap. I just admitted I was wrong. Does that make me a lib?

Did it. My bet was on Ted Stevens but he came in second. Then I googled "record number of earmarks" for a more recent history. Unfortunately the Dems have failed to claim for themselves the fiscal responsibility plank for their platform. It was ripped up and just lying there. You're absolutely right here. But it's wrong to ignore that Bush 43 picked up where his predecessors left off and kicked it up quite a few notches. Had he stayed out of Iraq he might have actually reversed the trend. Remember world sentiment after 9/11/01, before the Iraq invasion? Also, WRT the Israeli/Palestinian problem, Bush 43's policy of unilaterally siding with a hawkish Israeli leadership has compounded problems exponentially.

Not exactly. It would be free for all who can get on the ballot (method to be determined later). All candidate's campaigns would be publicly financed. All candidates would get the same amount of access time via the media, meaning Gravel and Paul would get the same airplay as Giuliani and Clinton. All money donated to a candidate would be considered bribes and both the briber and the bribee would be thrown in jail. That's my dream. ....but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless. -- Abraham Lincoln

That's just another example of the free market at work. You're not against market driven politics are you

Serving in public office, passing legislation for the lobby that they're going to work for next year.

Considering that Cheney's probably the most hated man on the planet I'd say he's trying to bolster US/Foreign relations. If it were me I'd have used "mean old crazy honkey", you know, giving him his "props". Thanks for illustrating my point. No problem! Glad to help. But you know, they can't be that closely related. Otherwise Obama would have simply said "I never said that!" or "go fuck yourself" like a respectable public servant would have done

Considering that Cheney's probably the most hated man on the planet I'd say he's trying to bolster US/Foreign relations. If it were me I'd have used "mean old crazy honkey", you know, giving him his "props".

I does work well. Just look how Air America did Well, what did you expect? If "libs" hate right wing media for being angry, rude and deliberately misinformative, what makes you think that they'll like it any more if it comes from the left? All the "libs" I know would rather have their news be accurate, delivered respectfully, and unmolested by market forces. I know, we're kooky that way. Too bad you don't have that, huh? You can still find two out of three. Sadly, market forces are creeping in more than I'd like. When I drive home listening to "all things considered" and they open with a story on Britney Spears, I'll consider civilization FUBAR.

I does work well. Just look how Air America did Well, what did you expect? If "libs" hate right wing media for being angry, rude and deliberately misinformative, what makes you think that they'll like it any more if it comes from the left? All the "libs" I know would rather have their news be accurate, delivered respectfully, and unmolested by market forces. I know, we're kooky that way.

Yes, you can. And there's plenty of information out there to do it with. Don't let a case of "star struck" cloud your judgement

I saw this this morning and I'm wondering how the fuel doesn't cause them problems in the lower temps at altitude.

You should have heard "Morning edition" on NPR yesterday. One piece started off with something like "Democrats in Congress are now accomplishing what their Republican counterparts did earlier .......................nothing!" I laughed out loud when I heard that one

FOX lowered the bar? Oh, please... if the rest of the networks hadn't gone hard left, there wouldn't have been a market for FOX to fill. The media has by NO means shifted to the left. Just the opposite. The previous post on Glenn Beck and CNN is a great example. I just recently got my satellite TV back after taking a two year break from almost all TV. When I turned on CNN for the first time I was stunned at the similarity to FOX's look. Although the lack of decent content remained the same. I could always count on FOX for disinformation. I could always count on the rest (with the exception of PBS and NPR news) for a lack of information.

A token gesture? Nope. A business decision.

FOX lowered the bar on valuable information and civil discourse in the mainstream media. It sold well and now others are following their lead into the gutter. That's why I can't stand FOX. Only "right" minded people seek out misinformation. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php

Why is it that when I watch or listen to CONservative media that all they talk about are the Democratic candidates? Does that make FOX, Hannity and Rush a bunch of libs?

When someone tries to blame an ongoing issue (and contract fraud has ALWAYS been around) entirely on one political party - I will absolutely call bullshit on it. Things are both better and worse in that respect in the present day. We have more oversight through the process, but fewer contract managers on the ground that know what they're doing. It's a Catch-22. Agreed, you can't blame one party for the fraud. But an argument can be made that one nation building, war mongering, subgroup of one party is doing it's best to provide opportunities to those who have defrauded us. That said, it doesn't excuse the bipartisan failure to hold the responsible parties accountable.

Ah, the "Clinton did it first" line again Actually, I'd be happy if you would go back and find the instances of them ripping us off again. And by "them" I don't mean just KBR/Halliburton. It happens again and again and again and we STILL KEEP HIRING THE SAME THIEVES!

I guess he's trying to act "relevant" again.

Nah, not blowing smoke. But I suppose that I should add that if you're (p)resident, no matter what you say you'll probably get media coverage.

Yes, he was clear, unambiguous. He was also wrong, had been proven wrong and was adhering to the notion that no matter how wrong he was he was not going to change his mind. Which brings us back to the OP

I don't know about NC but here in VA you're hard pressed to find gas without 10-15% EtOH.