January 31, 2006

The Speech: A Solid B-
— Ace

I apologize for the lateness of this. Really, seriously, packing and cleaning sucks. I've had just about enough of it.

On the speech: What can I say? It was, as usual, okay.

The overarching theme was obviously his confidence of victory-- in the war on terror, in Iraq, on the economy, even on AIDS -- contrasted with retreat and defeat on all of these. (Well, except for AIDS, I guess. The Democrats aren't willing to call that war a quagmire.)

I was a little surprised that Bush was as forward-leaning in confronting the Democrats as he was. He repeatedly called them -- or some of them, by which he means most of them -- defeatist and weak on security.

He once again noted the stakes of the conflict -- defeat in Iraq would surrender "the world to the violent." I wondered why he didn't say it would surrender "the world to the vicious." He used that word later, but I think it's so much more potent than the empty word "violent." Hell, the US Marines are violent; violence, per se, isn't the problem.

I'm tired of the freedom rhetoric. I'm not tired of the idea, mind you. I just wish he would come up with a new way to describe the conflict. "Freedom" is nice rhetoric, but it feels a little threadworn at this point. I'd prefer that he was a little more concrete in providing examples and evidence along these lines. I realize these things tend to be bullet-point affairs, but one fleshed-out anecdote about, say, elections in Lebanon or Ukraine is better than just saying "freedom" fifteen times.

This is an important enough issue that he can afford not to bullet-point it quite so much.

I realize he's not a newscaster, but he is providing a public-information function. If the NSA wiretaps prevented a terrorist attack, why on earth not elaborate on the terrorist and his plan? Why just leave it as naked assertion without details that will awaken the interest and stick in the mind?

He called on Democrats for bipartisan solutions. Fat chance. It's a cute little silly nod to civility, but why not echo his father, and say something about leading, following, or getting the hell out of the way? His put-down that "hindsight is not a plan" is pithy, but I think it was probably lost on most. Economy of wording is sometimes not a virtue. Why not spell it out -- "There are those of you who wish to carp, to criticize, to castigate for partisan political advantage, but where, exactly, is your plan?"

An off-note-- Bush says we're winning but if we abandon Iraq we will leave the nascent government and its increasingly-effective security forces to be killed or jailed by Al Qaeda. That may not be a complete contradiction -- we are winning, and the Iraqi government can win, but only with our help for the moment -- but I imagine some wondered if things were going so well, why is it so desperately important that we stay?

Bush of course called for "earmark reform." And for the line-item veto. Again, no elaboration. Does the general public know what he's talking about? Why not put a number on the amount of pork-barrel spending and inform the public how many of their dollars are going to low-priority projects that local citizens don't feel are important enough to pay for with their own tax dollars?

Do people get what the line-item veto is? Why not follow up with, "... so I can strike out costly and ineffective pork barrel spending items one boondoggle at a time"?

I enjoyed how the Democrats all cheered that they had stymied any reform of Social Security, as if that's a feather in their cap. But it left the Republicans with an awkward part to applaud themselves-- they loudly applauded when Bush noted the Social Security problem continues to get worse and worse.

I tuned out for the rest of the domestic-policy bullet-points. I heard stuff about AIDS and alternative fuels made from "whipgrass" or something.

One question: On FoxNews, after Bush mentioned that it was time for all of us to come together and stand behind the troops, an unhappy and very large woman in bright red reluctantly clapped (but did not stand) and mouthed out the words, pretty clearly I thought, "I think that's bullshit." Was this Barbara Mikulsky? I don't know what the woman looks like, but this fat broad looked like a "Barbara Mikulsky."

Another workmanlike if uninspired speech, overly epigrammatic, and too repepitive of the same ten bullet-points and key phrases from previous speeches. I'd jokingly give it a B+, but I think a B- is more like it.

Posted by: Ace at 07:34 PM | Comments (164)
Post contains 796 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Well, at any rate it's the first SOTU that I've heard where the Pres makes a funny. ( his and Clinton's hitting a certain age ) semi refreshing, so I give it 2 thumbs up with a snap and a twist.

Posted by: Tres at January 31, 2006 07:46 PM (Ffvoi)

2 We're in trouble.

Posted by: Sybil at January 31, 2006 07:57 PM (leJWb)

3 We're fucked.

Posted by: Mike at January 31, 2006 08:02 PM (leJWb)

4 I agree for the most part, Ace, but he really stuck his jaw out on the NSA comments, and the comments implying that the Dems are obstructionists, if not downright traitors on the war, whether he fleshed those out or not.

Posted by: CraigC at January 31, 2006 08:10 PM (ASX9p)

5 Kinda reminded me of Bill Cowher, actually.

Posted by: CraigC at January 31, 2006 08:12 PM (ASX9p)

6 Can always count on Ace for the ultra-pessimist take on things.

First half: A-. Second half: Ugh.

Posted by: someone at January 31, 2006 08:15 PM (6Swlb)

7 My take on the speech was that the President went further on the GWOT -- to include the entire world in a roadmap to stabiliy and prosperity.

Click name for more detailed post.

Posted by: USCitizen at January 31, 2006 08:17 PM (ZpAjQ)

8 Without the spittle.

Posted by: CraigC at January 31, 2006 08:19 PM (ASX9p)

9 Yeah, Ace, I thought Mikulski as well.
And yeah, mike, you and sybil are fucked.
Fucked-up.
In the head.

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at January 31, 2006 08:22 PM (QPFur)

10 I didn't see it, but it had to be Babs. She always wears red, and she is, um, gravitationally challenged.

Posted by: CraigC at January 31, 2006 08:37 PM (ASX9p)

11 Just as a thought, Ace, on the newscaster remark...

I've talked to more than a few people who regard his decidedly poor oratory skills as a reason not to vote for him. Granted, these people are by and large in the performing arts, but still, a surprise, until one considers...

We had one of the greatest orators possibly in the history of the presidency in Ronald Reagan. To reiterate (things we already knew but worth repeating), the man was an actor- perhaps not a great one, but nonetheless an actor, and then cut his teeth giving union speeches around the country.

You follow that with the somewhat less-impressive Bush 41 (who isn't going to be less impressive after Reagan?), and then the ultra-slick but emotionless Bill Clinton, it makes Bush 43's oratory skills look pretty pedestrian in comparison.

I give the man a lot of credit- he's come a long way since 2000, but his public address skills are still a big Achilles' heel for him. It seems to me, at least these days, that if you're an up-and-coming politician, money spent on speech lessons would be money well-spend indeed.

And I thought the speech was a typical SOTU speech... not bad, but nothing terribly exciting. Kind of curious to see what more he has to say in Nashville tomorrow morning.

tmi3rd

Posted by: tmi3rd at January 31, 2006 08:37 PM (bXBug)

12 I think you missed the main point. GW is going to nationalize the 2006 election based on the NSA surveillance issue and winning in Iraq rather than cut and run. A masterful job of setting the terms of debate for Nov. 2006 national election. Rove is all over this one and you missed it, just like all the lefty moon bats. Have a little faith. GW has delivered election after election and is setting the table big time for this upcoming election. And it doesn't matter what the nitwits in the MSM say. They've been wrong consistantly about politics and political issues for decades (remember Brokaw's comment in 1994 when the Republicans won the House of Representatives " the voters threw a tantrum"? well the voters threw that same tantrum every year since: "96,'98,'00,'02 and '04--some "tantrum") Limit your reading to Steyn and Hewitt for a couple of weeks so your political gyrostabilizer can get back in working order.

Posted by: pendelton at January 31, 2006 08:39 PM (wIQO1)

13 And for the love of God, is there no one in his inner circle who has the balls to tell him to stop saying "nucular?" I almost get the feeling that they have, and he told them to f off.

Posted by: CraigC at January 31, 2006 08:40 PM (ASX9p)

14 the US Marines are violent

You're goddamned right, we are.

Posted by: Biff Boff at January 31, 2006 08:46 PM (zo/+l)

15 This is your attack profile: to insure that the enemy cannot monitor voice transmission or plant false transmission, the CRM114 is to be switched into all the receiver circuits. Emergency phase code prefix is to be set on the dials of the CRM. This'll block any transmission other than those preceded by code prefix. Stand by to set code prefix "nucular".

Posted by: Major T. J. "King" Kong at January 31, 2006 08:53 PM (spTw1)

16 Don't forget to set a hard perimeter, Major Kong.

Posted by: CraigC at January 31, 2006 08:59 PM (ASX9p)

17 the ''violent'' remark was about ''the violent inheriting the Earth'' , referencing the phrase from the Beatitudes, ''Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the Earth'' from the Sermon on the Mount.

as for not using some of the more confrontational stuff, i think that's left to Dick Cheney's you-know-what, and the eeeeevil Karl Rove. well, John Bolton's moustache is also rather pugnacious.

Posted by: at January 31, 2006 09:39 PM (++PlU)

18 "nucular?"

Even his wife has made fun of him for it (in her "Desperate Housewives" speech). Which suggests to me that he's quite aware of it, and probably continues doing it on purpose.

In and of itself, it isn't likely to effect which way anybody votes. And when the left makes fun of Bush for saying "nucular", the entire country can laugh at the joke. But, at the same time, the howls of laughter remind some of us (particularly lower-income Christian Republicans, I'd guess) of the sneering elitism that is so prevalent on the left, particularly from academia and Hollywood.

Democrats try to spread a gut-feel perception of the Republicans as the party of bigots and evil corporations, right? Well, similarly, Republicans want to spread a gut-feel perception of the Democrats as the party of people who look down on you. And it's so easy for them to do: "Nucular!"

Posted by: SJKevin at January 31, 2006 09:55 PM (jnu9s)

19 P.S. I just realized that I got the phrase "sneering elitism" in my head from reading a post by steve_in_hb in this thread.

Posted by: SJKevin at January 31, 2006 10:12 PM (jnu9s)

20 I find nothing wrong with Bush's oratory skills. In fact, I think he is pretty good.

Clinton bored me to tears. What's the point of giving a speech when one has nothing to say and the speaker is just droning on and on? His wife is nails on a chalkboard and lies through her teeth. Who the hell wants to hear crap like, "And you *know* what I'm talking about." Bush's keeps it short and sweet the way it is suppose to be.

Posted by: shawn at January 31, 2006 10:13 PM (D90f7)

21 I find nothing wrong with Bush's oratory skills.

His "fool me once" screw-up was pretty painful to watch. (And by painful, I mean hilarious.)

Posted by: sandy burger at January 31, 2006 10:19 PM (jnu9s)

22 With his schedule and with cameras constantly on him, I don't know how he or anyone else can not make errors. In fact, everyone makes errors speaking. Only his get aired repeatedly. Everyone else's the media does not make a big deal out of. Hillary's speeches are painful to listen to they are so fkng pandering. Kennedy is drunk most of the time. Joe, "hey, boss" Biden is a fkng embarassment. Those three have said more offensive idiotic things than I can count. Be a man, Sandy, defend your future girl friend!

Posted by: shawn at January 31, 2006 10:37 PM (D90f7)

23 My Lord, the left thinks Robert Byrd is a great orator. Now, he's painful to hear.

Posted by: shawn at January 31, 2006 10:39 PM (D90f7)

24 Hey, I didn't say it was fair. I just said it was hilarious.

My future girlfriend, on the other hand, is a truly excellent orator. (Now if only she knew who I am...)

Posted by: sandy burger at January 31, 2006 11:14 PM (jnu9s)

25 If it's any consolation, after the 1000+ posts on Dick Cheney's cock, I'm sure the secret service knows who everyone is.

Posted by: shawn at January 31, 2006 11:19 PM (D90f7)

26 I wish just once Bush could drop the nice-guy act and be an ass. When the dems stood and applauded at blocking social security reform, he should have said "Laugh it up, cock-suckers" or "you want to act like bitches, then I'll treat you like bitches" or something. He should realize by now that playing nice with the liberals isn't going anywhere, and act accordingly. Seeing hillary's smug, smiling face, shaking her head "no" in the audience should piss anyone off. Can't he just say once "get that stupid fucking look of your stupid fucking face, whore".

Posted by: elcid016187 at February 01, 2006 12:39 AM (/yst1)

27 I have to laugh. When Pelosi's kid did her documentary on Bush, politics aside, she truly found him to be a nice guy. When she did it on Kerry four years later, she thought Kerry was an asshole.

Posted by: shawn at February 01, 2006 12:50 AM (D90f7)

28 Ace,
I live in Maryland and yes that was "Babs Mikulski" she is a true piece of work. A lefty's leftist. She is from a part of Baltimore City where the women are men and men are afraid. Sadly in Maryland liberals only have to run for office once, the brain dead welfare pariahs (they are 50% of the population of Baltimore City) just automatically vote for the same name over and over. Kinda like Kennedy in Mass.
As for the part about not being more specific about the line item veto I believe that if the president had enumerated on this then it would have been a winning talking point for the Dems on a local level. Better to be a little nebulus that way they can't tell their constituents that they would be losing lots of federal dollars due to line item veto.

Posted by: The Real Steve at February 01, 2006 01:26 AM (n0lBX)

29 Can't he just say once "get that stupid fucking look of your stupid fucking face, whore".

Elcid,
For the record, Mrs. Clinton is a major league bitch.

Her husband is the whore.

Posted by: at February 01, 2006 01:44 AM (gETp4)

30 Sorry, that couldn't have been Barbara Mikulski. The real Barbara Mikulski is so dense that light actually bends around her such that you can't actually see her.

I think what you saw was actually a yeti in drag. At least that's what Art Bell said last night.

Posted by: W at February 01, 2006 01:56 AM (cSrmo)

31 Explaning just what the foiled attacks were would give the bad guys a better idea just what went wrong. Better their ops just vanish without a trace and let the honchos wonder if someone's leaking and if the guys they sent are dead or if they're singing like canaries. Make them start purging their command structure and limiting the information their ops have, even if the details and/or "commander's intent" would improve their chance of success. As the Prez said, we're going to turn them against each other...

Posted by: Cybrludite at February 01, 2006 01:57 AM (XFoEH)

32 after all the posts from one person pretending to be 6 (who all drink - so we know they're grown ups!), you gots to appreciate the irony of someone posting "we're in trouble" named Sybil.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 01, 2006 04:17 AM (pzen5)

33 this was the closest bush has come to speaking in standard american english and most appropriately in the sotu. obviously his delivery was different than when he speaks to the "folks" in his countrified manner. he's aware (and was made aware) of the difference between this formal address before congress and to the entire nation and one where he's just being a casual regular guy. the difference is not just that he read a formal speech in complete sentences but if you listen to him he is making sure that every syllable is being articulated. every verb ending was enunciated (ing vs in'), for instance. he was much clearer and more effective as a result. there are times when he's unbearable , not for the garbled phrases or syntax, but because he's doin' that just plain folks thang. his dad could be the same way. whatever gains he makes in sending the message he's just a regular informal guy, he loses much more in communicating the content of his ideas.

Posted by: mcmorris at February 01, 2006 04:24 AM (sFoY0)

34 that he's given pretty high marks for this speech here is due in part to his more measured and proper delivery.

Posted by: mcmorris at February 01, 2006 04:29 AM (sFoY0)

35 Homer: "It's pronounced 'NUC-U-LAR,' Lisa - 'nu-cu-lar'."

Posted by: kyer at February 01, 2006 04:42 AM (4LLbh)

36 I have to agree that it's not fair to give the speech only one grade. Foreign Policy? A-. Domestic (i.e. non-Homeland Security) Policy? D.

He's still my man, though. So to speak. Like a Viking.

Posted by: Harry Callahan at February 01, 2006 05:12 AM (Xroyb)

Posted by: lauraw at February 01, 2006 05:21 AM (fqUlX)

38 Feh. How come nobody ever gave Carter grief for saying "nookeelar" all those years? And he was claiming to be a nookeelar engineer.

(That said, I can't watch a Bush speech live. I hold my breath waiting for the screwup. And his dad was even worse -- better accent, but more stumble).

Posted by: S. Weasel at February 01, 2006 05:25 AM (rasT+)

39
Immigration?
Can't live without it!

Amnesty?
No, but we must welcome (illegals too) immigrants (see above).

Lather, rinse, etc...

Posted by: Joe Mama at February 01, 2006 05:29 AM (5WEQS)

40 lauraw, re: hillary's photograph.


HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAAAAAAA

*breathe*

BWAAHAHAHA HAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAA

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 01, 2006 05:47 AM (pzen5)

41 I believe this is a case of a constantly repeated meme being turned into a perceived fact. Bush gave some of the most well delivered, inspired speeches post 9/11. His SOTU addresses and Inaugural addresses have also all been well delivered. His addresses to the UN have been forceful and direct. Unfortunately one of his best speeches in England was not broadcast except on c-span. If I am missing a major speech in which he totally sucked, someone please set me straight.

Posted by: roc ingersol at February 01, 2006 05:48 AM (m2CN7)

42 Oh that's priceless, lauraw! LOL!

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at February 01, 2006 05:51 AM (rE+jU)

43 I would have given it a B+ rather than a B-, but I don't really expect a SOTU speech to be anything other than pedestrian. W made the necessary points about the War on Terror, and gave Iran a good heads-up. His remarks about the war’s critics were pretty strong, in the non-partisan context of the SOTU; still, I wish that Cheney would step up to the podium more often to give these people the life-changing reaming they deserve.

The line-time veto remark bugged me, because it evoked memories of Bush 41. Every year he'd get up and demand the line-item veto and a whole bunch of other stuff, and then he would do *nothing* towards seeing his proposals implemented. This was the visionary who said that he wouldn't be sending a domestic agenda to the 1990 Congress because he'd already accomplished everything he wanted to domestically. (Actually, Sununu said it for him.)

Tim Kaine gave an excellent response. It was selective, duplicitous, condescending, and philosophically wrong-headed, but it was a gigantic improvement over the Reid & Pelosi show last year. If the party’s national leaders were as civil and positive as Kaine, the Republicans would have something to worry about. But Kennedy’s meltdown yesterday tells me that ain’t gonna happen.

Slightly O/T: can one of the people who think Bush is a verbally challenged chimpoid (Mikey, I'm talking to any one of your sub-personalities) remind me of a time when the man looked as utterly freakin' demented as Hillary looks in that photo?

Posted by: utron at February 01, 2006 05:53 AM (CgIkY)

44 I think W is a decent speaker when it counts, especially after 9/11. No, he's far from glib off the cuff, but BFD. Clinton was an impressive speaker, but I always got the same feeling I get when a guy is trying to sell me a car. Clinton oozed insincerity every time he talked.

Posted by: UGAdawg at February 01, 2006 06:12 AM (oYEcP)

45 I think it is hilarious that Kennedy didn't have the cojones to show up last night. Probably went on a real bender.

Spielberg has finally fessed up to being a terrorist tool: TOOL

Posted by: shawn at February 01, 2006 06:15 AM (D90f7)

46 For a news/politics junkie, the speech was really good. I wonder if someone who doesn't follow politics would recognize what he did.

First, I am one of those conservatives that bitch and moan that W is not into smacking down the democrats, that he does too much turn the other cheek. He used his "turn the other cheek" style well last night. Accepting criticism as a function of government, but also pointing out that hindsight (ahem, kerry) is not a governing style. It really made him look like a leader. I have to hand it to him for sticking to his guns like that. If I were he, I would probably say "suck it" after each applause line.

Every now and then he would look directly into the camera (I'm looking at you, Hamas). This seemed really effective. and leadery.

I wanted him to push the economy harder, but he at least dropped the 4.6 million jobs number. How about that, I haven't heard that before.

He made the democrats seem foolish with the whole NSA program.

I felt that his mentioning of social security was real guts, especially with the CW being that its dead and a failure and whatnot. Good comeback to the Dem applause, too bad he mumbled it. and did not explain what non-discretionary spending was.

I liked the speech, he did a good job, and I give it an A- (especially with the typically lame Dem. response).

Posted by: joeindc44 at February 01, 2006 06:22 AM (8TcCs)

47 I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the reply sucked eggs. All I heard on Fox, CNN, etc, and radio this am was how good the response was. I'm not using RR as a measuring tool for Bush, just as I did not use Kennedy or Roosevelt as a measuring tool for Bubba. There are, however, standards that must be adhered to. The Governor of Virginia did not sound sincere. Bush may stumble in his oratory, but he is sincere, and that comes through.

The Governor's gestures, his timing, his delivery, all seemed amatuerish and scripted. I'll cut him slack, as he is new to the National stage, but the speech is the speech. His words were insincere, and his facts were questionable.

Posted by: Tom M at February 01, 2006 06:58 AM (d6bNm)

48 Clinton was smooth.
Bush is believable.


The man has a heart and wears it on his sleeve.

Posted by: Bart at February 01, 2006 07:14 AM (9f8Ew)

49 Chris Muir sums up the Democratic response perfectly.

Bush set up the Dems with his SS Reform reference. He let them stand up and applaud their blocking any activity before he pointed out the huge, looming problem that faces the large voting boomer audience. Now they're 'on record' as to being happy SS is going to fail.

Posted by: KCSteve at February 01, 2006 08:10 AM (oRlYN)

50 The best part of the Dem response was the awkward pause when he attempted to explain what it is his party wanted to do better. I couldn't stop laughing after that.

Posted by: joeindc44 at February 01, 2006 08:16 AM (8TcCs)

51 Why do you guys all love talking to a mouth with no ears?

Posted by: Tom M at February 01, 2006 08:49 AM (d6bNm)

52 Sorry, all, I had the other mega thread open, and this was meant for that.
Still, gosh.


Posted by: Tom M at February 01, 2006 08:57 AM (d6bNm)

53 I agree, Tom. These uber long troll threads get boring. But, it seems to keep Ace's minions entertained while he "packs."

Posted by: shawn at February 01, 2006 09:23 AM (D90f7)

54 Shawn,
Yeah, I mean it's still going on over there.
Funneh, tho'.

Posted by: Tom M at February 01, 2006 09:39 AM (d6bNm)

55 What was with Tim Kaine's eyebrow? I thought we were going to see the Vulcan gesture there for a while.

But yeah, Kaine's response was vanilla at best, and stunted and halting like a small-market first-time anchor.

One other thing- every TV consultant in the world will tell you not to put your fingertips and thumbtip together in front of you, making that slightly offset diamond-shape... it's sign language for "vagina"...

tmi3rd

Posted by: tmi3rd at February 01, 2006 09:48 AM (bXBug)

56 See the church? Look at the steeple open the doors-
Wo! vagina!

Posted by: Tom M at February 01, 2006 09:51 AM (d6bNm)

57 Its "Switchgrass" and it is going to be very important in all of our lives because it will power or cars.

It will be used to make Ethanol, which will be a boon to farmers as well as National security if the 6 year goal is reached.

Posted by: Sinner at February 01, 2006 09:52 AM (h2VSX)

58 Wow.

So...George thinks we use too much oil...duh.

But, isn't the real problem the fact that we're forced, by a cabal made up of our major oil companies, to PAY TOO MUCH FOR OIL?

They hold back on production, time their purchases, close down refineries, push the prices to coincide with summer travel months and take full advantage of major disasters like Katrina.

I think it's downright thievery.

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 10:18 AM (leJWb)

59 Why aren't you Mary today, Mike?

Or Geno? Or Jersey?

Posted by: AoSHQ Troll Detection Service at February 01, 2006 10:21 AM (R8+nJ)

60 But, isn't the real problem the fact that we're forced, by a cabal made up of our major oil companies, to PAY TOO MUCH FOR OIL?

They hold back on production, time their purchases, close down refineries, push the prices to coincide with summer travel months and take full advantage of major disasters like Katrina.

Could be. Free market is a bitch, sometimes. But far better than the alternative. Unless you can prove an anti-trust violation.

Posted by: geoff at February 01, 2006 10:24 AM (vpYuK)

61 Yeah, tmi3rd, it would have been great if Kaine closed his speech with, "Live long and prosper."

Posted by: Bart at February 01, 2006 10:28 AM (A6sKo)

62 There is no CABAL!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 01, 2006 10:31 AM (nVA0o)

63 Unless you can prove an anti-trust violation.

MikeMaryGenoJersey could be rich beyond his wildest dreams if he could do that. Can you imagine the millions of dollars involved in a class action suit like that? It would make the Big Tobacco settlement look like a slip-and-fall.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at February 01, 2006 10:32 AM (rE+jU)

64 Nuke-U-Ler

I've seen Victor Davis Hanson in public debate twice and he prounounced it that way also.

Posted by: vladimir at February 01, 2006 10:36 AM (fm4JO)

65 hooray for not feeding that boring bitch of a troll

Posted by: joeindc44 at February 01, 2006 10:38 AM (8TcCs)

66 "push the prices to coincide with summer travel months"

In the summer the oil companies have to produce different formulas of gasoline to match the different emission reqs. of different states and cities. They are called " boutique gasolines." Thus prices in the summer are higher due to excessive gov't regulations.

Posted by: harrison at February 01, 2006 10:42 AM (S1+W4)

67 dont bother

Posted by: joeindc44 at February 01, 2006 10:51 AM (8TcCs)

68 I love it.

You idiots would rather eat the oil companies shit than admit we have a problem with the way they do business.

Blaming it on the Mideast is a non-starter, since only import 10% of our oil from the Mideast, with Mexico and Canada providing the vast majority.

As for anti-trust, etc., I know plenty about the laws that govern corporations in America, and the oil companies do, too. They're incredibly adept at taking advantage of every loophole available...but...let's look at this from an American citizen's point of view"

Do you REALLY think, with a war being waged in Iraq, the War On Terrorism being waged, the price of oil at $68 today, gasoliine at insane levels ($2.60 for regular in California where we have 35 million people and refineries closing down for no apparent reason), and heating oil prices up 25-50% throughout the Midwest and East Coast...that the oil companies could consider taking a smaller bite of the "profit" apple? And doesn't it make you wonder, when Exxon-Mobil can make more money than Walmart...the biggest employer in the world?
(Walmart works at about a 3-4% profit...Exxon comes in at about 11%)

By doing so, the oil companies could help Americans afford to buy gas, spur the economy, and maybe even decrease the massive amounts of dough the executives pull in via stock options, salaries and golden parachutes when they bail out?

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 12:04 PM (leJWb)

69 Go away, Mary Mike. If we wanted DNC talking points we could turn on the CBS evening news.

Posted by: Gutless Poster at February 01, 2006 12:13 PM (tDpXN)

70 harrison,
That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Supply, demand...yes...boutique formulas...ludicrous.

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 12:14 PM (leJWb)

71 Gutless:

You're as dumb as a fucking stump.

What does the DNC have to do with obscene oil company profits being obscene?

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 12:24 PM (leJWb)

72 joeindc44,
I'm hurt. I thought we were friends.

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 12:29 PM (leJWb)

73 Suzie:

Are you really a man?

A fat man?.

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 12:32 PM (leJWb)

74 boutique formulas...ludicrous.

Mike you are an idiot - 5 seconds of scroogleing will tell you that you need to shove a cock into your gaping pie-hole!

Boutique Gas Formulas

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told an Albuquerque energy conference there was no need for the current level of some 110 individual gasoline varieties, a situation that has been blamed for contributing to supply tightness and high prices in regional gasoline markets.
This was the second paragraph.

In the words of the immortal ergastularius: You don't know anything!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 01, 2006 12:35 PM (nVA0o)

75 Why does MikeMaryGenoJersey use the exact same insults as Eggmcmuffin including constanly insisting Sue is a man?

Posted by: JackStraw at February 01, 2006 12:35 PM (J8+2b)

76 I bet Mike doesn't even know who owns the oil companies.

Posted by: scott at February 01, 2006 12:41 PM (Ffvoi)

77 (Walmart works at about a 3-4% profit...Exxon comes in at about 11%)

Wrong again dickhead...

Revenue of $371B / Profit of $36.13B = 9.73%. But what's an extra billion or two between 'friends'?

And doesn't it make you wonder, when Exxon-Mobil can make more money than Walmart...the biggest employer in the world?

What the fuck does being the world's largest employer have to do with the actual earnings of profits?

Damn, you are one ellipsoidal ignoranus!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 01, 2006 12:47 PM (nVA0o)

78 If any of you are oil executives, and are thinking about reducing your profits. Don't do it.

WILL WORK FOR FOOD

Posted by: Ex Oil Company Executive at February 01, 2006 12:49 PM (2c7xL)

79 Why does MikeMaryGenoJersey use the exact same insults as Eggmcmuffin including constanly insisting Sue is a man?

Because MarkMike has no original thoughts of his own. Cut & Paste, Cut & Paste, Cut & Paste. What an autistic child prostitute!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 01, 2006 12:50 PM (nVA0o)

80 "Mike you are an idiot - 5 seconds of scroogleing will tell you that you need to shove a cock into your gaping pie-hole!"

"Boutique Gas Formulas"

Thanks, Mr. Willie!!

Posted by: harrison at February 01, 2006 12:56 PM (S1+W4)

81
The oil companies are getting screwed ! 10% is only 25 cents a gallon, the Government makes almost 50 cents a gallon in taxes.


Posted by: scott at February 01, 2006 01:03 PM (Ffvoi)

82 Lying liars and the lies they tell...

Bush Stretches to Defend Surveillance

Wednesday 01 February 2006

The president's justification for his spy program has disputable roots, as do some of the facts and figures he put forth in his speech.

Defending the surveillance program as crucial in a time of war, Bush said that "previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority" that he did. "And," he added, "federal courts have approved the use of that authority."

Bush did not name names, but was apparently reiterating the argument offered earlier this month by Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, who invoked Presidents Lincoln, Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt for their use of executive authority.

However, warrantless surveillance within the United States for national security purposes was struck down by the US Supreme Court in 1972 - long after Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt stopped issuing orders.

"If he was talking more particularly about the use of warrantless surveillance, then he is wrong."

On his headline-grabbing pledge to decrease US reliance on Middle East oil by 75% over the next 20 years, Bush's words seemed to suggest a dramatic new program to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

But experts point out that the US gets only a fraction - about 10% - of its oil imports from the Middle East. In fact, the majority now comes from Canada and Mexico - and Bush said nothing on Tuesday about them.

Bush made a number of claims for his economic stewardship that were technically accurate but told only a part of the story.

"In the last 2 1/2 years, America has created 4.6 million new jobs," Bush said. Although the claim is essentially true, he did not say that the United States lost 2.6 million jobs in the first 2 1/2 years of his presidency.

The president also seemed to ignore Supreme Court precedent when he called for Congress to give him the "line item veto." But Congress did that once, in 1996, and it was used once, by former President Clinton. But in 1998, a federal judge ruled that it was unconstitutional. That was affirmed by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court.

The president echoed earlier administration assertions that the domestic surveillance program would have been useful before the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush said two Sept. 11 hijackers living in San Diego made telephone calls to Al Qaeda associates overseas, but that "we did not know about their plans until it was too late."

However, The Times has previously reported that some US counterterrorism officials knowledgeable about the case blame a communications breakdown, not a surveillance failure or shortcomings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

-------

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 01:25 PM (leJWb)

83 Mike, since I was late and they already hammered you for your stupid comment about boutique gas formulas(you live in California! you should have known that if you were as smart as you think you are) I'll take on this one.

Blaming it on the Mideast is a non-starter, since only import 10% of our oil from the Mideast,

Well Mike you are proving again you don't have a clue what you are talking about. we import over 10% of our crude oil from Saudi Arabia alone. Throw in Iraq and Kuwait and we are close to 20% of crude oil imports.

Posted by: at February 01, 2006 01:25 PM (Hh1WY)

84 Its "Switchgrass" and it is going to be very important in all of our lives because it will power or cars.

I worked on a switchgrass project many years ago on a guvmint grant. It's for shit. The economics for the enzyme reactions blew it out of the water. In order for the reactions to work, there was a heated process (actually natural gas heated the jackets to the reactors--what a joke) to soften up the stuff before you do the enzymatic stuff. Then you could finally do the damned fermentation. I haven't gotten to the distillation part. I think they could use the waste stream from the spent grass to burn for heat, but it was a bust.

But if you're running a university research lab or you write grants for that mad federal grant money...this will keep the pipline fed for the next ten years.

On the other hand, corn is the way to go because we already have hundreds of corn mills already in place to do the hard part of the ethanol process.

Posted by: monica at February 01, 2006 01:27 PM (rFLG5)

85 They hold back on production, time their purchases, close down refineries, push the prices to coincide with summer travel months and take full advantage of major disasters like Katrina.

Scroogle is your friend!

Production decreased by 1 percent due to the lingering effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which battered the Gulf Coast in August and September.

The hurricanes closed down production AND refineries, causing a spike in product prices. The free market forces responded to the supply & demand, driving up pricing and encouraging conservation until the supply caught back up to the demand.

Right now Nigerian unrest and pipeline sabotage and Iranian Islamist rhetoric is helping to keep global prices up.

PWND!!!!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 01, 2006 01:27 PM (nVA0o)

86 Posted by at February...whoever you are:

I fully admit to being wrong about boutique fuels and their effect on pricing, etc. and apologize for taking Harrison to task.

As for our importing more than 10% from the Mideast, I stand by that number.

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 01:29 PM (leJWb)

87 me at 6:25

Posted by: Brad at February 01, 2006 01:31 PM (Hh1WY)

88 You can stand by it, on top of it, next to it, or behind it, but it is wrong.

Posted by: Brad at February 01, 2006 01:33 PM (Hh1WY)

89 I give up.

If you feel that the oil companies are our friends and are doing all they can to make sure we have plenty of oil and gas, and at more than reasonable prices...that's fine with me.

I've personally never heard anyone express such an opinion, nor have I ever heard so many people defend the oil companies, but, hey...we all know where you people have your heads buried...don't we?

Duh.

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 01:35 PM (leJWb)

90 2004 per day crude oil imports:

10,088 total

Saudi Arabia 1495 (14.8%)

Iraq 655 (6.5%)

Kuwait 214 (2.1%)

Those three alone are 23.4% of our crude oil imports. Now, I don't have a map in front of me, but I think all three of those countries are in the middle east.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm

Posted by: Brad at February 01, 2006 01:38 PM (Hh1WY)

91 If you feel that the oil companies are our friends and are doing all they can to make sure we have plen...

Ever hear of ANWAR and off shore drilling, you peckerhead? And WHY IS IT that we can't build more refineries to increase total outputs of refined oil products? The oilo companies are all for these programs, but howling-moonbat single-interest groups, from YOUR side of the isle BTW, are keeping them from doing so.

Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us normal people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known that this was your case then I would never have read your comments. It just wouldn't have been right. Sort of like parking in a handicapped space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.

PWND again!

Posted by: at February 01, 2006 01:44 PM (nVA0o)

92 PWND again!

that was me....

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 01, 2006 01:46 PM (nVA0o)

93 Mike, FOAD.

I love this blog and you're ruining it. I like the people here--they are witty and fun and like to chill.

Go away. You are a laughingstock.

You're one wierd sonofabitch to be getting your 'nads off to such vicious insults and pwning.

Posted by: GutlessPoster at February 01, 2006 01:51 PM (M8lyz)

94 don't even poke sticks at this boring goof.

Posted by: joeindc44 at February 01, 2006 02:22 PM (cvR2m)

95 Fish-Face,
If you actually think Walmart works on a 9% profit margin you're even dumber than I thought.

ALL grocery stores/department stores work on very, very small margins...especially when, like Walmart, they discount the living shit out of everything.

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 03:30 PM (leJWb)

96 Are you people all in a room somewhere...circle-jerking each other?

I've never seen so many people who agree on literally everything and never, ever want to hear anything they don't already believe to be so...regardless of facts, evidence or reporting.

C'mon, gang...yank those little heads out of yours and Bush's ass...and think for a change.

You can do it...!!!

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 03:33 PM (leJWb)

97 GutlessPoster:
Blow me.

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 03:43 PM (leJWb)

98 Do you want me to blow Mike or blow Mary? Because obviously those are two very different scenarios.

Posted by: Gutless Poster at February 01, 2006 03:45 PM (tDpXN)

99 You actually came back to this thread?

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when time and again you get things wrong? and not just sorta, "oops" wrong. Completely clueless wrong.

You called boutique gas formulas "ludicrous" you were totally wrong about the 10% imports from the Middle East. Do you still stand behind that number?

Take your own advice... read more, talk less.

Posted by: Brad at February 01, 2006 04:04 PM (Hh1WY)

100 Hey Fuck-Face

You ignoranus...

Walmart works at about a 3-4% profit...Exxon comes in at about 11%)

Wrong again dickhead...

Revenue of $371B / Profit of $36.13B = 9.73%. But what's an extra billion or two between 'friends'?


Can't you infer that it was Exxon figures I was stating and not Wal*Mart from the revenue figures alone, not to mention the statement about what's a couple of billion between friends? Can't you understand that I was comparing your 11% figure to the actual 9.73%, or did you just automatically discount the idea that you were wrong (again)?

And grocery stores work on lower margins than Wal*Mart. Don't know that much about department stores, but I suspect the ones you shop at, Dollar Store & K Mart, have a margin comparable to a grocery store. The more upscale department stores operate somewhere above what Wal*Mart operates at.

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 01, 2006 04:17 PM (nVA0o)

101 Harrison:

FactCheck.org

Misstatement of the Union
The President burnishes the State of the Union through selective facts and strategic omissions.

According to most recent figures from the Energy Information Administration, the US imported 60 percent of its oil and petroleum products during the first 11 months of last year, up from just under 53 percent in President Clinton's last year in office.

Last year, of all the oil and petroleum products consumed in the US, 11.2 percent came from Persian Gulf countries, according to the EIA.

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 05:16 PM (leJWb)

102 Last year, of all the oil and petroleum products consumed in the US, 11.2 percent came from Persian Gulf countries, according to the EIA.

So *that's* the problem. The Times screwed this one up. 11.2% of 60% means that 18.7% of imported oil and petroleum products come from the Persian Gulf.

Posted by: geoff at February 01, 2006 05:23 PM (vpYuK)

103 Fish-Face:
That's "gross" profit.

Exxon-Mobil's profit is "net" profit."

Exxon Mobil profit hits $36B

But some lawmakers express outrage at the earnings, renewing calls for a windfall profits tax.

Steve Quinn / Associated Press
The company's earnings amounted to $1.71 per share for the October-December quarter, up 27 percent from $8.42 billion, or $1.30 per share, in the year ago quarter. The result topped the then-record quarterly profit of $9.92 billion Exxon posted in the third quarter of 2005.

Exxon's profit for the year was also the largest annual reported NETincome in U.S. history, according to Howard Silverblatt, a senior index analyst for Standard & Poor's.

He said THE PREVIOUS HIGH was Exxon's $25.3 billion profit in 2004.

Walmart via MSN Business

How much does the company sell and earn?
Investors need to know how much stuff or services a company sells, and how much of that total it keeps as income (or profit) to grow its business or return to shareholders. The more of each, the better. In general, look for companies that sell and earn more than peers.

* WAL-MART STORES INC one-year sales: 305.37 Bil.
Difference from the average for the Discount, Variety Stores group: 946.36%
* WAL-MART STORES INC one-year income: 10.80 Bil.
Difference from the average for the Discount, Variety Stores group: 998.76%

Sales & Income (past 12 months) Company Industry
Sales $305,372.0 Mil $29,184.2 Mil
Income $10,804.0 Mil $983.3 Mil

Get your calculator...

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 05:33 PM (leJWb)

104 Suzie:

Are you really a man?

A fat man?.

Yes. 893 lbs, with really big hairy balls. And I fucked your mother. And she paid me for my trouble.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at February 01, 2006 05:35 PM (tnsUn)

105 little geoff:
No, you fucking moron. It means my 10% was off by 1.2%.

The number is the TOTAL percentage from the gulf...as in"11.2 percent came from Persian Gulf countries."

Duh.

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 05:36 PM (leJWb)

106 Why the fuck are you sitting there if you have all of this dirt on the oil companies, dipshit? Get a lawyer and get some money!

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at February 01, 2006 05:38 PM (tnsUn)

107 Fat whatever your name is:

No woman would write what you just wrote.

I'm right.

But I still bet you're fat.

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 05:39 PM (leJWb)

108 Right. Vaginas prevent women from pushing certain buttons on a keyboards, like the "F" key, as in "Get a fucking lawyer and get some fucking money or continue to be a fucking loser."

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at February 01, 2006 05:44 PM (tnsUn)

109 Fat Whatever Your Name Is:


I never said anything about "dirt."

What are you referring to...the cabal?

Do you know what a cabal is??

Own a dictionary?

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 05:46 PM (leJWb)

110 Lets see. My investment account, which I barely pay attention to, has returned an average of 13.5 compounded over the last 5 years. Your right Mary. The oil execs should be fired for incompetence.

Aren't you getting tired of sitting there in your adult diaper raging at the computer and just never being right?

Posted by: JackStraw at February 01, 2006 05:47 PM (rnOZq)

111 Sue, WT ? I thought you were emale?
I hate akes, I eel like I've been made a ool o .

Posted by: lauraw at February 01, 2006 05:48 PM (o6H31)

112 No, you fucking moron. It means my 10% was off by 1.2%.

No you fucking moron, I'll go really slowly. 60% of oil and petroleum products are imported to the US. 11.2% of oil and petroleum prodcuts *used* (not imported) in the US are from the Persian Gulf. That means that 11.2% out of the imported 60% is from the Persian Gulf, and that's 18.7%.

The Times article should have said "the US gets only a fraction ... of its oil," not "the US gets only a fraction ... of its oil imports."

Now, since I didn't slam you on this thread, I don't know where you get off with your hysterical defense of your mathematical illiteracy, but always remember - we're here to help.

Posted by: geoff at February 01, 2006 05:49 PM (vpYuK)

113 What the heck, Mike?

I thought I was the one for you.

I feel used...And after I spent all that time getting that dirt on the oil companies for you, but you ignored my email...

this is what he sent me, guys...

"Mary, WTF are you saying 'i got the dirt on the oil companies?...oil companies are very clean...that is why they are evil. Your links don't even mention dirt...just that they make lots of money...

I don't get what you meant by the anti-trust violation stuff...I thought we were friends?

See you for cocktails later, wink wink...

Mike"

Posted by: Mary M. at February 01, 2006 06:00 PM (JV5Qt)

114 ANd I got that research from ergasquirmintus, too...he sent me this link and said that companies control how much money they make and that it's illegal because of what grisham wrote in 97... and I know that guy is never wrong with his facts...

Posted by: Mary M. at February 01, 2006 06:02 PM (JV5Qt)

115 you don't know anything mary.

not one thing.

Posted by: ergsteakimus at February 01, 2006 06:04 PM (JV5Qt)

116 Maybe I should make it simpler:

These two statements are both true:

11.2% of oil and petroleum products used in the US come from the Persian Gulf.

18.7% of oil and petroleum products *imported* to the US come from the Persian Gulf.

Posted by: geoff at February 01, 2006 06:05 PM (vpYuK)

117 LOL lauraw!!

Mikemarygenojersey,

I never said anything about "dirt."

There's your problem right there. You don't ever say shit.


What are you referring to...the cabal?

Do you know what a cabal is??

Oh, so you know (well, not you... more like the simpletons who run the Sorosblogs) all of this evil shit the oil companies are doing, but you can't find a lawyer and strike it rich because of THE CABAL.

Did you know they're in cahoots with the LIZARD PEOPLE who live under the DENVER AIRPORT and are ENSLAVING and EATING CHILDREN?

Keep listening to Art Bell, you wacked out shit nugget.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at February 01, 2006 06:05 PM (tnsUn)

118 You rightwingnuts need to get your heads out of Bushcheneyhitlerburton's ass and learn some math stuff.
I owned 3 oil saloons, so I know what I'm talking about.
Hell, me and the Rockefellers used to get headers from dames back when...well, when we used to hang out at one of my oil saloons.
Oh, and you're all dumb and stupid.

Posted by: Mike the ex-oilman and math professor at February 01, 2006 06:06 PM (QPFur)

119 I'll lay odds there's not one of you who have ever owned or operated a business.

Too stupid.

No dough.

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 06:30 PM (leJWb)

120 I'll lay odds there's not one of you who have ever owned or operated a business.

Wrong again. But typical of the presumptions you've made.

Posted by: geoff at February 01, 2006 06:34 PM (vpYuK)

121 little stupid geoff:

It's the percentage of oil we "import"...NOT USE...as in:

"But experts point out that the US gets only a fraction - about 10% - of its oil IMPORTS from the Middle East."

11.2 % to be exact.

Duh...again.

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 06:35 PM (leJWb)

122 I'd be willing to bet that none of Mike's saloons are still open.

Posted by: Sortelli at February 01, 2006 06:36 PM (JV5Qt)

123 little stupid geoff,
If you're referring to YOU...we both know that's bullshit.

You're too stupid.

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 06:36 PM (leJWb)

124 Mike, the only thing you'll ever lay is a McCauley Caulkin blow-up doll.

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at February 01, 2006 06:38 PM (QPFur)

125 Some of the oil we import isn't used...duh...duh...duh

we launch it into space to keep it black...everyone knows that...

Posted by: Mary M. at February 01, 2006 06:38 PM (JV5Qt)

126 Sorbet:

You're right...I sold all of them before moving west...years ago.

If you're the right age and lived in the Midwest, I'd bet you were in one, too...they were very popular...that is, if you actually ever leave the trailer.

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 06:41 PM (leJWb)

127 "Mike, the only thing you'll ever lay is a McCauley Caulkin blow-up doll."

Duh...that's so wrong...I also bought a Corey Haim one from MJ when he moved to Bahrain...

Posted by: Mary M. at February 01, 2006 06:41 PM (JV5Qt)

128 Uncle heifer...

That was so funny. You are witty.

Tell him, everybody...he is witty.

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 06:43 PM (leJWb)

129 Well, until tomorrow...losers.

Keep that circle jerk alive...what else do you idiots have to do?

Posted by: Mike at February 01, 2006 06:45 PM (leJWb)

130 You just did...moron

Have a drink and go to bed...if you can't come up with a response...you're embarassing the names you're not using tonight again...it's making me flash back to all the fights we lost in school...

Posted by: Mary M. at February 01, 2006 06:46 PM (JV5Qt)

131 It's the percentage of oil we "import"...NOT USE...as in:

What a tool. Here's what you quoted earlier from factcheck.org:
Last year, of all the oil and petroleum products consumed in the US, 11.2 percent came from Persian Gulf countries, according to the EIA.
And that is correct, because I went to the EIA site to verify it. The EIA numbers actually include the fraction based on the share of imports, which was 17% (they're using 65.7% for the percentage of imported oil, while the factcheck guys used 60% (the net import rate).

So you are stupid. Because you can't see the conflict in the two statements *you* provided. Because you didn't go back to the original source. And because you let factcheck and the Times do your thinking for you. Here's your sign.

Posted by: geoff at February 01, 2006 06:49 PM (vpYuK)

132 Yes, oh brilliant one.
Please tell me how dumb and or stupid I am.
You make me feel so inferior.
By the way, you're the reason California got so fucked up.
All you fruitcakes came out starting in the summer of love, flowers in your hair and all, and never left.
This state never recovered.
Why don't you go back to whatever rock you crawled our from under, and take your hollywood/berkeley/sf freak friends with you.
Back to your many saloons that dot the Midwest.

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at February 01, 2006 06:49 PM (QPFur)

133 Don't forget to sing your McCauley doll a lullabye when you 'tuck him in'...

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at February 01, 2006 06:54 PM (QPFur)

134 That FactCheck.org treatment, BTW, is sheer butchery. They say things like: "Bush says he wants to reduce dependence on oil from the Middle East, but he doesn't mention that our dependence has gone up during his terms." Then later they mention that imports from the Middle East have in fact dropped 1.4% since Clinton's time.

Nice work.

Posted by: geoff at February 01, 2006 06:57 PM (vpYuK)

135 But geoff! "Use" and "consume" don't mean the same thing!

...oh, wait, that's right. They do.

Posted by: Sortelli at February 01, 2006 06:58 PM (JV5Qt)

136 MaryMike,

We have some free gas coupons for you. Just need a name and address to send them to.

We hear it's near the beach?

Posted by: ExxonMobil at February 01, 2006 07:26 PM (RM4rK)

137 The EIA numbers actually include the fraction based on the share of imports, which was 17%

To clarify: In addition to the percentage of US consumption, the EIA numbers actually include the fraction based on the share of imports, which was 17%.

Posted by: geoff at February 01, 2006 08:09 PM (vpYuK)

138 Little geoff and the rest of you oil company lovers:

Washington (Platts)--13Jan2006

The US Federal Trade Commission has denied ExxonMobil's request to limit
the tax information it provides as part of the antitrust agency's probe into
possible gasoline price gouging.

The FTC, in a letter to ExxonMobil's attorneys Thursday, said the
information requested was relevant to its investigation into whether refiners,
marketers or other market participants engaged in anti-competitive behavior to
drive up the price of gasoline.

The agency acknowledged as correct ExxonMobil's observation that it was
unusual for the commission's antitrust investigation to request information
regarding tax expenditures. "However, this investigation is somewhat different
from most commission antitrust investigations" because this probe was directed
by Congress, "with the premise that prices and profits are high," FTC said.

Sen. Mark Pryor (Democrat-Arkansas) applauded the FTC's decision. Pryor
was one of the sponsors of legislation, signed into law last fall as part of
an annual spending bill, requiring the FTC to carry out an investigation into
the profits and tax incentives for companies involved in gasoline and oil
supply chains, as well as the overall effects of increased gasoline prices on
the economy.

"My legislation helped give the FTC the teeth it needs to pinpoint any
problems that may be leading to gas price gouging," Pryor said in a statement.
"The FTC's decision to deny ExxonMobil's petition displays their commitment to
follow through with a scrupulous, no-holds-barred investigation. It furthers
our shared goal to provide transparency into the high gas(oline) prices
consumers continue to pay at the pump."

Pryor said the FTC was providing updates on its programs and findings to
Congress periodically, and would issue a final report in May.

--Cathy Landry, cathy_landry@platts.com

For more information, take a trial to Platts Global Alert at
http://globalalert.platts.com.

Posted by: Mike at February 02, 2006 06:32 AM (leJWb)

139 Sorry-Fella:
You're wrong...as usual.

I never said anything of the kind.

My post:

"It's the percentage of oil we "import"...NOT USE...as in:

But experts point out that the US gets only a fraction - about 10% - of its oil IMPORTS from the Middle East."

11.2 % to be exact.

Posted by: Mike at February 02, 2006 06:34 AM (leJWb)

140 little geoff:

Oh, so now FactCheck.org is a slanted organization, too?

You really need to drag that pointy little head of yours out of your ass and start thinking.

I realize that, if Rush, Sean, Bill, Michael or Ann- The-Walking-Talking-Trash-Barrel don't say it...you think it just can't be true, but your're wrong, just as they are about 95% of the time.

Posted by: Mike at February 02, 2006 06:38 AM (leJWb)

141 God, I'm too stupid to live.

Posted by: Mary at February 02, 2006 06:40 AM (Et0xX)

142 Uncle Jethro:

When you say: "the reason California got so fucked up"...who the fuck are you talking to...people in Arkansas?

I've lived here for 30 years and you couldn't get me back to the Midwest for all the tea in China.

We have perfect weather (where I live), free thinking people, and we're within short driving distance to the Pacific Ocean, the Sierra's, the desert and Baja.

Yeah...we're REALLY in big trouble out here...so, please...stay right where you are...we don't need the likes of you.

Posted by: Mike at February 02, 2006 06:44 AM (leJWb)

143 Lying liars and the lies they tell...as in G.W. Bush:

Feb. 2, 2006 | We're transforming our military. The things I look for are the following: morale, retention, and recruitment. And retention is high, recruitment is meeting goals, and people are feeling strong about the mission. -- George W. Bush, in a Jan. 26 press conference

Out of jail, into the Army

Facing an enlistment crisis, the Army is granting "waivers" to an increasingly high percentage of recruits with criminal records -- and trying to hide it.

"The more of those people you take, the more problems you are going to have and the less effective they are going to be," said Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense under Reagan and a senior fellow at the progressive Center for American Progress. "This is another way you are lowering your standards to meet your goals." Retired Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, who was the Army's chief intelligence officer from 1981 to 1985, also called the increase in waivers "disturbing."

Even without the waivers, the Army has lowered its standards for enlistees. The Army has eased restrictions on recruiting high school dropouts. It also raised the maximum recruitment age from 35 to 39. Moreover, last fall the Army announced that it would be doubling the number of soldiers that it admits who score near the bottom on a military aptitude test.

By Mark Benjamin

Posted by: Mike at February 02, 2006 06:49 AM (leJWb)

144 Even the WallStreet Journal thinks Bush is full of it:

February 2, 2006
Somehow, Mr. Bush's "offensive" overlaps with plans for an aggressive drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq, from 165,000 in December to fewer than 100,000 by the end of this year. U.S. funding for reconstruction is set to run out by the end of this year, though vital rebuilding of oil production and power generation facilities has not been accomplished. ... Afghanistan presents a similar paradox. Terrorist activity, including suicide bombings, has been increasing at an alarming pace in recent months; casualties in fighting last year were the highest since 2001. Yet Mr. Bush plans to withdraw 2,500 of the 16,500 American troops deployed there this year ...

It's impossible not to worry that in a time of testing—and as midterm elections approach—Mr. Bush is decrying retreat while quietly packing his bags.

Posted by: Mike at February 02, 2006 06:54 AM (leJWb)

145 Is Mary Mike still bleating to nobody in particular? What a sad and pathetic life troll must lead.

Posted by: Gutless Poster at February 02, 2006 07:00 AM (uTloq)

146 Starve that boring bitch.

Posted by: joeindc44 at February 02, 2006 07:08 AM (8TcCs)

147 Did you know they're in cahoots with the LIZARD PEOPLE who live under the DENVER AIRPORT and are ENSLAVING and EATING CHILDREN?

Damn Sue, that's almost as good a Ploverism as The Bird himself. Random capitalization of words, curious thought processes, et al. Outstanding!!

You guys keep spanking the retard... I'm off the Office Max to buy a new calculator, as I wore out the last one trying to teach this ignoranus some basic math. Toodles!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 02, 2006 07:09 AM (nVA0o)

148 More Mike thought:

You use a calculator for math rpoblems? Thats the most rediculous thing I have ever heard...

Posted by: joeindc44 at February 02, 2006 07:15 AM (8TcCs)

149 Starve it.

The time has come.

Posted by: lauraw at February 02, 2006 07:17 AM (Et0xX)

150 Starve that boring bitch.

Yeah, I'm done with him. I only stepped in on this one to show how the Times' and Madfish's numbers could be reconciled. I thought Mike would be grateful, but he immediately jumped in with the personal attacks, and then turned out to be too dense to understand his sources.

Time to do some serious work for a bit - the Air Force is justly riding my fannie for a long-overdue Final Report. Later, everybody.

Posted by: geoff at February 02, 2006 07:20 AM (vpYuK)

151 Another MadMaryMikeGenoJersey thread scrolls off the page and into history... ahhh, the bittersweet memories!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 02, 2006 07:32 AM (nVA0o)

152 one last and it's a repeat from earlier:

2004 per day crude oil imports:

10,088 total

Saudi Arabia 1495 (14.8%)

Iraq 655 (6.5%)

Kuwait 214 (2.1%)

Those three alone are 23.4% of our crude oil imports. Now, I don't have a map in front of me, but I think all three of those countries are in the middle east.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm

Posted by Brad at February 1, 2006 06:38 PM

Posted by: Brad at February 02, 2006 07:34 AM (Hh1WY)

153 A young woman named MaryMike was so depressed that she decided to end her life by throwing herself into the ocean. She went down to the docks and was about to leap into the frigid water when a handsome young sailor saw MaryMike tottering on the edge of the pier crying.

He took pity on her and said, "Look, you've got a lot to live for. I'm off to Europe in the morning, and if you like, I can stow you away on my ship. I'll take good care of you and bring you food every day." Moving closer he slipped his arm round her shoulder and added, "I'll keep you happy, and you'll keep me happy". MaryMike nodded yes. After all, what did she have to lose?

That night, the sailor brought her aboard and hid her in a lifeboat. From then on every night he brought her three sandwiches and a piece of fruit, and they made passionate love until dawn.

Three weeks later, during a routine inspection, she was discovered by the captain. "What are you doing here?" the Captain asked.

"I have an arrangement with one of the sailors," MaryMike explained. "I get food and trip to Europe, and he's screwing me."

"He sure is, lady," the Captain said. "This is the Staten Island Ferry."

Posted by: Bart at February 02, 2006 07:45 AM (RuY0G)

154 Bravo.. Bravo.. Nice job Bart!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 02, 2006 07:55 AM (nVA0o)

155 Staten Island Ferry? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Why would a sailor be on a ferry, or make love to a women. I don't even know what those things mean!

mike

Posted by: at February 02, 2006 07:57 AM (8TcCs)

156 From joeindc44:

"More Mike thought:

You use a calculator for math rpoblems? Thats the most rediculous thing I have ever heard..."

You might want to pick up a dictionary, too.

Moron.

Posted by: Mike at February 02, 2006 01:02 PM (leJWb)

157 Dictionary? What does a dictionary have to do with math problems, let alone supply and demand or boutique gas formulas. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You are such a moron. You should really learn to read you morons.

Posted by: Mice at February 02, 2006 01:18 PM (8TcCs)

158 You might want to pick up a dictionary, too.

You're lack of basic logic and the powerless reasoning of your arguments have reduced you to being an ordinary pedestrian Spell Layme!!!!!1!

#474 Spelling Flame

Spelling flame: A posting ostentatiously correcting a previous article's spelling as a way of casting scorn on the author, instead of actually responding to that point. Of course, people who are more than usually slovenly spellers are prone to think any correction is a spelling flame. Of such trivia wars are made. Spelling flames often contain spelling errors.

Don't criticise typos or spelling mistakes - the rule is you lose by default. Everyone makes them - some more than others - and it really is a pathetic jibe. Flame is about content, not the structure of the post.

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 02, 2006 01:29 PM (nVA0o)

159 Almost forgot...

Moron!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 02, 2006 01:36 PM (nVA0o)

160 My god. He actually quoted himself saying It's the percentage of oil we "import"...NOT USE...

Man. That's a statement I'd run from if I'd accidentally said something that dumb in a drunk, lonely fit. You should tell your friends at the saloon that one, Mike, but be sure they're loaded first. MAYBE they won't notice what's wrong.

Posted by: Sortelli at February 02, 2006 01:44 PM (JV5Qt)

161 geoff DT@10ET asolidb-dscrt

Posted by: at March 06, 2006 12:49 PM (usGrA)

162 This is a really good read for me, Must admit that you are one of the best bloggers I ever saw.Thanks for posting this informative article. if you have time, please give me advise for my blog at Indonesia Furniture Handicraft Wholesale Marketplace or the second article at Indonesia Furniture Handicraft Wholesale Marketplace thank u so much

Posted by: Indonesia Furniture Handicraft Wholesale Marketplace at August 24, 2010 08:20 PM (zf61z)

163          <a href="http://caravaggiopainting.blog.163.com/">Caravaggio</a>  <a href="http://blog.163.com/degaspainting/">Degas</a>  <a href="http://blog.163.com/manet/ ">Manet</a>  <a href=" http://blog.163.com/munch/">Munch</a>  <a href="http://blog.163.com/goya/">Goya</a> 

Posted by: oilpaintingart at May 19, 2011 01:22 AM (l2FKg)

164 Great and nice article friend.
Thanks for your sharing

http://www.sampoernacool.co.cc

Posted by: SEO Internet Marketing | SEO for Business at August 20, 2011 09:31 AM (HgdJs)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
161kb generated in CPU 0.37, elapsed 2.0875 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.8371 seconds, 400 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.