Bartman,

Were you addressing me? Some specificity would be helpful.

If so, I would like to point out that I've been warned of nothing of the sort before. In fact, after repeated bans without reasons given, I inquired about the reasons for the bans and the content which was judged unacceptable. I asked in chat. No response was ever given. I emailed two addresses. No response was ever given. I tried asking on the forums (given no other option). No response was ever given.

I'm all for being cordial, but the fact is I've never been informed of what rules I've supposedly broken. And this is despite going to great lengths to try to find out.

While I jab plenty, it's in jest and invariably paired with requests for more information/explanation, or requests that any case be made at all. I don't expect anyone to agree with me. While my language isn't always intended to make anyone feel warm inside, that's not what this forum is for. My purpose is always content-driven. Many posters' purposes aren't. My language is never malicious and disturbingly hateful. Many posters' is.

Bear in mind that rambling, whining, and personal attack posts w/o any points or arguments whatsoever are far more disrespectful than a little bit of language disparaging those posts and asking for better.

Regarding the content of this thread, there's no point equivocating over English grammar and basic logic. When a leader is asked if he wants something the people dread to happen and he says "well, I'd prefer it be gradual," everyone knows what this means. If someone chooses to pretend not to understand this (in the context of that leader and his appointees having stated, on the record, that they do want that thing which the people dread to happen), there's no point in debating the issue with them.

There is no "finite" supply of oil at the moment. The supply [as measured by production/time] can (and does) increase or decrease, just as demand can (and does). It is not "natural" for demand to increase more quickly than supply at this time, nor at any time projected within decades (or, perhaps, even centuries).

Demand is not measured against estimated total oil under the earth to determine price; it's measured against actual supply at this moment. This supply has plenty of room to increase many times over its current levels. The claim that it's "natural" for prices to rise because total oil supply might run low/out in 50 or 200 years is just silly.

[TI] Primo

If you have any response to the content I posted, I'll be happy to respond. Heck, if you want to explain what point you were trying to make in facetiously referring to the fact that rich people use fuel, I'm all ears. I'm happy to consider your points and respond, if you make any.

Bartman,

All evidence is that we have more than a "few" years before global oil supplies run out. All evidence is also that free markets motivate wondrous scientific advancements, such as ones which will replace oil as a convenient fuel source. All evidence is also that, as oil supplies even start to diminish or there's any fear that they soon will, free markets will reward those who innovate and replace oil as the most economical fuel.

If you have any evidence of government "investment" paying off, please share it. I keep asking for examples of what's advocated here actually helping people more than it harms them, but so far nobody's willing to enlighten me with any examples of their proposed action ever having benefited mankind or any particular people.

Obama has squashed oil drilling on public lands. This decreases supply. This increases prices. It's pretty obvious and beyond contention that Obama has raised prices. If supply and demand does not determine prices, please correct me.

Oil company profits are rather tiny. Of course they're huge, measured in dollars: They produce and refine a metric CRAP TON (I looked that up) of oil. But their profit margins aren't particularly large.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/oil-profit-margin-ranks-114-out-215.html

A lot of these profits benefit pension funds, individual investors, mutual funds, and IRAs.

http://whoownsbigoil.org/?gclid=CLzI_uaHrbMCFU-d4AodQxUAAg

Roast Beef Sammich,

As is obvious from the profit margins I just posted above and the MASSIVE amount of infrastructure [aka huge costs] required to be in business in oil, your claim that oil companies could sell no oil for a year and survive is obviously factually false. The people, equipment, and energy costs of their industry are massive. They have huge operating costs. You post as if you have no knowledge of their profit margins, yet have surprisingly firm conclusions. What do you base these conclusions on. I have explained why I think you're factually 100% wrong. Please refute this with the information you base your claims on.

Key,

If you honestly believe that, you should find an honest oil company or put together investors to make one. You'd make a killing underselling your conspiring competitors! If you're sure of what you say, it'd be sure profits!

What's stopping you?

Have you ever traded oil futures? Do you have any experience or knowledge to base your claims that speculators are driving up prices on? Do you understand that, if prices fall (when speculators bet high), speculators lose money? Speculators bet both ways. While it's not necessarily undesirable to regulate speculation, proclaiming that speculation is massively inflating gas prices is just ridiculous. There just isn't enough speculation for it mechanically to have such a significant impact on oil prices. And, again, betting the wrong way results in capital loss.

More academic nonsense. They were as "communist" as anything on this earth is ever going to be. The corruption, fascism, unproductivity, atrocities, and bureaucratic garbage of those nations is inherent in communism.

I don't bicker about "true capitalism." Of course there have never been 100% free markets and lawlessness, and nobody is arguing that there should be. But we can attribute massive wealth creation and improvements of standards of living of all people in societies to relatively free markets in nations all over the globe. The examples are many. Why have Taiwan and South Korea SKYROCKETED their standards of living (including that of the poor) over the past few decades while China and North Korea are poverty-stricken lands filled with corruption and moral atrocities?

There are real examples of relatively free markets improving people's lives. Do you have any examples of relatively state-controlled markets doing the same? This is the second time I've asked. Equivocating over "true communism" as if a magical incorruptible man just hasn't run it yet is silly.

The topic of this thread is the radical education of Barack Obama. I've mentioned the radical educations of some in his administration because we actually have some information about their educations, whereas President Obama will release nothing about his own education.

If he's not hiding his radical beliefs, why the stonewalling on any information on his education?

If his radical beliefs aren't something he should be intellectually ashamed of, why are you equivocating over "true" statism without offering any examples? It's easy to make academic arguments that people can remain free yet surrender all of their economic freedom; but, if it's never happened, why should we believe you? Claim that it can be so is not the same thing as making that argument.

In any event, this equivocation is beyond the topic of this thread. The fact is, President Obama will not release any information about his studies. Examining information he has published in books and the educations of many in his administration, it's not unreasonable to conjecture some of the reasons why.

Nice going, guys!

http://www.lacomeuropeenne.fr/

Props on the predominance of the hammer and sickle. What does it mean? Why is it on top, and why does it appear more than any other symbol? Is this a symbol of freedom?

He's openly talked about wanting energy and gas prices to "skyrocket" to radically change consumption and our society.

Regarding gasoline, he

[TI] Primo,

Communism requires fascism. When the standard of living inevitably crashes under any communist regime, the people want change. Do they have that option in Cuba? North Korea? China? No. Your notion is predicated upon academic bull[spit].

In reality, free people reject being made slaves of the state. If they still have votes, they use them to reject communism. In socialist democracies, they go broke and are forced to reject it. The only sustained Communist regimes on earth are fascist, and virtually all communist revolutionaries (that I'm aware of, in the USA) are fascists, not fans of democracy.

Communism is based upon obliterating economic freedom. As it turns out, it's antithetical to attempt to crush this huge freedom while leaving other personal freedoms intact.

Only failed academics equivocate over state ownership vs. state control as if there's a substantive difference.

Why would you want the price of energy low?

Because it leads to a higher standard of living of literally everyone in society, especially those with the least to spare.

Hi. I'm common sense. I could explain a lot of obvious things in greater detail! Are you seriously suggesting that you have no knowledge of me and need such obvious facts explained to you!?

Obama, like Hilary Clinton, studied radicalism and methods of achieving fascist/communist control. Both hide everything possible of their academic (and ideological) histories, brush off any evidence which is on the record purely as academic studiousness, and otherwise stonewall inquiries on the topic.

Because most voters are too dumb to question. Most voters are too dumb to care. Most voters can't tell you where Obama differs from fascist communists who want 100% unchecked state control of everything, and they don't care. He offers the biggest handout. He's the guy to vote for. Period.

HotDogBun,

You said "NEARLY." That's all i was after. I've never heard anybody dispute his claims about various fascist/communist organizations/politicians/academics who enjoy relatively mainstream popularity in Amerika. I can appreciate him bringing light to these people/organizations, which is something which absolutely no "conservative" organizations do because they harbor their own crazies whose focus is similar, just dedicated to attacking different freedoms. Of course... He is bat-shit crazy and frequently completely full of it. I'm not saying I respect him, just that I don't respect anyone else either on topics of actual importance.

[rejected costume],

Yeah, I'm a huge fan of the 10-year plans. "Both" sides are so proud of theirs. Gary Johnson 2012!

Virtually _all_ of Jon Stewart's jokes are predicated on notions that people/things are ridiculous... though he usually relies on his audience knowing none of the facts of the situations he talks about in order to create this illusion, which he then jokes and rants about . Most of what he says isn't funny at all if you have any idea what's going on in the world today or Amerikan politics, which he focuses on, because it doesn't even make any sense if you're informed. I watched most of his show a few weeks ago and, lo and behold, it's as bad as ever. I really wanted to like him. I really wanted it to be funny. He was great in Half Baked. But he was severely disappointing.

I can understand people appreciating his delivery and some of his random remarks. I can respect people liking his attitude. But well-informed? Give me a break. What possible basis could you have for making that claim? His show? I guess there's always going to be someone out there claiming the Three Stooges did intellectual comedy.

O'reilly is a hack. He doesn't understand basic free market principles, and it shows embarrassingly when he talks about oil markets. He gets all pissy and irritated with his guests because he doesn't understand the simple things they try to explain to him. He doesn't understand the basic concepts of causality and correlation, and he doesn't understand that they're not the same thing. This is evident in his discourse on Marijuana and in many other instances. Way to go, Harvard. And he takes cheap shots, even at the dead (referring to Andrew Breitbart), when he thinks it'll score him points with other PC douchebags, because he wants to be perceived by pinheads as remotely objective for the sake of viewers.

I've explained basically the basis for my claim that neither is well-informed. They know their audiences and they give their audiences what they want to hear. I would suggest that anyone who thinks either is well-informed is both a target audience demographic and not well-informed themself. Feel free to give examples showing real understanding, consideration, and thought. Stewart examples of perceptiveness and insight have to be real gems.

I have explained my statements. An elitist would just scoff and call someone names. (hint, hint)

If you think they're well-informed, you are not well-informed.

Neither understands capitalism or the wealth the Fed is stealing from Amerikans.

He explained himself pretty clearly.

So you're not disagreeing with or taking issue with a single thing he said. You're just ignoring his views and statements and presuming intimidation is the goal.

Despite the fact that nobody who works for him or knows him in any way has suggested he was remotely attempting to intimidate employees into voting any way, you're making an assumption with absolutely no basis.

What if... everything he said is true and he spoke honestly without intent to intimidate? He's rich. He'll be rich no matter who wins. His closing makes clear that he'll be quite comfortable either way. But, he's saying, layoffs are much more likely under a 2nd Obama term. If true, isn't that worth sharing?

Not only are you ignoring the thread's topic, but your "they're as bad as THIS GUY" claim has absolutely no basis in fact or evidence.

Simon,

Do you have any basis whatsoever to claim that he made any such statements?

I've seen him state clearly that he wasn't asking who anyone supported, nor would he treat anyone differently based on who they voted for.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/entertainment/wealthy-ceo-threatens-fire-employees-if-president-obama-re-elected

If you have anything that actually happened or was said to talk about, let's hear it!

In regard to the general topic, it's sad that we have laws against this nonsense, but we elect spineless trash who refuse to enforce them.

This is just another sad example of union thuggery. Barely any of America (not counting gov't jobs--they're real producers! haha) is unionized. It's a huge and obvious lie that unions are responsible for the success of many middle-class Americans today.