Obama doesn't care about oil prices

[christundivided]

Here is good article from FOX NEWS.... I hope this irritates "redgreen5" a little

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/19/does-obama-really-care-about-gas-prices/

Here is a "nugget" from the article

Obama accepts no responsibility, of course, even though he faulted President Bush when prices reached current levels in 2008. Yet Obama is worried enough about the impact that he speaks on the subject almost daily.

The problem is, he has offered nothing that rebuts the impression he doesn

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided]Here is good article from FOX NEWS.... I hope this irritates "redgreen5" a little [/quote]

It's not an article.  It's an op-ed.
The fact that you cannot tell the difference speaks more to your lack of education than anything else.

Here is a "nugget" from the article

Obama accepts no responsibility, of course, even though he faulted President Bush when prices reached current levels in 2008. Yet Obama is worried enough about the impact that he speaks on the subject almost daily.

The problem is, he has offered nothing that rebuts the impression he doesn

 

[christundivided]

It's not an article.  It's an op-ed.
The fact that you cannot tell the difference speaks more to your lack of education than anything else.

LOL. Obviously the word "article" can include "op-ed" pieces. The "op-ed" piece included "news". Get it?

I don't care about the daily in's-and-out's of the presidential campaign, so once again you've wasted your time.

Sure you do.

What I do care about is that American voters - such as yourself - have such an appallingly bad grasp of economics that you cannot spot this "nugget" for being the piece of manure that it is.

Obviously the President doesn't understand supply and demand. On one hand he wants to take credit for increased supply and on the other he wants to discount the idea of expanding the increase. Get it?

if you need a refresher as to *why*, go back to the original thread I wrote this up in, and take a refresher course in what "global commodity market" and "spot market" mean.

Its hilarious that our President wants to make "contraception" AFFORDABLE for every women in America and he doesn't care anything about high gas prices. I'd say there are going to be some women that can't afford to make to the trip to get their "free" contraception.

Obviously the President can't put two and two together... :crazy:

 

[christundivided]

Maybe Bernie Sanders has it right...

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/oil-speculators-must-stopped-ctfc-needs-obey-law-182903332.html

At least he cares. Obviously it would carry more weight if the justice department and the Obama administration would step up and say the same things.

I'd say OBAMA DOESN'T CARE.

 

[Sherryh]

Anyone who cares about the America we know will understand this article..............

 

[qwerty]

[quote author=christundivided]Here is good article from FOX NEWS.... I hope this irritates "redgreen5" a little

It's not an article.  It's an op-ed.
The fact that you cannot tell the difference speaks more to your lack of education than anything else.
[/quote]

LOL......

It's an article by definition.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided]
It's not an article.  It's an op-ed.
The fact that you cannot tell the difference speaks more to your lack of education than anything else.

LOL. Obviously the word "article" can include "op-ed" pieces. The "op-ed" piece included "news". Get it?[/quote]

Positioning it as a news article is dishonest. It's an opinion piece. The fact that it contains a small chunk from an actual article changes nothing.  That's generally how op-eds are written.

I don't care about the daily in's-and-out's of the presidential campaign, so once again you've wasted your time.

Sure you do.

I'm the only expert on what I care about around here, not you. 

What I do care about is that American voters - such as yourself - have such an appallingly bad grasp of economics that you cannot spot this "nugget" for being the piece of manure that it is.

Obviously the President doesn't understand supply and demand.

Obviously he does, and obviously you still don't understand global commodities markets.

if you need a refresher as to *why*, go back to the original thread I wrote this up in, and take a refresher course in what "global commodity market" and "spot market" mean.

Its hilarious that our President wants to make "contraception"

Which has nothing to do with oil and energy production.  Rather transparent attempt at mixing topics.  Yawn.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided]
Maybe Bernie Sanders has it right...

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/oil-speculators-must-stopped-ctfc-needs-obey-law-182903332.html

At least he cares. Obviously it would carry more weight if the justice department and the Obama administration would step up and say the same things. [/quote]

LOL. Done already.  Last year:
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/obama-asks-doj-to-investigate-oil-speculators/5759
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/president-obama-calls-investigation-oil-speculators
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/20/us-usa-energy-obama-speculators-idUSTRE73J1NN20110420

And this year:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/08/2683470/obama-orders-oil-speculation-task.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/01/140564/whatever-happened-to-task-force.html

Do I think that Obama particularly has his heart in it? 
No, I don't. 

But did he at least do as much as your "requirement"?
Yes he did.

The problem, of course, is that Republicans in Congress move to frustrate or even block such investigations, while conservatives claim he's on the wrong path:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-phony-search-for-oil-speculators/2011/03/29/AFJDjHiE_blog.html
http://archive.redstate.com/stories/economy/the_audacity_of_lies_obama_takes_on_the_crude_oil_speculators
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/13/yes-government-policies-could-help-bring-down-price-gas-today/

And of course, the energy trading industry - aided and abetted by primarily by the GOP (whose campaign donations go largely to Republicans) - well, they're challenging the CFTC rules that clamp down on excessive speculation:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/01/140564/whatever-happened-to-task-force.html

So how much does speculation add to the price of gasoline?  It's a little bit of alternative scenario modeling, but some good estimates are:

Speculation is now part of the DNA of oil prices. You cannot separate the two anymore. There is no demarcation," said Fadel Gheit, a 30-year veteran of energy markets and an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. "I still remain convinced oil prices are inflated."
[...]
I put the Iran security premium at about $8 to $10 (a barrel) at this point, which still puts crude at about $90 or $95," said John Kilduff, a veteran energy analyst at AgainCapital in New York.
The fear premium is the froth above what prices would be absent fears of a supply disruption_ somewhere in the $80 to $85 range for a barrel of crude oil. It means that even with the extra cost put on oil from Iran fears, prices are at least another $10 higher than what demand fundamentals would dictate.

Why? Financial speculators.

What should the price of oil be if left to conventional supply and demand market fundamentals? Canada's the largest supplier of imported oil to the United States, which now actually produces more than half of the oil it consumes. Production and delivery costs for a barrel of oil from Canada are about $75 a barrel. The market-fundamentals cost for a barrel of oil is in that ballpark; above that, speculation sets the prices.

"It's as simple as that," said Gheit, who has testified before Congress and called for regulatory limits on speculation in commodities markets.


This is from February, when oil was at $106/bbl. Today it was around $107, so numbers are comparable. $8 to $10 a barrel works out to 7.5% to 9%. 

Of course the big issue is that demand is actually falling while stockpiles of oil are increasing. So why are prices as high as they are?
Answer:  speculation.

I'd say OBAMA DOESN'T CARE.

I'd say you didn't bother to Google the question before posting.
And I'd say that's about normal for you.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=qwerty]
It's not an article.  It's an op-ed.
The fact that you cannot tell the difference speaks more to your lack of education than anything else.


LOL......

It's an article by definition.
[/quote]

Uh, no.  It's an op-ed piece. 

But thanks for playing our game. We have some lovely parting gifts for the losers.  Chuck, please tell our departing contestant what he's won today.

 

[qwerty]

[quote author=qwerty]
It's not an article.  It's an op-ed.
The fact that you cannot tell the difference speaks more to your lack of education than anything else.


LOL......

It's an article by definition.

Uh, no.  It's an op-ed piece. 
[/quote]

I am sure you are against all forms of dictionaries until The Daily Worker releases their own; In the mean time: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/article?q=article

 

[christundivided]

LOL. Done already.  Last year:
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/obama-asks-doj-to-investigate-oil-speculators/5759
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/president-obama-calls-investigation-oil-speculators
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/20/us-usa-energy-obama-speculators-idUSTRE73J1NN20110420

What become of it? Do you think its a good idea to revisit the investigation?

Are you saying Sandars is lying?

And this year:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/08/2683470/obama-orders-oil-speculation-task.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/01/140564/whatever-happened-to-task-force.html

Everyone loves a "taskforce".... 

You posted one link that talks of how the taskforce has done NOTHING.

Do I think that Obama particularly has his heart in it? 
No, I don't. 

Isn't that the same as not "caring". Do you understand English?

And of course, the energy trading industry - aided and abetted by primarily by the GOP (whose campaign donations go largely to Republicans) - well, they're challenging the CFTC rules that clamp down on excessive speculation:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/01/140564/whatever-happened-to-task-force.html

Obama has taken close to a million dollars in contributions.

Speculation is now part of the DNA of oil prices. You cannot separate the two anymore. There is no demarcation," said Fadel Gheit, a 30-year veteran of energy markets and an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. "I still remain convinced oil prices are inflated."
[...]
I put the Iran security premium at about $8 to $10 (a barrel) at this point, which still puts crude at about $90 or $95," said John Kilduff, a veteran energy analyst at AgainCapital in New York.
The fear premium is the froth above what prices would be absent fears of a supply disruption_ somewhere in the $80 to $85 range for a barrel of crude oil. It means that even with the extra cost put on oil from Iran fears, prices are at least another $10 higher than what demand fundamentals would dictate.

You're quoting people that have a stake in higher gas prices.

What should the price of oil be if left to conventional supply and demand market fundamentals? Canada's the largest supplier of imported oil to the United States, which now actually produces more than half of the oil it consumes. Production and delivery costs for a barrel of oil from Canada are about $75 a barrel. The market-fundamentals cost for a barrel of oil is in that ballpark; above that, speculation sets the prices.

This is from February, when oil was at $106/bbl. Today it was around $107, so numbers are comparable. $8 to $10 a barrel works out to 7.5% to 9%. 

That oil is coming being transported by vehicles that use oil for power. This adds to the over cost to market.

I'd say you didn't bother to Google the question before posting.
And I'd say that's about normal for you.

I get it... you Google till you find something that supports your perceived ideas and then you call that "good". Get that "liberal"... hind.... "UDDER" out your mouth.

BY the way. I use Bing and Yahoo sometimes too... Don't tell anyone would you. Someone might call me a liberal.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=qwerty]I am sure you are against[/quote]
And I'm sure you're quite clueless.  It is not a news article.  This is written for your level. Educate yourself:
http://homeworktips.about.com/od/researchandreference/a/newspaper.htm

Newspaper Sections and Terms
Tips for Reading and Using the Newspaper for Research

News Article

A news article is a report on an event that has taken place. Articles may include a byline, body text, photo, and caption.

Typically, newspaper articles that appear closest to the front page or within the first section are those that editors consider to be the most important and relevant to their readers.
[...]
Editorials

An editorial is an article written by the editorial staff from a specific perspective. The editorial will offer the newspaper's view of an issue. Editorials should not be used as a main source of a research paper, because they are not objective reports.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided]
What become of it? [/quote]
Read the links.  Don't expect me to spoon-feed it to you.

Do you think its a good idea to revisit the investigation?

What do you think?

Are you saying Sandars is lying?

Where did I say or imply that?

Everyone loves a "taskforce".... 

You posted one link that talks of how the taskforce has done NOTHING.

Nothing?  Reaally? 
Submit your evidence for that assertion. Stick around for the Q&A session that will follow.

Do I think that Obama particularly has his heart in it? 
No, I don't. 

Isn't that the same as not "caring".

No.  Can you figure out why, or do I need to lay a trail of breadcrumbs so you can find your way to the answer?

Do you understand English?

Far better than you do.

And of course, the energy trading industry - aided and abetted by primarily by the GOP (whose campaign donations go largely to Republicans) - well, they're challenging the CFTC rules that clamp down on excessive speculation:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/01/140564/whatever-happened-to-task-force.html

Obama has taken close to a million dollars in contributions.

Which doesn't do a think to refute what I stated: whose campaign donations go largely to Republicans.
Do you understand English?

Do I need to go get you the graph I showed you before, of relative contributions by energy companies to Reps vs. Dems? 

You're quoting people that have a stake in higher gas prices.

LOL
Another stupid comment, for at least two  reasons.

1. Energy analysts working for investment firms do not have a stake in higher gas prices.  Energy companies do.  So do energy traders and speculators.  Apparently you don't know the difference between energy analyst and energy trader.

2. The analysis provided is highlighting the additional, burdensome cost of speculation - a cost that makes gas prices higher than they need to be.  Someone who wanted those higher gas prices to stay high - well, that someone would be working to cover up the influence of speculation, not trying to expose it.  Duh.

What should the price of oil be if left to conventional supply and demand market fundamentals? Canada's the largest supplier of imported oil to the United States, which now actually produces more than half of the oil it consumes. Production and delivery costs for a barrel of oil from Canada are about $75 a barrel. The market-fundamentals cost for a barrel of oil is in that ballpark; above that, speculation sets the prices.

This is from February, when oil was at $106/bbl. Today it was around $107, so numbers are comparable. $8 to $10 a barrel works out to 7.5% to 9%.

That oil is coming being transported by vehicles that use oil for power. This adds to the over cost to market.

*Sigh*
Scenario 1:
The oil from Canada is being transported by pipeline and then by truck. 
Trucks use oil.

Scenario 2:
Foreign oil is being transported by tankers across the ocean, pipeline and truck. 
Both tanker ships and trucks use oil.

Did you have a point?

I'd say you didn't bother to Google the question before posting.
And I'd say that's about normal for you.

I get it...

No, you don't. You make claims that are easily disprovable because you're a wingnutter and supporting facts are only an afterthought to you.

 

[qwerty]

[quote author=qwerty]I am sure you are against

And I'm sure you're quite clueless.  It is not a news article.  This is written for your level. Educate yourself:
http://homeworktips.about.com/od/researchandreference/a/newspaper.htm

Newspaper Sections and Terms
Tips for Reading and Using the Newspaper for Research

News Article

A news article is a report on an event that has taken place. Articles may include a byline, body text, photo, and caption.

Typically, newspaper articles that appear closest to the front page or within the first section are those that editors consider to be the most important and relevant to their readers.
[...]
Editorials

An editorial is an article written by the editorial staff from a specific perspective. The editorial will offer the newspaper's view of an issue. Editorials should not be used as a main source of a research paper, because they are not objective reports.

[/quote]

Your first post in the thread is "It's not an article, it's an op-ed"

From the link you referenced: " An editorial is an article written by the editorial staff from a specific perspective."

It IS an article even using your own sources.

Now you are trying to change your tune in an attempt to win your weak argument and interject "news article" into the conversation.

Liberal 101, change your story and blame someone else, like your messiah Obama said today: Obama on SOLYNDRA: 'This Was Not Our Program'...http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/22/obama-tries-to-spread-blame-on-solyndra-keystone/

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=qwerty]
Your first post in the thread is "It's not an article, it's an op-ed"
[/quote]
Because the person who posted it wanted it to be taken as a news article with some impact.

It IS an article even using your own sources.

It is not a news article. 

You also deliberately forget the context.  Go search the earlier thread where I was debating with some of the local wingnutters over the question of FOX News as a reliable source. 

The person who started this *new* thread here was directing this op-ed piece at me, which is why he said:
"Here is good article from FOX NEWS.... I hope this irritates "redgreen5" a little "

I already said in that thread that even badly written biased pieces are "articles":
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/index.php/topic,542.15.html

FOX does two things for news:

1. they recycle content that they get from actual news services - Reuters, UPI, Agence France Presse, etc.  All news agencies do this; very few news outlets have the manpower or budget to duplicate the work of the long-established wire services I just mentioned, especially when it comes to foreign reporting.  You can spot this kind of article because FOX is required by law (as all news agencies are) to give credit to the agency they are citing.

2. they create their own little spin articles that have no attributions for source, and typically veer far, far off the deep end into rightwing territory. You can spot that kind of article because the byline for it reads "FoxNews.com".

The first kind of article is probably fine; when I read them I double check them to make sure they haven't selectively edited the content. The second kind of article, however, has a high pandering content.  I don't accept it unless there is an independent source to verify the claims.  With all the independent, verifiable news sources available, there's simply no reason to accept a source that has time and again mixed its own political agenda and muckracking into the news stream, without telling people that it was doing so.

So why would I now contradict myself?

My comment in response to the OP in this thread was about that op-ed piece not being a "news article".  Period.

Now you are blah blah

On the contrary. 
You're simply not clued into the earlier context provided by the discussion on the other thread.
Now you are.

 

[qwerty]

[quote author=redgreen5]
My comment in response to the OP in this thread was about that op-ed piece not being a "news article".  Period.

[/quote]

I see, your are making a point based on assumptions.

Good work then.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=redgreen5]
My comment in response to the OP in this thread was about that op-ed piece not being a "news article".  Period.

I see, your are making a point based on assumptions.

Good work then.
[/quote]

Do you consider previous interactions with the very same person on the very same topic to be "assumptions"?

 

[qwerty]

[quote author=christundivided]Here is good article from FOX NEWS.... I hope this irritates "redgreen5" a little

It's not an article.  It's an op-ed.

The fact that you cannot tell the difference speaks more to your lack of education than anything else.

Do you consider previous interactions with the very same person on the very same topic to be "assumptions"?
[/quote]

No assumptions, I have quoted your exact words and address your exact words.  I am sure that is not what you "meant" though......

After all, it is not sex if your definition is different. Liberal 201

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=qwerty]
Do you consider previous interactions with the very same person on the very same topic to be "assumptions"?


No assumptions, [/quote]

You didn't answer my question.
Would you like to try again?

After all,  blah blah blah

After all, if you don't know what you're talking about, substitute a song-and-dance and hope nobody notices.  Wingnutter 101.

 

[qwerty]

[quote author=qwerty]
Your first post in the thread is "It's not an article, it's an op-ed"

Because the person who posted it wanted it to be taken as a news article with some impact.

It IS an article even using your own sources.

It is not a news article. 

You also deliberately forget the context.  Go search the earlier thread where I was debating with some of the local wingnutters over the question of FOX News as a reliable source. 

The person who started this *new* thread here was directing this op-ed piece at me, which is why he said:
"Here is good article from FOX NEWS.... I hope this irritates "redgreen5" a little "

I already said in that thread that even badly written biased pieces are "articles":
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/index.php/topic,542.15.html

FOX does two things for news:

1. they recycle content that they get from actual news services - Reuters, UPI, Agence France Presse, etc.  All news agencies do this; very few news outlets have the manpower or budget to duplicate the work of the long-established wire services I just mentioned, especially when it comes to foreign reporting.  You can spot this kind of article because FOX is required by law (as all news agencies are) to give credit to the agency they are citing.

2. they create their own little spin articles that have no attributions for source, and typically veer far, far off the deep end into rightwing territory. You can spot that kind of article because the byline for it reads "FoxNews.com".

The first kind of article is probably fine; when I read them I double check them to make sure they haven't selectively edited the content. The second kind of article, however, has a high pandering content.  I don't accept it unless there is an independent source to verify the claims.  With all the independent, verifiable news sources available, there's simply no reason to accept a source that has time and again mixed its own political agenda and muckracking into the news stream, without telling people that it was doing so.

So why would I now contradict myself?

My comment in response to the OP in this thread was about that op-ed piece not being a "news article".  Period.

Now you are blah blah

On the contrary. 
You're simply not clued into the earlier context provided by the discussion on the other thread.
Now you are.
[/quote]

So now you are saying what you were really trying to do is respond to another thread by way of this one?  It took 14 post, 6 of them by you to finally say "I was talking about this other thread over here" which was conveniently after you found the " it's not an article, but it is an article, but now I meant news article" argument to hold no water.