Crude oil hits $62 bucks
 

62 bucks a barrel. Highest since Nov of last year. This will not be good for the Auto industry nor us.

Typical run-up during the summer driving season. Plus, its the time to switch over to "summer blend" gas as required by the EPA. Has anyone ever asked the impertinent question if any of the forty-eleven different "blends" of gas the EPA requires actually do any good beyond making the oil companies more money ? I realise that questioning the EPA is almost tantamount to wanting to peak under Mother Teresa's skirt, since the EPA is sancrosanct & beyond questioning, defending the ENVIRONMENT like they do & all, but I'm just curious. Remember, kiddies, the EPA IS a creation of the Imperial Federal Government, & I don't think they are any better than any other branch thereof...

So what have you got against the Extra Phoney A**holes?

Well, the Treasury and the Fed are printing money like there's no tomorrow. The basic rule of supply and demand, the more of something you have, the less it's worth. And the dollar is falling at this moment, so the less a dollar is worth, the more of them that it's going to take to buy a barrel of oil.

To drive the point home, let me tell you a story about peanuts. I'll try to keep it short.

Back in the 80's when I was reduced to working as a miserable guard at MSP, there was an oversupply of peanuts. Now you must understand that everything in the joint is currency for the con's, cigarettes, dope, the home made bread that they claimed us screws put saltpeter in (I thought it was pretty tasty), and even the lowly peanut.

The USDA had an oversupply of peanuts. So they started giving them to the con's. Came in gallon cans, with the USDA stamp on the sides, and there was no end to the supply.

When they first started passing them out, the con's were hoarding them. It wasn't long before every cell had probably 10 gallons of peanuts in it. It got so bad that the con's were leaving big bowels of peanuts in the office for us screws (and they hated our guts), just because they had so damn many peanuts that they were worthless.

I was working as a rover one night, and we were searching the garbage behind the kitchen. And right in the middle of all of that garbage was a 55 gallon barrel full of, you guessed it, peanuts. They had so many peanuts that they were throwing them away by the barrel. I learned something that night.

I came to the conclusion that if you wanted to win the War on Drugs, just give everybody a 55 gallon barrel full of dope. Whatever they want. Then give 'em some more. After a while, the one's who didn't OD would get tired of it. Besides, it would be worthless, since everywhere you looked there was a barrel of dope. On top of that, you would run the cartels and dealers out of business.

Kind of the same thing is happening to our currency. Now that doesn't mean the the Government, speculators, and the oil companies don't stick you when they have a chance, even if they have to create one. They will.

But to be fair to the oil companies, they are the only one's who are actually producing anything. And they are making less on a gallon of gas than the FED Gov.

But who asked me, huh
Chas

awesome metaphor dude!

While listening to the radio the other day there was a guy talking about oil. He watches all of the oil stocks, like ships full of it and land supply stockpiles. According to him by the end of June every place to store oil will be full as it's still being pumped out faster than used.

YMMV

"Extra Phony @ssholes"...Yep, that about sums it up, Rob...IIRC, the EPA was specifically FORBIDDEN by Congress to justify any of their demands by even the most rudimentary cost/benefit analysis...In other words, if an EPA bureaucrat "felt" some regulation was needed, all he/she/it had to do was simply propose it, & thy will be done. Granted, a great deal of their work-at least in the beginning-was SORELY needed, but like any other bureaucracy, they have grown way too powerful, some of their demands are counterproductive, & the amount of money spent doesn't justify the meager results achieved. Again, though, if you have the temerity to QUESTION their agenda, their supporters run a picture of a cute little girl, resplendent in curls, pinafore & petticoat, playing next to a babbling brook, w/Bambi demurely stepping down to get a drink, birds tweeting joyously in the background, & you are accused of wanting to stop THAT...And go back to 1960s Cleveland, when Lake Erie caught on fire...

I would not worry too much about the EPA, they have been sound asleep for the last 12 years.

"Extra Phony @ssholes"...Yep, that about sums it up, Rob...IIRC, the EPA was specifically FORBIDDEN by Congress to justify any of their demands by even the most rudimentary cost/benefit analysis...In other words, if an EPA bureaucrat "felt" some regulation was needed, all he/she/it had to do was simply propose it, & thy will be done. Granted, a great deal of their work-at least in the beginning-was SORELY needed, but like any other bureaucracy, they have grown way too powerful, some of their demands are counterproductive, & the amount of money spent doesn't justify the meager results achieved. Again, though, if you have the temerity to QUESTION their agenda, their supporters run a picture of a cute little girl, resplendent in curls, pinafore & petticoat, playing next to a babbling brook, w/Bambi demurely stepping down to get a drink, birds tweeting joyously in the background, & you are accused of wanting to stop THAT...And go back to 1960s Cleveland, when Lake Erie caught on fire...


The patronage system is a marvelous thing.

I'm with you, Sandy. It really frosts my ass when a Government agency uses out tax revenues to advertise their agenda. I really object to having to pay for them in the first place, much less their propaganda.

But my all time, make you want to cuss, Gubbmitt advertising campaigns, were the one's that the IRS ran back in the '70's or 80's. Remember those, some fat guy in a little sporty car, popping off with something like, "Take every legal deduction, it's your money."

I thought to myself,"Why does the IRS need to advertise? Not like you can go to the IRS across the street, or just refuse to do business with them in the first place".

I know, they were just attempting to paint a smiley face or their sorry asses...but I object to have to pay for it.

Chas

Could it possibly be that we have such a sorry-ass bunch in Congress because less than half the elegible voters show up at the polls? Nah, couldn't be.

One serious error on the part of the Framers was allowing Congress to make its own rules, talk about the fox guarding the chicken house.

I don't think it has anything to do with turn out for these clowns. It's all name recognition. Just look at Massachusetts. That dumbass Kennedy will get voted in after he's dead so long as no one tells the public. People are sheep.

That's always amazed me, too-When we were part of Dennison, out of Framingham, Mass, I got to know quite a few people from The People's Republic of Taxachussetts-and virtually NONE of 'em had much good to say about Teddy the Swimmer-Yet I don't think anybody even seriously bothers to run against him, either in the primaries or in the general election.

now that's the same Ted Kennedy that attends more fallen soldiers funerals than any other member of Congress right?

The same guy that has made a career of helping the down trodden? :confused:


I know if I was from Mass I would proudly vote for him posthumously.

This I did no know.

As far as attending the funerals, I will attempt to research this. If you are correct, I will have a new found respect for him.

As far as helping the down trodden, that's pretty much a value judgment based on a generalization.

I might suggest that he's created more down trodden than he has helped. But that too would be just another conclusion based on a possible false premise.

Being a half assed empiricist, I would like to see some documentation.

But also being a realist, I will offer this concession.

He ain't all good, and he ain't all bad...he just is. There are worse people.

While I do not agree with his politics in general, I do believe that the man has enough money as to not be beholding to anyone.... therefore his motives should be pure.

Whether his actions are correct, or not, can be the basis for considerable discussion.

Give him the credit due, he almost made it to the top of the greasy pole. And while I consider him to be no more than another member of the nuvo aristrocity, much as the Bush family, they have all made it, by hook or by crook.

But I would like to see some fresh blood in the game,
Chas

Well, we have a particularly slimy local politico down here who made a point of attending virtually every reception & most of the funerals-it got to be a rather sick joke, because he was so transparent about his "politikatin'". If The Swimmwer was/is going to those funerals to honor the fallen soldiers, more power to him, yeah, my opinion of him might rise a bit, but if he is using it as trying to get "brownie points", then Grrrrrrrr....

He has never once did anything that was not to further his own career. Well except murdering Kopechne. A saint the man is not...

JFK had a certain amount of class, as did RFK. Jack stared down the Russians over "Cuber", even if a little before the Bay of Pigs thing was pretty much of a cock-up. Bobby got right in the face of a powerful union/mafia thug, & made him squirm a bit. Teddy ? Well, he's partied like it was 1999, run thru a bunch of women, & lied like a damn rug about Chappaquiddick. And that's the stuff we know about-I've often gotten the feeling, like that with ANY party-hearty type, there's a LOT more we just never found out about. Prolly a LOT of it was harmless, but how much shite has he got away with over the years, simply because he's who he is, & has the moolah to buy everyone off ? And, you know, if it was someone from the OTHER side of the aisle, any little peccadillo at all would get trumpeted to high heaven. But, as we all know, there's absolutely no bias whatsoever in the press....Anybody here in the market for a bridge ?

Hard to believe this is true of nearly any man. Sure it's not an emotional response based on a philosophical difference?

No i don't know that. rupert murdoch alone tends to invailidate that popular myth.

noonereal,

We are talking about American politicians here, nothing about the Australian media mogul Murdoch. These are two different worlds of comparison. A stellar humongous difference, if I say so.

Are you sure that you are not joking in your two above posts?

There is such an extreme difference in the way that the majority of the USA news media (ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, etc.) mollycoddle their own "people" (Democratic candidates and entrenched bureaucrats) that the alternative new media of FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity can barely get a word in edgewise.

If the LEFT (Democrats) could have their way and bring forth the "Fairness Doctrine" in all its glory, FoxNews, Rush and Sean would be chained by the ankles and forced to break large rocks using small hammers in some Gulag Archipelago.

So much for being fair. FoxNews' "Fair and Balanced" slogan gives the LEFT (Democrats) ulcers and heartburn because it is an alternative point of view that the LEFT can not control.

Historically, the majority of the American new media have always staunchly supported and feverishly backed the Democrats, and perpetually looked the other way and made excuses when a Democrat went astray.

When a Republican falls down and skins his/her knee, the USA news media sheds the gloves, gathers up the feathers, heats the tar, picks up their GOP (Grand Old Party) rifles and goes elephant (Republican) hunting. EVERYTIME!!

The perpetually LEFT-leaning USA news media has done this for decades and decades until FoxNews, Limbaugh and Hannity came along. Now the American people have an alternative news outlet instead of the old status quo, and the Democrats can not stand it.



Now for Teddy Kennedy.

Have you read anything about Edward "Teddy" Kennedy that is in the least bit objective about this guy. At the very least, he should have a prison record and time served for negligent homicide in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.

Sometimes, the bad outweighs the good in a person. Teddy's privileged and ingrained "If it feels good, do it" mindset while plunging headlong through life, desensitized him in his everyday social and personal interactions. Just look at his past personal life. It's a literal pig sty of boorish behavior and flaunting the law. If you don't believe it, look it up for yourself!

Teddy's egocentric personality is always at the forefront when it comes to furthering his own career. His egocentrism is a classic case of an extremely privileged upbringing (also known as Kennedy-itis).

Click on this WIKI entry for Teddy and skip down to a couples of sections boldly titled "FALL AND RISE" and the "Chappaquiddick incident" for a brief eye-opening synopsis of the senator from Massachusetts. Under the "Chappaquiddick" section, be sure to read the full paragraph containing the following two sentences:

• Kennedy escaped the overturned vehicle and swam to safety, but Kopechne died in the car.

• Kennedy left the scene and did not call authorities until after Kopechne's body was discovered the following day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy

Let me see.

Sandy asked a rhetorical question which I replied to in order to share my opinion on the subject. Why you consider a reference to Murdoch "A stellar humongous difference" I don't follow.
Your reply showed you have no issue speaking to this subject.

No, I am not joking with my two replies. why would you think so?
Sorry if I am wrong but to me it seems your reply is more about outrage that I disagree with what you believe rather than the subjects I replied to.

The media in 2009 is both left and right. PLENTY of both to go around. I don't know how it is possible to discuss media without including the single largest manipulator of the news. The suggestion that one side is favored I believe to be invalid and sited Murdoch's media as a rebuttal to that "victimized" belief.

As to Kennedy, you imply that it's ridiculous for anyone to admire him and his work in the Senate for forty years. I would suggest that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts disagrees with you as do I.

Rupert Murdoch recently became a naturalized citizen here. As for all the libertarian BS about the liberal press (and speaking as a conservative I submit that the GOP has damn few true conservatives in its ranks). The Washington Post has one (1) liberal columnist in E. J. Dionne against Charles Krauthamer, George Will, Michael Gerson, and Fred Hyatt is not exactly a flaming liberal.