There should be no question about this socialist now. She can run ... but she cannot hide. Video at link. What an economic disaster for America she would be. The government would end up owning everything, giving you only what they think you need.
Hillary Rodham Clinton? Or Hugo Rafael Chavez?
1. Speaking of oil companies and their profits, HRC said "I want to take those profits ..."
2. HRC said the "government would seize majority state control of four major foreign-run oil producing units by May 1 as part of [a] self-styled “socialist revolution”.
Both Hillary or neither? Both Hugo?
What we don't need and can't afford is Hillary Clinton.
"unless you like the idea of shelling out $10 a gallon for gas in the not too distant future"
THAT will never happen under any circumstances. Shell already has a single tar sands plant up in Canada who's output will be equivalent to 5% of the total VE production. A single plant. Producing 5% of what VE does.
Put in a few more and we can tell Hugo to pound sand.
Posted by: Purple Avenger | Saturday, February 03, 2007 at 12:18 AM
right you are, apple! it's like what malthus said, lo those almost 200 years ago when the earth's population hit a staggering 1 billion (!) people: "we're all doomed! any day now! starvation! no mo' oil! food riots!"
ok, sure, none of that's technically HAPPENED yet, but still. and never mind that $3 a gallon gas is - allowing for inflation/currency degradation - 20 cents a gallon in 1932 dollars. (pretty much precisely what it WAS in 1932, oddly enough....)
no...hang on.....wait a second!.....that would mean that gas is no more expensive than it was 70 years ago! and that would also mean that malthusian predictions of woe & doom are completely incorrect! and have been for 175+ years! so we should pay no heed at all to people who continue to sell these THOROUGHLY idiotic, profoundly discredited notions!
bad news, applepie: just like malthus has been for almost 200 years in a row now, you - and the gloom & doom ideas that people like you express as a form of politcal control - are wrongwrongWRONG!
Posted by: ticktock | Saturday, February 03, 2007 at 03:20 PM
a most devastating argument there, apple. except for that one thing: it's pretty much word-for-word the same one malthus used way back when. 175 years ago, when the earth's population reached a stunning 1 billion. just substitute "food" for "oil", and it's the same wrongwrongWRONG argument.
why is it that lefties:
1) refuse to accept the destruction of arguments they hold sacred? along with echoing malthus, you'll often find them saying moronic things like, "*true* communism has never actually been tried yet, so we don't actually know if it works or not". what's up with that?
2) pessimistically refuse to even consider the upcoming and continual advent of new technologies to supplant existing commodity stocks? new cars get...what? 2 or 3 times the mileage old ones got? while emitting water vapor as the end product?
3) refuse to admit that crying "shortage" in reference to oil supplies is kind of silly in that gasoline prices are **exactly what they were 70 years ago** when measured in constant dollars?
4) keep trying to scare folks with "we're running out of oil!!" boogeyman stories, despite all evidence to the contrary? wouldn't be trying to terrify them so much they demand that you guys make things 'safe' for them, would you?
hmmm?
Posted by: ticktock | Sunday, February 04, 2007 at 04:00 PM
ok, applepie, i'll keep it nice & simple, just for you. IF, as you seem to be hysterically squealing, IF "we're gonna run out of oil and then we're all gonna DIE, man!", then WHY is oil - and its byproduct, gasoline - WHY are they the same price they were 70 years ago when measured in constant dollars? why is that? IF oil is this finite, soon-to-be-depleted resource with a price determined by the iron laws of supply and demand, WHY is it so cheap? WHY hasn't its price gone up any in 70 years? and, before you say "it's doubled since bush took over!", then WHY was it 50% CHEAPER than it was 70 years ago until quite recently?
hmmmm? price perturbations like that are not typical of a soon-to-be-depleted commodity. land prices on park avenue; or the vegas strip; or london's 'city' sure haven't behaved like that: they've gone straight up, even when measured in constant $. yet oil.....not so much. why not?
i'm awaiting your infallible evidence of impending shortage. be advised it's gonna have to be good, since historical price figures sure *seem to* indicate the market's disbelief in that whole panic-stricken malthusian 'sky is falling' rap you seem to be selling. oh, that's right: you don't have any, do you. well, i'm sure you mean well. perhaps that should count for something.
Posted by: ticktock | Sunday, February 04, 2007 at 11:07 PM
ah, apple, apple, apple. you people don't like it when someone challenges your mathusian fearmongering, do you? you get upset - and ever more hysterical - when someone dares state that no, the sky's NOT falling; the world WON'T be ending soon; and we AREN'T running out of oil. just pisses you right off, don't it.
too bad. your ever-snider, ever-more personal attacks-masquerading-as-arguments aside, ("you're laughable!" "ludicrous!"), you still can't quite explain why the market doesn't and hasn't factored in a "soon-to-run-out" factor into oil prices. is it your contention, along with your ridiculous 'distribution curve' excuse, that oil alone among all commodities has somehow managed to factor human greed out of its price? no, of course not. you and people like you NEED boogeymen to scare voters into clamoring for your "protection". oil companies make fine bad guys.
the problem, my little friend applesauce, is that i've heard your gloomy, fearmongering, malthusian ooga-booga arguments before. bad news, sunshine: i'm in the ahl bidness. and everything you dutifully spouted off about "we're running out!" is a word-for-word repeat of the same horseshit people like you were squealing back in the early 80's: in the Time Of The $40 Oil. since i gather you're not too good with numbers, that's about $120 a barrel in 2007 "dollars". we were gonna run out soon; the arabs were gonna rule the world; soon we'd need mules to pull our otherwise useless cars. etc etc etc.
and then - after you idiots gave all the stupid people a good scare - the market realities set in, and the price of oil collapsed 80%. why? why'd it do that if all the "running out soon!" jive was true?
because it's not true, sunshine. we had oil coming out our EARS. still do. you're laughable, applepie. ludicrous. and try as you might; make scary predictions as you might, ("we'll be outta oil by 2020! only 10 more years until the earth burns up from global warming!") you're just as wrong now as you were 20 years ago, the last time you clowns tried this crap. didn't work then. won't work now. you think we're running out of oil? fine. go invest your OWN money in new tech. leave mine alone.
but of course that'd be unthinkable, wouldn't it.
PS - you really might wanna see a shrink soon. your pathological need to get the last word in is indicative of deeper mental illness.
Posted by: ticktock | Tuesday, February 06, 2007 at 12:08 AM
odd, this compulsion exhibited by hardcore leftwing malthusians, in which "having the last word" trumps all other things. in this bizarre, illogical parallel leftist universe, getting the last word in trumps even the embarrassing fact that "your argument is childish and has been proven wrongwrongWRONG a multitude of times over the years, including ticktock's recent evisceration of it just lately."
still, following the hillary/kos model of spouting pseudostatistics and namecalling - all the while pretending to deplore such tactics - the leftist continues doggedly onward. perhaps it'd be kinder to let the doomsayer have the last word, rather than deny him/her; thus stoking the fires of his/her neuroses ever hotter.
naaaaah. you're wrong, loser: oil's still cheap, exactly as cheap as it was in the '30's. all your excuses and all your spin can't change that FACT. until you can provide an explanation (a RATIONAL explanation, mind you: none of this "distribution curve mysteriously lagging behind" jive) as to why this might be....why the iron laws of human nature and greed seem to be suspended for this "depleting" commodity, prices NOT skyrocketing every day as we get closer to "we're out of oil!!" armageddon.....i'll just have to keep slapping you around with the ol' cluebat.
Posted by: ticktock | Tuesday, February 06, 2007 at 03:42 AM
"ob-ses-sion": n.: the state of being obsessed. see: compulsion; pathological; neuroses. a state most often displayed by mean-spirited, hateful leftwing malthusians desperate to shout down dissent of their party-approved message.
i love this stuff, loser. it's like you're my very own dimwitted little puppet.
Posted by: ticktock | Tuesday, February 06, 2007 at 02:59 PM
the OTHER really fun thing to do when tormenting obsessive-compulsive hardcore kneejerk leftwing doomcrying malthusian peabrains is to point out that....(deep breath here) not ONLY are they profoundly stupid; not ONLY do they foolishly cling to long-discredited malthusian dogma; not ONLY do they do this in a sad, pathetic attempt to scare voters into clamoring for their "protection"; not ONLY is their outrage at having their idiotic ideas challenged both childish AND indicative of deeper mental illnesses...
but the fact they deny these things so vociferously, so loudly, so stridently...almost as if they were "compelled" to do so....(hmmm. where've we heard that before?) means that they're not ONLY idiotic, lower-than-whale-shit scaremongers, suffereing from a truly laughable "get the last word in, just like hillary does" compulsion...but that they're also deeply in *denial*, too.
sad, really. pathetic, even. should we take pity on these losers, or simply mock them?
i'm gonna go with "mock them". now let's see if the pathetic loser being dissected here can refrain from squealing "huh-UH!!". i bet she can't.
Posted by: ticktock | Wednesday, February 07, 2007 at 04:37 PM
(yawns) (scrathes) (smacks lips sleepily) well, time to check in on the ol' "obsessive motel" and see what drivel the malthusian nitwit i'm currently tormenting is trapped there.
yup: same ol' same ol', right on schedule. *KNOWING* she shouldn't respond; KNOWING i'll just continue to humiliate her by exposing her pseudoscientific drivel for the crap that it is; KNOWING that responding - proving yet again my "she's a compulsive unable to resist trying to get the last word in" argument - will just make her appear to be even stupider than i've been saying.....
yet unable to stop. helpless in the grip of her compulsion....fighting, fighting, *fighting* that demonic urge....telling herself that "i can stop! i don't have to respond!"...and then, when that same crazy old feeling becomes just TOO strong, TOO fierce, TOO irresisitable.....
failing. yet again. your self-hatred must be HUGE by this point, applesauce. try as you might to cover it be saying unkind, mean-spirited things about me, (don't feel bad. i of course saw it coming: that's what ALL childish leftist malthusians do when their many flaws are exposed), you must truly truly think you're a worthless, no-good pile of crap. (i know I think you are, anyway.)
DANCE, puppet!
Posted by: ticktock | Thursday, February 08, 2007 at 02:30 AM