# President Rejects Windfall Profit Tax



## Guest (Apr 28, 2006)

This guy posts just Like Militant Tiger, Just kidding man, there are just some strong similarities thats all. Take Care...


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2006)

It was just a joke, I was looking at the way you were quoting and posting it had similarities to MT. Thats all just kidding, dont take me serious...


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Bush called on Congress to give him the authority to set the standards for passenger cars sold in the United States as a means of reducing the nation's demand for gasoline


That's a new one, never heard of that request before. On the other hand it would be easier for one person to raise efficiency standards by order than to depend on congress. Doesn't have to be the President but maybe someone else in authority....... just a thought.


----------



## NDTracer (Dec 15, 2005)

I like the idea of each car having milage requirements. Another idea which will cause less fuss by the car companies (maybe) is to get a realistic test.

The test (if I recall correct, to lazy to find web site) for highway is something like max speed of 62 and an average of 48. They only "drive" the cars for something like 10 minutes (warm for highway, cold city) in a controlled environment. My thoughts are city is probably pretty good most people look at highway milage (I do) so change that. My thoughts are the average speed should be 65MPH. Afterall most states have that or more as the limit on interstates. This would at least give equal testing from company to company. In addition let them run for a full tank of gas or two (whatever size the auto comes with). Or the other option is to build a test track or even real world, where people drive as normally is done. The hard part of that is keeping your cars appearance a secret while developing it.

As for the check to people it is a nice feel good election year thing to do but won't really do much. Afterall I probably buy 1000 gallons per year. So the check of $100 is only equal to about a $0.10 rebate.


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

Our president is a very loyal person. He carefully pays back to those who had put him on the presidential throne.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The people that make Exlax???? What do they have to do with it?? :lol:


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Now that right there is funny Bob.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Yea, that right, President Bush made the price of world oil go up to repay his big oil buddies :eyeroll: Sounds like the mocking birds out of Mass, do you know how silly that sounds, everytime I here that I think, did this person pay attention in school at all or were they smoke'n pot and getting drunk.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

ABBK: I am not trying to be a smart a$$ or anything like that, but I do have a question. Just a hypothetical one.

In your humble opinion do you think gas would be this high if Kerry was in office right now?

IMHO, I think it would be higher than 6-7 years ago, but not this high. Invading Iraq, Bush currently stockpiling the reserves, Exon and Mobile both adding over $7,000,000 each to the Republican party, and although I couldn't find it readily is it not true that both Bush and Cheney have investments in oil.

All of that and you don't think Bush has any responsibility for this at all??

I understand China and many other countries demand has gone up, but do you really all think that is the only thing driving these prices so out of hand??? If this was it, why did we not see this 6-7 years ago. Maybe we did, but then we should have been working towards more economical vehicles a decade ago.

Just my :2cents:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

live2hunt, I'd like to answer part of that for you. If Kerry were in office today there is no way anyone could know. Prices of gas might be lower and then again they might be higher. As far as I know the President and the VP have no ties with the oil companies. What ever ties they may have had were required by law to be sold or put in trust before they took office.

The reason for high gas prices is simply supply and demand in this country, not the cost of barrel of crude oil, be it purchased from Saudi Arabia or elsewhere.

We have not built any new refineries, at least any that provided a significant increase to our ability to increase production of refined oil products for the last 30 years. We could have oil coming out of our ears and it would do us no good if we aren't capable of turning it into gasoline. The Republicans idea (which I support) does nothing to lower the real supply problem of turning crude into gas but it does help to get us out from some of the control of OPEC.

It doesn't take a lot to realize that if we have to divert millions of barrels of our refined oil products, such as gasoline and diesel fuel, to fight a war, less of the product will find its way to the American consumer. So without those refineries to turn the oil into gas we are where we are now........ high demand, low supply.

So, if Kerry were President would we still be facing this problem? Probable but the real question is would it be more severe, less severe or the same.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Neither kerry or Bush have any influence on world demand, but...

I would say that they do or could have some impact on domestic supply and Kerry is more in cahoots with the no domestic supply eco wackos so my guess is that we would be worse off in that respect, although Bush and the Republicans don't have the stones to do much either.

The flip side of this argument is maybe Kerry would demand higher average mileage cars ect and that would help reduce demand domestically...

Like Gohon said who knows :lol:

I personnally think its a world wide problem not a US problem, and neither one can have much impact.

I'll quit rambling


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2006)

> Folks, I'm sure it's a number and combination of those factors. Whether or not those factors are true should be clairified by both parties.


That will never happen, there is too much at stake for one to make such a decision regarding the matter. They all need to sit down and come up with an ideas as to how they are going to fix this. Playing the blame will get us no where as we can see from past experiences.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

I appreciate the feedback Gohon and Bobm. After re-reading, I would digress to say it would be hard to answer on where we would be at if Kerry was in office.

Thank you.

:beer:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

live2hunt said:


> ABBK: I am not trying to be a smart a$$ or anything like that, but I do have a question. Just a hypothetical one.
> 
> In your humble opinion do you think gas would be this high if Kerry was in office right now?
> 
> ...


Thanks for your question.
Yes new refineries are a large part of the problem however,when oil prices go through the roof like now it will effect the price of gas at the pump. Most democrats want people to believe that opening ANWR wouldn't help right now I say BS, because your right about the supply part,if supply of oil was high even though we don't have any new refineries, the refineries we have are running at 88%(last number I herd). Maybe you should ask yourself these questions , do you really think we can conserve our way out of this crisis? or is the world using more fuel because it's being more productive? Did Clinton's VETO on ANWR impact us today? Why not open ANWR?:huh:


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

I am all for drilling anywhere in the US as long as there is oil there....however, if it is like Gohon says, then it won't matter how much oil we have because the refineries can't keep up. If it really is a matter of getting more refineries, then we need build them and let's not drill on a NWR.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

live2hunt said:


> I am all for drilling anywhere in the US as long as there is oil there....however, if it is like Gohon says, then it won't matter how much oil we have because the refineries can't keep up. If it really is a matter of getting more refineries, then we need build them and let's not drill on a NWR.


WHY? Our refineries aren't at 100% capacity yet!


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> Nobody is backing up their "facts", and thus they have no standing to me


Yea, that what I thought, liberals don't ever have a good reason for NOT drilling ANWR! 
Just like they didn't want the trees cut down for lumber now the trees have burned and the only thing we got out of that deal was higher lumber prices, but thanks for playing.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> Not quite the response I was looking for, but if you want to insult g/o I reccomend you do it somewhere else.


What are you smoke'n :bartime: , I didn't insult anyone and whats g/o got to do with it? getting people off the topic to slide away from someone's question  , seems like we seen that before :eyeroll: .


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> live2hunt said:
> 
> 
> > I am all for drilling anywhere in the US as long as there is oil there....however, if it is like Gohon says, then it won't matter how much oil we have because the refineries can't keep up. If it really is a matter of getting more refineries, then we need build them and let's not drill on a NWR.


*WHY? Our refineries aren't at 100% capacity yet![/*quote]

This is where we were before sidetrack sam came in.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

ABBK, there are two main reason the refineries aren't up to capacity. One being that repairs of Katrina set them back and two, that set back caused a delay in the switch over to summer blend that some states require. That's where they are now , in the switch over which normally is done earlier. Not to mention the late cold spell we experienced kept some refineries producing heating oil instead of diesel for a longer period of time. It's like T3, or is it Flux, I never know what name to use....... anyway it is like he said, there are many reasons for the high prices as well as many reasons for the low production at this time.

Nevertheless the building of new refineries or new drilling is a long term solution. If anyone is looking for a short term solution then they are in for a surprise...... there is none.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

You know, I think the $100 check is a dumb idea and mostly because it is suppose to represent a gas tax refund. One main problem is it goes to people even if they don't own a vehicle. Then I heard the Democrats proposal which was to remove the federal gas tax for two months. On the surface this made more sense to me until I stopped to think about it. Federal gas tax is what 19 cents a gallon............. this means I would have to burn 250 gallons of gas a month for each of those two months to equal the $100 check. I don't know about the rest of you but I don't burn that much gas.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> > Hillbilly, don't follow MT's bad example. We are not rid of him yet if any of you have noticed, but we will be shortly. Plainsman
> 
> 
> Spare me the grief Plainsman. They're both a bunch of adolescents that do nothing but drag threads off topic with their childish comments and remarks. They are both bad apples.


Like your doing right now; watch and learn.

Gohon, your right there is no short term solution; but we need both new refineries and ANWR opened if we're going to START fixing anything.
Don't count on OPEC fixing it for us, they probally think it's funny watching us struggle.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> > Hillbilly, don't follow MT's bad example. We are not rid of him yet if any of you have noticed, but we will be shortly. Plainsman
> 
> 
> Spare me the grief Plainsman. They're both a bunch of adolescents that do nothing but drag threads off topic with their childish comments and remarks. They are both bad apples.


I don't know if they are that young. Did you see the picture MT posted of himself on his cubsfan49 alias? Awful thin hair for a 17 year old too.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

T3

I know you are perhaps against racial profiling, but what do you think of psychological profiling. I took 42 hours of psychology in college, and have dug out some of my old books. Here is my take on MT.

He sounds very intelligent because he has good command of the language. However, his logic is very flawed. This can be explained. More than likely he comes from a single parent family (mother only). Without a male figure he has become left brain dominant. This gives him good command of the language, but lacks in other areas. He gets upset about people who don't like gays, because he is perhaps very gender confused. Anyway, it looks like we will never know now.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> T3
> 
> I know you are perhaps against racial profiling, but what do you think of psychological profiling. I took 42 hours of psychology in college, and have dug out some of my old books. Here is my take on MT.
> 
> He sounds very intelligent because he has good command of the language. However, his logic is very flawed. This can be explained. More than likely he comes from a single parent family (mother only). Without a male figure he has become left brain dominant. This gives him good command of the language, but lacks in other areas. He gets upset about people who don't like gays, because he is perhaps very gender confused. Anyway, it looks like we will never know now.


I agree with that,.. with this additional bit that would explain some of his manners.
I think maybe he was sexually abused by someone maybe from church that turned him...let's say acey ducey and then he turned to Islam where men really LOVE each other, if you know what I mean :rock: He's probally about 32 and is self centered enough to be suicide bomber that couldn't do it  and still lives with his mother because he can't support himself. uke: I would give the FBI his post to let them work on the rest but I'll bet we're close.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Yes Mt probably is still getting "it" from his muslim uncle or some other Islamist, they are into that.

When their not beating their women and daughters

Poor kid I feel sorry for him.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

:lol: MT, I knew it was you just thought I would jerk your chain.

You need to go away, you broke the rules and regrettably we had to ban you.

I tried to get you to change your style, you wouldn't.

Forget this site and find something productive to do with your time. Your wasteing it now.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 18, 2005)

dirty ******** huh? :eyeroll:

Just when we thought we could breath clean air again.


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

Just forget about the site man :eyeroll:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

That was more like a NEWS ALERT! :beer: A little free education :thumb:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

T3, it is evident you are considering yourself over important. Your not a moderator, and it's not up to you to keep people in line. You may be an old man, but you still have not grown up.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Live with it. Once it's on here it's really not your thread. If people are no playing your tune try another song.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good. I was hoping after the form stalker left we could have serious discussion.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You know all that profit they were talking about? I was listening to the radio today as they interviewed a fellow from Exon. It turns out only about 1/4 of their profits are from the United States. I think they should up their prices in France and Germany so they could sell to us cheaper. After all they are an American company right????

Nationalizing it sounds to Lennon to me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Nothing personal, but isn't that the idea behind Marxist teachings? At the very least it is very anti capitalistic.

You know if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, *quacks like a duck*, it's probably a duck.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Cancer starts small.

I meant I heard you quacking.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> That would explain why SS has made our country the United Socialist Repulic of America. In your own words,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Policing the Moderators now? :eyeroll:


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> I've heard children quack like a duck. Thus children are ducks.


I dont think i have ever seen a child that looked like a duck. I could be wrong though :roll:


----------

