About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Fox Business' Claman: "Even The Transcanada People Say [Keystone XL] Would Only Shave 3 Or 4 Pennies Off The Price" Of Gas

February 27, 2012 9:43 am ET

From the February 27 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

What Reporters Are Getting Wrong About Gas Prices

Keystone XL: Five Stories Not Told

Fox Deception: Keystone XL Pipeline Would Lower Domestic Gas Prices

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by foole (February 27, 2012 9:48 am ET)
      24  
      She must have forgotten she was on the Fox network people actually watch.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by David2012 (February 27, 2012 9:49 am ET)
      16  
      How did this woman ever get a job at Fox, I wonder. She won't last long.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dogbreath (February 27, 2012 9:57 am ET)
        17  
        I mean, she actually makes sense. That was almost frightening to watch on FOX.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by blk-in-alabam (February 27, 2012 11:24 am ET)
        6 1
        The Murdoch(s) are trying to get the cash out value up.This can only be done by attracting some of fox news' many lost advertisers back..That can only be done by easing up on the lies.........If there was no Media Matters fox news could tell their lies,and still keep their blue chip advertisers.........
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Spooky Dooooooooood (February 27, 2012 9:49 am ET)
      12  
      Here's what I took away from this interview... Newt needs a lot of attention.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Reinhard (February 27, 2012 9:50 am ET)
      17  
      I love it when someone on Fox goes off script.

      Doocy looks like his world has come down around him. And Kiljoy looks as clueless as ever.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by teh.stoopid.lib (February 27, 2012 9:52 am ET)
        11  
        But...buh...buh...buh...Pennsylvania!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MidnightWriter (February 27, 2012 10:21 am ET)
          10  
          A state which apparently Kilmeade believes is in the American West.

          Well, it is west of New York.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 1:43 pm ET)
            5  
            That's always weird to me ( being born out here near the Pacific) to hear these out-of-touch east coast elitists refer to places that are thousands of miles east of me as "out west". What a snob!!!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bilbo_dies (February 27, 2012 1:55 pm ET)
              5  
              Hey, California isn't out west.

              It is some stinkin furen country.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 2:01 pm ET)
                5  
                Fruits, nuts and flakes. And some sort of Austrian Czar in charge.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Conchobhar (February 27, 2012 2:33 pm ET)
                  5  
                  Fruits, nuts and flakes.
                  My kind of people.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by foole (February 27, 2012 2:50 pm ET)
                    5  
                    And the makings for a delicious breakfast cereal.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 2:56 pm ET)
                      4  
                      I miss all those California /granola jokes from the 70s.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Conchobhar (February 27, 2012 3:27 pm ET)
                      6  
                      Thanks for bringing that up. I'm having an afternoon snack of oatmeal, and you just reminded me that I forgot to add the dried cranberries and currants. Thought it tasted a little bland.
                      Report Abuse
          • Author by angels4light (February 27, 2012 4:44 pm ET)
            1  
            West of NYC, but mostly south - it is a border state with NY.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by rtwmd1230 (February 27, 2012 10:45 am ET)
          9  
          "But it's restoring Pennsylvania."

          WTF does that mean, Brian?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by MidnightWriter (February 27, 2012 10:56 am ET)
            6  
            I believe it means he was only able to clearly distinguish the words "restoring" and "Pennsylvania" in all panicked cross-talk he was hearing in his earpiece.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Johaely (February 27, 2012 10:09 am ET)
        7  
        When doesn't Killmeade look like a dumbass?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvT (February 27, 2012 10:24 am ET)
        9  
        Too funny!! Whenever someone comes on with actual facts to debunk the nonsense they spew out everyday, the hosts get that deer in the headlights look. They really don't know how to respond if they can't quote their GOP talking points over and over again. FAUXnews is the best comedy channel on cable.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by eddie-george (February 27, 2012 10:33 am ET)
        10  
        Off script in the sense that she attacked Newt - who's apparently fair game these days on Fox - by demolishing a number of wingnut factoids.

        Dooce indeed has the look of, "OMG, she shot all the hostages!! Are we supposed to say anything? Brian, Mommy, anyone?"
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ProgLib (February 28, 2012 5:16 pm ET)
           
        I think that's how Doofy and Kill-me usually look... I'm not absolutely sure, though. The last thing I want to do is look at either one of their faces.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by teh.stoopid.lib (February 27, 2012 9:51 am ET)
      10  
      So Gingrichs plan is a bunch of pie in the sky BS. I. Am. Shocked!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Reinhard (February 27, 2012 10:18 am ET)
        8  
        Gingrich thinks he's a wizard. In his world children are janitors,gas pours from water taps, women are disposable. You know- a realist.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by 17andLiberal (February 27, 2012 11:38 am ET)
          7  
          Don't forget summer vacations to the 51st state...the moon.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by curiousindependent (February 27, 2012 5:27 pm ET)
          3  
          Gingrich thinks he's a wizard
          A Grand Wizard, maybe.

          gas pours from water taps
          Report Abuse
        • Author by xlrrp173 (February 27, 2012 6:26 pm ET)
          3  
          Actually, Newt has a point thinking gas comes out of water taps, Reinhard.

          In Dimock PA, because of fracking, the tap water actually will light on fire. Of course, our governor, Tom Corbet (R-Drillers) doesn't see a problem, and stopped the EPA from trucking in drinking water.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 27, 2012 12:24 pm ET)
        10 1
        Yeah, it's bushllit. You won't alter the price at the pump with SUPPLY. Never happen and the small part of the oil industry that tells the truth has admitted that. You won't get it by cutting gas-taxes either. For every 10 cents you cut in the gax-tax, you'll see 1-2 cents difference at the pump, the rest will simply be lost tax revenue (and thus a greater deficit) and increased profits for big oil. That might be nice,for big oil, but it won't help gas consumers. And any attempt to CAP prices will only result in shortages, just like they did in the late 1970's. (One ignores the forces of Microeconomics at their own peril.)

        OTOH... reign in all the stupid speculation, address some of teh currency fulcation issues and attenuate demand by investing in electric car infrastructure and solar energy? And you just might keep it ~$3 indefinitely, with most of us not needing to buy much of it anyway!

        ------------------------------
        IMHO
        UTOPIA
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dogbreath (February 27, 2012 9:53 am ET)
      11  
      And I would like to add, that the Transcanada people are probably exaggerating that miniscule figure.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 27, 2012 9:58 am ET)
        12  
        That was my first thought... this is a best-case scenario. I'd say the Saudi Prince catching a cold will have more influence on the price of oil than this pipeline will.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by BDA (February 27, 2012 10:18 am ET)
          12  
          FAux must be forgetting that in the summer of 2008 when oil was $40 a barrel higher than it is now, they were telling us that the president has little control over oil and gas prices. Now that this African president is in charge and domestic oil production is higher than during the Bush presidency, he should do more to lower prices.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Psycho3D (February 27, 2012 1:40 pm ET)
            2 10
            last time I checked Africans can't be presidents of the United States.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MiniTru (February 27, 2012 1:46 pm ET)
              14 2
              Last time I checked, idiots don't get sarcasm.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 1:46 pm ET)
                8  
                JINX!!
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Psycho3D (February 27, 2012 1:49 pm ET)
                6 8
                Last time I checked you would have done the same thing to me if I made I sarcastic comment along those lines. You just took the bait hook, line and sinker.

                Thanks
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MiniTru (February 27, 2012 2:21 pm ET)
                  6  
                  That's because your sarcastic comments sound just like your serious comments. They are ill-informed, stupid, and lame.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 1:46 pm ET)
              5  
              Does the reference book you used to check that out have an entry on "sarcasm", by any chance ?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Psycho3D (February 27, 2012 1:50 pm ET)
                2 9
                Just playing your game
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 2:00 pm ET)
                  6  
                  I don't recall ever pretending to be joking when somebody clowned me for not getting sarcasm. You're playing by yourself, silly.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Psycho3D (February 27, 2012 2:05 pm ET)
                    1 8
                    no, I knew it was sarcasm, I was being sarcastic in return but it seems when others not of the same frame of mind as you speaks sarcasm, it must be taken literally.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 2:15 pm ET)
                      6 1
                      You should probably avoid attempting sarcasm in the future.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Psycho3D (February 27, 2012 2:20 pm ET)
                        1 9
                        I never claimed I was always successful in sarcasm. That much I will concede.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by MiniTru (February 27, 2012 2:22 pm ET)
                          4  
                          You shouldn't think that you are ever successful at sarcasm.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Psycho3D (February 27, 2012 2:32 pm ET)
                            1 8
                            And you shouldn't think at all!
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Conchobhar (February 27, 2012 2:37 pm ET)
                              8  
                              She can't help it. Thinking is one of those elitist, snobbish things that liberals do while drinking chardonnay and eating arugula.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Psycho3D (February 27, 2012 2:41 pm ET)
                                1 8
                                I take that as sarcasm as well. But, stereotypical sarcasm is bland and predictable at best.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 2:58 pm ET)
                                  5  
                                  So you've admitted that don't understand sarcasm, but you've decided that you're going to critique sarcasm ? My advice stands.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Psycho3D (February 27, 2012 3:02 pm ET)
                                      6
                                    You don't need to be an accomplished Chef to know when you have burned toast.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by highlyunlikely (February 27, 2012 3:30 pm ET)
                                      5  
                                      psycho developed the "keep it going" strategy as a defensive against his more powerful older sibs. He learned early on the more convoluted the better; they only get sick of him that much sooner.
                                      Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 3:53 pm ET)
                                      6  
                                      But you need to know what toast is. And what the word 'burned' means.
                                      Report Abuse
      • Author by angels4light (February 27, 2012 4:46 pm ET)
        1  
        It might shave 3 cents on the eastern seaboard, but in the process it would raise prices 5+ cents in the heartland.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Jimijams (February 27, 2012 10:01 am ET)
      10  
      So you can save even more by buying your gasoline at Sam's club?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by boxtop (February 27, 2012 11:35 am ET)
        1 4
        Yes, Sam's Club will shave off a few pennies for gas.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Psycho3D (February 27, 2012 1:41 pm ET)
          5  
          They get it back by the yearly dues you have to pay to be a member.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by chazmanr (February 27, 2012 2:01 pm ET)
            6  
            The extra miles you drove to get to their obscure location also offset any savings (at least around here).
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Psycho3D (February 27, 2012 2:08 pm ET)
              2 3
              That's true too. I think people get dupped by paying dues to stores like Wal-mart or BJ's. I think there could be savings if you bought a lot of stuff there annually but personally I don't shop there enough to quantify the savings versus the annual dues.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MiniTru (February 27, 2012 2:23 pm ET)
                2  
                We do. The $35 annually for BJ's is well worth it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by chazmanr (February 27, 2012 2:57 pm ET)
                  3  
                  If you are a family, I think it makes sense. Single guy, not so much. Besides, where am I going to store 3 years worth of ketchup, toilet paper or paper towels in my 2-bedroom condo?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by curiousindependent (February 27, 2012 5:32 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Just make sure you cost compare. We found that Sam's was charging about 50 cents more for a gallon of milk than Target, and Target doesn't charge you to walk in the door.
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by Egbert Souse (February 27, 2012 10:30 am ET)
      7  
      -- "Even The Transcanada People Say [Keystone XL] Would Only Shave 3 Or 4 Pennies Off The Price" Of Gas --

      Of the course, the question is:
      (a) Where will the savings will happen? Whatever is produced in the Gulf Coast refineries from the TransCanada tar sludge oil will be subject to the open market.
      (b) When will it happen? TransCanada's estimate is that it will take 2 years to build the Keystone XL pipeline. Add to that the time required to first refine the tar oil in Canada so that it can flow through the pipleine and the time to further refine it into distillates in the U.S. plants in La. and Texas.

      Plus consider this. Even if the Alberta sand gunk is available for gasoline production in two years, President Willard will have already declared war on, defeated, and occupied Iranistan. Ergo we will then have all the gasoline we need without having to resort to whatever eventually glug-glug-glugs out of the XL. So let's not jump the gun, so to speak.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by blueline99 (February 27, 2012 11:41 am ET)
        9  
        The key statement that she made that nobody at Fox acknowledges is "This market does not move on fundamentals"

        Notice after she said that, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum couldn't wait to end the interview

        Not only do we have record highs in oil inventory, we have record high in the exportation of refined oil (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel)

        Prices aren't high because of lack of supply or cost of oil (it's $40/barrel less than the highs in 2008)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (February 27, 2012 2:05 pm ET)
          5  
          Don't forget that current refineries of WTI (West Texas Intermediate) crude pay less for their oil than the East coast refineries that use Brent crude. As the price for WTI rises to match that of Brent they will lose that "extra" profit they have been making and will, more than likely, make it up by raising their prices even more.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (February 27, 2012 10:50 am ET)
      9  
      And even that would not come for several years. I heard Gingrich on NPR last night trying to defend his claim that he'd give Americans $2.50 gas (I thought he claimed $2 but they said $2.50.) He says that President Obama is responsible for reducing 80% of our shore lines being off limits to drilling. He failed to mention that 95% of the area available for drilling remains unexplored by oil companies. Apparently he thinks increased domestic production is going to halve the price of oil on the world market. If it was possible to produce that much oil you can bet that oil companies wouldn't do it. Flooding the market with excess oil cuts into their profits. There has never been an oil shortage except those that are manipulated by the oil industry and oil producing countries. I don't know why Reps all think Gingrich is so smart.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by galmud (February 27, 2012 10:59 am ET)
      6  
      Gingrich brilliant secret plan to lower gas prices is probably to build a pipeline to the moon
      Report Abuse
      • Author by boxtop (February 27, 2012 11:24 am ET)
          16
        It's funny that $2.50n a gallon sounds good to us now. And to think it was only $1.80 a gallon in Jan. 09.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by boxtop (February 27, 2012 11:32 am ET)
            18
          Why is Obama acting like the high gas prices are no big deal?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by chazmanr (February 27, 2012 12:05 pm ET)
            17  
            Now, right now we are experiencing just another painful reminder of why developing new energy is so critical to our future. Just like last year, gas prices are climbing across the country. This time, it’s happening even earlier. And when gas prices go up, it hurts everybody -- everybody who owns a car, everybody who owns a business. It means you’ve got to stretch a paycheck even further. It means you’ve got to find even more room in a budget that was already really tight. And some folks have no choice but to drive a long way to work, and high gas prices are like a tax straight out of your paycheck.


            -President Barack Obama, Feb. 23, 2012, University of Miami

            Report Abuse
            • Author by shaggles (February 27, 2012 12:14 pm ET)
              13  
              Yeah. See. He obviously doesn't take it seriously. If he did he'd eliminate all protected land and sign it over to Exxon-Mobile for $.01 per acre.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (February 27, 2012 12:06 pm ET)
            11 2
            He's not, but you won't find any information to the contrary on Fox or hate talk radio, boxy.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by wenfen (February 27, 2012 12:49 pm ET)
            7 1
            Why do you insist on being a F---ing moron?
            Report Abuse
        • Author by 17andLiberal (February 27, 2012 11:46 am ET)
          13 2
          You have been debunked on this point so many times already. What is it they say about doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results...?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by political_left-religious_right (February 27, 2012 12:01 pm ET)
          10  
          What do you care, boxtop? You're clearly too young to drive.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by boxtop (February 27, 2012 12:15 pm ET)
              17
            I'm trying to steer you in the right direction so to speak.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (February 27, 2012 12:25 pm ET)
              10 2
              Well, you're failing. You are extremely uninformed on this issue, boxy. You've been told that over and over again, but you just keep repeating the fake conservative talking points. You're just a little parrot, boxy. That's all, you have NO IDEA what the heck you're talking about. The people who feed you this nonsense don't even believe it . . . they just want you to believe it so that you'll repeat it. They're laughing at you, boxy. They think that you're an ignoramus and a joke.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (February 27, 2012 12:06 pm ET)
          14 3
          It's funny that you're too ignorant to remember that the gas prices were higher in July 2008 than they are now and that the only reason they went down to $1.80 was because of the very near collapse of the global economy. Nobody was buying it.

          You're an absolute idiot, boxy. You really are.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (February 27, 2012 12:50 pm ET)
            6 2
            Looks like we have two other idiots who don't remember that gas prices were higher in the summer of 2008.

            Please note the steady rise of gasoline prices beginning in 2002 which peaked in the summer of 2008. There was a huge drop following the near collapse of the global economy in October 2008 which drastically lowered gas prices. As the economy recovered, the speculators started jacking up the prices again. They still haven't risen to the level of July 2008.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Psycho3D (February 27, 2012 1:44 pm ET)
              11
            I remember paying 76C a gallon in the early 90's when I began to drive.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 1:50 pm ET)
              7  
              The 1890s ?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by MiniTru (February 27, 2012 1:51 pm ET)
              6  
              What was that, the 1890's?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Psycho3D (February 27, 2012 1:53 pm ET)
              1 6
              I'm not that old
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MiniTru (February 27, 2012 2:25 pm ET)
                4  
                No kidding.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Psycho3D (February 27, 2012 3:22 pm ET)
                    3
                  now your just contradicting yourself, you just said the 1890s.


                  I know its that darned sarcasm again I just can't can't seem to grasp!!
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by highlyunlikely (February 27, 2012 3:31 pm ET)
                3  
                nor are you wise for your age, which is the real problem with your comments.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Psycho3D (February 27, 2012 4:39 pm ET)
                    2
                  Where is there any wisdom in stating I paid a certain amount in gas at a certain time? It is just a statement not a philosophical musing. I happen to remember that, because even then it was fairly low for the time, because I was spending 90 to 95 cents on average.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by highlyunlikely (February 27, 2012 5:49 pm ET)
                    2  
                    psycho still hasn't learned to read the indentations in order to know what's responding to what.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by Greencat_left (February 27, 2012 7:10 pm ET)
                2  
                You're still very young at heart. You have the emotional maturity of a toddler.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by chazmanr (February 27, 2012 2:03 pm ET)
              5  
              Were you living in Qatar or Kuwait at the time? I have been driving since the 80's. The lowest I have ever paid was around $0.90/gallon.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by bilbo_dies (February 27, 2012 2:14 pm ET)
                7  
                I was paying &0.70 a gallon in 71 & 72 before the first gas crisis. They fined a bunch of gas stations for gouging, during the shortage, for charging $1.00+ a gallon.

                As a kid I can remember my dad paying $0.30 a gallon and picking your gas station based on the premiums they were giving away. (dishes, towels, etc)
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Conchobhar (February 27, 2012 3:03 pm ET)
                3  
                It all depends on where Psycho was buying his gas, as you say. I bought a 92 Camry V6 and paid .99 a gallon for high test. Of course, that was in New Jersey, which averaged .20 a gallon less than New York. I tried to fill up every time I was across the Hudson.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by chazmanr (February 27, 2012 3:20 pm ET)
                  2 1
                  I assure you that I was wasn't putting premium in my '78 Cutlass that my uncle sold me for a buck. I paid around $0.90 or within a few pennies of that in Iowa in the late 80's (in Chicago at the same time it was closer to $1.00).
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Conchobhar (February 27, 2012 4:42 pm ET)
                    2  
                    You wrote that below, and I believed you. It doesn't make my experience, or PsychoD's, any less real. Gas in NY is now anywhere from 20 to 50 cents more than in Western Massachusetts. I haven't been across the Hudson since prices started toward the stratosphere, so I can't speak to NJ prices, but they were usually 10 to 15 cents better than Mass.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by chuckie (February 28, 2012 9:31 am ET)
                2  
                OK, I can't hold back any longer. I'll stipulate that I'm older than dirt. Back in the sixties, I remember "gas wars" where the price got down to 13 cents a gallon in Florida. It certainly wasn't the norm which is why I remember it. In fact the concept of a 'gas war' is quaint by today's standards.

                OK, I'll go back to my rocking chair now.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (February 27, 2012 2:07 pm ET)
              3 3
              Well,that's interesting, since the chart above shows that the national average for unleaded hasn't been below $1.00/gallon since 1990.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Psycho3D (February 27, 2012 2:17 pm ET)
                3 5
                first, that was the lowest I ever paid that is why I mentioned it.

                Averages are taken from highs and lows. Georgia has always been relatively lower than the national average. Right now the national average is $3.70 according to what I read at lunch. I can go get gas for 3.56 at a local gas station, but the Georgia Average is $3.61.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by chazmanr (February 27, 2012 2:44 pm ET)
                  2 1
                  No way. Your memory is playing tricks on you. You are remembering what your parents paid. As I said, I have never paid less than about $0.90 and I went to college in rural Iowa for the last half of the 80's where gas was much cheaper than the national average.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by bintx (February 27, 2012 2:48 pm ET)
                  2 2
                  I remember my mother getting $5.00 of regular when I was a kid and it almost filled the tank. But then, I can remember when bread was about 39 cents a loaf, too. I was a small child.

                  I'll repeat, the cost of unleaded gasoline was not 79 cents per gallong in
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by curiousindependent (February 27, 2012 5:48 pm ET)
                     
                  I dunno, I lived about 40 miles south of Atlanta from '83 to '91. I remember spending 16 bucks and change to fill up the tank on a '71 Maverick in about '88. I only remember it because I went from filling a 2.5 gallon motorcycle tank to filling a 19 gallon car tank. Talk about sticker shock.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by curiousindependent (February 27, 2012 5:37 pm ET)
             
          Yeah, funny that, boxy. It was less than $1.50 in 2000. Then it jumped over a dollar in almost a year. Then, before W and Darth Cheney got done, it was over 4 bucks. It did, indeed, take a depression to drop it to that $1.80 figure.

          I am glad to see that you are proud of Bushco for tanking the entire planet's economy so that gas could drop back down to only 30 cents more than when they TOOK the office of president.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by curiousindependent (February 28, 2012 10:26 am ET)
               
            And by "took" I mean that they took it. They weren't ever elected to it. Nice to have a "conservative" majority SCOTUS that will just bypass elections and appoint the Republican.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 2:12 pm ET)
        4  
        President Gingrich will reduce the price of government green cheese to 5 cents a pound.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MiniTru (February 27, 2012 2:27 pm ET)
          4  
          You got that from The Odd Couple, didn't you?

          "Oscar, what kind of sandwiches do you have?"

          "I got brown sandwiches and green sandwiches."

          "What are the green sandwiches?"

          "They're either very new cheese or very old meat."

          "I'll have a brown sandwich."
          Report Abuse
    • Author by vysotsky (February 27, 2012 11:03 am ET)
      7  
      Producer: "She's going off -- no, no, no... Okay, cue camera two, go camera two, hit the trap door under her and go to break. [Pause.] Now. [Pause.] I said hit the trap door! [Pause.] What? Well when are they going to install it? Yes, and the shark tank! What good is the trap door without the shark tank underneath it? Amateurs!"
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mikelartist (February 27, 2012 11:05 am ET)
      4  
      Kilmeade chimes in about fracking. The dolt has no idea what the difference is between natural gas, shale oil and tar sands. It seemed as is she were going to correct him but I bet the producers commanded her to let it go in her earpiece. No sense making Fox and Fools look any dumber.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Nihilist (February 27, 2012 11:07 am ET)
      10  
      yo fox, lets not mention the fact, that the prez has opened up more areas for oil exploration from anwar, to the mexican gulf coast. and opened up huge areas of federal lands that the oils want to get their greedy dirty hands on....

      and please fox, never mention that using cng and other green fuels that the military is developing now to run the war machine. the #1 user of oil and fuel is the military....

      and fox, never ever mention that your oil gods, are shipping out huge amounts of refined gas to red china, there is a glut of gas, but shipping it out is keeping the prices high, along with wall st. speculators....
      Report Abuse
      • Author by foole (February 27, 2012 11:21 am ET)
        5  
        It's the oil industry and the speculators doing what they can to try and damage Obama's re-election chances. They were waiting for something to come along and give them the chance to do this. And, damned if Iran didn't go right ahead and give them the ammo they needed. You would think with the amount of sabre-rattling the right is doing about invading Iran, the Iranians would be more careful about supplying them with items they can use to club The President with. Guess stoopid isn't just relegated to the right-wing in this country. Stoopid is a global phenomenon.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Nihilist (February 27, 2012 12:38 pm ET)
          4  
          this price spike is also revenge by the kochbros. who are major speculators on the oil market. this is nothing more than the oligarchs making this election season as difficult as possible for everyone. for the average driver this spike will cost around $1000 or more.... remember in 08 gas was $4, then by a miracle around nov election, it went down to $2. if you want tru proof this is a made up crisis, last week abc was doing a live shot in front of a LA gas station, and as the reporter was in her 2 minute package the electronic signboard went up 10 cents. there was no fresh delivery of gas it was a fax from corporate to the franchise station to jack the rates....

          the largest export is refined gas. the prez can stop this, under an national emergency, but he needs the superpac cash to be re elected... so they will continue to play games, and everyone's profit margins are toast as gas hits $5.

          oh, and i have seen $5 in inner city LA....
          Report Abuse
          • Author by curiousindependent (February 27, 2012 5:52 pm ET)
               
            He doesn't need superpac cash. From what I have heard, there is very little of that, as he prefers NOT to depend on large donors so that he is not BEHOLDEN to large donors. What he needs is 10 bucks from anyone who can afford it.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by NON-PARTY (February 27, 2012 2:06 pm ET)
          4 2
          Foole
          It's the oil industry and the speculators doing what they can to try and damage Obama's re-election chances.


          Wow funny how you used the word "stoopid"... Why would anyone in the Oil Industry including speculators truly want President Obama out off office right now? President Obama cleared the speculators of any wrong doing in regards to price gauging (now that is STOOPID) and the oil industry is on pace to have their most profitable year ever... They are about to make more money over a 4 year span than ever before under this admininistration. They would be "Stoopid" to try not and get 4 more years of this administration. Forget Rep or Dem... This is money, and the Oil Inudustry is about to have their greatest year ever with President Obama at the helm.

          By the way, President Obama and his administration has nothing directly to do with the price of gas, just like that Knuckle-Head Bush... But politics will be politics and whoever is sitting in the BIG CHAIR will get the blame!

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Johaely (February 27, 2012 2:09 pm ET)
            3  
            By the way, President Obama and his administration has nothing directly to do with the price of gas, just like that Knuckle-Head Bush... But politics will be politics and whoever is sitting in the BIG CHAIR will get the blame!


            Well that's for sure. Hell it doesn't even have to be an issue like energy. If it rains during election day, people are more likely to vote against the incumbent simply for the fact that its raining.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by foole (February 27, 2012 2:36 pm ET)
            5  
            It doesn't make sense for the oil industry to be against Obama's re-election, but damned if they aren't throwing their money and support elsewhere. The oil industry types gave far more to Perry and Romney in 2011 than they did to Obama. The link below includes a chart showing they contributed $648,408 to Perry, $274,700 to Romney and $83,993 to Obama. So, despite the abject "stoopidness" of it, as you point out, they sure are trying to get Obama out of office.

            Oil and Gas industry contributions to 2012 candidates for Jan-Sept 2011
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NON-PARTY (February 27, 2012 4:31 pm ET)
              1 2
              Foole,

              Your not getting it... It doesn't matter who is in power, the OIL Industry is going to make their money. This was set up long before W or Obama and both sides of the isle have made sure it never changes... If Oil and Gas wasn't ok with OBama he wouldn't get a penny and the 1mil given to the REPUBLICANS would be more like 10-20mil and would make the Superpacs look like a bake sale.

              Do you think the Unions are ever going to vote for a Republican? No of course not, but before President Obama, the Unions had their most profitable years when President Knuckle-Head was in office...
              Report Abuse
              • Author by foole (February 27, 2012 5:15 pm ET)
                2  
                You're right, I'm obviously not getting it. I know the oil industry makes money regardless, but when a contributor gives your opponents more than 10 times as much money as they give you, kind of seems like they would prefer your opponents win. So, I'm gonna be a lost cause on this one.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by curiousindependent (February 27, 2012 5:55 pm ET)
                1  
                Do you think the Unions are ever going to vote for a Republican?
                If the "Unions" had a vote, they would not. But I know all KINDS of idiotic union MEMBERS who are STAUNCHLY Republican, and would never even consider voting otherwise.

                Now THAT is "stoopid".
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Johaely (February 27, 2012 9:54 pm ET)
                   
                The reason why unions wouldn't vote for a Republican is because that would suicide. Republicans have gone on record in recent times as trying to get rid or weaken unions as much as they can.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (February 27, 2012 11:15 am ET)
      3  
      Uh-oh. There's a conspirator on the loose in Never Never Land.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by GBU-15 (February 27, 2012 11:16 am ET)
      2  
      These people talk about harvesting oil that pushes the limits of existing technology. But these same clowns pooh-pooh attempts at pushing the envelop on renewable energy. There must be something mystical about the curvy couch that lowers the I.Q. of anyone who sits on it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by clearstate (February 27, 2012 11:21 am ET)
      4  
      So we'll spend millions just to save 3 or 4 cents off of gas? Sounds like a Republican plan to me as long as their Koch brother friends get money back from their investment.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by curiousindependent (February 27, 2012 5:57 pm ET)
           
        That is the part they aren't telling us. WE the people will save 3 or 4 cents a gallon. The gas companies, however, will see BILLIONS in increased profits.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Soulfader72 (February 27, 2012 11:47 am ET)
      7 1
      Whats really ironic about this sulfuric, highly corrosive tar sand that needs to be mined, sent through special heated pipes, and costs more to refine is Rep Evan Bode added an amendment to the referendum saying "why don't we just keep it?" I mean were talking energy dependance right, why send it off to China?"

      You'd think everyone would be on board with this? WRONG!! 230 republican reps voted NO. And everyone of them got a check for 160+K from the oil companies.

      So, it's not OUR oil, it's Exxon mobile and the Koch brothers oil.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Soulfader72 (February 27, 2012 11:57 am ET)
        4  
        Correction, it was Ed Markey of Mass
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 1:53 pm ET)
        4  
        Thanx, soulfader, I hadn't heard that, that's the sort of thing a real news media would be talking about.

        It's unbelievable, how many otherwise sane-seeming adults I've met who seem to believe that more drilling here means friendly, All-American oil companies bringing cut-rate gas to their fellow Americans.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by TheAlarmist (February 27, 2012 12:52 pm ET)
      3  
      I think Newt & Co. could have made their estimate more credible if they threw in some cents. $2.56 or 2.49, I mean c'mon that seems a lot more legitimate. How often do gas prices ever end with a zero?

      Even so, if he is going to be hyperbolic in appealing to everyone's interest, why not say he'll make gas free?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by grunt (February 27, 2012 12:58 pm ET)
      3 6
      I think the major point everyone is missing is that our military and our military policy are a huge driver of demand for oil and gas and other energy. You won't hear Obama or other Democrats talking about this. You certainly won't hear Republicans talking about it. The only candidate that might have the guts to bring it up is Ron Paul.

      The Department of Defense consumes 360,000 barrels of oil each (that was in 2007). Can you imagine what that amount of demand is doing to the supply for the rest of us?...and this us just the U.S. military!! Oil companies and oil rich nations love military conflict.

      Someone mentioned electric cars being the solution...was that a joke? Are you talking about all 40 miles you can drive on electric...after it is recharged from fossil fuels? How would one propose we freight all of the consumer goods necessary for our economy to function? Freight carriers drive hundreds or even thousands of miles to deliver those goods. What kind of electric network would we need for that?

      We need to get real about this. I would think that a network of nuclear power plants would be a good start. We are building the first plants in the U.S. (in Georgia) in around 30 years!! Nuclear power is a great source for homes and offices. We could reduce coal and oil and gas consumption considerably by expanding our nuclear network.

      Either way, neither party wants to offer real solutions because they are bought and sold by the same people. Good luck...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Disputed Zone (February 27, 2012 1:16 pm ET)
        9  
        You won't hear Obama or other Democrats talking about this.
        I guess you missed the State of the Union:

        And I'm proud to announce that the Department of Defense, the world's largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history--with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.
        Barack Obama, SOTU 2012
        Report Abuse
        • Author by grunt (February 27, 2012 2:12 pm ET)
            5
          President Obama very well may have said that...so did Roberts Gates 2 years ago. Btw, the Navy's biggest supply of alternative energy comes from nuclear power. Just wanted to point that out.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 27, 2012 2:21 pm ET)
            5  
            Um, miss-the-point troll misses the point.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by chazmanr (February 27, 2012 2:22 pm ET)
            4  
            Btw, the Navy's biggest supply of alternative energy comes from nuclear power.


            There is no universal agreement among progressives on nuclear energy (like most things...we tend to think independently). I personally have no problem with nuclear energy in principal. I have no problem with nuclear energy if it is properly regulated and the waste is disposed of in the safest manner possible. I suspect that the military does a pretty good job of ensuring that their ship board reactors are operating safely. I am also not terribly concerned about the security of a nuclear Naval ship. However, the private sector is all about profit. They will cut corners wherever they can get away with it.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Disputed Zone (February 27, 2012 2:25 pm ET)
            5  
            I just wanted to point out that your claim that Democrats won't talk about it is false.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by grunt (February 27, 2012 2:33 pm ET)
              1 1
              I understand, and I appreciate you bringing that up. However, it doesn't really address the warfare angle of this. That was my overriding point. Until we end all of the warmongering (both parties), demand will be skewed.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Disputed Zone (February 27, 2012 3:20 pm ET)
                   
                IMO, a reduction in energy demand would be a nice secondary benefit of an end to warmongering.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by grunt (February 27, 2012 3:21 pm ET)
                    1
                  Yes, very true. I was discussing it because it is all connected. The energy producers love war and conflict...
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by curiousindependent (February 27, 2012 6:08 pm ET)
                1  
                Both parties warmonger? I am sure that you have some examples of individual Democratic office-holders warmongering, or you wouldn't have said that. I am also certain that you don't seem to realize that Democrats tend to have individual opinions, unlike Republicans, who have to stay on script.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by curiousindependent (February 27, 2012 6:06 pm ET)
              1  
              The problem for a lot of the trolls here is that neither FOX nor hate-radio will point out Democrats talking about things that matter, so they don't know that Dems do, indeed, talk about anything of consequence.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 27, 2012 1:18 pm ET)
        11  
        Electric cars can be part of the solution, if you look past your nose. There are millions of people who drive less than 40 miles a day, and the distance will continue to improve, if the Troglodytes don't kill it first. The technology will get better, and the price will come down. If you're old enough, you may remember paying $100 for a calculator. I do... now they're practically free. I also remember paying $4,000 for a desktop computer that had less computing power than a SmartPhone now has.

        Furthermore, we should be pursuing Solar Power like our lives depended on it. There's great potential there, but as long as the Oil Companies are raking in Billions, they'll do whatever they can to squash any development in that area.

        Nuclear may have a place in all this, but it comes with its own set of problems.

        The bottom line is, no solution will happen overnight, and nothing will happen in our current political climate.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by chazmanr (February 27, 2012 2:08 pm ET)
          5  
          If you're old enough, you may remember paying $100 for a calculator.

          The original Bowmar Brain (first LED pocket calculator which added, subtracted, divided and multiplied cost about $300.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by curiousindependent (February 27, 2012 6:09 pm ET)
            1  
            And was "pocket" only in name. It was 3 or 4 times the size of an iPhone.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by wenfen (February 27, 2012 3:00 pm ET)
          2  
          1975...my father bought me, for my 12th birthday, an exciting new gadget called a "pocket calculator." Cost: 20 bucks! I remember going to Kmart to get it. We were so super excited! The best part? All the calculators were LOCKED UP in the glass cases and the sales associate had to assist you to make sure you didn't try to steal one!!!

          Now they practically give them away! Does anyone know what 20 dollars in 1975 equals in today's dollars?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 27, 2012 1:34 pm ET)
        9  
        First, the average commute for Americans is 29, round trip. So...IF the max range of an EV were 40 miles, it would still be sufficient for most of us. But most EVs have a range between 100-200 miles, quite a lot more than the figure you pulled out of your butt.

        Finally, as renewable sources like solar, wind, and geothermal have advanced considerably in efficiency and in marketability, it's ENTIRELY conceivable that an EV could be consistently and perpetually charged from non-fossil fuel generated electricity.

        All around, a pretty poor showing. As a troll post, I guess it did what you intended, but as an argument, this one falls quite short.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 2:10 pm ET)
          5  
          Wingnut posts that start off declaring that they're going to "explain" the point that everybody else is missing are some of my favorites. Almost always an even mixture of absolute bullsh*t and stating the painfully obvious.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by grunt (February 27, 2012 2:35 pm ET)
              5
            I'm sorry that I tried to bring something up outside of the bubble of MMFA...name one thing that was bs that I said.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 27, 2012 2:50 pm ET)
              3  
              You said that EVs have a range of only 40 miles.

              You said that no Democrat is talking about the military's huge impact on energy consumption.

              You said someone put forth EVs as THE solution.

              All BS.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by grunt (February 27, 2012 3:00 pm ET)
                  3
                Some EV's do only have a range of 40 miles.

                Addressing the Navy producing nuclear energy is nothing new...they have been for decades. It won't reduce the amount of fossil fuels being used by the military and our DoD. So no, I won't agree that President Obama or other Democrats "addressed" the point.

                Read up above, someone acted as though EVs could be a major part of the solution. It was wrong for me to say THE solution.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 27, 2012 3:11 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Generalizing "some" to include "all" or "most" or "average" is ignorant, at best, dishonest at worst, and BS either way.

                  The DoD is spending HUGE amounts of money to make military bases sustainable and self-sufficient. They're trying hard to develop renewable jet fuels and solar-powered field command and control units. The Pentagon is "addressing" the problem. But neither you nor I even used the term "addressed," goalpost mover. You said, "You won't hear Obama or other Democrats talking about this." When confronted with an RECENT EXAMPLE OF OBAMA TALKING ABOUT IT, you dissembled and failed to acknowledge that you were wrong. That was BS.

                  Right. Nobody said EVs were THE solution but you, which is why that was BS.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by grunt (February 27, 2012 3:20 pm ET)
                      2
                    I was talking about the most commonly talked about EV (at least recently for President Obama). The Volt only gets 25-40 miles per charge. If you look at it that way I went high side...

                    Show me one graph or source that shows military and DoD oil, fuel, gas, etc. consumption has been reduces. I'm sure they are "trying hard", but show me one resource that gives credence or evidence to the fact that they are reducing their DEMAND for fossil fuels (which was my overriding point that somehow got lost in everything else). The DoD is the single largest consumer of energy on the planet. Show me some proof that they are reducing their consumption (i.e. demand). I don't want some talk of them "trying hard". I want some graphical numbers showing their reduction.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 27, 2012 3:22 pm ET)
                      2  
                      Okay, so you're just a parody troll, or something. I've indulged you long enough. Buh-bye.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by bintx (February 27, 2012 4:02 pm ET)
                        1 1
                        Nah, grunt does his "research" on blogs.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by grunt (February 27, 2012 4:18 pm ET)
                          1
                        What???...no evidence?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Adendrools (February 28, 2012 11:11 pm ET)
                          2  
                          He showed you evidence Jacka$$. He quoted a democrat and the President "talking" about the subject. Now, faced with that evidence, you ask for other evidence of another argument you are having with yourself. You are, what I commonly refer to as, a D!ck. Now please....the man said buh-bye........
                          Report Abuse
              • Author by curiousindependent (February 27, 2012 6:11 pm ET)
                1  
                You said that EVs have a range of only 40 miles.

                You said that no Democrat is talking about the military's huge impact on energy consumption.

                You said someone put forth EVs as THE solution.

                All BS.
                Yeah, but other than his entire post, what did he say that was BS?
                Report Abuse
            • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 2:52 pm ET)
              1  
              You said that everybody here was missing a point that didn't need mentioning.

              You said that you wouldn't hear democrats talking about the military's consumption ( already de-bunked by DisputedZone)

              You made up mileage range for electric cars, and implied in the same sentence that the fossil-fuel consumption for producing the energy to charge them cancels out any advantage.

              Then you went off into some incoherence about freighting goods that didn't really seem to have a point.

              Oops, sorry, you only asked for one thing.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by grunt (February 27, 2012 3:09 pm ET)
                  2
                Up above, someone mentioned DEMAND being the reason for prices being so high and that greater SUPPLY could never bring prices down. Therefore, I mentioned the fact that our DoD uses more energy that some entire nations.

                I didn't make up any mileage rates. The Chevy Volt is the most talked about EV. It can only go 25-40 miles on a single charge without gasoline assistance. Chevy Volt. How is the majority of energy in this country supplied? Through fossil fuels. Therefore, charging the battery in most cases would require fossil fuels to be used therefore cancelling out some of the advantage.

                EVs can't freight goods across the country, and that is where a large portion of our fuel demand comes from is through freight. I was looking at the bigger picture of DEMAND.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by curiousindependent (February 29, 2012 9:03 am ET)
                     
                  Oddly enough, you didn't say "Chevy Volt". In fact, what you said (and here I will do exactly what it is all you right wing idiots hate that MMFA does: I will quote YOUR EXACT WORDS):

                  Are you talking about all 40 miles you can drive on electric


                  That is pretty close to explicitly stating that electric cars (not some, not most, but ALL) only get 40 miles to a charge. Just a little dishonest, don't you think?

                  Oh, my bad. You may have to actually google the word "dishonest". If, that is, you can figure out how to actually use teh google.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 27, 2012 4:08 pm ET)
                   
                Apropos of nothing, Andy, check out this infographic I saw at Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/climateinfographic.jpg
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 4:17 pm ET)
                  1  
                  That's pretty good, I like to see these things put in a nutshell.

                  Link to image

                  I really haven't bothered spending much time arguing with Denial Cultists for the past couple of years, but I used to find myself dragged into their long-winded propaganda.

                  At a certain point, I just started questioning them along the lines of that graphic. Notably, one of the most prolific ( in word quantity, if not quality) of the Cultists here, Galeonardo. The most basic cop TV show questions, "Suspect?" and "Motive?"

                  Until I get some rational answers to those, I can't see spending much time with them.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (February 27, 2012 3:04 pm ET)
                2
              grunt, you've told me in the past that most of your "information" comes from blogs.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by grunt (February 27, 2012 3:11 pm ET)
                2 2
                No I haven't...you made that up because I posted a blog. Now that, is a troll post.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by bintx (February 27, 2012 4:04 pm ET)
                  1 1
                  Actually, you have. You told me that you get your "information" from blogs and a myriad of BS sites. It wasn't a "troll" post. I just stated fact.

                  Your posts above show that you have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by grunt (February 27, 2012 4:20 pm ET)
                      1
                    Nope, never told you that...
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by highlyunlikely (February 27, 2012 6:36 pm ET)
                      1  
                      I notice this is james' style - the shrugging dismissal in the face of damming evidence. And that james is not here today.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by chazmanr (February 27, 2012 4:30 pm ET)
                  1  
                  1. Troll noun
                  One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument


                  I don't see anything trollish in B's comment. She addressed your post directly.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by grunt (February 27, 2012 2:25 pm ET)
            3
          I hope most EV's are able to get 100-200 miles per charge. That is excellent progress. Can you afford an EV? If the subsidies and the tax credits were removed how many Volts (or other EVs) could they sell? We have to subsidize these automobiles so much that they would be unaffordable to 5% if they weren't. How many average Americans can afford them right now? Imagine if they had to bring them to market without subsidies (corporate welfare) and tax breaks (guess who is taking the majority of these credits?).

          As for efficiency and marketability, I would assume part of what you are talking about is cost?? These forms of energy are not priced at a market friendly point yet. That is why they have to be so heavily subsidized. If the government would end all energy subsidies (especially oil and gas), we might actually see some competitive sources become more mainstream. As it is now, subsidies are not allowing alternate sources to be brought to market, and instead of demanding an end to corporate welfare, both parties want more of it.

          Why is everything that is different from what is posted in the bubble here a troll post??? I'm so tired of that being the standard one liner on this site...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 27, 2012 2:54 pm ET)
            2  
            I called you a troll because you constructed a strawman and then beat the crap out of them. You said Democrats aren't talking about the DoD's impact on oil consumption, which was BS. You said that "someone" said EVs were the solution to all our oil problems, which was BS.

            I replied to you with sources. By your reply, you FAILED TO READ THEM. Which is also the behavior most commonly attributed to a troll. You're a troll. You posted a badly concealed off-topic strawman argument with misleading and untruthful assertions. Troll. If you don't want to be called a troll, don't lie and don't derail threads with your lies.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by grunt (February 27, 2012 2:41 pm ET)
            4
          I didn't pull 40 out of my butt...[url=average 40-100]http://www.owningelectriccar.com/electric-car-range.html[/url]
          Report Abuse
          • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 27, 2012 2:47 pm ET)
            3  
            Yeah, pulling it from a blog is way better than pulling it out of your butt.... My range estimates came from the US Department of Energy. Which do you think is more reliable?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by grunt (February 27, 2012 2:51 pm ET)
                3
              Fair enough...I don't know why this has to become an insult match.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 27, 2012 3:04 pm ET)
                4  
                Hm. I'm not trying to turn it into an insult match, I'm trying to point out the fact that, even given a 40-100 mile EV range, you chose the lowest range you could find because you had a point you wanted to make. That's not a fair debate tactic, by any standard. If we're going to have the national conversation about the pressing issues of the day that this country needs and deserves, both sides have to come to the table with good intent. You failed to demonstrate that good intent when you gamed your own statistic, which in itself wasn't from a particularly strong source.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by dwendt44 (February 27, 2012 12:58 pm ET)
      4 1
      Telling the truth on FakeNews could get her fired.

      I doubt we'd see any easing of price due to the KL pipeline.
      The main reason Obama denied it's application was he was forced by Congress to 'decide' what to do. Since they wouldn't wait, he nixed it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by boxtop (February 27, 2012 1:25 pm ET)
          7
        I believe that we need to concentrate on how we can increase our gas comsumption domestically instead depending on foreign countries. We don't need a drastic alternative. We can always choose ways to clean our environment and still drill here.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (February 27, 2012 1:34 pm ET)
          8  
          Are you prepared to nationalize the Oil Companies? If not, they'll just take what they extract here and put it on the World Market. Drill Baby Drill doesn't solve the problem.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Disputed Zone (February 27, 2012 1:39 pm ET)
            7  
            You must admit it's pretty foolish to depend on foreign countries to consume our gas.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 27, 2012 1:41 pm ET)
              6  
              Caught that, didya? I don't think boxy even realizes how stupid that post was. "increase gas CONSUMPTION," it said. Jeebus.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 1:56 pm ET)
                6  
                My second good laugh today, courtesy of the same unintentionally-hilarious source. He's like a machine.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foole (February 27, 2012 2:56 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Damn, and I was proud of his reasons for favoring Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama over on the "Are we celebrating Hillary?" post. Ah well, it's boxtop being boxtop.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Andy Kreiss (February 27, 2012 4:21 pm ET)
                    1  
                    If Mike Judge ever makes a sequel to Idiocracy, I'd suggest he title it Boxtopia.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by chazmanr (February 27, 2012 2:11 pm ET)
              5  
              Consumption/production what's the difference?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by jjamele2880 (February 27, 2012 1:43 pm ET)
            6  
            You will never get a response to that question. I have lost count of how many "conservative" radio yakkers and officeholders I've heard in the past few years bragging about how much oil "we" have "right here in OUR country" who I KNOW would react to the idea of nationalization by calling it Communistic and therefore evil. Which means they are speaking in non sequitors and are not really worth listening to.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 27, 2012 1:39 pm ET)
          6 1
          The United States is a net exporter of petroleum products. We are currently pumping more oil out of the ground than we have over the past 8 years. I think you need to actually know something before you post.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (February 27, 2012 2:08 pm ET)
          3 1
          We already are, boxy.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by chazmanr (February 27, 2012 2:11 pm ET)
          5  
          I believe that we need to concentrate on how we can increase our gas comsumption [sic] domestically


          No Boxy, we don't need to concentrate on increasing our CONSUMPTION. We need to reduce our consumption.

          Silly troll doesn't know the difference between consumption and production.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by jjamele2880 (February 27, 2012 1:37 pm ET)
      3 2
      Typical Elitist Liberal attitude- "hey, it'll only save you three cents off a gallon of gas, so it's not worth it." Maybe if your name is Al Gore or Hillary Clinton or George Soros or Warren Buffett, saving $1.50 or so per fill-up (more if you own an SUV, which of course would not be the case because they'd be illegal if the environmental wackos get their way) is no big deal, but to the average working family, over the course of the year it means enough for an evening for everyone at Cici's or the Golden Corral. And it would only cost a pipeline which MIGHT threaten our drinking water supply, which is pretty stupid considering that we are already made up of more than 75% water, water covers most of the planet and it falls from the sky all the time.

      Three or four cents off a gallon would help me a lot, because I'm not made of money like these whacko anti-American wind and sun worshippers are. But the elites don't care, because they all own Volts anyway.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 27, 2012 1:47 pm ET)
        4  
        How often do you fill up? If you have a job at all, Two or three dollars per week will not make you or break you. I save about $6 per fillip by shopping at Kroger. Makes me feel good, but it won't improve my economic circumstance. I could save more by dropping Cable TV.

        All that aside, I think the point is, three or four cents gained can be more than offset by any number of factors, like speculators, war, OPEC manipulation. It's the least compelling reason to approve the pipeline.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (February 27, 2012 1:48 pm ET)
          3  
          That should be $6 per fillup".
          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (February 27, 2012 1:52 pm ET)
            2  
            In my defense, "fillip" is apparently a real word, whereas "fillup" is not recognized by my spell check. In my new operating system, it automatically changes a word it thinks is misspelled, so it substituted fillip for fillup. Pi$$es me off. It's still doing it... I had to manually change it in this post.

            Nobody cares, but there it is.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Disputed Zone (February 27, 2012 2:00 pm ET)
          3  
          Claman's numbers are optimistic. The pipeline could result in higher prices at the pump. Bill McKibben in The Hill:

          Let me predict the next talking point right now: with gas prices rising, the pipeline will let Americans fill up for less.

          This is nonsense on many fronts, most of all because the price is oil is fundamentally set on global markets. As the Congressional Research Service pointed out in late January, when there's trouble in places like the Straits of Hormuz, the price of oil goes up for everyone and Keystone will make no difference, since the oil market is "globally integrated"; it’s not like Exxon offers a home-country discount to American motorists.

          But in the case of the Keystone pipeline, it turns out there's a special twist. At the moment, there's an oversupply of tarsands crude in the Midwest, which has depressed gas prices there. If the pipeline gets built so that crude can easily be sent overseas, that excess will immediately disappear and gas prices for 15 states across the middle of the country will suddenly rise. Says who? Says the companies trying to build the thing. Transcanada Pipeline's rationale for investors, and their testimony to Canadian officials, included precisely this point: removing the "oversupply" and the resulting "price discount" would raise their returns by $2 to $4 billion a year.

          According to the National Wildlife Federation, that would translate to about $3 for an average 15-gallon fill-up - as independent energy economist Philip Verleger put it, with Keystone the industry "will be able to use its market power to raise the heavy crude price to Midwest refiners above the level that would prevail in a competitive market."
          Report Abuse
        • Author by jjamele2880 (February 27, 2012 3:33 pm ET)
          4 1
          I guess I should stop trying to use satire at this site.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (February 27, 2012 3:51 pm ET)
            3  
            Doh! Got me. Unfortunately, your satire is almost verbatim the kind of argument we've gotten from a few of our Conservative posters here.

            I should have been paying more attention.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (February 27, 2012 6:46 pm ET)
        2  
        I want to take the time to suggest that I know satire when I see it. I hope the others who see Jjamele's post do too.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by the Grey Path (February 27, 2012 2:34 pm ET)
      3  
      right ... if we could somehow increase the world's oil supply by a whopping 10 percent, that woud lower the price of $4.00 per gallon gas by 40 cents (assuming perfect markets and no increase in demand).

      Meanwhile demand is expect to double in the next decade or two.

      Question: How many units of energy does it take to create one unit of oil from a unit of tar sands?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by John Puma (February 27, 2012 2:51 pm ET)
           
        To Grey Path:

        Is that a rhetorical question?

        Whatever, it leads to my comment: The nature of the tar sands crud, er..rr, crude, means that IF it doesn't take MORE energy to produce that it yields, then, at best, it is the oil source that comes closest to this UNeconomical level.

        AND, IF, the energy were spent to restore the forests destroyed and the water contaminated in the process, THEN, for sure it would be MORE energy consumed to produce than available in the product.

        It's perhaps the most egregious example of capitalist "externalities," by which is meant, "we're betting we'll be dead before our system forces us to eat money ... so what do we care? (We FAMILY VALUES types.)"

        And your take on it?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by the Grey Path (February 27, 2012 3:54 pm ET)
             
          No that's a real question. Tar sands is not oil ... not yet. It needs processing to turn it into oil.

          How much energy is used to turn the tar sands from bitumite to oil? In other words, is using tar sands actually costing energy?

          Actually we're betting on the second coming of Jesus: It doesn't matter if we run out of oil in thirty years, we won't be here.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by John Puma (February 28, 2012 12:24 am ET)
               
            The article below suggests that from 1.5 to 6 barrels of tar sands product can be obtained from a barrel (equivalent) of oil.
            http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3839

            This is the range I've seen from a several difference articles.

            The above-cited article essentially disregards as insignificant the obvious environmental costs, mainly water pollution and forest destruction. These issues are graphically, if not quantitatively, presented here:
            http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/TarSandsInvasion-full.pdf

            A broader analysis of "energy returned on energy invested" (EROEI), over a many energy sources, is here:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
            Report Abuse
          • Author by John Puma (February 28, 2012 11:13 am ET)
               
            You're welcome!
            Report Abuse
    • Author by hoopvillain (February 27, 2012 2:40 pm ET)
      2  
      Question: "Looking at his plan in total, would it work?"
      Answer: "No" "It is really unrfealistic"
      OMG! Did she forget where she was? We wont see this woman on faux again.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by little poncho (February 27, 2012 9:52 pm ET)
      1 1
      liz do what kkklannity does read whats on the telemprompter, keeping that direct deposit in mind!!!!!
      Report Abuse