Oh please. I asked you to support your position on the grant process and you threw a little tantrum and stormed off.
Gas Prices
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
upsgrunt
Well-Known Member
Yeah, you want to KNOW what I have to say, but you don't want to HEAR what I have to say because it's not inline with what you believe or think.
Compassion and tolerance- could they be achieved in this country? Too many people think they know too much.
upsgrunt
Well-Known Member
No storming, no tantrum. I went to take a shower.
Sorry to bother you, I apologize, I was wrong; whatever you need, say it and it's yours.
What does that even mean?
You made an assertion that: Scientists are mostly liberal democrats who vote democratic because they get their money from liberals. I'd like to hear some evidence to support that position but all you're doing is dancing.
upsgrunt
Well-Known Member
Ok- here it goes, and I'm done and truly sorry to unload on you.
1. What I meant by you wanting to know what I have to say, but not wanting to hear what I have to say is referring to a principle where a listener simply wants to hear anothers words, without any intention of contemplation, as a means for ammunition to immediately rebute.
2. I have a cousin who is a scientist, and in his own words, "I vote Democrat because we seem to get the most grant money from Democratic government because they are more in favor of research". He goes on to say " you know why scientific results seem to change from year to year?- Because if the results are steadfast, and don't change, they lose the ongoing grant money. That is why french fries are bad for you one year, and not so bad the next". he adds "If we gave humans proportionaly the same amount of drugs we give the rats with regards to weight, the humans would most certainly die from whatever they gave them- Tylenol to Sacharin. We need to have positive results to get our money".
As an aside: my cousin used to be a woman. Not that it makes any difference.
1. What I meant by you wanting to know what I have to say, but not wanting to hear what I have to say is referring to a principle where a listener simply wants to hear anothers words, without any intention of contemplation, as a means for ammunition to immediately rebute.
2. I have a cousin who is a scientist, and in his own words, "I vote Democrat because we seem to get the most grant money from Democratic government because they are more in favor of research". He goes on to say " you know why scientific results seem to change from year to year?- Because if the results are steadfast, and don't change, they lose the ongoing grant money. That is why french fries are bad for you one year, and not so bad the next". he adds "If we gave humans proportionaly the same amount of drugs we give the rats with regards to weight, the humans would most certainly die from whatever they gave them- Tylenol to Sacharin. We need to have positive results to get our money".
As an aside: my cousin used to be a woman. Not that it makes any difference.
upsgrunt
Well-Known Member
Did he used to be a woman too?
I believe you, but I'm not so sure about your cousin. Ultimately all you're really telling me is what your cousin thinks and as a scientist I'm sure your cousin understands that the plural of anecdote is not evidence. If you're going to make the case that science in this country has turned into some liberal plot I'd like to hear something more solid.
*edit
I'm just going to add that from your description your cousin sounds pretty unethical and I don't think that is representative of the scientific community as a whole.
upsgrunt
Well-Known Member
Sorry, that's all I got.
Thanks for your civil reply, and sorry if it felt like I unloaded on you.
No worries.
rod
Retired 23 years
Sportello
Well-Known Member
Historical tends in Federal R&D:
http://www.aaas.org/page/historical-trends-federal-rd
The facts do not support the 'Dems spend more' mantra. Just the opposite.
http://www.aaas.org/page/historical-trends-federal-rd
The facts do not support the 'Dems spend more' mantra. Just the opposite.
Now that prices are WAY down under President Obamas energy policies and consumers are paying under 2 bucks in some states, the republicans in the new congress are seeking to iNCREASE the federal gasoline taxes as did Ronald Reagan and pass that along to Americans.
What will end up happening, is when the price of a barrel of oil rises, that federal increase will push the price per gallon higher than it EVER has been.
If Boone T Pickens is accurate, and by shutting down wells and limiting supply drives up the price of oil in 12 months, we could see a price per gallon that exceeds 5 DOLLARS a gallon.
Hear me now and understand me later, this move is a BACKDOOR TAX on americans in order to CUT the taxes of the richest americans.
We should all be on the same page on this one and voice our objections to another increase in federal taxes on gasoline.
Its funny how the republicans are against tax increases unless they are the ones creating them.
TOS.
What will end up happening, is when the price of a barrel of oil rises, that federal increase will push the price per gallon higher than it EVER has been.
If Boone T Pickens is accurate, and by shutting down wells and limiting supply drives up the price of oil in 12 months, we could see a price per gallon that exceeds 5 DOLLARS a gallon.
Hear me now and understand me later, this move is a BACKDOOR TAX on americans in order to CUT the taxes of the richest americans.
We should all be on the same page on this one and voice our objections to another increase in federal taxes on gasoline.
Its funny how the republicans are against tax increases unless they are the ones creating them.
TOS.
LOL the fact that you believe Obama has anything to do with it is funny to me. What you have right now are gas prices that are still as high or higher than when he took over. What you are seeing is that prices got so high it became profitable to drill for oil at much deeper depths. It also made other ways of extracting oil profitable. So what does OPEC do? Nothing, they keep pumping full bore as we get our drilling online. The end result is the price of oil drops which doesnt matter to OPEC because at $50 a barrel they are still making money. But those oil companies that were making money with the more expensive extraction methods begin to not make money. At some point they will have to shut down at which point OPEC will back off production and send gas prices through the roof again. Its simple supply and demand.
WHAT??
Do you think USA production just happened overnight??
President Obama has everything to do with oil production in the USA. His energy policy BEGAN with a "use it or lose it" strategy that FORCED oil producers to drill for oil and natural gas. The oil/energy companies were leasing land(s) onshore and offshore from the government and NOT DOING ANYTHING WITH IT.
President Obama began taking away those leases to the OUTCRY of the republicans in congress and fox news.
Once it began, oil companies did not want to lose those leases so they started drilling on them.
Today, you are seeing an increase of 1 million barrels of oil per day in the USA and this a direct byproduct of the presidents energy policies.
The USA for two years now has EXPORTED more oil than it imports, and this is upsetting the world markets.
MARKET SHARE is being threatened by the USA and the price of oil, which has been manipulated by the oil companies along with help from the GOP is finally being put in its place.
OPEC has cut production from 99.9% under GW BUSH and record oil prices, to just a fraction over 61% output.
They refuse to cut production back to limit supply any further and the price of oil is coming down because of the world GLUT that is being created.
The Presidents energy policies have EVERYTHING to do with USA production and believe that the OIL companies themselves would take an action that "They" knew would drive down the price of oil is silly at best.
"Drill baby Drill" is a tag line that had NO meaning.
Drilling for more oil only means cheaper oil and THAT isnt something they want or wanted.
Their hands were forced under threat of losing lease permits and now YOU get to recieve the benefits of cheaper oil until the oil companies and the GOP can find ways to increase the price once again.
TOS.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Oil prices are way down because for the 1st time in our lives Saudi Arabia decided NOT to cut oIl production during a world wide oil glut.
Get it right for once TROLL BOY.
Oh gee, another oil expert in our midsts.
If during the BUSH administration, output for OPEC was at 99.9% as BUSH told america as the reason prices were at record levels, how do you explain that OPEC is now operating at roughly 61% output?
Thats a 38% cut in production since BUSH left office.
Saudi Arabia and OPEC have cut production and cut it deep to attempt to keep prices high at the request of the American oil companies.
They CANT cut any further as they are losing market share and they are also at a point where shutting down wells would put their own people on the unemployment lines.
Of course, I dont for one second think you know or understand the oil market more than what you hear on fox news.
OPEC is losing market share to libya, iran and south america and now the USA and Canada.
Cutting production doesnt help Saudi Arabia, it only helps the american commodity trader and the USA oil companies maintain inflated prices.
The increase in daily production in the USA of 1 million barrels a day is a ginormous contribution to the world markets and the largest cause of the worlds glut of oil.
Without this increase, the world wouldnt be in a GLUT.
Hopefully this helps.
TOS.
Last edited by a moderator:
