New Kerry Campaign Slogan

[dude1394]

April 17, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - An angry John Kerry yesterday raged that the White House has a "twisted sense of ethics and morality" as he faced new TV ads that accuse him of voting against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Senator Kerry the democratic nominee for president lashed out yesterday at the bush white house. Standing tall, upright and forcefully yelling to the crowd.

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."

[dude1394]

Perhaps on the theory that the best offense is a good defense, John Kerry raised questions about his own patriotism in a Pittsburgh speech Friday, falsely accusing Republicans of attacking it. The Associated Press reports:

"I'm tired of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and a bunch of people who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance," the Massachusetts senator said. "I'm not going to listen to them talk to me about patriotism."

The truth be told, Republicans almost never question Democrats' patriotism. Even if there is reason to question it, to do so would look vicious and unseemly and would almost certainly backfire on the Republican politician who tried it.

Kerry knows this, which is why he (and many Democrats before him) is so eager to perpetuate the myth that Republicans are questioning his patriotism. But anyone who's paying attention knows it's not true, and as we've patiently tried to explain, to accuse someone of attacking your patriotism is to raise questions about it.

But Kerry's Pittsburgh statement is even more ludicrous. Not only does he falsely accuse Rove and Cheney of attacking his patriotism; he actually does attack their patriotism, thereby showing himself to be as vicious and unseemly as the Republicans are not.

[dude1394]

Can't help it, kerry is just too good.

Here's our favorite passage from John Kerry's interview yesterday on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press":

The Republican Party has spent $50 million in a matter of about seven weeks to distort my record, to completely mislead Americans about me and about my record. Now, we're in a position now to be able to respond and introduce myself to the country. I look forward to that. I look forward to Americans getting to know who I really am.

Let me give you an example. George Bush has no record to run on. He has a record to run away from. He can't come to a city and talk about creating jobs, because he hasn't created them. He's lost them. He can't come anywhere and talk about health care for all Americans, because he has no plan. He can't come and talk about keeping the promise to our children and our schools because he broke it and he doesn't fund it. He can't talk about cleaner air or cleaner water because he's going backwards on those policies.

Yadda yadda yadda. So Kerry's self-definition is "George Bush has no record to run on."

[dude1394]

Good grief....Did Kerry actually say this on hardball??

Key portion of the Hardball exchange this evening:

Matthews: "If there was an exaggeration of WMD, exaggeration of the danger, exaggeration implicitly of the connection to al Qaeda and 9/11, what's the motive for this, what's the 'why?' Why did Bush and Cheney and the ideologues around take us to war? Why do you think they did it?"

Kerry: "It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue, and --we may yet find them, Chris. Look, I want to make it clear: Who knows if a month from now, two months from now, you find some weapons. You may. But you certainly didn't find them where they said they were, and you certainly didn't find them in the quantities that they said they were.

What in the WORLD will the democrats do if they do find them? Sounds like he's setting himself up for it to be honest.

[dude1394]

Lileks

....
Alas, the medals flap overshadowed another remark that was more illustrative of Kerry's imprisonment in symbolic politics. He was asked if he had an SUV. He admitted owning a Chrysler 300M, and made a pitch against outsourcing: "I want cars to be made in Michigan, made in America, made" by the United Auto Workers, Kerry said.

The 300M is made in Canada. Oh well. Who can keep track of these things? Then came the telling line about his SUV. He said: "The family has it. I don't have it."

So now we have three separate Kerry Units: JFK himself, whose tax returns and military records are part of the debate; his wife, Teresa, whose tax returns are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS; and "the family," an entity distinct from Kerry and Heinz, a sort of familial blind trust into which he contributes no input. Don't blame him for having an SUV. Blame THE FAMILY.


I'm waiting for his HEEEYAHH moment any day now.

[dude1394]

Kerry was against releasing oil from the strategic oil reserve...before he announced he was for it.

KERRY FOUR YEARS AGO SAID SPR
WOULDN’T AFFECT GAS PRICES

In February 2000, Kerry Said Release Of Oil From Strategic Petroleum Reserve Would Not Be “Relevant.” “Without being specific, Kerry, a key member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggested the US could retaliate economically in other trade areas. He also said he does not want a release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. A release ‘is not relevant. It would take months for the oil to get to the market,’ he said.” (Cathy Landry, “US Energy Chief Warns Of Gasoline Crisis,” Platt’s Oilgram News, 2/17/00)

NOW, HE SAYS THAT NOT FILLING SPR WILL LOWER PRICES

In March 2004, Kerry Called For Stop In Filling Strategic Petroleum Reserve To Reduce Prices. “Kerry would pressure oil-producing nations to increase production and temporarily suspend filling the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, according to campaign documents. … ‘The Bush administration has put the SPR fill program on automatic pilot without regard to the short-term effect on the US market,’ the campaign documents said. ‘The program needs better management ... Kerry would temporarily suspend filling SPR until oil prices return to normal levels.’” (Patricia Wilson, “Kerry To Offer Plan To Reduce Record Gasoline Prices,” Reuters, 3/29/04)

[Mavdog]

Of course, the same situation existed in 2000 when Kerry made the statement that is existing today in 2004.
What?
The oil markets are almost double in pricing?
Gas prices are up by almost 60%?
Things are different today?
Oh...perhaps Kerry is right on both statements.

It is hard to understand why the US is filling up the SPR while oil prices are at their highest levels in decades, and the price increase is being attributed to demand, meaning the purchases by the US Gov are adding pressure to the high prices. While the real need to have the full SPR isn't readily apparent to anybody...but maybe those who produce the oil?

[dude1394]

Well let's think of a few reasons.
Why is the price of oil so high? Maybe because it's because of international instability? Maybe it's because the largest oil producer has had multiple terrorist attacks thereby making the Saudi oil production in peril. Maybe it's because we struggle to keep the Iraqi oil flowing.

Although the price of oil is still historically low, we are supposed to NOT fill up the SPR even in the face of the middle east uncertainty.

Just when you hope that you might see some statesmanship out of Kerry he pulls a McCaullife and Clinton act out of the bag. This is just another example of a democrat doing anything to try and get elected. The sad thing is that Kerry was actually RIGHT when he disagreed with opening the SPR but he's too spineless to keep from keeping a coherent policy on it.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Well let's think of a few reasons.
Why is the price of oil so high?

Most say it is due to the high demand, especially from Asia. China itself is now the world's third highest consumer of oil. Indonesia, which is an OPEC member, has begun to import oil. Supply is static, demand is rising fast, prices pushed up.

Maybe because it's because of international instability? Maybe it's because the largest oil producer has had multiple terrorist attacks thereby making the Saudi oil production in peril. Maybe it's because we struggle to keep the Iraqi oil flowing.

Certainly the price has a small degree of "nervous" price pressure, but that is not the reason prices have increased. It's dmand, and the US gov entering the market at this time and buying is ill conceived.

Although the price of oil is still historically low, we are supposed to NOT fill up the SPR even in the face of the middle east uncertainty.

The price of oil is not "historically low", it's over $40 brl. It was in the $20s only a year or so ago. There is not a vaid reason to fill the SPR, especially at such high prices.
Remember, he is not calling for releasing any of the SPR, just not adding to it at this time. That's a prudent policy.

Just when you hope that you might see some statesmanship out of Kerry he pulls a McCaullife and Clinton act out of the bag. This is just another example of a democrat doing anything to try and get elected. The sad thing is that Kerry was actually RIGHT when he disagreed with opening the SPR but he's too spineless to keep from keeping a coherent policy on it.

unfortunately for you he is right. both times.

[dude1394]

You democrats will argue with a stump. So what is the use of have a "STRATEGIC OIL RESERVE" if while you are in conflict in the middle east you EMPTY it.

I agree that not ALL of the prices pressure is due to uncertainty but demand as well. But responsible leaders don't have the options to just sit around and bitch about something, they have to take steps to plan for the worst case. So if just one of those saudi pipelines is disrupted then we would probably have another hearing about why wasn't bush fillling it up faster.

You won't even concede Kerry's original point that it A release ‘is not relevant. It would take months for the oil to get to the market,

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
You democrats will argue with a stump. So what is the use of have a "STRATEGIC OIL RESERVE" if while you are in conflict in the middle east you EMPTY it.

in the 60 years that we have had the SPR we have used it...once. It is not a question of if we need to have some oil in reserve, it's a question of if we need to be adding to it today. We don't, as we would be a) paying some of the highest prices for crude to do so, and b) the buying by the government is only adding to upward price pressure. It is best for the US Gov to get out of the market today.

I agree that not ALL of the prices pressure is due to uncertainty but demand as well. But responsible leaders don't have the options to just sit around and bitch about something, they have to take steps to plan for the worst case. So if just one of those saudi pipelines is disrupted then we would probably have another hearing about why wasn't bush fillling it up faster.

It would take 2 weeks for any oil to get to the market. We have some 700 BBL of oil in the SPR and we don't need to add to that amount at $40 oil.

You won't even concede Kerry's original point that it A release ‘is not relevant. It would take months for the oil to get to the market,

It's not quite "months" but the SPR really can't be successfully used to influence the price of oil/gas. That was his point BTW

[dude1394]

Why the VP for kerry won't be Gephardt.

The Washington Post reports that labor leaders are urging John Kerry to pick Rep. Dick Gephardt as his running mate. He sounds like an excellent choice. Not only does he have the support of industrial unions; he's from a bellwether state, is a respected national figure, and is reasonable on national defense.

Reader George Mitchell ("no relation"), however, points out a problem: Gephardt served in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam era, 1965-71 to be exact. There's no reason to doubt that he served honorably, but then so did President Bush, and Kerry and others in his party have been implying that Air National Guard service is tantamount to dodging the draft (or even desertion, in the case of a Wesley Clark supporter). Given this, they can't very well put an Air National Guard veteran on the ticket, can they?

[madape]

Our dependence on foreign oil is our biggest economic weakness and our biggest military vulnerability. The oil reserve is a key weapon against both. The fact that Kerry is willing to sacrifice our most important domestic security precaution into a price-fixing, vote-getting, scheme is beyond reprehensible.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: madape
Our dependence on foreign oil is our biggest economic weakness and our biggest military vulnerability. The oil reserve is a key weapon against both. The fact that Kerry is willing to sacrifice our most important domestic security precaution into a price-fixing, vote-getting, scheme is beyond reprehensible.

Yeah, those approx. 60 DAYS worth of oil is "our most important domestic security precaution"...then God help us.

Just how is Kerry proposing to "sacrifice" this vital (in your mind) resource? In that he is not proposing to use it, I wonder just how it can be concluded he is being so treacherous?

[madape]

Yes, God help us if a pan-arab war broke out complete an oil embargo. If that happens, we have very little time to secure a stable alternative oil supply before the country turns dark and our military machine grinds to a halt.

That small window of time would grow even smaller if Kerry had his way and flushed the oil reserves down the toilet to win a few votes.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: madape
Yes, God help us if a pan-arab war broke out complete an oil embargo. If that happens, we have very little time to secure a stable alternative oil supply before the country turns dark and our military machine grinds to a halt.

With the production outside the mideast being 2/3 of the world's output, an oil embargo couldn't "turn...our country dark". In fact, only 3 of the top 10 oil producing countries are in the mid east.

That small window of time would grow even smaller if Kerry had his way and flushed the oil reserves down the toilet to win a few votes.

Still waiting for how Kerry is "willing to sacrifice our most important domestic security precaution" and "flush[ing] the oil reserves down the toilet". Apparently you missed the news that kerry does not advocate releasing any of the SPR. There are even conservative repubs who agree that purchasing oil today to continue adding to the SPR is a mistake.

[LRB]

Kerry is the kind of politician who would suggest using the lifeboats on the titantic to start fires to roast marshmellows if it would possible help him get elected.

[madape]

Sorry, but Kerry is advocating using the oil reserves to influence gasoline prices. He has criticized Bush for building up the reserves in an attempt to make us more a more secure country. His reasoning? That in so doing, Bush is making gasoline more expensive. Besides being based on flawed logic (the buildup in oil reserves has had about .000001% on the rising gas prices), his reasoning is also borderline treasonous. Kerry is essentially promising to make us weaker nation in order to win a few votes from the uninformed populous. That, in itself, tells you all you need to know about the man.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: madape
Sorry, but Kerry is advocating using the oil reserves to influence gasoline prices. He has criticized Bush for building up the reserves in an attempt to make us more a more secure country. His reasoning? That in so doing, Bush is making gasoline more expensive. Besides being based on flawed logic (the buildup in oil reserves has had about .000001% on the rising gas prices), his reasoning is also borderline treasonous. Kerry is essentially promising to make us weaker nation in order to win a few votes from the uninformed populous. That, in itself, tells you all you need to know about the man.

The correct statement is that Kerry (and others) are advocating NOT having the SPR possibly affect oil prices, hence gas prices.

LMAO! Calls for a moratorium on adding to the SPR is "based on flawed logic" and are "also borderline treasonous"??

"The Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the presumptive Democratic presidential mominee John Kerry said the Bush administration should suspend purchases of oil for the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve while crude prices remain high.
"Common sense dictates that the best time to purchase oil is when oil prices are low" House Energy chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) said." pg B2 WSJ 4/19/04

Let's start the treason campaign with Joe, OK?

I can't stop laughing...

[dude1394]

Even the NYTimes for goodness sakes recognizes that Kerry is full of it. They agree with your facts but even they aren't partisan enough to actually commend Kerry for it.

Kerry a nut

Gasoline Hysteria

With the election season moving into full swing as Americans start thinking about their summer travel plans, it's sadly predictable that politicians will try to curry favor with voters by playing silly blame games and proposing simplistic quick fixes for rising gasoline prices, which are averaging more than $2 a gallon. A case in point is the demand made yesterday by 20 Senate Democrats that the government release as much as 60 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the next two months.

President Bush is rightly resisting the call. Since 9/11, the administration has been adding to the reserve in a disciplined manner, and it is closing in on its goal of filling up the reserve's capacity, 700 million barrels. Tapping the reserve to assuage motorists at a time of increasing security threats to already tight fuel supplies would be foolish.

As the energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, correctly noted yesterday, "The reserve is not there to simply try to change prices." In fact, the law calls for it to be tapped only in the event of supply disruptions. And even if Washington wanted to alleviate rising fuel costs, the reserve is not a very effective instrument for doing so, as President Bill Clinton learned in the fall of 2000. Experts estimate that at most, turning on the spigot now would knock only a few cents off a gallon.

Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, knows this, of course, and he demeans the seriousness of his own candidacy when he suggests that President Bush could single-handedly bring down fuel costs. Senator Kerry has urged the administration to stop buying oil for the reserve, as if that would make a difference. Fortunately, some residue of shame has kept him from joining the other Democrats calling for the reserve to be raided. The government's oil purchases have taken place at a time of higher prices, but they are not a major cause of the increase.

The real culprit behind rising energy costs is the roaring demand from growing economies, especially China's and the United States', though the volatile situation in the Middle East does seem to add a risk premium. Most of China's energy demand is for industrialization, which, in turn, contributes to the global economic recovery. In contrast, roughly half of the United States' petroleum demand is for personal consumption, primarily for cars, trucks and S.U.V.'s, a situation that, in turn, makes the nation ever more dependent on an increasingly endangered supply of foreign oil.

If $2-per-gallon sticker shock slowed sales of Hummers — which get about 11 miles per gallon — that would hardly qualify as a national tragedy.

Still, even Americans who don't drive gas-guzzling S.U.V.'s are feeling pain at the pump, and responsible political leaders have to prepare the public for this new reality. No comprehensive energy policy should overlook long-term means of encouraging conservation and minimizing our dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf region. Rather than pretending that there are facile switch-flipping fixes, Senator Kerry should be talking about bolstering conservation efforts and fuel economy standards, and encouraging new investment in refining capacity.

In the meantime, we all need to keep the shrill hyperbole about "record high" oil prices in perspective. A barrel of oil now costs more than $40, but when adjusted for inflation, that price is less alarming. During past spikes, oil has cost well over twice that amount in today's dollars. Yes, high fuel costs could ultimately endanger the economic recovery, but there is no reason to believe that they will do so at this level.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Even the NYTimes for goodness sakes recognizes that Kerry is full of it. They agree with your facts but even they aren't partisan enough to actually commend Kerry for it.

I am laying out the facts (and yes thanks for the validation) that Kerry is NOT using the SPR as a cheap campaign issue. There are some demos who have called for the release of oil from it, and they are fooling themselves (and those who listen) that such a release would have any meaningful affect on gas prices. Kerry hasn't made any comments supporting that view tho, so the criticism of Kerry on this issue is unfounded.

Now, the issue of gas prices is getting some legs, and I expect this to become fodder for stump speeches. People are going to eat it up too...

We should wait to add more oil to the SPR tho, as a good business decision, until crude prices fall.

[dude1394]

I am laying out the facts (and yes thanks for the validation) that Kerry is NOT using the SPR as a cheap campaign issue.

I'm confused as to how you interpret this:

Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, knows this, of course, and he demeans the seriousness of his own candidacy when he suggests that President Bush could single-handedly bring down fuel costs. Senator Kerry has urged the administration to stop buying oil for the reserve, as if that would make a difference. Fortunately, some residue of shame has kept him from joining the other Democrats calling for the reserve to be raided. The government's oil purchases have taken place at a time of higher prices, but they are not a major cause of the increase.

As NOT claiming that kerry is using this as a cheap campaign issue. Coming from the NYTimes this is as damning as they ever get in criticising their own party.

[Mavdog]

I believe the reference is to the concept that the Prez can lower gas prices, which is an issue that I see Kerry drumming hard on. Is it valid? no, but that doesn't mean the issue won't resonate with the voters.

[dude1394]

So how is that NOT using the SPR as a cheap campaign issue??

[Mavdog]

Kerry advocates not using the SPR...so how is that using it as a "cheap campaign issue"? It's not.

The high gasoline prices are what I anticipate Kerry campaign using as a campaign issue. As the NYT article pointed out, the pres really can't do crap about the price of gasoline. However, accuracy in an election campaign may be asking for alot....[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

Here's a news release from the Kerry campaigmn that begins what I am predicting:
"From Maine to California, gas prices have skyrocketed in recent weeks, costing families hundreds more dollars and emptying pocketbooks already pinched by lower wages and incomes. Meanwhile, George Bush’s friends in the oil industry have been raking in billions in profits - $33.6 billion over the past three years.

"We're seeing the economic opportunity of America's families disappearing into gas tanks across the country," Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry said. "Already strapped by rising costs in health care and higher education, families are losing the opportunity to save and get ahead every time they drive to work, pick up their kids or go out for dinner. And for some reason, the President is not lifting a finger to help. That is wrong, and in November, we'll change course together and build a stronger America where families get the help they need."

For state-by-state information, use the map above. For more information on the impact of skyrocketing gas prices on America’s families, industry, and the economy, see the full national report here. . This report also includes details on John Kerry's plan to lower gas prices, improve efficiency, and move our country toward energy independence."

So here's Texas (it's an acrobat file so I can't paste)
Texas gas prices

Pretty slick, and I'd expect it to have receptive ears.

[madape]

Here's a graph of inflation adjusted gas prices over the last thirty years. We've had it much, much worse.

[dude1394]

Obviously another good reason to tap the strategic oil reserve. Kerry leadership in action.

For months, fears of a terrorist attack on major petroleum facilities have helped drive crude oil and gasoline prices steadily upward. Now, just as prices were starting to retreat from record levels, a deadly assault in one of the industry's most vital hubs has raised those worries to new heights.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Obviously another good reason to tap the strategic oil reserve. Kerry leadership in action.

Odd for you to say as Kerry has never proposed to "tap" the SPR. Perhaps you should check your facts better.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Odd for you to say as Kerry has never proposed to "tap" the SPR. Perhaps you should check your facts better.

I think you are the one that needs to check your facts better....

Kerry Pushes Oil Reserve Back to Political Front Burner in Dispute Over Gas Prices.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

I think you are the one that needs to check your facts better....

Kerry Pushes Oil Reserve Back to Political Front Burner in Dispute Over Gas Prices.

Did you read the article?

"While Kerry did not suggest the government release some of the 650 million barrels held on salt domes on the Gulf coast, he said it made no sense to keep diverting oil into the reserve when economists cite tight commercial inventories as one reason for the high energy prices.

That validates my assertion that Kerry does not propose to "tap" the SPR.. Thanks for the confirmation.

[u2sarajevo]

How is not "diverting oil into the reserve" not tapping into the oil reserve?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
How is not "diverting oil into the reserve" not tapping into the oil reserve?

Easy, the word "tap" says to take out of the SPR, "not diverting oil into the reserve" says nothing about selling (to "tap") any of the SPR but rather says it makes no economic or strategic sense to add oil at this time.

[madape]

It makes sense to add to the reserves if you want to defend yourself against a sudden cut in the petrolium supply pipeline. As evidenced by last weekend's targeting of the Saudi oil industry by Al Qaeda, this seems to be a legitimate threat. Only a fool (or a man who will say anything to get elected) would suggest that preparing for such an occurance is not in the best interests of this country.

To Kerry, winning the votes of a few ill-informed cash-strapped voters is of higher priority than protecting his country from a catastrophic oil shortage. Should we be suprised?

[Mavdog]

The total supply of the SPR is about 30 days of US consumption. If the oil supply was dramatically affected such as you suggest the SPR will not innoculate the US from the disruption.

Second, the mid east is now not the primary producer of oil in the world. Yes, a disruption in Saudi production would push the price up, but it would not stop the flow of oil into the US.

It makes no economic sense to be adding to the SPR at this time, and it also makes no strategic sense either. The US gov, should stop adding to the SPR today, it's contributing to the high demand as well as buying oil at the price zenith.

[madape]

30 days with oil is better than 29, which is better than zero. Anything we do to protect ourselves against an attack is worthwhile, especially when you consider the costs of protection. Increasing the reserves has almost no impact on the price of gasoline. Kerry would like it to, it would give him a reason to blame Bush for high gas prices. But unfortunately for him it doesn't. So while it may not make sense to you to protect the country against an oil embargo/terrorist attack, it makes even LESS sense NOT to protect yourself.

And I'm so glad that you are such an expert on the fluctuation in oil prices that you decry the US for buying oil at it's "zenith". If I knew as much, I'd earn a million dollars a day dealing petrolium futures. However, I'm happy that the US government doesn't include the same kind of speculative, risky investment strategy as fiscal policy. Count me as person who doesn't want the US Government playing the commodity market with my tax dollars.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: madape
30 days with oil is better than 29, which is better than zero. Anything we do to protect ourselves against an attack is worthwhile, especially when you consider the costs of protection. Increasing the reserves has almost no impact on the price of gasoline. Kerry would like it to, it would give him a reason to blame Bush for high gas prices. But unfortunately for him it doesn't. So while it may not make sense to you to protect the country against an oil embargo/terrorist attack, it makes even LESS sense NOT to protect yourself.

Please explain how adding oil to the SPR will "protect ourselves against an attack" or would "protect the country against an oil embargo/terrorist attack". It doesn't.

And I'm so glad that you are such an expert on the fluctuation in oil prices that you decry the US for buying oil at it's "zenith". If I knew as much, I'd earn a million dollars a day dealing petrolium futures.

The discussion is about oil prices today, which you must have missed.

However, I'm happy that the US government doesn't include the same kind of speculative, risky investment strategy as fiscal policy. Count me as person who doesn't want the US Government playing the commodity market with my tax dollars.

but they are by paying he historically highest prices (at its zenith, remember?) for the oil that is being purchased with no real need to fill a reservoir that may never be used.

[madape]

Sometimes, your lack of common sense really suprises me. You stated that you don't want the US to buy oil today, because the prices are higher than they were a few months ago. Well when do you want to buy the oil? The time machine hasn't been invented yet. We can't fly back to 2003, load up the oil and bring it back home. The only fucking choices we have are

1) buy oil now
2) buy oil in the future
3) never buy oil again

Clearly you don't want to buy oil now (option #1), because you think prices are at a "zenith". I don't know if you know this, but a "zenith" means that prices are the highest they will EVER be. This is what you meant.. right? The implied statement is that oil prices will soon go down, meaning that the US could save money by filling up the reserves with cheaper oil at sometime in the future (option #2). So we WERE talking about current prices of oil UNTIL you started talking about deferring purchasing oil due to temporarily high petroleum prices.

I say fuck that. It is very likely that oil prices go nowhere but up over the next few years. Your little gamble would look like shit when Saudi crude hits $80 a barrel.

The point is that the US shouldn't be speculating on commodity fluctuations. If they need petrolium, they should buy it at market prices.

As for your first retarded critism of my semantics regarding "protection", I have this to say: The SPR protects our economy, our military capabilities, and our ability to defend ourselves, from an attack on the global oil supply. I don't think that point needs any further clarification.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: madape
Sometimes, your lack of common sense really suprises me. You stated that you don't want the US to buy oil today, because the prices are higher than they were a few months ago. Well when do you want to buy the oil? The time machine hasn't been invented yet. We can't fly back to 2003, load up the oil and bring it back home. The only fucking choices we have are

1) buy oil now
2) buy oil in the future
3) never buy oil again

Clearly you don't want to buy oil now (option #1), because you think prices are at a "zenith". I don't know if you know this, but a "zenith" means that prices are the highest they will EVER be. This is what you meant.. right?

No, zenith has no connotation of what we don't know i.e. what the future might be, but rather what we do know of the present and past.

The implied statement is that oil prices will soon go down, meaning that the US could save money by filling up the reserves with cheaper oil at sometime in the future (option #2). So we WERE talking about current prices of oil UNTIL you started talking about deferring purchasing oil due to temporarily high petroleum prices.

History of commodity pricing says that there is fluctuation, so it is a reasonable assumption that the high prices we are seeing will adjust. Will they go down? yes, that is a reasonable prediction based on historical data. If you believe "that oil prices will soon go down" you're entitled. I do not make those predictions as to if the price will "soon" go down.

I say fuck that. It is very likely that oil prices go nowhere but up over the next few years. Your little gamble would look like shit when Saudi crude hits $80 a barrel.

Actually the price is based on West Texas Intermediate crude, Saudi crude is not the same.

The point is that the US shouldn't be speculating on commodity fluctuations. If they need petrolium, they should buy it at market prices.

But your above rationale for buying is based on just that premise you dismiss in saying "the US shouldn't be speculating on commodity fluctuations". You contradict yourself.

As for your first retarded critism of my semantics regarding "protection", I have this to say: The SPR protects our economy, our military capabilities, and our ability to defend ourselves, from an attack on the global oil supply. I don't think that point needs any further clarification.

You said the SPR is there to "protect ourselves against an attack", and "against an oil embargo/terrorist attack". It does neither, and if you see a 30 day supply of oil as saving "our military capabilities", it would be even less than a 30 day supply.
wow. what protection.
you're fooling yourself.
In deference to those mentally impaired people I wouldn't dream of calling your assertions "retarded". Inane yes, unrealistic surely, self deceiving certainly, but retarded? nah...why put those mentally impaired in the same place as you?

[dude1394]

Your little gamble would look like shit when Saudi crude hits $80 a barrel.

Actually the price is based on West Texas Intermediate crude, Saudi crude is not the same.

Why do you do this md?? It's either just being pedantic and is irritating. Just make your argument.


So after reading all of this, are you making the argument that since 30 days is worthless we should just get rid of the spr? I don't see what other conclusion you can come to.

[LRB]

[i]Originally posted by: Mavdog


You said the SPR is there to "protect ourselves against an attack", and "against an oil embargo/terrorist attack". It does neither, and if you see a 30 day supply of oil as saving "our military capabilities", it would be even less than a 30 day supply.
wow. what protection.
you're fooling yourself.
In deference to those mentally impaired people I wouldn't dream of calling your assertions "retarded". Inane yes, unrealistic surely, self deceiving certainly, but retarded? nah...why put those mentally impaired in the same place as you?

Mavdog a 30 day supply of oil is a crucial part and intergral part of our self defense. It does not however stand alone. If you take the simpleton method of looking at this, which you do seem determined to do, then it may at 1st glance appear to be a stop gap measure of little use. However if you look at the fully integrated plan it becomes apparent that it does have high value.

30 days give us great leeway to inact measures to repair damage, increase domestic and alternate supplys of oil, even to enact legislation and rationing if necessary. A country the size and military capability of Saddam's Iraq could be brought under the general military control of the US. A great deal of military force can be mobilized to protect those trying to effect repairs on a oil pipeline or other key piece of infrastruce. If nothing else it gives us time to consider and implement contingency plans.

However 30 days is rather sparse, and each additional day could yield much more safety from terrorists attacks. Ideally it would be much better to at least try and double or even triple this. That would be unrealistic to do overnight or probably within a single year. However it is imparitive that we start a gradual move towards this.

And while it is almost assuredly true that oil prices will dip below what they are today, it is probably equally as true that they will go higher. Just because there is fluxuation in the market is no reason to postpone buying a commidity that you have a pressing need for to help insure the safety of your nation. We have probably never needed this reserve as much as we today, but it is highly likely that our need will only increase before it decreases because of the war on terrorism that we are so ardently engaged. However John Kerry and many of his liberal left followers would gladly sacrifice the saftety of their country for the opportunity to gain political control. To me that borderlines on traiterous activity and shows a great lack of character in Kerry. AS to his followers, I'm more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to gross ignornance in the majority of the cases.