Jump to content

Don

Moderators
  • Posts

    5244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Everything posted by Don

  1. Who is this; Randy Weir guy and why should I put more credence in what he says - than you? I see nothing in this guy's credentials to indicate he has any actual knowledge about the oil and gas industry, any special knowledge that would give him more insight than you have - as a matter of fact the only thing I see is a bachelor's of science in accounting and economics, probably from the University of Buea, in Cameroon. - and an opinion. You really should check out his Facebook page... and his 79 Facebook followers and his non working World Press website. *He's a friggin' accountant!!! ... No strike that he's a wannabe' minister with a BS in accounting... I don't even see any footnotes about his sources of information or documentation on referenced material... Just another guy putting out his opinion on social media with nothing but him saying so to back up his claims. If that's all it takes to impress people and for them to choose to take his word, over publications with dozens of people speaking to industry experts and documented information sources, that's kinda' sad don't you think? NBC: Gas prices are up, but red America may be paying more A rural lifestyle means Republicans often use far more gasoline than Democrats.
  2. There may be protesters on both sides of the issue, but I didn't post about "protesters"... I posted about intentional vandalism, destruction of property and threats of violence which right now only seems to be coming from one side of the issue. If you find instances of pro-life protesters destroying property, threatening to engage in violence and vandalizing stuff feel free to post it. Oh, you mean this one? CNN: Tear gas used to disperse protesters outside Arizona Capitol building, officials say OK, I'll post how when demonstrators attempted to break out the windows of the Arizona Capitol building to interrupt the ongoing legislative session the police had to use tear gas to drive them back - that's when they entered a nearby green space and immediately began vandalizing public property. Yeah, that was part of the Twitter video I posted previously... CNN: Tear gas used to disperse protesters outside Arizona Capitol building, officials say Late Friday, law enforcement in Arizona used tear gas to disperse a crowd of abortion rights supporters protesting outside the State Capitol in Phoenix. “Troopers deployed tear gas after a crowd of protesters repeatedly pounded on the glass doors of the State Senate Building,” Arizona Department of Public Safety spokesperson Bart Graves told CNN. The crowd then moved across the street to the Wesley Bolin Plaza, where police used the tear gas after a monument was vandalized, Graves said. In New York’s Greenwich Village, thousands of people marched and chanted in the streets. One of the chants directed the f-word at Justice Brett Kavanaugh. There were some anti-abortion activists at the march, but they were keeping a low profile and there were no confrontations seen by the CNN crew walking with the protesters. Demonstrators in Los Angeles clogged the 110 freeway as it passed through downtown, blocking traffic. While abortion will remain legal in California, the protesters said they were showing their concern and support for women in other states. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/us/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-protests/index.html Luckily the police were able to stop those folks in Arizona from breaking into the Capitol building, or we might have had another "insurrection" on our hands...
  3. NY Post: Abortion protests in Portland turn violent, businesses vandalized KATU-Portland local: Group damages properties, including non-profit, in Portland's Hollywood District
  4. Like I said, Yeah I can just believe what you're saying without any supporting documentation or reference to back it up... Or I can believe statements from actual industry and business experts with the supporting documentation and reference to back it up... I'd have to keep my brain in a jar and only take it to exercise it once in a blue moon for that to be a tough decision.
  5. Did California Governor just point out Biden was lying when he made his remarks about SCOTUS overturning Row v Wade? Why yes, yes I think he did...
  6. Biden's remarks on Supreme Court abortion decision... "They didn’t limit it. They simply took it away. That’s never been done to a right so important to so many Americans" Not so Joe, abortion rights weren't taken away they were returned to the states from where the federal government took them. How is abortion a "right"? It certainly isn't a constitutional right but what is a constitutional right is the right to Life - as in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. "They have made the United States an outlier among developed nations in the world. But this decision must not be the final word." Again not so Joe, There are several European nations where abortion is heavily regulated, Ireland and Germany, for example, ban most abortions after 12 weeks. Abortion is only permitted in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger in Poland. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/06/24/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-supreme-court-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/ Many European nations have much more liberal abortion policies, but to claim the SCOTUS ruling puts America in some kind of outlier or exclusive category from other developed nations isn't quite accurate and is for all intent and purposes is false. Annnd here we go, House Representative Cori Bush (D-MO) expresses her outrage publicly calling Supreme Court Justices: "far-right", "racist" and "sexist", because SCOTUS overturned Row v Wade based on non- adherence to Constitutional dictum - not what people want... It isn't the job of the Supreme Court to figure out what 80% of the people want or to make law based on popular notion - that's the legislator's job - all the Supreme Court is supposed to do is, if challenged, see if existing legislation is in keeping with principles spelled out in the United States Constitution or runs contrary to it. Alito expressed it pretty clearly in my opinion, there are no rights or precedent to abortion inherent in the Constitution and by the federal government taking the right to determine and enact national policy for something that is supposed to be reserved to the states, federal abortion legislation is unconstitutional.
  7. You did say that, and still it only applies to site with "no salvageable value", so your blanket statement about it costing oil companies nothing to drill is misleading at best and patently false in reality. I'm guessing you either didn't read or chose to ignore the snippet I posted from Forbes. Actually what you said was 18% and you're right companies don't pay the federal government royalties until wells start producing, and wells producing aren't considered sites with no salvageable value are they - so oil companies don't get reimbursed for those sites. Something else you apparently ignored, didn't read or didn't understand... The past decade oil companies took a sizable hit to their bottom line with the worst year being 2020. In 2021 the lockdowns became less restrictive, people began to get out and go more, demand for gasoline increased significantly, and oil companies began to make profits... So yeah, oil companies profits doubled but that only started last year... And so far you've misunderstood or misrepresented the two previous points.... Oil companies have to pay to drill new wells, they only get 100% reimbursement for wells with no salvageable value. A resting well that can be tapped later has salvageable value, as do dormant wells that can be made active when and if the price of oil increases to offset the costs of running them... claiming oil companies get reimbursed 100% for drilling wells is a total misrepresentation of the facts - either that or a straight out lie, but then they're both pretty much the same aren't they, as a lie is the opposite of the truth and so is a misrepresentation of facts. Oil companies have made a lot of money for a lot of years - but when the costs are subtracted from that revenue it decreases the amount of profit companies make... when expenses, costs taxes and royalties wind up being more than the revenue there is no profit and the oil companies lose money. Why and how do you think the attempted deflection of introducing Roe v Wade into a discussion about gasoline prices and oil companies makes any kind of sense??? Wassa' matter, can't support any of your anti-oil company opinions so you got to try to toss out a completely unrelated subject to try to draw attention away from the fact that so far all you've presented is unsupported rhetoric without a single reference to validate those statements... So far about the only thing you've got right is the price of gas to the cost of a barrel of oil...
  8. Yep, something didn't go the way someone wanted, people did or said something that wasn't agreeable to some so of course they have to be described as... "fascist", or racist, or traitors or terrorists, or nazis, or white supremacists, xeophobes, homophobes, brownshirts, or whatever. Forget the reasons decisions are made, things are done or words are spoken, that doesn't matter what matters is something happened that doesn't fit the expected criteria some have demanded - so of course they have to be referred to in least flattering most offensive way possible - whether or not any of it is true. In a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling, Justice Samuel Alito offered the majority opinion that called Roe v Wade: "egregiously wrong from the start." Alito explains when Roe was brought into law there was no Constitutional or Historical precedent to do so and it removed from the states a decision regulated to the states and previously exercised by the states under the Constitution's 10th Amendment. Without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent, Roe imposed on the entire country a detailed set of rules for pregnancy divided into trimesters much like those that one might expect to find in a statute or regulation. See 410 U. S., at 163–164. Roe’s failure even to note the overwhelming consensus of state laws in effect in 1868 is striking, and what it said about the common law was simply wrong. Short and sweet - Roe -vs- Wade is unconstitutional and was from it's inception. Now of course since it's been around and accepted for 50+ years makes people believe it's a "right" - it isn't. Some will try to claim abortions fall under the Constitution's guarantee of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and that health care, including abortions is guaranteed in the Constitution - it doesn't, and it isn't. But then look at all the years slavery was considered a part of the Constitution, and how some back then even believed slave owner rights were part of the Constitution because "slaves aren't people - they're property", or later on, somehow inferior to whites... Those people were wrong then and if anyone still believes that they're wrong now. It took a courageous Supreme Court to address the popular misconceptions and error of past generations to explain to a nation, exactly what the words - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. means... Overturning Roe -vs- Wade puts the decision right back where it belongs, into the hands and consciousnesses of individual states - and the citizens of those states. *and now I'm guessing it's all over... except for the rioting, arson, looting, property destruction, assaults on police officers, damage to government property, by-standers being threatened and assaulted, and of course the politically expressed outrage and bloviated commentary from the news media.
  9. Actually my post specifically states - The claim oil companies don't pay taxes is a fallacy, they do... that they don't pay the full amount of taxes according to their revenue is more accurate, and the reason they don't pay full taxes on their revenue? It's because that's how Congress set up the petroleum industry tax tables over the years. In FY 2021 the Texas Oil and Natural Gas industry paid about $15.8 billion in taxes and state royalties, those funds go to support Texas schools, teachers, roads, infrastructure and essential services every state that has oil, gas or coal production pays state taxes and royalties that goes to improve the economies of those states, not to mention the employment and retail services those industries provide to local citizens. In 2021 The top five oil companies—Shell, ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips—brought in more than $205 billion in profits... and paid about $24 billion in federal taxes alone that's not counting annual royalties paid to the federal government which amounts to 18.75% of their pre-taxed profits. Yep, the estimated $24 billion is only a fraction of the $205 billion the top 5 oil companies earned last year, but then we should remember to add in the expenses those companies incur like equipment and material purchases, maintenance costs, state and local taxes and royalties, employee salaries and of course the investment returns every company has to pay to it's investors. Still $181 billion (minus the expenses listed above) does seem like an excessive amount of profit doesn't it? But who do we have to thank for all the subsidies, credits and tax write-offs the oil companies take legal and proper advantage of... why Congress and the federal government itself of course... Which is why I commented earlier - Some of those tax tables were written into law in the 1920 and hasn't had a lot of updating in almost a half a century... others are only a few decades old and some a few years old, but it doesn't look like anyone has seriously looked at them collectively - or cared to address any existing problems in the oil and gas legislation in a very long time. Yeah, companies are sometimes given tax credits for drilling after the fact, but the point remains they still have the expense of paying for the drilling to begin with and even if the site remains dormant for a time they don't get reimbursed for producing sites just sites that have "that have no salvageable value". I don't believe a capped or resting drill site, capable of producing qualifies as having no salvageable value. Your claim oil companies don't have to pay taxes is a fallacy because they do - as is the statement oil companies deduct 100% of the costs for drilling a well, since that only applies to drill sites with "no salvageable value". But yeah, that's typical considering the source... I'm not sure I agree with every opinion expressed on the website I visited, certainly not the complete and immediate elimination of everything they've listed, but do consider many of their points solid starting points for discussion and hopeful compromise... AmericanProgress.org: It Is Time to Phase Out 9 Unnecessary Oil and Gas Tax Breaks https://www.americanprogress.org/article/it-is-time-to-phase-out-9-unnecessary-oil-and-gas-tax-breaks/ Again, oil companies deduct 100% of the costs for drilling a well, only applies to drill sites with "no salvageable value"... I'm pretty sure a temporarily capped well that can be used for later production doesn't qualify as a site with "no salvageable value". I don't know where you're getting your information, but I don't believe oil companies don't leave sites set to cheat the system that wouldn't seem at all profitable but not being an oil and gas expert I have to rely on information that comes from a petroleum engineer I know personally and went to high school with... After drilling to the desired depth pumping oil out doesn't begin immediately, all in all after drilling it sometimes takes a month to complete the casing and testing and then wells are often rested to allow more oil to accumulate making it easier and less expensive to extract. This usually takes a matter or months instead of years, I have no clue where you got your "2 years" figure, since as usual you provide no referenced sources to support your statements, but right off hand I'd have to say I question that information as being entirely accurate. When the amount of oil extracted from a pump site decreases significantly or the cost to extract the oil exceeds the profit from the output from a well, those sites are retired or made inactive. Some of them still have some oil in them, but since the cost of extracting the oil exceeds the potential profit made from doing so they are abandoned either temporarily or some times permanently in the case of companies going out of business or the owner no longer available . Often when we hear people (or the Biden administration) talk about the "hundreds of wells" oil companies have but aren't working this is the case the cost to extract oil from the site exceeds the potential profit attempting to do so. NPR: Why producing more domestic oil is so difficult right now High gas prices have everyone from truckers to politicians demanding more domestic oil production. While drilling is up, oil production in this country is still down from three years ago. But as Frank Morris of member station KCUR reports, turning that around just isn't going to be as easy as some might have you believe. FRANK MORRIS, BYLINE: Oil is expensive now, but Dick Schremmer, president of Bear Oil near tiny Peck, Kan., says there was a time early in the pandemic when he literally could not give this stuff away. DICK SCHREMMER: The oil that they took that day from us, they charged us $38 a barrel to take our oil. MORRIS: Of course, nobody knew how long the losses would go on. And domestic production plunged 20% as small companies folded or cut staff. Companies also shut down active wells, nearly 5,000 in Kansas alone. Schremmer's standing next to one of them today in a field south of Wichita. The oil thousands of feet below this ancient pumpjack is now worth more than $100 a barrel. But pumping it out will take time and lots of money. SCHREMMER: You know, this well probably cost me $12,000 to get up and running. MORRIS: Idle wells corrode. For most to come back into production, they'll need repairs. And the price of hardware and chemicals used to get oil out of the ground has shot up along with the price of crude. SCHREMMER: I just ordered a new truckload of pipe out of Houston, and that one truckload of two-inch tubing cost me $75,000. Last year, that would probably cost me $25,000 to $35,000. MORRIS: That's big money to small operators like Dick Schremmer. While big players like ExxonMobil and BP operate wells producing hundreds or thousands of barrels a day, hundreds of small companies work on the margins, running low-producing stripper wells in states like Kansas, Ohio and Texas. And Mickey Thompson, past president of the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, says many of those companies face a serious challenge finding employees. MICKEY THOMPSON: The main reason it doesn't happen overnight is because of the thousands of workers who were let go during the downturn, which was not that long ago. Well, they're gone, most of them. ...... https://www.npr.org/2022/03/31/1090067942/why-producing-more-domestic-oil-is-so-difficult-right-now https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2022/03/01/1083415798/how-a-wrinkle-in-the-oil-futures-market-has-clogged-americas-oil-pump
  10. So, Title 42 is ending, CBP has information that a massive surge of foreign nationals are headed for the Southern border and president Biden is telling people there's going to be a second pandemic... Coincidence?
  11. Yeah it's also telling that the last two Democrat presidents saw "historical high gasoline prices" when the last Republican president between them was able to keep gas prices down below $3. The last two Democrat presidents also saw historically large inundations of illegal border crossings when the Republican president between them was able to reduce border incursions. The last two Democrat presidents oversaw significant slides in consumer confidence numbers while the Republican president between them showed significantly higher consumer confidence ratings. The previous Democrat president presided over the largest increase of Americans on food stamps and government assistance in decades while the current president is presiding over the largest consumer goods and food inflation price increases in 40 years and the Republican president between them had no such problems. You know it's rough when even the Trump hating, CNN network can't spin the numbers to show Biden is more popular or effective than Trump was...
  12. I have a correction to make... NPR: Biden increases oil royalty rate and scales back lease sales on federal lands The Interior Department on Friday said it's moving forward with the first onshore sales of public oil and natural gas drilling leases under President Joe Biden, but will sharply increase royalty rates for companies as federal officials weigh efforts to fight climate change against pressure to bring down high gasoline prices. The royalty rate for new leases will increase to 18.75% from 12.5%. That's a 50% jump and marks the first increase to royalties for the federal government since they were imposed in the 1920s. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/16/1093195479/biden-federal-oil-leases-royalties Previously I posted the federal government's royalty rate for oil companies drilling on federal lands was 12.5%, and it was, until that was changed by the Biden administration and raised to 18.75% that's a 50% jump. The royalty rate for offshore oil remains at 18.75%. The important part of this information is while the federal government made hundreds of millions from oil companies leasing drilling sites of federal lands, the government is now making hundreds of millions more than it was just last year and Joe Biden and company are having accolades heaped on them for giving the American consumer a 18¢ price break at the gas pumps for temporarily suspending the federal gas tax. I'm not sure that's quite accurate or at least the best way to state the facts, but it's kinda' true... Intangible Drilling Costs ($3.5 billion “subsidy” – low estimate is $780 million) - Intangible Drilling Costs are essentially the cost of drilling a new well that have no salvageable value. Currently, most exploration companies are allowed to deduct 100% of the costs in the year they are incurred with the majors able to deduct 70% of the costs immediately with the remaining 30% amortized over 5 years. In what world would money spent that may or may not be recovered be capitalized as an asset? https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunking-myths-about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/ Oil companies still have to pay for drilling and drilling material costs, but because of federal government regulations and tax deduction allowances oil companies are sometimes able to deduct 100% of costs of "dry holes" from their federal tax debt. Does anyone know of someone who would turn down a federal tax deduction when it has been provided for them? Some want to vilify the oil and gas industry for all the subsidies they get... but those companies didn't give themselves those subsidies and tax breaks, they may have lobbied for them but ultimately it was by Congressional dictate, and presidential approval that those subsidies came to be. Blame the oil and gas industries for having and using subsidies... but don't forget to mention the government officials who wrote those subsidies into law - and allow them to remain. I've already submitted documentation that pretty clearly shows oil industry expenses have outweighed their revenue income for almost a decade... We can either believe the facts and figures put forth by industry experts and outside analysts summitted here, or the guy who claims to the contrary with nothing to support his claims. Me, I'm more inclined to go with the former - not because it matches some preconceived notion of mine, but because it's referenced by what I believe are credible sources with first hand knowledge of what they speak. Yeah I agree some may say or publish information favorable to the oil industry, for a price, but I don't believe so many would from such a diverse group of sources. Some still believe their reputation is more valuable than any pay-off money they might be offered - like NPR, Forbes, the Wall Street Journal and EWG for instance. And so far I haven't found a lot of opposing views that can be backed up with documented specifics instead of someone just saying so and questionable references that appears to rely on someone else just saying so.
  13. Dyslexia doesn't explain away the fact of your being informed, multiple times, that the search engine you referenced doesn't exist, and you still insisting it does...
  14. I just summitted seven links confirming WMD's were found Iraq, along with verifiable reports of Iraq war veterans still suffering from the effects of WMD chemical weapons. Yep, Bush and Powell did say Iraqi WMD's didn't exists, I guess they thought they would save face with the American public if they made those admissions instead of sticking to what we know today (or should recognize as reality) that chemical weapons - WMD's did exist in Iraq... I don't know why the denied the existence of WMD's when it certainly appears to me they existed. I try to go with facts, not what other people want me to say or think. Yeah I supported Bush and Powell when they said intelligence indicated there were WMD's in Iraq, I even pointed out the Hussein military used WMD's on the Kurds and Iranian's during the Iraq, Iran war... Just those two facts alone prove Saddam had WMD's back then and it's not a serious leap of faith to believe he still did. Regardless Hussein and his régime needed to be taken out especially after his invasion of Kuwait and an international coalition of nations felt strongly enough about it to make it happen, currently existing WMD's or not because they probably felt as I did - if he used chemical weapons at least twice, there was a better than average chance he would again and with his increased aggression toward neighboring nations he needed to be stopped. Nope, that's absolutely false... What I said was - If anyone is free to admit Trump lies, and he does - they should also be honest enough to admit Biden lies, and I've proven several times over he does instead of trying to play it off as Biden simply making "misstatements" ~ To say Trump lies and Biden simply misspoke when they both have been caught making false statements, that's not only disingenuous it's clear politically partisan BS. Yeah I said Biden misspoke, or rather CNN did, after all it was their article I posted and I posted a couple of funny graphic about all the things president Biden has said that needed cleaning up or explained after he said them. That was the purpose of the topic... And how the media and Trump haters are free to admit Trump lies, but tries to pass off Biden's lies as "Misspoke", or "honest mistakes"... Yet you still condemn Trump for lying and still haven't admitter or acknowledged Biden has too, even after being presented with several documented examples... Oh and by the way... That's a lie... and to me clear evidence of someone suffering from a serious case of TDS to the point where their grasp of reality is in question...
  15. Nope, I had no clue, I had to look it up and when I saw the altavista reference reference I once again attempted to inform you there was never a search engine called "altvista", hopping you were capable of correcting your own mistake instead of having someone do it for you... but you never did. Instead you kept insisting "altvista" existed. Facts matter and when mistakes are made and someone attempts to point them out, a responsible person will try to look it up and verify their facts instead of repeating the same false information over and over and if they do find themselves at the end of a terminal error they apologize and admit their mistake... or try to slam someone else for for the mistake they made. (BTW, I don't believe I ever used altavista, I was more of a dogpile kinda' person )
  16. Yup, for more than two weeks you kept arguing a non existent search engine actually existed, even though I kept saying it didn't... Instead of taking the time to research it or verify your facts you kept repeating false information and just expected everyone to take your word for it. That's pretty much the way a lot of the things we see from you go though isn't it.
  17. Yeah I kind o figured you'd try to call, Politifact, NPR, FORBES, Bank of America, the Wall Street Journal, convenience.org and the Environmental Working Group " bull crap"... throw out a little anti-Trump spice and claim what's your saying is common sense as opposed to what business and industry experts have said. I'll not dispute oil companies have made sizable revenue gains, but then I'm also honest enough to try to figure out if those gains were equal to or less then the expenses incurred. Of course the fact remains the oil and gas industries are private enterprises and it is the business of corporations to make money. Biden and company proudly proclaimed they are giving everyone a "gas tax holiday" - big whoop - consumers get 18¢ off a gallon of gas when the prices have gone up nearly $3 over the past few months. The federal government and states also get royalties from the oil and gas industry, the federal government gets about 12.5 percent from the sale of oil, gas, or coal extracted from the nation's public lands and 18.75 percent for offshore oil and gas leases, that amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars annually... One would think if the federal government was actually serious about trying to help consumers deal with the high cost of fuel and energy they would use some of those hundreds of millions to do something meaningful, instead of the dog and pony show of telling people they will magnanimously grant the public an 18¢ break on a gallon of gas costing about $5 - or more. I bought a few gallons of gasoline for my lawnmower tonight and spent as much as I used to pay to put gas in my car just a few years ago...
  18. Actually I was defending Colin Powell when he told the UN there were WMD's in Iraq... I thought he gave a very compelling case for Iraq having WMD's based on intelligence reports. Looks like I'm in good company, we all knew Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians on and before 1988, The UK believed Saddam was hiding WMD's before the war, Testimony was given to the UK by defecting Iraqi officials to indicate Iraq still had WMD's, U.S. and coalition troops were wounded by chemical weapons while in Iraq, We know some U.S. (and coalition) veterans of the Iraq war are still effected and seeking recognition for injuries and illnesses from chemical weapon WMD's, nytimes.com//2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons, and We also know U.S. troops found about 5,000 abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq, But you say there were no WMD's in Iraq and all of the reports and articles I've posted is BS... OK, I'll believe you instead - Short list - Seems to me you never believed Trump when he said he made a mistake, or was joking, but you're immediately willing to defend Biden when he tells people he used to be an "truck driver"... Biden also told the American public: Gun manufacturers are "the only industry in the country" that have immunity from lawsuits - yeah, that's not true. Biden told people: "You couldn't buy a cannon when, in fact, the Second Amendment passed" - also not true. Biden claimed to have: "Been and out of Iraq and Afghanistan 40 times" - Buzzt - false. Was Biden a bad boy? He claims: "As a youth, “I got arrested” protesting for civil rights" - Umm, nope - that never happened. Biden says: “I’ve been against that war in Afghanistan from the very beginning.” - Except Congressional records show senator Biden voted for the invasion of Iraq, ... "Al-Qaida is “gone” from Afghanistan" - WOW! now that's a whopper ~ "vaccine rates for Americans 65 and older, “there’s virtually no difference between white, Black, Hispanic, Asian American.” - Umm, no, "We're sending back the vast majority of families that are coming {across the Southern border}" - Maybe the he means back to Texas, Georgia, Kentucky, and Iowa? “The boilermakers union has endorsed me because I sat down with them and went into great detail with leadership [about] exactly what I would do." - Nope, fake news, AND MAN, I REALLY HOPE THIS ONE'S A LIE.... Yeah but let's keep pretending Donald Trump lies and Joe Biden just "makes mistakes" when he says some of the things he says... I don't defended Trump's lies, as a matter of fact I've even posted pointing out a few of them... but I will defend the politically partisan fallacy that Trump lies - but Biden just "makes mistakes" when false statements fall out of his mouth, all day long... and again, that you don't seem to recognize, or admit the difference is not at all surprising.
  19. Which is a true statement, I didn't post a NRA link in this thread... I posted a Bill Benson Twitter tweet in that he had an NRA link. What you said was - If you'll take notice there are two hyperlinks in the twitter post one for the NRA and one for missourinetwork.tv/antifa-members... My reply - And the NRA hyperlink is still working... but after checking, Not so much the missourinetwork.tv link. Ah, but that's not what you said was it? As you see, you claimed to get your supporting evidence from my "NRA links", the same one you earlier claimed: "came back 404 not found" ... Would you please Google "Altvista search engine " to educate yourself that no such search engine ever existed... Again, on that we agree...
  20. It seems everyone is up in arms about the recent profits the oil industry has been making these past few months and trying to ignore the significant losses they've incurred for almost of a decade... Politifact: Yes, oil companies are reporting record breaking profits. But it follows pandemic-fueled losses And while oil companies have reported record profits, these records followed billions of dollars of pandemic-era losses from 2020. Some of the record breaking amounts were of quarterly profits and not annual profits. With those caveats, we rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/mar/10/facebook-posts/yes-oil-companies-are-reporting-record-breaking-pr/ I also referenced a NPR article where there was this - "Leggate, at Bank of America, thinks the criticism being leveled at oil companies is ultimately unfair. Although oil companies are enjoying bumper profits, he points out that hasn't always been the case. "Obviously we hear a lot about the level of profitability for the industry," he said. "But remember this industry lost a lot of money over the last 5, 6, 7, 10 years. And so if you look at it on a ten-year basis, the industry is still just moving its head above break even." Then there's a Forbes article saying- Consider that in the past 10 years, major oil and gas companies suffered tremendous losses in 2014, 2015, and 2020. In fact, in 2020 the five integrated supermajors (i.e., “Big Oil”) – ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, and Total – lost $76 billion. Oil prices plunged into negative territory in 2020. Were the oil companies feeling especially generous then? https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2022/04/24/if-oil-companies-control-prices-why-do-they-ever-lose-money/?sh=7276f651cf9d WallStreetJournal: Big Oil Companies Lose Billions, Prepare for Prolonged Pandemic Exxon, Chevron join procession of oil giants reporting dismal second-quarter results as the coronavirus continues to reduce the world’s thirst for oil and gas. https://www.wsj.com/articles/chevron-swung-to-second-quarter-loss-as-oil-demand-slumped-11596195007 in 2020, oil prices averaged $42 a barrel for the year, meaning it was difficult to break even producing oil. Most oil companies experienced losses for the year. Company 2020 net income (crude oil averaged $42) Exxon Mobil Corp. -$22 billion Shell Oil Co./Motiva Enterprises LLC $5 billion Chevron Corp. -$6 billion BP North America -$6 billion ConocoPhillips/Phillips 66 -$3 billion TOTAL -$32 billion (Information is from published earnings reports, rounded to the nearest billion). https://www.convenience.org/Media/conveniencecorner/How-Much-Oil-Companies-Make-on-High-Gas-Prices EWG: Oil and gas: An industry in decline The oil and gas industry, from extraction to transportation to refining, is no longer the profitable and financially stable enterprise it long was. Over the past decade, the industry’s profits have sagged, revenues and cash flows have withered, bankruptcies have abounded, stock prices have fallen, massive capital investments have been written off as worthless and fossil fuel investors have lost hundreds of billions of dollars. These financial pressures are set to intensify over the coming decade, as the oil and gas sector faces the reality of the world’s transition to clean energy. https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/oil-and-gas-industry-decline Some say after a cursory search of the internet oil and gas companies haven't been losing money... Here we have about a half a dozen industry experts that say differently. Now I can believe the guy on his computer saying, "the oil industry has never lost money", or I can consider the half a dozen business and industry experts I've referenced saying differently thinking they know a little more about the subject. I can believe the person expressing his opinion: "oil companies bought politicians", which I believe reflects more on the integrity of piss-poor, greedy, unethical politicians rather than a petroleum industry simply looking out for their own best interests, not to mention I'd lay a bet at odds that some of those same politicians are putting money in their personal bank accounts - or stock accounts off of the money the oil companies bring in, but then I suppose that's a matter of perspective. No one seems to care much when the oil and gas industry loses money for nearly 10-years, but when those companies begin to see respectable profits suddenly people are up in arms accusing the industry of being evil, corrupt and greedy... Facts however are facts, ours is a free market society where private companies - not the government controls the flow of product and the prices they charge for those products, this isn't Venezuela or China. Industries know pretty much that consumers will tolerate when it comes to product pricing and they are in the business of making a profit after all and I'm confident if the American consumer gets to the point where they've reached the end of their tolerance, the industry and probably our elected officials will feel their displeasure. People are still buying gas and many are still making unnecessary trips, customers are still putting gas in their vehicles at stations charging more than the station a few blocks down the street, yes-things are more pricy at the store, but chances are the federal government is counting their blessings because with the increase in prices people are buying less and on going supply chain issues are less evident.
  21. Not sure even emergency powers circumvent the Constitution unless it's approved by Congress... That's why Bush needed Congress approval for the Patriot Act and Congress gave away some of their authority with the War Powers Act and I somehow have a bit of a problem believing this would be considered a bona fide "emergency" since national security isn't involved and people aren't dying. Granted there is hardship... but enough to constitute and emergency powers declaration?
  22. Yeah I guess sarcasm and being facetious doesn't translate well in social media... The point is when a fallacy or disrespectful comment falls out of Biden's mouth, the White House Press Corps, the media and his supporters have to down play it by suggesting Biden spoke from passion, what he said wasn't what he meant and certainly isn't U.S. policy - despite him being the president, or that he simply misspoke. But when Trump used to the same kinds of things some were quick to jump up and accuse him of lying... Seems to me your reply made that abundantly clear... Thanks by the way. And still the best retort you can come up with is "Trump did it too" - Only when Trump did it, it was a lie. When Biden does it he simply misspoke... Classic ~
  23. I can understand how you would consider some statements are false and misrepresented since the statements I made where I didn't offer reference links (other than my expressed opinions) were quoting your posted claims... According to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, you're wrong... The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. Also according to the Constitution Congress, the Legislative branch of the government has sole power to regulate interstate commerce... Article I, Section 8.C3.2.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Congress - not the President has the Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce - The Commerce Clause, a legislative power, allows the federal government “to regulate commerce… among the several states.” To invoke this power, the President would need Congressional authorization. On February 4, 1887, both the Senate and House passed the Interstate Commerce Act, which applied the Constitution's “Commerce Clause”—granting Congress the power “to Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States”—to regulating railroad rates.... https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Interstate_Commerce_Act_Is_Passed.htm The president can however place conditions and restrictions on trade a part of treaties and agreements between foreign nations and the United States but the Executive branch does not have the authority to regulate interstate commerce, that right is restricted to the Legislative branch of government, unless Congress agrees to abdicate and give the president authority... Which is why I said If I were a Washington politician I'd probably have voted against the price gouging bill also, putting that much authority into the hands of one person without any checks or balances... That's not how the country was designed - this country anyway. To pass legislation to give the president the authority to force private industry to produce, manufacture, refine and ship products across state lines - regulate interstate commerce would be against Constitutional precedent as I understand it... since it would be contrary to Article I (the powers of the Legislative branch) and Article II (the powers of the Executive branch) of the Constitution and it would be in opposition to the Separation of Powers clause.
×
×
  • Create New...