Magox

Yeah, but look at the competition he was up against. I mean come on, it was only the SEC

No, it wasn't as simple as that, not only was their lost production during that time period, but there is a residual loss that continues. You see, many of those rigs aren't owned by the oil companies, they lease them, and when they were sitting idle, some of the rig owners moved shop and other oil companies leased them in different deep sea locations. Rig leasing is in extremely high demand, companies pay top dollar for them, specially deep sea rigs, so when the moratoria hit, some of them dipped.

Both. But there were the cries of foul that somehow, Bush was funneling these high priced barrels in which they inferred he was responsible for, were for the benefit of his oil buddies in Texas, and it wasn't just a few morons, there were many.

I don't give a **** about all that, I'll leave that up to the morons, I'm just speaking facts and tellin it how it is.

I've figured it out, you listen to Sean Hannity on the radio during the afternoon (which I don't believe I have ever listened not even 1 minutes worth in my entire life) , you read artices on Redstate, you are in reality a hardcore rightwinger. This whole shtick you have of you know, acting like the biggest leftist moron is all a charade, you do this to tarnish liberals, to make them appear as if they just fell off of the turnip truck. Bravo Dave Bravo!!!

She's right! Newt will never ever ever be president of the U.S and the sooner you numbskulls realize that, the better the opportunity there will be to get Obama out of office.

Yep, that wasn't a typo at all Dude, you must be getting tired. Get some sleep.

Yep, when it comes to pricing, markets, data and trends, not a single one of those dummies do. That's just how it is. Now keep drinking the kool-aid BD, cuz you know, thats just what you do.

I can tell you this, when it comes to oil, there isn't a politician in the U.S that knows about oil as much as I do. In regards to right wing rhetoric, I could give two ***** about that. The reality is that the presidens energy policies have had a relatively small effect on todays oil prices, I calculate somewhere between $3-5 a barrel, simply because of the moratoria of last year and the loss of rigs from that action. Having said that, his policies will have more of a long-term effect on prices because of the drilling restrictons and activist stance the EPA currently has. But, I do seem to remember a bunch of you leftists blaming Bush for the high prices of 08 and without even knowing you then , I'm pretty damn sure that you were one of those strawmen proponents back then that attempted to link the oil prices of 08 to his oil buddies in Texas But go ahead and tell me you weren't one of "those" guys. uh huh yeah So when I hear the ignorant attack on Obama and how he is to blame for the current price of oil, I just kinda sit back and think to myself, "the shoe is on the other foot now" and if I were a campaign strategist I would be just as disingenous in my attacks against Obama as they were the last election cycle.

What are we judging here? Is there something nefarious from the actions of Romney from the link you just provided, other than the characterization of the word "funneled" that the author of the link used?

Oil imports are down because consumption has gone down MAINLY because of the weak economy. The Presidents Energy policies have virtually nothing to do with the trends, Nothing! This is all happening in spite of the president, oil production projects and the new natural gas horizontal drilling explosion was all in place WELL before the president stepped into office. Now if you want to say that because of the presidents poor economic record, that consumption of oil has gone down, therefore lessening oil imports, then you may have a point. http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/01/what-obamas-first-ad-doesnt-say-111451.html Repeat after me: I drink the Obama Kool-aid because it tastes good.

There is a distinction, you're colorblind.

It's like me looking at a red shirt and I say, "hey, thats a red shirt" and you tell me, "that's not red, it's blue", and I'm like "listen here ****, I know what I'm looking at, and its !@#$ing red."

What a little kitty, waaaaaaaa

Oh, memories

Geez, shouldnt of the Bidens of at least SAID and embellished their charitable donations by just a little bit more?

Ok cool, so you are sticking with the "I'm deciding to discredit the charitable contributions because they are a racist religion" argument . Just checkin.

Not my fault that you are thick-headed. psss pssss It's called context.

So what you are saying is that Mormons are still discriminating against blacks? And that Mitt Romney and other Mormons are only willing to donate money if and only if money is directed towards causes that help white people? We are talking about current topics right? If you want to use history as some sort of justification as your point, than i can say the democratic party was the one who supported slavery. So I guess that means that your party is still the party of racists? Of course not. That would be as ridiculous as the argument that you were just trying to attempt.

AGAIN! In which I've said at least a couple times "The Point..." The point of the whole thread which is going right over not just your head but others, is that the lefts attempt to stake the claim of champions of fighting for the causes of social injustices are hypocritical at best, when it comes right down to it, Conservatives are equal if not more willing to actually tangibly further this cause. When ABC had a story on Mitt's charitable contributions, they characterized some of his donations as "sending" money to his church rather than "giving". An obvious veiled attempt at minimizing his contributions, almost as if it were law. Sort of like what you did with the initial post you had in this thread, or Birdogs pathetic attempt do demean and cast Mormonism as a racially charged and discriminatory religion.

Of course I do, I've provided it on this board a few times.. Try this, google up who contributes more to charities, Conservatives or Liberals The reason why I thought it was relevant to bring up a small sample scale was because ummmmmm because they are the two at the top of the ticket crying social injustice? Yeah, I'd say it's relevant.

Look up the word "tithing" What % are Catholics suggested to give? In the decade from 1998-2007, Joe and Jill Biden paid $369 a year to charitable contributions. Isn't he Catholic? The point is that the argument from the left is that they are the champions of solving the issues of Social Injustice, however COnservatives are much more willing to voluntarily and TANGIBLY solve these problems than those who verbally make the case. Wow! not only are you a hypcocrite but you are a bigot. (Man, I just pulled that line of attack straight out of the liberal handbook, felt good )

What's hilarious about this is, is that this will actually make sense to some people.