as far as i know, most conservatives i know support a competitive industry. i'm sorry, i don't think big oil is. that changes the rules...even according to brad.

i would want it looked into deeper whether or not actual competition did exist in the oil industry. or, since (amongst other factors)the demand exceeds supply, have they become anti-competitive?

i want that clearly established before i start talking about imposing anything on anyone. and i don't expect to find a memo from one ceo to every other one explaining how they will work together to gouge the american consumer or anything stupidly overly simplistic like that.

maybe we should start in getting those dick cheney energy policy meetings unsealed.

In a free market economy the term 'gouge' is kind of problematic. Now, granted, with medicines, gas, etc., people need the product. If you want to talk about a "competitive" industry, then you have to look at what prevents the industry from being competitive.

There is obviously a demand for cheaper gas. I think it is obvious to about anyone who looks that gas could be sold cheaper, one way or another. So, why isn't someone stepping in and making themselves rich by undercutting the big oil companies and steering all that demand their way? After all, a demand for "cheap gas" is an unfulfilled demand.

I think if you look into it, you'll find, again, that it is the government. That isn't conservative, again. That's the government sticking its nose in the free market. The government controls almost every aspect of the oil industry in one way or another, which leaves the situation perfect for the oil industry and the government to conspire to fix prices.

What you and others seem to be suggesting is for us to negotiate with a dishonest system in order to gain lower prices. Or worse, we could keep the prices, tax the hell out of one side of the equation, send the result to the other side, who will simply then pass it back to their cohorts. In the meantime, you and I will pay for the tax in higher prices.

So, the conservative stance is not and will never be to control prices or impose taxes. The conservative stance would be to root out what controls and relationships the industry has with the government, and cut whatever ties cause entrepreneurs from stepping in and offering a cheaper product. Any time you see conservatives asking for more government control of something, they've overlooked the obvious and betrayed their economic philosophy.

but fines and some other punitive actions would be acceptable if anti trust laws, et al, were broken. you can call it a tax if you want to make it "anti conservative" but conservatism doesn't object to fines on businesses that break laws.

that hasn't been proven, of course. that is why i haven't suggested anything actually being imposed without due process. again, let's start with unmasking this industry, their potential collusion with govt. and each other.

i have a feeling the "alternative fuel" buzz might heat up some more if more see how these guys do business and who works with who, behind the curtain...even if it's not criminally provable in the end.

i blame the vote for all democrats or the vote for all republican choose on ballets

Not true. I used to be a democrat and have great respect for some democrats, hell, only me and a cousin are republicans in my family. The rest are all democrats, my aunt my cousins mother was a delagate at the 1968 democrat national convention. What I don't like about the new democtats is that they seem to be hypocrites with a win all and destroy the enemy as their starting point. Conservatives criticized Mr. Nixon for doing the same things that the Kennedy brothers did when they were in office yet history only remembers the Nixon lies and dirty tricks. So it is not a dislike of democrats it is a dislike of the destructive policies they seem to hold dear today. Look at what they did to Mr. Lieberman, he was the darling of the democrats until he proved to be too conservative for them then instead of saying that they have a broad tent accepting different points of view, they tryed to destroy the man and his job. This is thier own party and they forced him out of the party because of his belief that we need to stand up to terrorist, everything else was in line with the majority of the democrat views.




I was not baiting you. I think that Rush Limbaugh is a left wing wack job on some things. Newt is a liberal republican. Ok, is it a completive industry? I think it is to an extent but the only way to compete with them is to start your own oil company. Cant do it because of federal regulations meaning you have to have more money than you can make in the business just to start it.

Conservatives are democrats and republicans just as there are liberals on both sides of the isle. Most are independent thinkers.

lol...the "joe wanted to stand up to the terrorists" crap filled rhetoric is a giveaway. joe wanted to continue giving blank checks to the president...another candidate ran against Joe in the primary who didn't. that candidate won the primary. at that point, the democrats (as a party) were OBLIGATED to support their nominee. the primary voters of connecticut decided to choose another person to represent the democrats.

you say you don't like the "new" democrats that did this...but it was only 1994 that the "old" democrats were voted out of power in congress. i already know you despise bill clinton...so in between 1994 and 2006, was there some influx of other democrats that you like that none of us know about?

i'm not a democrat, but don't see it exactly as you do. your statements about mr clinton not doing anything for the country in his 8 years is laughable from where i sit. but we're not gonna agree there, and throwing stats at one another won't do anything either. i also don't agree with your assertions on bush, but you already knew that and again, no point in stirring up that can of worms.

and ya gotta get over all these labels to try to define and pigeon hole everything. we all use labels to indentify things, but what i see are pundit talking points. calling bush a liberal? cmon...that's just the cop-out that has become popular since the GOP lost control of congress...blame all the congressional spending on him.

i never heard ONCE him being charged with being a liberal when he ran against kerry or gore. he was advertised and was called a conservative by all that supported him in those elections...you don't get a do-over now on that.

plus, according to many on the right "liberals have no principles."

sounds like a lot of rationalization, denial and projection to try to justify being wrong, primarily on Iraq.



1st off,,,joe won 52-48% how is that a "landslide?" that's not even a mandate.

2ndly, that was a state where the GOP spent NOTHING on schlessinger. what does that say about their support for a candidate that was their party nominee? where were their principles and party loyalties? they decided to backdoor fund lieberman, BECAUSE he had a shot at winning and their candidate didn't.

3rd...are you actually suggesting that because joe won as an independent that totally negates the swings in both the house and senate? swings, esp. on the senate side that were deemed impossible just recently before the election. sorry, i'll put the collective voices of 435 house and 33 senate races over this one very anomolous race that the GOP tried, but failed to manipulate the point that you are still beating like a dead horse.

but that same party, that fires National Guard soldiers and calls them "absentee managers" while their crony spends all but a few weeks in washington dc doing his buddy gonzalez's bidding...and they changed a law just to accomodate that more principled?

was it principle that drove pete dominichi and congresswoman wilson to make improper and unprecedented calls of harrassment to that same US attorney?

at the same time fires an experienced, effective US attorney for no good reason to instill a Rove protege with no courtroom experience in the state where their arch nemisis's wife is preparing to run for president. yeah, that's principle.

they use carol lam's successful prosecutions and lead work in operation hamlet to obtain additional funding in 2006 then turns around and fire her after she successfully prosecutes crook duke cunningham and is preparing to go after more...and have the nerve to suggest that she wasn't going after pedophiles? just how do they contain all that "principle" and not just burst?

did principle dictate dennis hastert's obscene behavior and negligence dealing with the pages being sexually harassed by congressman foley?



and so on....and that's just in the last 6-8 months.

Change seats, his presidency was more caretaker than as a leader.



Sorry but if I hand you a bucket of crap and tell you that it is steak you know what it is because of the label and the odor that goes with the it. Mr. Bush is a liberal not a flaming liberal but a republican liberal. You see people and pigeon hole them I use the terms that fit the person. Spend as much as he does without fiscal restraint makes him liberal. Liberal is not a bad word it is what it is.



The swings were not that big, the democrats that won ran as conservatives and far to the right of the republican in each race, then they aligned with the kooks and did what they planned to do all along.

Gene, I am not sure what drug induced fantasy you are having but if what you say is true, ( it would be a first that you told the truth) then the CEO of Exxon is a liar or they have changed their policy of the last 30 years. Since you are not known for telling the truth I am not going to waste my time look it up unless you provide a link to a reputable source.



This is another myth. The laws enacted by the liberals have not been changed and local groups still put up law suits to fight the oil companies every time they think of building a new refinery. Or did CNN lie to us when they reported this during the Clinton administration when oil prices spiked?



This is a well known lie. The profits are set by the government at between eight and ten cents per gallon. It does not matter what the price of oil is that is all they can make. On the other hand the government makes eighty-seven cents a gallon who is getting rich?
Just incase you are sober, sane, and honest when you read this, the price of oil is set by speculators on the stock market not the oil companies. If the speculation is five dollars a barrel then the oil companies make more money than if the price of oil is sixty dollars a barrel. You would know this if you did some research but why let facts and logic get in the way of your hate and ignorance.

and you, ColGene show that you know nothing about business whatsoever. Price has nothing to do with cost. Or are you merely willing to forget what you know, for the sake of your petty arguments?

That is bullshit. (I can't say what company it is because it would not be the right thing to do for our company but is is one of the largest in the world)I know for a fact domestic crude production is at an all time high.

With these taxes you speak of...
Our company is still going to make the same dollar for the oil/gas that it sells no matter if the state changes the permitting fees or increases the taxes we have to pay. We will just charge more for the base product. That price will be passed on to the refinery and then to the local station owner. Now I know you have complete faith in that local owner to eat that increased cost and save you a few cents at the pump, right?

If you want to have a serious effect on the cost at the pump, park your car. The only way to truly influence the price is to use less gas. The laws of supply and demand are in effect and while the public bitches about filling up at $3.00+ a gallon, they are still doing it by the droves. I know you like to Monday morning quarterback issues like this but you have yet to say a single thing that makes you a solution to the problem.

I fill my tank every 2.5 weeks. I avoid driving the 15 mile round trip journey to my house for lunch each day (in fact I walk to get my lunch everyday - even when it rains). I plan my routes so that my outings don't take me across town three or four times. I actively do something to conserve gas. If I could ride a bike to work I would but I don't have the spare hour and a half each day it would take.

What do you do Gene? (If you are too much of a pussy to answer the question, I understand. When you say that you do nothing other than bitch about the problem it makes you look like a fool.)

As long as there is demand then it will continue. Look at Air America for example. No demand equals no supply. Not enough people bought products from advertisers of the hate America radio network so it did not make money so it folded. People buy gas, demand for more gas continues to go up, this means that they will have record profits. It is basic economics supply and demand. Ten cents a gallon is still ten cents a gallon if they sell more gas then they make more dimes. If you ever worked in a for profit organization you would understand this. If the price of gas was a dollar a gallon and the oil companies made ten cents a gallon they would sell more gas making more money so by your statements then the price of gas should go down if the oil companies want to make more money.



Supply and demand, volume sales and still ten cents a gallon, the more they sell the more they make.



NYU why do you ask?



Really? well let me check with my son the doctor in the family. His doctorate is in ecconomics and he agrees with me. Oh, and he is a democrat, too much like his mother. BTW where did you get your business degree?

this is the biggest question i have essentially. the lack of real competition in this industry. from where i sit, they seem to work more like the mob than a competitive industry. everyone takes their piece of turf and like tony told phil last season (sopranos reference, for some spoilers, go here... WWW Link ) "there's enough for everybody."