« FFFT Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Chesapeake Makes 'Significant' Discovery in Anadarko Basin 

By: Decomposed in FFFT | Recommend this post (2)
Sat, 02 Jun 12 4:22 AM | 142 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Food For Further Thought
Msg. 42986 of 65535
(This msg. is a reply to 42980 by Scarface)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Scarface,

Nice post.

I hope you understand that taking the time to write a nice post to zzfart is a complete waste of time. I suggest you do something more redeeming. Clean your toenails. Swat the moths around your porch light. Re-paint a room ... in the same color.

He might have some potential if he ever goes back to grade school but, until he does, you're going to find that discussions with zz are like talking to a doorknob. A foul-mouthed doorknob.




Avatar

Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Chesapeake Makes 'Significant' Discovery in Anadarko Basin
By: Scarface
in FFFT
Sat, 02 Jun 12 3:08 AM
Msg. 42980 of 65535

You say, "Our refineries are at capacity." Refinery capacity was never the issue; the issue is whether we fill that capacity with: (a) domestically produced crude oil from which American families benefit due to increased employment and federal and state governments benefit due to increased taxes, fees, and royalties, or (b) foreign crude oil that takes our dollars to fund regimes who wish to do us harm.

You say, "We are producing way more oil than ever before." If you are rehashing OCU's argument, we are producing more refined fuels, and again, that's not the issue. And, even though the increase in private land crude oil production has a little more than offset the decrease in production on public lands, we should produce a great deal more in order to decrease our dependency on crude oil imports from overseas.

You say, "You are actually trying to tell me we should do it for 'jobs.' Yes, of course, why not? You like to talk about refinery capacity, well what about employment capacity? We have many Americans who are struggling because of the lack of employment. The Obama Administration keeps saying this is a huge problem, so why wouldn't you welcome something that would help to alleviate this huge problem?

You say, "I prefer jobs that go to teachers and fire fighters and construction/infrastructure." You can prefer what you like, but that doesn't make it so. Just ask the Obama Administration about its so-called "shovel-ready jobs." They spent billions and Obama eventually admitted that "'Shovel-ready' was not as 'shovel-ready' as we expected." Teaching and fire-fighting are fine employment positions and we need plenty of good people to fulfill those important responsibilities, but those are positions paid for by taxpayers. We need production and employment that will add to the tax-base, not just move it around.

You say, "We don't need more oil jobs so that Perry can brag about his fkng state." Now you are just showing petty jealousy. You seriously want struggling American citizens to lose their savings, their credit worthiness, their homes, and their self-respect because you believe more oil and gas jobs will give somebody else bragging rights over you? That's childish nonsense.

You say, "The price of oil is already down." The price of oil goes up and down for a whole host of reasons, many of which are out of our control. However, the real issue is not the price; are Americans employed at full capacity not only on the refining side but on the production side, too? Are we Americans being productive and making money (and paying taxes for teachers and fire-fighters, also) all the way up the process from pulling crude oil out of the ground to pouring gasoline in our tanks? That is the real issue.

Do you get it now?


« FFFT Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next