OBAMA TO CONGRESS: FUCK YOU ON KEYSTONE COMPROMISE...

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by boardman

I did answer you question. I conceded that prices may rise from an already below average price. But it is my opinion that once that oversupply is relieved that prices will rebound and stabilize. The quicker we can move the oil the quicker that can happen.

Here's my backup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

^ That's not what you said but ok. Now you want us to sign up for plan that will raise prices and you want me to believe that oversupplies will be relived? What is it that you don't understand? This is not oil headed to US markets but it will affect US pricing. Come on man get your head out of the sand on this issue. You're clearly wrong

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Old-T

No, actually I meant zero/one as in binary. I build it or I don't.

And no, waiting six years is not a compromise, and the decision should not be based on how long the wait has been. That is hardly ever a good reason to make a decision.

Why should we have to wait at all? If the decision is no, the oil producers should have been told 6 years ago so they could plan accordingly. What's the point of dragging this out? Is it to keep the industry hanging on, thinking they will eventually get their pipeline, so they don't need to look for a Plan B (railroad cars, etc.)? Is this Odumbo's sneaky way of trying to retard the development of Canadian tar sands? If so, it speaks to the man's weak character and staggering leadership deficiencies. He is not a stand-up guy. Never was, never will be.

Politics aside, I don't think waiting 6 years to make up your mind is defensible in any way. You may not consider this delay a "compromise" but it has definitely imposed costs on the oil producers and the US economy. If the pipeline is ultimately approved, those costs will have been entirely unnecessary.

.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by boardman

But if we are going to deal in opinion mine is that any price increase that "might" occur in the midwest would be very short lived until the oversupply creating lower than normal pricing in that region stabilizes itself. Then those prices would standardize to regional and national norms. A pipeline that helped get a supposed glut out of a particular area would hasten the process.

Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

^ That's not what you said but ok. Now you want us to sign up for plan that will raise prices and you want me to believe that oversupplies will be relived? What is it that you don't understand? This is not oil headed to US markets but it will affect US pricing. Come on man get your head out of the sand on this issue. You're clearly wrong

Yes, that's exactly what I said in a previous post. Either you missed it or didn't comprehend it so I posted it above.
If you comprehend my explanation then the rest of it is moot. If you don't, well, I can't understand it for you.

[LexusLover]

Has it been explained why the pipeline will not benefit this country?

[boardman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Has it been explained why the pipeline will not benefit this country?

You want facts or opinions?

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by boardman

I did answer your question. I conceded that prices may rise from an already below average price. But it is my opinion that once that oversupply is relieved that prices will rebound and stabilize. The quicker we can move the oil the quicker that can happen.

Here's my backup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

I don't care that you have a back-up now that I've actually read your response instead of glossing over it due to expected spin I can honesty say you don't know what you're talking about. You're making no sense what-so-ever. I don't think you understand the issue. Please don't go Sarah Palin on me.

If Keystone is diverted away from the Mid-West refineries to the Gulf coast refineries then gas prices WILL rise in the Mid-West due to increased US production vs what they're getting today by way of the Canadian oil. "Oversupply" being relieved as you state means higher prices for the Mid-West since they'll no longer have access to the oil destined for overseas markets. There is NO mechanism for prices rebounding and stabilizing as you say. Only higher prices for Americans due to Supply and Demand.

So please explain to me what in the hell do you mean by "rebounding and stabilizing" of oil not destined for US markets. Do you understand what's about to happen if Keystone is allowed to go through. Higher gas prices and tell me again who's benefiting? Canada and the gulf coast refiners? Certainty not the US economy.

This is a losing argument all the way around for Republicans but once again they have the dumb unintelligent masses thinking they're missing out on something.

UN-freaking- beleivable

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by boardman

...any price increase that "might" occur in the midwest would be very short lived until the oversupply creating lower than normal pricing in that region stabilizes itself. Then those prices would standardize to regional and national norms. A pipeline that helped get a supposed glut out of a particular area would hasten the process.

+1

Boardman is spot-on!

Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

Very weak rebuttal boardman. Very weak I don't know why I expected more from you.

No, zanyzit. It was a very STRONG rebuttal. Let me paraphrase YOUR argument as an example of moronically stupid, upside-down libtard logic.

First, you dipshits block the pipeline for 6 years at a time when Bakken crude development is ramping up US output by millions of bpd. In the Midwest, oil is pumped out of the ground faster than it can be hauled to refineries. So producers either have to store the stuff or cut prices and let buyers figure out how to move it. The resulting classic oversupply glut exerts more downward pressure on oil and gas prices in the Midwest than in the rest of the country.

Having created the glut in the first place by blocking the pipeline and placing unnecessary bottlenecks in the way of exploiting Bakken oil, you and fagboy are now saying we can't unblock the pipeline because it might eliminate the Midwest oversupply problem we created and push oil prices back up again!

Now that's an example of a very WEAK rebuttal. The whole argument is DECEITFUL and DISINGENUOUS. But it does have chutzpah. Like murdering your parents and asking for mercy because you're an orphan.

One variation on your silly argument may have merit, however. For reasons noted, when it finally comes onstream the Keystone pipeline will probably lower oil & gas prices on the East and West coasts more than in "flyover country". Do we really want to help those coastal libtard layabouts more than our patriotic hard-working red state residents? Hmmm.

.

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by lustylad

+1

Boardman is spot-on!




No, zanyzit. It was a very STRONG rebuttal. Let me paraphrase YOUR argument as an example of moronically stupid, upside-down libtard logic.

First, you dipshits block the pipeline for 6 years at a time when Bakken crude development is ramping up US output by millions of bpd. In the Midwest, oil is pumped out of the ground faster than it can be hauled to refineries. So producers either have to store the stuff or cut prices and let buyers figure out how to move it. The resulting classic oversupply glut exerts more downward pressure on oil and gas prices in the Midwest than in the rest of the country.

Having created the glut in the first place by blocking the pipeline and placing unnecessary bottlenecks in the way of exploiting Bakken oil, zanyzit and fagboy are now saying we can't unblock the pipeline because it might eliminate the Midwest oversupply problem we created and push oil prices back up again!

Now that's an example of a very WEAK rebuttal. The whole argument is DECEITFUL and DISINGENUOUS. But it does have chutzpah. Like murdering your parents and asking for mercy because you're an orphan.

One variation on the argument may have merit, however. When it comes onstream the Keystone pipeline will probably lower oil & gas prices on the East and West coasts more than in flyover country. Hmmm. Do we really want to help the coastal libtard layabouts more than our patriotic hard-working red state residents?

.

when you learn how to be a man and stop being emotional like a woman then I will allow you to engage me until then grow up and be a fucking man and drop the emotional bitch act

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

when you learn how to be a man and stop being emotional like a woman then I will allow you to engage me until then grow up and be a fucking man and drop the emotional bitch act

eh?

[boardman]

Heh!

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

when you learn how to be a man and stop being emotional like a woman then I will allow you to engage me until then grow up and be a fucking man and drop the emotional bitch act

I know you are a woman because a real man would never say that... not even a jammieboy.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

I know you are a woman because a real man would never say that... not even a jammieboy.

Heh!
Heh!

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

when you learn how to be a man and stop being emotional like a woman then I will allow you to engage me until then grow up and be a fucking man and drop the emotional bitch act

LMAO @ Junior!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

If Keystone is diverted away from the Mid-West refineries to the Gulf coast refineries then gas prices WILL rise in the Mid-West due to increased US production vs what they're getting today by way of the Canadian oil. "Oversupply" being relieved as you state means higher prices for the Mid-West since they'll no longer have access to the oil destined for overseas markets. There is NO mechanism for prices rebounding and stabilizing as you say. Only higher prices for Americans due to Supply and Demand.

So please explain to me what in the hell do you mean by "rebounding and stabilizing" of oil not destined for US markets. Do you understand what's about to happen if Keystone is allowed to go through. Higher gas prices and tell me again who's benefiting? Canada and the gulf coast refiners? Certainty not the US economy.

This is a losing argument all the way around for Republicans but once again they have the dumb unintelligent masses thinking they're missing out on something.

UN-freaking-beleivable

Wow. You are un-freaking-believable. Where do I start? Let's keep it simple - you need to think in terms of GLOBAL supply and demand for oil. The big picture. That's where benchmark prices are set. If global production is 90 million bpd and global consumption is 89 million bpd, the extra 1 million bpd in supply will exert downward pressure on oil prices everywhere. Where the stuff is coming from and where it is going is secondary.

So even if some of the oil from Canada or North Dakota is destined for overseas markets, it benefits ALL consumers everywhere because it adds to global supply. You overlook the fact that when overseas buyers purchase from us, they buy less from other sources. Those other suppliers turn around and sell to someone else - maybe a refiner in Boston or Rotterdam. Supplies are rejiggered and redirected every day. A single cargo of crude loaded onto a supertanker in Kuwait will be bought and sold multiple times before it reaches its destination.

Global oil markets are efficient and will provide the "mechanism" for getting Bakken and Canadian crude to where it is needed, Keystone or no Keystone. If people in the Midwest see a spike in gas prices when the pipeline comes onstream (I'm not convinced this will happen), it will be modest and temporary. And no one will be complaining. Prices will still be down 30-40% from a few years ago. So try to keep your eye on the BIG PICTURE, zanyzit.

Keystone is actually a winner for everyone - not just Republicans, but thinking Democrats, the economy, US energy independence, global consumers. I agree it should be built with proper safeguards, but it shouldn't be controversial at all.

.

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Wow. You are un-freaking-believable. Where do I start? Let's keep it simple - you need to think in terms of GLOBAL supply and demand for oil. The big picture. That's where benchmark prices are set. If global production is 90 million bpd and global consumption is 89 million bpd, the extra 1 million bpd in supply will exert downward pressure on oil prices everywhere. Where the stuff is coming from and where it is going is secondary.

So even if some of the oil from Canada or North Dakota is destined for overseas markets, it benefits ALL consumers everywhere because it adds to global supply. You overlook the fact that when overseas buyers purchase from us, they buy less from other sources. Those other suppliers turn around and sell to someone else - maybe a refiner in Boston or Rotterdam. Supplies are rejiggered and redirected every day. A single cargo of crude loaded onto a supertanker in Kuwait will be bought and sold multiple times before it reaches its destination.

Global oil markets are efficient and will provide the "mechanism" for getting Bakken and Canadian crude to where it is needed, Keystone or no Keystone. If people in the Midwest see a spike in gas prices when the pipeline comes onstream (I'm not convinced this will happen), it will be modest and temporary. And no one will be complaining. Prices will still be down 30-40% from a few years ago. So try to keep your eye on the BIG PICTURE, zanyzit.

Keystone is actually a winner for everyone - not just Republicans, but thinking Democrats, the economy, US energy independence, global consumers. I agree it should be built with proper safeguards, but it shouldn't be controversial at all.

.

Poor guy you really don't have a clue. Just all over the map and deflecting from my argument in this thread. None of the crap you posted is even remotely applicable to this specific situation with Keystone. Sometimes it seems instead of insulting you I should be sympathetic towards you.

Poor guy