Without evidence your theory is just as correct as mine. [/Quote] We'll just have to disagree on the issue of whether Bush or his family and friends will realize some of the profits, should this come to pass.

 

 

 

... The oil companies exploit us as consumers and now they are going to be able to exploit us as taxpayers. I would rather see that money got back to paying off the war debt and rebuilding Iraq rather than line more oil CEO's pockets.

You did a nice job of summarizing my position. Well said.

 

 

Frances

Someone help me out... does this spell cheap, cheap gas prices again?

Someone help me out... does this spell cheap, cheap gas prices again?

 

Doubt it.

We'll just have to disagree on the issue of whether Bush or his family and friends will realize some of the profits, should this come to pass.

 

 

 

You did a nice job of summarizing my position. Well said.

 

 

Frances

 

You still have oil stocks Frances?

If the price per barrell of crude oil fell below $55.00 during the last few days, why haven't the prices of gas fallen accordingly? If the price per barrell had risen $4.00 per barrell, don't doubt for one second price per gallon wouldn't rise accordingly, probably within minutes of the reports coming out.

Someone help me out... does this spell cheap, cheap gas prices again?

In and of itself, it probably wouldn't have much of an impact since OPEC still exists, and will continue to control the majority of oil available on the market.

 

In America, we are incredibly egocentric, in the sense that we see things such as the price of gasoline only as far as it impacts us directly. Over the last 10 years or so, China has embraced capitalism to a degree that most of us don't understand. By themselves, they will consume enormous quantities of oil, and when you factor in some of the other emerging countries, the demand for oil worldwide is only going to one direction - and it isn't down.

 

 

You still have oil stocks Frances?

You better believe it. Now is an excellent time to buy a couple of them. They have pulled back a little bit, due to some people taking profits from the runup of the last five years. I'm trying to figure out how to invest even more in them, without completely losing all diversity.

 

 

Frances

If the price per barrell of crude oil fell below $55.00 during the last few days, why haven't the prices of gas fallen accordingly? If the price per barrell had risen $4.00 per barrell, don't doubt for one second price per gallon wouldn't rise accordingly, probably within minutes of the reports coming out.

 

An excellent question. I would answer that question with this question -

 

How can the members of our Congress find collusion between 30 Major League Baseball teams in fixing salaries of players, yet they can't seem to find any form of collusion in the pricing of gasoline?

 

 

Frances

Just to be sure I'm clear on this - are you saying that you don't believe that Bush, his family, and his friends won't be participating in the profits the oil companies will reap, if this story comes to pass?

 

 

Frances

 

 

I own stock in oil companies too. So I guess you are saying I support the war and therefor the deaths of many fine young American men and women because I'm greedy. Thanks I appreciate the nice thoughts. NOT.

 

I find the whole line of thinking that Bush, in whole or in part, decided to invade Iraq so he could make more money off of his oil stock investments or that his buddies at Haliburton could profiteer extremely offensive and insulting and beneath the intelligence level of open minded and reasonably intelligent people. Sorry if that's offensive, but its the way I feel.

I own stock in oil companies too. So I guess you are saying I support the war and therefor the deaths of many fine young American men and women because I'm greedy. Thanks I appreciate the nice thoughts. NOT. [/Quote] You'll have to pardon me, but I don't remember accusing anyone, by virtue of investing in oil companies, of supporting the war (directly or indirectly). I have no idea how you made the leap from that (an accusation that I did NOT make) all the way to accusing you of supporting the deaths of Americans in Iraq. If you are looking to be offended, then you can certainly accomplish that feat with far less effort to twist a position than was put into this leap. At no point have I accused you of greed, much less subsidizing the war by investing in oil stocks.

 

If you wish to debate the points in my posts, I welcome the challenge. If you wish to respond with a wild rant to something I did not say, I will decline to participate.

 

You are welcome for the nice thoughts.

 

 

 

I find the whole line of thinking that Bush, in whole or in part, decided to invade Iraq so he could make more money off of his oil stock investments or that his buddies at Haliburton could profiteer extremely offensive and insulting and beneath the intelligence level of open minded and reasonably intelligent people. [/Quote] At no time in this thread did I say that Bush started the war in Iraq for the sole purpose of making money off of his oil stock investments (which, according to some people involved in this thread, don't exist). Again, you are arguing a point that I did not make - a straw man, if you will. If you read the question that I posed (and you quoted) without putting words in my mouth, you will see that I am asking a question, and make absolutely no judgement whatsoever in doing so.

 

The fact that I believe Bush, his family, his friends, and his business aquaintances will reap some very substantial monetary rewards as a result of their investments and holdings (i.e. oil stocks, Halliburton, the defense industry) is an opinion that I hold based on my knowledge of the stock market, and how money flows from the US treasury into private businesses. If you disagree with that assessment, fine. You're opposing point of view, however, does not give you the right to attribute things to me which I did not say.

 

 

Sorry if that's offensive, but its the way I feel.

I am not offended (in the least) by the fact that you disagree. I do take great offense that you are accusing me of saying something which I did not say.

 

 

Frances

...

 

I'd say companies that are raking in $10 BILLION per quarter are making "windfall" profits, regardless of how you define it. Considering that those numbers will pale in comparison to what they will potentially make, I would hope that I wouldn't have to somehow quantify the concept for you.

 

...

 

Frances

 

I hope they have enough sense to convert their currency from dollars to euros...:irked:

You'll have to pardon me, but I don't remember accusing anyone, by virtue of investing in oil companies, of supporting the war (directly or indirectly). I have no idea how you made the leap from that (an accusation that I did NOT make) all the way to accusing you of supporting the deaths of Americans in Iraq. If you are looking to be offended, then you can certainly accomplish that feat with far less effort to twist a position than was put into this leap. At no point have I accused you of greed, much less subsidizing the war by investing in oil stocks.

 

If you wish to debate the points in my posts, I welcome the challenge. If you wish to respond with a wild rant to something I did not say, I will decline to participate.

 

You are welcome for the nice thoughts.

 

 

 

At no time in this thread did I say that Bush started the war in Iraq for the sole purpose of making money off of his oil stock investments (which, according to some people involved in this thread, don't exist). Again, you are arguing a point that I did not make - a straw man, if you will. If you read the question that I posed (and you quoted) without putting words in my mouth, you will see that I am asking a question, and make absolutely no judgement whatsoever in doing so.

 

The fact that I believe Bush, his family, his friends, and his business aquaintances will reap some very substantial monetary rewards as a result of their investments and holdings (i.e. oil stocks, Halliburton, the defense industry) is an opinion that I hold based on my knowledge of the stock market, and how money flows from the US treasury into private businesses. If you disagree with that assessment, fine. You're opposing point of view, however, does not give you the right to attribute things to me which I did not say.

 

 

I am not offended (in the least) by the fact that you disagree. I do take great offense that you are accusing me of saying something which I did not say.

 

 

Frances

 

I apologize. I should have been clearer in my response. I should not have directed my post to you, but rather to those that felt the war was fought so Bush and his advisors could line their pockets from the oil money. You have my sincere and heart felt apology.

 

But I assume you would agree that there are people who feel that Bush went to war to make money off of it and to help out his corporate buddies. You have also done a nice job of tap dancing around the issue of whether you believe or don't believe that the potential oil company profits factored into Bush's decision. If you don't, then fine. But if you do, then I have big problem with your conclusion. I find that thinking nauseating, simply nauseating. Perhaps its because I also will, as a stock holder, benefit from the war and I support the war. I do not support the war because I will financially benefit from it and I do not think Bush decided to go to war to benefit financially from it. If those accusations are made against Bush, then they are likewise attributable to me and that is quite insulting. But again, I should have been much clearer in my prior post, although at this point I'm not sure what your position is on the issue, other than to insinuate, from my interpretation of your collective posts, that Bush's greed and support of his corporate buddies factored into Bush's decision to go to war. And if you feel that way towards Bush, by implication, its applicable to me regardless of whether you specifically state it or not. Exactly what are your thoughts on the issue so we know for sure? Do you believe that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was motivated in whole or in part for his personal financial gain or for the financial gain of his corporate buddies? Yes or no?

Follow the money if you want to know the true reason that we invaided Iraq.

75% of the profits? Then a 100% increase in industry standard profits?

No wonder Bush is so determined to increase troop levels by 30,000 troops. He is anticipating all XXXX breaking loose once the Iraqi's realize they have been sold out. This is the New American Frontier, except this time it is not the Indians standing in the way of corporate greed, it's the Iraqi's.

Same way the gas prices were going to go through the roof once the election was over.

An excellent question. I would answer that question with this question -

 

How can the members of our Congress find collusion between 30 Major League Baseball teams in fixing salaries of players, yet they can't seem to find any form of collusion in the pricing of gasoline?

 

 

Frances

With your point on Congress, that would be BOTH Republicans and Democrats and not limited to one party.

Touchy subject from any angle. It becomes more touchy when people's pocket books are involved.

Touchy subject from any angle. It becomes more touchy when people's pocket books are involved.

Only when their pocket book is the primary focus of their life.