and palladin...i get it...you don't like democrats...you've made that nauseatingly clear. if a democrat holds an opinion, you take the other side...enough. stop trying to get me to defend democrats as if i was one. i know you see anyone who is left of newt as a "liberal democrat nutjob" pretty much, but that's just not the case. if you have a problem or question about what i suggest, like investigating whether or not big oil is a competitive industry, then fine,,,we can discuss that.

and fyi...most of us are not rep. or dem. ... we are independents. hopefully, our congress and government will reflect that better down the road, as baker and i are discussing on another thread in part...but traditionally, government does tend to lag behind society at large with it's ideas and make-up.

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

Eh, well, the point was, conservatism would oppose laws restricting business to begin with. Adding punitive controls to government controls wouldn't make it kosher for an economic philosophy that doesn't support controls at all. You're assuming that we wanted the laws there in the first place.

I don't. Most people, I think, if they saw the results of these laws in stark daylight wouldn't want them either. Most of the time they are just twisted to make a narrow gate so that only cronies can get into the business. Granted, the cronies themselves don't abide by them. That's the beauty of cronyism; regulations are there to make the climb to the top harder, cronies are already there.

So, again, no. You're suggesting a socialistic response to a civil ill created by socialistic practices. I support less controls, not more. I support a situation where entrepreneurs could get into the oil business without kissing the royal ring and paving the way with lucre. Then you'll see competition.

More legislation, more "rules" just adds power to the people who obstruct such.

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.

Nope, it doesn't, but where does the government get off telling the oil companies it's making too much profits when they already get the biggest share.

Btw, What does have to do with increased prices is Supply & Demand. There isn't an oil shortage, nor is there a surplus. In other words, like it or not, the price of gas is at EQULIBRIUM.

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?

Actually I left the democrat party in 1977 after seeing how they messed with Mr. Carter a person I had voted for. They did this because he won the nomination over Mr. Kennedy and they ham strung Mr. Carter and did everything they could to make him a one term president. Looking back I see that Mr. Carter was not a very good president in fact he was the worse president in modern history.

I never despised Mr. Clinton, I believed that with the current crop of democrat leadership if he was their choice he would be just as bad as Mr. Carter. It has little to do with Democrat or republican for me. It has to do with leadership and principles, without them a nation is rudderless and vulnerable to attack from outside the nation as well as within. The best choice for president of the choices offered was Mr. Bush both times. This does not mean that Mr. Bush is the greatest person for the job just the only logical choice of the candidates that wanted the job. Mr. Bush is not a conservative he is a liberal but a liberal that does not waver with the wind. That is someone we need though there are many better people out there.

The democrats got rid of Joe because they wanted to, he was elected with a landslide which means that their choice was not representive of the people of the state. Would that not suggest that their ideas of what is best for the country is not representivie of the nation? The democrat party has no leadership and no national plan other than winning. Mr. Clinton personifies this as while he won election both times he had no plans for running the nation or making improvements to the nation. It is not a hate of the deomcrats it is pitty that a party has no ideas for running a country. You, Sean, are not a democrat so you should see what I mean.

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.

bush does lean liberal but compared to those two stalin was a conservative

and when bush said something he usually stood by it

where is with kerry you know where he stood on an issue. he stood on all sides of it. if there were 5 sides to an issue he stood on all 5 sides, if there were 20 sides to an issue he stood on all 20 sides.

all gore invented the internet when he was in high school nough said

and no i don't think bush was the best man for the job but he was the less of two evils

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.

Paladin77

As usual you do not know what you are talking about. This morning the CEO of EXXON was on CNN and said that oil companies are NOT INTERESTED in building new refineries in the U.S. because we are not increasing domestic crude oil production. If the OIL companies wanted to build refineries their lobby power is so great they could have build refineries in the past. They want to maintain control over the supply so they can spike prices and increase their profits just as they are doing today!

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.

Paladin77


NOTHING you say can change the fact that OIL company profits are going through the roof. This morning on CNN they showed the element that has changed is the Profit and Refining NOT the cost of Crude Oil. If oil companies would increase their retail prices to JUST cover higher crude oil cost, then their profits WOULD NOT be surging. Where did you go to Business School? I suspect you did not graduate from ANY Business School! You clearly show your lack of the most basic understanding of how business operates.

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?

just becouse you say something over and over does not make it correct