August 1, 2008

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House, turned off the lights and killed the microphones..."

"... but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices....

I'm picturing Nancy Pelosi like Bill O'Reilly, yelling "cut the mike" and "shut up":

63 comments:

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quayle said...

So I say A is true, and the other guys says B is true. Then the other guy calls me a jerk, then I call him a bigger jerk. The he says I want to kill children and old people, and I tell him that he is unAmerican. Then I tell the other guy to shut up, then he tells me to shut up, then I say "shut up" louder. Then he really said it loud and repeats it. Then I say shut up louder than everyone. Then he holds his hand over his ears, and says na-na-na-na-na.

And this is how our great leaders lead. This passes for intelligent public discourse, these days.

Everyone of them is so smart, but none of them are able to stand in a face to face debate and reason with logic and class.

So I say, throw all the bums out - each and every last one of them, R or D, it doesn't matter.

Having to listen to their pride and hubris is killing our brain cells.

blake said...

You know, Quayle, I wouldn't disagree except in this case, it's:

"Let's drill."
"Shut up.
"Let's drill."
"Shut up.
"Let's drill."
"Shut up.
"Let's drill."
"Shut up.

One of these is at least a position.

Revenant said...

I wish our Congress was more like the British Parliament sometimes. They're much more open in their partisan antics over there; it is refreshing to watch. The usual American kabuki dance of acting like dicks while pretending not to is tiring.

P. Rich said...

revenant said: The usual American kabuki dance of acting like dicks while pretending not to is tiring.

Or in the case of Pelosi, acting like a...?

garage mahal said...

Turn out the lights and kill the microphones on Republicans. Sounds like a plan.

EnigmatiCore said...

"Let's drill."
"Shut up.

Someone was listening to me pleading with Mrs.Core last night, I see.

Simon said...

I like Mike Pence's plan, personally - if the Speaker won't, have the President convene Congress. Now doesn't that raise a host of interesting conlaw questions!

ricpic said...

The bitch needs impeaching.

AllenS said...

Republicans: "They turned out the lights!"

Democrats: "We were just trying to save energy!"

Simon said...

RicPic - you think Pelosi is impeachable? What authority do you have for that proposition? Members of Congress clearly aren't officers of the United States - see part I of this post. Even if that weren't intractable, why would it be necessary to impeach a Speaker given that a majority of the House would suffice to remove the Speaker while the same majority and a supermajority of the Senate would be needed for impeachment.

ricpic said...

Okay, then remove the bitch.

rhhardin said...

She's just being a Democrat, just a little inartfully, is all.

1jpb said...

Hotair (if I recall correctly) had two funny details:

1) The Republicans stayed even after the visitors left (after 4:30.)

2) One of the Republicans pretended to be a D on the D side of the isle, with all sorts of comedy.

Funny stuff.

But, BHO has opened the door for offshore drilling, so this over-hyped, but visceral and effective, wedge issue is likely to loose it's luster.

Simon said...

ricpic said...
"Okay, then remove the bitch."

How do you propose to do that when the Dems are in a majority and she represents a safe district? Best get used to having Nancy to kick around. The only way she leaves office, seems to me, is when she gets promoted or when her caucus gets sick of her. It sure as hell won't be because we've taken back a majority in the House.

1jpb said...
"[Obama] has opened the door for offshore drilling, so this over-hyped, but visceral and effective, wedge issue is likely to loose it's luster."

I'm sorry, there must be a news story I've missed - Obama has come out for drilling?

Revenant said...

But, BHO has opened the door for offshore drilling, so this over-hyped

Well, he was still opposed to offshore drilling when they started doing it. It is hard enough keeping track of Obama's position changes *after* he's made them, let alone beforehand. :)

Seriously, though, Obama was careful to word his newly discovered "openness" to drilling in a weasely enough manner to give him room to reject all new drilling. So there isn't actually a change here.

Hoosier Daddy said...

garage mahal said Turn out the lights and kill the microphones on Republicans. Sounds like a plan.

Sure does garage. It's about as good as the one General Custer had.
In the meantime, what's a gallon of unleaded in your town?

AllenS said...

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

garage mahal said...

In the meantime, what's a gallon of unleaded in your town?

$3.97

We need another Democrat in the Whitehouse, doncha think? Remember $1.47 before the two oil men came to power?

1jpb said...

Funny, some are ready to go with the BHO as flip flopper stuff.

Another excellent opportunity to compare the treatment of our two candidates. Poor McCain, always victimized, if it's not the unfair media, it's reverse racism.

MadisonMan said...

Hoosier, congress has had decades to get a good energy policy together. Why'd it wait 'til now? Throw all the bums out.

If only we'd listened to Carter's malaise speech instead of ridiculing it. We could be pumping oil shale now.

EnigmatiCore said...

AllenS, but Obama has always said that. His position is totally unchanged from what it has always been.

Hoosier Daddy said...

So there isn't actually a change here.

But there's still HOPE.

Revenant said...

"Okay, then remove the bitch."

How do you propose to do that when the Dems are in a majority and she represents a safe district?

More importantly -- *why* do it? Under her leadership the approval ratings of Congress have descended to their lowest point in recorded history. Even if it was possible to sack Pelosi, we would run the risk of the Democrats nominating someone competent. Don't interrupt an enemy while he's making a mistake, as the saying goes.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier, congress has had decades to get a good energy policy together. Why'd it wait 'til now? Throw all the bums out.

Good question

If only we'd listened to Carter's malaise speech instead of ridiculing it. We could be pumping oil shale now.

Really? Well if memory serves, Carter was a Democrat and pretty much had a huge Democratic majority in Congress. Seems to me if he wanted to get it done he had the votes to do it.

Then again it was Carter so....

Revenant said...

Funny, some are ready to go with the BHO as flip flopper stuff. Another excellent opportunity to compare the treatment of our two candidates.

The reason the Obama campaign is reluctant to accuse McCain of being a flip-flopper is that the old positions McCain has flipped on are the same positions the Republican base hated him for: support for illegal immigration, opposition to tax cuts, opposition to the religious right, etc.

The last thing Obama wants is for those core Republicans to start thinking "gee, maybe McCain really HAS changed his mind on immigration". The storyline Obama is running with is that McCain is exactly like George Bush and hasn't had a new idea in decades. The press is sticking to that storyline as well.

Hoosier Daddy said...

We need another Democrat in the Whitehouse, doncha think? Remember $1.47 before the two oil men came to power?

You're right. Who would have thunk Bill Clinton was responsible for low oil prices.

You crack me up garage. A true party man. I remember when you had your nose buried so far up Hillary's cootch you only came up for air long enough to throw poo at Obama. Now, he's the answer to $1.47 gal gas, a revitalized America and probably a cure for male pattern baldness.

Bruce Hayden said...

Following the comments on this was a lot of fun. The Republicans in the House seemed to enjoy this a lot. The Democrats turned off the lights and mics twice, and made sure that C-SPAN couldn't show it either.

Apparently, they quit around 5 pm with a lot of hugs all around.

Oh, and you can't impeach Senators or Representatives, nor can you recall them (and as we found out in Colorado, term limits don't apply either).

Bruce Hayden said...

At least drilling is part of a plan. Taxing the (domestic) oil companies to subsidize the travel by the poor is not a viable plan. All it would do would be drive up prices at the pump, and cost everyone more money. Nothing else that Pelosi, et al. have proposed is likely to work any better. I am sure that she would back throwing some of those oil execs in jail too - which at least wouldn't cause oil prices to go up like the Democrats' redistribution plan would.

Revenant said...

At least drilling is part of a plan. Taxing the (domestic) oil companies to subsidize the travel by the poor is not a viable plan.

The plan to give everyone a bag of money and make oil companies pay for it kind of pathetic, yeah (one wonders what's to stop the companies from passing the taxes on to the consumer). But my favorite bit is how Obama promises his $50 billion stimulus package will "save 1 million jobs".

Let's assume that (a) we're in danger of losing a million jobs and (b) the stimulus package will prevent this. That's $50,000 per job. The median salary in America is about $26,000. This is an excellent example of what libertarians mean when they point out that the government can't do anything efficiently. :)

Hoosier Daddy said...

That's $50,000 per job. The median salary in America is about $26,000. This is an excellent example of what libertarians mean when they point out that the government can't do anything efficiently. :)

Well all one has to do is look at public housing and to see the government can't even be a decent landlord. But you remind me of this quote.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

Obama's plan will work just dandy until they run out of other people's money.

garage mahal said...

Hoosier
It's called hyperbole. See when I see the Black Messiah Black Hitler Marxist posts, I like to join in the fun. Like I said earlier, I get a kick out of Republican arguments, the chutzpah is impressive. But I know you don't really believe if Exxon is given more leases than the thousands they already have that have gone completely unexplored, that they will pass on the savings to you, Joe Consumer.

EnigmatiCore said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Simon said...

Question for Garage (or for anyone else): are there any studies you know of that show oil company profit per gallon tracked over the last, say, couple of decades? It'd be really interesting to look at that figure, because just pointing to overall revenue or profit doesn't tell the picture (the former doesn't account for costs and the latter doesn't account for changes in sales).

Hoosier Daddy said...

It's called hyperbole.

Oh so you were in the tank for him the whole time.

But I know you don't really believe if Exxon is given more leases than the thousands they already have that have gone completely unexplored, that they will pass on the savings to you, Joe Consumer.

Oh no of course not because we all know that the laws of supply and demand have no effect on Exxon.

Seven Machos said...

It actually is unclear to me how oil companies are making these record profits. Presumably, the costs to bring the product to the market haven't changed. The only thing that has changed is the price to obtain the product at the very beginning, and the oil companies are paying higher prices to the original owners of the oil.

I'm not against the oil companies and I certainly know it's absurd to tax them, which would drive prices up even more.

Anyway, there is a flaw in my understanding of this market, obviously. What is it>

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Ummm ...I think that they (in the big and creepy paranoid sense) have turned off more than just the lights. Using Internet Explorer, ( I'm using FireFox right now so I can get on the internet) I am unable to access most of the political and high traffic sites that I normally look at. Althouse, Instapundit, Drudge, Powerline, Malkin, Rachel Lucas. among others. Same difficulties with my husband and his laptop when using IE which is not linked to my computer at all.

I have no problem accessing while using IE, lesser traffic sites that really no one cares about like food and hobby things and boo hoo my own web site. LOL My Internet Explorer worked just fine this morning.

However, I can access all of these with Firefox. I suspect a huge virus on Internet Explorer to prevent us from sharing information on this latest rebellion. You know that the MSM is covering it up faster than a cat covering scat in a litterbox. I doubt that there is suddenly such a rush of traffic to those particular political sites that causes IE crashes. We had lots of traffic during 911 and the Kerry Swift Boat issues. Why suddenly now???


Paranoid??....maybe.....maybe not.

Anyone else having problems?

Revenant said...

But I know you don't really believe if Exxon is given more leases than the thousands they already have that have gone completely unexplored, that they will pass on the savings to you, Joe Consumer.

Good point. Just because the law of supply and demand has always been true doesn't mean it will still be true tomorrow!

People really should be required to pass a basic economics test before they're allowed to vote. It is simple, really: if the amount of oil people were willing to buy at current prices was greater than the amount of oil currently available, OIL COMPANIES WOULD RAISE PRICES until the amount of oil people wanted to buy equaled the amount of oil available for them to buy. Your theory that oil companies will continue to sell oil for the same price even if more oil becomes available is true if and ONLY if oil companies are currently selling oil for less than they could get away with.

Simply put, garage, your "oil companies won't lower their prices" theory can be true only if you believe that oil companies are currently being nice enough to not charge you as much as they could. Because, presumably, they don't like making as much money as they can. Maybe I'm hopelessly cynical, but I just don't agree with your Philanthropic Oil Executive Theory.

blake said...

We need another Democrat in the Whitehouse, doncha think? Remember $1.47 before the two oil men came to power?

The two oil men? Gas was under a buck during Desert Storm! Why didn't Bush I drive up prices?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Surprise! I can use IE to look at Daily Kos, Huffinton Post. No problemo.

Oooh.. I feel the cold clammy hand of Big Brother.

Tell me I'm the only one. Please.

Pogo said...

I'm with Revenant on this one.

Screw the poll tax or literacy tests. If voters or candidates cannot correctly answer a simple question on economics, they should not be able to vote or run.

Any candidate who uses the phrase "price gouger" or "windfall profits" should automatically be disqualified from holding office for being far, far too stupid to be allowed around legislative machinery.

blake said...

It actually is unclear to me how oil companies are making these record profits. Presumably, the costs to bring the product to the market haven't changed. The only thing that has changed is the price to obtain the product at the very beginning, and the oil companies are paying higher prices to the original owners of the oil.

Let's say it costs 50 cents a gallon to supply and they charge a dollar. If they sell 1,000 gallons they make $500.

Now let's say there's 100% inflation, and it costs $1 a gallon to supply and they charge two dollars. Now they're making $1,000 on that same $1,000 gallons: Voila! Record profits!

Hollywood does the same thing, deliberately. Somehow it's good when Hollywood does it but not when oil companies do it.

That doesn't even count the relative change of the dollar, which is a big part of why gas has gone up.

1jpb said...

Revenant,

I believe that the BHO campaign isn't as sleazy as the folks running the McCain campaign, so they are more reluctant to get in the gutter. Make no mistake, BHO plays hardball, as his record shows. But he's not yet willing to do the stuff where you feel like your selling your soul to the devil.

McCain's first comments as he was playing the race victim were cringe-worthy to watch, he didn't look like he personally wanted to be doing this low road stuff. But, he did get more comfortable for the followup repetition--it will be interesting to see what kind of person he will be in a few months.

Now he's proud of his new ads--apparently truthfulness (as he was called out by media fact checkers) is not important to him. Romney may be thinking that McCain's getting away with lying about him was just the warm up for BHO. Hopefully, BHO won't respond by acting like an upset little boy, the way Romney did.


garage,

Good point.

R's are often certain of the evil nature of individuals and government. But, supposedly regulation of corporations is bad. We are to believe that corporations (which are run by individuals) are benevolent, unlike individuals and government (that individuals chose.) We are to believe that corps don't hit up the government, and do it better than the masses.

hoosier (and other smug repeaters),

"the law of supply and demand"

That's a good one.

Peter Voser, finance director of Shell disagrees.

And presumably you don't think that the (NYMEX) not having (CFTC) enforced margin requirements is a factor. (I will acknowledge that the speculators could move to foriegn markets if we had tough margin requirements, but that doesn't mean this isn't a serious factor in the pricing, it just means it could be hard to control.)

And, in 2005 the IMF noted: "Recent entrants to energy markets (for example, pension and hedge funds) have added diversity to the market and can be a source of liquidity and price discovery...While the new investors could be instrumental in translating expected future fundamentals into current prices, excessive activity based on limited information may lead to a disconnect between the futures and physical markets. In particular, excessive activity by newcomers or herd behavior by investors may exaggerate the impact of concerns about current and future supply conditions at all points along the futures curve, including spot prices. Given that only about 5 percent of futures contracts are ever delivered as a physical product, increased uncertainty can encourage speculative behavior in the futures market. This, in turn, may push up futures prices beyond that warranted by future market fundamentals."

What has oil done since 2005? Maybe that IMF was on to something. Actually, maybe the big money in the world figured this out too. Ya think?

I'm just saying, this is a little more complicated simply supply and demand.

The stupid R spectacle in the House may make some R supporters here feel like they scored a victory, but you could not be more wrong. We need serious people running our country. These and McCain's antics are what's wrong with our government. Some of you seem smart enough to get it, but...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

No one ever mentions the amount of taxes that the oil companies pay. If these profit figures are EBITDA, as I suspect they are then we need to deduct at least 50% from those profit figures.

Besides, what's so horrible about making profits, especially if you are a shareholder in the company. About 90% of the people in the United States who have a mutual fund, pension plan or retirment funded by the Government own these stocks.

Sheesh. Let's just shoot ourselves in the foot why don't we?

blake said...

DBQ--

Oh, my God! That's so freaky! I don't use IE so I didn't notice; also I'm unlikely to pick up any sort of virus since I never use it. (And I don't get e-mail on this machine.)

But if I go to michellemalkin.com, the page loads, then IE pops up "Operation aborted" and unloads it! Same for Ae of Spades HQ!

But, wait, LGF loads fine. Jawa Report aborts... Trying to think of more conservative sites...instapundit aborts...Althouse aborts...

Huffington Post loads...Daily Kos loads...Crooked Timber Loads...

but wait...Liberal Values aborts

Truth Laid Bear aborts...

weird.

Glad I don't use IE.

EnigmatiCore said...

'I believe that the BHO campaign isn't as sleazy as the folks running the McCain campaign'

Let me guess. Your belief comes from a dispassionate view of the facts and is completely not because your political views would be more in line with a liberal Democrat than a conservative Republican, and any alignment there is nothing but a happy coincidence, right?

Partisans, both sides of the aisle, are sooooo boringly predictable and selectively sanctimonious.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Blake: I had no problems this morning at my home computer where I am now accessing those sites. At work, I have a different computer and have to use IE for my broker dealer's compatability. I had zero problems there and knocked off work about 3pm.

I thought I would cruise and see what's up with the Republican revolt and found that most of the "conservative" websites that I look at were suddenly blocked. However in Firefox..no problem. I haven't been on "this" computer since 9am and suddenly, whamo can't look at certain places on the net.

Weird and scary, people. The internet is our main means of communication and information. Do an Iran on it, shutting down satellite reception and we are screwed. Do we want to rely on the alphabet networks and the government via Nancy Pelosi to give us information??

Hoosier Daddy said...

Ummm ...I think that they (in the big and creepy paranoid sense) have turned off more than just the lights. Using Internet Explorer, ( I'm using FireFox right now so I can get on the internet)

Same here. I can only access Althouse's site on Firefox.

I blame Bush

Hoosier Daddy said...

hoosier (and other smug repeaters),

Go take Econ 101 and then get back to me.

Until then go fuck yourself.

That's me being smug.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Ok...paranoia put on low mode now .aaaand I'm putting down the scotch :-)

via Instapundit Site meter is the culprit. Ann: you should take site meter off of your web for now.

But....it is never too soon to be careful...(looks around the corners suspiciously... feeling foolish...well sort of...but not completely...paranoia is part of survival 101)

The upside is that I'm really liking Foxfire now and may never go back to the dark side.

Back to the topic. Nancy Pelosi killed the ability of the entire House of Representatives to vote on a bill that most likely had enough votes to carry it forward and that was of vital importance to our economy and national security. Why? Do we need to ask ourselves.?

The fact that the House of Representatives seems to be accomplishing nothing and blocking the voting on anything shouldn't be just problematic, business as usual. If the vote is NO....fine. If the vote is YES...fine. Aren't these 'people' ( I want to say clowns) supposed to vote for their constituents? Do we pay them to sit on their thumbs and jerk off. It seems so.

I'm glad to see that the Republicans have finally grown some gonads. I hope that they keep this up. No pun intended :-)

1jpb said...

Enigmaticore,

Your right my view is based on my imagination and my love of D party philosophy. You showed me.

Hoosier,

The problem is that I went way beyond Econ 101. But now I know your mindset, not that there was any doubt.

You sure are smart to resist learning beyond simplistic concepts. You showed me.

1jpb said...

you're not your

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Quite a bit of the current price of oil, not to mention corn and other commodities is based on futures and options trading.

If the futures traders think that in 2010 there will be more of the commodity they will bid low. If they think the opposite, they will bid high. There is always the opposite (contrarian) bidder on each contract. Someone has to deliver the commodity buy or sell at the future contract price. Some people are long on the contract (they own the actual commodity) others are short (don't own the commodity and are bidding) When there are more high bidders (think that the commodity is going to be going up because supply is down and they are long) then the price currently can reflect that future.

If we think that there will be more supply (The congress finally gets off their asses and lets us produce) the futures will go down and the result will be seen at the consumer level within a very short time.

Of course when I'm doing this stuff on my small level, we close out the options when we have a sight profit, since none of us own a bunch of real commodities to sell or want to own a bunch of the actual commodity. When you do this on a mega level and actually own the commodity or have the cojones to be able to buy the commodity as the big traders do, this is what sways the market price......all based on future guesses.

If the US would become a producer instead of a consumer, or even seriously HINT at becoming a producer, you can expect oil prices to drop soon, and prices at the consumer level to drop not much after that.

Revenant said...

I believe that the BHO campaign isn't as sleazy as the folks running the McCain campaign

I am, of course, deeply shocked to hear that a candidate's partisan supporter believes the opposing candidate's campaign is sleazier. I mean, sure, that's been the case for the last fifty-two Presidential elections, but I really thought this time it would be different.

But he's not yet willing to do the stuff where you feel like your selling your soul to the devil.

He sold out his own grandmother in order to deflect criticism of his membership in a racist organization. The notion that he's maintaining some sort of moral or ethical standard in this campaign is pretty ridiculous. He'd be hard pressed to get any sleazier without pimping his daughters out to Mel Reynolds or something.

Revenant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

The problem is that I went way beyond Econ 101.

I doubt it. There are no economists who think price caps -- i.e., "windfall profits taxes" -- work.

EnigmatiCore said...

"Your right my view is based on my imagination and my love of D party philosophy. You showed me."

Right back at ya, toots! What an overwhelmingly persuasive refutation you provided! That is sure to make everyone lose any doubt that you think Republicans are more likely to be dishonest because you prefer the policies of Democrats. Well done!

knox said...

garage mahal said Turn out the lights and kill the microphones on Republicans. Sounds like a plan.

and people on the right are supposed to be the fascists.

knox said...

R's are often certain of the evil nature of individuals and government. But, supposedly regulation of corporations is bad. We are to believe that corporations (which are run by individuals) are benevolent, unlike individuals and government (that individuals chose.) We are to believe that corps don't hit up the government, and do it better than the masses.

No conservative I know thinks corporations are "benevolent". You grossly misunderstand the conservative perspective on the free market. Or else you are deliberately misrepresenting it.

The Drill SGT said...

It actually is unclear to me how oil companies are making these record profits.

let me add to what Blake said:

1. His example was basicly inflation.

2. you also have the devalued dollar issue (caused in no small part 700 billion going to oil countries each year.). Oil is priced in dollars. If the dollar looses half its value compared to gold, the Euro, etc, then it takes twice the dollars to buy a barrel of oil, thus the price appears to rise and profits appear to rise as well.

3. finally, oil companies have some oil inventory of their own, beyond being processors of Saudi oil. thus a barrel taken from Kern County CA that cost 20/bl to extract made 20 dollars when the price was 40/barrel and makes lots more when the price goes to 120/bl

DBQ, I had IE issues at althouse as well

bearbee said...

I've been interested and listening/reading about peak oil for 6 yrs or so. Always amazed and angered by the stupidity of the derelict Congress and media.

Here is another Peak Oil audio.

It won't have you smiling.

The Exalted said...

obama's campaign has been sleazy?

compared to the campaigns i've followed over the last 20 years he's compored himself like bambi.

were you alive in 2004? 2000?

do you believe the crap you spew or ...?

blake said...

I have a friend who actually treats "peak oil blues".

To which I say "Hokum!" (I'm saying that because "Bullshit!" sounds rude.)

It's another myth we've grown up with--or at least I grew up with--that oil is a "fossil fuel". Anyone remember those (Chevron?) commercials where they're trying to find oil and the dinosaur keeps moving around to elude them?

It's just a theory. And it may be partly true, though I've seen some debunkings of it.

Another theory holds that the earth makes it, as a natural byproduct of chemical reactions in the earth. This would probably explain fields refilling better than the organic theory.

"Peak oil" reminds me of those arguments about us running out of natural resources that various pundits lots bets on back in the '80s and '90s.