American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=BayBoy;443472]I'd like to finish out my Keystone discussion with the envitable outcome. The Republican controlled House and Senate will pass the bill; President Obama will veto it and the GOP will try to get enough Democrat Senators to override. But they will fall short of the 67 votes needed, and the bill be dead until the next time.[/QUOTE]You may be right, that would be the expected outcome, but I'm not so sure this time. I think you will see more Dems turning on Obama on issues like this that have strong public support because they need to get reelected, Obama doesn't.

The US part of that pipeline isn't going to be built anytime soon. There is simply no money in it at the current price of oil. There is simply no money in fracking unless its tax payer funded and refinanced by junk bonds. Its a bubble. And yes it destroys the environment. The Russians who invented fracking were some thoughtless idiots.

The only people who want the pipeline are frackers and those investing in that ponzi scheme and more so now that the price of oil is so low. If they can skim an extra 4-8 dollars on trasportation costs per barrel, they will jump at the chance. To the detriment of everyone else.

On the flipside, I don't see this pipeline becoming a reality anytime soon, especially with 46 bucks a barrel and with the drone emperor in office.

You've read my posts and you met me at a dinner once, that doesn't mean you know me. You must be delusional. And look back at the thread before telling bold faced lies. I never once quoted or insulted you. You quoted me and implied " jackassery " whatever that term means. So please stop living in a parallel world where everyone is " attacking " you. You started it. And then as most paranoid schizophrenics do you lashed out on some tourette syndrome induced rant about " sucking on mommas teats " " shitting yellow " etc.

You've apparently done this before to other posters and as you said, you will do it again. I'm assuming you're quite old so this should be pretty embarrasing on your part.

And if I ever did meet you at a dinner. I apparently didnt care about the encounter enough to remember it. I've met a few people from the forum at dinners. I only consider a few my friends and worth remembering or even treating with. Get back on your meds and try to stay on topic.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443473][B]I was not nor am I angry. [/B]

I do agree it's not a oneway street and I did not intend to imply it was, but there just seems to be much more of it from the left on this forum. That's just my opinion. I am still allowed to have an opinion aren't I?

It's true I have disputed your post in the past but please show where I attacked you personally. The worst thing I can find that I ever said about you was that you and another member were "birds of a feather" and that the two of you were tag teaming me, both statements were meant to be humorous, and that was after [U]you[/U] suggested I was a liar. You see I debate and dispute post but I don't normally attack the person, [U]but I do however respond to personal attacks with counter attacks, and once you open that door all bets are off.[/U] There is a difference between personal attack and disputing or debating a post.

The three quotes that you quoted are from one post in which I was responding (counter attack) to a personal attack by badman. The dislike between badman and me goes back several years, long before you joined the forum. His most recent claim that I don't know him is wrong as usual, he has over 1500 post, we all know him very well, at least those of us that have been around awhile. Oh BTW I have met him in person as well, we were introduced in a restaurant in BA a few year ago by none other than Jackson himself. He may not have known I was Punter 127 because we were introduced by our real first names only, but considering the number of people who made a point afterwards of tell me he was badman, I suspect he was told who I was as well. Or perhaps there's a medical reason he doesn't remember, it happens.

So unless you can show where I attacked you in the past I suggest we get back to talking about politics.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=BadMan;443476] And look back at the thread before telling bold faced lies. I never once quoted or insulted you. You quoted me and implied " jackassery " whatever that term means. .[/QUOTE]Bullshit!

You started by post this right behind one of my post.

[QUOTE=BadMan;443420]LOL. Sometimes it's better to let people be blissfully ignorant.[/QUOTE]I jokingly followed with this. (Notice it started with "LOL" just as you did.).

[QUOTE=Punter127;443425]LOL, probably best to just ignore jackassery as well.

Have a nice day.[/QUOTE]If you don't know the meaning of jackassery how could you be insulted by it? You then attacked with this.

[QUOTE=BadMan;443426]Don't worry most intelligent people have been ignoring your MSM jackassery for years. Hegelian dialectic trolls. How 1999.

And dont worry anyone who wasnt shorting the CHF had a great day.[/QUOTE]I don't see where I "implied jackassery" anymore then you implied " blissfully ignorant". We've seen your games before, nothing new here.


Btw I'm finished arguing with you, you can have the last insult.

I await the arrival of Dickhead, Moore and hunt99. Exon123 as d'artagnan.

[QUOTE=Doggboy;443479]I await the arrival of Dickhead, Moore and hunt99. Exon123 as d'artagnan.[/QUOTE]The good old days.

Why don't you two give the mudslinging and mutual accusations a well deserved rest?

Tres3.

So back to fracking and the pipeline. Can anybody give some real figures as far as profits in the industry versus debt? Also what is the environmental impact of fracking? And since when did taking the environment into account, when you exploit it, become only the realm of environmentalists?

There is alot of " windbaggery " going on in this thread and posting links to other peoples opinions but very little hard facts being posted or even debated. Hopefully we can get some clarification from the proponents and opponents. It would make it a much more worthwhile discussion. It would make it a real discussion actually.

Here is a simple point I would like someone who knows what they are talking about to refute intelligently, for the year end reports for March 31,2014 for 127 oil companies, cash input for the fracking division was 677 Billion USD while revenue from operations only totalled 568 billion USD. Please explain how this means profitable?

These are solid figures. The only way these companies are able to stay in business is more zero interest loans, paid for by the taxpayers since all printed money gets put on our tab, ie federal income tax. That and junk bonds that only lead to more derivatives. And while everybody was busy demonizing Russia over the Ukraine and we passed the Freedom for Ukraine act. At the same time the government passed the December 14th budget that had a provision that repealed the Lincoln Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act, which protected depositor funds by requiring the largest banks to push out a portion of their derivatives business into non-FDIC-insured subsidiaries.

Thanks to JP Morgan and Co and their paid and bought politicians, the US taxpayers could be on the hook for these oil derivatives when the fracking bubble bursts. And it will burst. That means bank bail ins for the rest of us.

Sleight of hand and misdirection for the masses. And here we are debating a pipeline in a pre planned hegelian dialectic that will lead nowhere except to where those behind the smoke and mirrors want it to.

Good luck drinking the kool aide fellas. Those in the know, know. Those who don't. Well it will be muppet slaughtering time.

[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-30/shale-drillers-feast-on-junk-debt-to-say-on-treadmill.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tres3;443481]Why don't you two give the mudslinging and mutual accusations a well deserved rest?

Tres3.[/QUOTE]I'm not slinging mudd. Someone has a problem controlling their outbursts on the forum. For whatever reason that may be. Its not my problem. The dude wants to spit bile. Let him. The breakdowns are quite entertaining to say the least.

[QUOTE=BadMan;443483]
Here is a simple point I would like someone who knows what they are talking about to refute intelligently, for the year end reports for March 31,2014 for 127 oil companies, cash input for the fracking division was 677 Billion USD while revenue from operations only totalled 568 billion USD. Please explain how this means profitable?[/QUOTE]A lot of the cash spent is for "capital" expenditures so it flows directly to the balance sheet, and does not flow to the income statement. Presumably, the companies are buying some type of asset that has value with that cash and therefore provides some form of collateral for the borrowed cash. It is somewhat akin to you borrowing more than you make to buy a house. Of course that is an oversimplification of a complex issue.

Tres3.

Investing in capex? That is your reasoning why fracking isn't profitable? I haven't seen those figures, have you? Do you know what portion is capex and what portion is opex? And how much just goes to servicing bad debts in order to keep refinancing said bad debts?

Now can your assumtion be verified? And even if it can be, how can a company continue to stay afloat if every year they spend more than they make. 100+ billion more? And im not talking net profit. Im just saying that 100+ billion more goes out than comes in every year.

From what I know of the fracking industry is that most of their money goes into opex. Its extremely expensive to keep drilling hundreds of wells and disposing of all the toxic waste associated with drilling. And every year these wells become less profitable so they have to keep drilling an ever increasing amount of wells. With QE and 100 bucks a barrel they could keep this ponzi scheme going. At 46 a barrel and no QE, I don't see this as a reality.

Can you show a break down of these figures capex opex etc so as to verify the merit of your argument?

[QUOTE=Tres3;443485]A lot of the cash spent is for "capital" expenditures so it flows directly to the balance sheet, and does not flow to the income statement. Presumably, the companies are buying some type of asset that has value with that cash and therefore provides some form of collateral for the borrowed cash. It is somewhat akin to you borrowing more than you make to buy a house. Of course that is an oversimplification of a complex issue.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]

Nothing that happened in 2008 has been fixed. The only difference is, this time it won't be only the housing bubble that bursts but the derivatives in the commodities markets, ie the fracking ponzi scheme and their junk bonds, as well as others. And the tax payers will still have to bail them out. Only now the banks can take the bail out directly from deposits, ie bail ins, FDIC insured my ass.

[URL]http://time.com/3631398/bank-derivatives-swap-congress/[/URL]

Fracking has nothing to do with some stupid pipeline to nowhere. The devil is in the details.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443473][B]I was not nor am I angry. [/B].[/QUOTE]You sure sound angry to me and to others below. Most people who resort to profanity and insults do so when they are angry as in your post. If we were having a face to face discussion and you responded in person the way you do here, my take away would be that you're angry.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443473]

I do agree it's not a oneway street and I did not intend to imply it was, but there just seems to be much more of it from the left on this forum. That's just my opinion. I am still allowed to have an opinion aren't I?].[/QUOTE]The attacks occur on all sides, that you see more from the side you're opposed to has more to do with ideology and that perhaps you see what you want to see.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443473]
It's true I have disputed your post in the past but please show where I attacked you personally. The worst thing I can find that I ever said about you was that you and another member were "birds of a feather" and that the two of you were tag teaming me, both statements were meant to be humorous, and that was after [U]you[/U] suggested I was a liar. You see I debate and dispute post but I don't normally attack the person, [U]but I do however respond to personal attacks with counter attacks, and once you open that door all bets are off.[/U] There is a difference between personal attack and disputing or debating a post.
[/QUOTE]We were having a discussion about your political affiliation. I did not suggest you (personally) were a liar, I said you could not be classified as an independent voter (despite your claim of being registered that way) because you would never vote for a democrat, (a point that you conceded) and offered some facts and a well accepted logical theory which you summarily dismissed as bullshit and elevated the tone of your post with profanity and callous dismissiveness without any insults from me.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443473]
So unless you can show where I attacked you in the past I suggest we get back to talking about politics.[/QUOTE]The post is there for you to see, I won't quote it anymore. You do have this gift of sounding angry when you say you're not and being hypocritical as I pointed out then and in that last post, its similar to what we see in American Politics today.

You guys need to get Laid.

Me Too.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443492]You guys need to get Laid.

Me Too.[/QUOTE]I propose a BDSM session as therapy. And a surrogate for Inadequacy.