President Obama's energy policies result in 5 1/2 year low for oil
- Thread starter RobDownSouth
- Start date
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Here Phrodeau...lemme help. This is from this new year even:
The administration's new exploration policy giving more say to the energy firms about decision about where to explore and the financial decisions that go into that:
Economic Times
That sounds great doesn't it?
The administration's new exploration policy giving more say to the energy firms about decision about where to explore and the financial decisions that go into that:
Economic Times
That sounds great doesn't it?
Adre
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2012
- Posts
- 23,913
Oh, so this is what you meant a few minutes ago when you mentioned Googling for confirmation bias. Thanks for the helpful example.
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,227
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
No...I was helping THEM Google for confirmation bias...they have been trying for a week and have not had any luck.
I am well aware that they have nothing to put in their own words, I thought I would be helpful.
Turns out that, so far, in all of Google there aren't even any Salon Articles or RationalWiki citations claiming that Obama enacted any policies that were intended to or had the effect of increasing oil production.
I'll keep looking...
I am starting to wonder if Robbie has simply imagined a link between as he states "Obama's policies' and the low price of oil.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Ah...so you ARE here reading in ignominious silence. Just waiting for one of what you refer to as your "Bro-Cavalry" to ride to your rescue before chiming in?
Ok...you have our attention.
Explain your reasoning behind your assertion for which you started a thread.
Go on, little Robbie...use your words.
'Pertend it is a Toastmasters speech and the audience is in their underwear.
Adre is here to hold you if you start to cry..
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Well we are a day shy of two weeks since Energy Sector Analyst BobsDownSouth opined:
Since then he is averaging less than a post every other day in his own thread. Has he offered a single word of support for his thesis?
Let's review:
Sounds like a counter argument to me.
Nothing about oil or oil policies...
Ah, yes the whole: "LOOK! I claim a logical fallacy in lieu of actually advancing my argument...I win, I win!"
Ah, "Textbook example." He likes that little canned response. Never having anything to do with a textbook. No evidence he has read a textbook on the subject at hand...
This was, with relief. His compatriots, that he likes to refer to as his "Bro-Cavalry" has, he thinks, ridden to his rescue. He didn't understand the illogic of his OP, but was glad to be bailed out. Since he didn't understand the issue, he didn't understand that the defense was not going to actually defend his thesis. How disappointing that must have been.
What he was ACTUALLY agreeing with was his top Economic Advisor Luke with this gem:
That was him hoping Phrodeau's Ad Hominem would gain some traction and the Bor-Cavalry would return to the battlefield...No such luck it seems.
Dumps off another shop-worn cartoon from the days when he was alleged to be funny. I think he is phoning it in at this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost two weeks. Not one single word uttered to explain the position he has taken.
President Obama's energy policies result in 5 1/2 year low for oil
The foresight and leadership of President Obama has resulted in $57 a barrel oil prices.
This is great news for America!
Since then he is averaging less than a post every other day in his own thread. Has he offered a single word of support for his thesis?
Let's review:
Sounds like a counter argument to me.
Nothing about oil or oil policies...
Ah, yes the whole: "LOOK! I claim a logical fallacy in lieu of actually advancing my argument...I win, I win!"
Ah, "Textbook example." He likes that little canned response. Never having anything to do with a textbook. No evidence he has read a textbook on the subject at hand...
This was, with relief. His compatriots, that he likes to refer to as his "Bro-Cavalry" has, he thinks, ridden to his rescue. He didn't understand the illogic of his OP, but was glad to be bailed out. Since he didn't understand the issue, he didn't understand that the defense was not going to actually defend his thesis. How disappointing that must have been.
What he was ACTUALLY agreeing with was his top Economic Advisor Luke with this gem:
That was him hoping Phrodeau's Ad Hominem would gain some traction and the Bor-Cavalry would return to the battlefield...No such luck it seems.
Dumps off another shop-worn cartoon from the days when he was alleged to be funny. I think he is phoning it in at this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost two weeks. Not one single word uttered to explain the position he has taken.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
I think, you might have called it.
In 13 hours it will have been two weeks. Is it possible that he had no idea what he was talking about?
Maybe if he and Mr. Google burn the midnight oil he can come up with someone, anyone that agrees with his thesis.
You can usually count on Slate, Salon, or Mother Jones to support any ridiculous position you can think of to either support or defend Obama. Apparently Otiose has come up with something that none of those people have yet thought of. Maybe he should write for them. He would be good at it, except for writing part after the headline.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Two weeks is nuthin
I been waitin since 2004 when I first axed him to explain 2 of his deliberate misleading comments
His whole persona is weird. Not hard to understand weird, because he tells you all his hopes and fears with all of the projection he does.
I mean weird in that he goes all in on things you know he doesn't give a shit about in real life. Things he has obviously never read about, and knows only the barest of tweets.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Sure have a lot to say, don't you? But not word one about any policies that curtailed oil production.
Would you care to admit that Obama's policies made no difference one way or the other? It seems like you're giving up on making any other point.
Would you care to admit that Obama's policies made no difference one way or the other? It seems like you're giving up on making any other point.
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,227
He seems rather enamored of the sound of his own voice.
Poor query.....he tries sooo very hard.
U
unregistered
Guest
NeverEndingMe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Posts
- 15,925
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
I absolutely concur that Obama's policies made no positive difference and I assert that the negative differences such as closing a lot of acreage to drilling and slow-walking permits ether have not yet had an effect or was more than made up by the surge in the privately held lands for which he had no control or influence over. That does not in anyway make them pro-production policies.
But that is not the thesis Robbie is defending.
Care to look at the top of the page?
He is saying that policies of the Obama Administration were designed for and had the effect of increasing oil production, when that is patently false.
Do try and follow along. This is Robbie's thread, Robbie's indefensible premise. The fact that he cannot defend it and hasn't the balls to say so amuses me.
If he wanted to backpedal and say that the administration did no harm, fine.
If he wanted to embroider and speculate that the Obama administration had their pulse on the industry and knew that (with what was coming on-line) we would be awash in oil from private lands so that he could safely curtail (2/3?*) of the permits on public lands to no net negative effect, and that further, it was only done to appease greenies like you...it is at least a position not one I buy, but at least it has a logical flow to it.
Saying that Obama had a single pro-production policy in place or action taken as he has asserted with this thread is nonsense.
*I don't know the number offhand, and it doesn't matter, it was not MOAR is the point.
Last edited:
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
So you talk into your mouse like Scotty?
I sometimes post to disastrous effect using voice to text, but I rarely give voice to my thoughts out-loud. Is that what you mean by "excellence in elocution?"
Because one is not performing an elocution excellently or poorly when one is typing unless one is using voice to text and once it is rendered into text no elocution is extant any longer.
I also don't move my lips when I read.
It is true that I have contributed far more in the way of thoughts to the thread then you have, but I have uploaded no audio. Sorry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what about it? You going to try Phrodeau's fig-leaf on for size? I can't imagine you have much to hide.
Try it! Repeat after me:
"Obama's energy policies had fuck-all to do with the level of US domestic oil production."
MUCH better "elocution" isn't it?...now...Type that and make your ignominious retreat
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
The thread title is "President Obama's energy policies result in 5 1/2 year low for oil". The first post is "The foresight and leadership of President Obama has resulted in $57 a barrel oil prices. This is great news for America!
" Where does he say that policies were designed for increasing production? Whose premise would it be, if you're the one who made it up?On the other hand, you made an assertion that there are "state policies that have the effect of curtailing production" without providing any evidence, then ask which ones were reversed. That may be a defensible premise, but you haven't done it yet.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
The thread title is "President Obama's energy policies result in 5 1/2 year low for oil". The first post is "The foresight and leadership of President Obama has resulted in $57 a barrel oil prices. This is great news for America!
On the other hand, you made an assertion that there are "state policies that have the effect of curtailing production" without providing any evidence, then ask which ones were reversed. That may be a defensible premise, but you haven't done it yet.
WHAT fucking direction would production HAVE to be in order for the FUCKING price to go DOWN?
If Obama is to get the fucking CREDIT his POLICIES would have to have influenced the increased production.
If fucking a = fucking b and b = fucking c than fucking a= FUCKING C.
Is there some OTHER factor other than INCREASED PRODUCTION that you can point to that could POSSIBLY have resulted in the precipitous drop in prices?????
You are starting to sound like Sgt Mushroom. I always assumed you were related.
FUCKING ROB has not even uttered one FUCKING WORD in defense of HIS FUCKING thesis and it is my job to prove the obverse when he JUST complained tonight that I cannot use an opposing example to make an argument???
Do YOU, Phrodeaux HONESTLY believe that ANY fucking thing the administration did lowered the price ONE FUCKING DOLLAR?
REALLY???????????????????
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
That's what happens when he attributes positions to others that he can't support.
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,227
He does it so often I don't think he even realizes he's doing it anymore. It's literally second nature to him. I've noticed more and more of the non-political folks on the GB taking issue with him doing that.
Poor query...he tries so hard....he fails so often.
