Lower Oil Prices Are a Free-Market Victory

[Curmudgeonly]

Actually...the Dumbazz said quite specifically...that road construction JOBS benefit the general public....he said nothing at all about the public benefit of the completed projects...although...as I outlined....there are benefits to the public at large for the completion of both.

 

[phrodeau]

It wasn't hard for most of us to understand what he meant. Funny that.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It wasn't hard for most of us to understand what he meant. Funny that.

Well, he couldn't take issue with what I actually said, so he shuffled things around a bit until he found an angle he could assign me and then take issue with that.

That's what #SchmottGuys do.

 

[Curmudgeonly]

Well, he couldn't take issue with what I actually said, so he shuffled things around a bit until he found an angle he could assign me and then take issue with that.

That's what #SchmottGuys do.

Quoting your words...in the order you typed them....is "shuffling things around?"

I could and I did take issue with what you actually said...if you don't like seeing the derp that consists of the text of your actual words...perhaps you should type something else...

 

[Ishmael]

Quoting your words...in the order you typed them....is "shuffling things around?"

I could and I did take issue with what you actually said...if you don't like seeing the derp that consists of the text of your actual words...perhaps you should type something else...

Isn't fun to watch the ass clowns hang themselves on such simple lead in lines?

And I have another simple question, does that job count take into consideration the people that will be hired to handle the tank farm expansion in OK? Or the manpower required to the increased throughput from the refineries on the TX coast?

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We're all shareholders now...

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You cannot drive much on a public road without affordable fuel.

http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/phillyworks.jpg

 

[phrodeau]

Isn't fun to watch the ass clowns hang themselves on such simple lead in lines?

And I have another simple question, does that job count take into consideration the people that will be hired to handle the tank farm expansion in OK? Or the manpower required to the increased throughput from the refineries on the TX coast?

Ishmael

Does the job count subtract all the OTR haulers and rail workers who wouldn't be needed with a decreased demand?

 

[Que]

Does the job count subtract all the OTR haulers and rail workers who wouldn't be needed with a decreased demand?

An actually valid economic argument. Yes it would.

By the way that number will be nothing close to the 10,000 people with very high paying jobs it will take to construct the thing.

To pretend that an 8 billion dollar construction project is small potatoes to the construction industry is disingenuous. That is why the "no permanent jobs" argument falls so flat.

No job on the planet except lobbyist is forever.

 

[Que]

I apparently said: You cannot DRIVE MUCH on a public road without affordable fuel.

http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/phillyworks.jpg

A) None of those people are "driving" they are "riding" or "cycling." We have different words for different means of locomotion. For example, If I said "I walked" or "I skated to the store," you would not ask me the color of my car. Well, you might, then I would say I have a truck and it would go on for 200 posts.

B) Assuming I simply ignored the disingenuous nature of your pictorial argument and allowed you the "literary" license, there is the problem of the word "much." One can ride a decent distance per day assuming one has little else to do, but few cyclists can keep up with an autovator or a horseless carriage for any length of time.

C) You burn a lot of calories cycling any distance and that fuel is less and less affordable, and the price of food depends very much on the price of fossil fuel.

D) Yes, I realize I am completely wasting keystrokes communicating in your general direction but someone else might find it amusing.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I said: You cannot DRIVE MUCH on a public road without affordable gasoline.



A) None of those people are "driving" they are "riding" or "cycling." We have different words for different means of locomotion. For example, If I said "I walked" or "I skated to the store," you would not ask me the color of my car. Well, you might, then I would say I have a truck and it would go on for 200 posts.

B) Assuming I simply ignored the disingenuous nature of your pictorial argument and allowed you the "literary" license, there is the problem of the word "much." One can ride a decent distance per day assuming one has little else to do, but few cyclists can keep up with an autovator or a horseless carriage for any length of time.

C) Yes, I realize I am completely wasting keystrokes communicating in your general direction but someone else might find it amusing.

What an appropriate post for you to backpedal in.

 

[Que]

What an appropriate post for you to backpedal in.

How is it that every time someone refuses the retarded frame you want to advance for an argument that no one is making they are "backpedaling." Since this is the first you have volleyed in this "argument" how am I "backpedaling" to respond at all?

Are you aware of any 8 billion dollar projects created for the exclusive use of cyclists?

Just because you choose to make an argument does not make it a good one, and my rejecting your tangent is by no means backpedaling. The argument is, (if you care to participate,) that the temporary jobs that involve asphalt benefit society (but not shareholders) and the temporary ones that build a pipeline benefit shareholders, but not society.

Rob assured us this was elementary, so you should be able to jump in in support of his actual, stated thesis, rather than attacking a minor supporting sentence in my rebuttal of his thesis.

By the way that argument is actually a sideshow to the actual argument that building it is pointless because after you spend 8 billion dollars and employ 10,000 highly skilled, highly paid workers, they take their checks and go to some other project and that that is somehow different then all of the other jobs in the construction industry. Roads were but ONE very obvious example. Make it a skyscraper, a bowling alley, a homeless shelter, or a prison. All construction is a temporary assignment. When it is built, you move on,

Bicycles were not under discussion at all.

Do try and keep up, for a change. Tighten that chin-strap, by the way.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

How is it that every time someone refuses the retarded frame you want to advance for an argument that no one is making they are "backpedaling." Since this is the first you have volleyed in this "argument" how am I "backpedaling" to respond at all?

Are you aware of any 8 billion dollar projects created for the exclusive use of cyclists?

Just because you choose to make an argument does not make it a good one, and my rejecting your tangent is by no means backpedaling. The argument is, (if you care to participate,) that the temporary jobs that involve asphalt benefit society (but not shareholders) and the temporary ones that build a pipeline benefit shareholders, but not society.

Rob assured us this was elementary, so you should be able to jump in in support of his actual, stated thesis, rather than attacking a minor supporting sentence in my rebuttal of his thesis.

By the way that argument is actually a sideshow to the actual argument that building it is pointless because after you spend 8 billion dollars and employ 10,000 highly skilled, highly paid workers, they take their checks and go to some other project and that that is somehow different then all of the other jobs in the construction industry. Roads were but ONE very obvious example. Make it a skyscraper, a bowling alley, a homeless shelter, or a prison. All construction is a temporary assignment. When it is built, you move on,

Bicycles were not under discussion at all.

Do try and keep up, for a change. Tighten that chin-strap, by the way.

That's a lot of ascription to cover for the fact that you were wrong. What you said was entirely false. One needs no "fuel" to use a public road.

 

[Que]

That's a lot of ascription to cover for the fact that you were wrong. What you said was entirely false. One needs no "fuel" to use a public road.

So that's "No I do not want to participate in the actual subject under discussion?"

I don't even have to go with:

~Sgt Mushroom Mode~

I really did not say that. Not those words, and what I wrote cannot be interpreted to mean what you say it does.

I said nothing about: strolling, jogging, biking, skateboarding, or merely doing performance art on a public road.

My dad once landed a Piper Comanche on a public highway. Again, not covered by my statement about needing affordable fuel to DRIVE on a public road. If I had said that one cannot use a public road for any purpose without fuel that would have been negated by that landing. He landed because he had a leak and was out of fuel.

To repeat:

"I said you cannot DRIVE much on a public road without affordable fuel."

I said nothing about whether one could drift in a balloon above said public road.

I said nothing at all about any of the many uses one could put a public road to that do not involve fuel.

 

[Que]

Do you do this at work as well? Have entirely different arguments in your head than the actual argument at hand?

I have this image of you housed in a supply closet, out of the way complaining that someone moved your stapler.

 

[Que]

Even if for the sake of discussion, (because I know you love contributing to a good discussion,) you assembled a car from parts brought in by mule train at the very top of a very long grade so that you could to use YOUR words, "use a public road" with no fuel whatsoever?

Guess what?

You still are not driving. We have a useful word in the English language for exactly that type of gravity-fed locomotion. It is called "coasting."

 

[Que]

This is where you go:"I didn't say that! I said nothing about driving; I said, that you said, that you could not use a public road without fuel...and that is totally false!"

 

[Que]

This is where you go:"I didn't say that! I said nothing about driving; I said, that you said, that you could not use a public road without fuel...and that is totally false!"

And then I say:

I never said you couldn't use a public road for any purpose without fuel.

 

[Que]

And then I say:

I never said you couldn't use a public road for any purpose without fuel.

Then you say: "Yes you did!"

...and quote the passage that you previously quoted that doesn't say what you are saying it says.

Repeat as needed.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I apparently said: You cannot DRIVE MUCH on a public road without affordable fuel.



A) None of those people are "driving" they are "riding" or "cycling." We have different words for different means of locomotion. For example, If I said "I walked" or "I skated to the store," you would not ask me the color of my car. Well, you might, then I would say I have a truck and it would go on for 200 posts.

B) Assuming I simply ignored the disingenuous nature of your pictorial argument and allowed you the "literary" license, there is the problem of the word "much." One can ride a decent distance per day assuming one has little else to do, but few cyclists can keep up with an autovator or a horseless carriage for any length of time.

C) You burn a lot of calories cycling any distance and that fuel is less and less affordable, and the price of food depends very much on the price of fossil fuel.

D) Yes, I realize I am completely wasting keystrokes communicating in your general direction but someone else might find it amusing.

Notice that you never see the happy cyclist pics during a downpour or snowstorm?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Does the job count subtract all the OTR haulers and rail workers who wouldn't be needed with a decreased demand?

You left out hazmat workers...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Notice that in order to make a political point, Frodo throws the environmental concerns he has for Glow Ball Warning out the window?

Less trucks and fewer spills are now a bad thing...

Now jobs are of utmost importance.

Just not "those" jobs.

Republican jobs.

Bleah!!!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Notice that you never see the happy cyclist pics during a downpour or snowstorm?

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kuow/files/styles/medium/public/201305/4627952187_19b14e5877.jpg
http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/user/137915/BikingToWork02_e_1008.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Oh great no snowstorm and a 20 page debate over the meaning of the word downpour...




He is persistent and consistent. One-trick Pony remix.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Oh great no snowstorm and a 20 page debate over the meaning of the word downpour...




He is persistent and consistent. One-trick Pony remix.

Unfortunately for you my trick is proving you wrong.