Archives

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.

The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow.

reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWAT00953020080520?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

What we are going to sue someone because they will not sell us their products at a price we want to pay.
Hey I want to buy a $500K house for $100K.
I guess I'll sue the owners under U.S. anti trust laws because they and the rest of the neighbors will not sell me their homes for what I want to pay. :eek:

The other thing is jurisdiction. After all, they are sovereign counties.

They'll probably just pass the costs on to the customers.... :rolleyes:

... wait...

that's us! :eek:

It's a shame that most people don't realize how much power we could actually have over prices if everyone would do something as unbelievable crazy and difficult such as .....
Slow down to the speed limit (or less)?

Imagine what the oil companies would do if demand went down 10-20% or more virtually overnight?

Then I suppose the government would LET them sue us for not buying as much as they want us to....

For more than a couple of moments, I thought this was from www.theonion.com (http://www.theonion.com) ... this really would not happen ... :eek:

U. S. A. TEACHING FREEDOM TO THE WORLD !!!

Glad to see that the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation ruling over what other countries do with their free market. I hope this would show some of the clueless people living here what a bunch of ignorant, ethnocentric and self centered ******* are running this country.

I love the comment about suing to buy houses at 100K... hahaha ...

C'mon these are the leaders of the freeworld!!!
"God bless the USA and nobody else"Chris Rock.

Good God Almighty! Can they really be that ignorant? Its hard to believe that someone who can find the button (to vote with) could actually vote for something like this. The problem is not OPEC, the problem is government. Oh, at the moment ours seems to be really bad but if you look around and wait a bit, other govmoronvents will surface. Face it people, the energy and intelligence of politicians is *WASTED* on getting elected. They put so much into *THAT* single thing that there is nothing left to solve problems with.

The sum total of accomplishments of most elected officials amounts to this:

1. Get elected.
2. Raise taxes.
3. Accept bribes for favorable votes.

#3 doesn't usually show up unless they are sloppy.

"Scotty, beam me up! I've spent enough time in the capitol city of Planet Stupid."

This stuff doesn't surprise me a bit.
Imagine if congress were required to follow the same laws and practices which private business follow. Enron scandals would be insignificant in comparison.

Our wonderful do-nothing congress wants "Windfall profits" Federal investigations regarding big oil.
LOL.
About $0.29 of the price of a gallon goes to "Big oil costs and profits" while $0.66 is collected by government. Producers like OPEC pockets the rest.
Oil companies spend money on researching, finding, drilling and processing crude. Government just collects taxes on their work.

$0.29 vs $0.66.
Who gets the "Windfall profits?"

Perhaps a "Windfall profit tax" is in order? If you think that $0.66 is put back into a road repair/construction safe box then think again. Guess where government gas profits really go? Hint:
US is almost 10,000,000,000,000 in debt. ( and growing )
Regarding this 10 trillion debt:
No wonder we don't hear any details about this in any candidate's aggressive spending plans.

Like I said, Enron is insignificant.

-Steve

Sad thing is they keep getting re-elected.

I suppose it's another feel-good gesture to an electorate that feels it is entitled to cheap gas. It is an election year if you haven't noticed.

I think it's one of those bills that most of them secretly wish would die but they don't dare be on record being against it.

My mom sent along an interesting article, from someone writing a
piece in "The American Rationalist". The author describes a
resolution to never vote again, and try to become slightly less
of a pawn in a broken, corrupt system that is 100% run by oil
interests colluding with Christianity Inc. as a completely
for-profit venture, at the expense of millions of lives overseas
from direct and indirect causes. Pretty much brings home how
I've thought about it for years now.
.
Upon further reflection, even if I was inclined to vote, I would
not support anyone who couldn't keep church and state separate
like they're supposed to. But they all mouth the same canned
platitudes about god and "our prayers" and the like, and this has
clarified my decision that anyone who subscribes to any faith-
based religion is incapable of rational thought and therefore
UNFIT as a leader. It completely clouds the whole issue and makes
a total laughing stock out of our entire political process.
.
If the human race didn't spend so much time worrying about whose
ephemeral deity can beat up who else's ephemeral deity, we would
all be so much farther along. It's DISGUSTING. It is high time
for the world to be so OVER that nonsense.
.
_H*

Hobbit, that is a bit heavy on the religious criticism. I will agree that religion and state need to be careful about boundaries -- boundaries which should be largely based on respect. To state that religious people are incapable of rigorous and rational thought is entirely unfounded and rather more inflammatory than you really ought to be if you wish to make a point.

"Dueling deities" is indeed a silly thing to have in the middle of politics but you engage in petty profiling which is just as destructive if you stoop to "People who gots religeon are dern fools and shuud go away!"

You are certainly entitled to your opinions and I will definitely agree that there is a lot more conflict over religious concepts than there should be (respect, again), but please refrain from aspersions. It doesn't help. Pointing out a problem and categorizing are different activities.

Thank you, Sean. You said that much more eloquently than I ever would have. I agree entirely.

But if the two aspects -- religion and rationalism -- are at
such complete odds, never mind the political implications, how
am I supposed to resolve that? Sorry, I realize it's a bit
heavy but the article really brought out several poignant and
downright unexplainable points.
.
I'm all for humanist unity and working toward common causes, I
just don't like seeing it all so ... clouded.
.
Edit: There's a much longer running thread on religion over in
Priuschat, entitled "Religion". Suggest y'all check it out.
.
_H*

I had a nice long post but written then I remembered a saying from a previous job:
"Never argue with a procedure writer, you'll only get frustrated and soon realize the procedure writer enjoys it" :rolleyes:

The article was merely the House pretending to do something in a pathetic way.

That seems to be something we can all agree on and take a pass on the latter part of this thread.

Al, I can understand your conundrum and I sympathize. All I can tell you is that from the standpoint of someone who was trained in Physics, science and religion have two different questions to answer. At root, science, engineering, math, etc are descriptive occupations. They approach the question of how. Religion is focussed instead on why. The two should really not be at odds.

Things do indeed get fuzzy when you start looking at politics and religion. Both deal with societal interactions using some code of ethics. The problems mostly enter when one side tries to tell the other how to conduct itself without consciously identifying assumptions and clearly defining boundaries of personal right to decision. Worse yet, the two sides often attempt to use each other for their own goals. To pretend that rational thought and religious belief do not overlap is folly (they both deal with the same reality), but attempts to completely eradicate one or the other has historically been a poor approach.

I too wish the clouding to go away but I see the issue as more closely tied to emotion than belief set.

Once again, you are entitled to your own conclusions and my words are not intended as a challenge -- merely a request to keep things on an objective level. I respectfully differ in my opinions and sincerely hope you feel the same.

Stop electing greedy millionaires!

The nearly unanimous vote, 1 dissenter, makes me wonder. It's really time the public started to take back government. What is best for all is best for the country. Until we stop electing millionaires and drop partisan politics we are doomed to ridiculous nattering, me-first policies, mammoth quantities of waste and intense self-absorption in the name of rugged individualism. The rugged individuals who think that 8 MPG is a right, and speed limits are as optional as turn signals. I just don't think the reality of the situation is getting through. Then we get a vote like this, amazing!

(I know at least as many irrational atheists as irrational christians. It's separation of church and state, not church from state. Meaning, in the original sense, no church (like the Church of England, (not a dig at CoE),in the founding fathers sense) should be dictating policies.

My religion is against waste of any kind, like natural resources, human resources, money, or even time. It's against it as immoral. Sounds green to me. :D)

If the measure passes, you wonder how it will all work out behind the scenes...Hi Mr Eastern guy, we are going to sue you and you are going to loose. We figure about 100 million, but we will provide twice what you loose in rebates, financial support, and general kick backs, so make a good fight of it, but remember that you are going in to loose. And when you loose, you really win.

Religion doesn't make for bad politics unless it get zealous. Remember religion is the basis of ethics. And ethics are a good thing. What is bad are people who focus on a word and carry it out without thinking about everything else. Or those who hide behind religion. Love those, "steal now, repent later" types. And taking more than your fair share (CEOs) is stealing.

Well I am very proud of the responses here so far. Everyone seems very educated on how ridiculous we look to the world right now. Its more of the disconnect between Washington and the rest of the world. Bunch of fools, OPEC should be furious and cut off some supplies to us! I would...they can just sell it China or India. Im so embarrassed..

First Bush begging for increase in productions now this.....:confused:

I vote as an Independant and plan on staying that way.:Banane32:

Remember the classic Pogo quote, "We have met the enemy, and he is us!"?? We (as a country) did elect them...

BTW, I disagree that religion is the basis of ethics. If you assume that, then atheists have no reason to behave in an ethical fashion. I know ethical atheists...

I also know educated, intelligent, erudite, nice people who identify themselves primarily as Christians.

Religion isn't a good or bad thing, to me. It's the people who practice it that are good or bad. (Which makes it like a lot of things in this world.)

-soD

Wow, they are nuts! They'll have more luck taking OPEC to Judge Judy.

A couple of us moderators are attempting to avoid the volitile interjection of religon.

It was not part of the article in this thread.

The silly resolution was passed 324-84 so it's bi-partisan (or pretty close).

I just don't see how Church/State or related issues come to play in regards to the article, but in a variety of forums I've seen this become very devisive and hurt the atmosphere in on a site...based on some of those past experiences, I don't want that kind of strife brought here as it would be very bad for CleanMPG. It gets personal too easily, perhaps the most fertile ground for trolling - intentional or unintentional.

I along with many other members have hinted at our personal beliefs - it affirms that the objectives at CleanMPG do not depend on any particular belief. I could cite both good and bad examples of any particular belief.

I feel a bit guilty posting this, but if this is what it takes to move on, so be it.

Religion isn't a good or bad thing, to me. It's the people who practice it that are good or bad. (Which makes it like a lot of things in this world.)

-soD

Same example could be made about guns.


We don't allow cartels to operate in our country yet our government does business with foreign cartels. Now that people are in an uproar over how they conduct their business our government feels they can take legal action against them.

Democrat or Republican it doesn't matter this is a plain sign of stupidity on both sides!:eek::eek::eek:

Same example could be made about guns.

Exactly! And a lot of other things; cultural phenomena, belief systems, technologies... :)

-soD