Today we welcomed Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student and
contraception advocate who was recently called a "slut" and a
"prostitute" by Rush Limbaugh for wanting birth control to be covered by
her university's insurance. Limbaugh has publicly apologized for his
comments, so we wanted to see what Sandra Fluke herself had to say about
his apology and the scandal as a whole. Watch the full interview below,
and tell us what you think!
Sandra Fluke Responds to Rush Limbaugh, Part 1
March 05, 2012 | Posted at 10:13 AM
Contraception advocate Sandra Fluke responds to Rush Limbaugh's apology for calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute".
Sandra Fluke Responds to Rush Limbaugh, Part 2
What do you think of this debate over birth control and insurance? Do
you think Limbaugh's apology was sincere? Should advertisers have walked
away from his show the way they did? Sound off in the comments!
“Who,” Fox News host Bill O’Reilly asked on his program Thursday night, “is running Sandra Fluke?” He explained to viewers that The Factor
believes that the controversy surrounding the activist and Georgetown
law student has been manufactured in a calculated move to help the Obama
administration. The Factor is having some trouble, O’Reilly explained,
tracking down who it is, exactly, that has been setting up Fluke’s media
appearances. Just last week, he shared, his show called Fluke on her
cell phone, inviting her onto the show. She has yet to call them back.
“Very unusual,” said O’Reilly. “There was no other public contact for
the woman, just her cellphone.” All the show has been able to gather so
far, he continued, is that a man named “Mike” has booked her onto a few
programs, but it has not been able to find out his last name or obtain
his contact information.
“Why the subterfuge?” O’Reilly asked.
It turns out that Fluke is now being represented by a “progressive PR agency” named SKDKnickerbocker, where none other than Anita Dunn happens to be managing editor.
“Ah-HA!” O’Reilly announced. “So this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly.”
The host gave a brief synopsis of how Fluke ended up on our national
radar, calling the controversy she has been linked to “completely bogus”
because of the existence of Title X, which allows those who want to
purchase birth control to do so for a mere 9 bucks per months at your
local drugstore. (Nine dollars?! That’s cheaper than a sandwich in
Manhattan.)
O’Reilly brought on radio host Laura Ingraham
to weigh in further. Ingraham was surprised that Fluke, as a law
student, is able to find the time to “jet around the United States” and
talk about contraception.
“She doesn’t have enough money to buy the pill at nine dollars a
month,” said O’Reilly (Again: Nine dollars? Is it really nine dollars?)
“But she has enough money to fly coast to coast and all that.”
He summed up his theory on what is actually going on with Fluke:
There is no doubt in my mind, in my investigator’s mind
that this woman, from the very beginning, was what they call “run” by
very powerful people. It’s not an accident that Elijah Cummings, Nancy
Pelosi, all these people, got her and put her in a position to get
national exposure.
But now we see, alright, that Anita Dunn and her firm have embraced
her. Now, she appeared on NBC 1, 2, 3, 4 times, CBS once, CNN once — no,
five for NBC — and The View also. And each of these times,
alright, there was a shadowy booking process. Because I spoke to some of
these people. [...] She appears, she shows up. Somebody pays for all of
that.
So I’m going to say — and I can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt,
I think I will be able to — that this was run out of the White House.
The White House ran this.
Check it out, from Fox News:
Bill O’Reilly Talks Viagra, Gas Prices And Mitt Romney’s Hair On The View
Bill O’Reilly was one of the featured guests on The View
this morning , and they rolled out the red carpet for him (i.e. he got
to sit on the couch rather than join them at the table. The hosts wasted
no time asking him his opinion on the Rush Limbaugh
debacle, which he characterized as “inappropriate.” He went on to say
that Rush’s remarks obscured the bigger issue, which is the “entitlement
state versus Ms. Fluck’s [sic] opinion” on birth control.
When Joy Behar
challenged him on insurance coverage of Viagra and other erectile
dysfunction drugs, he shot back that the Center for Disease Control
categorizes various conditions as “medical,” and ED is one of them,
while contraception is not. When Behar followed up with a question about
whether or not he considered vasectomies contraception, he deflected
with “I don’t consider anything anything!” and deferred to the CDC once
again. Elisabeth Hasselbeck switched gears for a moment to ask him about the current Republican primary race. He blamed Barack Obama
for high gas prices and speculated that they would play a role in the
general election, and when Joy said, “Americans know that gas prices
have nothing to do with Obama,” to applause from the audience, O’Reilly
countered with “I don’t know that!” and argued that it was Obama’s job
to solve speculation that is driving up oil prices, which was also
punctuated by loud applause.
Man, that is one confused studio audience!
You can see the clip here, via ABC:
O’Reilly
Investigates Sandra Fluke’s Ties to WH, Charges That Obama Admin Made Up
Controversy to Divert Attention From Birth Control Uproar
Thursday night on The O’Reilly Factor,
Bill O’Reilly delved deeper into his investigation of the Sandra Fluke
controversy. In the Talking Points Memo, he stated that The Factor
“believes that the Sandra Fluke contraception controversy was
manufactured to divert attention away from the Obama administration’s
disastrous decision to force Catholic non-profit organizations to
provide insurance coverage for birth control and the morning after
pill.”
He described The Factor’s
attempts to reach out to Fluke and the difficulty the show has had in
tracking down Fluke’s representatives. Well, O’Reilly reports that late
Thursday, The Factor “found out that Ms. Fluke is now being repped by
the progressive PR agency SKD
Knickerbocker where Anita Dunn, the former
Obama communications director, is the managing editor,” tying the
Georgetown Law student back to the White House, at least indirectly.
O’Reilly
stated, “So, it seems there is a powerful presence behind Sandra Fluke.
And as the polls show, the controversy has benefited the President of
the United States, who is on the ropes with the church deal.”
Skeptics fear future administration could still incarcerate US citizens under NDAA
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Despite the fact that it was his administration that
specifically demanded the controversial ‘indefinite detention’
provisions of the NDAA be applied to Americans, President Obama has
issued a ‘Presidential Policy Directive’ that forbids the law from being
used against US citizens.
A “fact sheet” released by the White House last night
contains details of a “Presidential Policy Directive” which explains
that the administration will not seek to use the so-called ‘kidnapping
provision’ of the National Defense Authorization Act to incarcerate
American citizens without trial.
“Section 1022 does not apply to U.S. citizens, and the
President has decided to waive its application to lawful permanent
residents arrested in the United States,” states the White House fact
sheet (PDF).
Obama’s PDD contains a number of other circumstances in
which people would be exempt from indefinite detention, but the language
concerning American citizens states that to be exempt, a US citizen
must be “arrested in this country or arrested by a federal agency on the
basis of conduct taking place in this country,” meaning Americans
arrested abroad could still be kidnapped and held without trial.
The NDAA bill, which was signed into law by President
Obama under the radar on New Years Eve while he was on vacation in
Kailua, hands the federal government the power
to “allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects,
including American citizens arrested in the United States, without
charge.”
There’s no doubt that this represents a victory for
civil libertarians on both sides of the political spectrum, but skeptics
will be keen to stress that just because the Obama administration,
which could be out of office by this time next year, has indicated it
will not indefinitely detain Americans under the NDAA, doesn’t
necessarily mean that future administrations will also refrain from
doing so.
Indeed, if the administration was so concerned about the
indefinite detention provisions, why did it specifically lobby for them
to be applied to American citizens in the first place?
As we documented at the time,
shortly before the bill was signed into law, Senator Carl Levin
revealed that it was the administration which demanded the removal of
language that would have protected Americans from the ‘kidnapping’
provisions of the NDAA.
“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to
American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the
administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S.
citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,”
said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Don’t expect Obama’s PDD to be the end of the matter. Senators John
McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) have
already indicated that they will argue against exempting American
citizens from indefinite detention.
“Although we have not been able to fully examine all the details of
these new regulations, they raise significant concerns that will require
a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee,” they said in a joint statement.
“We are particularly concerned that some of these regulations may
contradict the intent of the detainee provisions of the National Defense
Authorization Act passed by Congress last year.”
In issuing the policy directive, Obama is attempting to
head off a potential states’ rights rebellion against the federal
government. With Virginia already having passed a bill in the House and Senate that nullifies the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA, Utah has introduced a resolution with the ultimate intention of doing the same, along with several other states.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com.
He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular
fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
The
Sandra Fluke vs. Rush Limbaugh discussion was just too good a topic to
pass up for late-night talk show funny guys Jon Stewart and Stephen
Colbert, but each took slightly different approaches.
Stephen
Colbert went on a rant on “The Colbert Report,” completely tearing
Limbaugh (or, as Colbert put it, the "poster boy for contraception")
apart.
Limbaugh absolutely knows what he’s talking about when it
comes to the importance of medicated sex, Colbert said, "because every
time he’s slept with a woman, he’s had to slip her a pill first."
Next,
Colbert showed clips of the GOP presidential candidates giving
less-than-outraged reactions to their fellow conservative’s choice of
words. Rick Santorum brushed the whole ordeal off saying an
"entertainer" like Limbaugh can “be absurd," while Mitt Romney said
merely that Limbaugh's use of "slut" and "prostitute" to describe Fluke
“weren’t the words he would have used."
He
added Newt Gingrich to the mix -- Gingrich blamed the "elite media" for
supporting Fluke. And Stewart also suggested that Romney would have
definitely used other words to describe Fluke -- like "trollop" (a la
Colbert) or "Methodist."
The thing is, said Stewart, Fluke and the
Obama administration aren't looking to have the government pay for
women to have or not have sex. He noted that it's "about an insurance
mandate covering contraceptive medication as part of women’s overall
healthcare." And if you're a taxpayer whose taxes are going to things
you don't like, Stewart said welcome to the club: He'd like to be
reimbursed for the Iraq War and oil subsidies and then "diaphragms are
on me."
Bill Maher thinks liberals should accept Rush Limbaugh's apology to Sandra Fluke.
By Todd Gilchrist , The Hollywood Reporter
Support
for Rush Limbaugh came from an unexpected place Tuesday when Bill Maher
took to Twitter to castigate liberals for their continued criticism of
the conservative radio host. Maher,
who hosts the left-leaning HBO series "Real Time," posted a comment on
his Twitter account just after 4 pm, saying, "Hate to defend @RushLimbaugh but he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout."
As of press time, 34 sponsors had pulled their advertising from
Limbaugh’s show after he drew criticism from Democrats and Republicans
alike for calling Georgetown student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and
"prostitute." Following the denial of her testimony at a hearing on
infringement of religious liberty and contraceptive mandates, Limbaugh
spent three days last week suggesting that her case for the availability
of birth control via insurance companies was in fact a campaign to "be
paid to have sex." Limbaugh apologized Saturday for his choice of
words, even as he continued to defend his position.
Following
Limbaugh’s apology, Fluke said that his statement was meaningless,
particularly in the context of the pressure he was under from
advertisers by Saturday. "I don't think that a statement like this
issued, saying that his choice of words was not the best, changes
anything," she said. "And especially when that statement is issued when
he's under significant pressure from his sponsors who have begun to
pull their support."
Meanwhile, conservative pundits have hurried
to Limbaugh’s defense, even as they have suggested that commentators
like Maher should be similarly excoriated for their statements about
conservative politicians like Sarah Palin. But Maher’s statements come
as a particular surprise given the significant divide between the two
public figures’ political leanings, even as the Real Time host has
already received a deluge of angry responses from his followers.
Interfaith
minister Reverend Sue Clark tweeted to him late Tuesday afternoon,
"you're not much better than Limbaugh if you truly think that was an
apology. You're just furthering the @waronwomen. @women."
On
Wednesday, former Seinfeld star Jason Alexander offered a lengthy
rebuttal to the criticism mounted by Limbaugh’s supporters and other
conservatives who have called for boycotts or other punishments of talk
show hosts like Maher and David Letterman, who have in the past made
disparaging or insulting comments about public figures within the
conservative community. He contended that not only is Limbaugh a
"little man" for choosing to publicly insult a private citizen after
misrepresenting her testimony on his show, but he is more susceptible
than Maher or Letterman for these criticisms because "he projects
himself as a leading thinker and kingmaker among conservatives and
Republicans."Although Premiere Networks, Clear Channel’s syndication arm, continues
to support Limbaugh, the impact of his statements -- including his
apology -- will continue to be discussed in terms both immediate and
far-reaching. But this recent controversy marks the most significant
incident in which the talk show host’s polarizing comments have resulted
in tangible negative repercussions, although it remains to be see
whether Limbaugh’s long-term career will be adversely affected, or even
boosted by the incident.
A help-wanted sign displays outside the Mayfield Drive-In movie theater in Chardon, Ohio.
By John W. Schoen, Senior Producer
Friday’s
jobs data helped confirm that the worst of the recession-related
layoffs have eased. Until employers begin shifting back to a solid pace
of new hiring, though, most Americans will still have a hard time
finding a new job. The Labor Department said Friday
that U.S. employers added 227,000 jobs to their payrolls last month,
while the unemployment rate held steady at a three-year low of 8.3
percent as more people, hopeful they would find work, returned to the
labor force.
The report marks the first time since early 2011 that
payrolls have grown by more than 200,000 for three months in a row. And
those months were even better than previously reported, after the
government revised the December and January numbers to show an
additional 61,000 jobs were created.
Much of the improvement is coming as an historic wave of layoffs -
one that lingered well after the recession ended in 2009 - appears to
have finally abated.
"All the good numbers that we're getting are
largely because of a reduction in the number of layoffs," said Mark
Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "We really have not yet seen a significant pick-up
in hiring; the level of hiring is still very, very low. As soon as
businesses starts to engage in hiring in a more normal way, I really
think we can start getting monthly job numbers of 300,000 or 350,000."
The
pace of layoffs has eased from both public and private employers. From a
peak of 326,000 in February 2009, so-called "mass layoffs" by private
employers tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics fell to 129,000 in
January, according to a separate report. That's a level not seen since
shortly after the recession began at the end of 2007.
Layoffs of
government workers - especially at the state and local level - have also
slowed. But that may be only temporary, according to Diane Swonk, chief
economist at Mesirow Financial.
"We're not done," she said. "It's
shifting from the state and local sector, which aside from a few
states, have already put their fiscal houses in order and made a lot of
the cuts already. That's going to be abating. On the other side of it,
though, we've got federal cuts coming. So we're in a bit of a sweet spot
here with government (employment)."
Private employers, meanwhile
are adding jobs only where they have to. Much of that is in the form of
converting temporary workers to full-time hires. Even those hires are
very selective, according to Jeff Joerres, CEO of Manpower, a national
employment placement firm.
"Companies are saying 'I'm going to
hire but I'm going get this person as productive as possible,'" he said.
"There's much more precision in hiring. We're not sure that's going to
go away until we get really robust demand. And we don't see that any
time soon."
Most economists see overall growth in the economy
slowing during the first half of this year. A recent survey by the
National Association for Business Economics, a group of private
economists, predicted gross domestic product would drop from its 3.0
percent pace in the fourth quarter of last year to 2.0 percent in the
first quarter of 2012, gradually picking up to 2.4 percent in the second
quarter.
That slowdown could bring another soft patch to the job market.
"Maybe
we're starting a new trend, but I've seen this movie before," said Alan
Levenson, chief economist at T. Rowe Price. "Just a year ago we had
some strong employment gains at the turn of the year, then a pullback in
the spring. It's tempting to lean toward the notion we're ramping up to
faster job growth and staying there. But again, just look at a chart of
job growth in the second half of 2010 and into the early months of last
year, and then see how we dropped off very sharply in the spring." Recession hangover
Until
the pace of hiring sees a sustained pickup, the labor market will
continue to suffer from one of the worse recession hangovers in decades.
Few economists expect the unemployment rate to fall below 8 percent
this year. A broader measure of overall health in the job market - the
percentage of the total population with a job - is stuck at lowest level
in nearly 30 years. Just 58.5 percent of Americans over the age of 16
were employed in February, in part because so many discouraged workers,
adult students and early retirees have left the pool of people counted
in the official workforce.
Many of those without a job have been out of work far longer than in
past recessions. The average length of unemployment remained stuck at 40
weeks February, by far the highest level since the government began
tracking the duration of unemployment in 1948. That's nearly twice as
long as peak levels seen after the last three recessions.
The
health of the job market is also very uneven. In 65 of the 373
metropolitan labor markets tracked by the government, the jobless rate
is 20 percent or higher. Widespread job losses in the construction and
real estate industries will take years to make up.
"In a normal
recovery, about a quarter or a third of it is coming from construction
and housing," said University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee.
"We've still got five million vacant homes, so that's probably still
going to remain relatively weak."
The U.S. economy also remains
vulnerable to outside shocks - from a further surges in oil prices to a
deeper recession in Europe or a slowdown in China. If those disruptions
are relatively minor, most economists expect the pace of job growth to
continue a slow, steady course.
"If there's a bigger disruption,
companies are always ready to be agile," said Manpower's Joerres. "It's
very different than previous times. They can hit that index finger and
turn hiring off in 36 hours. We wouldn't have seen that in 2008 and
wouldn't have seen that prior to that as well."
Ron
Christie, Christie Strategies, and Marc Morial, National Urban League,
discuss whether the February non-farm payrolls data will help President
Obama win approval with voters and ultimately the 2012 election.
U.S.
employment showed sturdy growth for the third straight month in
February, demonstrating that the recovery continues to chug along at a
modest pace.
The unemployment rate remains at 8.3 percent after the February
unemployment report showed US employers added 227,000 jobs for the
month. A CNBC panel discusses the data.
Terry McAuliffe of Greentech Automotive and The Last Word's Lawrence
share their thoughts on the latest jobs report. O'Donnell predicts that
President Barack Obama will get re-elected if they unemployment rate
drops to 8 percent.
If Anonymous is able to blackout the Web on March 31, as the buzz
goes, then one likely way they'll do it is to disable the Internet's
"phone book" -- its Domain Name System, which converts domain names into
IP addresses. Ars Technica
describes, in great detail, how the loosely organized, international
group of hacktivists responsible for denial of service attacks big and
small could use a technique called DNS amplification to take us back to
1992.
Anonymous'
usual MO is to overload websites with access requests, so a DNS
amplification could be seen as a mega-version of that approach, as
described by Ars Technica:
DNS amplification
hijacks an integral part of the Internet’s global address book, turning a
relatively small stream of requests from attacking machines into a
torrent of data sent to the target machines, potentially delivering
network traffic of tens or hundreds of gigabytes per second without
revealing the source of the attack. It does so by using a vulnerability
in the DNS service that's been known since at least 2002. Using
these two things—recursive lookups that return large amounts of data to
small queries, and spoofed source addresses—attacks can be made. The
attacker first finds a server that is configured to enable recursive
lookups. He then sends a large number of requests to the server,
spoofing the source address so that the server thinks that the victim
machine is making the request. Each of these requests is chosen so that
it generates a large response, much larger than the queries themselves.
The server will then send these large responses to the victim machine,
inundating it with traffic. The disparity between the request size and
the response is why these attacks are known as "amplification" attacks.
Whatever comes next, it doesn't look like Anonymous is going to let up
anytime soon. Consider this March 8 tweet, from @YourAnonNews: "War is
our imperative. And if right now victory seems like an impossibility,
then we have something else to reach for: revenge, payback."
Check out Technolog on Facebook, and on Twitter, follow Athima Chansanchai, who is also trying to keep her head above water in the Google+ stream.
Despite
rising crude oil prices and threats to stability in the Middle East,
the price of gas is unlikely to reach a national average as high as $5
per gallon in the near term, ExxonMobil’s Chief Executive Rex Tillerson told TODAY’s Matt Lauer Friday.
“As I look at just the supply and demand fundamentals, I would not expect prices to reach that level,” Tillerson told TODAY.
“Again,
the unknown in here is the market’s view of the political risk; if the
rhetoric gets more heated, if a problem flares up anywhere else in the
world, then certainly it could drive these prices up further,” he said.
With
the busy summer driving period approaching, many observers are fearful
that the price for a gallon of gas, which AAA says is now $3.76 on
average across the U.S., could move up to the dreaded $5 mark and derail
the economic recovery.
Ongoing conflict in Syria, political
tensions between Iran and the West and rising demand for oil from
emerging economies such as China are also threatening to push up gas
prices.
One source of tension in the Middle East has been concerns
over Iran’s nuclear program, which Israel sees as a threat to its
existence. If Israel were to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities the impact
on gas prices would be “fairly immediate and highly volatile,”
Tillerson said.
“It would be largely driven too by what the
response was, and whether that resulted in an actual physical disruption
of oil to the market.”
Faced with trade embargoes and the
possibility of an attack, Iran has threatened to close the Strait of
Hormuz -- a strategic shipping channel through which a majority of the
Middle East’s oil-producing countries supply the world’s economies with
crude oil.
Thank goodness for my bicycle :D
But in all seriousness. We need to stop the speculation on the global
oil market. Producing more here at home won't help, as it is a
proverbial 'drop in the bucket' and will not significantly affect the
global price of oil. A POTUS really isn't responsible (whether it be
Bush or Obama) for the price on the global market.
Or we could take this opportunity to begin transitioning off of fossil fuels.
Speculation is a part of the rise in oil prices. Also contributing is greater demand and flat to declining production.
I also heard someone say we are exporting a lot of refined gasoline due in part to a weaker dollar.
Oil
price has NOTHING to do with supply and demand, it is all about
speculation. The world needs about 80 million barrels per day right now
and oil trades about 10 times that every day in the market, along the
way every trader want's to make money on it. If we stop all margin
trading on commodities and make sure that a trader must take possession
first before selling back into the market than we can see prices go down
by half within the first day, otherwise we are stuck here with higher
prices regardless of supply and demand.
the
president as nothing to do with gas prices the price of barrel of oil
is international set price, what happens in the middle east, europe,
ect... effects the price of gas here and what happens here effects the
price of gas over there, we can open all oil wells here but it will take
at least a decade before its online even after that the price of gas
will drop around 3 cents
I also heard someone say we are exporting a lot of refined gasoline due in part to a weaker dollar.
not sure in part to a weaker dollar but we are excporting more
refinded products... demand is down in America and production is up...
.. the increase in cost and sale of oil products is mostly due to
speculation I have read as much as 30 to 60%, increased war mongering
with Iran also plays a big role.. and of course greed...
speculation is also a huge factor in the rapid increase in food
prices.... once the houseing market was plundered and crashed the
speculators move onto the next target... food... water is probably not
far down the road...
Please.
The President is mostly a figure head. Govt is run by our "Reps" who are run by Big Business and foreign bankers.
Yeah... It won't go to $5.00, but it will hit $4.999. What a B-Tard.
And an oil company subsidized president would have allowed the Volt to roll out?
Why would MSNBC have an oil company executive in their studio?
Those are absolutely the most evil men on the planet. They ruin entire
oceans and countries, lie on availability to gouge. They're not
businessmen, they're satanicmen.
i
would like to know why gas buddy for the last 6 years show gas prices
were at a all time high of $4.12 in July of 2008. In a period of 5
months gas price dropped to 1.61 of December 2008. I think we are
getting hustled, what happen during those 5 months that made the price
so low?
Obama being responsible for the price of gas is like Obama being responsible for the G3 magnetic storm we are currently under.
Of course Exxon doesn't want it going to $5/gallon, that means
Americans will turn more towards green energy which what they don't
want. Besides the Saudi's have already stepped up production to bring
the prices down.
Viet
Vet. I agree with your statement about needing a new president but also
want to let you know that I am waiting for 1 1/2 years for the new
batteries being developed for electric cars. The lithium battery
industry is predicting prices to drop 50% for new electric vehicles and
travel up to 300 miles on an electric charge. This is why Chevy stopped
production on the Volt.
Well
We got to blame someone that is the American way did, you not hear
about that one, the other countries Laugh Their Azz Off on how Americans
seem to whine about every little thing, I have to admit there is a lot
of truth to that one .... When Obama pushed GREEN energy everyone
thought he was stupid but guess what He was RIGHT.
This country has no
infrastructure to support electric cars, and until it does, electric
cars like the Volt won't solve the problem, unless you live 10 miles or
less from your office.
In a period of 5 months gas price dropped to 1.61 of December 2008. I
think we are getting hustled, what happen during those 5 months that
made the price so low?
the stock market crashed... oil is a commodity traded on the market... it's subject to the same fluctuations as all stocks..
This country has no infrastructure to support electric cars,
and until it does, electric cars like the Volt won't solve the
problem, unless you live 10 miles or less from your office.
Volts have a gas tank that kicks in when the batteries are exhausted.
i guess he doesnt watch the news, its already $6 is florida, is florida not part of the US anymore?
I cant believe how civil this comment has been.
I firmly believe the president has no control over gas prices.
But obama didnt believe that, and neither did pelosi, when he was running for president.
So now its his turn to take the blame!
the other thing is how much money into green energy this dork has lost us.
he wants us to be green so fast, it starts to look like he is encouraging the gas prices to rise.
Conspicary?
the green president and the oil companies working together to raise gas prices in order to force green?
what the dork in the white house doesnt realise, or doesent want to realise, is green takes alot of green.
i aint got $40k+ for that stupid chevy exploder, aka volt.
its easy to push a $40k car when i am paying all your transportation cost, isnt it president?
FYI,
Ever hear of supply and demand, that controls pricing and until there
are more people buying those Electric Vehicles the prices will be very
high ... And if there are more companies producing electric vehicles the
price of gas will have to come down, does that make any sense to you
people ..
appears
there is some gouging going on in fla.. gasbuddy has the average for
florida as 3.727... the lows are 3.59 in many places... the highs are
looking like 4.09 to 4.529 with two stations gouging it's customers with
5.89 one being in lake buena vista and the other in orlando... both
should be reported to the states attny general...
I
opine that the President of the United States can to some degree effect
the price of a gallon of gas both directly and indirectly.
Here are a few examples. Let's say that Rick becomes president and
his inordinate fear of Iran causes him to take the actions against that
nation that he has already said he would. There you go...$8.00 a gallon
gas.
Or let's say the current President decides to use the power available to him; i.e. the FBI or the IRS taking a real close look at oil companies and oil company CEO activities. There you go....$2.95 a gallon gas.
Parenthetically, President Obama negotiated Twenty Billion Dollars for Gulf State families and business affected by the last oil spill.
This is a capitalistic country so the president cannot dictate to the
oil firms their prices, but he has some leeway over gas taxes. He also
directs energy policy.
Finally, the president has an enormous amount of influence over the
mood or sentiment of the country. An upbeat president does encourage an
optimistic outlook for the future, that drives the economy, thereby
altering the price of gas.
In a period of 5 months gas price dropped to 1.61 of December 2008. I
think we are getting hustled, what happen during those 5 months that
made the price so low?
the stock market crashed... oil is a commodity traded on the market... it's subject to the same fluctuations as all stocks..
Also a hotly contested Presidential election with a well connected oil man as POTUS.
Ron
Paul wants the dollar back on the gold standard it might be better to
go on the oil standard instead. Then gas prices would never go up. Oil
is the worlds most important commodity.Gold is so 19th century.
I agree, there are multiple causes to the rise in the cost of gasoline. Speculation, China, war, what have ya.
Something to ponder: http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
Notice the time frame from around 1990-2000. Then look at the Bush years(2001-2008). Coincidence?
In a period of 5 months gas price dropped to 1.61 of December 2008. I
think we are getting hustled, what happen during those 5 months that
made the price so low?
the stock market crashed... oil is a commodity traded on the market... it's subject to the same fluctuations as all stocks..
That's not a plausible theory as the market has crashed on many occasions and not affected gas prices.
part of that comes from phil gramms legislation The Commodity Futures Modernization Act
of 2000... once that door opened.. the market was flooded with
speculators... prior about 15% of the traders was speculators and 85%
endusers... not it's about 85% speculation and 15% users...
I agree, there are multiple causes to the rise in the cost of gasoline. Speculation, China, war, what have ya.
Something to ponder: http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
Notice the time frame from around 1990-2000. Then look at the Bush years(2001-2008). Coincidence?
Are those really the cause of gas rising or are those diversions for what actually affects the oil market.
It is about supply and demand. Let me give an example.
If I was to find 10,000 tons of gold and put it on the market, what would happen to gold prices? They would crash.
Gas prices went down under Bush because he opened lands for drilling,
the stock market had nothing to do with it, gold prices never went down
during that time.
Comment collapsed by the community