Exxon Mobil Profits, Let the ass raping continue! Options

[The Fanatic]

But at $10.9 billion, the profit still ranks as the second-biggest for a U.S. company _ the only larger result in a three-month period was the $11.7 billion Exxon Mobil posted in the final three months of 2007.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/e...ar_n_99568.html


Nothing new here...


Our addiction to oil continues to enslave us.

[impala454]

BUT OMGZ BUSH PROPOSED IT SO THE DEMOCRATS CAN'T AGREE

[Psykopath]

BUT OMGZ BUSH PROPOSED IT SO THE DEMOCRATS CAN'T AGREE

Eh, it'd be the same situation with a dem president and rep congress.

Fucking politics...




Work towards more efficient vehicles whilst tapping into more domestic sources of fuel.
But oh no, can't have that....drilling for oil automatically means Exxon Valdez sized disasters every single time.
Heaven forbid the possibility that oil companies have actually improved drilling techniques/safety processes in all these years.
blah

Jeep Wrangler, motorcycle, and a good bicycle...all I need to cover my typical types of travel while using as little gas as possible.

/end rambling

[impala454]

Eh, it'd be the same situation with a dem president and rep congress.

No it wouldn't. This is exactly what happened before. The Republican Congress passed a bill to drill but Clinton vetoed it.

Thanks for your standard 8th grade answer though that "well nyah nyah the republicans would do the same thing!".

[Psykopath]

No it wouldn't. This is exactly what happened before. The Republican Congress passed a bill to drill but Clinton vetoed it.

Thanks for your standard 8th grade answer though that "well nyah nyah the republicans would do the same thing!".

*sigh*
Didn't catch what I meant...forgot that it has to be in crayon for you to understand.

Democratic president wants something, Republican Congress 9/10 times vetoes it.
Republican president wants something, Democratic Congress 9/10 times vetoes it.

For fuck's sake, I'm on your side with the drilling, but you still have to be an e-dick. hah

[impala454]

*sigh*
Didn't catch what I meant...forgot that it has to be in crayon for you to understand.

Democratic president wants something, Republican Congress 9/10 times vetoes it.
Republican president wants something, Democratic Congress 9/10 times vetoes it.

For fuck's sake, I'm on your side with the drilling, but you still have to be an e-dick. hah

I'm being the "e-dick"? My God the conversations with you are getting boring man. You have a small set of conclusions that you refer to like a goddam 3rd grade math cheat card. Think about what you're saying for once and quit reverting to the same old shit and "durrrrr i forgot you're stupid" "durrrrrrrr i forgot you dont understand english" "durrrr i forgot i need to use crayon" caveman low brow rebuttal/insults.

If you can quit w/the "Impala is a jackass" and quit reaching into the auto-response bag for 5 minutes and think about what's being said we might accidentally have an interesting conversation.

The situation in both occasions is the Republicans proposing a reasonable solution with the democrats knocking it down for no good reason. You see the important part of that statement as "democrats vs republicans". That's not the important part. The important part is "republicans propose solution, democrats knock it down". That is the common factor here.

[Psykopath]

I'm being the "e-dick"? My God the conversations with you are getting boring man. You have a small set of conclusions that you refer to like a goddam 3rd grade math cheat card. Think about what you're saying for once and quit reverting to the same old shit and "durrrrr i forgot you're stupid" "durrrrrrrr i forgot you dont understand english" "durrrr i forgot i need to use crayon" caveman low brow rebuttal/insults.

If you can quit w/the "Impala is a jackass" and quit reaching into the auto-response bag for 5 minutes and think about what's being said we might accidentally have an interesting conversation.

The situation in both occasions is the Republicans proposing a reasonable solution with the democrats knocking it down for no good reason. You see the important part of that statement as "democrats vs republicans". That's not the important part. The important part is "republicans propose solution, democrats knock it down". That is the common factor here.

Exactly, and I was simply trying to state that you reverse the parties in power and that type of political nonsense will still happen.
I made a simple political observation, and you came in with eyes closed/ears plugged and started the insult game... "Thanks for your standard 8th grade answer though that "well nyah nyah the republicans would do the same thing!"."
I didn't insult anyone, you did first. So the e-dick statement stands.

So what does 88.3% mean to you?

It means that 88.3% of the time, he voted for the more Conservative option in a given piece of legislation.
If I go back and look at all of his votes, I'm sure there are some I'd agree with and many others I would not.

I don't think anyone really portrays him as a "bastion of moderate politics."

Well, I think Jessica may be more for that statement than against it, considering she wrote "That's why I like candidates that are more middle of the road than anything."
But I'm obviously not 100% sure on that...I'm not Cathryn: I don't know everything about everyone simply by seeing over the INTERNET!