The price of gas and Hollywood

Flanders · #1 (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 07:21 AM

A while back, when gasoline prices were heading for three dollars a gallon, I suggested that the public stop going to the movies, and renting videos. Now that gas is knocking on four dollars a gallon the idea of boycotting Hollywood makes more sense.

First, let’s dispense with the belief that the president, any president, has the authority to lower gasoline prices. Congress is the cause of this country’s energy predicament, and only Congress can get us out from under OPEC’s demands.

So why punish Hollywood?

The entertainment industry is an important cog in the Democrat party’s propaganda machinery; equally as important as is the education industry. In one way, Hollywood is more significant to Democrats because the public voluntarily buys Hollywood’s product; whereas, coerced tax dollars are needed to force education industry propaganda on children.

Democrats cannot afford to see Hollywood lose its audience —— even if it’s only for the length of a thoughtful boycott. A serious boycott of Hollywood’s product blocks out the liberal message because no one will be listening. Socialism’s messages not being heard is a nightmare to congressional Democrats at any time; more so in an election year.

Democrats will only move to lower gasoline prices on the day that movie theaters all over this country begin closing their doors. Then, whenever prices rise above a certain level, say $2.50 a gallon, start the boycott again.

I would suggest adding TV to the boycott, but I know that such a boycott is impossible.

Everyone with pay TV suddenly canceling their service as a way to protest gasoline prices is possible but not likely to happen.

One benefit to my suggested boycott is obvious. The money working Americans will save by not buying Hollywood’s product will help offset the higher gasoline prices.

Anyone can easily figure the amount of money they spend on movies every year. Check it out for yourself. If you are not a Netflix customer remember to figure in the price of the gasoline it takes to drive to and from the movie theater; figure two round trips to the video rental store, one trip to rent and one trip to return the DVD.

All of the public’s angst will not compel the Democrats to cooperate with Republicans in order to fix America’s energy mess. Congress never reacts to the public’s concerns; amnesty for illegals is a classic example of Congress’ callous indifference to the public’s outrage.

Congress always reacts to violence, or to a believed threat of violence. Whenever Congress does react to threats it usually proves the old axiom: democracies are run by vocal minorities. My suggested boycott does not call for violence, but I do believe it will move Congress off the dime if enough people take part.

It is Democrats who are responsible for rising gasoline prices. It is Democrats who have been enriching petroleum producing countries at the expense of Americans. It’s all a part of the Democrat commitment to tearing down America while lifting up ruling classes in enemy countries. The Democrat story has been that their energy policies are designed to save the oceans, to save the arctic wilderness, indeed, to save the planet. All of their betrayals are hidden behind environmental swindles. Then, Democrats have the chutzpa to blame the petroleum companies.

Don’t think I am praising the Republican party. Except for a few Republicans in Congress spitting into the environmental wind, the Republican party has rolled over for Democrats so many times it is just as much to blame for handing America to its “International community” enemies as is the Democrat party.

CrankyYankee · #2 (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 07:28 AM

What about Raygun and the governator?

You guys like Hollywood just fine when they are on YOUR side...

fucking hilarious.

Yeah, Hollywood is a HUGE problem! Moron.

mulp · #3 (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flanders

It is Democrats who are responsible for rising gasoline prices. It is Democrats who have been enriching petroleum producing countries at the expense of Americans. It’s all a part of the Democrat commitment to tearing down America while lifting up ruling classes in enemy countries. The Democrat story has been that their energy policies are designed to save the oceans, to save the arctic wilderness, indeed, to save the planet. All of their betrayals are hidden behind environmental swindles. Then, Democrats have the chutzpa to blame the petroleum companies.

If merely drilling for oil would result in oil production, the US would be the dominant producer of oil in the world, providing the world with 90% of the oil and gas.

While the Democrats were in control, the US drilled over a million oil and gas wells. During the same time period, Saudi Arabia drilled perhaps a hundred. In fact, more oil and gas wells have been drilled in Indiana than have been drilled in Saudi Arabia.

I don't know what it is about people who get stuck on stupid, thinking that when their mothers tell them to stop digging around in sofas and chairs of the people they are visiting their mother is preventing them from becoming millionaires, and then forever blaming their mothers for their poverty.

The US is flowed, showered, bombarded with more energy every day than Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran combined, but people like you figure that the only good energy is the energy stuffed in the cracks and crevices of the earth's crust, because you are too lazy to harvest just a part of that which showers down on you each day.

By the way, Exxon for one, was granted a lease three decades ago at Thomson Point which is just on the other side of the line for ANWR. That oil field is claimed by Exxon to have reserves about the same as claimed for ANWR. However, Exxon has yet to develop its oil lease, failing to follow through on 25 development plans it filed for the lease. The State of Alaska revoked its lease so that it could be sold to another oil company for development because Exxon wasn't willing to develop it, but Exxon is suing to keep it in their hands, with its 27th development plan promising to bring some initial development in 2012.

One of the things Exxon has been holding out for is a government paid for pipeline for the gas that is at Thomson Point. However, the gas is what will power oil production at Thomson Point, so the oil should be produced first. But the gas production can be used in Canada to produce oil from the Canadian oil shale, so I think that Exxon and the other oil companies want the government to build a pipeline to Canada so they can sell the gas at Thomson Point in Canada. And if you look at the ANWR development proposals, they all assume that the government is going to build pipelines for the oil companies. Clearly the oil and gas in Alaska is too risky and too expensive for oil companies to develop on their own because they can't make enough profit. So they require that the government put up all the capital so that the oil companies can get all the profits.

So, Flanders, instead of criticizing the Democrats, you should be praising them for cutting off the corporate welfare, of taking the teat of socialism away from the oil companies and forcing them to make honest efforts to earn profits. Some of the oil companies get it, and have redefined themselves as energy companies and investing in new solar energy and not in million year old dead solar energy that is just a shadow of what it was when it was alive.

So, tell us, Flanders, why do you think the government should offer the teat of government owned oil to the oil companies for a few bucks a barrel so they can profit from extracting it and then selling it back to the government for over $100 a barrel to stick back in the ground, as Bush claims is critical to US security? Do you own oil company stock and think that you deserve to have the government give you profits?

Flanders · #4 (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrankyYankee

What about Raygun and the governator?

You guys like Hollywood just fine when they are on YOUR side...

fucking hilarious.

Yeah, Hollywood is a HUGE problem! Moron.

From CrankyYankee: What about Raygun and the governator?

To CrankyYankee: What about them?

From CrankyYankee: You guys like Hollywood just fine when they are on YOUR side...

To CrankyYankee: “THEY” —— the movers and shakers in Hollywood have not been on America’s side in decades. Hollywood decisionmakers promote Internationalism, International law, multiculturalism, and all of the other dismal socialist teachings. They better promote the
socialist message if they expect the subsidies to continue.

Hollywood does not promote individual liberty nor does Hollywood celebrate America’s sovereignty.

From CrankyYankee: fucking hilarious.

To CrankyYankee: Your command of profanity is impressive. What a dirty little guttersnipe you must have been in your childhood.

From CrankyYankee: Yeah, Hollywood is a HUGE problem! Moron.

To CrankyYankee: Hollywood’s message is the problem. The bigger problem is fools like you who are too dumb to distinguish between entertainment and propaganda. Or are you so intellectually impoverished that paying for propaganda is preferable to the emptiness in your life?

Chef · #5 (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 10:08 AM

The gas pump

Flanders · #6 (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

If merely drilling for oil would result in oil production, the US would be the dominant producer of oil in the world, providing the world with 90% of the oil and gas.

While the Democrats were in control, the US drilled over a million oil and gas wells. During the same time period, Saudi Arabia drilled perhaps a hundred. In fact, more oil and gas wells have been drilled in Indiana than have been drilled in Saudi Arabia.

I don't know what it is about people who get stuck on stupid, thinking that when their mothers tell them to stop digging around in sofas and chairs of the people they are visiting their mother is preventing them from becoming millionaires, and then forever blaming their mothers for their poverty.

The US is flowed, showered, bombarded with more energy every day than Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran combined, but people like you figure that the only good energy is the energy stuffed in the cracks and crevices of the earth's crust, because you are too lazy to harvest just a part of that which showers down on you each day.

By the way, Exxon for one, was granted a lease three decades ago at Thomson Point which is just on the other side of the line for ANWR. That oil field is claimed by Exxon to have reserves about the same as claimed for ANWR. However, Exxon has yet to develop its oil lease, failing to follow through on 25 development plans it filed for the lease. The State of Alaska revoked its lease so that it could be sold to another oil company for development because Exxon wasn't willing to develop it, but Exxon is suing to keep it in their hands, with its 27th development plan promising to bring some initial development in 2012.

One of the things Exxon has been holding out for is a government paid for pipeline for the gas that is at Thomson Point. However, the gas is what will power oil production at Thomson Point, so the oil should be produced first. But the gas production can be used in Canada to produce oil from the Canadian oil shale, so I think that Exxon and the other oil companies want the government to build a pipeline to Canada so they can sell the gas at Thomson Point in Canada. And if you look at the ANWR development proposals, they all assume that the government is going to build pipelines for the oil companies. Clearly the oil and gas in Alaska is too risky and too expensive for oil companies to develop on their own because they can't make enough profit. So they require that the government put up all the capital so that the oil companies can get all the profits.

So, Flanders, instead of criticizing the Democrats, you should be praising them for cutting off the corporate welfare, of taking the teat of socialism away from the oil companies and forcing them to make honest efforts to earn profits. Some of the oil companies get it, and have redefined themselves as energy companies and investing in new solar energy and not in million year old dead solar energy that is just a shadow of what it was when it was alive.

So, tell us, Flanders, why do you think the government should offer the teat of government owned oil to the oil companies for a few bucks a barrel so they can profit from extracting it and then selling it back to the government for over $100 a barrel to stick back in the ground, as Bush claims is critical to US security? Do you own oil company stock and think that you deserve to have the government give you profits?

To mulp: Congratulations! You got in all of your talking points.

Bottom line: I’d rather subsidize the American petroleum industry than subsidize touchy-feely parasites who contribute nothing.

wow · #7 (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 10:38 AM

Hollywood outsources 85% of it's movie revenues. They are traitors.

kgpoolerev · #8 (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

If merely drilling for oil would result in oil production, the US would be the dominant producer of oil in the world, providing the world with 90% of the oil and gas.

While the Democrats were in control, the US drilled over a million oil and gas wells. During the same time period, Saudi Arabia drilled perhaps a hundred. In fact, more oil and gas wells have been drilled in Indiana than have been drilled in Saudi Arabia.

I don't know what it is about people who get stuck on stupid, thinking that when their mothers tell them to stop digging around in sofas and chairs of the people they are visiting their mother is preventing them from becoming millionaires, and then forever blaming their mothers for their poverty.

The US is flowed, showered, bombarded with more energy every day than Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran combined, but people like you figure that the only good energy is the energy stuffed in the cracks and crevices of the earth's crust, because you are too lazy to harvest just a part of that which showers down on you each day.

By the way, Exxon for one, was granted a lease three decades ago at Thomson Point which is just on the other side of the line for ANWR. That oil field is claimed by Exxon to have reserves about the same as claimed for ANWR. However, Exxon has yet to develop its oil lease, failing to follow through on 25 development plans it filed for the lease. The State of Alaska revoked its lease so that it could be sold to another oil company for development because Exxon wasn't willing to develop it, but Exxon is suing to keep it in their hands, with its 27th development plan promising to bring some initial development in 2012.

One of the things Exxon has been holding out for is a government paid for pipeline for the gas that is at Thomson Point. However, the gas is what will power oil production at Thomson Point, so the oil should be produced first. But the gas production can be used in Canada to produce oil from the Canadian oil shale, so I think that Exxon and the other oil companies want the government to build a pipeline to Canada so they can sell the gas at Thomson Point in Canada. And if you look at the ANWR development proposals, they all assume that the government is going to build pipelines for the oil companies. Clearly the oil and gas in Alaska is too risky and too expensive for oil companies to develop on their own because they can't make enough profit. So they require that the government put up all the capital so that the oil companies can get all the profits.

So, Flanders, instead of criticizing the Democrats, you should be praising them for cutting off the corporate welfare, of taking the teat of socialism away from the oil companies and forcing them to make honest efforts to earn profits. Some of the oil companies get it, and have redefined themselves as energy companies and investing in new solar energy and not in million year old dead solar energy that is just a shadow of what it was when it was alive.

So, tell us, Flanders, why do you think the government should offer the teat of government owned oil to the oil companies for a few bucks a barrel so they can profit from extracting it and then selling it back to the government for over $100 a barrel to stick back in the ground, as Bush claims is critical to US security? Do you own oil company stock and think that you deserve to have the government give you profits?

Corporate welfare. Name one company that does absolutely nothing, adds nothing of value to the economy, destroys American families, and creates rampant crime. If not you need another term other than welfare.

Tax cuts to companies help consumers and help the companies be more competative with foreign businesses which in turns keeps more Americans employed and to you that is a bad thing akin to welfare which pays lazy people to do nothing.

I am not for taxpayer money building things for companies. I am sick and tired of cities and states paying companies with taxpayer money to move into their areas and then not delivering on the jobs promised.

Corportate welfare, what a lie.

"Exxon Mobil has filed 22 plans of development over nearly 31 years for the 106,200-acre unit. No commercial oil or gas operations have ever begun in that time, but Haymes said the company is prepared to move forward."

There is no information that readily shows up regarding how many of those plans were stopped by enviromentalists, Congress, the profitability, and so on. There is a lack of information that makes it possible to make an informed decision on the matter of Point Thomson.

We do know for fact the Democrats are blocking developing oil resources in the US. If we did we would not have energy independence but we would have much lower prices as the supply would go up and the speculators would not be able to drive up the prices that 'big oil' has to pay.