President Obama’s energy policies: gasoline prices are only the tip of the iceberg.

Via our good friend William Teach, we find this, from Politico:

(President )Carter ended up owning high gas prices in many voters’ eyes — a fate Obama no doubt wants to avoid.

“When the guy who’s at the top of the food chain here can’t fix the problem, you got a lot of people that are irritated,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee who criticized Obama for not doing enough to eliminate roadblocks to energy production. “This is one where if the public doesn’t feel like he’s responded on this issue, I think he wears it.”

That’s the conclusion of an article noting the similarities and differences between Presidents Carter and Obama in their responses to high energy prices. President Carter put on his cardigan, ordered the thermostats turned down in the White House and government buildings, and basically told Americans tat they’d have to live a poorer lifestyle. When 1980 Republican Presidential nominee Ronald Reagan asked the voters the simple question, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” it plugged right into President Carter’s “malaise” approach: no, we were not better off, and President Carter even told us we shouldn’t be.

President Obama is a better politician than President Carter was: he’s at least savvy enough not to don a sweater and tell Americans that they needed to live poorer. But if he isn’t telling us that, his actions say something different from his words. As Ed Morrissey noted on Leap Day, Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu, when directly asked by Representative Alan Nunnelee (R-MS), “is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, Dr Chu responded:

No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy. We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.

Mr Morrissey continued:

The Heritage Foundation jumped all over Chu’s comments:

As shocking as his remarks are, they shouldn’t come as a surprise. Chu has a long record of advocating for higher gas prices. In 2008, he stated, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Last March, he reiterated his point in an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, noting that his focus is to ease the pain felt by his energy policies by forcing automakers to make more fuel-efficient automobiles. “What I’m doing since I became Secretary of Energy has been quite clear. What I have been doing is developing methods to take the pain out of high gas prices.

As opposed, of course, to trying to lower energy prices.1

Let me be very blunt about this: President Obama and his Administration don’t want you to pay less for energy;2 they want you to pay more, and have said so very directly.

Dr Chu wants us to drive less, and to drive more electric cars; the Obama Administration has been giving all sorts of subsidies and loan guarantees to companies which produce electricity from solar energy — companies which are failing, as it turns out — but as the President and his Secretary of Energy push electric cars on the American people, it should be remembered that President Obama also wants to increase the price of electricity!

And President Obama seems intent on keeping that promise. From Mr Morrissey again, in an article today:


Five PA coal-fueled power plants to close due to Obama administration regulation

posted at 3:05 pm on March 1, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

We get on President Obama’s case for neglecting to keep his campaign promises, so it’s only fair to note when he fulfills them.  In January 2008, Obama promised to bankrupt coal-fired power plants with his new environmental regulations.  Consider this a promise kept:

GenOn Energy Inc. plans to close five of its older coal-fired power plants in Pennsylvania over the next four years.

The company, based in Houston, said Wednesday that tough new environmental rules make it unprofitable to operate the plants, which generate a total of 3,140 megawatts of electricity. The plants are in Portland, Shawville, Titus, New Castle and Elrama. Two plants in Ohio and one in New Jersey will also be closed. The company said the timeframes are subject to further review based on market conditions.

The Sierra Club cheered the announcement, of course, claiming it will prevent 179 premature deaths a year.  The Sierra Club is located in San Francisco, California, of course, and not in Pennsylvania, which will have to find some way to replace the production of 3140 megawatts of electricity each year.  The lack of production will make electricity even more expensive in the Rust Belt state where unemployment is 7.7% (about midrange for the US) and rising fuel prices will hammer the middle class already.

As the Obama administration continues its aggressive push to get more electric vehicles on the road — a goal of 1.5 million by 2015, when these plants are going to be shutting down — how exactly do they plan to generate enough electricity to meet current demand, let alone the increased demand as a million or more people plug their cars into the grid?

Well, it’s simple! President Obama wants us to go solar. How well is that working out? Here are the solar makers that shuttered or closed factories in 2011:

Company Action Date
BP Solar Announces it’s shutting down December 2011
Energy Conversion Devices Announces temporary suspension of all factories November 2011
Evergreen Solar Declares bankruptcy August 2011
MEMC Electronic Materials Idles one factory December 2011
REC Cuts silicon wafer production in Norway January 2012
Satcon Technology Closes inverter factory in Canada January 2012
Schott Solar Closes cell factory in Germany December 2011
Solar Millennium Files for insolvency December 2011
Solland Solar Exits cell production January 2012
Solon Shuts down U.S. factory. Declared insolvency. December 2011
SolarWorld Shuts U.S. factory September 2011
Solyndra Declares bankruptcy August 2011
SpectraWatt Firesale for $4.9 million September 2011
Stirling Energy Systems Declares bankruptcy September 2011

This President and this Administration really do believe that we have to live poorer. They want to push to the end of coal-fired electric power plants, but coal-fired power plants produce half of our total electricity, and the United States has the largest reserves of coal in the world, “capable of meeting domestic demand for more than 250 years at current rates of consumption.” And the energy reserve we have in greatest abundance is the energy reserve President Obama wants to simply throw away!

I’ve noted this before: I like Star Trek as much as anyone,3 and I’d absolutely love it if we had a cheap, abundant and completely clean source of energy like is depicted in those several television series, but I still recognize that Star Trek is fiction. It doesn’t exist now, and won’t exist anywhere in the foreseeable future. Perhaps some day it will, but all of us will be long dead by the time it happens. And we need energy between now and whenever/ if ever that future arrives.

The current spike in gasoline prices gets the most attention, but this President and this Administration has a totally cockamamie energy policy:

  • The Administration wants more solar power production, and has pushed money toward solar power panel producers, who still can’t make it because the Chinese pay their solar panel manufacturing employees in one week what our solar company employees make in an hour;
  • The Administration wants more electric cars on the road, and is subsidizing them to the tune of $7,500 per unit, and wants to increase that to $10,000; but
  • The Administration doesn’t like dirty coal-fired power plants and is pursuing policies to make the source of half of our electric production much more expensive, and eventually drive them out of business completely.

The change for which I hope? A change toward realism, a change toward realizing that we live in this world, today, and we have needs which have to be met today.
_______________________________________

  1. Scott Whitlock of Newsbusters noted that none of the three major networks has publicized Dr Chu’s remark that the Administration’s overall goal is not to get gasoline prices down.
  2. It’s quite possible that the President would like to see you pay less for energy right up until November 6, 2012, but after that, no.
  3. But no, I’ve never attended a Star Trek convention, period, much less dressed up like a Klingon warrior.

22 Comments

  1. Back in 1972 the gas pumps were simple and worked by the pumped gas going through a paddle wheel that measured the amount. The problem with the “Old” gas pumps in 1972, they could only be adjusted up to 50.9 cents. Prior to 72 gas ranged from 35 to 42 cents. Then the Muddled East Embargo drove prices to 60 to 80 cents per gallon. The gas station owners panicked. Their pricing was only good to 50.9 cents. So, what they did was to put up the price by halves. So, if the price was 69.9 cents, the pump was set at 35 cents, but you paid double the total. Within 6 months or so, “guts” were in the machines to 99.9 cents. And later, the digital machines were in by the early 80′s.

  2. “Let me be very blunt about this: President Obama and his Administration doesn’t want you to pay less for energy;2 they want you to pay more, and have said so very directly.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitch-danielss-unfounded-claim-president-obama-wanted-higher-gas-prices/2012/02/29/gIQAPJJliR_blog.html?wprss=fact-checker

    —-
    The Pinocchio Test

    Daniels, with his long experience in government at the federal and state level, is grasping at straws by suggesting that ideas advocated by officials before they enter an administration have now become the policy of that administration. As the former White House budget director well knows, individual ideas rarely survive the brutal policy-making process, and ultimately officials must support whatever the president decides.

    Chu and Salazar may have expressed certain policy views before they joined the administration, but they now work for Obama. What counts is the current policy. We can find no evidence that the president has “a conscious policy” to double gasoline prices.
    —-

    As has been established, gas price rises are not due to supply problems. They are due to speculation.

    Please be explicit – are you advocating that the President nationalise futures markets to prevent speculation?

  3. Did anyone see one word about global warming and climate change in our Editor’s essay? It has been scientifically established that global warming was accelerated by the start of the Industrial Revolution following our Civil War, of which our Republican friends remain in denial.

    Just as it took over 30 years of energy gluttony, following President Carter’s initiative for energy independence in 1979 which Reagan and his successors ignored, to get us to where we are now, it will take us some time to make progress on these Obama energy initiatives. At least we finally have a President willing to step up to this serious energy problem of ours.

    Thankfully, President Obama has indeed stepped up to the task, and has already reduced our dependency on foreign crude oil from a high of 60% during Cheney/Bush, to where we are now, at 45%. In addition, domestic oil production has increased from 4950 million barrels per day to 5600 million barrels per day, an increase of 13%!

    Nor is there one word by our Editor about the impact of speculation on the cost of a barrel of crude and the cost of a gallon of gas at the pump. Nor is there one word about the impact of Middle East instability, like Iran cutting of oil to the UK and France. The reason: Our author has written a political piece, attempting to blame high gas prices on our current President, and containing no ideas or vision about how to address moving us not only toward energy independence, but also toward cleaner sources for energy. Your political motives are quite apparent, Mr Editor, by your selectivity and many omissions. Putting out well organized political rhetoric just does not cut it with anyone except the uninformed, the misinformed, and the members of your tribe!

    It is what I have said before, and it is certainly true: The Republicans have practically no vision. For them, it is all about the bottom line, with little regard for the future, which is a major part of the reason why jobs have gone overseas in recent years, and why energy supply issues have been ignored by them. Of course, they will blame it all on the unions and on politically motivated scientists, their usual excuses. The success of the rescued American automobile industry puts a stop to that kind of rhetoric, as an example, but they even deny that!

    PS: Has our editor ever questioned why coal fired generation of electricity is cheaper? I doubt it. It is cheaper because:

    1. Little is done about the by products of surface mining of coal, in which the slag is left on cite to contaminate rivers and to denude mountain tops.

    2. The unscrubbed emissions of gaseous pollutants cause serious pulmonary ailments and acid rain downwind.

    3. The unfiltered fly ash emissions also cause lung ailments, including cancer and poisoning by mercury and arsenic.

    4. The residual ash causes pollution of our waters with the aforementioned arsenic and mercury compounds.

    If these negative impacts, ignored by our Editor, don’t cause us to move away from coal, I don’t know what will. Let us just leave all this to our grand children to tolerate and solve! That is their (the Republican) mantra of irresponsibility and unaccountability.

  4. I wonder why there’s a vast disparity in the blame attached to high gas prices now … and then.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpewpoll_022612.html

    In 2006 we had Dem pols out there constantly blaming President Bush and the oil cos. for high gas prices. And, of course, the mainstream media dutifully reported just this. Now, however, this same media is saying “there’s really nothing the president can do about it” etc. etc. etc. and refuses to even cover his own energy secretary’s comments that lowering gas prices isn’t a priority. Hell, Obama himself said as much in the past.

    But, of course, this somehow doesn’t matter a bit.

  5. William Teach noted:

    At least Jimmy Carter attempted to sorta say he cared about high gas prices. Obama can’t even work up a bit of empathy

    (NY Times) With his re-election fate increasingly tied to the price Americans are paying at the gas pump, President Obama asked Congress on Thursday to end $4 billion in subsidies for oil and gas companies and vowed to tackle the country’s long-term energy issues while shunning “phony election-year promises about lower gas prices.”

    In other words, you’re on your own, chumps. King Obama has spoken, and has no intention of doing a damned thing that would attempt to decrease, or even stop, the ever higher prices we, His subjects, pay at the pump.

    That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if he changed his tune sometime around mid-September, when he sees the pain at the pump moving people over into the Romney or Santorum camp (whichever gets the GOP nod) and his re-coronation prospects decreasing. But, as we’ve seen from Obama, what he will offer will be empty promises.

    If the President’s response is to try to “end $4 billion in subsidies for oil and gas companies,” then he is trying to increase costs for oil and gas companies. That leads to increased costs for gasoline, not decreased ones.

  6. “As has been established, gas price rises are not due to supply problems. They are due to speculation.”

    Speculation is supply you [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]. Learn economics. When something is plentiful the price goes down. You can tout “speculation” all you want, you can quote BS figures. The market reacts to what it perceives as a shortage or an abundance. Try to stop it. You sound like a communist who actually believes he can dictate prices, supply and the perception of the market. If the price of oil goes up there is a perceived shortage either now or in the future. You can claim there isn’t, but then you don’t count unless you’re a trader.

    Holy crap, another economic lightweight!

  7. “Before our Editor writes one more word against President Obama’s energy policies, he needs to study just exactly what this policy is, what has been achieved to date, and what is planned for the future, right here!”

    Wagonwheel, none of us need to “study” the Presidents energy policy. We’re living it! How blind can one man be who can’t see the policy? Between you and your Kiwi friend the two of you would sent us to hell to defend the foolish idea of AGW. As would your hero, BHO.

    You two are killing poor people who can’t heat there homes or drive their cars. Shame on you!

  8. Miss Nova wrote:

    As has been established, gas price rises are not due to supply problems. They are due to speculation.

    Please be explicit – are you advocating that the President nationalise futures markets to prevent speculation?

    And speculation hinges upon supply and perceived future supply levels. What do I want the government to do? End the moratorium on gas and oil drilling off the East and West coasts, allow oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and issue the permits for the Keystone XL pipeline.

    I remember the arguments about drilling in ANWR. Oh, that’ll take years before that comes into production, so it doesn’t matter. Well, if the permits had been issued when President Bush wanted them issued — it was blocked by the Democrats in Congress — those years before the ANWR production came on line would have already passed, and the oil would be available now. I want us to go to the very wise policy enunciated by former Governor Sarah Palin: “Drill, baby, drill!”

    Every fornicating roadblock set up by our oh-so-well-intended environmentalist [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor] friends is now backing up supply, is now contributing to higher prices. If we had ignored them when they needed to have been ignored, we wouldn’t be facing these problems today. The voters should rise up against every one of those stupid Democrats, and burn a gasoline pump in effigy on their front lawns, and point out that they were the ones who are responsible for this. Every time we go to the gas station, and see $4.00+ gasoline, people ought to remember the Democrats who held up oil production due to their own stupidity, and vow to vote Republican. People ought to save their gasoline receipts from the pump, and package them, and then dump them on the lawns or in the offices of the Democrats.

  9. From Wagonwheel’s comment of 0854, which was in moderation and did not get released until 1300:

    Did anyone see one word about global warming and climate change in our Editor’s essay? It has been scientifically established that global warming was accelerated by the start of the Industrial Revolution following our Civil War, of which our Republican friends remain in denial.

    No, you did not see one word about global warming and climate change, because your editor does not see them as problems which are as serious as the shortage of energy today. I know that such a judgement is absolutely terrible to the [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor] who believe that the sky is falling, but I do not see impoverishing the people of today over something which may happen fifty or a hundred years in the future, and something which some scientists claim not only will happen, but will happen regardless of any changes we make today.

    Nor is your editor much impressed by the sincerity of our environmentalist friends. As I wrote here, the reality of progressive thought on electric cars is simple: they think that it’s a great idea and a great car . . . for their neighbors to buy. For themselves, not so much. As I read so many of the complaints by liberals and environmentalists about how we just have to do something about global warming, and noting the huge and wholly improper government “incentives” to buy an electric car, I would think, just from that evidence, that the Chevrolet Volt would be flying out of dealerships, that Government General Motors’ biggest problem was that they couldn’t build them fast enough to meet the demand.

    Instead, they can’t seem to even give them away. GM is planning a Volt Repurchase Team to buy back Volts from customers who still aren’t satisfied. Dan Akerson, General Motors’ Chief Executive Officer, said that the Volt is safe, and he plans to buy one of the repurchased vehicles for his wife. The CEO of GM can certainly afford to buy a new car, but the esteemed Mr Akerson apparently doesn’t want to pay full price for one of those clunkers, and he says that he’s going to get it for his wife. If they were any good, shouldn’t he be getting one for himself? I hope he has a mistress, because it sure seems like he won’t be getting much action from his wife for a while after that comment.

    Nor is there one word by our Editor about the impact of speculation on the cost of a barrel of crude and the cost of a gallon of gas at the pump. Nor is there one word about the impact of Middle East instability, like Iran cutting of oil to the UK and France. The reason: Our author has written a political piece, attempting to blame high gas prices on our current President, and containing no ideas or vision about how to address moving us not only toward energy independence, but also toward cleaner sources for energy. Your political motives are quite apparent, Mr Editor, by your selectivity and many omissions. Putting out well organized political rhetoric just does not cut it with anyone except the uninformed, the misinformed, and the members of your tribe!

    Speculation is based upon the perceived supply to be available in the future. Apparently, President Obama’s policies don’t leave speculators with any confidence that oil will be plentiful in the near term future.

    And of course I hope to use the increase in gasoline prices to cause President Obama to lose the November election. He is absolutely, positively the worst President in my lifetime, and that includes Jimmy Carter. President Obama’s policies are almost exactly the opposite of the policies we need in this country.

    But, if you are honest about it, you will admit that Senator Obama and the Democrats had a fine old time of it in 2006 and 2007 and 2008, blaming President Bush for the increase in gasoline prices.

    Then there was what you wrote yourself, in June of 2008, when you wrote:

    (Y)ou must realize that those who rely on their cars/trucks to make a living are being hit much worse by this fuel price spike rise than those who are taking a vacation trip.

    Add to this the cost increase in electricity, in heating oil and gas, coupled to the increase in other commodity prices (food, steel, lumber, ….), and you have a serious inflationary trend that hits poor and middle people very, very hard.

    Then take away jobs ==> What does all this mean for the economic and real health of our nation?

    You even advocated selling off 25% of our strategic petroleum reserve, to bring down gasoline and home heating oil prices! Perhaps saying that we must do something to bring down prices matters more to you when a Republican is in office, and high prices are being used to criticize the Republican?

    PS: Has our editor ever questioned why coal fired generation of electricity is cheaper? I doubt it. It is cheaper because:

    1. Little is done about the by products of surface mining of coal, in which the slag is left on cite to contaminate rivers and to denude mountain tops.

    2. The unscrubbed emissions of gaseous pollutants cause serious pulmonary ailments and acid rain downwind.

    3. The unfiltered fly ash emissions also cause lung ailments, including cancer and poisoning by mercury and arsenic.

    4. The residual ash causes pollution of our waters with the aforementioned arsenic and mercury compounds.

    If these negative impacts, ignored by our Editor, don’t cause us to move away from coal, I don’t know what will. Let us just leave all this to our grand children to tolerate and solve! That is their (the Republican) mantra of irresponsibility and unaccountability.

    Coal is cheaper because it is a primarily American product in this market, and isn’t used nearly as much in international trade. However, I might suggest that you think about what I do for a living: your editor happens to know a fair amount about fly ash, because captured fly ash (see your objections #2 & 3) is a pozzolan, a material which is not cementitious in itself but becomes cementitious when mixed into concrete, by using the excess calcium hydroxide in Portland cement. The biggest problem with fly ash right now is that I can’t get enough of it!

  10. “Speculation is supply you loon.”

    I guess now Hoagie can call someone a loon, and ropelight can call someone a racist on here, both today.

    But to the topic, I’m quite sure that Ms Anna Nova meant to say that oil prices are due to supply and demand, and due to speculation as well, Hoagie.

    Moreover, it is obvious that you did not check out our current energy policy via my cite, especially the fact that during our President’s three years, we have cut our oil dependence from 57% to 45% by increasing the production of domestic oil.

    Here is what the experts are saying:

    “”I put the Iran security premium at about $8 to $10 (a barrel) at this point, which still puts crude at about $90 or $95,” said John Kilduff, a veteran energy analyst at AgainCapital in New York.

    The fear premium is the froth above what prices would be absent fears of a supply disruption — somewhere in the $80 to $85 range for a barrel of crude oil. It means that even with the extra cost put on oil from Iran fears, prices are at least another $10 higher than what demand fundamentals would dictate.

    Why? Financial speculators.”

  11. SINP writes

    Moreover, it is obvious that you did not check out our current energy policy via my cite, especially the fact that during our President’s three years, we have cut our oil dependence from 57% to 45% by increasing the production of domestic oil.

    This is in spite of Obama’s policies: http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/01/23/are-president-obamas-policies-causing-a-rise-in-u-s-oil-production/ Aren’t you the one who is perpetually harping on how George W. Bush’s policies are solely responsible for our economic condition at present, and that Obama is faultless? yet now you’re attempting to credit Obama solely for the quote above … when such is not the case??

    Hilarious.

    C’mon, SINP. There is no way you’re gonna convince anyone that Obama’s energy policies have been thus far beneficial. He and his energy secretary are on record as desiring higher energy prices. Understand? HIGHER. You have stated you want them [a lot] higher. And you dare say that you (and Obama) care about the little guy? Tell that to him while he’s filling his gas tank. And paying much higher prices at the grocery and other stores due to those high gas prices.

  12. koolo erred:

    There is no way you’re gonna convince anyone that Obama’s energy policies have been thus far beneficial. He and his energy secretary are on record as desiring higher energy prices. Understand? HIGHER. You have stated you want them [a lot] higher. And you dare say that you (and Obama) care about the little guy? Tell that to him while he’s filling his gas tank. And paying much higher prices at the grocery and other stores due to those high gas prices.

    Koolo, you don’t understand: to many of our friends on the left, higher energy prices are beneficial.

    And I can continue. Since higher energy prices mean that we will have to conserve — given that some people, disproportionately poor people — won’t be able to consume as much — we will have to transition to smaller automobiles, and their smaller two-cycle Briggs & Stratton lawnmower four-cylinder engines will use less fuel, therefore putting less CO2 and hydrocarbons in the atmosphere, and that will be beneficial.

    We peons, you see, must be managed, must be coerced into doing what our Lords and Masters tell us we must do, for our own good.

    The only downside our friends on the left see concerning gasoline prices is that the higher prices might cause President Obama to lose the election. Other than that, everything is great!

  13. “He and his energy secretary are on record as desiring higher energy prices. “

    Citation please, koolo.

    And thank you for confirming my previous point, with your cite, that US oil production has been on a steady rise during our President’s three years, following a continual decline during the eight years of Cheney/Bush. Did your really mean to contradict yourself with your citation. If so, I commend you for that.

    My previously stated preference is for gas prices to rise gradually, not to go to oil companies or speculators, but to go to increased taxes, the receipts of which should promote alternate energy sources and technologies. We also must stop subsidizing the oil companies. This is a longer range vision that should serve our grandchildren well, contrary to only the drill, drill, drill policies which your side favors. I also favor developing a safe technology to mine natural gas, a safer version of the fracking process, if one can be developed. Even so, for the sake of our planet, we still have to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, because of the growing climate change problem, of which your side is in total denial of the science.

  14. SINP writes

    And thank you for confirming my previous point, with your cite, that US oil production has been on a steady rise during our President’s three years, following a continual decline during the eight years of Cheney/Bush. Did your really mean to contradict yourself with your citation. If so, I commend you for that.

    You might try actually reading the post in question before you make yourself look foolish.

    Citation please, koolo.

    Cite 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ma1gwZYw1cY

  15. WW wrote:

    “He (President Obama) and his energy secretary are on record as desiring higher energy prices. “

    Citation please, koolo.

    Given that citations for both were given in the article original, this seems like an unusual request.

    In this video, you can see Senator Obama, in 2007, talking about how the government will have to take action to change people’s behavior:

    And here is Mr Obama telling us how, under his plans, electricity prices would necessarily increase:

    Can you, perhaps, see how many Americans don’t think that it’s any of the government’s business, or right, to try to decide what our behavior ought to be and use the power of government to try to change it? Is that really that strange a concept to you?

  16. Given that citations for both were given in the article original, this seems like an unusual request.

    Given that I have previously written articles with the citations embedded into the articles and Wagonwheel has demanded the citations that were already given, this is not, in absolutely any way, shape, or form, unusual for Wagonwheel. Nay, it is his standard operating procedure, his modus operandi, his normal behavior. It is quickly followed by accusations of “making things up” when people duly note his record of demanding and ignoring citations given as a reason why they refuse to kowtow to his demands, or by ignoring the given citations when people actually give them as demanded by him.

    No, his demands for citations already given are not unusual, nor are they in any shape, manner, or form rare out of him. I understand you are using nuance in your pointed statement against Wagonwheel, but it has been shown time immemorial that Wagonwheel cannot understand nuance or oblique. Heck, he barely understands straight-forward comments (and often mischaracterizes it in the most egregious of manners, substituting his own projections into an intent that just plainly doesn’t exist).

  17. While we are still waiting on Miss Nova to tell us whether language must be construed very precisely, she did seem to come down on the side of accepting ambiguity in at least one comment.

    Again, editor, that is the whole mantra of the Left, just as biology PhD and long-time college professor Eric Blair said about Leftist arguments and catching them in their myriad double-standards (which they cannot survive without):

    That’s different!.

  18. Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket : Doesn’t one find it interesting that BO is a millionaire, if not, he will be post presidency, and a member of the OWS’s Hated 1% just finds it easy to say He will make energy prices so high, we, through behavior modification (A Far Left Construct used to make the proles conform) will switch to alternative fuels. Needless to say this is NOT letting the market work, but it then becomes a command driven economy of the Government, not you or I, to say what you can buy, and what you will be penalized if you do buy. Soon, we will only be left with Hobson Choices, which are no choices at all.

    Translation: It will be a communist like economy. But then again, in college BO said he only sought out the Marxists professors and far left radicals. IMO, I would say that is training oneself to be a Communist, Marxist, Leftist, Radical, Progressive and looking at Hugo Chavez for Guidance (Fidel also)

Comments are closed.