You may blithely dismiss Limbaugh's point but you can't argue against it.
The AP study looks at actual oil coming out of the ground, which is but a small part of the price of oil.
Since oil is a commodity market and markets are subject to the law of supply and demand, producing more oil will impact the market. Last I heard, U.S. production is part of the world wide market.
Also, since speculation is a primary component of the cost of oil, actions that tend to calm the speculative market will undoubtedly reduce the price of oil at least to the extent that the price is driven by speculation.
For you to argue against this is to argue against all the Democrats who were screaming for Bush to tell the Saudis to increase production. And you also would have to ignore the fact that after Bush opened the outer continental shelf to mere exploration, prices came down as speculators considered the fact that there could be more oil on the market. Lest you forget, when Bush left office, the price of a gallon of gas was less than $2 after being in the high $3 range prior to his executive order.
As for job creation, for you to even suspect that additional drilling wouldn't mean tens of thousands of new jobs is like someone suspecting that water isn't wet.
I have a relative with a PhD working at a drug company doing drug development. We have had many conversations about her work and how it may eventually end up on the market. Her single department has a budget of over a millions dollars a year just for the people and facilities and supplies (yes, you have to buy all the shit to do the experiments with). They have about 20 different departments focusing on different kinds of drugs.
Now add on top of that all the trials which are well known to require upwards of a hundred million to conduct, review, and have certified by the feds.
So, your assertion that R&D for a new drug is a small part of budgets is misleading.
But, I will say that the reformulating of a drug and making small changes is complete crap and should be disallowed.
Surely someone must have written a book on how to take over the world in 3 easy steps...
1. Convince everyone that something terrible is happening and it's their fault. 2. Once people have bought into the idea that there is a crisis and we are all going to die, then reveal the "solution" (Final or otherwise). 3. Control! (Profit is a side benefit).
Sounds like you and the author are standing on a pile of 100 million people murdered by various tyrants looking to build a better society and shouting, "Let's try again!"
What does this seemingly never ending quest by people to formally define and declare who is best or smartest using various proxy measurements say about the people pursuing it?
Are they afraid they aren't smart enough and are looking for some kind of reassurance?
Maybe they want to make all the "not smart" people wear some kind of button. More likely, they just want to crow and be admired by other "smart" people.
Many "smart" people would be end up standing up in their own shit because they don't understand plumbing. Many "dumb" people end up running the company and making gazillions of dollars. "Smart" is what you do with your brains, not your brain itself.
I'm implying the others will call it racist. Actually, they already have. In fact, it's one of the primary bitches they roll out when it is proposed anywhere.
To further comment, I don't think the biggest problem with online voting is going to fraud, it's going to be incompetence.
Idiots now can't find their precincts, get confused over which box to check, etc. Put them in front of a computer and it's a recipe for lawsuits and protests.
I was actually thinking about the utility provided by having the OS installed an operable on such a device.
But your point is still valid because you can't know what's on the device without looking in a manner that is far more intrusive than just checking out the back seat of a car.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what happens when some AP hack is given a computer with Excel on it.
You may blithely dismiss Limbaugh's point but you can't argue against it.
The AP study looks at actual oil coming out of the ground, which is but a small part of the price of oil.
Since oil is a commodity market and markets are subject to the law of supply and demand, producing more oil will impact the market. Last I heard, U.S. production is part of the world wide market.
Also, since speculation is a primary component of the cost of oil, actions that tend to calm the speculative market will undoubtedly reduce the price of oil at least to the extent that the price is driven by speculation.
For you to argue against this is to argue against all the Democrats who were screaming for Bush to tell the Saudis to increase production. And you also would have to ignore the fact that after Bush opened the outer continental shelf to mere exploration, prices came down as speculators considered the fact that there could be more oil on the market. Lest you forget, when Bush left office, the price of a gallon of gas was less than $2 after being in the high $3 range prior to his executive order.
As for job creation, for you to even suspect that additional drilling wouldn't mean tens of thousands of new jobs is like someone suspecting that water isn't wet.
You can't just say that the NYTs found bad conditions and then blithely dismiss the fact that they reported these "fake, but accurate" details.
The Times and the other outlets presented this fact because it fit their preconceived ideas.
So...Fake, but accurate?
Doesn't matter what you call it, what you do with it or where you got it from, Government will always want part of it.
Did Ted Kennedy get reincarnated in India?
Talk to the Bama.
Well, to use the common argument against drilling, if it will take more than just a few years to see the benefit, then why even bother with it?
I agree with your clarification.
I have a relative with a PhD working at a drug company doing drug development. We have had many conversations about her work and how it may eventually end up on the market. Her single department has a budget of over a millions dollars a year just for the people and facilities and supplies (yes, you have to buy all the shit to do the experiments with). They have about 20 different departments focusing on different kinds of drugs.
Now add on top of that all the trials which are well known to require upwards of a hundred million to conduct, review, and have certified by the feds.
So, your assertion that R&D for a new drug is a small part of budgets is misleading.
But, I will say that the reformulating of a drug and making small changes is complete crap and should be disallowed.
Surely someone must have written a book on how to take over the world in 3 easy steps...
1. Convince everyone that something terrible is happening and it's their fault.
2. Once people have bought into the idea that there is a crisis and we are all going to die, then reveal the "solution" (Final or otherwise).
3. Control! (Profit is a side benefit).
Wait...what? Tomorrow?
Why didn't anyone tell me?
Shit! I have to get to bed!
Sounds like you and the author are standing on a pile of 100 million people murdered by various tyrants looking to build a better society and shouting, "Let's try again!"
+1 Funny
WTF with the dour, humorless mods?
Cool blog. Thanks for the tip!
Oh the irony!
What does this seemingly never ending quest by people to formally define and declare who is best or smartest using various proxy measurements say about the people pursuing it?
Are they afraid they aren't smart enough and are looking for some kind of reassurance?
Maybe they want to make all the "not smart" people wear some kind of button. More likely, they just want to crow and be admired by other "smart" people.
Many "smart" people would be end up standing up in their own shit because they don't understand plumbing. Many "dumb" people end up running the company and making gazillions of dollars. "Smart" is what you do with your brains, not your brain itself.
Some people need to get a life.
I'm implying the others will call it racist. Actually, they already have. In fact, it's one of the primary bitches they roll out when it is proposed anywhere.
Showing a photo ID is not restricting voting.
If that was the case then you would be able to say that showing proof of anything, residency, age, whatever is "restricting" voting.
But I guess you would be all for letting anyone wander in and vote.
I would add:
1. Register in a timely manner. Same day crap is asking for fraud.
2. Get a photo ID.
But I guess all that is racist somehow.
To further comment, I don't think the biggest problem with online voting is going to fraud, it's going to be incompetence.
Idiots now can't find their precincts, get confused over which box to check, etc. Put them in front of a computer and it's a recipe for lawsuits and protests.
No vote for you.
You know how far that would get in the courts...injunction city.
They quickly closed the curtains and Majorana read Fermion the riot act for leaving them open.
Now, the neighbors snicker whenever the two are spotted in public.
BTW, Majorana has a big ass.
Well, in all fairness, that thing is much to big to fit in my holster.
I was actually thinking about the utility provided by having the OS installed an operable on such a device.
But your point is still valid because you can't know what's on the device without looking in a manner that is far more intrusive than just checking out the back seat of a car.
Interesting.