User talk:RobSmith

• User talk:RobSmith/Archive 01

Help me understand.

Are conservatives for or against offshore drilling? I am serious because I cannot figure it out. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

For it, except for right now, when they have to pretend to be against it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tet, but I do want to hear from Rob as he is a conservative. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives oppose the senseless slaughter of innocent sea turtles, blue tuna, wind plover, brown pelican, shrimp, oyster, and menhaden for greed and profit, which obviously was a priority in the First 100 Days when on 6 April 2009 Obama granted BP an exclusion to the proper environmental impact assessment (EIA) required by law after taking more money from BP than any other candidate in 20 years.

P.S. Take off this goddam petty & vindictive vandalbin. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are in the vandal bin. I'll check for you. Anyway - where were you saying the above when Palin was saying "Drill baby, Drill"? You will deride environmentalists, who take a stand to "oppose the senseless slaughter of innocent sea turtles, blue tuna, wind plover, brown pelican, shrimp, oyster, and menhaden for greed and profit". So you see my confusion? Aceⁱ⁹ 03:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If a communist Muslim Kenyan is for it, Rob's against it? ħuman 03:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this was Barack Obama's first attempt to be Bill Clinton, and it blew up in his face. It's called "triangulation" (see Dick Morris). The problem is Obama's positioned himself so far outside the mainstream of America, the Democratic Party, and even African-Americans (Blacks for example, church going god-fearing people that many are, oppose gay marriage in greater numbers than the population as a whole, whereas Obama describes himself as a "fierce defender" of gay rights) he has no credibility when adopting the pose of a compromiser. So all the elements of a tragedy are in place. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Obama's biggest mistake has been to give the GOP and their "ideas" the time of day. Complete waste of diplomatic skills. ħuman 04:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was into animal rights too, Rob, just like you. True Christians know that animals were put here for people to use or waste as they see fit, and a few here and there don't make much difference. Maybe you should think about where your loyalties really lie. --Kels (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was also fiercely anti-tobacco and we know Obama smokes cigarettes. But Obama & the Democrats also raised the cigarette tax on poor people whose one cheap enjoyment in an otherwise dismal existence was taken from them on day 15 of the Obama administration. It wouldn't be so bad if there were jobs to pay for the higher cigarette prices, but nobodies working now and nobody is likely to work in the foreseeable future.

Contrast that now with Bush & the Republicans; they controlled Congress & the White House exclusively for several years and made many mistakes. But not once was it ever even considered to oppress poor people by taking their sole consolation in this life away. Obama and the Democrats did it in 15 days. Why? Simple answer. People are too stupid to know what's good for them, so they need Obama and the Democrats of dictate how to live thier lives for them. The same thing happened again with fines for failing to have health insurance. And at some point somebody's child has to be taken away for child neglect -- failing to provide food, clothing and health insurance as required by law -- to prove the law is enforceable. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Cigarettes were far from cheap by the time Obama took power. Moving my camels from $50+/carton to $65/carton (combined national and NH state increase last year) was only a 30% jack up. When I quite smoking (hah!) back in the mid 80s cigs were $5 a carton. ħuman 04:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Okay Rob, what would your position be if Obama had taken the position from the left of his party and placed a moratorium on off-shore drilling in order to prevent there ever being the possibility of an oil spill causing the senseless slaughter of innocent sea turtles, blue tuna, wind plover, brown pelican, shrimp, oyster, and menhaden? - π 04:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The tobacco thing is a red herring. We are talking about the oil slick and how conservatives seem to be suddenly against it. I am curious of the response to Pi. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow Rob, that's a pretty sad indictment of American capitalism if smoking is the "sole consolation in this life" for the poor. And it is not being "taken away" is is being made more expensive, there is a difference but I don't expect the politically blind to see anything that they don't want too.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Apart from this, do you realize how strange it is for you to bring in Paul Krugman as the chief witness against Obama? If you're not familiar with his views, he wanted a bigger stimulus, stronger regulations of the financial industry, and single-payer health care. He opposed Obama's policies from the left, which means you guys are closer to Obama than to him on these matters. Röstigraben (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Also Rob, I see you are reiterating the lie that BP as a corporate entity gave Obama some money, when from your reference (if you follow it to the original source rather than cite a second hand blog post) those donations are those made by individual BP employees. Also a grand total of $77,000 is hardly likely to put Obama in hock to BP (no longer British Petroleum by the way but distorting the facts to cast aspersions on foreigners is probably CP policy). I'm sure Obama didn't even know where most of his contributions came from and surely didn't have the time to add up all the $2300 (is that a magic number?), $1000 & $500 contributions. If you bother to do some math you will find that Exxon employees gave even more.

As for the EIA I suspect that even if had been done it would have been identical to the others that were done for the dozens of deep water rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and wouldn't have made one iota of difference to what has happened. But keep on slinging the muck because some of it is bound to stick, isn't it?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a nice link to Big Oil political donations from the same source that lists those individual BP donors. Historically the Republicans have received alnost 3 times the funding that the Dems have received. --Explorationist (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Also BP only ranks 9th in the list of poltical donors for 2008 and gave 61% to Republicans vs 39% to Democrats (for 2010 the're not even in the top 20). This Rob fellow sure knows how to cherry-pick his facts. Explorationist (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Facts have a commie bias. Bondurant (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

When gas at the pump hits $4 a gallon and people spend $600 to $1000 (more than housing costs) a month to get to work, Obama like Bush, will be blamed for floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes, too (here's my favorite of all time [1]) And $4 a gal is unavoidable -- if you ever wanna see Recovery again. The spill speeds up the timeframe of higher oil prices along with a different set of economic variables to retard Recovery and growth in employment. nobs^{don't bother me} 12:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. - π 12:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If I interpret your confused comment in the most benign way, you seem to be arguing that the spill will result in higher oil prices, and that Obama should be blamed for this increase. Not only has this got nothing to do with the phony environmentalism you originally based your argument on, but it's not terribly convincing either. The loss of a single platform won't impact the supply of oil in any meaningful way in the short term, and in the long term, the only plausible effect would be a slower expansion of domestic oil production (resulting in higher prices) if Obama jettisons his plans for domestic offshore drilling due to concerns about similar catastrophes. Which, uh, is what you seem to want him to do. So could you please make up your mind about this issue? Are you concerned about the environment, or about the oil price? And if it's the latter, would you be opposed to measures designed to reduce oil consumption, which would also deflate the price? Röstigraben (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The shrimping industry may be gone for the rest of your's and my lifetime. Closure of the Port of New Orleans means truckers will go back to work, as everything has to be hauled to and from other major ports on the west coast or east coast. Ultimatley, the economic disaster in the works is a bigger problem than the environmental disaster. And the Recovery is so precarious at this point, the permanent loss of whole industries after temporary employment in cleanup is the real story. The US spent $350 billion to rebuild New Orleans after Katrina. The city is threatened again with becoming a ghost town since tourism & fishing may be gone for ever.

If that hole isn't plugged up soon, and the experts are quick to say they never did it before nor really know how, we're looking at something much bigger than a garden variety environmental catastrophe. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So...your position on oil drilling? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 20:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The opposite of whatever Obama's position is. --Kels (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you simply refuse to answer the question and drive off on some tangent instead. First the environment, then the oil price, now local fisheries. You never bother to defend your arguments, but discard them after one failed attempt at convincing others, and quickly jump to another one. Sorry, but this makes it impossible for me to believe you're actually sincere about any of your supposed concerns (some of which are valid, but stand in stark contrast to the Conservapedia party line). Instead, it simply looks like CP is a pure anti-Obama hate blog, and you'll latch onto anything that would let you criticise him, no matter if it contradicts the philosophies and policies you guys claim to uphold and promote. Well, at least you feel the need to justify your part in CP's ongoing hypocrisy, no matter how inept you are at doing so. Röstigraben (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind comments. In reality, I don't like having to take positions on contemporary issues; I'm much more interested in historical writing and historical questions. for some reason I always get dragged into these contemporary political discussions, but my role is really more as a chronicler of events. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me offer you a theory why you "always get dragged into these contemporary political discussions:" I suggest you read this page. How is it not a "contemporary political" comment to pretend that only Obama is responsible for the spill, as opposed to, I dunno, BP themselves, or the relaxation of regulations under the Bush administration? The reason is, you're a political hack and conspiracy theorist who poses at being a historian simply by including a bunch of footnotes in your screeds, many of which have been pointed out to you to say the opposite of what you claim them to (ahem, Krugman), while you ignore the constant challenges to their veracity. Junggai (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob, are you in favour of offshore drilling in US waters?

Please respond. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so long as it's done in somebody else's backyard. My position is roughly the same as Obama & Obama supporters minus the environmentalists (including Environmentalist Against the War). The position being, when in the opposition to call anyone for drilling a fascist, when in power and reality sets do what is necessary for the good of the country. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone elses backyard? You mean not off the United States or just not off your part of the United States? Aceⁱ⁹ 01:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for Britain, Norway, Vietnam, Cuba and the Spratly Islands doing offshore, but the US has legitimate environmental concerns. If I had to bottomline this, basically weaning the US & the planet off fossil fuels & developing alternative energy sources is China's problem. The US is no longer in the leadership role. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are kinda all over the place Rob, firstly you say yes you are for offshore drilling off the coast of the US then you say no, only off the coast of other countries. You follow this up by claiming that the US has legitimate environment concerns as if to say other countries do not. Then you want to wean the world of oil but that is Chinas problem to develop new energy sources. Please try and make some sense. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does the US have "legitimate environmental concerns" but Britain, Norway et al do not? --Damo^Hi 03:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it was misstated. US reserves are finite, but its appetite seems infinite. Since 1973 with the first oil shock I've seen the US public waver back and forth between high priority to lessen dependence on foreign oil back to complacency, like during the Clinton era when SUVs were in vogue and gas at the pump was cheaper than bottled spring water. Bottomline, the public doesn't care, and neither does its elected leaders. So it's China's problem now. Chinese demand drives the prices, and Chinese demand will drive the technological improvement necessary to cheapen the cost of alternative fuels. The US is nolonger in the leadership position in this. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Damo, because they have safety rules in place. @ Rob, thanks for trying to finally answer the question. I think. ħuman 04:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What, Rob, would others - China, for example - be expected to reasonably make of America's complete abdication of responsibility towards its own gluttony under your proposal? Is that a policy of which you would approve were the US President to promote it? How does that practically anti-American attitude fit with conservative thinking? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 05:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

While the US remains a formidable military power, and a largest economic power in terms of GDP, those days are numbered. The trade deficit, coupled with a looming federal default on its operating budget really spell the end of the United States post-1945 hegemonic Superpower status. And this all comes to a head c.2017.

This isn't a matter of policy, or ideology, it's just the economic realities. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Rob, I agree. If LBJ and Reagan hadn't spent us into the ground with a dumb war and dumb tax cuts respectively, we might still have a hope to rule the world. Or at least have a domestic manufacturing base. And on the last, I know what I speak of. ħuman 06:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree both on this apocalyptic scenario and US responsibility for global energy policy, but you really should archive this page first before we switch to that discussion (if you'd like to debate these points). It's become a real mess. Röstigraben (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Human & I share some common experiences. The American people always were reluctant to lead the world post-1945, being isolationist by nature. As to China, it is the cost of conversion to alternative fuels that is prohibitive, for Americans at least. Barely 3% (maybe slightly more) of Chinese have automobiles now with their growing prosperity, but that was enough to push gas at the pump in the US to $4+ per gallon; then the recession hit. When global recovery resumes, Chinese demand will push price to $6, $9, $12. And there isn't a damn thing American can do about it by whining to their Congressmen. On the Chinese end, they just don't have all the jobs in auto manufacturing, part, parts distribution, transportation, repair, etc etc etc that the US has. So as demand for vehicles in China increases and costs for petroleum become prohibitive, they at least have the unencumbered and healthy economic resources to devote to R&D for alternative fuels that may become cheaper in the long run. And the US and the rest of the world will just be in a copy-cat position. nobs^{don't bother me} 07:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, first of all, you admit that that "US appetite for oil seems infinite", that US citizens carelessly purchased inefficient gas-guzzlers back in the day when oil prices were noticeably lower, and that US politicians showed little will to act on this problem by encouraging their citizens to reign in their energy consumption. Fine, I agree on all of these points. Second, you claim that the main reason for the enormous increase in oil prices that we saw from 2003 to 2008 (until the sharp drop at the onset of the recent global recession) is increased Chinese demand. It's true that Chinese energy consumption in general and oil consumption in particular has seen a massive increase during that period, due to China's rapidly expanding economy and rising standard of living (however, China is not the only rapidly developing country in the world, just the most prominent one). However, let's have a quick look at two numbers: total national oil consumption and oil consumption per capita. You can find them here. The US consumes about 2.5 times as much oil as China (which isn't surprising, given its overall larger economy), and appears to be more energy-efficient, a difference that would be even more pronounced if you looked at total energy consumption, and not just oil. However, remember that China has about four times as many people as the USA, and compare the per capita consumption of both countries. The figure for the US is about ten times higher, and still twice that of most other nations at comparable stages of economic development (see Japan and the Western European nations). Based on these figures, I'd conclude that the US has a huge untapped potential for energy savings, since equally developed nations appear to be able to make do with much less oil while still enjoying a comparable standard of living. Given China's rapid development, its consumption can be expected to increase in both total and per capita terms, though you'll probably agree that it's got a long way to go until it reaches US levels. So, that's the demand side of the equation, let's look at the supply side next. Predictions about future oil production are notoriously unreliable, but there seems to be a rough consensus that we're either at or at most a decade away from peak oil, so future increases in global consumption will inevitably drive the price further up, until a global economy dependent on oil becomes unsustainable. Now, who's responsible for this, and who should take the lead in reigning in consumption? Is it China, which is still a developing country no matter how you look at it, and is far behind the US in its technology? Is it Europe, still consuming much more energy than any developing nation, but about twice as efficient as the Northern American nations? Or is it the US, the world's largest economy (which it will still be in 2017, unless China triples its GDP in those seven years), with one of the highest rates of consumption worldwide, and which has enjoyed one of the highest living standards in the world for well over a century now? Eventually, all of these nations will have to make strides to increase their efficiency, but you'll probably agree that a country that is both the biggest consumer in absolute terms and one of the least efficient ones has the largest potential for savings, and stands to lose the most if they don't adapt quickly and prepare for the inevitable supply crunch. Now, if you agree that reducing US oil consumption would be a good thing simply in its own interest, let's have a look at how it could be done. Why is the individuaChinese demand drives the prices, and Chinese demand will drive the technological improvement necessary to cheapen the cost of alternative fuels. l oil consumption in Europe so much lower than in the US, and why do Europeans, on average, drive more efficient cars? Simple answer: fuel taxes are much higher in most European nations (Germany, for example, adds about 6 Dollars per gallon in taxes). Has it brought the European economies to its knees? No. Has it resulted in drastically lower standards of living? No. I'd even argue that the high share of taxes in the overall gas price has had another beneficial effect when the crude oil price went through the roof two years ago: the relative increase in the price you have to pay at the gas station was much less pronounced than in the US, resulting in a less acute pressure on the consumer to adapt his habits. So, if we can agree on these points, we'll have to conclude that government intervention in the market (by means of higher taxes) has resulted in increased economic efficiency and better adaption to inevitable future oil market developments. But if you tried to argue these points on Conservapedia, even a longtime editor and sysop such as yourself would quicly get the boot for disagreeing with Andy's insane orthodoxy. Apart from purely economic reasons, bemoaning the adverse environmental effects of fossile fuel consumption would get you branded a communist (unless you can somehow pin the blame on Obama). Pointing out that CP has advocated even more extreme versions of an energy policy that denies the need to reduce oil dependency would also result in a swift block. You're welcome to try and prove me wrong, though: just bring up any of these issues over at CP, don't relent if Andy or somebody else provides only evasive answers, and let's see where that gets you. Godspeed. Röstigraben (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

An excellent little essay, unfortunately you wasted it by giving it to Rob. You may as well have written it on paper and flushed it down the bog. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We'll see, I haven't given up on him yet. I'd just like to find out how someone who at least claims to share so many of my concerns can draw the conclusion that propping up CP and its insane policy recommendations is a worthwhile endeavour. Röstigraben (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Momentqry digression: I get accused of non sequiters but you go from a well-reasoned argument for gas taxes to discourage consumption to an attack on CP and Andy whom you name by name twice; I'll just leave that alone.Let's begin with cite that shows US oil consumption is 2.5 times China's. Have you read the this CRS report f(the material your Congressman reads) from last fall, excerpted,

Annual vehicle output has increased from less than 2 million vehicles in the late 1990s to 9.5 million in 2008. In terms of production volume in 2008, China has surpassed Korea, France, Germany, and the United States, trailing only Japan. ... From January to October 2009, more than 10 million vehicles were sold in China. If such growth continues, China is on its way to becoming world’s largest auto market.

Where does the future lie? They build autos with probably less than $500 in labor and rolls off the assembly line for about $1500. If you can buy a franchise for these Chinese built cars, do it. The shipping cost from China to Long Beach California probably equals the production cost, then maybe another $1500 or $2000 to have it trucked to where you live. So for about a $5000 unit cost investment, you market it to the consumer with a competitive sales price of say $17,000-$22,000.

Now the same car sells back in China for about $1500, which is the producers primary market. They don't have the infrastructure, roads, bridges, gas stations, repair shops, highway signs, stop lights, one-way streets, etc. So there's immense possibilities for growth. True as you say, China is not alone in driving global demand, and these countries like China, India and Indonesia also subsidize consumption. Its a cultural phenomenon, owning a private passenger vehicle is linked up with the idea of prosperity. Those governments are not about to discourage vehicle production, ownership, and oil consumption cause everyone believes it's the samething as prosperity.

The US by contrast is a mature economy. It's tough overcoming decades of mistakes, and chronic ailments. We can't afford to convert off oil, it's just impractical. But the growing economies, with large populations and uncommitted resources that could be used to develop an alternative cost efficient substitute to crude oil ultimately will do so. The reason being, it just impractical think these large populous countries can build enough single passenger vehicles to support 2 billion people that use petroleum products. If they want to be prosperous and avoid the pitfalls that snagged the West, they can begin committing the resources now to develop alternative fuels for their consumers. We can't. They must. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What a load of tree-hugging environmentalist liberal communist bullshit. StarDelta (talk) 01:06, 1supports th3 May 2010 (UTC)

Drill, baby, drill! --Kels (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent)Let me get this straight: because the US is a mature economy, it shouldn't be expected to decrease its dependence on oil, but the Chinese, Indians et al. are supposed to develop alternative cutting-edge technologies before they ever reach that level of overall economic development? You probably didn't follow the Copenhagen summit last year, but let me tell you that one huge issue during the negotiations (that didn't get anywhere) was the idea of technology transfers to the developing countries, because the patents for the most highly-developed technologies for renewables and increasing energy efficiency are held by Western and Japanese companies, and couldn't be introduced at market price into budding consumer markets with much, much lower average purchasing power. Next, you claim it's impossible for a highly developed nation to get off fossile fuel usage - well, why do you think I provided the European example, if not to show how countries that are very similar to the US could pull it off and provide a blueprint? By the way, I was surprised you called my argument "well-reasoned" (thanks), because the way I described is obviously one of these socialist/environmentalist schemes of strategic market distortion which you guys seem to hate so much. The only difference between Europe and the USA is - as you yourself admitted - the higher acceptance of such measures among Europeans and, consequently, a higher political will to carry them out. Now here's where we get back at CP: if you lament the fact that US politicians aren't willing to take a long-term view and do something similar to discourage oil consumption, why the hell are you involved in a propaganda effort that, among other things, tries to convince people that such action is not only unnecessary, but downright evil, if not deliberately designed to bring the US to its knees from within? Röstigraben (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that China (say) will have to implement cutting edge tech - it's that it's easier for them, since they aren't as invested in the old stuff. Look at how developing nations have gone straight to cell phones - they never had the land line wires in place by the time cell tech was ubiquitous and easy to implement. The question is, though, whether they can invent and develop it, or just use the latest tech from the "West". ħuman 19:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, human. And very good analogy. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll stick to China as well, because I don't know much about the situation in other major developing countries. First of all, the stuff Rob posted about China "not having the infrastructure, roads, bridges etc..." is obviously nonsense. Outside of sparsely populated areas such as Xinjiang and Tibet, China has already built an extensive network of expressways, and its major metropolitan areas are flushed with privately-owned cars, buses and the ubiquitous taxi cabs. Believe me, you wouldn't want to experience one of Beijing's infamous traffic congestions. Also, Rob is right about the number of newly produced cars, and the vast majority of these are sold on the domestic market. So it's not like China is only just now entering the oil age, nor can they conveniently leapfrog it: hybrid vehicles (not to mention electric cars) are pretty sophisticated and expensive pieces of technology, and while they are being sold in China, only a small minority of consumers can afford them. China's domestic automobile companies are targetting newly emerging customer classes, with prices (and, accordingly, quality) tending towards the low end of the spectrum (by the way, Rob, your plan about selling Chinese cars in the US wouldn't work, because almost none of them meet Western safety standards). The Chinese car makers are simply working with the market they've got, and it's not one in which extensive investments into R&D in order to produce expensive high-tech cars would pay off. It's not unlike the situation in the US: GM, Chrysler and Ford used to reap huge profits on their line-up of gaz-guzzling SUVs, until that market evaporated after the oil price hike. And it's not like the sage Chinese government can simply mandate the adoption of more long-term strategieChinese demand drives the prices, and Chinese demand will drive the technological improvement necessary to cheapen the cost of alternative fuels. s overnight - they stake their legitimacy completely on their success in improving the living standard of their people, and they also have to walk a fine line between giving the Chinese the toys and jobs they want on the one hand, and gradually increasing fuel efficiency standards and investments into renewables on the other. Which is arguably more than the US has been doing, at least under the Bush government. And my point is simply that even if both the US and China have a similarly low threshold of popular acceptance for measures designed to discourage excessive energy consumption, the former can and should make bigger strides towards that goal because of their superior technology and much larger wealth. Röstigraben (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the comments about Copenhagen and the patent royalties is just one component part of cost that developing nations must pay (or compensate) as they wrestle with the problem of delivering the consumer demand for passenger vehicles to roughly one third of the planet's population. It's their problem. All things being equal, if you wish to compare current crude consumption rates in China & elsewhere to the US, look at the ratio of registered vehicles on the road to population in the United States, which is roughly twice the number of workers in the US, or more than one and half times the adult population. If China alone were to set a goal one vehicle per adult, that would be approximately 600 million more vehicles, or roughly a doubling of existing vehicles worldwide. Then let's factor in India & Indonesia setting the same goals. Then let's imagine someday they reach the same maturity the US has of having one and half vehicles per adult, or two vehicles per worker. While in 50 or 60 years (maybe less) these goals may be obtainable, it's hard to imagine a scenario under which these passenger vehicles would consume fossil fuels with and average of 35 MPG. I've heard it said the next cheapest alternative fuel would cost in relative terms to petroleum about $80 per gallon (this would include the conversion cost of leasing or buying patent rights). It's just not up to the US, or for that matter EU, to figure out how to overcome these costs. It's the developing nations problem, and they are the only ones with the resources to develop alternatives. It's a simple choice on their part, pay the price or maintain a third world status. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm tired of repeating myself, so let me just do a quick point-by-point refutation of your latest nonsense.

• If I want to compare current oil consumption rates between countries, I'll look at these statistics directly, as I have done, not at the number of vehicles. The latter might be marginally useful for measuring living standards and predicting future demand in developing countries, but obviously doesn't take efficiency into account.
• You obviously have no clue about international fuel efficiency laws. These are already more stringent in China, compared to the US, and well above 35 MPG - here's a helpful link to your favourite reliable source.
• I can't begin to imagine where you picked up that 80$ number. The cheapest renewable replacement for regular gasoline is ethanol, or biofuel, which is already extensively used in blends, without resulting in drastically higher prices. Its production is heavily subsidized, so I can't easily estimate its precise real cost, but it would be nowhere near the number you quoted. That said, I'm not too big a fan of burning food for transportation, but ethanol is the most realistic short-to-middle-term replacement.
• Your last paragraph almost reads like you believe that only the developing nations will have to bear higher prices when their demand increases; hence, it would be their problem. Rob, once again, global oil prices will steadily increase in the future, and each nation has a self-interest in adapting to this inevitable development as soon as possible and make the transition off fossile fuels go smoothly. Everyone will have to face the end of the oil age and prepare for it, and even discounting any moral obligations, the developed world is in a much better position to simply save its own ass, if its citizens would only wake up to reality.

So, by promoting complacency and arguing that the world's largest oil consumer can lean back and do nothing, you're effectively calling for running the US economy headlong into a wall. Some patriot you are. Röstigraben (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comparing consumption rates of a finite resource (oil) to the infinite demand of consumers for automobiles (assuming Jesus doesn't return) is apples and oranges.
• Fuel standards of a finite resource in theory stretch out the time before total depletion. Comparisons between the US & China has little impactsupports th on consumption rates, as China has only a fraction of vehicles on the roaqd that the US does. Again, the rate of growth of manufacturing demand for new vehicles is a much larger factor.
• $80 I think applies to hydrogen fuel cell.
• You last comment on global prices sounds like your beginning to agree with the points I've made. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Once more unto the breach, but this is going to be my final attempt to get you to realise the contradictions in your arguments. You seem to be pretty similar to Andy in that neither introducing evidence against your position nor pointing out the logical flaws in your arguments will make you rethink your conclusions, and this is getting tedious. Anyway, let's start with the points above:

• I never compared oil consumption rates in one country to the number of vehicles in another (that would indeed be an apples-and-oranges-mistake), I consistently used the former indicator. What I did above was try to tell you why the latter isn't as useful, because it's, at best, an unreliable approximation to a variable that can readily be measured directly.
• I quoted the NYT article in order to refute your notion that China has laxer efficiency laws than the US and wouldn't be able to push the average oil consumption of its car fleet under 35 MPG even after 50 years. Yes, Rob, even China is set to pull ahead of the US in efficiency. It's overall oil consumption will of course still increase in the future, as supports thChina's rapid economic growth will outweigh savings through increased efficiency for at least another decade or two. Still, that's no reason to ignore efficiency - on the contrary, an expected further increase in demand is all the more reason for everyone to think what he or she can do about reducing consumption. Are you still not getting this?
• I don't know about the price of using hydrogen fuel cells, but I doubt anyone would bother with them if their adoption would result in a twentyfold increase in costs for transportation. They may become a big thing somewhere down the line, and all efforts to improve this technology should be supported. Still, ethanol and conventional-battery-driven electric cars are both already available as well as rather cost-efficient (unless you use oil to produce the energy the latter consume, of course).
• I'm beginning to wonder if you even read my posts. I certainly never doubted that we'll see a steady decrease in oil production, coupled with still-rising demand in the near future. Hence, higher prices. That is the backbone of my whole argument, and since it's the assumption both of us apparently share, I wanted to get you around to realize that this inevitable development necessitates the adoption of a proactive energy policy designed to reduce demand and develop alternatives, or we're all done for.

So, let's revisit the glaring contradiction between accepting this fact and arguing that this development is of no concern to the US one last time. Global oil production decreases, the price rises, and everyone except the US behaves sensibly and tries to get its consumption in line with worsening market conditions. US companies and private citizens will still try to consume less fuel as the costs become prohibitive, but since their government hasn't been backing such behaviour up by trying to manage a gradual switch to the post-oil age, it's going to be more abrupt and painful. They'll have to look overseas to purchase efficiency-increasing technologies, something competitors like the Europeans developed and implemented in their home markets long ago. Not just gasoline, but consumer products in general become more expensive as these additional costs are factored into the price. US companies face a sudden make-or-break situation as their domestic market contracts and foreign competitors aggressively seize additional market shares, utilising their superior technology. Tariffs are no solution to this problem, since the products consumers now require can't be produced by domestic companies, and driving the cost of the new, efficient vehicles and other toys from abroad up even more would hurt consumers further. The already crappy US trade balance takes another hit, necessitating yet more borrowing from overseas. Private citizens, companies and the federal government, already deeply in debt, frantically compete for yet more credit that can only be supplied by creditors from abroad profiting from this huge trade imbalance. Interest rates rise sharply, inflation goes through the roof, the dollar depreciates. Consumers have to pay yet more for foreign products, while US companies can't even take advantage of this, since they're now totally unable to compete even in their home market, let alone sell stuff overseas. Finally, as the economy spins out of control and private citizens are unable to keep up their living standard, social unrest looms. Unfettered consumption means living on borrowed time, Rob, and the clock may well run out because propaganda outlets like Conservapedia (not CP itself, since it's irrelevant) stand in the way of realising this problem and acting on it. Andy would still be standing amidst the wreckage his shortsighted views have made impossible to avert, and hold out for the return of Jesus at the last minute. Unfortunately, betting on divine interference is, in the words of the most incompetent US politician of all time, not a strategy and not an option. Röstigraben (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• developing world subsidizes oil consumption; this political atmosphere would take decades to reverse. [2]
• US consumers will "have to look overseas to purchase efficiency-increasing technologies..." -- this is what I said early on, the US no longer is in the leadership role of developing more cost-efficient energy sources.
• "Not just gasoline, but consumer products in general..." -- if vehicles can be converted to use alterfnative sources, plastics, for example, will still most likely use crude oil based polymers, and conceivably could become cheaper since a more abundant supply would be available with the largest segment of demand-vehicle use, quantitatively reduced.
• "US companies face a sudden make-or-break situation as their domestic market contracts and foreign competitors aggressively seize additional market shares, utilising their superior technology....." -- this may already be happening. (Note:there's a somewhat Malthusian tone to much of these arguments).
• ...as the economy spins out of control ... social unrest looms...." -- and the workers rise up to de-re-un-Thatcherize British Petroleum and restore the Means of Destruction to its rightful owners.... nobs^{don't bother me} 01:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Chinese demand drives the prices, and Chinese demand will drive the technological improvement necessary to cheapen the cost of alternative fuels.

OK, one last reply, just to clarify my stance. The scenario I outlined above describes the consequences of US inaction, not some inevitable development. I pointed out what can be done in my very first lengthy post. And yes, the US is still in a very good position to harness its wealth and knowledge and meet this challenge, if its citizens can reach a consensus on these measures. If they do not, because the right-wing propaganda machine convinces them that such policies are evil, socialist and unamerican, then it's lights out in the foreseeable future. I'm still optimistic about this, reason will prevail. But it will be due to the efforts of sincere politicians, scientists and educators, while Andy and his counterparts in more relevant propaganda outlets are simply trying to pull everyone down to their own level of ignorance and shortsighted greed. You want to keep siding with him, fine. But in doing so you're actively helping to bring about a catastrophe. Röstigraben (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that clears thing up: the imminent global catastrophe from crude oil depletion and lack of investment in alternative sources is Andy Schlafly and Conservapedia's fault. Obama's cp:Gulf oil spill is just a drop in the bucket compared to the impending doom right-wingers have in store for us. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you just read one out of every five words, or what? --Kels (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just that he only understands one out of every five words - at best. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

CP's ability to aid in bringing about the anti-capitalist, socialist agenda to destroy big oil, the drilling, refining and distribution network, auto manufacturers and the attendant transport and sales network, parts manufacturers and parts sales, auto repair, body shops, customization, custom parts, vocational education feeder schools, etc., and millions upon million of jobs connected with these industries, is a little overrated. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Executive summary: "CP's ability ... is a little overrated." ħuman 02:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Obama agrees with the basic factsI've outlined above; here's what he said at yesterday's press Conference:

It’s time to accelerate the competition with countries like China, who have already realized the future lies in renewable energy. [3] nobs^{don't bother me} 04:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The facts you outlined above? That's actually what I've been saying, you were the one who said "It's too hard! China must do it!". Seems like you're not even reading/remembering your own words anymore. And since when does Obama have any credibility, isn't he the evil communist who caused the oil spill? Röstigraben (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you've discussed short term consumer education & consumption, me & Obama discussed longterm alternatives. Obama used the terms "renewable," whereas I've discussed "alternatives."

• Chinese demand drives the prices, and Chinese demand will drive the technological improvement necessary to cheapen the cost of alternative fuels. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob, do you support government regulation of drilling?

"Obama granted BP an exclusion to the proper environmental impact assessment (EIA) required by law" so you support government regulation of industry then? - π 04:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. And if there's a business that needs regulation, this would be it. Have you ever seen the IRS's Criminal Investigations Manual? Half the book is dedicated to one industry, oil and gas, and how to investigate of depletion allowances. And right now I'm consulting with a several individuals formerly employed in oil and gas drilling business, from engineers down to roughnecks on offshore rigs. ~~sup>— Unsigned, by: RobSmith / talk / contribs

I must say your position on this is surprisingly non-conservative for a guy that thinks communist still exist (outside the few hundred deluded college students, and they are all in it because they are hoping that it will get them laid somehow). - π 05:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick call to the last two Republican Presidents, and the former Republican Vice-President, should sort you out Rob. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 05:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, he answered, at least. Isn't that fair? ħuman 05:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As Huw has said, thanks for answering this question Rob (and for trying to in-some-kind-of-round-about-way answer the last one too). So, given that you are in favour of regulation here, why was CP so anti about everything Obama did previously to restrict offshore exploration? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Obama did anything to restrict offshore drilling. All I know is Obama's a trash talker who takes money from Goldman Sachs & British Petroleum. I don't waste a lot of time trying to decipher his latest posturing and pandering pitch or trying to make sense of his latest ruse, or trying to determine if he really means it. Frankly, I don't care. And I pity people who take any of his bullshit serious. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So unrelenting distrust of a political figurehead is more important than any particular offshore drilling issue? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 02:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob you idiot, haven't you followed up those links I posted above? BP (they haven't been Britsih Petroleum for over 10 years but we all know you're living in the past) actually gave even more money to the Republicans - as did all the other oil companies.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Lily has already addressed your second 'point' (again), so I will address your first one. You weren't aware that Obama did anything to restrict offshore drilling? Well, you're probably correct, but that didn't stop CP adorning its mainpage with shit like this? Just so I understand the CP view; it is wrong to restrict offshore drilling, especially for so-called "environmental" reasons, but when there's an environmental disaster due to offshore drilling, it's Obama's fault. Is that about right? CP has never bothered with consistency, but this one really does up the hypocrisy ante. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Krugman

The oil spill is Obama's fault

No, I haven’t lost my mind — that’s not what I believe.

What does this tell us about what Paul Krugman believes? EddyP (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Good luck, mate, Rob is on a strange one with this. No one understands why he thinks what he thinks usually, but usually we have a good guess. In this case, personally, I am just embarrassed for my old friend's "logic". ħuman 09:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It says it in the NYT. Wikipedia considers it a reliable source, therefore it is true. QED. - π 11:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently he's trying to prove a point [4] -- Nx / talk 11:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

...by vandalising his own wiki? EddyP (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first time. Remember that he claims that New Ordeal had deliberately false information designed to draw out educated people enemy vandals, even it still stands in mainspace as fact today. --Kels (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) When you search krugman on whitehouse.gov you get all sorts of interesting things, like this answer, for example....

Q In a rare alignment, MoveOn.org, Paul Krugman and Bill Kristol all agreed the President was wrong when he said he does not begrudge Wall Street bonuses.

MR. GIBBS: The President didn't say that, Major.

Q I'm saying what they're saying he said. He said "success" -- "I don't begrudge success, I don't begrudge --

MR. GIBBS: Let's not play hypothetical.

Q All right. He said, "I don't begrudge their success, I don't begrudge their wealth."

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no, no. “I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people's success or wealth.”

Q Well, read the question, too, because the question was about -- the question was about the bonuses.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, I read the questions. You and I talked about this like four times the other --

Q I know, but the question was about --

MR. GIBBS: I understand. I understand the question was about bonuses. The question -- and the President on five different occasions -- just as I emailed you yesterday, causing you to reexamine what you'd written based off of the interview -- that the President was talking in that sentence, as he's done many times, about -- he does not believe the federal government should be setting salaries for business in America. He still believes that.

Q Does he still remain comfortable with the analogy he made with Major League Baseball players many have pointed out -- yes, Major League Baseball players make a lot of money -- no, many of them will make the World Series, but none of them had anything to do with the financial crisis or bad --

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't think the President would argue that not many baseball players had anything to do with the financial crisis. I don't think that's -- the point he was trying to make was that there are obscene and shocking salaries, and obscene and shocking compensation that don't match what happens with your performance.

Q Does Blankfein and Dimon count?

MR. GIBBS: Hold on, hold on, let me -- can I just -- let me finish my answer -- that the President has said that there ought to be -- these ought to be based on performance, not on risk-taking, okay?

Q And some of these new ones are.

MR. GIBBS: No, that -- right, in the sense that yes, they're in stock rather than in --

Q Long-term health.

MR. GIBBS: There should be a say on pay. Shareholders ought to be able to weigh in on this. And he said that salaries like you were talking about with baseball and these bonuses are extraordinary and shocking.

Q Blankfein and Dimon -- are those obscene bonuses, Blankfein’s and Dimon’s?

MR. GIBBS: The President has spoken repeatedly on these bonuses, and finds them, as he did in here, extraordinary and shocking.

Q Has he been asked specifically about Blankfein and Dimon?

MR. GIBBS: And he said extraordinary and shocking, specifically.

Q Are they obscene, are they an offense, are they a violation of our moral principles?

MR. GIBBS: The President doesn't have any different view on bonuses yesterday than he had 10 days ago or 10 months ago.

Q Are these more palatable because these are different in type from the ones that were not linked to long-term health stock?

MR. GIBBS: Ensuring the bonuses are paid in that way is a movement in the right direction, right? Does that justify the level of these bonuses when, through only -- only through the taxpayers' assistance, would these banks still even exist? Of course not.

So, can anyone tell us how the White House Press Office responded to Krugman's statement the President was wrong? nobs^{don't bother me} 02:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant, please stay on topic Rob. Answer the question, what do you think Krugman actually believes regarding the oil spill and Obama? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC) What on earth are you on about, Rob? Do you even know anymore? I have no idea who this Krugman chap is, but the script here seems to be that you cited Krugman as having claimed the oil spill to be Obama's fault - which he clearly didn't - you have now been called-out on this basic error/astonishing deceit, and in response you post that. Eh? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's see... Krugman is a fellow Nobel Lauarette who was award the Nobel Prize in economics...in 2008...let's see...2008...the same year (a) of the economic crash and (b) Obama was elected. Krugman also writes a column called Conscience of a Liberal in the msm source NYT But Krugman & Obama have been in a caqge match for several years. [5] You'd think in the worst economic crisis in since the Great Depression the President would listen to the advice of the most widely respected economist on the planet, but Obama & Gibbs are more intent on trashing his credibility. So to hear Gibbs & Obama talk, anything Krugman has to say is bullshit. [6] I can't understand the Obama people being so upset about this. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Err what? We're testing your reading comprehension, not getting upset about anything, Rob. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is all irrelevant to the question posed to you. What do you think Krugman believes about the oil spill based on his column. Does he, or does he not, blame Obama? Its a simple question. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Obama, Krugman's full of shit, per CBS News. [7] nobs^{don't bother me} 03:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So do you believe that Krugman thinks Obama is at fault? Aceⁱ⁹ 03:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Krugman lacks credibility, as the Obama team has said for years (forget his Nobel Prize, or the fact Krugman was dead on correct in trashing Bush). nobs^{don't bother me} 03:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So does Krugman believe the oil spill to be Obamas fault? Aceⁱ⁹ 03:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

All I know is Obama doesn't believe what Krugman thinks or says and makes public his sentiments about a fellow Nobel Lauarette. That should be enough for any heel clicking, mind numbed cultic zombie to ignore what Krugman thinks and/or has to say. Trying to give Krugman credibility now as if he has something useful or worthwhile to say is a bit inconsistent, isn't it? nobs^{don't bother me} 03:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So why have you the title of Krugmans page on your oil spill article? Krugman does not believe Obama to be at fault and, if you find Krugman so lacking in credibility why have you bothered mentioning him? Aceⁱ⁹ 03:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it, Ace. Krugman says Obama is not at fault. Krugman has no credibility. Therefore Obama is at fault. Deny this and lose all credibility. DickTurpis (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at this criticism here, "Krugman Then, Krugman Now."[barackobama.com] Obama is saying that Krugman said one thing a few months ago and another now, but to what end? That's left unsaid, but the implication must be that Krugman's either a complete idiot who forgot what he said or that he's changed his words due to some sort of unethical or under-handed motive. So you tell me what Krugman said, and if it has any credibility? nobs^{don't bother me} 04:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe Krugman's words were (and I am paraphrasing here) take your fucking meds. DickTurpis (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty now Dick, you have to admit the most amazing thing about these blind Obama defenders is they never heard of Paul Krugman. This Politic review of the Newsweek article is pretty good. [8] nobs^{don't bother me} 04:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesus you're a fucking nitwit Rob. You have proven the full truth of this. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If that's true, Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has been a good student of the nobsian method, as witness above. Look at any reference to Krugman on whitehouse.gov. [9] nobs^{don't bother me} 05:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Word of advise everyone. I learned this lesson many times some years back, but I keep falling into the trap too. Give up trying to have a reasonable discussion with Rob. It's a combination trying to talk to a retarded 3 year old who only wants to talk about his favorite new toy and banging your head into a brick wall. Forever. It isn't worth it. Give up. DickTurpis (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice one Dick. Also, Nobbies, I presume that whenever I'd like to quote Paul Krugman on any issue in the future - the Nobel Prize-winning Paul Krugman, I might add - you'll be happy to bow to his views? Oh yes I'm sure. ħuman 09:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)No, of course not! Krugman suddenly lost all credibility a few comments above! From now on, Rob will bow to Obama's views and turn CP into a pro-Obama blog. Röstigraben (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Krugman has also published a paper in 1978 that cited a work from 1987 (also by Krugman, as it happens). Krugman rocks. 68.147.139.21 (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Remotion

You've been given back your cool sysop powers. Use them wisely. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 05:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I've been demoted. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

yeah sorry about that. Never mind though. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A quote to consider

“”He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche.

EddyP (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"God is dead." - Nietzshe

"Nietzsche is dead." - God ^{[citation needed]}

"I miss Richard Nixon." - Paul Krugman

"Nobel Lorette Leaurate Prize-winning-guy Paul Krugman is the most widely respected economist on the planet" - RobSmith

"Krugman is full of shit" - RobSmith, 16 minutes later. Röstigraben (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"It is Obama's fault that God is dead" - P. Krugman (as Translated by R. Smitch) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, Obama is the oil spill's fault! Junggai (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"God is dead. Long live General Motors!" - Barack Obama nobs^{don't bother me} 01:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"I would not have saved the American motor industry, and would instead buy foreign everything" - Rob Smith. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 05:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

GM is dead! Long Live God! ħuman 05:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just read your oil spill essay

And you are either (or perhaps both):

• An idiot.
• So overwhelmed with out-and-out hatred of Obama, that you manage to steer nearly every fucking paragraph in to an attack on him.

Terrible writing, either way. You appear to have read one non-technical article, and then think you are an expert on deepwater drilling. For anyone with even the slightest knowledge of this industry, your writing is embarrassing. Keep up the good work. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand why Obama killed all those people in the Haitian Earthquake, they don't vote anyway. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)still don't understand

Hey! Look at you! Developing a sense of humor and shit. Howdaya like that! Is there perhaps hope for you yet? DickTurpis (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I congratulate you, Rob. That was the funniest thing I saw all day, and I spent the day watching Lewis black videos at the airport. I'm very impressed. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob's always been a funny guy, the trick is figuring out how to get him to make a joke. ħuman 02:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A joke that's completely off topic at the expense of a couple hundred thousand recently deceased Haitian people...hilarious. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 03:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's common knowledge now president's are responsible for Acts of God. Katrina deaths were 1300. "Bush responsible for Katrina" googles 2.3 million hits, including the German Minister, Democratic Underground, and Paul Krugman in the top ten. [10] So I agree, it is no joke. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, don't be a moron. Bush was not the "cause" of Katrina. Bush was responsible for the appalling federal reponse the the disaster we all saw coming. "Heckuva job, Brownie". If anything, Obama will be responsible for any failings of the feds to address BP's fucking disaster. Drill baby, drill. ħuman 04:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

PS, you can have Obama. His politics are closer to your than to mine. ħuman 04:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your inability to read

""The oil spill is Obama's fault" in his regular New York Times opinion column, Conscience of a Liberal,, although there is some question whether he actually believes it." Some question? How is there some question of his belief when he says, in the first sentence "that’s not what I believe". You're a simpleton aren't you? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ace. Why are you continuing to humour this guy? His willingness to use dishonest arguments to further a cause he believes in has been documented well enough by now. --Damo^Hi 02:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I am waiting to see what gibberish he comes up with next. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Acording to barackobama.com "the implication must be that Krugman's either a complete idiot who forgot what he said or that he's changed his words due to some sort of unethical or under-handed motive." [11] " nobs^{don't bother me} 03:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't link random words here Rob. Or string random words in a row that looks like a sentence but says nothing... Or link to shit that has nothing to do with what you are talking about. Once again, why do you lie about what Krugman says? ħuman 03:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There is some question whether Krugman says what he thinks, according to Obama and company. So the current version tilts toward the Obama POV. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolute bollocks Rob. Krugman has made himself perfectly clear - he doesn't think that Obama was at fault. Any insistence by you at the margins is petty, dishonest and quite frankly pathetic. --Damo^Hi 04:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

He does say that dishonest people will blame it on Obama. Nice of Rob to be so obliging. --Kels (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The end justifies the means. I trying to save the planet. Think of the children.... nobs^{don't bother me} 16:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you Actually read the words?

Or do you just browse headlines and photos? I bet you do really well with "Where's Waldo" books. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 06:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It was on this talk page I was pursueded Krugman's an apologist for Obama and not a critic. Look what he says, " the truth is that policy makers aren’t doing too much; they’re doing too little....that Obama administration economists would very much like to see another stimulus plan... Maybe the economic measures already taken will end up doing the trick...But hope is not a plan.

Key word is hope. So, is Krugman supportive of the Obama agenda of hope & change, or does he think its BS? nobs^{don't bother me} 02:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he "thinks" rather than "toes the line". He agrees with or supports Obama on some things, and criticizes him on others. Yeah, there's actually no "party line" on the left, surprised? ħuman 02:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, when Krugman agrees with Obama, this is evidence that he is a communist. When he disagrees with Obama, he is just doing it to cover up the fact that he is a communist. QED. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty interesting article of Krugman's. He seems oblivious to what caused the Greek debt crisis, and incapable of analyzing or understanding investor sentiment. And statement's like this:

Hey, worrying about the unemployed is just so 2009.

What’s behind this new pessimism?

Can you say "out of touch liberal elitism," or maybe the pain and suffering of 16 million unemployed has not been extenuated by crackpot ideas propounded by the likes of Krugman & Obama? nobs^{don't bother me} 02:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Nutty Roux (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I only noticed your latest mangling of Krugman's words just now. Once again, you spectacularly fail at reading comprehension, and thereby provide a nice implicit answer to the question asked above. Rob, Krugman's using that line to criticize inaction in the face of terrible unemployment. And while I already pointed Krugman's views out to you a few weeks ago, here they are once again, just for you, in a nutshell: he's an independent economist with rather left-leaning, Keynesian views, and while he frequently criticizes Obama's policies, he does so because he thinks Obama has steered too much to the right and has succumbed to Chicago-school-economics. If Krugman could've had his way, the US would have nationalized large parts of its financial industry instead of handing out bailouts, would have put together a much larger stimulus package, and would have enacted single-payer health care or at least a very robust public option. It's your decision whether you want to side with Krugman or Obama on these issues, but Conservapedia resorting to Krugman to bash Obama would be like me quoting Dick Cheney when criticizing him for not following through on his promises to close Guantanamo and put and end to detention practices outside of the normal juridical system. Röstigraben (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh? okeee....Newsweek carries a cover pic w/Krugman & bold headline, "Obama is Wrong." Now the Obamazombies say, "Krugman is Right." ....eeookay....Ever hear of the 12-12-12 Rule? What does the average 12 year old, 12th grader, and average adult all have in common? They all have a 12,000 word vocabulary. So if you can wexplain this BS in 12,000 words or less to the average 12 year old -- and have it make sense -- please do so. Right now, I'm sticking with the tried & tested Wiki axiom, "verifable - not true." nobs^{don't bother me} 03:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you respond to what was said rather than bringing up extraneous arguments. Damo^Hi 03:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No kidding. Rob, having a discussion with you is like playing Whac-A-Mole. You line up your shot, you wait for it, and then you strike, only to have the little rodent scurry back down and pop up in a completely different part of the board. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 05:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, now. Krugman said, "the oil spill is Obama's fault." Yesterday Obama took responsibility for it, but Krugman doesn't really believe that. Does that about cover it? nobs^{don't bother me} 03:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

So the answer to the above question is "no", then? --Kels (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually his answer is "nnn... hey look over there, is that some kind of red fish?". - π 03:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Obama took responsibility for the government's response to it. He sure as hell didn't cause it, you moron. ħuman 04:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

au contraire

Question from Chip Reid... you knew as soon as you came in, ... about this cozy relationship, but you continued to give permits -- some of them under questionable circumstances. Is it fair to blame the Bush administration? Don't you deserve some of that?

So your position is now that the government should oversee such projects? ħuman 06:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

THE PRESIDENT:Well, let me just make the point that I made earlier, which is Salazar came in and started cleaning house, but the culture had not fully changed in MMS. And absolutely I take responsibility for that. [12]

And the Deepwater Horizons was one of the rigs granted a permit without the Environmental Impact Assessment required by federal law. [13] nobs^{don't bother me}

Hey Rob, can you say "out of touch conservative elitism" because the condition is much more prevalent amongst the rich and powerful than liberal.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

regulation

So, anyway, Rob, you now agree that the government should be heavily involved in regulation of oil/gas companies? Because I think they should be. ħuman 09:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes & no; the product that comes to the surface still has to be competitive in price. How difficult would it be for a joint Iranian-Venezuelan-Cuban conglomerate oil consortium to set up a deep water drilling rig 13 miles off the US coast with absolutely no environmental or safety regulations (hell, they could staff the rig with wp:shahids and get a twofer: oil revenues to fund wmd, and and martyrs in case of a mishap). nobs^{don't bother me} 16:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, where does Cuba get their energy from? ħuman 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This rig was 125 miles offshore - Cuba has as much of a right to drill the same reserve as anyone else. All they lack is the capital investment & knowhow. See these two recent articles, for examle. [14][15] nobs^{don't bother me} 02:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok, so they have ready access to offshore fields? I realize their economy operates at a much lower energy intensity than our, I was just curious where they were getting whatever they use. I suppose that back in the good old days (pre-1991?) the USSR supplied them with oil. But that was a long time ago. ħuman 02:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's an article from 2006 about a joint Cuban-Chinese venture 45 miles off Florida. [16] Cuba has low consumption, so most would be for export. They can outsource the knowhow from ferneigners, like most of the Arab states do. They're in a similar position as Vietnam, which also potentially could become an oil-rich nation. They don't have many vehicles on the road after 50 years of retarded economic development, and agriculture is done with the ox. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, while your typing is sane and makes sense, thcone people who typed at your link lost me with "...and provide compelling evidence oil is a plentiful deep-earth product made naturally on a continuous basis." Then I noticed it was World Nut Daily. Oh well. ħuman 03:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That article metions jerome Corsi of Obamanation and Unfit for Command fame. I was looking for a Popular Mechanics from about two years ago but can't find it. This one's got some good technical stuff. [17]

I've been consulting with an ex-oil engineer; he said that top kill wouldn't work cause the first mile beneath the seabed floor is "fish turds and sea shells;" they have to drill down farther to hit something solid. Because of the pressure, the oil will just squirt sideways into the sediments and force back up elsewhere from where the pipe broke off, nobs^{don't bother me} 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A mile of loose sediment I really doubt. Anyway, they line the bore with steel pipe as they drill. Hence the long-term strategy of drilling into the well from the side and plugging it. Best of luck with that, I hope it works. This gusher is killing business. ħuman 05:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob, you clearly don't have a clue about offshore drilling, so please stop embarrassing yourself. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you actually read the words? part II

I hardly think it is fair to blame Obama for a report relating to activity 2000 - 2008. Bit of hate shining through eh Rob? --Damo^Hi 09:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Such an irrational emotion, I'm ashamed of you Rob. --Kels (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My condolences

It seems that you've now become the go-to guy for Ken's crazy project ideas after you made the mistake of responding to him. Does he just expect you to come up with silly article names, or actually write them? Anyway, please make sure to appropriately question the machismo of anyone even superficially involved with this philosophy. Godspeed! Röstigraben (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Political realities.....

"This is the real world, Obama and Company, and you idiots just don't have clue about political realities." - *Cough* Political Science Degree *Cough* Aceⁱ⁹ 20:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Petty vindictive puke for taking my sysop powers who can't hold his own in a discussion *fart* nobs^{don't bother me} 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fucking rich coming from a proven liar. Go back to jerking off over Kara's yellow dress, you lying swine. I'd walk all over you in a debate. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(Does secret handshake) Mind you that experts will never be able to stand up to the wisdom of the BotP, though. Röstigraben (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So my years of study (and ongoing study) have been for nothing? To think of all the time and money I could have saved by lying and making things up like Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Should've kept your job at the carwash, it has more of a future. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In NZ we have auto-carwashers. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yah, you fuck sheep too, from what I hear. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not where I am from. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Rob. Guess what? Nutty Roux (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll just tell you since I have no intention of coming back here anytime soon. I was going to say that you're doing a heck of a job trolling RW. Almost as good as TK even. My only recommendation if you want to juice your game to his level is to keep writing about the sheep fucking, but heap on more personalized messages of hate followed by strange locutions like "eh?" at the ends of sentences asking nasty and pointless rhetorical questions. And for sure keep skipping around from topic to topic and failing to answer direct questions, but make sure your responses convey that the reason you're not answering is because the questioner doesn't deserve it and is a "hater" or something similar. You're doing great. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Ace came to my talk page. After that little puke took my sysop powers away, then wants a rational discussion? He's a vindicitv e little puke. And tell me, what is the difference between what Ace did, and what TK is constantly accused of? Huh? nobs^{don't bother me} 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first and most obvious answer is "you can still edit here". Are you gonna unblock me on CP now? ħuman 01:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Rob, not having sysop powers in no way limits your ability to edit RW and secondly you lost them because of your threatening behavior. I fail to see how this is my fault or has anything to do with TK. Oh, and I didn't come here for rational discussion as such discussion is impossible with you. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

While you are at it, can you unblock CP user DamianJohn. I made many constructive edits and did not vandal the site in any way. --Damo^Hi 01:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually yes, and while you are at that, can you unblock my socks? You can find a list of them at my userpage. Not all of them were vandals, I promise. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 01:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What I can't figure out are the folks who actually try to engage him and expect a straight answer. It's as bad as the people who think TK will do more than fling feces in response to any question. Much more fun to openly call him and idiot, and wait for him to prove you right. Again. --Kels (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's really our own fault for studying something that will not lead to the inevitable conclusion that a right-wing theocracy is the best thing since sliced bread. But hey, some of us have still managed to embrace the Way of the Rob and got somewhere in life. Röstigraben (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If I wanted to believe right-wing theocracy was the way to go I would have got a job at a car wash. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)