For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: $200 oil?
Oil prices are increasingly likely to hit between $150 and $200 a barrel over the next six to 24 months, said Arjun N. Murti and other Goldman Sachs analysts in a research report. "We believe the current energy crisis may be coming to a head, as a lack of adequate supply growth is becoming apparent and resulting in needed demand rationing in the OECD areas in particular the United States," the Goldman Sachs analysts wrote in the report dated Monday.
Be advised that Goldy predicted $105 oil back in March 2005 when crude was at $50. So, they've been pretty darned prescient. Of course, also be advised that this is the largest commodity trading house in the world, and, therefore, has a vested interest in these prices continuing to rise.
That said, will this prediction come true? Is there anything we can do to prevent it? If oil goes to $200 in the next six to 24 months, where do gas prices go, what happens to inflation, and how badly does this impact the economy? Finally, how will this impact the November elections?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It is day eight of the
May 6, 2008 - 09:58 ET by BDIt is day eight of the "Will the NYTimes and LATimes mention the pending posthumous award of the Medalof Honor to SPC Ross McGinnis".
Papers of record? I will take the Army Times any day.
Chickens
May 6, 2008 - 10:03 ET by iveseenitallRev.Wrong talks about the chickens coming home to roost. The "environmentalists" have steadfastly refused to drill and refine for four decades. Yes, there are downsides to drilling, but now we are seeing the downside of NOT doing it. These are the real chickens coming home to roost. All you have to do is open a history book and see what having no oil has done to nations. But the "liberals" don't read history books; they read Marxist propaganda. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Way to go Democrats!
May 6, 2008 - 10:13 ET by Missouri ConservativeI'm still waiting to see Nancy Pelosi's "secret plan" to lower energy prices. I think it goes something like this:
No drilling, windfall profits taxes on "big oil", no new refineries, hundreds of different blends of gasoline mandated in different states, mandate increased ethanol subsidies, no more coal power plants, and no nuclear power plants. Oh yeah...drive a hybrid box-on-wheels and screw in some fluorescent light bulbs!!
"women and minorities hardest hit"
Nancy Pelosi and the un-Democratic Congress
May 6, 2008 - 12:00 ET by merlin61When, oh when is Congress going to get the
message and drill in Anwar and North Dakota so
we can start being energy sufficient on our own?
With Nancy Pelosi and Henry Reid, never!!!!!
We need drilling and new refineries NOW!!!!!
Keep these harridans out of office!
May 6, 2008 - 10:24 ET by HelenSOnce again Shrill Hill calls for a pillaging of the Big Oil profits. (I heard the shriek on a sound bite on the news this morning.)
Too bad we can't take a page from the experience of Argentina whose Madam President decided that the most profitable business in her country - beef - should be taxed 40-50% of their profits in order to be "fair".
I really do hope that we kick our shrew to the curb before she gets her greedy hands on the country.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Sara Lee profits rise, but due to price increase and weak dollar
May 6, 2008 - 10:26 ET by PawpawNI just don't understand economics, I guess. Sara Lee had profit rise, but MSM says it was due to price increase and weak dollar. So when cost of making goes up, they raise price to similiar level-how does that make profit go up? Weak dollar-if dollar weak, shouldn't profit go down because the dollars in profits are less? See story on this & someone explain to me please: http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt_top.jsp?news_id=ap-d90g59vo0&
Sara Lee increased earnings
May 6, 2008 - 10:56 ET by jdhawkSara Lee increased earnings by passing on higher prices to its customers; it also increase its earnings through higher sales volume to its overseas customers that were able to buy Sara Lee's products at reduced cost due to the falling dollar. For that reason, they bought more of Sara Lees' products.
When your country's currency becomes cheaper relative to other countries' currencies then it cost more for you to buy foreign products. Likewise, foreigners may buy your products at reduced cost.
Benefits/drawbacks
May 6, 2008 - 11:06 ET by UnsaneWhen your country's currency becomes cheaper relative to other countries' currencies then it cost more for you to buy foreign products. Likewise, foreigners may buy your products at reduced cost. Something currency fetishists cannot possibly grasp is that both strong/weak currencies have benefits AND drawbacks. Those two sentences put them both in a neat, easy to understand nutshell!
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a HUGE push in Italy to break away from the Euro before too long.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Washington, DC needs stray cats
May 6, 2008 - 10:40 ET by sarcasmoBut doesn't have many, so they get to have rats instead.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Englisssh iz hardd
May 6, 2008 - 10:41 ET by balboahttp://gawker.com/50...
Nice sentiment. Helps when you can actually spell.
Goldman Sachs said this in
May 6, 2008 - 10:45 ET by jdhawkGoldman Sachs said this in 2005, "
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) - Oil prices have entered the early stages of a multi-year period of trading in which economic growth and rising demand could push oil to $105 per barrel, enough to meaningfully reduce energy consumption, Goldman Sachs analysts said Thursday.
"We believe oil markets may have entered the early stages of what we have referred to as a "super spike" period -- a multi-year trading band of oil prices high enough to meaningfully reduce energy consumption and recreate a spare capacity cushion only after which will lower energy prices return," said analyst Arjun Murti.
They were wrong in that while the price of oil has surpassed their prediction consumption has not abated. Oil consumption is growing across the planet at about 3% a year while net supply has stayed static.
Also, this assumption is wrong, "Of course, also be advised that this is the largest commodity trading house in the world, and, therefore, has a vested interest in these prices continuing to rise." Goldman Sachs trades for their own account in a variety of markets. They are also a market maker in a variety of markets. It makes no difference whether that market is trending up or down. They still make money. Also, where they are market makers, they make money on every trade.
Regardless of the above, the drive by media will have you believe that it is either evil speculators and/or price gouging oil companies that are to blame. Again, the truth of supply and demand is the cause: 3% increase of demand a year over no net increase in supply.
I was just about to question that same assumption
May 6, 2008 - 10:54 ET by sarcasmoAnd for the same reasons, but considering Goldman's history I'm not sure I'd go as far as "wrong," because things are too opaque to say for sure. I think it's easy to stop at merely "questionable." OTOH, if I had to bet, I'd put money on Goldman being among the 8 highly concentrated Ag-shorts mentioned by the only person who does any journalism regarding silver market shenanigans. If they're messing around in silver, it's likely they're gambling on oil prices, as well. I remain amazed that Ted Butler can blow the whistle so loud and so long while regulators and financial journalists somehow ignore him. It's likely to lead to an "I told you so" someday, and nobody but me seems to like those...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Which brings us back to
May 6, 2008 - 14:39 ET by dscottWhich brings us back to Economics 101, the closer demand comes to matching supply, the price of the product does NOT increase proportionally by a set profit margin over cost. Whenever any product comes in short supply, the price is dictated by what the market will bear. The price does not increase proportionally but EXPONENTIALLY. So the big question is have we come to the point in the price point of oil that causes the price to skyrocket because demand is out stripping supply?
Or is the issue that the dollar being a fungible commodity, dropping in relative value so quickly is forcing up the price of oil which is also a fungible commodity?????? If the dollar drops in value by 20%, the cost of oil must rise 30% to retain it's value in Euros. This would be demonstrated using the arbitrage of the Dollar and Euro versus a barrel of oil. The if the Euro is valued at 1.54 dollars and oil is $100/barrel, when the Dollar's value falls, the value of the oil in Euros remains the same, therefore the denominated value of oil in dollars must increase.
The other explanation is there is manipulation on the foreign commidities markets where someone or group is attempting to corner the market thus inducing a price spike. Any attempt at manipulation here in the US market would be immediately exposed and dealt with by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Personally, I believe it to be a combination of the three above.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
If "attempt at manipulation here in the US market..."
May 6, 2008 - 14:47 ET by sarcasmo"[W]ould be immediately exposed and dealt with" by the CFTC, how do you explain my link in the comment above where a lone blogger named Ted Butler's been doing all that undone journalism -- and feel free to look at Butler's archives, where he's been warning of this very s#!tstorm in silver shorts for years, before you answer. Ted provides hours of reading fun, and I've found that his critics tend to call him imaginative names rather than actually trying to debate him on the facts, for some reason...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
My shorts are cotton, not
May 6, 2008 - 15:45 ET by Dan The Man 2My shorts are cotton, not silver. Why would anyone have shorts made of silver? "he's been warning of this very s#!tstorm in silver shorts for years"
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Brilliant.
May 6, 2008 - 15:48 ET by sarcasmoAnd typical.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Sarc your rants about the
May 6, 2008 - 17:39 ET by Dan The Man 2Sarc your rants about the manipilation of the markets and the market talk bore the crap outa me. I thought I would make light of the talk.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
As I said...
May 6, 2008 - 17:44 ET by sarcasmoAs I said...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
JDH
May 6, 2008 - 15:53 ET by Noel SheppardJDH,
I very much disagree with your sentiments concerning Goldy. Having worked for Merrill for eight years, and in arbitrage for five, I can tell you firsthand that brokerage firms ALL make more money in bull markets than in bear markets. In Goldy's case, as they not only have HUGE positions in commodities, but also make markets and execute orders, the more volume and the higher prices go, the more they make.
Let's understand that in the past eight years, volume in oil contracts has gone up by eight-fold. As a market maker and a broker, this volume goes RIGHT to the bottom line for Goldy. Do you think this volume will continue if this bubble bursts? Hardly.
As a result, when the commodities bubble finally ends, Goldy will lose on the downside in values AND the decline in volume.
As such, I stand by my previous assertions that Goldy has a HUGE vested interest in commodities prices going higher, probably moreso than any brokerage firm on the planet. ns
In that case, especially if their book isn't balanced as you say
May 6, 2008 - 15:57 ET by sarcasmoWould they not have an equally HUGE vested interest in an eventual (maybe try to wait out the election year for appearance's sake, though!) spike in USD inflation?
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I think it depends upon what
May 6, 2008 - 16:15 ET by Noel SheppardI think it depends upon what level of inflation. There is a point where inflation will be bad for stocks and bonds. Goldy isn't just a commodity house as you know. They make a lot of money from investment banking related to equities and debt instruments which both will tumble if inflation really picks up steam.
As a result, their commodities division will do well, but everything else will suffer for them. As such, I don't think runaway inflation is what Goldy's looking for.
Bear in mind that Goldy has been bullish and long on commodities for well over five years. They may have first turned bullish in '02. Their belief was that the 20-years of commodities disinflation that began in the early '80s had run its course, and that we could be in a 20-year bull market. Great call on their part up to this point. Gotta hand it to 'em. ns
Admittedly, inflation is a very political issue for me
May 6, 2008 - 16:24 ET by sarcasmoAnd I understand that my belief once again puts me into a minority. I fully agree with you that the commodities side of their house would want to see inflation much more than the bond side. (In my 'conspiratorial' world, I'd expect that kind of incentive to result in an even stronger bipartisan political motivation than usual to delay the appearance of major league inflation 'till after the coming election, but we'll see if I'm wrong or right!)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Yes, but right now we're
May 6, 2008 - 16:34 ET by Noel SheppardYes, but right now we're discussing the economic side of inflation because you and I can't discuss the political element without it becoming [thinking of a political way to put it!] unpleasant. ns
Understood. Thanks.
May 6, 2008 - 16:54 ET by sarcasmoInflation's a tough one.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Let's understand that in
May 6, 2008 - 17:01 ET by dscottLet's understand that in the past eight years, volume in oil contracts has gone up by eight-fold.
Can one account for this increase in contracts by selling long? Let's say I'm George Soros, and I buy a bunch of oil contracts long because I'm betting against the dollar. If I buy enough contracts long and make money at it, this activity attracts many other investors looking to make a quick buck. All of a sudden, everybody and his brother is buying long, what happens to the price of oil? It skyrockets, as sellers of oil will charge what the market will bear creating a speculative bubble and becomes self fulling prophecy. The bubble pops when all of a sudden demand drops and few will buy at the inflated price, then there is a rush for the exits as speculators are selling at any price to keep their loses to a minimum.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
China & India have meant
May 6, 2008 - 17:10 ET by sarcasmoThat demand didn't drop. Oil's now much more in demand worldwide than it was even a few years ago. That means at least in part this price increase can be explained as a natural result of market forces having little or nothing to do with the Soros-types who bet on market directions.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I think that makes for good
May 6, 2008 - 18:03 ET by Noel SheppardI think that makes for good headlines, blaming it on China & India, but it's too facile. Have you seen this: http://www.eia.doe.g...
Okay, so what this shows is that total world oil production has gone from 79.62 million bbl/day in 2003 to 84.6 million in 2007. At the same time, demand has gone from 79.61 million to 85.59. As such, demand has outpaced supply by about a million bbl/day, or 1.1 percent. Yet, prices have risen 200 percent?
Let me make this clearer, okay? From 2003 through the end of 2007, there was a 1 percent increase in oil demand over supply. Yet, prices have tripled!
Absolute nonsense. No supply-demand ratio explains this. Don't care about China and India. A one percent increase in demand over supply IN ANYTHING should not translate into a 200 percent increase in price. SOOOORRRRRRYYY! :-) ns
Ok, so you think that market's manipulated.
May 7, 2008 - 07:13 ET by sarcasmoAnd recall, I did say "in part." I can't open your linked spreadsheet, but I'm not sure whether we know the full extent of Chinese and Indian growth. And when I keep linking to stuff the media refuses to cover like this, it's not like I'm saying manipulation's unlikely in other market areas, too, it's just most-blatant in the precious metals. Somehow, there's been a 200% increase in the oil price. It's probably all those damn Libertarians' fault...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
No supply-demand ratio
May 7, 2008 - 11:02 ET by dscottNo supply-demand ratio explains this. Don't care about China and India. A one percent increase in demand over supply IN ANYTHING should not translate into a 200 percent increase in price.
Actually, I think it does explain and you answered my question from another post regarding the imbalance of supply and demand. The price does not increase proportionally but EXPONENTIALLY during a shortage. I would dare say at this point, unless the US, China or India goes into recession thus dropping the demand for oil, the price of oil is going to go much higher up precisely because consumers are in competition with one another for the product instead of suppliers being in competition with one another for the consumer. Under the current scenerio there is nothing to limit the price of oil until either demand is limited by price, by recession or demand is satisfied by another source.
Under normal circumstances we would not have hit this high value for oil because the increasing value would have spurred more drilling to meet demand, but because of the incompetence of Congress meddling by blocking oil drilling, they created a shortage. You can squarely blame the Dems and econuts for these prices. Unless they relent on drilling immediately, you are going to wish that $200/barrel oil was the high limit. Between the ethanol mandates giving a false sense of alternate supply and the refusal to allow drilling, Congress is solely responsible for this fiasco.
btw- if conservation and efficiency only was the answer to energy consumption as the idiots in Congress and their econut allies have propagandized then demand should drop significantly without a reduction in the GDP since investments made would be sufficient to offset the energy price increase. Has it? NOT! There is no way to achieve such energy efficiency without waving a magic wand. Hence the idiots in Congress and their econut allies are engaging in magical thinking. November needs to be a referendum on AGW and it's policies, it's time for the public to decide which direction they want to go not the elites.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Dan
May 6, 2008 - 17:22 ET by Noel SheppardDan,
It's more complicated than that, but sure. There are a lot of factors driving oil up. Speculation is, in my view, the largest factor. Since the '90s, virtually all traders and fund managers -- hedge and mutual -- are momentum traders. What this means is everybody plows money into the same investment vehicles that are going up UNTIL they stop going up. Then, they all have to run for the exits at the same time creating a cascade down.
This is when the parabola turns into a hyperbola, AND it ALWAYS happens. The only question is "When".
However, there's another side to this now with hedge funds getting so largely into the commodities game because these guys play with much greater leverage than mutual funds. Keep in mind that the margin on commodities is different than stocks. With stocks, you've got to put up 50 percent of the cost. With commodities, you've only got to put up 10 percent. So, I can buy $100 worth of oil for $10.
Now, enter the hedge funds who are shorting one commodity to raise money to purchase another commodity all with a 10 percent margin paid for by funds borrowed from another source. As a result, it's possible that for every $100 worth of oil such a person is buying, he's only putting up $1. Or maybe less. NOW consider the leverage.
Nothing like this kind of leverage existed in tech stocks as they bubbled in the 90s, and nothing like this leverage existed in real estate as it boomed this decade. As we've seen what happens when stocks and real estate stop going up with their leverage, what do you think will happen when this commodities bubble bursts, and everybody is forced to unwind positions held with moneys that aren't theirs? ns
Looks like the msm were not so crazy after all.....
May 6, 2008 - 11:02 ET by shawn228....when they predicted 4 dollar a gallon gas. Ok to be fair it is only past 4 dollars in few states and it is $3.50 national average. Lets get serious though is 4 dollar a gallon gas more shocking or $120 per barrel.?
I predict gas will be
May 6, 2008 - 14:07 ET by Dan The Man 2I predict gas will be $10.00 a gallon. But when you ask, well in the thread these idiots don't say and niether do you say when it will hit 4 bucks. Gas prices will go up as will most things. Supply and demand, what most peeps on this blog want is more domestic production in both drilling and refining, that is what will lower the price of oil.
From your link.
KLOZA: Well, what's going on here really is the price of crude oil. We hit $105 for crude oil, and that represented about an $18 a barrel increase since the middle of February. This isn't even the real deal for gasoline. The real deal comes at the end of this month, April and May, when we get gasoline going up on its own, irrespective of what happens to crude oil.
They inferred that the 4 bucks would be in this time, I mean other wise why say it would be 4 bucks anyway?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Prevent it? Hell, we
May 6, 2008 - 11:02 ET by Ruths husband BenPrevent it? Hell, we should embrace it. Now the
market forces may finally drive us off of the oil titty. As I have said
before, one of President Bush's missed opportunity (and I am not slamming him,
no one can do everything) was not using 9/11 as a rallying cry to move to fuel
cell and electric alternatives to internal combustion. The very best way
to fight the nut cases in the Middle East is to take away their funding.
If the government wants to help, give a $4000 tax break for every alternatively driven vehicle purchased in the next ten years.
A San Diego State of Mind
May 6, 2008 - 13:06 ET by Jack Baueryou gotta laugh.
75 students arrested at San Diego State on DRUGS and WEAPONS charges. 4lbs of cocaine seized
I wonder how many are supporting Obama? Or read Stephen King?
McCain plans to appear before La Raza July 14th.
May 6, 2008 - 13:19 ET by R D HelmAs this is a family site, I am unable to express my true feelings on this.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Good thing McCain waited until
May 6, 2008 - 13:32 ET by sarcasmoHe was the defacto Republican Party nominee, eh? Sigh...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
RD
May 6, 2008 - 13:53 ET by candance*lip trembles*
but...but...I thought McCain promised he'd court us conservatives and not just take our vote for granted.
Nice to know I'm expected to vote for someone who couldn't give a flying fart about my opinions.
Candance, I fired off a blue-smoke email to the republican
May 6, 2008 - 20:42 ET by R D HelmCandance, I fired off a blue-smoke email to the Republican Party earlier today.
I informed them that, in the event Senator McCain goes through with this treachery (and that is exactly what it is) I will be voting straight Libertarian in November.
I am through being jerked around by the Republican Party.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Hi RD... We aren't
May 6, 2008 - 14:36 ET by bigtimerHi RD...
We aren't supposed to be surprised here about this with McCain are we...this is McCain....not just pandering. La Raza indeed...
I was furious with what he said at one of his Town Hall meetings in Denver and posted as such that day, although it was hard to find a link at the time after this happened, my blood was boiling...he immediately got flack big time and had to hurry on his plane ride out of there and supposedly retract/clarify what he really meant...unfortunately at the time the only place I could find a link about this above was on HuffnPuff...he is being protected big time at the moment because of the race between Hill/Barack...but this will be used in ad's against him....as it should be IMO.
Oh please, is all I can say....
Disgusting, but real colors showing....he says these things because that is who he is...
We will never again fight a foreign war for oil my friends...on and on, the reason oil is where it is is because of McCain and his ilk that have stopped drilling here....the same with him blaming the federal govt. for the immigration mess....HE is and has been the FEDERAL govt. and one big problem in it for us conservatives...but like the big-wigs behind the scenes like Kemp and Rove say...they really don't need us, we will come around...they need the mushy middle...as if they themselves aren't!
Just my two cents...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Illegal Immigration/McCain
May 6, 2008 - 17:56 ET by bigtimerBtw...
Here are two links to Hot Air on this exact subject...story and comments are great on one of these and Malkin's are too.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Evenin' bt. I heard Newt on Hannity's radio show earlier.
May 6, 2008 - 20:29 ET by R D HelmHe essentially said that, if McCain is going to push this "comprehensive" immigration bs, then he is going to lose.
While I have lost some respect for the former Speaker, I never said he was an idiot.
I agree. I think it very possible that McCain is going to lose to whoever the dem candidate turns out to be. Barack, Hillary, or Al Gore.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
RD... Glad you filled me
May 6, 2008 - 20:34 ET by bigtimerRD...
Glad you filled me in...I turned off the Hannity show at the top of the beginning of the second hour because he said Newt and Rudy were up next...lol now...anyway, glad you filled me in, did you check out the comments on Hot Air about this, I mean the link I provided?
Just curious...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt, believe me, I have been all over HotAir this day.
May 6, 2008 - 20:55 ET by R D HelmAfter all, it's my home away from NB.
Didn't leave any comments until this evening, as I have been pretty hot about this all day.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
RD.. Gotcha' loud and
May 6, 2008 - 21:06 ET by bigtimerRD..
Gotcha' loud and clear...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Gas here $4.20... next stop RATIONING
May 6, 2008 - 14:17 ET by upcountrywaterBe thankful that you can get it!!
I need gas for my jet so that i can show my concern to the savve the earth
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
There will be no rationing
May 6, 2008 - 15:51 ET by NL207There will be no rationing as long as a free market is allowed to operate. The appearance of rationing is an indicator the government is interfering with pricing mechanisms.
Why in the world would
May 6, 2008 - 15:54 ET by bassndudeWhy in the world would they need to ration $4.20 gas?????? I would think the free market would do that for them. After all, it will be only the wealthy that take vacations or go for a sunday drive.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Hay you 2, Rationing by high prices is one way, to cut use.
May 6, 2008 - 16:10 ET by upcountrywaterNo new Oil refineries in 30 years, is comming back to bite us in the A$$... Wal-mart is (was?) rationing rice last week. Why on earth do you think oil is off limits to rationing? Been rationed before; will be again. Yes I want the "free" market to supply us, issue the permits to drill and refine Today
55 MPH carter Please not again.
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
On this date in 1937, the
May 6, 2008 - 15:01 ET by Roger the ShrubberOn this date in 1937, the great airship ever known crashed, spawning a really bad movie in the 1970's, featuring a forgettable acting job by leading man, George C Scott.
Code Pink vs. Gathering of
May 6, 2008 - 15:12 ET by bigtimerCode Pink vs. Gathering of Eagles....
I wasn't here for a bit so this may have already been mentioned...but I love it!
This is from Pat Dollard's site, so there is some strong language used here.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
ABC Radio News strikes again
May 6, 2008 - 16:08 ET by Prester JohnTop of the hour news has a report on the solider in Afghanistan who accidently left a message on his parents' phone while in the midst of a gun battle. Immediately following that report the reporterette (almost under her breath) quickly notes that 3,500 troops coming home from Iraq (dammit), before slowing down and speaking louder about Britney Spears and her custody hearing.
Pathetic.
Is there going to be a live Chat tonight?
May 6, 2008 - 18:01 ET by Dee BunkI will need some one to comfort me if my girl Hillary gets knocked out tonight and I'll want to celebrate if she pulls an upset.
Anyone else feel the same?
dee, Anything that causes
May 6, 2008 - 18:09 ET by Chris Normandee,
Anything that causes consternation and conflict in the Democratic Party. Anything at all will do... :)
Hi real quick Dee... Yeah
May 6, 2008 - 18:11 ET by bigtimerHi real quick Dee...
Yeah I feel the same as you do....I posted something about wondering how others felt on Clay Waters thread a bit ago...I just heard on msnbc that the republican areas in some parts of Indiana are having more republicans vote than they did in the 2004 general election....
Operation Chaos....too funny!
I've got to get some stuff done, check in a bit later...I can't wait for the talking heads spin either....
Fun, fun, fun.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Hi BT and Chris - I hope if they do a chat that you guys go on
May 6, 2008 - 19:16 ET by Dee BunkIf they do it, I'll be on around 8:00 I think
Dee... They just put a
May 6, 2008 - 19:21 ET by bigtimerDee...
They just put a thread on here for this subject too...I've been slippin' this and that in about it all here and there...either way...I too will be in and out...
Gonna' be fun....no matter what to me.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Good - thanks for letting me know BT
May 6, 2008 - 19:29 ET by Dee BunkI'll be there or on live chat if they have it around 8:00 CT.