Archives
- 01/18/2004 - 01/25/2004
- 01/25/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 02/01/2004 - 02/08/2004
- 02/08/2004 - 02/15/2004
- 02/15/2004 - 02/22/2004
- 02/22/2004 - 02/29/2004
- 02/29/2004 - 03/07/2004
- 05/30/2004 - 06/06/2004
- 11/14/2004 - 11/21/2004
- 11/28/2004 - 12/05/2004
- 12/05/2004 - 12/12/2004
- 12/26/2004 - 01/02/2005
- 03/13/2005 - 03/20/2005
- 03/27/2005 - 04/03/2005
- 04/03/2005 - 04/10/2005
- 04/10/2005 - 04/17/2005
- 04/17/2005 - 04/24/2005
- 04/24/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 05/08/2005
- 05/08/2005 - 05/15/2005
- 05/15/2005 - 05/22/2005
- 06/12/2005 - 06/19/2005
- 06/19/2005 - 06/26/2005
- 07/03/2005 - 07/10/2005
- 07/17/2005 - 07/24/2005
- 07/24/2005 - 07/31/2005
- 06/18/2006 - 06/25/2006
You'd be surprised.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Do your own research.
This is addressed to those who would believe a rumour, over proven facts.
RE: gas prices and the sources providing and proving factual data.
EIA analysts:
AAA reports
Natural Gas Weekly Update.
NRG news.
If you don't like to read it yourself I'll give you the underlying theme for the reports from different sources:
- U.S Fuel reserves are low.
- OPEC prices have gone up, oil output has gone down.
Maybe we should assume it's a media wide smokescreen to cover for Bush? Doubtful.
You could argue that Bush should release some of the U.S oil reserves, but why would you? The U.S has always kept it's own oil reserves... as reserves. Also, U.S oil hardly compares to the purity of the oil we receive from the middle east. In fact, it practically costs more to refine U.S oil than it does to just import it from somewhere else.
TO address the statement that I believe too much of what I read, of course I do! I try to read FACTS backed up by current and historical data. A great thing about the U.S is that we have multiple administrations every decade, there isn't any single ruling "party" for a maximum of 8 years, so even if they were magically controlling media and data sources, they couldn't do it for too long. I also find multiple sources from different places that found their data independently. I would rather believe what I read backed up by facts, than heresay backed up by stupidity.
If someone can show me hard proof that Bush is directly responsible for the gas prices, I might believe it.
This is addressed to those who would believe a rumour, over proven facts.
RE: gas prices and the sources providing and proving factual data.
EIA analysts:
AAA reports
Natural Gas Weekly Update.
NRG news.
If you don't like to read it yourself I'll give you the underlying theme for the reports from different sources:
- U.S Fuel reserves are low.
- OPEC prices have gone up, oil output has gone down.
Maybe we should assume it's a media wide smokescreen to cover for Bush? Doubtful.
You could argue that Bush should release some of the U.S oil reserves, but why would you? The U.S has always kept it's own oil reserves... as reserves. Also, U.S oil hardly compares to the purity of the oil we receive from the middle east. In fact, it practically costs more to refine U.S oil than it does to just import it from somewhere else.
TO address the statement that I believe too much of what I read, of course I do! I try to read FACTS backed up by current and historical data. A great thing about the U.S is that we have multiple administrations every decade, there isn't any single ruling "party" for a maximum of 8 years, so even if they were magically controlling media and data sources, they couldn't do it for too long. I also find multiple sources from different places that found their data independently. I would rather believe what I read backed up by facts, than heresay backed up by stupidity.
If someone can show me hard proof that Bush is directly responsible for the gas prices, I might believe it.
Posted by: 
/ 2:17 PM
/ 2:17 PM- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -