Skip to comments.
You And What Army?
RedState.com ^
| 6 May 2008
| .cnI redruM
Posted on 05/06/2008 6:05:52 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-63 next last
To: .cnI redruM
Oh great. Maybe Madame President can do the same for the oil companies as she did for our flu shots. If the Beast get elected expect gas lines again!
41
posted on
05/06/2008 7:02:03 AM PDT
by
4yearlurker
(I miss Ronnie!!!!!)
To: Eric in the Ozarks
R-P is used more often in the petroleum trade than Sherman
domestically.
Do you really think the Saudis and Venz would give a bleep about either one ?
If it is never on the table, of course not.
Simply remove it from international law then.
42
posted on
05/06/2008 7:02:56 AM PDT
by
bill1952
(I will vote for McCain if he resigns his Senate seat before this election.)
To: bill1952
R-P could apply to the Venz and Saudis. Both have operating companies in the US. Both offer favorable pricing to some of their customers, which is at the heart of Robinson-Patman.
To: bill1952
1) Look Einstein, I don't have to qualify other people's arguments as quaint, nor demean their motives to feel confident in what I believe. Your total lack of courtesy and respect for the intelligence of others is what leads me to call you a jerk. I feel this is well within the the accepted informal definition of the term. Should you not appreciate being called a jerk; try not behaving like one. 2)It's not a point of whether The Sherman Anti-Trust Act is accepted by law-abiding nations, the question is enforceability against Hugo Chavez and his ilk. Does anyone in their right mind believe the following: A) A Hillary Clinton Administration, and the Congress that would ride in on her coattails, would sign off on the scale of military action required to bring Iran and Venezuela into compliance with our interpretation of international trade laws. B) The American public would willingly sign off on another occupation/rebuilding scenario to go along with Iraq and Afghanistan. The answer to both questions is clearly no.
44
posted on
05/06/2008 7:12:47 AM PDT
by
.cnI redruM
(A Conditional Constitutional Right is not really a right.)
To: super7man
Hillary does not have a clue. OPEC would be happy to sell plenty of oil to China and turn off the tap to the US.China already gets all of the oil it wants. Loss of U.S. purchases would be devastating to OPEC.
To: Eric in the Ozarks
R-P could apply to the Venz and Saudis
Hmm. Not a bad point about Chavez. - I assume that you are speaking to the sweetheart deal that some democrat/socialist governor got on heating oil from him?
I can see how you could legally argue that one.
To do any of these things would take some real balls, and I am surprised that Hillary spoke up about it.
Don't know of any like actions by the House of Saud.
Thank you for the post. - and the idea. 8^) - bill
46
posted on
05/06/2008 7:16:19 AM PDT
by
bill1952
(I will vote for McCain if he resigns his Senate seat before this election.)
To: TheBattman
The Fed is a cartel...but so is the government.
47
posted on
05/06/2008 7:16:42 AM PDT
by
.cnI redruM
(A Conditional Constitutional Right is not really a right.)
To: bill1952
Believe me, I know my Robinson Patman backwards and forwards.
To: .cnI redruM
hey Hillary opec just called-they said you have no “gravitas”
To: .cnI redruM
hey Hillary opec just called-they said you have no “gravitas”
To: .cnI redruM
I see in the interview that hillary has replaced ‘you know’ to ‘well’ to start all her sentences.
not an improvement.
To: mrmargaritaville
After looking at her in the infamous pants suit, how can say she has no gravity?
52
posted on
05/06/2008 7:26:43 AM PDT
by
.cnI redruM
(A Conditional Constitutional Right is not really a right.)
To: SusaninOhio
In she loses too badly in NC, it could usher in the “well, you know” era.
53
posted on
05/06/2008 7:27:48 AM PDT
by
.cnI redruM
(A Conditional Constitutional Right is not really a right.)
To: Bloody Sam Roberts
From Socialist to bald-faced Communist. What's the difference between her and Hugo Chavez?
She's literally talking about nationalizing a percentage of the the oil industry!?
And for what? Where's the biggest profits in the history of the world? When is she going to qoute the numbers? The oil stocks I own haven't been gushing like say, Google's 50% increase over the last few months - hey, maybe we should nationalize 50% of Google while we're at it!
Once this train starts rolling, it doesn't stop until we go the way of the USSR, China, Cuba, Venezuela.....
Fortunately this is all a stunt, unfortunately there are many millions who believe in her.
54
posted on
05/06/2008 7:35:19 AM PDT
by
4woodenboats
(defendourtroops.org defendourmarines.org freeevanvela.com)
To: 4woodenboats
What's the difference between her and Hugo Chavez? Plumbing.
55
posted on
05/06/2008 7:39:53 AM PDT
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(The secret of Life is letting go. The secret of Love is letting it show.)
To: bill1952
It’s not OPEC she’s after. “Big Oil” has always been American companies. She doesn’t say squat about OPEC.
56
posted on
05/06/2008 7:47:40 AM PDT
by
4woodenboats
(defendourtroops.org defendourmarines.org freeevanvela.com)
To: bill1952
So then you advocate a war against the oil producing nations in the ME?
57
posted on
05/06/2008 7:48:08 AM PDT
by
lexusppd
To: .cnI redruM
I had a conversation with my aunt a few months back. She forwarded me an e-mail about how the rich oil company owners were manipulating prices at the expense of the poor. I asked her if she had an IRA and she said yes. I asked her if she had any oil company stocks. She said she wasn’t sure, but might have some. I told her that she was one of the rich oil company owners and needed to go to the next stockholders meeting and demand the company stop making a profit and start selling oil at cost.
58
posted on
05/06/2008 7:48:21 AM PDT
by
mbynack
(Retired USAF SMSgt)
To: .cnI redruM
When she ran for the senate in New York she promised 250, 000 jobs to the upstate area. I think the last time I read anything about it, they had lost an additional 200,000 jobs.
59
posted on
05/06/2008 7:51:07 AM PDT
by
anoldafvet
(To liberals, building a wall across the Mexican border is a violation of the Voting Rights Act.)
To: anoldafvet
It’s like trusting a Kennedy. They always drive you off the bridge. (Or leave you for the buzzards in Fort Marcy Park)..
60
posted on
05/06/2008 7:56:17 AM PDT
by
.cnI redruM
(A Conditional Constitutional Right is not really a right.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-63 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson