Read Her (If You Dare)

[Harry Boy]

New Democrats:
I know all you "kind caring compassionate lefties" would like to see her Chain Dragged, Electrocuted, Gang Raped and then HUNG from a lamp pole, but PLEASE READ HER COLUMN TODAY ON "GAS".
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

[Patters]

That's tripe, Harry. She's selective in the information she provides. She's a bitter idiot, who only has a following because she's kind of pretty.

[DarrylS]

She is also followed because she spews the venom of the right with a pretty face...Rush, O'Reilly, Savage and crew do not have this advantage...her arguments are pretty lame, and make about as much sense as the Republican proposal of giving everyone $100.00.

[Harry Boy]

Originally Posted by Patters

That's tripe, Harry. She's selective in the information she provides. She's a bitter idiot, who only has a following because she's kind of pretty.

OK-

[363839]

Originally Posted by Patters

That's tripe, Harry. She's selective in the information she provides. She's a bitter idiot, who only has a following because she's kind of pretty.

Anne Coulter is not pretty. I find her way too skinny. The woman needs some meat on her bones.
I do agree with many of her positions. Not all, of course.
Patters, if you think she is being selective, than tell us what and why.
Her point in this column is the democrats tax our gas so heavily and don't want to allow any new drilling anywhere(except maybe Bush's ranch) and than act appalled when the oil companys raise their prices.
Don't get me wrong. The last thing I want to do is defend Big Oil.
But her point seems valid to me regarding the hypocracy of the left.

[Harry Boy]

Originally Posted by 363839

Anne Coulter is not pretty. I find her way too skinny. The woman needs some meat on her bones.
I do agree with many of her positions. Not all, of course.
Patters, if you think she is being selective, than tell us what and why.
Her point in this column is the democrats tax our gas so heavily and don't want to allow any new drilling anywhere(except maybe Bush's ranch) and than act appalled when the oil companys raise their prices.
Don't get me wrong. The last thing I want to do is defend Big Oil.
But her point seems valid to me regarding the hypocracy of the left.

Very well put, it is a sensible rational post, the Sore Losing Liberal Democrats will hate it.

[phantom73]

Originally Posted by 363839

Anne Coulter is not pretty. I find her way too skinny. The woman needs some meat on her bones.
I do agree with many of her positions. Not all, of course.
Patters, if you think she is being selective, than tell us what and why.
Her point in this column is the democrats tax our gas so heavily and don't want to allow any new drilling anywhere(except maybe Bush's ranch) and than act appalled when the oil companys raise their prices.
Don't get me wrong. The last thing I want to do is defend Big Oil.
But her point seems valid to me regarding the hypocracy of the left.

You're absolutely right, Coulter absolutely is way too skinny! Maybe it's all that evil that's in her system....

With respect to her last column though, AC is absolutely being selective. She is being selective by only focusing on the impact of increased production/supply on the cost of gas. In my opinion, she does this because if she considers the whole equation, it will most likely take the majority of wind out of her vitriolic sails.

Obviously, if only for political reasons, both Dems and Republicans want cheaper gas. The only thing that really differentiates them on this issue is how they want to achieve that goal. Generally speaking, Republicans try to lower gas costs by increasing the supply/production, while the the Dems try to achieve the same end by reducing demand/consumption (ie taxes, alternative fuels, and increased efficiency standards) .

Now, both of these strategies for lowering gas prices are viable and reasonable people can probably disagree on which strategy is most effective. AC's column is selective because it completely ignores the effect Dem attempts to reduce consumption on gas prices.

[Patters]

Originally Posted by 363839

Anne Coulter is not pretty. I find her way too skinny. The woman needs some meat on her bones.
I do agree with many of her positions. Not all, of course.
Patters, if you think she is being selective, than tell us what and why.
Her point in this column is the democrats tax our gas so heavily and don't want to allow any new drilling anywhere(except maybe Bush's ranch) and than act appalled when the oil companys raise their prices.
Don't get me wrong. The last thing I want to do is defend Big Oil.
But her point seems valid to me regarding the hypocracy of the left.

I really don't know where to begin, but Republicans have played a major role in fighting alternative energy and the only reason that the gas tax has been hiked is because income taxes and capital gains taxes were cut too much. Also, both Republicans and Democrats raised gas taxes, even Reagan. As far as oil drilling, from what I've read it will take years to develop the Alaska oil fields and they would only provide enough oil for at most a few years. In addition, one of the big problems is that the oil companies are clearly price gauging. Many of them have made record profits, which suggests some form of informal price collusion. Also, why doesn't she mention the Democratic proposal to suspend the federal gas tax for 60 days and pay for it by cutting some of the tax loopholes for big oil, i.e., making big oil use their record profits to develop new and existing oil fields where permitted? Her column is sophomoric -- Democrats do not control Congress or the Presidency, so even if her point is correct, then she should be asking why don't the Republicans eliminate the gas tax and do something about the problem? She's an idiot; that's why I didn't bother to respond in detail before.

Also, true, Coulter isn't pretty, but she is the prettiest right-wing pundit I know of.

[363839]

Originally Posted by phantom73

You're absolutely right, Coulter absolutely is way too skinny! Maybe it's all that evil that's in her system....
Ok. How does the evil in her system make her skinny?

With respect to her last column though, AC is absolutely being selective. She is being selective by only focusing on the impact of increased production/supply on the cost of gas. In my opinion, she does this because if she considers the whole equation, it will most likely take the majority of wind out of her vitriolic sails.

Obviously, if only for political reasons, both Dems and Republicans want cheaper gas. The only thing that really differentiates them on this issue is how they want to achieve that goal. Generally speaking, Republicans try to lower gas costs by increasing the supply/production, while the the Dems try to achieve the same end by reducing demand/consumption (ie taxes, alternative fuels, and increased efficiency standards) .
You're right. She did not focus on alternate fuels or IES. She DID focus on taxes, which seems to be the most effective way of cutting down cunsumption as well as slowing economy down.
As far as alternate fuels. I'm with you on this. But the technology has not been cost effective as oil is right now. I have hope that there will be a break through, soon. We just can't let big oil suppress the technology. I know some think they're already doing that but there really is no proof of that.
Anyways, if we achieve an ECONOMIC fuel alternative IES won't be neccesary

Now, both of these strategies for lowering gas prices are viable and reasonable people can probably disagree on which strategy is most effective. AC's column is selective because it completely ignores the effect Dem attempts to reduce consumption on gas prices.

At this point I prefer supply.

[363839]

Originally Posted by Patters

I really don't know where to begin, but Republicans have played a major role in fighting alternative energy and the only reason that the gas tax has been hiked is because income taxes and capital gains taxes were cut too much.
Maybe they are. Certainly not on the surface. Got a link?
It makes no sense to me that to help people out we cut taxes in one area but than raise taxes in another.This helps no one. Except the government, of course. Though, they wasted resources in this effort.

Also, both Republicans and Democrats raised gas taxes, even Reagan. As far as oil drilling, from what I've read it will take years to develop the Alaska oil fields and they would only provide enough oil for at most a few years.
You're probably right. Under pressure from Dems or to get a favored bill through they probably compromised that issue. But it's not a platform Republicans run on.

In addition, one of the big problems is that the oil companies are clearly price gauging. Many of them have made record profits, which suggests some form of informal price collusion.

OK. Has nothing to do with the column, though.

Also, why doesn't she mention the Democratic proposal to suspend the federal gas tax for 60 days and pay for it by cutting some of the tax loopholes for big oil, i.e., making big oil use their record profits to develop new and existing oil fields where permitted?

I love this idea. Never heard it before. Got any more info on that?

Her column is sophomoric -- Democrats do not control Congress or the Presidency, so even if her point is correct, then she should be asking why don't the Republicans eliminate the gas tax and do something about the problem? She's an idiot; that's why I didn't bother to respond in detail before.

They don't now but they did. Like the cigarette taxes they like to keep revisiting throught the years.



Also, true, Coulter isn't pretty, but she is the prettiest right-wing pundit I know of.

LOL. Maybe you should check out Laura Ingaham. She's a tad prettier. But I hate her new short haircut. Yucchhhh. Just freaking YUUUUCCCCHHHH.