Comments on: Caging and Stealing Votes

By: Ut videam

Ut videam — Mon, 28 May 2007 07:17:40 +0000

50 - Your math is correct. Illinois wasn’t the only state with significant allegations of vote fraud in Kennedy’s favor, however. Texas, with its 24 electoral votes, was another locus of controversy. The point remains: both parties have been trying to win elections by hook or by crook for a long time.

By: wjk

wjk — Mon, 28 May 2007 07:16:30 +0000

user-81, then what about Nixon’s re-election and water gate?

Nixon cheated, even though he won by a wide margin.

Your case, JFK’s cronies cheated for him, even though he ended up winning comfortably.

Oh, but no ones likes to talk about Daley and the Irish connection pulling deceased people casting ballots.

Let’s just talk about water gate and how long Nixon’s nose was, and how Nixon started and ended Vietnam, dishonorably and what a a crook Nixon was. Did I mention Nixons’s nose? Pinocchio?

Oh, but JFK. Camelot. Dynasty. My father would have never, blah, blah, blah. My father , blah, blah, blah.

By: user-81

user-81 — Mon, 28 May 2007 07:05:11 +0000

You’ll recall that Mayor Daley’s legions of cemetery voters quite likely tipped the Electoral College in JFK’s favor in 1960.

In 1960, had Illinois’s 27 electoral votes gone to Nixon instead of to Kennedy, Kennedy would still have won the electoral vote 276 to 246, instead of 303 to 219.

By: Maddlew

Maddlew — Mon, 28 May 2007 01:43:21 +0000

This may or may not be a legitimate story. To me, it is just another layer on this sorry situation. We can argue all we want but it won’t change the situation we face.
Those of you who are adhering to the tenets of the present administration must face the fact that even within your party support is dwindling. I don’t know if it’s myopia or you know something nobody else knows.
The fact is that we could have done a better job in Iraq. I don’t know if the outcome could have been changed but the people put in charge were ill-suited for the endeavor. If you are going to go into a place like that you’d better do it right. There was no room for this sort of ham-handedness. If the appointments didn’t reek of cronyism and we’d had a plan, executed it and didn’t see the ineptitude I don’t think the support for this administration would be ebbing this quickly. The outcome might have still been the same but morale would have been higher, certainly.

By: Ut videam

Ut videam — Sun, 27 May 2007 23:41:01 +0000

44 - If we hit ~100% of maximum refining capacity around that time, and demand has continued to increase, the sharp price increase we see on that graph is exactly what would be expected in this situation.

http://inflationdata.com/infla....._Chart.asp

By: wjk

wjk — Sun, 27 May 2007 22:55:35 +0000

i think now it’s close $8/gallon. And the locals on naver are going bonkers.

By: wjk

wjk — Sun, 27 May 2007 22:49:46 +0000

i think my last calculation last month came out to be $6/gallon in South Korea.

No matter how much you complain of Big Oil in America, just remember that you’re getting a really sweet deal in America.

It is indeed driven by Global demand. South Korea is experiencing the same surge in prices. Same complaint. Local oil co’s are doing it for profit.

Untrue.

By: snow

snow — Sun, 27 May 2007 22:42:13 +0000

Sonagi, the US majors do not control the price of oil and neither does OPEC. The price rises in response to market demand. Is it possible that the oil majors try to ‘tweak’ prices to their advantage? Every company in the world likes to price things to their advantage, but it is not a gouge-fest as so many claim. Global demand has risen on the back of fears about supply. Some of the price rise has been due to fear, but that is priced into oil, as in every commodity. There have been several government investigations into the oil biz in Canada and the US and none have ever found proof of collusion or illegalities.

By: Sonagi

Sonagi — Sun, 27 May 2007 21:20:23 +0000

“Increasing demand + supply limited by refining capacity = steadily increasing prices. Computes just fine, methinks.”

A 100% increase over the last four years is not “steadily increasing prices.” Still does not compute. US oil refining is indeed very close to capacity, and the loss of refineries after Katrina has hurt, but these facts alone do not explain the doubling of oil prices since 2002.

By: Ut videam

Ut videam — Sun, 27 May 2007 21:01:13 +0000

42 - All due respect, Sonagi, but the dramatic rise in US gasoline prices since 2002 ceteris paribus that you’ve described would seem to fit a scenario in which US refining approached 100% of capacity. Increasing demand + supply limited by refining capacity = steadily increasing prices. Computes just fine, methinks.