knight to king's bishop ...

Let me state categorically that I am not a Ron Paul disciple. I am very sympathetic to the first 80% of the Libertarian argument, I kind of like the notion that Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store and not a government agency. However, when they get into dismantling the FBI and CIA, legalizing drugs etc, they lose me.

My point here is that the choice on regulating oil is not one of what we have now versus "zero." There is a "Laffer Oil Curve", if you will. And my assertion throughout this thread is we are too far into one horizon on that oil curve, and energy in general, when in the United States of America government regulation has made it cost prohibitive to build a single oil refinery in 35 years. Think about that - the most dynamic economy the world has ever seen, and we have not increased our capacity to refine and bring to market the most vital component of that economy (and the world's) in over a generation. That is unacceptable. That is a nation in decline.

So if we're in a thread which is focused on discussing how to bring petro prices for the "little guy" into the realm of reasonable, and you lead off making comments like, "it's probably anti-American to limit what they [oil companies] can make", it makes me want to pull my hair out. You're buying in to this shill game that the problem is the bonuses being paid to Shell executives. Speculation on oil would cease to be so volatile if the sources were less volatile. To step in to further regulate speculation or the oil companies is delving deeper into that already stressed side of the Laffer Oil Curve, attempting to fix the problem from the wrong end. The president of Iran can swing cost by giving a single "Israel should die" speech (which allows speculators to apply their trade in gun slinger fashion) only because America has acquiesced her own energy production. We should be going in the opposite direction on energy regulation. Again, not to zero, but certainly dialed back enough to makes us an energy competitor. And there is one group, large, well organized and funded, that is standing in the way of that economic and national security imperative, and it ain't the boys at Exxon. And every time a smart, center-right middle class American like yourself starts chiding oil company profits, Al Gore wins, because he has redefined the fight. Everyone talks about how much oil companies and speculators profits cost the consumer. But consider what the president said in 2009 from the White House on live TV: "Under my energy plan of cap and trade, energy costs would necessarily sky rocket." Has the CEO of Exxon advocated such madness? How much "skyrocketing" has already occurred due to the Green ideology's influence peddling among our law makers the past 40 years?

Look, when it comes to oil and energy in general I assume like me you want to bring prices at the pump down, and give America a national security edge rather then deficit (in fact I know you do). And my point is, talking about potentially curbing Exxon et al profits rather then curbing the global warming crowd's influence isn't just taking your eye off the ball, it's taking yourself out of the game. Al Gore and his crowd are playing chess on energy... and if our response is to discuss Exxon & speculator profits, well... then we're playing checkers.