You're a little child. Cya puppet boy.

It's simply that when you're dealing with a delusional person such as yourself, I literally have NO IDEA what you are referring to.

Nice try, Hal. But, nobody's buying this.

Just give the goddamn links will you? As I pointed out, Michael withdrew his assertion, so if you're counting that you just a moron.

I will when I feel it needed. You just refuse to do your own legwork for fear of what you'll find.

C'mon. I dare you. Show me the links.

Oh, come on. You can't even scroll up a few comments? You are hopeless.

It's simply that when you're dealing with a delusional person such as yourself, I literally have NO IDEA what you are referring to.

several others came to exactly the same conclusion I did.

Just give the goddamn links will you? As I pointed out, Michael withdrew his assertion, so if you're counting that you just a moron. And I'd LOVE to know who you count as the "several others". C'mon. I dare you. Show me the links.

But you won't. You can't.

This whole "search for what I'm talking about yourself" is a really bizarre tick y'all on the right have

yes, this requirement for you to do your own friggin research is sooooooo harrrrdddd...

Rather, it's simply straw man -

As I suggested... several others came to exactly the same conclusion I did. And you know as well as I it was the correct conclusion to draw, and still is. Trust me, Hal you're not that complex an individual, that people can't see through your ploys. Sorry, what it is.

Well, is it a valid angle, or not, then? Ya can't pick and chose. Which way we goin' here?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. You can chide him for the things he has agreed with Waters on (the Senate bills), but you cannot chide him for the things Waters says that he hasn't agreed with (the socialization bit).

Or, to put it simpler, chide him for what he says and does, not for what other people say or do.

First, it'd be a hell of a lot easier if you'd - you know - take advantage of this amazing intertube technology and actually link to the comments that you are referring to. This whole "search for what I'm talking about yourself" is a really bizarre tick y'all on the right have. In the case of Michael's comment, I responded to his satisfaction and he withdrew his assertion. WRT Steve Plunk, he didn't actually make wacky sh*t up out of thin air like you are wont to do, rather he was replying to actual arguments I was making - not arguments he imagined I was making. And you'll note that I actually responded to his arguments with my own comment. So, rather than have me try to divine the comments you're referring to with my handy water stick, why don't you just - you know - provide the links?

Seriously, Dr. B. You don't argue against arguments you think people are making. You don't argue against what you interpret as their intent. You don't assume that they are going down the long trail of your paranoid fantasies. What you do is actually argue against what they actually say.

For a handy reference guide, see the helpful post on How to Disagree. If you want a visual diagram to refer to, see this post on How to Write Strong Arguments.

You'll note that nowhere will you find that responding to "intent" is considered a valid mode of argument. Rather, it's simply straw man - i.e. arguing against something that the other party didn't say. Burn that straw if it's what you use to get stoned, but it ain't anywhere near an actual argument.

You can chide Obama for having voted with Waters.

Well, is it a valid angle, or not, then? Ya can't pick and chose. Which way we goin' here?

Again, Dr. B, you're simply making sh*t up and arguing against it.

In looking over the comments, at least two others came to the same conclusions I have about your intentions, here. How is it you've not commented on these?

Back in your corner.

Well, I had assumed - due to your bio - that you had some programming skills. You're right, it was an assumption on my part. My bad.

A punishment for their success.

Hmmm. The price rise wasn't engineered by their hard work, was it? They were *lucky*. Chance. Something completely untied to efforts cannot possibly be called "success".

Punishment? Whatever dude. Put on the black beret and start preaching against the man, brother!

Using it labels you accordingly

Hmmm. IIRC, I was just using a term that you, yourself, used. So that labels you accordingly? I don't care what you call them. I was just jibing your use of the term without defining it.

Again, Dr. B, you're simply making sh*t up and arguing against it.

It's fascinating to think that you have some programming skills and yet so little understanding of logic.

So, you find your own illousions, fascinating. This is news I needed to hear to know it?

It's the *definition* of a "windfall", thus the phrase "windfall profit tax".

No.
They use the phrase because it sounds better than what it is in reality: A punishment for their success.

It's not a matter of what defines gouging. The objective issue is simply how could they be possibly making world record profits if they control a fraction of the supply and their margins are so thin. A paradox? You stated that the government "makes" so much more off gasoline than the poor, poor oil companies and refineries. You were called on this and then brought up all the attendant costs they have which are bleeding all the imagined profits of these noble examples of cloth coat capitalists as they selflessly provide the life blood of our global economy.

Your explanation is purely qualitative and merely hand waving. Saying that there's a bunch of ill defined "stuff" that cuts their profits to razor thin margins is not an explanation - it's a smoke screen. You might think to add actual or estimated numbers next time in order to have any convincing effect on the argument.

The post I pointed to provides a convincing quantitative argument - from actual facts - that you're theory is based on a misunderstanding of how things work in the market.

If I sell apples that cost me $0.002 for $10, even though the apples I'm currently growing cost me $9.50, I'm still making a huge profit - even though my *current* margins are nothing compared to what I used to have. The only thing that matters to my profits is the cost of what I'm selling, not the cost of what I will be selling in the future.

It's the *definition* of a "windfall", thus the phrase "windfall profit tax".

Or could it be that I just enjoy yanking your chain and seeing what new layers of surreality you'll present for us?

I bow to no man wrt the right to make rapacious profits. I'm a firm believer the markets. I also have no issues with taxes, but I tend to come down on the side that thinks windfall profit taxes on oil companies are useless, at best. However, I do like the basis of the arguments to be somewhat based on objective facts rather than just wild assertions from bit-land.

I just like to see you dance, puppet boy. It amuses me to no end.

It's fascinating to think that you have some programming skills and yet so little understanding of logic. Your conspiracy theories and an impressive preternatural skill of jumping to completely unwarranted conclusions based on no (or contradictory) evidence reminds me of the good old days doing bong hits and whippets in the dorms with fellow Libertarians.

If you read my earlier post you will see I talk of the oil companies riding the coattails of foreign governments and high oil prices just as you point out. I understand that concept but want to point out recent high profits are offset by moderate profits in earlier years and that government reaps tax revenue in excess of oil company profits over the long term.

If I own an apple orchard and prices spike because of an apple blight in Washington am I gouging the consumer by accepting market price for my commodity? I didn't drive up the price and neither did the oil companies drive up the price of oil. The small percentage of crude oil they own is suddenly worth much more and helps their bottom line.

So my understanding of the system is fine and my explanation to you came in a civilized manner unlike my friend peterh who must add insult to explanation.

My original assertion of government making more money from fuel taxes than oil companies make from pumping the oil and selling the fuel still stands. It seems I'm not the fool like you believe.

This kafka-esque interaction with you all started because I speculated where you got your numbers and made a jab at not defining "big oil".

And on why, pray would you have done THAT, save as a prepitory for arguing about how 'big oil' is screwing us all, and I'm being an apologist for them? I mean, spare us the innocent protestations, Hal. The pattern is all too well established for us to fall for that, sorry.