(Some) FREEPS agree w/Schumer: Break up the big oil companies

[npincus]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1621185/posts

Granted, there's a lot more snark there than support for Schumer's proposal, but the fact that there is any at all at that steaming swamp of RW ignorance, tells you something.

a few selected:


To: tomnbeverly
It worked for Ma Bell.

2 posted on 04/25/2006 8:53:37 AM PDT by manwiththehands ("'Rule of law'? We don't need no stinkin' rule of law! We want AMNESTY, muchacho!")
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse >


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: tomnbeverly
Yeah... breaking up the oil companies will do wonders for the newer, smaller oil company's economies of scale...

Let's see... factor in 15 CEO's salary into the price of gas, instead of 4... 15 accounting departments instead of 4... 15 purchasing departments instead of 4... 15 legal departments instead of 4...

While we're at it... maybe we should break up the US Senate...



10 posted on 04/25/2006 8:55:54 AM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Proud Member: Internet Pajama Wearers for Truth)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: tomnbeverly
Well, what did you expect from a hard SOCIALIST? You must have a monopoly before you can break it up, as was the case with MA BELL. Having said that, the oil companies have been merging very rapidly to the point we are down to how many now? 2 or 3 U.S. oil companies??




11 posted on 04/25/2006 8:56:05 AM PDT by EagleUSA
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse >


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: manwiththehands
It worked for Ma Bell.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My brother, a liberal who believes communism just hasn't been tried by the "right people yet" and I had this exact conversation yesterday. What do we have now 3 major oil companies? Bust 'em up into a bunch of little ones and see what happens. I really couldn't see how it would make things worse. It was the first political issue we have agreed on. Ever. In his 34 years of life.



14 posted on 04/25/2006 8:56:34 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (It wasn't the spikes that kept Him on the cross.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse >



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: scottdeus12
I really don't think more drilling is the answer anymore. It'll take time, but once we discover an alternative energy source and implement its use across the country, oil companies and oil-producing companies will have to listen more carefully to what we have to say about prices.

Not only that, but oil is a diplomatic tool in our world. Not only that, but it reallyl is one of the only things we have in common with the Arab world. To lose that would be to lose all connection whatsoever.



18 posted on 04/25/2006 8:57:03 AM PDT by harveywashbanger
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



To: manwiththehands
It certainly did.



24 posted on 04/25/2006 8:58:59 AM PDT by Bikers4Bush (Flood waters rising, heading for more conservative ground. Vote for true conservatives!)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: tomnbeverly
I don't get the fascination with ANWR. From what I understand, there's plenty of oil off the gulf coast and the cali coast, in areas that are not already designated national wildlife preserves. Why focus so much energy (no pun intended) on a wildlife preserve? Why not promote off-shore drilling?



25 posted on 04/25/2006 8:59:06 AM PDT by Huck
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies | Report Abuse >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: tomnbeverly
That's just dummer than dirt.

Breaking up the oil companies would increas costs here by at least 50%.

ARGH.

DUMMIES are DUMB!



26 posted on 04/25/2006 8:59:15 AM PDT by roaddog727 (eludium PU36 explosive space modulator)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse >



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: tomnbeverly
I hate to agree with Chuckie, but he's got a point. We never should have allowed Exxon and Mobil to merge in the first place.
Next we should eliminate the boutique gas. That causes an anti-competitive market too by limiting the places a gas station can buy from.


28 posted on 04/25/2006 9:00:31 AM PDT by narby
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse >





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: alice_in_bubbaland
You must be kidding me??? The break up of AT&T has spurred the greatest technological advancement in an industry that we have ever seen. I pay a flat 25 dollar fee for my home service. The break-up of AT&T was a huge success and there are clear benefits to the consumer.

35 posted on 04/25/2006 9:03:07 AM PDT by al_again
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies | Report Abuse >



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: harveywashbanger
I really don't think more drilling is the answer anymore.
So what, we just leave proven reserves in the ground? Sure, that will give us more options.

We should do all that alternative crap. But the fact is that alternatives are still more expensive than even these high oil prices. When they get cheaper, then we'll use them. That's the way capitalism works.


38 posted on 04/25/2006 9:04:23 AM PDT by narby
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies | Report Abuse >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[wtmusic]

1. "We should do all that alternative crap"

How 'bout an alternative president?

[Grown2Hate]

2. This comment shows a very limited understanding of the situation.

<<<We should do all that alternative crap. But the fact is that alternatives are still more expensive than even these high oil prices. When they get cheaper, then we'll use them. That's the way capitalism works.>>>

By the time oil prices are so high that alternatives will actually be cheaper, there won't be enough oil left to help us transition to the alternatives. Idiots over there, I tell ya.

[Old and In the Way]

3. My feelings exactly.

It's like watching the argue about where to locate the chairs on the Titanic.

What we really need is to get a political administration that is not owned by Big Oil in the WH. As long as we (s)elect Texas Republicans, our energy policy (and security interests) will be dictated by Big Oil.

[ladjf]

4. Better yet. Nationalize them. See many serious problems solved.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

5. Looks like EagleUSA has a hard time deciding if oil IS a monopoly or not.

To: tomnbeverly
Well, what did you expect from a hard SOCIALIST? You must have a monopoly before you can break it up, as was the case with MA BELL. Having said that, the oil companies have been merging very rapidly to the point we are down to how many now? 2 or 3 U.S. oil companies??




11 posted on 04/25/2006 8:56:05 AM PDT by EagleUSA