The rhetoric does not make the point. There is yet the question as to whether or not the United States is an imperial empire; primarily due to the reality of the form and format of the government (which is representative republic, regardless that most citizens cannot tell you who their representatives are or the underlying tenets of points of any matter under consideration, debate, or congressional process).

While it is certainly possible to opine one way or another, and while it is also true that more and more often, the United Stated Federal government prefers to ACT like an imperial empire, it remains that the only reason they succeed in doing so is a profound apathy and lack of civic responsibility on the part of its people.

While the people of the United States allow themselves to be placated by the notion that complaint equals to 'action', nothing can or will change. The ease with which the governing bod(y/ies) of the country manipulate and avert more than an intermittent whimper 'by the people' is not so much a testament to how bad government is, but how bad the citizenry is.... if there is a case to be made, it is not against some nebulous 'them', it is, in fact, against those who permit these continuing travesties of abuse and disdain and who prefer to make videos others may nod and feel agreement with from the safety and relative comfort of their computer chairs.... someone said it, so "I" don't have to.... the clarion call of those who, by their inaction, perpetuate all of it.

No, the United States government is not an imperial empire, but it is well on its way to becoming one by proxy; brought into being through an abdication of its citizens from their rightful place as arbiters of the very just, proper, and lawful acts they now complain so vehemently are lacking.

Thoughts are not words, words are not actions. Actions matter. Ask not 'what should be said', but 'what should be done'.... then, do it. Anything less is contributory.

First, i would like to say that I almost did not contribute to this item because the 'sides' set for it are too subjective in nature and that lends to a regrettable slanting.

I do not think the press is always deliberately inflammatory, though I do think they often seek ratings and market share and the requirements to gain it may frequently be interpreted as 'inflammatory'. This, of course, says much more about the common factors at play in viewership than of those who pander to those factors.

I assert that any media in the world is now faced with a combination of factors for 'succeeding' in the market that necessitate a level of pandering to the lowest of our common factors rather than the highest of them. This, combined with the historic method of governments using media to present and perpetuate propaganda leads any insightful or wise individual to take anything they read or hear in the media with a grain of salt (or a block, if needed).

Any group is made up of people who have much more in common with us (as humans) than not. This said, the abdication of personal responsibility to 'the group' is a documented thing and as is equally well demonstrated, groups will do things no individual would ever consider.

(citation: Milgram, Stanley - The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1963 Oct Vol 67(4) 371-378)

This is as true of actions taken in the dissemination of information (or misinformation, as the case may be) as in any other output of a group working with multiple priorities and desires.

The question of what one chooses to believe is highly problematic and a broadbased rejection of media is likely not the best approach. Rather, if one wishes to determine for oneself what is 'believable' and one knows the outlets of information are prone (for whatever reason) to bias, misinformation, or inaccuracy, the best process by which to distinguish kernels of truth (or believable information) is a comparison between many outlets with known differences in bias or perspective.

At the end of the process, the things a story has in common across all outlets are most likely to be 'believable', and the underscoring of the differences is usually an enlightening thing as well.

You had a perfectly good opportunity to demonstrate intellectual standard and chose to discard it in favor of personal attacks and snobbery. That, combined with your less than stellar research was the nourishment of my personal ill will toward you.

It's bad enough we have to wade through metric tons of propaganda and marketing fluff to find truth. We shouldn't have to have strident ignorance in the mix. Nor should it be that a refusal to engage automatically be translated to an inability to do so.

As my rebuttal clearly outlines, Cienna had the right of it from the get go. So far as I'm concerned, you still owe her an apology and frankly, were you as concerned with quality of debate as you claim, I wouldn't have to remind you of it.

I am always hostile to those who contribute to the deterioration of quality debate by introducing personal factors that have no business in it.

The old adage goes, "Prove your worth." I find it just as reasonable a challenge today as ever.

The argument for 'freedom of speech' is really only valid within the United States and, even then, there are circumstances under which your 'freedom of speech' is non-existent. If you don't believe me, try saying you wish someone would kill the president, or that you believe someone should (or that you're are interested in an) overthrow (of) the government.

The simple fact is, within the constructs of the social order, whatever the popular opinion is becomes the de jour standard. But within the courts of law or their cousins by shared interests, corporations, it is readily evident that freedom of speech is reserved for those who will talk rather than act.

Political correctness as a tool of oppression has become quite refined indeed. Most times, the application of social pressure is far more effective (and doesn't get the government's hands messy).

Walk into a military hospital and start telling people that folks who serve in the military are dupes and see how long you last.

The real crime of political correctness isn't that it affects how we are allowed to refer to women, men, life orientations, or such as that. It is the degree to which we, as citizens, have co-opted our own right to freedom of expression in the name of conformity and comfort under the master's hand.

One of many factors, yes. The primary one. Well said, though for accuracy's sake, it is a combination of the weakening dollar and the 'gold rush' mentality of market speculators/investors with a dollop of OPEC's continuing manipulation just to keep things 'interesting'.

Oh, and i almost forgot, you owe Cienna an apology. She was dead right about every damn bit of it, and had more sense than I did when it came to refusing to engage you. I'll need another walk to get over the indignation of the arrogance of you. Sheesh.

"So, I guess my answer to why oil prices are increasing are that, aside from inflation, the oil production of 8 of our top 10 oil imports is being hampered or even crippled in one fashion or another, affecting prices worldwide. Also remember that oil consumption is increasing globally as well. China and India are also developing at an accelerated rate, and their enormous populations will require an equally enormous amount of oil if development continues.

Increased demand + Decreased production = Increased prices."

Aside from inflation? Considering that market speculation is readily agreed by all parties to be 60% of the reason for the current oil prices, that's quite a big 'aside', indeed, it is an oversight.

Your argument is interesting, but hardly the groundbreaking insight you seem to find it. Allow me to educate you.

(1) Market speculation is readily identified as a major component (60% according to numerous outlets, including the citation below) of rising oil prices and has been so since 2006.

Citation: http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/SenatePrint10965MarketSpecReportFINAL.pdf

Summary citation of the senate paper at:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/15033/role_of_the_market_speculation_in_rising_oil_and_gas_prices_senate_staff_report.html

(2) The so called 'geo-political' issue you seem to be trying to raise is not only non-existent, it is fallacy.

"Between 1981 and 1994, about 145 U.S. refineries closed. In the same period, overall U.S. refining capacity fell to 15 million barrels per day, pushing utilization rates to a more sustainable 92 percent.

Since then, refining capacity has grown at a slightly greater rate than demand. Between 1994 and 2002, capacity grew 11.6 percent while demand for finished products grew by 11.5 percent. This trajectory enabled refineries to operate profitably in a deregulated marketplace. Only over the past two years has refining capacity fallen behind the growth in demand for finished products."

- quoted from the Progressive Policy Institute's article available online at:

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116&subsecID;=155&contentID;=253566

If there is any validity at all to the assertion that "geo-political factors" are involved, they are, by far, on the tail end of the list of contributing pressures; so marginal that NO ONE has seen fit to mention them. Not the Fed. Not the market. Not the investors. Not the corporations. No one.

It is also worth noting the case supporting OPEC's toying with the market is neatly made therein. A tactic that has been but one aspect of their continued push for market control and their profound lack of confidence in the flagging U.S. Dollar.

Citation: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/6/211118.shtml

(3) In case you missed it, less than 1% of the countries you cites contribute to the United States' supply chain of gasoline or blending components from which to make it.

Perhaps you should consider reading ALL the numbers and not just the ones that seem to support your argument.

Here's the list with blended components (citation): http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epobg_im0_mbbl_m.htm

And here is the list with finished gasoline product (citation): http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epm0f_im0_mbbl_m.htm

Even if you tally in unfinished oils (which could conceivably be somewhere in the supply chain) you STILL have less than a pebble's effect on the overall ocean of oil prices as a result of "geo political factors".

Needless to say, at this point, your theory is not only blown out of the water, it's damn near blown into the stratosphere.

(4) Even the site from which you quoted references market speculation as a primary factor, albeit obliquely, saying in relevant part:

"If all of the low-range estimates for supply occurred, total gasoline supply would increase about 200 thousand barrels per day (Figure S1). However, record crude oil prices are nonetheless pushing current and expected gasoline prices to record levels."

citation: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2008/spgmogas2008/spgmogas2008.html, full report available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2008/spgmogas2008/spgmogas2008.pdf

Did you notice they are predicting an INCREASE in production? Hardly hampered.

(5) The simple fact is, NO ONE in ANY sector of the market, nor any research, nor even your own citations support your whacked out theory that "geo-political factors" are in ANY way responsible for the current situation with gasoline prices or even for oil prices overall.

It is people like you, sir, who should be taken out back and whipped into bloody unconsciousness for contributing to hysteria and misinformation because, apparently, you actually think a god damn Google search equals having experience and knowledge.

If there is any future in this site whatever, it is people like you who will see it driven into the dust.

Let someone who has time in the industry and a grasp of economics and global markets deal with these kinds of topics, kiddo. You need a few more biscuits and a hella lot more inside the temporal lobes.

Pitiful. Truly.

p.s.: Yes, I debited every one of your asinine, misinformed, and overblown posts in this debate. You're an idiot and it's a damn shame some people will mistake ego and verbosity for insight and knowledge. You have neither.