AS even if you where correct about your beliefs about some vast price fixing scheme in the oil and gasoline markets (and you are far from correct on this issue) it would still be highly unreasonable to argue that those that disagree with you support gross criminality. To make such a charge reasonable you would need the "smoking gun" proof that you yourself say isn't available. Yes you can say "there too smart for that only an idiot would allow such proof to get out", or "Bush-Cheney won't investigate them so the proof won't be available", but even if one or both of those statements are true your statements are still unreasonable. Absent "smoking gun evidence" an assertion that any reasonable person would see that you are right, is nonsense, and would still be nonsense even if you where correct.
The evidence you do provide basically amounts to
1 - The price of oil has gone up a great deal since Bush took office.
2 - The profits of oil companies have gone up a lot since Bush took office.
3 - The margins of oil companies have gone up since Bush took office.
4 - Refining margins have gone up since Bush took office.
5 - The price of gasoline has greatly increased since Bush took office.
6 - Enron, a non oil company, cooked the books, possibly (you assert definitely) used price-fixing (or at least manipulation) to overcharge for electricity, and some Enron execs are friends of Bush and/or Cheney.
7 - "A Dallas oilman, last name Nelson" told you "we can charge anything we want".
None of these amounts to any serious evidence of price gouging by oil companies. They not only are not "smoking guns", they aren't even meaningful evidence. #7, in addition to not being meaningful even if we accept it as true, is also simply your assertion. To whatever tiny extent it could be evidence for anything, it is only evidence for you, its hearsay for everyone else. You can't reasonably expect others to see how its obvious that something is true because you assert that someone said something related to it. |
