Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Sen Reid and Speaker Pelosi haven't shown any competence whatsoever, but you think they deserve more power? I just don't follow that kind of thinking.<< Sure you do. The GOP was a disaster for 6 years, and you thought they fully deserved to remain in control of the white house, senate and congress in spite of it. So you understand that kind of thinking just fine.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The GOP was a disaster for 6 years, and you thought they fully deserved to remain in control of the white house, senate and congress in spite of it.> How were they a disaster in the House and Senate? Did you not want greater government spending? More entitlements? Bigger deficits? More regulations? More corruption? The Republicans gave you that, but the Democrats will certainly give you more of it. What exactly do you think the Democrats will do in Congress that the Republicans haven't?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Did you not want greater government spending? << I wanted smarter government spending. The cost of this ill-advised war in Iraq goes on and on, with no end in sight. Both parties have their share of the blame for that, but the GOP was driving the bus. The ridiculous notion that the GOP is some thrift-minded bunch is a dog that won't hunt anymore, Doug. They spent like crazy (and not always wisely) and they have no one to blame for that but themselves. George Bush didn't veto one thing until stem cells. Not one thing. So please don't play the tired old tune that the GOP is in any way more fiscally prudent than the Democrats. If we're going to spend like crazy, and both parties will, I'd rather it be spent on things that actually help people to have better conditions, rather than pre-emptive wars.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But both Kar2oonman and inlandemporer are moderates (I think both have said they voted for Bush in 2000), and neither is demonizing, just predicting how they think you're likely to behave based on your past actions and attitudes.>> <They are both proclaimed moderates, but they are still demonizing.> "Proclaimed" moderates? They both voted for Bush in 2000, Democrats at other times. But I guess when you're all the way to the right edge, anything left of that looks "lefty" rather than moderate. And IE doesn't post here that much so it's harder to say, but kar2oonman has never demonized anyone in his life. Once again, you're confusing legitimate criticism of you and your methods for "demonizing." <<Bush's ill-advised invasion of Iraq that improved Iran's position in the region to begin with - Iran has been the biggest beneficiary of our invasion.>> <This is your opinion, not a fact. It's one that I and others disagree with.> If they're not the bigGEST beneficiary, which would be opinion, it is a simple fact that they have benefited. You're not going to deny that Iran's position has greatly strengthened since 2003, are you? <they're at least as corrupt as the Republicans were, if not more so. > Oh?? Got any proof of that? Obviously there are corrupt members of both parties, but the leadership? Have Pelosi or Reid been indicted and effectively forced out of office a la Tom DeLay? Who's the Democrat's equivalent of Jack Abramoff? What are you basing "they're at least as corrupt as the Republicans were, if not more so" on? Other than ideology, I mean?
Originally Posted By woody >>How were they a disaster in the House and Senate? Did you not want greater government spending? More entitlements? Bigger deficits? More regulations? More corruption? The Republicans gave you that, but the Democrats will certainly give you more of it. What exactly do you think the Democrats will do in Congress that the Republicans haven't? << The Democrats will do what the Republicans did and more. That is a shame. What's worse is they don't realize they are responsible for the oil policy. They don't want any drilling for oil in ANWR and other off-shore locations. That's why there is less oil. Congress is responsible for higher oil prices, not Bush. As for Iraq, it is being fixed. There shouldn't be any change in the Iraq policy for now. There should be no withdrawal for many many years. As for spending, Congress will do worse with the Democrats in power. Unfortunately, the voters have no where to turn. Both the Democrats and Republicans are bad, except now we will have to contend with more pork barrel projects, global warming policy, universal health care, and new entitlements. Have fun in 2009.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan There should be no withdrawal for many many years.<< And clearly, you believe in that so deeply that you're heading down to your local recruiting office to enlist and help them out. Right? Hello? Is this thing on?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What's worse is they don't realize they are responsible for the oil policy. They don't want any drilling for oil in ANWR and other off-shore locations. That's why there is less oil. Congress is responsible for higher oil prices, not Bush.> Wow. Talk about revealing ignorance. ANWR amounts to a relative drop in the bucket. The last study done on this showed that tapping ANWR would in the best of worlds reduce the price of a barrel of oil (that a barrel of oil, not a gallon of gas) by 50 cents. That's when oil was less per barrel that it is not, but even if the percentage remained the same, it's still a relative pittance. The only thing that will bring the price of oil down substantially is reduced demand. And the only thing that will achieve that is developing alternate sources of energy. Which party is more likely to go in that direction. Hint: not the Republicans.
Originally Posted By woody >>ANWR amounts to a relative drop in the bucket. The last study done on this showed that tapping ANWR would in the best of worlds reduce the price of a barrel of oil (that a barrel of oil, not a gallon of gas) by 50 cents. That's when oil was less per barrel that it is not, but even if the percentage remained the same, it's still a relative pittance.<< This sounds like the argument of an Environmentalist rather than good oil policy. All oil should be exploited until we figure out how much is in it. However, ANWR should be drilled into other locations as well. The total amount of untapped oil is just sitting in the ground and seabeds. ALL SHOULD BE DRILLED. You're being truly ignorant in how you're relying on a study to protect an endangered animal. The ignorance is discovering the true amount of oil available.
Originally Posted By woody typo: I meant to say "However, ANWR should be drilled into as well as other locations as well. The total amount of untapped oil is just sitting in the ground and seabeds. ALL SHOULD BE DRILLED."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>ANWR amounts to a relative drop in the bucket. The last study done on this showed that tapping ANWR would in the best of worlds reduce the price of a barrel of oil (that a barrel of oil, not a gallon of gas) by 50 cents. That's when oil was less per barrel that it is not, but even if the percentage remained the same, it's still a relative pittance.<< <This sounds like the argument of an Environmentalist rather than good oil policy. All oil should be exploited until we figure out how much is in it.> We have geographers doing that. They've estimated how much is in ANWR, and it really isn't all that much, relatively speaking. <However, ANWR should be drilled into other locations as well.> You DO realize that ANWR stands for "Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge," right? There is one location for ANWR. How are we to drill ANWR at "other locations" than the one that IS ANWR? Really, woody, sometimes your ignorance is just breathtaking. But always good for a laugh. <The total amount of untapped oil is just sitting in the ground and seabeds. ALL SHOULD BE DRILLED.> Even oilmen don't say that. They say all that is economically feasible should be drilled. But your attitude is emblematic of short-term thinking. Oil HAS to run out some time. Anything you use up faster than it is generated will be depleted eventually. We've known this for years, but diddled around about doing anything about a large-scale alternative. We can't diddle any more. <You're being truly ignorant in how you're relying on a study to protect an endangered animal.> You apparently are ignorant of the meaning of the word "ignorant." I love irony. You may disagree that ANWR shouldn't be drilled to save an endangered animal (and the native people who depend on it), but "ignorant" means unaware of something, not simply holding an incorrect (in your opinion) view. I'm quite aware of the benefits of drilling up there (modest) AND of the reasons some people don't want to. So "ignorance" is not the right word to use here. I suggest a dictionary.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 okay, so you fixed your most laughable gaffe, but the short-term thinking remains.
Originally Posted By woody >>"ignorant" means unaware of something<< Yeah, it means you don't know how much oil is actually in the ground.... as if you haven't read my whole post.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 No one knows exactly how much is in the ground. There are scientists and geographers who have pretty good estimates, but it's not exact. What is certain is that it takes millions of years to form oil, and we burn countless barrels of it every day. It can't last forever, which is why developing an alternative is the only way to go long-term. Being "I want it now" and primarily short-term thinking people, however, as usual we'll probably wait till the shortage is at crisis levels. How much smarter it would be to develop them NOW.
Originally Posted By woody Let the market decide. Isn't this obvious? If the oil is not there, the oil companies will take the cost of the mistake. Otherwise, Congress should simply allow it. The crisis is fault of shortsighted thinking that it will be fixed with conservation. We will still use oil for many years to come even if we ditch our cars.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Let the market decide. Isn't this obvious?> The market does not decide how much oil exists on the planet. <If the oil is not there, the oil companies will take the cost of the mistake. Otherwise, Congress should simply allow it.> If you're referring to ANWR, the question is not if there's oil there. There is. The question is whether the relatively small amount is worth ruining the habitat. <The crisis is fault of shortsighted thinking that it will be fixed with conservation. We will still use oil for many years to come even if we ditch our cars.> I didn't mention conservation, though that's always a worthwhile goal. I said developing alternative energy sources. Personally, I think we need a Manhattan Project-level, or NASA man-on-the-moon level project. In both cases, the government brought the most brilliant minds in the country together in one place at one time, funded them lavishly, and said "here's the problem. Seemingly impossible. Ready? Go." And they did it. But it took a national commitment and lots of money. But it would save us tons of money on the back end. We could also patent whatever they came up with and have the rest of the world coming to us instead of the other way around.
Originally Posted By dshyates First off, drilling for oil doesn't necessarily mean destroying the environment. Trust me, I see them absolutely destroy the environment to access the energy deposits. Come to WV and talk about destroying the environment. Have you guys ever witnessed mountain top removal (strip) mining? Watch Morgan Spurlock's' "30 Days" tonight. He does a good segment on strip mining. Compared to what they are doing to the most beautiful state east of the Mississippi, the impact on ANWR would be minimal. <a href="http://podcasternews.com/data/programs/left_of_center/attach/29a.jpg" target="_blank">http://podcasternews.com/data/.../29a.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The total amount of untapped oil is just sitting in the ground and seabeds. ALL SHOULD BE DRILLED." << I want it all NOW! Don't bore me with leftist "alternative energy" crap - fill my hummer. And oh yeah - >> There should be no withdrawal for many many years. << Go team go! That's what I want our tax coffers sucked dry for - endless occupation of a muslim nation, and all that ensuing violence and death. Put it on the card - I'll just expense it to somebody else.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Compared to what they are doing to the most beautiful state east of the Mississippi, the impact on ANWR would be minimal.> I have family in KY and am very familiar with strip mining. But two wrongs don't make a right.
Originally Posted By woody >>The market does not decide how much oil exists on the planet.<< Blah. With blather like this, no wonder you're hopeless. Yes, the market does decide just about anything. Oil exists and it's just a matter of getting it. As far as we know, the potential of oil is entirely precluded in ANWR.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>The market does not decide how much oil exists on the planet.<< <Blah. With blather like this, no wonder you're hopeless.> It's not "hopeless" to state a fact. The market can be a wonderful thing, but it does not magically produce more oil than the ultimately finite amount that exists. Can we extract it in 2008 from places we couldn't, say, 40 years ago? Sure. Can we extract more than actually exists? Obviously not. Therefore, the market can not ultimately "decide" everything. <Yes, the market does decide just about anything. Oil exists and it's just a matter of getting it.> But ultimately, as with anything we use up faster than it is replenished, we run out. <As far as we know, the potential of oil is entirely precluded in ANWR.> Good grief. Dictionary, woody, dictionary. Look up "precluded." You're constantly reminding me of The Princess Bride, and not just on this word: "Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE. Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "
