Newt Gingrich's website for ticked off voters!

[SUBMAN1]

Woo hoo! I like it!

http://www.americansolutions.com/

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Did anybody from the USA sign this petition? I think its an important one.

-S

[MothBalls]

Did anybody from the USA sign this petition? I think its an important one.-S

I didn't. I don't think it's the correct answer. It's just an excuse to give big oil a firmer grip on us and ensure their profits for another 50 years. Alternative fuels, non-petroleum based energy resources are the long term answer.

It's not like we lack the intelligence or technology to come up with real solutions. There is no good excuse for not focusing efforts to a better solution.

Here's congress half-assed attempt at alternative solutions http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/feds-scrape-tog.html As if 30 million is going to accomplish anything at all.

[SUBMAN1]

Did anybody from the USA sign this petition? I think its an important one.-S
I didn't. I don't think it's the correct answer. It's just an excuse to give big oil a firmer grip on us and ensure their profits for another 50 years. Alternative fuels, non-petroleum based energy resources are the long term answer.

It's not like we lack the intelligence or technology to come up with real solutions. There is no good excuse for not focusing efforts to a better solution.

Here's congress half-assed attempt at alternative solutions http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/feds-scrape-tog.html As if 30 million is going to accomplish anything at all.

Here's a concept - how about built the techology first, and then switch over to it. You describe a kind of Cart before the Horse concept.

One last thought - the oil companies power does not change regardless of where they are drilling.

-S

[MothBalls]

Here's a concept - how about built the techology first, and then switch over to it. You describe a kind of Cart before the Horse concept.

Necessity is the mother of invention. If you open up more fields, the necessity for invention is going to be taken away. We already went through this once in the 70's and didn't learn a damn thing, we only made it worse. It's time to pull our heads out of our asses and come up with a real solution for the real problem.

If the global warming crowds are correct, then we solve two problems at the same time. The solutions need to be forced now. We shouldn't focus on band-aid solutions, we need answers, and we need them now.


One last thought - the oil companies power does not change regardless of where they are drilling.
The US is a petroleum based economy, period. Everything in this entire country revolves around it, including the military. Without it the nation comes to a grinding halt.

If you make big energy the sole supplier of oil, you think they'll do the right thing? You think they won't gouge us worse than they do now? You want to put our petroleum based nation in the hands of Enron traders?

We need change. We need it now. We don't need more drilling, we need a replacement for it. Renewable, safe, and reliable. Until then, hit Americans where it hurts, where they feel it the most, in the wallet.

Make fuel cheaper for Police, fire, and the trucks that bring things to market, the tools that grow food, just the necessities. Want gas for your SUV? $15 per gallon. You bet your ass that people will start carpooling to the grocery store and using public transportation to get to work.

The reality is that it has to get worse before it gets better, and Americans can't accept that.

[SUBMAN1]

Nope.

First off, the Global Warming crowd are wrong.

Second, it takes energy to make technology.

Third, finding new resources means we won't get gouched by the Saudis.

Forth, regulation can fix the speculators.

Fifth, all economies are based on hydrocarbon energy in the entire world, and if they have to go without, everything grinds to a halt - life as you know it.

Sixth, whats wrong with hydrocarbons if you can provide them for the next 300 years? 300 years worth of hydrocarbon based gas is hardly a band-aid - some people claim we may only have 200 years worth in this country at our present rate of consumption, but 200 to 300 years? Who cares? Kind of puts Saudi Arabia out of the picture, no?

Seventh, why simply transfer the power baton to a new energy mogul? That is all you are describing. Enron guys will simply move next door. They went from Electricity, to oil and gas, to in the future, green tech. They don't care as long as they are getting rich.

Need i go on?

-S

[Sea Demon]

First off, the Global Warming crowd are wrong.

Second, it takes energy to make technology.

Third, finding new resources means we won't get gouched by the Saudis.

Forth, regulation can fix the speculators.

Fifth, all economies are based on hydrocarbon energy in the entire world, and if they have to go without, everything grinds to a halt - life as you know it.

Sixth, whats wrong with hydrocarbons if you can provide them for the next 300 years? 300 years worth of hydrocarbon based gas is hardly a band-aid - some people claim we may only have 200 years worth in this country at our present rate of consumption, but 200 to 300 years? Who cares? Kind of puts Saudi Arabia out of the picture, no?

Seventh, why simply transfer the power baton to a new energy mogul? That is all you are describing. Enron guys will simply move next door. They went from Electricity, to oil and gas, to in the future, green tech. They don't care as long as they are getting rich.

Need i go on?

-S

Excellent response Subman. I don't wish to get too much into this topic as I'm just here for the day after a long hiatus, but from recent news and energy problems, I can't help but think that the spoiled rotten baby boom Democrat voters have caused us enough pain with their stupid weather crisis theories and other made up nonsense. That's the group where it mostly comes from. Saying that we need hydrocarbons to power our economy, and keep life running is simply common sense. After watching Democrats this past week wanting to nationalize our oil resources, speaking incessantly against drilling for increased supply, and harping on untried, untested, and unrealistic alternative energy schemes, I can't see how anybody in their right mind can actually go "pull the lever" for these people. Since they've taken control of Congress, gas has shot through the roof. And their solutions will only increase the costs of fuel at the pump and most other commodities in the future. Average joe baby boom Democrat doesn't understand economics obviously. And sorry Mrs. Pelosi, wind and solar energy will not power my pickup truck.

[Ducimus]

Oil isn't going to last forever. The sooner we accept that reality, and start adapting to it, the better off we'll be.

[Sea Demon]

Oil isn't going to last forever. The sooner we accept that reality, and start adapting to it, the better off we'll be.

We're not at the point where we're running out in the near future. Not even in this century. We still have alot of unexplored regions that are left untapped. And we simply have many decades worth domestically. That's reality. Go develop alternative sources. No problem with that at all. But our current economy needs oil. The Democrat's policies will do nothing but put a strain on families who rely on hydrocarbons. Their policies basically make it harder for people to get around, and buy food and supplies for their homes. We'll be alot better off if average joe Democrat comes to accept the reality that we have an oil based global economy. And changes to this ain't forthcoming in your lifetime. All average joe Democrat is doing is nothing but delaying the inevitable while dreaming pie in the sky policy. Not to mention putting a strain on real families right now. And much of it comes from the global warming hoax that has actually made some believe that by exhaling, they're killing the eco-system.

[Ducimus]

I may as well say flat out, topics like this strike me as basically saying:

"I dont want to change", or "i dont give a rats ass so long as it doesn't happen in my lifetime", And That's fine, i just wish people would be honest about it instead of coming up with some bullschitt song and dance.

I happen to fall into that "I dont care as long as it doesn't happen in my lifetime" category. Trouble is, i think it will happen during my lifetime. Probably sometime when im over the hill, but i'll still see probably see some "interesting" times none the less. I'd rather not if i dont have to, so i acutally have something resembeling a care, granted its just a barely a flicker of a care. Chances are you gents will see your grave before i do, so i don't expect you to give a rats ass. :rotfl:

[PeriscopeDepth]

And we simply have many decades worth domestically. That's reality.
Your reality does not fit with the reality of the US military camped out in the Middle East since 1990.

PD

[Sea Demon]

And we simply have many decades worth domestically. That's reality. Your reality does not fit with the reality of the US military camped out in the Middle East since 1990.

PD

Nope. We're there because for over 30 years, Democrats, environmentalists, and gullible voters have not allowed domestic production and increased supply. Even though we have allowed millions of more people into the country to put strain on that same amount of limited supply. Do us a favor next election...and don't vote.

[Sea Demon]

I may as well say flat out, topics like this strike me as basically saying:

"I dont want to change", or "i dont give a rats ass so long as it doesn't happen in my lifetime", And That's fine, i just wish people would be honest about it instead of coming up with some bullschitt song and dance.

Well, I see people like you uneccesarily starving us of needed energy supplies because of speculative concerns and wishful/idealistic thinking. I'm not opposed to alternative energy development. But in the meantime, I think Democrats who oppose drilling, and domestic production in the interim are irresponsible and very short sighted.

[PeriscopeDepth]

And we simply have many decades worth domestically. That's reality. Your reality does not fit with the reality of the US military camped out in the Middle East since 1990.

PD
Nope. We're there because for over 30 years, Democrats, environmentalists, and gullible voters have not allowed domestic production and increased supply. Even though we have allowed millions of more people into the country to put strain on that same amount of limited supply. Do us a favor next election...and don't vote.
A) I am not a Democrat, environmentalist, or gullible. But it seems anybody around here who doesn't unquestioningly believe that the US has enough oil for itself is automatically insulted. Which leads me to believe there is a flaw or two in that logic.
B) We have been in the Middle East before 1990, of course. There is an American military presence in 100s of countries. But we were never in the Middle East at levels even approaching 1990 before that time.
C) We need foreign oil to drive our current infrastructure/economy for a period greater than three years. Period. Dot. While there is a lot of oil here domestically, all the easy to get stuff is gone for the most part. And since it's not easy to get, it will be very expensive to get at for the oil companies and for the consumer to buy. Of course, we could try and change our current infrastructure.

Suggesting that it is the left's fault we are so entrenched in the Middle East and bending over for countries we wouldn't give two ****s about otherwise is absolutely asinine.

And for the record, I do support heavy domestic oil exploration. Even if it hurts the poor animals in Alaska.

PD

[Sea Demon]

A) I am not a Democrat, environmentalist, or gullible. But it seems anybody around here who doesn't unquestioningly believe that the US has enough oil for itself is automatically insulted. Which leads me to believe there is a flaw or two in that logic.
B) We have been in the Middle East before 1990, of course. There is an American military presence in 100s of countries. But we were never in the Middle East at levels even approaching 1990 before that time.
C) We need foreign oil to drive our current infrastructure/economy for a period greater than three years. Period. Dot. While there is a lot of oil here domestically, all the easy to get stuff is gone for the most part. And since it's not easy to get, it will be very expensive to get at for the oil companies and for the consumer to buy. Of course, we could try and change our current infrastructure.

Suggesting that it is the left's fault we are so entrenched in the Middle East and bending over for countries we wouldn't give two ****s about otherwise is absolutely asinine.

And for the record, I do support heavy domestic oil exploration. Even if it hurts the poor animals in Alaska.

PD
No insult intended. But I believe that those voters who vote in a way to prevent us from being self sufficient in oil production, in as much a capacity as we can be, is not a vote I value. Actually, the oil companies have said they could get the oil in these areas if they can get the access to do so. We maintain a presence in the Middle East to ensure delivery of these needed resources. If we produce more locally, we would need less of a presence over there. The cost savings with that in mind would be enormous. I'm sick of arguing with people over whether we should drill our own domestic supplies or not. The reasons not to do so are poor, often emotionally irrational, and never address the true realities of the economic supply and demand issues. I notice they never account for dollar devaluation adjustments to commodity pricing, nor do they address real concerns over the increasing amount of people putting a strain on the same amount of oil resources, and no additional infrastructure to address those concerns. Often, the gullible think that Exxon-mobile is price gouging without actually looking at global indexes and comparing it to our own supply versus our increasing demand. That's a chunk of the stupid electorate my friend. They'll pay the high prices at the pump, complain loudly, and vote for those same Democrat/enviro's who've ensured it will be this way.

[Ducimus]

Well, I see people like you uneccesarily starving us of needed energy supplies because of speculative concerns and wishful/idealistic thinking.


http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/additional/large/office_space_kit_mat.jpg

[August]

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/additional/large/office_space_kit_mat.jpg

Now this is a riot. Ducimus accusing someone else of jumping to conclusions. :roll:

[Sea Demon]

Well, I see people like you uneccesarily starving us of needed energy supplies because of speculative concerns and wishful/idealistic thinking.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/additional/large/office_space_kit_mat.jpg

Actually Ducimus, this chart you produced here is more appropriate for this gem from you:

I may as well say flat out, topics like this strike me as basically saying:

"I dont want to change", or "i dont give a rats ass so long as it doesn't happen in my lifetime",

Especially since people who want the US to produce more of it's own oil have never said anything like that.

[PeriscopeDepth]

A) I am not a Democrat, environmentalist, or gullible. But it seems anybody around here who doesn't unquestioningly believe that the US has enough oil for itself is automatically insulted. Which leads me to believe there is a flaw or two in that logic.
B) We have been in the Middle East before 1990, of course. There is an American military presence in 100s of countries. But we were never in the Middle East at levels even approaching 1990 before that time.
C) We need foreign oil to drive our current infrastructure/economy for a period greater than three years. Period. Dot. While there is a lot of oil here domestically, all the easy to get stuff is gone for the most part. And since it's not easy to get, it will be very expensive to get at for the oil companies and for the consumer to buy. Of course, we could try and change our current infrastructure.

Suggesting that it is the left's fault we are so entrenched in the Middle East and bending over for countries we wouldn't give two ****s about otherwise is absolutely asinine.

And for the record, I do support heavy domestic oil exploration. Even if it hurts the poor animals in Alaska.

PD
No insult intended. But I believe that those voters who vote in a way to prevent us from being self sufficient in oil production, in as much a capacity as we can be, is not a vote I value. Actually, the oil companies have said they could get the oil in these areas if they can get the access to do so. We maintain a presence in the Middle East to ensure delivery of these needed resources. If we produce more locally, we would need less of a presence over there. The cost savings with that in mind would be enormous. I'm sick of arguing with people over whether we should drill our own domestic supplies or not. The reasons not to do so are poor, often emotionally irrational, and never address the true realities of the economic supply and demand issues. I notice they never account for dollar devaluation adjustments to commodity pricing, nor do they address real concerns over the amount of people putting a strain on the same amount of oil resources, and no additional infrastructure to address those concerns. Often, the gullible think that Exxon-mobile is price gouging without actually looking at global indexes and comparing it to our own supply versus our increasing demand. That's a chunk of the stupid electorate my friend. They'll pay the high prices at the pump, complain loudly, and vote for those same Democrat/enviro's who've ensured it will be this way.
Agreed, to a point. But I believe if there was a way to get at all this domestic oil cheaply, it would have happened by now. The environmental lobby just pales in comparison to the power of the oil lobby.

My logic is this: if oil can assure a massive American military presence in the Middle East, as well as whacking a fews countries to make sure their product is economically viable; would it not be able to assure that the animals in Alaska/fish in the Gulf of Mexico get whacked?

I know its simplistic, but it does seem to me the treehuggers are a convenient scapegoat in this.

PD

[Ducimus]

US military camped out in the Middle East since 1990.


Just thoguht id take this opportunity to gripe, that anyone who think's were leaving there anytime soon (soon being within a time span of 5 to 10 years) is sorely mistaken. From what ive heard, more concerete has been poured there then all the allies poured in WW2. Coming from engineering circles, this , to me, speaks volumes. We don't bed down like that unless were planning a lengthy stay.

It's a good bet that Iraq, is going to be the next "overseas remote short tour" like Korea, once things settle down to some point that vaguely resembles stability. Troops will be rotating out of there for 365 days and a wake up for the next 50 some odd years. Only difference is, they're wont be a DMZ, just inside or outside "the wire".

[PeriscopeDepth]

US military camped out in the Middle East since 1990.

Just thoguht id take this opportunity to gripe, that anyone who think's were leaving there anytime soon (soon being within a time span of 5 to 10 years) is sorely mistaken. From what ive heard, more concerete has been poured there then all the allies poured in WW2. Coming from engineering circles, this , to me, speaks volumes. We don't bed down like that unless were planning a lengthy stay.

It's a good bet that Iraq, is going to be the next "overseas remote short tour" like Korea, once things settle down to some point that vaguely resembles stability. Troops will be rotating out of there for 365 days and a wake up for the next 50 some odd years. Only difference is, they're wont be a DMZ, just inside or outside "the wire".
I agree with you 110%.

PD

[Sea Demon]

Agreed, to a point. But I believe if there was a way to get at all this domestic oil cheaply, it would have happened by now. The environmental lobby just pales in comparison to the power of the oil lobby.

My logic is this: if oil can assure a massive American military presence in the Middle East, as well as whacking a fews countries to make sure their product is economically viable; would it not be able to assure that the animals in Alaska/fish in the Gulf of Mexico get whacked?

I know its simplistic, but it does seem to me the treehuggers are a convenient scapegoat in this.

PD
I actually think you got it backwards. The environmental lobbies, while currently decreasing in influence in the U.S., has had a hold on this issue for over three decades. The domestic suppliers have been saying they can get to these sources, tap them, and bring them online since the 90's. And that doesn't even address the squeeze from environmental groups and their resistance to increase refinery capacity to match demand from growing population demographics. The tree-huggers as you call them drive this policy directly. Most often through Democrat Party elected officials. Follow the policies, and listen to their words. Even this week, we hear nothing but the same rhetoric designed to delay action on it. It's not scapegoating as you say. But it is holding those accountable who have driven policy that is causing higher gas prices, increased costs of food and goods, and will not address our supply vs. our ever increasing demand. We need oil, we have oil, and they stop us every step of the way while offering non-specific "alternative sources" only policies that will not help us today or in the foreseeable future.

I won't address your second paragraph because it would divulge into a whole other topic. Why we went to Iraq. It would require going back to the UN resolutions and all kinds of stuff beyond the scope of this topic.

[Sea Demon]

Just thoguht id take this opportunity to gripe, that anyone who think's were leaving there anytime soon (soon being within a time span of 5 to 10 years) is sorely mistaken. From what ive heard, more concerete has been poured there then all the allies poured in WW2. Coming from engineering circles, this , to me, speaks volumes. We don't bed down like that unless were planning a lengthy stay.


I think most people realize this. And realized this during Gulf War 1.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon
Well, I see people like you uneccesarily starving us of needed energy supplies because of speculative concerns and wishful/idealistic thinking.


Actually Ducimus, this chart you produced here is more appropriate for this gem from you:

People like me eh? Your making assumptions about people like me. Thats not a general comment, thats a specific one. aimed directly at me, not any group of people at large.. So heres what im really thinking now:

---SNIP No personal attacks----

People like me? You have any idea how offensive that is? Heres what i think about people like YOU:

--SNIP No personal attacks---


I may as well say flat out, topics like this strike me as basically saying:

"I dont want to change", or "i dont give a rats ass so long as it doesn't happen in my lifetime",

Especially since people who want the US to produce more of it's own oil have never said anything like that.

Because i said what most people are afraid to admit? People are resistant to change, its human nature.

Ill add you to my ignore list now along with august. ---SNIP No personal attacks---

[Sea Demon]

People like me eh? Your making assumptions about people like me. Thats not a general comment, thats a specific one. aimed directly at me, not any group of people at large.. So heres what im really thinking now:

Because i said what most people are afraid to admit? People are resistant to change, its human nature.

Ill add you to my ignore list now along with august. Screw ya both.
Well, since you put me on ignore, you may never read this. But I'm sorry to have offended you. I didn't mean it that way. But if some people vote to stop us from accessing our own domestic supplies of oil when there is a great need to access it, I see those people as people who are starving us of something we need. I looked at your paragraph, and you don't seem to support drilling for domestic supplies. You may as well have made the comment in your paragraph as a specific comment about me in your post. I took it as such, but I wasn't offended by it. You're saying the whole motivation to want to drill for more of our own domestic supplies is only because of some irrational "resistance to change". That's not the motivation. Take a look at your current climbing gas prices, take a look at how many people we bring in annually, take a look at how we haven't worked to increase any supply or refinement capacity in over 30 years, and realize that we need oil to drive our economy. No desire for a "green" world is going to change that, and certainly not in the near future. I'm not against researching and implementing alternative sources of energy where we can, but we need oil. Too bad you took insult over something trivial, but that is your prerogative.

[August]

Welcome to the Ducimus hates us club SD. :lol:

[nikimcbee]

Digging trench now...
...putting helmet on...
popping popcorn.

and now for something completely different.

I'm just sick of the enviormental lobby wanting to drag us down. I don't doubt we need to get away from oil, but every other option they (greenies) don't like for some reason or another. (like wind power) All of the windy places, they bar the building of the windmills.

[PeriscopeDepth]

We need oil, we have oil, and they stop us every step of the way while offering non-specific "alternative sources" only policies that will not help us today or in the foreseeable future.
I am not convinved we have enough oil to make drilling anything more than a holding action, but an important one. The last big find (as far as I know), Jack#2 in the Gulf of Mexico, would keep the country going another 2 years (and that is assuming the high end 15 billion estimate, IIRC). Which would equate to a 50% increase in our reserves. Oil exploration is important, and we might find a lot more. But that's a pretty foolish bet to make when you look at discovery numbers in the past 50 years.
Believe me, I would love to believe drilling is the answer but the numbers just aren't there. I think a lot also depends on making oil shale and synthetic fuel a viable alternative; economically, technically, and politically.

I would say they are non-specific because there are no credible alternatives as of yet. Which we do need to invest more in, because things are looking pretty bleak right now to me. Betting everything on oil is not a good idea.
I won't address your second paragraph because it would divulge into a whole other topic. Why we went to Iraq. It would require going back to the UN resolutions and all kinds of stuff beyond the scope of this topic.
It would require discussing a lot more than Iraq. Iraq is far from our first coup de crude.

PD