Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sea Demon
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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