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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

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]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

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]

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 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.