Newt Gingrich's website for ticked off voters!

[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.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

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

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

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.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

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