29 replies to this topic

[Incorrigible1]

Dowdy on Aug 12 2008, 03:05 AM, said:

There is some merit to this. Although it won't solve all your problems.

The RACV states...

So, Senator Obama has stated the obvious. Great.

Hence, the campaign to send out air-pressure gauges, since the very concept is so elementary.

What's next? Brush your teeth and wash behind your ears? Because BHO sez so? Good advice! Brilliant! Vote for Barrack!

[Guardsman Bass]

Incorrigible1 on Aug 12 2008, 02:16 AM, said:

So, Senator Obama has stated the obvious. Great.

Hence, the campaign to send out air-pressure gauges, since the very concept is so elementary.

What's next? Brush your teeth and wash behind your ears? Because BHO sez so? Good advice! Brilliant! Vote for Barrack!

Apparently it wasn't obvious enough to most of the population, but then, Obama never presented it as the pinnacle of his energy plan; it was simply good advice. I forgot, though, that Conservation and Prevention is Un-American.

[Incorrigible1]

Guardsman Bass on Aug 12 2008, 03:58 AM, said:

Apparently it wasn't obvious enough to most of the population, but then, Obama never presented it as the pinnacle of his energy plan; it was simply good advice. I forgot, though, that Conservation and Prevention is Un-American.

Au Contraire! Conservation and prevention are hallmark qualities, and well worth recommending. Yet, they can't be the end-all and pinnacles of Obama's plans. As mentioned in the Krauthammer editorial previously posted, "The green fuels the Democrats insist we should be investing in are as yet uneconomical, speculative technologies, still far more expensive than extracted oil and natural gas. We could be decades away. And our economy is teetering. Why would you not drill to provide a steady supply of proven fuels for the next few decades as we make the huge technological and economic transition to renewable energy?"

I've yet to see anyone dismiss speculative, innovative technology. It seems we're all in favor of such. Bring it on! But to place all one's hopes and resources into unproven, futuristic technologies isn't wise, in the least. Is it? Is it unwise to expand American drilling by American companies? Is it necessary to confine American drilling to sites far off-shore, ensuring increased costs? Why shackle American efforts?

Is it better to continue to pour American funding into countries unfriendly to American interests? I have to wonder, since Representative Pelosi has dismissed the Congress for an extended holiday. Evidently the travails of the American citizenry can take a recess, too.

[Guardsman Bass]

Incorrigible1 on Aug 12 2008, 03:12 AM, said:

Au Contraire! Conservation and prevention are hallmark qualities, and well worth recommending. Yet, they can't be the end-all and pinnacles of Obama's plans. As mentioned in the Krauthammer editorial previously posted, "The green fuels the Democrats insist we should be investing in are as yet uneconomical, speculative technologies, still far more expensive than extracted oil and natural gas. We could be decades away. And our economy is teetering. Why would you not drill to provide a steady supply of proven fuels for the next few decades as we make the huge technological and economic transition to renewable energy?"

That's the problem, though; it isn't a steady supply of fuels. It's a marginal addition to overall US oil supply which will come ten years from now and be eaten up by growth in US oil consumption (unless we get real destruction in demand for fuels), and which isn't guaranteed to stay in the US anyways; oil is very mobile, and that could easily go to powering Chinese cars. The advocates of drilling keep trying to promote this as some type of stopgap, which is why Obama mentioned that you'd probably save more gas keeping your tires inflated, but it really isn't that. Not unless you want to spend tens of billions trying to get large quantities of oil shale out of the ground (at exorbitant prices), which would then have to be subsidized to compete with simply importing more foreign oil.

Quote

Is it better to continue to pour American funding into countries unfriendly to American interests? I have to wonder, since Representative Pelosi has dismissed the Congress for an extended holiday. Evidently the travails of the American citizenry can take a recess, too.

Domestic drilling won't change the above, since it is so minuscule. You'll be almost just as dependent on foreign oil in ten years as we are now.

[Mr.Peabody]

Guardsman Bass on Aug 12 2008, 01:36 PM, said:

That's the problem, though; it isn't a steady supply of fuels. It's a marginal addition to overall US oil supply which will come ten years from now and be eaten up by growth in US oil consumption (unless we get real destruction in demand for fuels), and which isn't guaranteed to stay in the US anyways; oil is very mobile, and that could easily go to powering Chinese cars. The advocates of drilling keep trying to promote this as some type of stopgap, which is why Obama mentioned that you'd probably save more gas keeping your tires inflated, but it really isn't that. Not unless you want to spend tens of billions trying to get large quantities of oil shale out of the ground (at exorbitant prices), which would then have to be subsidized to compete with simply importing more foreign oil.



Domestic drilling won't change the above, since it is so minuscule. You'll be almost just as dependent on foreign oil in ten years as we are now.

ah yes ........ facts... too bad so many are unwilling to look at them.

[BlindMessiah]

His statement is being taken completely out of context. He was asked by a citizen what he could personally do in regards to the gas crisis. Obama told him to inflate his tires. Then Obama said that if every American did this we would save more money than drilling in the shortrun because drilling won't help us for roughly eight years. This statement has been completely twisted by conservative propagandists.

[Incorrigible1]

BlindMessiah on Aug 16 2008, 01:15 AM, said:

His statement is being taken completely out of context. He was asked by a citizen what he could personally do in regards to the gas crisis. Obama told him to inflate his tires. Then Obama said that if every American did this we would save more money than drilling in the shortrun because drilling won't help us for roughly eight years. This statement has been completely twisted by conservative propagandists.

What short-term solutions did BHO put forth?

[BlindMessiah]

Incorrigible1 on Aug 16 2008, 07:38 AM, said:

What short-term solutions did BHO put forth?

No clue. Never said I support him, I simply hate the propaganda people spread.

[Incorrigible1]

BlindMessiah on Aug 16 2008, 02:51 AM, said:

No clue. Never said I support him, I simply hate the propaganda people spread.

So, are you a Ripley fan?

[BlindMessiah]

Incorrigible1 on Aug 16 2008, 08:56 AM, said:

So, are you a Ripley fan?

I vaguely recall someone by that name posting 30 topics a day filled with propaganda... ya... big fan.

[Incorrigible1]

BlindMessiah on Aug 16 2008, 05:04 AM, said:

I vaguely recall someone by that name posting 30 topics a day filled with propaganda... ya... big fan.

Heh! Good one.

[AROCES]

BlindMessiah on Aug 16 2008, 06:15 AM, said:

His statement is being taken completely out of context. He was asked by a citizen what he could personally do in regards to the gas crisis. Obama told him to inflate his tires. Then Obama said that if every American did this we would save more money than drilling in the shortrun because drilling won't help us for roughly eight years. This statement has been completely twisted by conservative propagandists.

What propaganda??? You heard it yourself and repeated it just now.
Drilling won't help not until 8 years, inflating your car tires will.

Edited by AROCES, 16 August 2008 - 01:13 PM.

[BlindMessiah]

AROCES on Aug 16 2008, 02:13 PM, said:

What propaganda??? You heard it yourself and repeated it just now.
Drilling won't help not until 8 years, inflating your car tires will.

Every time he is insulted for making the statement it's propaganda because it's being taken out of context of the question, which he answered correctly.

[Incorrigible1]

BlindMessiah on Aug 16 2008, 03:31 PM, said:

Every time he is insulted for making the statement it's propaganda because it's being taken out of context of the question, which he answered correctly.

Rather like McCain's "100 more years in Iraq" statement.

[BlindMessiah]

Incorrigible1 on Aug 17 2008, 01:03 AM, said:

Rather like McCain's "100 more years in Iraq" statement.

Exactly like McCain's hundred year war statement. Another reasonable statement taken out of context. It would seem that our citizens and politicians need to grow up. This useless propaganda won't help the country or get to the source of our problems.