PDA

View Full Version : Obama has solved the oil crisis!!!



sooner n houston
8/1/2008, 06:37 AM
The great one saith:

"We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could save just as much."


Man I feel stupid! If only we'd have known!

r5TPsooner
8/1/2008, 06:43 AM
All hail the Obama.

He is so wise and great.

King Crimson
8/1/2008, 06:45 AM
Obama is in the pocket of the Grease Monkey lobby.

i didn't say "monkey", did i?

Okla-homey
8/1/2008, 07:18 AM
BHO is the Oral Roberts of politics. Just trust me (and click on that thing on my website and send me $25) and you shall be healed!

Harry Beanbag
8/1/2008, 07:35 AM
For the smartest mortal to ever walk the earth, he sure makes a disproportional number of truly idiotic statements.

DeadSolidPerfect
8/1/2008, 08:01 AM
His handlers should have him shooting 3 pointers from here to November, instead of talking and stuff.

Curly Bill
8/1/2008, 08:02 AM
His handlers should have him shooting 3 pointers from here to November, instead of talking and stuff.

Yup :D

tommieharris91
8/1/2008, 10:54 AM
His handlers should have him shooting 3 pointers from here to November, instead of talking and stuff.

That and he needs to say "hope" and "change" and "Yes we can!!"

Tulsa_Fireman
8/1/2008, 11:09 AM
I "HOPE" this goes in from THREE!

I can still drain threes even if I "CHANGE" where I shoot it from!

"YES WE CAN" bask in the glow of my sweet touch as I drain this tre'!

Air up your tires, save the world.

What a jackass.

StoopTroup
8/1/2008, 12:22 PM
I sent him the link to my tire thread.

He's promised me a Cabinet Position.

olevetonahill
8/1/2008, 12:38 PM
I sent him the link to my tire thread.

He's promised me a Cabinet Position.

I got offered the Liquor Cabinet.

StoopTroup
8/1/2008, 12:40 PM
I got offered the Liquor Cabinet.

I knew you were in the Obama Closet.

PROOF! :D

olevetonahill
8/1/2008, 12:43 PM
I knew you were in the Obama Closet.

PROOF! :D

Hell JSM offered the same :D

StoopTroup
8/1/2008, 12:50 PM
Hell JSM offered the same :D

I'm betting that's a lot better Liquor Cabinet. :pop:

tommieharris91
8/1/2008, 12:53 PM
So y'all are saying Obama will give all the homeless people the top shelf liquor?

StoopTroup
8/1/2008, 12:55 PM
You can't lose.

OV is a lock for both cabinets.

olevetonahill
8/1/2008, 12:56 PM
So y'all are saying Obama will give all the homeless people the top shelf liquor?

No hes gonna give em enough Change to Be able to Buy some Ripple.

StoopTroup
8/1/2008, 01:09 PM
No hes gonna give em enough Change to Be able to Buy some Ripple.

What's wrong with a nice ripple? :D

http://bigheaddc.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/obama-smoking.png

JohnnyMack
8/1/2008, 01:33 PM
So he points out that if we showed some personal responsibility and took of our own **** we'd see the same results as if we continued our locust like approach of chewing things up and spitting them out. Yep. He's a retard.

tommieharris91
8/1/2008, 02:26 PM
So he points out that if we showed some personal responsibility and took of our own **** we'd see the same results as if we continued our locust like approach of chewing things up and spitting them out. Yep. He's a retard.

Here's your "personal responsibility."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12237.html

Seriously, he should force tech companies, with their profit margins 3x the size of oil compaines, to do this too. :rolleyes:

Animal Mother
8/1/2008, 02:35 PM
I "HOPE" this goes in from THREE!

I can still drain threes even if I "CHANGE" where I shoot it from!

"YES WE CAN" bask in the glow of my sweet touch as I drain this tre'!

Air up your tires, save the world.

What a jackass.

From the jackasse's mouth ladies and germs!!!;)

Animal Mother
8/1/2008, 02:48 PM
What's it like to be able to edit your own posts???? Please someone tell me!!!

sooner n houston
8/1/2008, 03:03 PM
So he points out that if we showed some personal responsibility and took of our own **** we'd see the same results as if we continued our locust like approach of chewing things up and spitting them out. Yep. He's a retard.

Just for fun, I did the math. Properly inflating your tires can improve gas mileage by 3%. Of course, many people already keep their tires properly inflated, and many more are at least close to being properly inflated. Let's be generous and assume that one-half of the total possible savings would be realized if we all inflated our tires properly; that's a net gain of 1.5% fuel efficiency.

Americans drive approximately 2,880 billion miles per year. If we average 24 mpg, we use around 120 billion gallons of gasoline in our vehicles. If, through perfect tire inflation, we improved our collective fuel efficiency by 1.5%, that would be 1.8 billion gallons. A barrel of oil produces around 20 gallons of gasoline, so the total savings available through tire inflation is approximately 90,000,000 barrels of oil annually.

How does this stack up against "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling?"

ANWR: 10 billion barrels
Outer Continental Shelf: 18 billion barrels (estimated; the actual total is undoubtedly much higher, since exploration has been banned)
Oil shale: 1 trillion barrels

So, on the above assumptions, it would take only 11,308 years of proper tire inflation to equal "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/07/021122.php

Frozen Sooner
8/1/2008, 03:17 PM
Obviously an exaggeration, and a poor one.

The numbers I've seen are 800,000,000 bbls per year for proper car maintenance (not just tire inflation, but tuneups etc) and 1.25 billion bbls for more domestic production.

Of course, we could always drill for oil on the Iraq-Pakistani border.

Animal Mother
8/1/2008, 03:18 PM
Let's drill for Osama. He's in the ground over there somewhere.

Harry Beanbag
8/1/2008, 05:24 PM
So he points out that if we showed some personal responsibility and took of our own **** we'd see the same results as if we continued our locust like approach of chewing things up and spitting them out. Yep. He's a retard.


Do you think this is the first time people have heard of properly inflating their tires before or is this one of those new ideas of Change that we've heard so much about? Forget the fact that he was so totally wrong in his quote. Maybe the retards are the ones who keep defending the mountain of lies and screwups he's building.

Maybe when he's elected he'll create the Department of Vehicle Maintenance and force everyone to bring their cars in once a month to check the air pressure and once a year for a tune up. We could fund it by taxing the rich people, you know, everyone except Fraggle.

Tulsa_Fireman
8/1/2008, 05:25 PM
Because he chose not to be rich by being a lowly teacher.

Not a high falutin' bizness man or someone that lives on the government teat like myself.

EDIT: I forgot.

I farted.

Okla-homey
8/1/2008, 06:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mopkn0lPzM8

bonkuba
8/1/2008, 11:18 PM
So he points out that if we showed some personal responsibility and took of our own **** we'd see the same results as if we continued our locust like approach of chewing things up and spitting them out. Yep. He's a retard.

Just a stupid and not at all thought out (stupid) comment by Obama.

No doubt it would make a little difference....but come on for the love of God just Drill, Steal or something.......these prices SUCK!!! Heck, we have rebuilt half of the world after we kick their ***.....so why not just start keeping the oil? I mean we kicked their *** and stuff :D

bonkuba
8/1/2008, 11:23 PM
Let's drill for Osama. He's in the ground over there somewhere.

Hopefully dead as a Mother ****er.

Well said.....

Mixer!
8/3/2008, 06:13 PM
I knew you were in the Obama Closet.

150 PROOF! :D
fixed.

soonerscuba
8/4/2008, 09:57 PM
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes

The party of personal responsibility is going to have a hard time getting off the oil teet and doing something for themselves. You hate mideast dictators who funnel money to people bent on killing innocent Americans? Check the tires, go for the oil change, plug in the CFL, jump on the team and come in for the big win.

SCOUT
8/4/2008, 10:04 PM
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes

The party of personal responsibility is going to have a hard time getting off the oil teet and doing something for themselves. You hate mideast dictators who funnel money to people bent on killing innocent Americans? Check the tires, go for the oil change, plug in the CFL, jump on the team and come in for the big win.

I would "jump on the team" if that team wanted to do all the things it could to become more energy independent. I do all of the things you listed, but I also think we should be drilling offshore. Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?
It seems to me that we should be conserving and looking for alternative sources. While doing that, drilling offshore would buy use even more time to find those new solutions while reducing the risk of an economic implosion. I think that would be the big win.

r5TPsooner
8/4/2008, 10:15 PM
I had my truck serviced and my tires inflated to manufacturer recommended maximums this weekend.

Still getting 15 miles to the gallon on the highway and 12 in the city.

Thanks Obrama fer nuthin.

soonersn20xx
8/4/2008, 10:16 PM
I had my truck serviced and my tires inflated to manufacturer recommended maximums this weekend.

Still getting 15 miles to the gallon on the highway and 12 in the city.

Thanks Obrama fer nuthin.

Did you get the lead removed from your feets as well? :P

soonerscuba
8/4/2008, 10:26 PM
I would "jump on the team" if that team wanted to do all the things it could to become more energy independent. I do all of the things you listed, but I also think we should be drilling offshore. Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?
It seems to me that we should be conserving and looking for alternative sources. While doing that, drilling offshore would buy use even more time to find those new solutions while reducing the risk of an economic implosion. I think that would be the big win.

Because oil is a dying commodity, and it's easier to control the demand side than supply. I'm not anti-oil, but using election year politics and fear of prices to ram through an energy package that allows Exxon unfettered access to coastlines is, imo, a recipe for disaster. I also have issue with the rosy scenario that we are going to get a 65% yield from the oil in ANWR. If we can't lower demand within a reasonable time frame, I see no reason to pursue domestic sources, but I don't think that's the case, and if gas prices remain the same, I think the demand problem fixes itself.

mdklatt
8/4/2008, 10:59 PM
I do all of the things you listed, but I also think we should be drilling offshore.

Oil has hidden costs that add up to a lot more than $150/barrel. Burning more oil is just going to dig the hole deeper, and if prices go down it's going to reduce the impetus to do something about it. Just watch Hummer sales jump if gas gets down to $3/gallon again. It's "starve a fever, feed a cold", not "starve a fever, feed an addiction".

SCOUT
8/4/2008, 11:11 PM
Oil has hidden costs that add up to a lot more than $150/barrel. Burning more oil is just going to dig the hole deeper, and if prices go down it's going to reduce the impetus to do something about it. Just watch Hummer sales jump if gas gets down to $3/gallon again. It's "starve a fever, feed a cold", not "starve a fever, feed an addiction".

BHO says that airing up our tires and tuning our cars will have the same effect as drilling offshore. So you are saying I should by stock in Hummers if BHO gets elected.

On a more serious note, your analysis ignores the broader economic impact of the high price of oil. Starving the fever could have catastrophic effects that go on for generations. Level headed and comprehensive solutions are better than a strip off the band-aid approach in this sitiuation. IMO of course.

FYI, oil has dropped about $30 a barrel since it was at, or near, $150.

tommieharris91
8/4/2008, 11:32 PM
BHO says that airing up our tires and tuning our cars will have the same effect as drilling offshore. So you are saying I should by stock in Hummers if BHO gets elected.

On a more serious note, your analysis ignores the broader economic impact of the high price of oil. Starving the fever could have catastrophic effects that go on for generations. Level headed and comprehensive solutions are better than a strip off the band-aid approach in this sitiuation. IMO of course.

FYI, oil has dropped about $30 a barrel since it was at, or near, $150.

Meh, the only thing high oil prices really cause is unemployment. Not recession. Not inflation. Just unemployment.

This might be a tough read for some, but it's where I found the conclusion.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/1997/199756/199756pap.pdf

mdklatt
8/4/2008, 11:37 PM
On a more serious note, your analysis ignores the broader economic impact of the high price of oil. Starving the fever could have catastrophic effects that go on for generations.

Every gallon we burn puts us deeper in the hole economically and ecologically.


How is this (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x74111) going to effect future generations? Maybe that study is crap, but what if it isn't? And that Canadian wheat belt is not meant to be, because that's all shield rock with no top soil. No matter, I'm sure Russia and China will have plenty of wheat to sell us. What's worse, foreign dependency on oil or foreign dependency on food? You're also overlooking the economic opportunities of getting off oil. Alternative energy is booming right now.

mdklatt
8/4/2008, 11:38 PM
Meh, the only thing high oil prices really cause is unemployment. Not recession. Not inflation. Just unemployment.

Kinda counterintuitive, but true.

How does it not cause inflation?

soonersn20xx
8/4/2008, 11:40 PM
Meh, the only thing high oil prices really cause is unemployment. Not recession. Not inflation. Just unemployment.

Kinda counterintuitive, but true.
Not true, high fuel cost do have a modest impact on inflation
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1094/is_2_39/ai_n6090402

Briefly, recession is caused by business slowdown as the much higher prices of oil feed into the industrialised economies. Businesses lose confidence, retrench, lay off staff, and reduce investment in new plant and machinery; retailers see less consumer spending; inflation reduces spending power; interest rates rise.

r5TPsooner
8/4/2008, 11:44 PM
Maybe if the fed quit bailing out wall street and every other big company that lost a dollar and quit devaluing the dollar, then inflation would drop steadily. I'm all for the fed raising the prime and putting some worth back into the dollar.

soonersn20xx
8/4/2008, 11:46 PM
Maybe if the fed quit bailing out wall street and every other big company that lost a dollar and quit devaluing the dollar, then inflation would drop steadily. I'm all for the fed raising the prime and putting some worth back into the dollar.

As long as the Bush administration thinks the economy revolves around the stock market and the richest 5%, don't expect to see the fed doing the right thing.

r5TPsooner
8/4/2008, 11:49 PM
As long as the Bush administration thinks the economy revolves around the stock market and the richest 5%, don't expect to see the fed doing the right thing.

Unfortunately I agree with that. However, the same **** would be happening if a Democrat was in the White House as they all tend to protect there rich friends on Wall Street.

It's just too bad that average Joe American couldn't geth that kind of support.

soonersn20xx
8/4/2008, 11:53 PM
Looks like the Fed isn't going to do crap.

Fed likely to hold rates steady amid crosscurrents
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080804/ap_on_bi_ge/fed_interest_rates

r5TPsooner
8/4/2008, 11:54 PM
Looks like the Fed isn't going to do crap.

Fed likely to hold rates steady amid crosscurrents
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080804/ap_on_bi_ge/fed_interest_rates

Freddie mac and Fannie Mae need to make loans. No really surprised by that. Plus Bush is an idiot... but he's our idiot.:D

tommieharris91
8/5/2008, 12:09 AM
Not true, high fuel cost do have a modest impact on inflation
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1094/is_2_39/ai_n6090402

Briefly, recession is caused by business slowdown as the much higher prices of oil feed into the industrialised economies. Businesses lose confidence, retrench, lay off staff, and reduce investment in new plant and machinery; retailers see less consumer spending; inflation reduces spending power; interest rates rise.

Lemme break this part down. Businesses see higher prices of inputs, mostly through high transportation costs. They do not desire to destroy demand for their products by passing on their costs to the consumer, so the first thing they usually to offset these costs is laying off workers. The reduction in investment doesn't have much to do with an oil price shock. In fact, there really isn't a reduction in investment in the US because another one of your assumptions does not hold. Interest rates have fallen during this oil shock and every other oil shock since the 70s. When interest rates fall, the money supply rises. When the money supply rises, you can expect inflation.

So, even with rapidly increasing oil prices, inflation is still tied very much to benchmark interest rates.

I'll repost this because I think you guys missed it.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/1997/199756/199756pap.pdf

tommieharris91
8/5/2008, 12:10 AM
Freddie mac and Fannie Mae need to make loans. No really surprised by that. Plus Bush is an idiot... but he's our idiot.:D

Bush isn't on the FOMC. Besides, we're stuck with Bernanke until 2010.

SCOUT
8/5/2008, 12:48 AM
Every gallon we burn puts us deeper in the hole economically and ecologically.


How is this (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x74111) going to effect future generations? Maybe that study is crap, but what if it isn't? And that Canadian wheat belt is not meant to be, because that's all shield rock with no top soil. No matter, I'm sure Russia and China will have plenty of wheat to sell us. What's worse, foreign dependency on oil or foreign dependency on food? You're also overlooking the economic opportunities of getting off oil. Alternative energy is booming right now.

I guess when I said, "and looking for alternative sources" I was being too vague. I think we should continue and invigorate our investment in alternatives sources.

I keep hearing people say that offshore drilling won't result in gas price reduction for years to come. Do you really think that there is an alternative source of energy that is going to be readily available by Thursday? These things take time. Let's make smart strategic decisions while making smart short term decisions too. They don't have to be at odds.

mdklatt
8/5/2008, 01:19 AM
I think we should continue and invigorate our investment in alternatives sources.

The interest in alternatives is directly proportional to the price of gasoline, because we have the collective memory of a warmed-over hamster. Oh how people laughed and laughed and laughed in 1992 when Ross Perot wanted to raise the gasoline tax in order to fund alternatives. When gas was $10/barrel in the late 90s were we making hay? Nope, we were propping up the oil industry. How much do you wanna bet that a lot of those subsidies are still in effect today?




I keep hearing people say that offshore drilling won't result in gas price reduction for years to come. Do you really think that there is an alternative source of energy that is going to be readily available by Thursday? These things take time.


Plug-in hybrids are on the way, and a practical all-electric car isn't too far off. Affordable might be a little farther off, but we wouldn't have $30 DVD players without that first generation of los...um, enthusiasts willing to pay $1000. Battery technology is the key. Good batteries will make solar and wind a lot more useful, too.

I don't think $4/gallon is "too high". That seemed to be the sweet spot--high enough to get people's undivided attention, but not so high as to be ruinous. If we could food prices under control (get rid of ethanol subsidies?), the higher gas prices would be bearable. And people are doing what could/should have been done long ago. Telecommuting, 4-day work weeks, getting rid of large vehicles they had no need for, not driving so fast, etc. We finally have higher CAFE standards (no improvement in fuel economy in 20 years!), and GM, Chrysler, and Ford are seeing the light regardless. Let's save the offshore oil for when we really need it, and give conservation a try. You laugh may at Obama's tire suggestion, but factor in all the usual recommendations (tires, clean air filters, regular oil changes, slowing down) and it adds up. The last time I drove to Dallas I got 40 MPG by going 70 MPH instead of 75 MPH. That's anecdotal, but my previous best was 37 MPG for the trip, and that was with a strong tailwind both ways.

StoopTroup
8/5/2008, 01:23 AM
I am noticing that the closer we get to electing Obama...

The lower gas prices are getting.

mdklatt
8/5/2008, 01:32 AM
I am noticing that the closer we get to electing Obama...

The lower gas prices are getting.

Does that mean we should vote for or against him??

SCOUT
8/5/2008, 01:36 AM
The interest in alternatives is directly proportional to the price of gasoline, because we have the collective memory of a warmed-over hamster. Oh how people laughed and laughed and laughed in 1992 when Ross Perot wanted to raise the gasoline tax in order to fund alternatives. When gas was $10/barrel in the late 90s were we making hay? Nope, we were propping up the oil industry. How much do you wanna bet that a lot of those subsidies are still in effect today?
If subsidies are still in effect, I would support removing them providing that it doesn't debilitate the oil industry. Keep in mind the addage of biting the hand that feeds you, in this case the economy.


I don't think $4/gallon is "too high". That seemed to be the sweet spot--high enough to get people's undivided attention, but not so high as to be ruinous. If we could food prices under control (get rid of ethanol subsidies?), the higher gas prices would be bearable.
The reason ethanol has become the albatross is because we committed to a faulty plan without thinking of the secondary reprecussions. Instead of going off half cocked into a "solution" let's take our time and choose the best path instead of the easiest one. To do that, we have to have capacity to allow for the technology to catch up. Drilling will help cushion the blow.


And people are doing what could/should have been done long ago. Telecommuting, 4-day work weeks, getting rid of large vehicles they had no need for, not driving so fast, etc. We finally have higher CAFE standards (no improvement in fuel economy in 20 years!), and GM, Chrysler, and Ford are seeing the light regardless. Let's save the offshore oil for when we really need it, and give conservation a try. You laugh may at Obama's tire suggestion, but factor in all the usual recommendations (tires, clean air filters, regular oil changes, slowing down) and it adds up. The last time I drove to Dallas I got 40 MPG by going 70 MPH instead of 75 MPH. That's anecdotal, but my previous best was 37 MPG for the trip, and that was with a strong tailwind both ways.
I currently work from home and am implementing a 9/80 work schedule for our software development office. The main driver is the cost for our employees commute. My point is that conservation helps but it isn't the long term answer. Additional capacity will help the transition while we sort out the long term answer.

mdklatt
8/5/2008, 01:51 AM
If subsidies are still in effect, I would support removing them providing that it doesn't debilitate the oil industry.


I'm not too worried about the oil industry going bankrupt in the near future.




Drilling will help cushion the blow.
The main driver is the cost for our employees commute.

How big is the "blow", really? If your daily commute is 40 miles round trip, at 25 MPG, $4/gallon is costing you $32/week. Not chump change, but a lot of people could save that much by cutting back on Starbucks.

SCOUT
8/5/2008, 02:00 AM
How big is the "blow", really? If your daily commute is 40 miles round trip, at 25 MPG, $4/gallon is costing you $32/week. Not chump change, but a lot of people could save that much by cutting back on Starbucks.

There is a bigger cost to fuel charges than just an individual commute. Everything that is transported (i.e. food, clothing, medicine etc.) is affected. When you look at it from the global perspecive, the cost is much higher. That translates to a higher cost of living.

If we can keep that cost down while developing the right alternative it is a good thing.

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 11:37 AM
If the average American lived just 20% closer to work (meaning a substantial number are much closer, ie: downtown or inner city, while a large number could -- and surely would -- stay where they are), the average fuel consumption in the U.S. would plummet, far exceeding the lame tire inflation savings, and even far exceeding the gains we would see from the proposed increased domestic production.

That's why we need to be encouraging inner-city development and discouraging community fringe development and sprawl. This could be done with tax incentives and relaxed regulation on inner city development and moratoriums on fringe development, or at at the very least increased permitting costs for building far from city centers. Increased permitting and tax assessments on fringe devlopments make sense for cities, anyway, since they have to provide new services to those areas, but already have services in place for previously developed parts of a city.

It would save the cities themselves money, thereby reducing taxpayer burden and the likelihood that the communities would be so reliant on state and federal funds.

We need to take a long-term, studied approach to ending our oil addiction, rather than lunging from "solution" to "solution," whichever one is politically expedient for that day sticking our collective fingers in the air, to see which way they wind blows, utilizing short-term fixes. If we don't fix the underlying problems that we took 60+ years to create, we will always be in this situation, in some way or another.

soonersn20xx
8/5/2008, 11:49 AM
Well Jed I think that is a great idea........we should employ simple and immediate remedies. That is why the McCain campaign is doing a disservice to the American public by mocking the inflated tires suggestion and turning it into a political attack talking point.

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 11:52 AM
If the average American lived just 20% closer to work (meaning a substantial number are much closer, ie: downtown or inner city, while a large number could -- and surely would -- stay where they are), the average fuel consumption in the U.S. would plummet, far exceeding the lame tire inflation savings, and even far exceeding the gains we would see from the proposed increased domestic production.

That's why we need to be encouraging inner-city development and discouraging community fringe development and sprawl. This could be done with tax incentives and relaxed regulation on inner city development and moratoriums on fringe development, or at at the very least increased permitting costs for building far from city centers. Increased permitting and tax assessments on fringe devlopments make sense for cities, anyway, since they have to provide new services to those areas, but already have services in place for previously developed parts of a city.

It would save the cities themselves money, thereby reducing taxpayer burden and the likelihood that the communities would be so reliant on state and federal funds.

I don't wanna be told where or where not to live.



We need to take a long-term, studied approach to ending our oil addiction, rather than lunging from "solution" to "solution," whichever one is politically expedient for that day sticking our collective fingers in the air, to see which way they wind blows, utilizing short-term fixes. If we don't fix the underlying problems that we took 60+ years to create, we will always be in this situation, in some way or another.

Agree 100%

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 11:53 AM
Hey, I'm not saying people shouldn't air up their tires. They should. We should have a national PSA campaign urging people to do it. We should also drill on the continental shelf, and in ANWR. We should also do everything in our power, including militarily to make sure oil producing countries are stable and friendly to the U.S. It's the corner we have painted ourselves into.

But until we stop ignoring the lifestyle changes that happened post-WWII and work to change it, we are basically trying to treat an aortic hemorrhage with a band-aid.

tommieharris91
8/5/2008, 11:56 AM
I don't wanna be told where or where not to live.


I thought you commies didn't like individual thinking. ;)

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 11:58 AM
I don't wanna be told where or where not to live...
You won't be. That's not what I am saying at all. The only thing I am saying is that we need to invest heavily in making inner cities livable, walkable, easy to get around in. We need to make developing in the inner city less difficult, regulation-burdened, and expensive.

And we need to actually charge for the new services provided to fringe areas, instead of providing them at no charge to the developer and homeowner and instead saddling existing taxpayers with that burden. Fair is fair. Right now we are unintentionally subsidizing the suburban lifestyle that is causing this problem.

Do all of that, and the people who would like to live closer to work will do so. People who want to live in the 'burbs can still do that, too. But we'll save a ****load of oil, overall.

soonersn20xx
8/5/2008, 12:01 PM
Why doesn't anyone ask the follow up question to offshore drilling which is.......if the oil that is drilled on U.S. leases is sold for the same going rate on the world market, where will the savings be? If you say it will increase supply and drive the price down, that will be false because the impact would be nominal.

I have another theory, the republican congress has hijacked the pain at the pump so U.S. oil companies can have a free for all on a mineral right land grab.

Here is the compromised solution, all oil drilled off these new leases will be sold at 2/3s of the going rate on the world market to the refineries. Because is not our goal to relieve the pain for the consumer and not increase the profits of the oil industry?

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 12:04 PM
I have another theory, the republican congress has hijacked the pain at the pump so U.S. oil companies can have a free for all on a mineral right land grab.

Did you forget the democrats control congress?

soonersn20xx
8/5/2008, 12:05 PM
Did you forget the democrats control congress?

I mean, the republicans in congress obviously. They still have enough votes to stall legislation.......until this election is over and the dems will have a super majority of 60 votes in the Senate.

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 12:12 PM
You won't be. That's not what I am saying at all. The only thing I am saying is that we need to invest heavily in making inner cities livable, walkable, easy to get around in. We need to make developing in the inner city less difficult, regulation-burdened, and expensive.

And we need to actually charge for the new services provided to fringe areas, instead of providing them at no charge to the developer and homeowner and instead saddling existing taxpayers with that burden. Fair is fair. Right now we are unintentionally subsidizing the suburban lifestyle that is causing this problem.

Do all of that, and the people who would like to live closer to work will do so. People who want to live in the 'burbs can still do that, too. But we'll save a ****load of oil, overall.

I assume you're talking about taking infrastructure to new developments (water lines, phone, electric, cable, etc.)? Just because you like the inner city vibe/feel/thingy doesn't mean everyone should have to be subjected to it. Your suggestion that we somehow limit growth by making it more difficult to expand and more easy to develop/reinvest in our current infrastructure seems a utopian effort at odds with the manifest destiny notion we built this country on. Now I do think we as humans are a bit like locusts in the manner in which we develop cities (think north Dallas and all its cracker jack suburbs or most of Phoenix for that matter), but I don't know if tangling a web of money and bureaucracy in front of developers would stop them. While I agree that more should be done at developing and reinvesting in what we have (Tulsa is one of the premier examples of having failed to do this in the country) in lieu of a constant stream of new construction I don't know that it's at all plausible. Unless you vote for BHO. And he turns us all into mindless, thoughtless socialists.

StoopTroup
8/5/2008, 12:13 PM
There will be no change if Nancy loses power and Barack is the chosen one!

ALL HAIL TO THE DONKS ! ! !

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 12:15 PM
There will be no change if Nancy loses power and Barack is the chosen one!

ALL HELL TO THE DONKS ! ! !

FIXED

StoopTroup
8/5/2008, 12:15 PM
BTW...North Dallas was built in an attempt for folks to be able to return to God's cOUntry easier. Kind of a watering hole you might say. :D

soonersn20xx
8/5/2008, 12:19 PM
There will be no change if Nancy loses power and Barack is the chosen one!

ALL HAIL TO THE DONKS ! ! !

Let's not forget what Obama will be inheriting either, a economy in shambles, exploding energy prices, bubbling inflation, weakened dollar. So I really don't want to hear from Republicans the day after his inaugaration how all this is his fault, the Bush administration mess will linger for many years to come.

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 12:23 PM
Let's not forget what Obama will be inheriting either, a economy in shambles, exploding energy prices, bubbling inflation, weakened dollar. So I really don't want to hear from Republicans the day after his inaugaration how all this is his fault, the Bush administration mess will linger for many years to come.

Good to see how that donk congress has got a good start on cleaning up the mess. :rolleyes:

Course they don't have the God-like qualities of Brack with which to work.

soonersn20xx
8/5/2008, 12:26 PM
Good to see how that donk congress has got a good start on cleaning up the mess. :rolleyes:

I am no fan of this dem Congress either, they didn't have the balls to impeach Bush............instead using him as a political pancho to gain more political power.

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 12:27 PM
I am no fan of this dem Congress either, they didn't have the balls to impeach Bush............instead using him as a political pancho to gain more political power.

...and what exactly were they going to impeach him of?

...and not only that but his approval rating is higher then theirs is.

StoopTroup
8/5/2008, 12:30 PM
...and not only that but his approval rating is higher then theirs is.


It is?

Man...they both suc....lol

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 12:31 PM
It is?

Man...they both suc....lol

Exactly, but I'm sure once Brack is at the helm that donk congress will shape right up. He'll probably lay hands on them or something.

StoopTroup
8/5/2008, 12:32 PM
Laying hands on Pelosi?

That's hawt. ;)

r5TPsooner
8/5/2008, 12:32 PM
I'm amazes at how Liberals are quick to point out how Bush has screwed things up but turn the cheek when talking about the farce that is the Democratic majority in congress. Nice 14% approval rating folks. OOPS, make that 11%.

The most recent decline comes almost exclusively from Democrats, whose approval of Congress fell from 23% in June to 11% in July, while independents' and Republicans' views of Congress did not change much. As a result, Republicans are now slightly more likely than Democrats to approve of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing (19% vs. 11%).

soonersn20xx
8/5/2008, 12:33 PM
...and what exactly were they going to impeach him of?
Pick one.....

Ten impeachable offenses committed by Bush and Cheney are:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal war of aggression against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using signing statements to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

But of course, lying about oral sex to a grand jury trumps all of these. :rolleyes:

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 12:34 PM
Laying hands on Pelosi?

That's hawt. ;)

Prolly hasn't happend to her in a long time. :D

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 12:35 PM
Pick one.....

Ten impeachable offenses committed by Bush and Cheney are:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal war of aggression against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using signing statements to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

But of course, lying about oral sex to a grand jury trumps all of these. :rolleyes:



Homey just got a hard-on.

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 12:37 PM
Pick one.....

Ten impeachable offenses committed by Bush and Cheney are:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal war of aggression against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using signing statements to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

But of course, lying about oral sex to a grand jury trumps all of these. :rolleyes:

Your idealism is well...it is what it is, but you really have no clue about the way things really are. There was never the slightest possibility that Bush would be impeached. Most of that stuff you just listed is pretty much crap anyway. You get that form moveon.org or what?

Animal Mother
8/5/2008, 12:37 PM
Pick one.....

Ten impeachable offenses committed by Bush and Cheney are:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal war of aggression against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using signing statements to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

But of course, lying about oral sex to a grand jury trumps all of these. :rolleyes:


Dude!!! He was just keeding !!!!

r5TPsooner
8/5/2008, 12:38 PM
Your idealism is well...it is what it is, but you really have no clue about the way things really are. There was never the slightest possibility that Bush would be impeached. Most of that stuff you just listed is pretty much crap anyway. You get that form moveon.org or what?

Winner!

StoopTroup
8/5/2008, 12:44 PM
Although New Orleans was a bungled mess...

I don't think GW acted alone.

He had quite a bit of help screwing that up.

Once the ball got rolling and they tried to do damage control...it just got worse.

The only thing I bust GW's chops for on that one is not responding as quick as he should have.

He did a similar thing on 911 IMO.

I believe it's just his way and he's a guy that just doesn't think the World is gonna come to an end on his watch.

He's actually not gonna let it either.

For that...he has my respect.

I just really don't like lots of the folks who surround him anymore.

The day he lost Colin Powell was a disaster for his Administration.

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 12:47 PM
Thanks Jenni.

StoopTroup
8/5/2008, 12:47 PM
lol.

Jenni would call for his impeachment.

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 12:48 PM
I just really don't like lots of the folks who surround him anymore.

I'm surprised Mr. Idealism didn't have this listed as an impeachable offense. ;) :D

soonersn20xx
8/5/2008, 12:51 PM
WoW just wow, how sad when facts and truth get compartmentalized as being "crap".

This might explain why the dems didn't try to impeach Bush, because they didn't have 60 votes and it's obvious that no matter how compelling the facts and proof were...................senate republicans would never impeach Bush. I believe they call that putting your party before your country.

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 12:52 PM
WoW just wow, how sad when facts and truth get compartmentalized as being "crap".

This might explain why the dems didn't try to impeach Bush, because they didn't have 60 votes and it's obvious that no matter how compelling the facts and proof were...................senate republicans would never impeach Bush. I believe they call that putting your party before your country.

Yup, it's just all so sad. :( :( :(

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 12:53 PM
lol.

Jenni would call for his impeachment.

Yes.

She.

W.

o.

u.

l.

d.

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 12:55 PM
WoW just wow, how sad when facts and truth get compartmentalized as being "crap".

You mean the facts and truth as you and moveon.org see it. Right?

:P

soonersn20xx
8/5/2008, 12:55 PM
Yup, it's just all so sad. :( :( :(

Not really, every dog has its day. When the new atty general of the Obama administration gets into office............don't be surprised to see former President Bush standing trial here or even being sent to Hague.

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 12:56 PM
Not really, every dog has its day. When the new atty general of the Obama administration gets into office............don't be surprised to see former President Bush standing trial here or even being sent to Hague.

LOL :D

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 12:58 PM
Not really, every dog has its day. When the new atty general of the Obama administration gets into office............don't be surprised to see former President Bush standing trial here or even being sent to Hague.

Cause this happens all the time. :D

StoopTroup
8/5/2008, 01:00 PM
Obama will never come after GWB.

You really lost me there.

Echoes
8/5/2008, 01:03 PM
If the average American lived just 20% closer to work (meaning a substantial number are much closer, ie: downtown or inner city, while a large number could -- and surely would -- stay where they are), the average fuel consumption in the U.S. would plummet, far exceeding the lame tire inflation savings, and even far exceeding the gains we would see from the proposed increased domestic production.

That's why we need to be encouraging inner-city development and discouraging community fringe development and sprawl. This could be done with tax incentives and relaxed regulation on inner city development and moratoriums on fringe development, or at at the very least increased permitting costs for building far from city centers. Increased permitting and tax assessments on fringe devlopments make sense for cities, anyway, since they have to provide new services to those areas, but already have services in place for previously developed parts of a city.

It would save the cities themselves money, thereby reducing taxpayer burden and the likelihood that the communities would be so reliant on state and federal funds.

We need to take a long-term, studied approach to ending our oil addiction, rather than lunging from "solution" to "solution," whichever one is politically expedient for that day sticking our collective fingers in the air, to see which way they wind blows, utilizing short-term fixes. If we don't fix the underlying problems that we took 60+ years to create, we will always be in this situation, in some way or another.


Awesome post. It's a bad bad idea to do things like we have been. We started out with all this Ethanol crap, and it turns out that certainly is not the solution. Still, legislation has been passed to keep ethanol around for a long period of time, when in reality it is not a viable solution at all. Real, in-depth studies need to be completed to gauge what we should do about our energy dependency.

In the end, it won't be one simple solution. It will be a combination of tons of things. From airing your tires up and keeping your car in top shape, to developing innner cities and drilling here at home.

Now, we jump from one miracle end all cure to the next. Gotta stop that.

soonersn20xx
8/5/2008, 01:04 PM
Ya know Curly Bill, it's not necessary to negger me when you lose a debate. Truth hurts, deal with it and move on.

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 01:06 PM
Ya know Curly Bill, it's not necessary to negger me when you lose a debate. Truth hurts, deal with it and move on.

Hey everyone look at me:

I'm Mr. Idealism! :P



This message paid for by Moveon.org.

Echoes
8/5/2008, 01:21 PM
Get used to it, Soonersn. Any of the hardcore McCain fans will neg you to death any time you share an alternate opinion. I have been negged so much its almost laughable :) Just learn to not care how much neg's or pos's you get, and you will be fine. Fortunately, we have some people around here who will see the sense your posts make and will take their huge spek hammer and keep you in the green most the time :)

soonersn20xx
8/5/2008, 01:24 PM
Thanx echoes.........I had to put Curly Bill on ignore b/c of he's gone a childish neg spree. You can't debate someone who won't recognize facts, it just turns into a waste of time argument.

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 01:25 PM
Thanx echoes.........I had to put Curly Bill on ignore b/c of he's gone a childish neg spree. You can't debate someone who won't recognize facts, it just turns into a waste of time argument.


:D

Won't recognize made up facts.

Echoes
8/5/2008, 01:32 PM
Yeah, I figured it out pretty fast. Of course, we are in a red state and all that so much of it is to be expected. I certainly have no quarms about discussing politics and such, I really like it. Currently I'm undecided about who I will vote for, so it helps to see both sides. I am a registered republican, so I naturally lean that way. It's just hard to in this race, I think.

Anyways, I don't mind Curly's opinions or anyone else's who may or may not support Obama. What really eghs me about the McCain supporters on here is that some of them seem completely unable to have a sound political discussion. The 'some' I am talking about on here are also much much louder then the normal McCain supporters who will throw out some good facts and information for ya.

It's just awful weird to me that some of the McCain people on here spend 10x more talking about Obama and how messed up he is. Why can't we hear about how good McCain is and how his plans will work? (Preferrably with some details?) It just seems like most of these Obama bashing threads get started with a 3 sentence post that is a gross and ridiculous bend of the truth. Much like this one.

olevetonahill
8/5/2008, 01:33 PM
WoW just wow, how sad when facts and truth get compartmentalized as being "crap".

This might explain why the dems didn't try to impeach Bush, because they didn't have 60 votes and it's obvious that no matter how compelling the facts and proof were...................senate republicans would never impeach Bush. I believe they call that putting your party before your country.

I believe the HOUSE does the Impeachin and the SENATE does the Comfirming .

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 01:35 PM
I don't mind discussing politics, talking facts and truth either, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when they start ripping things out of the Moveon.org playbook and throw that against the wall calling it facts and truth then that's a problem.

soonersn20xx
8/5/2008, 01:35 PM
It's just awful weird to me that some of the McCain people on here spend 10x more talking about Obama and how messed up he is. Why can't we hear about how good McCain is and how his plans will work? (Preferrably with some details?) It just seems like most of these Obama bashing threads get started with a 3 sentence post that is a gross and ridiculous bend of the truth. Much like this one.

It's easier to bash Obama then it is to create something good to say about McCain. I'm still trying to figure out how he won your party's nomination.

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 01:36 PM
I believe the HOUSE does the Impeachin and the SENATE does the Comfirming .

Yup, House impeaches (brings charges) and the Senate conducts the trial.

Echoes
8/5/2008, 01:39 PM
I don't mind discussing politics, talking facts and truth either, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when they start ripping things out of the Moveon.org playbook and throw that against the wall calling it facts and truth then that's a problem.

Certainly. If facts are being thrown out there, they certainly need to come from a non-biased source as possible. It does take a little digging, but you can find plenty of information out there that will give you stats and such from nonbiased research.

soonersn20xx
8/5/2008, 01:43 PM
Articles of impeachment brought by Dennis Kucinich, it only takes one of these issue to be true..............dismissing them all as crap is blindness and denial.

http://kucinich.us/impeachment/articles.pdf

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 01:45 PM
Certainly. If facts are being thrown out there, they certainly need to come from a non-biased source as possible. It does take a little digging, but you can find plenty of information out there that will give you stats and such from nonbiased research.

True dat.

If someone wants to state their opinion great have at it. I slam Obama all the time but it's just my opinion. Peeps can do the same with Bush, McCain, whoever. But don't make crap up, or take it from some totally biased organization and then whine and cry when someone calls you out on your "facts and truth."

Echoes
8/5/2008, 01:48 PM
Yeah, that's them. I can see how a few could certianly stick.. but it just will not happen. He will already go down as one of the top 5 worst president's in US history, thats enough for me.

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 01:51 PM
Articles of impeachment brought by Dennis Kucinich, it only takes one of these issue to be true..............dismissing them all as crap is blindness and denial.

http://kucinich.us/impeachment/articles.pdf

How much money you got sooner20xx ???

If I can I'll match it and if any of these come to fruition I'll fork it over. On the other hand if none of them happen you hand over the loot.

..oh, but you won't see this because you have me on ignore for hurtin your feelers.

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 01:52 PM
I think one of the main reasons those who aren't voting for Obama are so vicious about it is that the man they're forced to select is rather uninspiring. I mean you don't find many people who are truly fired up about McCain. Not anyone younger than 80 anyway.

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 01:57 PM
I think one of the main reasons those who aren't voting for Obama are so vicious about it is that the man they're forced to select is rather uninspiring. I mean you don't find many people who are truly fired up about McCain. Not anyone younger than 80 anyway.

I'm not truly inspired by McCain, not that I think that's the issue here.

How many times have I truly attacked you JM? I might disagree with you, and you with me, but you post in a rational way, not stating bunkum and then calling it facts and truth.

I find that while there may be some vociferous debate politically speaking, if you'll watch your P's & Q's the attacks are kept to a minimum.

Frozen Sooner
8/5/2008, 02:05 PM
I think one of the main reasons those who aren't voting for Obama are so vicious about it is that the man they're forced to select is rather uninspiring. I mean you don't find many people who are truly fired up about McCain. Not anyone younger than 80 anyway.

Disagree. It's part of the playbook, regardless of the candidates. Remember John McCain's "illegitimate" black baby? The Swift Boat Veterans for Welching on Bets? Willie Horton? W's being a "draft dodger?"

Echoes
8/5/2008, 02:06 PM
I don't know, Curly. If I recall correctly, I disagreed with Olev because the stuff he was posting, in my opinion (and of many others) was completely ridiculous. I called him out on it in as nice mannerisms as I felt were warrented, and subsequently he negged about 15 of my posts. The 2 that I made in the thread where I called him out, and then 13 others in totally unrelated areas, such as the football forums, etc. Then, his chronies went ahead and did the same thing. A little out of line, I would say.

It seems to me, that if you disagree to much around here and try to call people out on their assanine posts, even if it is done in a polite manner, it will blow up in your face.

Then again, I probably am not as polite as many others :) :)

Curly Bill
8/5/2008, 02:12 PM
I don't know, Curly. If I recall correctly, I disagreed with Olev because the stuff he was posting, in my opinion (and of many others) was completely ridiculous. I called him out on it in as nice mannerisms as I felt were warrented, and subsequently he negged about 15 of my posts. The 2 that I made in the thread where I called him out, and then 13 others in totally unrelated areas, such as the football forums, etc. Then, his chronies went ahead and did the same thing. A little out of line, I would say.

It seems to me, that if you disagree to much around here and try to call people out on their assanine posts, even if it is done in a polite manner, it will blow up in your face.

Then again, I probably am not as polite as many others :) :)

I'm gonna say that if you try to call people out then yeah, it could blow up on ya. Disagree is one thing, calling people out is different. IMO

....and when it's someone like Vet who has a zillion posts, has tons of SPEK, has been here forever then that's different too. I'm not close to near his status, but I think if I was I'd probably want to squash someone that called me out too, especially if it was a newer poster with few posts and such.

...but I have seen peeps disagree with him to no harmful effect.

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 02:21 PM
I assume you're talking about taking infrastructure to new developments (water lines, phone, electric, cable, etc.)?
And schools, and roads, and widening existing roads, and police, and fire, and ambulances, and public transit, and libraries, and schools, and code enforcement units, and parks, and dog catchers, and stop lights where there were once stop signs, and trash pickup, and... ...and... ...and...

The fact of the matter is, if you currently build on the fringe, you are buying a farmer's field for pennies on the dollar of what you would pay in the city. This equals more house for less money for the consumer. While some of the new infrastructure is paid for by the developer/consumer, MOST of it -- and pretty much ALL of the services -- is paid for by taxpayers. Not such a bad deal... ...for THAT consumer. However, the true cost of that home is borne on the backs of people in the areas where those services already exist. That equals taxpayer subsidy of a chosen lifestyle.

Meanwhile, in the inner city, land acquisition is difficult, time consuming and expensive. Regulatory oversight is far more ornerous. Many urban areas are brownfields, with environmental problems related to industry that existed before environmental regulation became the norm. That often is an impediment to new development. Poor inner-city schools contribute to the problem of appealing to new residents, nationwide.

Locating on the fringe of a city was not the result of some nefarious plot; it was just the path of least resistance. As a result, that lifestyle became the norm for most people. The problem is that we as a nation failed to consider the unintended consequences of suburban and exurban development. Or if we did, we were happy to defer the problems to the next generation, like we love to do in this country. Well, guess what? THIS is the generation that is paying for it. And it will only get worse for your kids and grandkids unless we reverse the trend.

All I am doing is advocating ways to make a less consumption easier and more desirable. It has nothing to do with forcing a particular lifestyle on somebody. If people want to live in the burbs, I have no problem with it, other than the fact that I personally think it's kindof gross/bland/uninteresting. But we need to work on making the inner city more attractive, which includes making it more affordable (in relation to the 'burbs) and vibrant, and many people will naturally choose it. Those people will nip oil consumption in the bud enough to largely compensate for the many, many millions who still choose the suburbs.

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 02:39 PM
...and mowing crews... ...and directional signage... ...and sewage treatment plants...

soonersn20xx
8/5/2008, 02:39 PM
I don't know, Curly. If I recall correctly, I disagreed with Olev because the stuff he was posting, in my opinion (and of many others) was completely ridiculous. I called him out on it in as nice mannerisms as I felt were warrented, and subsequently he negged about 15 of my posts. The 2 that I made in the thread where I called him out, and then 13 others in totally unrelated areas, such as the football forums, etc. Then, his chronies went ahead and did the same thing. A little out of line, I would say.

It seems to me, that if you disagree to much around here and try to call people out on their assanine posts, even if it is done in a polite manner, it will blow up in your face.

Then again, I probably am not as polite as many others :) :)
Well I suppose every forum is different, I happen to be a admin for a torrent site forum. We have all types of discussions and when Vets generally abuse their spek hammer on flaming new posters just b/c they are new and may not agree with their views........would find their hammer taken away by the forum staff if they continued their abusive ways.

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 02:40 PM
...and school buses... ...and tree trimmers... ...and salt/sand trucks in the winter... ...and salt/sand for the additional roads...

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 02:41 PM
...and fuel for the police cars, fire trucks, ambulances, school buses, salt/sand trucks, code inspectors, dog catchers....

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 02:42 PM
...who all have to drive thousands, even millions more miles because a city is spread out...

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 02:43 PM
...now I'm just posting like rus......

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 02:46 PM
...*hic*......

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 02:51 PM
Wait, I don't pay property taxes where I live???

KICK ***!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tulsa_Fireman
8/5/2008, 02:53 PM
And schools, and roads, and widening existing roads, and police, and fire, and ambulances, and public transit, and libraries, and schools, and code enforcement units, and parks, and dog catchers, and stop lights where there were once stop signs, and trash pickup, and... ...and... ...and...

Which are all in the appropriate, responsible municipal jurisdictions for these basic governmental services. C'mon, Jed.

If I buy a lot at S. 111th and Yale in Tulsa, versus a lot at 11th and Harvard, I'm still in the city of Tulsa. I still pay, via tax dollars, for essential services provided by the city of Tulsa, therefore while my tax dollars fund essential services throughout the city, they do so in ALL areas of incorporation. If I buy in the incorporated limits of Sand Springs, a suburban area of Tulsa, I pay the city of Sand Springs for basic essential services due to my choice of property purchase in my choice of incorporated area. I should not, nor will I, receive basic, essential services from the City of Tulsa unless provided by mutual aid or franchise agreements negotiated between the townships.

I can't say I disagree with the basic theory of reducing urban sprawl and a refocus by city governments to concentrate residential and commercial efforts BACK to the city proper. Indianapolis is a classic example (Tulsa too, but in its infancy) of urban sprawl putting the epicenter of commercial and residential areas in a steep decline with only concentrated efforts in urban renewal regenerating interest, tax base (both sales and ad valorem), and increased residential occupancy coupled with increased residential value.

Jenks, Bixby, Owasso, they'd disagree. But as with other examples, the inner city dies, the suburbs die with it. And while this is off the rails as to the original argument, Jenks, Bixby, Owasso, they'd still be responsible for basic essential services within their incorporated jurisdictions. It's an issue of funding, and right now, they got lots of it at Tulsa's expense.

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 03:06 PM
Sure you pay property taxes where you live. No different than the people who live in areas of town which already exist. Around here, property tax primarily pays for schools. You also pay sales tax, which in the case of a city like OKC and many other, is the only thing that feeds the general fund, which pays for most of the stuff we're talking about. Of course, if you live on the fringe there is a very good chance that one or BOTH are going to other cities.

For instance, much of far NW OKC is in the Edmond or Putnam City or Deer Creek or Piedmont school district. You pay property tax which goes to Edmond schools, and your sales tax goes to the City of Edmond, and yet OKC pays for your roads, and schools, and fire, and... ...and you don't pay for it. AT ALL. But that is another problem entirely.

What you aren't understanding, apparently, is that those services, when expanded to accomodate for sprawl, cost NEW money. So even if you add new money to the pot, you just made the number of mouths to be fed out of said pot increase exponentially. Yet when people move into infill areas in an inner city, most of those services/utilities don't have to be noticibly expanded to accomodate you. When I crap, for instance, it goes into sewer lines that have been here for 100 years, with occasional maintenance. They have been paid for in full for decades. I don't require NEW sewer lines, so I create far less taxpayer burden.

And when you live in the inner city you still bring your taxes, but often now spend 100% of them in the community.

With all of those factors, your addition to the community becomes a net positive, rather than a wash or more likely a new drain on community resources. JM, I know for a fact you're bright as hell. That can't be THAT hard to understand.

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 03:10 PM
You should go live in an arcology.

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 03:16 PM
Well, not me. But if I do not and my next door neighbor does by choice, we have collectively just reduced our overall fuel consumption by 50%. Which is more than we could have saved if we had BOTH bought a Prius.

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 03:20 PM
WTH are you talking about?

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 03:20 PM
Good lord.

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 03:21 PM
Instead. Both bought a Prius instead. And still lived in the same plac... ...nevermind.

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 03:22 PM
I wish somebody would post a Norm head fark.

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 03:23 PM
Stop drinking your lunches man.

Tulsa_Fireman
8/5/2008, 03:23 PM
But while maybe a net drain on the economy in the provision of new services, the establishment of those services are the sole duty of the government that has incorporated the area to which those folks are moving.

In other words, if I buy a theoretical 100 acre pasture in the middle of Tulsa and build my house smack dab in the middle of it, I'm within the respective boundaries of that city therefore it is that city's DUTY to provide the essential services that are prescribed by charter and/or ordinance. If the costs of development sprawl are such an issue WITHIN city boundaries, why don't cities unincorporate these areas? Because Joe Suburbmayor will snatch 'em up because of the potential tax base available to them. The eventual tax base that given due time (just like when those older areas of town were new) will become a net positive in regards to sales and ad valorem generated over the expense of the initial infrastructure expenditure. Which in and of themselves are offset largely in part by the franchise agreements established by non-city services with the city proper.

Regardless of how you boil it, if the inner city is a ****hole, it's a ****hole. That starts with basic things such as again, police and fire, schools, and availability of amenities. Remove the ****hole aspect of many inner city areas and you'll see an infill exactly like you say. Or you watch it die like Detroit.


For instance, much of far NW OKC is in the Edmond or Putnam City or Deer Creek or Piedmont school district. You pay property tax which goes to Edmond schools, and your sales tax goes to the City of Edmond, and yet OKC pays for roads, and schools, and fire, and... ...and you don't pay for it. But that is another problem entirely.

I'm not understanding how the sales tax part of that is even possible, Jed. How in the heck do I purchase something within the incorporated boundaries of a city, subject to municipal and county sales taxes, and that sales tax money defined by city ordinance go to a different municipality? The county money, yeah, I can see. The ad valorem, I can see for the mills dedicated to schools within the established district and only those mills, but municipally established sales tax NOT going to the municipality that struck the legislation?

SoonerInKCMO
8/5/2008, 03:25 PM
When I crap, for instance, it goes into sewer lines that have been here for 100 years, with occasional maintenance. They have been paid for in full for decades. I don't require NEW sewer lines, so I create far less taxpayer burden.


Not with as many ribs as you eat. Old damn sewers are prolly cryin' for mercy. ;)

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 03:27 PM
...I'm not understanding how the sales tax part of that is even possible, Jed. How in the heck do I purchase something within the incorporated boundaries of a city, subject to municipal and county sales taxes, and that sales tax money defined by city ordinance go to a different municipality? The county money, yeah, I can see. The ad valorem, I can see for the mills dedicated to schools within the established district and only those mills, but municipally established sales tax NOT going to the municipality that struck the legislation?
In the case of living in far northwest Oklahoma City, you do your grocery shopping in Warr Acres. Or Edmond. It's very common. OKC has gotten hip to this in the past decade or so and started encouraging retail to move across the street, literally in many cases, to offset that, and sometimes to even capture sales tax revenue from the citizens of those communities.

Tulsa_Fireman
8/5/2008, 03:28 PM
Ahhhh, gotcha.

I thought you was speaking of actually spending the money in OKC proper and losing it. Thanks for clearing that up.

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 03:29 PM
My point is that doesn't happen much at all in the inner city. People in Crown Heights generally don't drive to Edmond to shop for groceries.

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 03:30 PM
Jed what happens when you buy a bag of powdered donuts and some red bull at the Nompton Quickie Mart and then get into a wreck when you pull out of the parking lot?

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 03:35 PM
Jed what happens when you buy a bag of powdered donuts and some red bull at the Nompton Quickie Mart and then get into a wreck when you pull out of the parking lot?
You miss out on an awesome sugary treat?

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 03:37 PM
Werd.

Wait. No. That's wrong.

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 03:44 PM
But while maybe a net drain on the economy in the provision of new services, the establishment of those services are the sole duty of the government that has incorporated the area to which those folks are moving.

In other words, if I buy a theoretical 100 acre pasture in the middle of Tulsa and build my house smack dab in the middle of it, I'm within the respective boundaries of that city therefore it is that city's DUTY to provide the essential services that are prescribed by charter and/or ordinance. If the costs of development sprawl are such an issue WITHIN city boundaries, why don't cities unincorporate these areas? Because Joe Suburbmayor will snatch 'em up because of the potential tax base available to them. The eventual tax base that given due time (just like when those older areas of town were new) will become a net positive in regards to sales and ad valorem generated over the expense of the initial infrastructure expenditure. Which in and of themselves are offset largely in part by the franchise agreements established by non-city services with the city proper...
The only problem with this is that if the sprawl remains unchecked, you never catch up. And by the time the new/old expansion development has paid its due, it has fallen out of favor, is now a less desirable part of town, and generates less property tax, proportionately.

Even more new development takes its place, and you are locked in a perpetual state of catch-up. And, since the new development is even further-flung, it's proportionately more expensive to provide services.

Don't forget to factor in how fuel usage and costs increase for everyone, including the city AND residents, as everything becomes further and further away from everything else. The expansion is geometric. We're now seeing the result of around 60 years of this type of unchecked development.

And you're right about letting your inner-city become a ****-hole. If that happens, you've lost the battle. That's why we need to be proactive as a country but specifically locally to reverse the inner-city ****hole trend, which just leads to more donut development, and perpetuates the problem.

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 03:44 PM
Werd.

Wait. No. That's wrong.
Well dammit, GIVE ME THE ANSWER, MAN!!!

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 03:46 PM
And you're right about letting your inner-city become a ****-hole. If that happens, you've lost the battle. That's why we need to be proactive as a country but specifically locally to reverse the inner-city ****hole trend, which just leads to more donut development, and perpetuates the problem.

Why do you hate Cabrini-Green?

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 03:47 PM
Well dammit, GIVE ME THE ANSWER, MAN!!!

Well your sales tax dollars go the Nompton coffers and they'll be scraping you up off the street and throwing you into a Nompton Bambalance. Funded by? Nompton dollars. So my solution to you is to never ever leave teh OKC again.

SoonerInKCMO
8/5/2008, 03:50 PM
Why do you hate Cabrini-Green?

That place was great in Candyman.

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 03:53 PM
Why do you hate Cabrini-Green?
The problem with Cabrini Green and other projects like it nationwide had more to do with the fact that it was not mixed use, and that it was not mixed income. When you just warehouse poor people you perpetuate poverty. The best developments in high-density areas combine low income, high income AND middle class residents. Low income residents are exposed daily to successful people, and success becomes something attainable in their mind.

There are some fascinating books on the subject, but perhaps the best one is The Death and Life of Great American Cities, by Jane Jacobs. She was a seminal figure in urban planning, and recognized many of these problems AS THEY WERE HAPPENING, in the 1950's. She saw things as a lay person that city planners didn't realize until decades later.

SoonerInKCMO
8/5/2008, 03:56 PM
That's been on my bookshelf for a few years... and I've even started it a couple of times. One of these days I'm gonna get me some follow-through and read the whole thing.

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 04:10 PM
That's been on my bookshelf for a few years... and I've even started it a couple of times. One of these days I'm gonna get me some follow-through and read the whole thing.Others you might enjoy are The Wealth of Cities, by former Milwaukee mayor John Norquist; Cities on the Rebound: a vision for Urban America, by former Indianapolis Mayor and Current Urban Land Institute bigwig Bill Hudnut, and Bowling Alone, by Robert Putnam. Another one I read but disagreed with greatly at times (especially where she took a very socialist social engineering tack), was Asphalt Nation: How the Automobile Took Over America and How We Can Take it Back by Jane Holtz Kay.

All good reading on this subject matter, all a bit more modern than Jacobs' first book, and all a bit less dry that hers to boot.

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 04:12 PM
I give The Wealth of Cities my highest rating of all of those. It's a page turner.

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 04:16 PM
Well your sales tax dollars go the Nompton coffers and they'll be scraping you up off the street and throwing you into a Nompton Bambalance. Funded by? Nompton dollars. So my solution to you is to never ever leave teh OKC again.
I know you're just being funny. But you can't seriously believe that Norman provides more taxpayer-subsidized services to OKC residents than the other way around, can you?

And mind you, I'm not dogging Norman. While part of the OKC MSA, thanks mostly to OU it is far more of a self-contained, self-supporting economy than most of the bedroom communities ringing OKC.

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 04:28 PM
No but there's a certain social contract we all enter into in which when our people get runned over and/or such things while they're in another town for business, pleasure or in Czar's case both at the same time, that people can get medical help that they didn't directly pay for.

Although it would be cool if they checked your DL and were all, "**** that fool, he didn't pay my salary, he can go on and bleed out".

Tulsa_Fireman
8/5/2008, 04:29 PM
The only problem with this is that if the sprawl remains unchecked, you never catch up. And by the time the new/old expansion development has paid its due, it has fallen out of favor, is now a less desirable part of town, and generates less property tax, proportionately.

This however has limited applicability. Unrestricted sprawl doesn't apply to all large cities by a number of factors. It applies to Oklahoma City because of some (in my personal opinion) insane annexation practices. It doesn't apply to Tulsa though because of its "boxed-in" characteristic of suburban development and limited influence and development potential beyond the suburban incorporated areas. You see a similar scenario to Tulsa in many older and larger cities where development is naturally restricted to the core city and suburban borders, therefore inner city regeneration isn't a large concern because through prudent renewal and restoration efforts over the years, the city core never died in the first place.

From what little I've read and researched on the topic matter, Oklahoma City's particular scenario is actually an exception to the standard where intensive, excessive expansion, not inner city mismanagement and lack of focus, results in loss of tax base to the core city. You could sure explain it better than I, but didn't Oklahoma City shoot ITSELF in the foot by expanding its footprint to such incredible reaches with no reasonable expectation of compensation in balance from the tax base available from annexed areas?

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 05:15 PM
Let's get back to work on this, shall we?

Let's say Congress green lights off-shore drilling tonight. How long would it take to see that benefit at the pump? Even then, when we're getting the oil off the coast of FL instead of off a tanker from the Middle East, how is it exactly going to cost us less at the pump? Now I realize it will be "our" oil as opposed to "their" oil, but it'll still be oil. It'll have to be brought up out of the ground, shipped to a refinery and processed into gas-o-leen for us to put in our Hondas, Chevys & scooters. The oil companies (subsidized by you and me) will be spending kazillions of dollars to get these off shore rigs up and **** piles more money will be spent to increase refining capacity. So while I get that we can shift the "where" factor, how will the overall cost come down?

soonersn20xx
8/5/2008, 05:19 PM
how will the overall cost come down?

That would seem to be the whole point of drilling more, but why do we not hear "the how" this will help at the pump...hmmmmmmmmm:rolleyes:

JohnnyMack
8/5/2008, 05:24 PM
I mean sure there will be a point at which this investment gets us back to zero and then it will be slightly cheaper, but we've gotta be talking about decades into the future, right?

BigRedJed
8/5/2008, 05:52 PM
...didn't Oklahoma City shoot ITSELF in the foot by expanding its footprint to such incredible reaches with no reasonable expectation of compensation in balance from the tax base available from annexed areas?
Absolutely. OKC's annexation spree was in response to Tinker AFB. The OKC Chamber spent a huge amount of money and effort luring Tinker, and put it into an unincorporated area to save on land costs. Midwest City founder and real estate developer Bill Atkinson seized the moment and began developing MWC, and incorporated it as its own town. Basically, he (and this is no knock on him in any way, he was just a smart businessman) "stole OKC's thunder," and profited handily from the efforts of the OKC folks. They swore never again, and started incorporating anyplace they thought might yield development one day. So yeah, many of OKC's problems in this area are self-imposed.

But incorporation was not the actual problem, instead the lack of planning for incorporated land was. Just because you own land doesn't entitle you to do whatever you want with it, ESPECIALLY in incorporated areas. That is the tradeoff for your reliance on city services. The city has every right -- even a responsibility, to existing taxpayers -- to control and regulate development in incorporated areas, but OKC chose not to for many decades. As did other cities. THAT is the root of the sprawl problem.

OKC is an extreme example; no doubt. But it applies in more major cities west of the east coast megalopolis than it does not. The cities that fare the best are the ones with naturally-occuring barriers to development. Lakes, rivers, mountains and the like. Portland Oregon is a city with a self-imposed no-development zone that goes above and beyond what nature imposed, and in many ways is considered a model for urban planning in the U.S.

Frozen Sooner
8/5/2008, 05:57 PM
That place was great in Candyman.

Did they still wind up knockin' the boots?

Tulsa_Fireman
8/5/2008, 07:20 PM
Jed, that was a fine explanation of something I've always had only a base understanding of. Thank you.

Being born and raised in Midwest City, I knew W.P. had stroke, but I never knew it was instrumental in Oklahoma City land acquisition policy. Now I know!

And knowing is half the battle. Feels good to get edumacated in a thread filled with turdmines. :D

r5TPsooner
8/5/2008, 07:49 PM
I think one of the main reasons those who aren't voting for Obama are so vicious about it is that the man they're forced to select is rather uninspiring. I mean you don't find many people who are truly fired up about McCain. Not anyone younger than 80 anyway.

I wouldn't vote for Obama if his skin was white, he drove the General Lee, and sung Sweet Home Alabama in his sleep.

He's simply that poor of a candidate IMHO.

Tulsa_Fireman
8/5/2008, 07:53 PM
I'm fired up about John McCain.

GO GO JOHNNY MAC!

I HEARD ON THE INTERNET OBAMA'S BLACK!

GO GO JOHNNY MAC!

IF I DON'T SHOWER, I GET AN ITCHY CRACK!

Cheerleaders For McCain, Local 729.

Vaevictis
8/6/2008, 07:37 AM
So while I get that we can shift the "where" factor, how will the overall cost come down?

If you increase supply, and demand stays constant, price goes down. If you increase supply, and demand goes up, price will be lower than if you hadn't increased supply. If you increase supply and demand goes down, price will also be lower than if you hadn't increased supply. (Of course, in the final case, it's possible that some folks will stop producing, and it won't really happen that way.)

One of the major issues with the "DRILL MOAR!" idea is that demand isn't going to stay constant. You've got billions of people in Asia moving up into the middle class, and the lifestyle changes that they're going to want involve sucking down more and more energy.

In short, we're probably going to be experiencing exponential demand growth and linear supply growth. If you know anything at all about mathematics, the consequences of a model like that are simple: You're ****ed no matter how much you invest in the linear supply side. Exponential growth ALWAYS dominates linear growth sooner or later.

If this model is the correct one, there are two ways to address the problem: Reduce demand so it's no longer growing exponentially, or change the supply side model by doing something that generates exponential growth.

I really doubt that pumping more oil is going to yield exponential growth. It's going to take a technological breakthrough of some kind to solve this problem on the supply side.

-----

And incidentally, in terms of price per barrel of oil, it doesn't matter where the oil comes from. Drill it here, drill it there, whatever. It's going to be shipped to the high bidder.

Anyone who says otherwise is full of ****... unless they're also advocating prohibiting oil exports.

Where it will be beneficial is in the balance of trade, and when you consider that, it really is a good idea. Our trade deficit is a bad, bad thing, and when sustained like it has been is likely to yield some nasty results.

Bourbon St Sooner
8/6/2008, 01:06 PM
Excellent post Vaevictis. I think we can all agree that we need to conserve and we need to find alternative sources, but the reality is that the energy demand is going to continue to grow and we need to continue to drill for oil. This is not an American issue, it is a world issue.

Even if you find a suitable alternative soon, it's going to take time to switch the economy over from oil. It's also going to take time for the new industry to ramp up. The other question is can a fully ramped up alternative energy industries even meet all of the world's demands. If we're using food products to generate energy, there's certainly a limit to how much we can grow to produce energy vs. feed people.

The point is we're still going to need oil over the next 40 to 50 years and beyond.

OklahomaRed
8/6/2008, 02:09 PM
Uh, what just caused the $026 per gallon drop here in Texas? Was it supply was up, speculation was down, demand was down, or someone holding the rope decided to loosen up a bit before too many politicians got thrown under the bus? :confused:

sooner n houston
8/6/2008, 02:59 PM
Demand is way down. So is speculation do to the economic outlook.

sooner n houston
8/6/2008, 03:00 PM
Back on topic for a minute! :D

Obama Doubles Down

Barack Obama has obviously been stung by ridicule of his claim that properly inflating our tires would save energy equal to "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling." I showed the falsity of this claim here and here. Now, instead of absorbing the hit and moving on, Obama stubbornly clings to the claim that he was right about tire inflation all along. In fact, he is now compounding his original error.

Yesterday in Berea, Ohio, Obama said:

So now the Republicans are going around - this is the kind of thing they do. I don't understand it! Theyre going around, they're sending like little tire gauges, making fun of this idea as if this is 'Barack Obama's energy plan.'
Now two points, one, they know they're lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they're making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. Its like these guys take pride in being ignorant.

You know, they think it is funny that they are making fun of something that is actually true. They need to do their homework.


Two points: First, even if Obama's "3 to 4 percent" claim about tire inflation were true, it would not validate his original assertion that proper inflation would equal "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling." That assertion was, and remains, false.

Second, Obama's claim that "every expert" says that tire inflation would "reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent" is ridiculous. No expert says any such thing. What experts do say is that properly inflated tires can improve gas mileage by approximately 3 percent compared to grossly underinflated tires. But since most people know this and inflate their tires, the actual potential savings is some much smaller amount. Moreover, the U.S. consumes around 20.7 million barrels of petroleum per day. Only about 9.3 million barrels per day are used in motor vehicles. So a 3 percent improvement in automobile mileage would correspond, at best, to a 1.3 percent reduction in total oil consumption.

Barack Obama's ignorance on the subject of energy is remarkable.





http://www.powerlineblog.com/

soonersn20xx
8/6/2008, 03:38 PM
Barack Obama's ignorance on the subject of energy is remarkable.


Not as remarkable as to assert this is the only part his plan, and make a statement to that fact with a straight face. This is the straight-talk express? More like a ugly spin on Obama's position to ridicule him, that will hopefully get traction with ignorant voters. I wonder how much McCain got for his soul when he turned it over to the Karl Rove PR minions?

Frozen Sooner
8/6/2008, 03:40 PM
Not as remarkable as to assert this is the only part his plan, and make a statement to that fact with a straight face. This is the straight-talk express? More like a ugly spin on Obama's position to ridicule him, that will hopefully get traction with ignorant voters. I wonder how much McCain got for his soul when he turned it over to the Karl Rove PR minions?

It's as much all of Obama's energy plan as "wear sunscreen" is all of McCain's health-care plan.

Echoes
8/6/2008, 04:32 PM
Couldn't have said it better.

JohnnyMack
8/6/2008, 04:34 PM
Karl Rove et al have figured out that playing to the fears of the lowest common denominator is an effective tactic at getting someone elected.

Harry Beanbag
8/6/2008, 04:51 PM
http://cache.daylife.com/img/quotes/quote-open-v1.gif Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tuneups ... You could actually save just as much. http://cache.daylife.com/img/quotes/quote-close-v1.gif


Just for posterity's sake. This quote gets more stupid every time I read it.

JohnnyMack
8/6/2008, 04:52 PM
Know how I know you're gay?

You went out and found little quotation mark images. That's how.

Harry Beanbag
8/6/2008, 04:57 PM
Actually they came with the quote. I thought they were cute so I left them. :)

King Crimson
8/6/2008, 05:28 PM
It's as much all of Obama's energy plan as "wear sunscreen" is all of McCain's health-care plan.

well, at least that's free choice.

funny how Thunder was pretending to be in "decision" about the candidates a mere few weeks ago.

more pretend losing the troll character, and getting back to the roots.

soonerscuba
8/6/2008, 05:29 PM
I think there is a magical fountain that provides clean, renewable energy in spades on the Iraq-Afghanistan border.

At this point, we all knew it would go negative, I am just stunned that John McCain would sign off on the current round. Obama is absolutely right that conservation will save more oil than drilling, it isn't rocket science to figure out.

sooner n houston
8/7/2008, 06:18 AM
I think there is a magical fountain that provides clean, renewable energy in spades on the Iraq-Afghanistan border.

At this point, we all knew it would go negative, I am just stunned that John McCain would sign off on the current round. Obama is absolutely right that conservation will save more oil than drilling, it isn't rocket science to figure out.

No, what he said is a ****ing lie!!!!

Spin it anyway you want it is a lie.

oufan1
8/7/2008, 03:43 PM
Karl Rove et al have figured out that playing to the fears of the lowest common denominator is an effective tactic at getting someone elected.
right... because liberals NEVER play on the ignorance of the masses!:rolleyes:

oufan1
8/7/2008, 03:46 PM
The best part about the dems plan is how they say dont drill because it will take years to have an effect then they turn around and say they plan to have alternative energy on line in 15 years or some crap.

Fugue
8/7/2008, 03:48 PM
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k237/sethw_photos/MySpace_Pics/2008/geocache/20080517/merry_go_round.jpg

r5TPsooner
8/7/2008, 03:53 PM
ALL HAIL THE OBAMA!

http://mschaut.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/chimpanzee-money.jpg

picasso
8/7/2008, 04:09 PM
Karl Rove et al have figured out that playing to the fears of the lowest common denominator is an effective tactic at getting someone elected.
are you serious? were you asleep during the 90's? ever hear any Dem Senators scaring folks and ****?


please baby please.

and if McCain's health care plan is nothing then I'm all for it.

soonersn20xx
8/7/2008, 04:29 PM
http://pix.nofrag.com/e/6/5/a82ef04c930b7a13efbc162f52bee.jpg (http://pix.nofrag.com/e/6/5/a82ef04c930b7a13efbc162f52bee.html)

r5TPsooner
8/7/2008, 04:34 PM
http://pix.nofrag.com/e/6/5/a82ef04c930b7a13efbc162f52bee.jpg (http://pix.nofrag.com/e/6/5/a82ef04c930b7a13efbc162f52bee.html)


Heh, nobody could top your good buddy Jimmy Carter.

I bet he's still trying to figure a way to get the hostages out of Iran.:rolleyes:

soonersn20xx
8/7/2008, 04:38 PM
Heh, nobody could top your good buddy Jimmy Carter.

Carter was a crummy president, so I don't defend somebody just because they are a democrat. I'm a equal opportunity criticizer. :)

r5TPsooner
8/7/2008, 04:39 PM
Carter was a crummy president, so I don't defend somebody just because they are a democrat. I'm a equal opportunity criticizer. :)

I think that was your best post ever.:D