View Full Version : IT'S NOT ABOUT THE PRICE OF OIL AND GASOLINE
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/27/2006, 01:04 PM
The left simply wants us to STOP USING fossil fuels, and the sooner the better. They inexplicably show little concern about the chaos and suffering that would ensue with drastic curtailment of the use of petroleum(through various forms of legislation). Apparently, their fear of global warming(although it's not been proven that petroleum use has much or anything to do with global warming-they don't want the world to take any chances with that), and fear of pollution, combine to outweigh any fear of worldwide economic chaos.
Libs please correct me if I'm wrong on this assessment.
Scott D
4/27/2006, 01:05 PM
I'm not a lib, but if we summarily executed ALL politicians worldwide the overall temperature of the planet would drop by 10 degrees on the average.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/27/2006, 01:08 PM
I'm not a lib, but if we summarily executed ALL politicians worldwide the overall temperature of the planet would drop by 10 degrees on the average.What would we do for a GRAND POOBAH?
Scott D
4/27/2006, 01:11 PM
What would we do for a GRAND POOBAH?
meh, politicians are not leaders.
1stTimeCaller
4/27/2006, 01:11 PM
What would we do for a GRAND POOBAH?
I say a tag-team no holds barred cage match between you and Tuba vs. Hatfield and JohnnyMack.
critical_phil
4/27/2006, 01:13 PM
The left simply wants us to STOP USING fossil fuels, and the sooner the better.
well, then compromise.
why don't the right wing crazies and the left wing crazies get together and see if there isn't a way to cut the use of fossil fuels in half?
this should have been done in '76...............
Scott D
4/27/2006, 01:16 PM
well, then compromise.
why don't the right wing crazies and the left wing crazies get together and see if there isn't a way to cut the use of fossil fuels in half?
this should have been done in '76...............
sir, logic and sense have no place in political partisan based rants
yermom
4/27/2006, 01:16 PM
i would imagine that per capita consumption has gone down since then
NormanPride
4/27/2006, 01:17 PM
I say a tag-team no holds barred cage match between you and Tuba vs. Hatfield and JohnnyMack.
mdk can ref as a "moderate". ;)
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/27/2006, 01:22 PM
well, then compromise.
see if there isn't a way to cut the use of fossil fuels in half?
..............You might be advocating only incomplete economic chaos. This seems to be endorsement of govt. intervention, just as complete stoppage would be.
The left simply wants us to STOP USING fossil fuels, and the sooner the better. They inexplicably show little concern about the chaos and suffering that would ensue with drastic curtailment of the use of petroleum(through various forms of legislation). Apparently, their fear of global warming(although it's not been proven that petroleum use has much or anything to do with global warming-they don't want the world to take any chances with that), and fear of pollution, combine to outweigh any fear of worldwide economic chaos.
Libs please correct me if I'm wrong on this assessment.
Yeah, you're wrong. I'll give a moment for the shock to wear off.
"We" want us to EVENTUALLY stop using fossil fuels, in favor of cleaner, more abundant alternatives. 'Cause, here's the thing...I don't see any dinosaurs around here, which puts the "dwindling" in "dwindling supply".
The left simply wants us to STOP USING fossil fuels, and the sooner the better. They inexplicably show little concern about the chaos and suffering that would ensue with drastic curtailment of the use of petroleum(through various forms of legislation). Apparently, their fear of global warming(although it's not been proven that petroleum use has much or anything to do with global warming-they don't want the world to take any chances with that), and fear of pollution, combine to outweigh any fear of worldwide economic chaos.
Libs please correct me if I'm wrong on this assessment.
you are wrong in this assessment. sort of. Yes, most libs would like to see oil use drastically reduced or even eliminated, primarily for two reasons (or I have two reasons anyway). a) their use does do damage to the environment, and b) with the bulk of oil supplies in the middle east, we could very easily be held hostage by oil supplying nations.
But you will also find that many on the left, myself included, recognize that ENERGY is the backbone of our nation. We need it, and in large supply. Fossil fuels are the cheapest source of that energy, even at the prices they are at now. Thats the simple reality, and only the nutjobs on the left do not regard that as being important. What would I like to see then? I'd like to see alternative energies that are not so damaging that can be produced here at home become competitive with oil prices. I, and most people on the left, do not advocate the complete abdication of fossil fuels, but I do advocate a serious investment in alternative sources of energy to find ways that these sources may become competitive with oil. In my opinion, It's going to have to happen sooner or later, so why not start now?
soonerscuba
4/27/2006, 01:26 PM
Well, you see, with the money we don't spend on fossil fuels, we can spend on forcd abortions, burning the churches, taking away guns, and teaching hot man on pumpkin sex to grade school kids. Is that the kind of liberal answer you wanted? Something tells me it is.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/27/2006, 01:31 PM
Yeah, you're wrong. I'll give a moment for the shock to wear off.
"We" want us to EVENTUALLY stop using fossil fuels, in favor of cleaner, more abundant alternatives. 'Cause, here's the thing...I don't see any dinosaurs around here, which puts the "dwindling" in "dwindling supply".Of course, fossil fuels are finite. However, the end of their supply is WAY down the line. The "environmentalist" influences in govt. have already radically created economic stress in our economy. Driling technology and public concern for industrial safety and cleanliness are far greater than in the old days.
Hence, the restrictions on drilling are detrimental to our economy and national security.
NormanPride
4/27/2006, 01:33 PM
I, as a typical left supporter, want the US to fail miserably. It is my one true goal to see the American economy falter and die at the hands of the Chinese or some other socialist and obviously superior nation. I also despise our military. If I saw a soldier today, I would spit in his face and call him names, because that's just how I roll.
I want every ecological measure to be taken, regardless of cost and difficulty of implementation. Corporations can pay for it all because they fleece the average American so badly, anyway. After we implement all these changes, I want to open the borders even further. We should invite our middle-eastern enemies to dinner and try to resolve our differences with words rather than bombs.
Have I missed anything? Oh, yes. Religion. Religion is the opiate of the masses, as all the good Communists say. Down with the tyrannical values that the Christian faith imposes on us. If we have Christianity anywhere, we have to have all religions everywhere. Children should be kept away from such dangerous influences as much as possible, before they corrupt their fragile minds.
These are my goals as a completely average and normal member of the left.
sooner_born_1960
4/27/2006, 01:34 PM
Wouldn't any carbon-based organism eventually form petroleum? I know the dinos died off 200 million years ago(or whenever), and they became our fossil fuels. But what about the organisms that died the year after that and the year after that, etc?
NormanPride
4/27/2006, 01:35 PM
Well, you see, with the money we don't spend on fossil fuels, we can spend on forcd abortions, burning the churches, taking away guns, and teaching hot man on pumpkin sex to grade school kids. Is that the kind of liberal answer you wanted? Something tells me it is.
I completely forgot about abortion and weapons! Wow, how can I call myself a leftist if I don't harp on the evils of guns in the household every second? I mean, we don't want anyone to have guns, so then nobody will get shot, right? That way, we can have complete peace and harmony everywhere. And abortions. Don't forget abortions.
Of course, fossil fuels are finite. However, the end of their supply is WAY down the line. The "environmentalist" influences in govt. have already radically created economic stress in our economy. Driling technology and public concern for industrial safety and cleanliness are far greater than in the old days.
Hence, the restrictions on drilling are detrimental to our economy and national security.
And it's exactly that kind of forward-thinking that has us on the verge of an energy crisis.
Sometimes I think the only reason conservatives are so fiercely pro-life is so they can ensure future generations who can clean up our messes. :D
Scott D
4/27/2006, 01:38 PM
I don't believe in the future. I don't see why we would want to have any sort of advances or be forced to seek any sort of advances for the betterment of mankind unless I can find a way to personally capitalize on them and make a mint by hoarding them
no surprise there.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/27/2006, 01:42 PM
And it's exactly that kind of forward-thinking that has us on the verge of an energy crisis.
What is it that I said that elicits that response?
soonerscuba
4/27/2006, 01:44 PM
Of course, fossil fuels are finite. However, the end of their supply is WAY down the line. The "environmentalist" influences in govt. have already radically created economic stress in our economy. Driling technology and public concern for industrial safety and cleanliness are far greater than in the old days.
Hence, the restrictions on drilling are detrimental to our economy and national security.
But forking over billions of dollars to state sponsored terrorism is hunky-dory for national security, I get it. Fossil fuels are going to be a thing of the past, if you embrace it and foster the technology, you are a) going to be safer, and b) richer if you play your cards right. Nobody expects a day when we say as of April 20, 2015 we won't be using oil anymore. What is the harm in preparing and more importantly investing in technology that has so many upsides?
Your complaints about oil hurting the economy might fall on deaf ears if you have seen any earning statements from Exxon lately.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/27/2006, 01:45 PM
no surprise there.I hope you are joking, as you sometimes do. Otherwise, you are really wrong about me. Seems you're not reading what I wrote, or jumping to incorrect conclusions.
Scott D
4/27/2006, 01:46 PM
I hope you are joking, as you sometimes do. Otherwise, you are really wrong about me. Seems you're not reading what I wrote, or jumping to incorrect conclusions.
it's more fun when I let you guess if I'm being serious or not.
critical_phil
4/27/2006, 01:47 PM
Sometimes I think the only reason conservatives are so fiercely pro-life is so they can ensure future generations who can clean up our messes. :D
most conservatives are pro-life because we simply can't fathom abortion as a civilized method of birth control.
it's a practical and ethical point of view.
having a practical and ethical point of view about energy policy doesn't come as easy for us................
NormanPride
4/27/2006, 01:51 PM
having a practical and ethical point of view about energy policy doesn't come as easy for us................
Wow. Why not? It's really easy. Planning for the future is good, yes? Less dependency on foreign resources is good, yes? Not ****ing up the environment is good, yes?
I seriously don't see the problem here. This is one thing that should make everyone happy. I think we should put the burden of proof on the pro-oil supporters, because I don't think I've ever heard a good excuse as to why we don't want to move away from oil.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/27/2006, 01:52 PM
you are wrong in this assessment. sort of. Yes, most libs would like to see oil use drastically reduced or even eliminated, primarily for two reasons (or I have two reasons anyway). a) their use does do damage to the environment, and b) with the bulk of oil supplies in the middle east, we could very easily be held hostage by oil supplying nations.
But you will also find that many on the left, myself included, recognize that ENERGY is the backbone of our nation. We need it, and in large supply. Fossil fuels are the cheapest source of that energy, even at the prices they are at now. Thats the simple reality, and only the nutjobs on the left do not regard that as being important. What would I like to see then? I'd like to see alternative energies that are not so damaging that can be produced here at home become competitive with oil prices. I, and most people on the left, do not advocate the complete abdication of fossil fuels, but I do advocate a serious investment in alternative sources of energy to find ways that these sources may become competitive with oil. In my opinion, It's going to have to happen sooner or later, so why not start now?I agree with what you said. What I don't like are the drilling restrictions(and I have no dog in that fight), and attempts through govt.to force people to drive certain types of vehicles.
What is it that I said that elicits that response?
Of course, fossil fuels are finite. However, the end of their supply is WAY down the line.
Man, I wish ALL tests were that easy. :D
I seriously don't see the problem here. This is one thing that should make everyone happy. I think we should put the burden of proof on the pro-oil supporters, because I don't think I've ever heard a good excuse as to why we don't want to move away from oil.
Replacement cost of infrastructure?
With that said, I am all in favor of finding alternative sources. I think we are at a point where this will really start to happen. In the past, the return on the required investment was potentially decades away. Today the return should be much sooner.
critical_phil
4/27/2006, 01:56 PM
Wow. Why not? It's really easy. Planning for the future is good, yes? Less dependency on foreign resources is good, yes? Not ****ing up the environment is good, yes?
my statement was really to show how the RNC party line could not be more correct about some issues and could not be more wrong about others.
once again, it's a good time to reiterate that we built an atomic bomb in 3 years in the 40's; but today, we collectively can't (read: won't) figure out a way to get off of the Saudi teet.
Hatfield
4/27/2006, 01:59 PM
i think the idea being tossed about to give us taxpayers a 100 bucks back to defray fuel costs is just super duper. I will totally forget about all my gas worries and the problem won't still be there after i fill up 2 times with the most generous handout
yermom
4/27/2006, 02:00 PM
my statement was really to show how the RNC party line could not be more correct about some issues and could not be more wrong about others.
once again, it's a good time to reiterate that we built an atomic bomb in 3 years in the 40's; but today, we collectively can't (read: won't) figure out a way to get off of the Saudi teet.
wow, never thought of it that way :D
money greases the wheels though, there are lots of people in bed together with the oil thing
i get the feeling we will be sitting in the dark before viable alternatives are found
I agree with what you said. What I don't like are the drilling restrictions(and I have no dog in that fight), and attempts through govt.to force people to drive certain types of vehicles.
I disagree a little bit with you there. I don't think its ethical to allow the complete rape of the earth just to get some cheap energy. Does it hurt us? Yeah, a little. But not that much. Lets face it though, even without the drilling restrictions, we still wouldn't be able to produce nearly as much energy as we need. There just isn't as much of it here as there is in the middle east. Not even close.
As far as being forced to drive certain types of vehicles, Im iffy on that. I think taxing the automakers more or less based upon the fuel efficiency is a good idea. Our tax dollars have to go to cleaning up the polluted messes we leave, so why not encourage automakers to conserve as much energy as possible. Nobody is being forced to do anything when choosing a car, they are just being asked to help cover the costs of cleaning up the messes they make. Doing so makes even more economic sense when you consider that encouraging people to drive more fuel efficient cars does go a long way towards decreasing the demand for oil here, and thus helps keep the price low.
i think the idea being tossed about to give us taxpayers a 100 bucks back to defray fuel costs is just super duper. I will totally forget about all my gas worries and the problem won't still be there after i fill up 2 times with the most generous handout
Word. That reminds me of the tax rebate we got from the state last year.
Hatfield
4/27/2006, 02:02 PM
Word. That reminds me of the tax rebate we got from the state last year.
i affectionately call that the "tax rebate to get you to pay more taxes fiasco of 05"
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/27/2006, 02:03 PM
Man, I wish ALL tests were that easy. :DYou are wrong, there.
critical_phil
4/27/2006, 02:06 PM
wow, never thought of it that way :D
then i'll continue the use of the word teet in all my posts so as to make them more clear.
helps everyone but howzit anyway.
teet.
NormanPride
4/27/2006, 02:07 PM
then i'll continue the use of the word teet in all my posts so as to make them more clear.
helps everyone but howzit anyway.
teet.
You should probably spell it correctly, then. :D
teat.
critical_phil
4/27/2006, 02:13 PM
You should probably spell it correctly, then. :D
teat.
i use the urban spelling.
teet. plural of toof.
You are wrong, there.
In what, way?
crawfish
4/27/2006, 02:17 PM
As a liberal, I want to remove our dependence on fossil fuels and generate power through hundreds of thousands of square miles of windmills and solar panels.
Not near my house, though.
TheHumanAlphabet
4/27/2006, 02:19 PM
Well, you see, with the money we don't spend on fossil fuels, we can spend on forcd abortions, burning the churches, taking away guns, and teaching hot man on pumpkin sex to grade school kids. Is that the kind of liberal answer you wanted? Something tells me it is.
I was thinking more of the Star Trek utopia...
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/27/2006, 02:23 PM
In what, way?LOTS of oil left.
GottaHavePride
4/27/2006, 02:23 PM
You are wrong, there.
Actually I'm betting he was absolutely correct that the sentence he quoted was what prompted him to post his original response to it. The correctness or incorrectness of either statement was not at debate previously. It was a question of causality. ;)
A point you entirely missed.
BlondeSoonerGirl
4/27/2006, 02:24 PM
In what, way?
Heh.
soonerscuba
4/27/2006, 02:25 PM
I was thinking more of the Star Trek utopia...
That is my utopia. Here's the rub, I get to pick who gets aborted (I'm looking at you K Fed and Britney) and what churches get burned, and the guns go to me. I'm sure the rest of you will be really happy, so long as you don't procreate, worship or kill things without my permission.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/27/2006, 02:26 PM
Actually I'm betting he was absolutely correct that the sentence he quoted was what prompted him to post his original response to it. The correctness or incorrectness of either statement was not at debate previously. It was a question of causality. ;)
A point you entirely missed.Nicely garbled mishmash. Gelatinous approval! Causality vs. economic chaos is the issue.
mdklatt
4/27/2006, 02:26 PM
Apparently, their fear of global warming(although it's not been proven that petroleum use has much or anything to do with global warming-they don't want the world to take any chances with that
Forget any environmental issues for a minute, what about our economy and national security? The biggest long term threat to this country is not terrorism, or a nuclear-armed Iran or Korea, but our continued reliance on an energy resource that is both finite and mostly out of our control. If it wasn't for oil there wouldn't be a GWOT, or the Iraq war, or Iranian hostage crisis, or any of that nonsense. If it wasn't for oil we could either ignore the Middle East altogether, or bomb the camel jockeys back into the Stone Age if they even gave Israel a dirty look--and they would know that. Not they could do anything, anyway; take away oil money and the Middle East is 90% of the way back to the Stone Age all on its own.
SoonerInKCMO
4/27/2006, 02:26 PM
Nicely garbled mishmash. Gelatinous approval!
It made perfect sense to me.
LOTS of oil left.
and they won't share, liberal bastiges . :mad:
:eddie:
yermom
4/27/2006, 02:28 PM
Forget any environmental issues for a minute, what about our economy and national security? The biggest long term threat to this country is not terrorism, or a nuclear-armed Iran or Korea, but our continued reliance on an energy resource that is both finite and mostly out of our control. If it wasn't for oil there wouldn't be a GWOT, or the Iraq war, or Iranian hostage crisis, or any of that nonsense. If it wasn't for oil we could either ignore the Middle East altogether, or bomb the camel jockeys back into the Stone Age if they even gave Israel a dirty look--and they would know that. Not they could do anything, anyway; take away oil money and the Middle East is 90% of the way back to the Stone Age all on its own.
no more indoor ski parks in the desert ;)
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/27/2006, 02:29 PM
Forget any environmental issues for a minute, what about our economy and national security? The biggest long term threat to this country is not terrorism, or a nuclear-armed Iran or Korea, but our continued reliance on an energy resource that is both finite and mostly out of our control. If it wasn't for oil there wouldn't be a GWOT, or the Iraq war, or Iranian hostage crisis, or any of that nonsense. If it wasn't for oil we could either ignore the Middle East altogether, or bomb the camel jockeys back into the Stone Age if they even gave Israel a dirty look--and they would know that. Not they could do anything, anyway; take away oil money and the Middle East is 90% of the way back to the Stone Age all on its own.OK, let's return to the days of the Bubonic Plague. Ahhhh, the good old days.
Wow. Why not? It's really easy. Planning for the future is good, yes? Less dependency on foreign resources is good, yes? Not ****ing up the environment is good, yes?
I seriously don't see the problem here. This is one thing that should make everyone happy. I think we should put the burden of proof on the pro-oil supporters, because I don't think I've ever heard a good excuse as to why we don't want to move away from oil.
but where would my campaign money come from when Exxon is broke? :rolleyes:
hit the nail on the head normanpride.
NormanPride
4/27/2006, 02:42 PM
OK, let's return to the days of the Bubonic Plague. Ahhhh, the good old days.
Okay, that made no sense. Please explain how you went from economic freedom to bubonic plague.
mdklatt
4/27/2006, 02:47 PM
LOTS of oil left.
At what price?
OG&E is currently charging less for wind power than for traditional power, although I'm not sure if that reflects the true cost of wind power right now.
Is there any part of the Republican agenda that isn't based on wishful thinking?
Energy:
We can use all the oil we want for ever and ever without any consequences and it will never run out.
Childhood Poverty, Teenage Pregnancy, STDs:
Quit having sex.
The Economy:
The less taxes we pay, the more money the government gets. It's magic!
Foreign Policy:
We like our resolve. We like our moxy. We'll take on any sucker on this planet.
Fantasyland: It's Not Just For Libz Anymore. (TM)
Stoop Dawg
4/27/2006, 02:51 PM
Nicely garbled mishmash. Gelatinous approval! Causality vs. economic chaos is the issue.
I think your inability to read, comprehend, and intelligently respond to other people's opinions is the issue. But maybe that's just me.
Do you also go by handcrafted or dbhuge?
critical_phil
4/27/2006, 02:53 PM
Fantasyland: It's Not Just For Libz Anymore. (TM)
this about sums up my disappointment with my party..........
Stoop Dawg
4/27/2006, 02:55 PM
Once again, leave it to the left to totally misunderstand our (the right) position. Let me clarify:
Energy:
We can use all the oil we want for ever and ever without any consequences and it will not run out until long after I'm dead and gone.
Childhood Poverty, Teenage Pregnancy, STDs:
Everyone but me should Quit having sex.
The Economy:
The less taxes we pay, the more money I get.
Foreign Policy:
We like our resolve. We like our moxy. We'll take on any sucker on this planet.
I'd say you nailed that one
SicEmBaylor
4/27/2006, 02:58 PM
The Economy:
The less taxes we pay, the more money the government gets. It's magic!
It's not really magic so much as economics. ;-). Cutting taxes DOES provide more income to the government so long as there aren't any existing circumstances that would limit the growth those tax cuts create.
The problem isn't in the theory that tax cuts create growth and therefore eventually provide more revenue to the government, the problem is when those tax cuts don't create enough growth to cover the cost of the increase of the defecit.
That's why I fully support tax cuts, but they should ALWAYS be coupled with equitable cuts in spending.
As for this fossil fuel debate...
I'm as conservative as anyone could possibly be, and I fully support a major effort to quickly eliminate at least the consumer need for petroleum products. I don't care a flip in hell about the environment, but I do worry about the security issues involved in being so dependent upon the middle-east. I think we're one lunatic mullah away from having our oil supplies cut off and the result would be a total social and economic collapse in this country.
Stoop Dawg
4/27/2006, 03:02 PM
As for this fossil fuel debate...
I'm as conservative as anyone could possibly be, and I fully support a major effort to quickly eliminate at least the consumer need for petroleum products. I don't care a flip in hell about the environment, but I do worry about the security issues involved in being so dependent upon the middle-east. I think we're one lunatic mullah away from having our oil supplies cut off and the result would be a total social and economic collapse in this country.
I'd agree, but I'd start with corporate usage instead of consumer. Namely, trucking companies. It needs to be cheaper for them to run vehicles on "alternative" fuels. However, I don't know that we need govt intervention to make that happen. It seems like we're on a pretty good road right now.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/27/2006, 03:04 PM
But maybe that's just me.
!!!
NormanPride
4/27/2006, 03:21 PM
!!!
*
mdklatt
4/27/2006, 03:22 PM
It's not really magic so much as economics. ;-). Cutting taxes DOES provide more income to the government
Back in my rah-rah Republican phase (when I was younger and didn't know ****), I wanted to believe this. And why wouldn't I? Who doesn't want to believe that they can have their cake (lower taxes) and eat it too (more tax revenue)? But who's to say the Republicans know where the peak of the Laffer Curve is any better than the Democrats?
I'm as conservative as anyone could possibly be, and I fully support a major effort to quickly eliminate at least the consumer need for petroleum products. I don't care a flip in hell about the environment, but I do worry about the security issues involved in being so dependent upon the middle-east. I think we're one lunatic mullah away from having our oil supplies cut off and the result would be a total social and economic collapse in this country.
Ed Zachery
TUSooner
4/27/2006, 03:25 PM
Hey william, been taking lessons from Tuba on building straw men to knock down because it's easier than addressing real complex issues? As many posters more clever than I have suggested, you seem to be looking for a flame-out rather than a discussion.
I'm rather with Ike on this one, although he's prob'ly more lefter than I am
a) their use [fossil fuels, that is] does do damage to the environment [This could be overblown- TU], and b) with the bulk of oil supplies in the middle east, we could very easily be held hostage by oil supplying nations. [I'm sick of us having to get in bed with the utterly creepy and disgusting Saudi Klan because of oil. - TU]
But you will also find that many on the left, myself included, recognize that ENERGY is the backbone of our nation. We need it, and in large supply. Fossil fuels are the cheapest source of that energy, even at the prices they are at now. Thats the simple reality, and only the nutjobs on the left do not regard that as being important. What would I like to see then? I'd like to see alternative energies that are not so damaging that can be produced here at home become competitive with oil prices. I, and most people on the left, do not advocate the complete abdication of fossil fuels, but I do advocate a serious investment in alternative sources of energy to find ways that these sources may become competitive with oil. In my opinion, It's going to have to happen sooner or later, so why not start now?[INNOVATION IS AMERICAN-TU]
I'd agree, but I'd start with corporate usage instead of consumer. Namely, trucking companies. It needs to be cheaper for them to run vehicles on "alternative" fuels. However, I don't know that we need govt intervention to make that happen. It seems like we're on a pretty good road right now.
I think we do need short term govt intervention, and I'll explain why. Ordinarily I am of the opinons that most economical problems do get solved by the markets acting as markets do, however I consider energy policy to be a special case that does indeed require national attention. There is too much riding on it. I don't think the markets have the ability to make a seamless transition from widespread use of oil to alternative forms of energy without a very large guiding hand that can only come in the form of government. Government is the only agency that really ever takes a look at long term cause and effect. Most corporate entities, especially now, don't look much farther than the next quarter. But this is a long term problem. Without some governement intervention in the form of R&D investment and tax incentives, we are likely to end up with a hodge podge of alternative fuels when the oil runs out that don't inter-operate well together. A situation like this could be especially damaging to, say, the military, who still need some kind of fuel for their planes and tanks.
We don't know what the next big advance in fuels will be, nobody does, and a lot of companies are going to be timid about sticking their necks out to do the R&D to develop alternative fuels while oil is still the cheapest alternative when a) they don't know if they can make it competitive in the first place, and b) they have no idea if their pet alternative fuel will be widely adopted. Many companies will view that situation as just throwing money down the drain, especially if they think their competitors might find a better solution. But the fact is that we need that research and development to happen, and we need to have the infrastructure already in place when its time to go to something other than oil on a large scale. For those reasons, I argue that government has to have a hand in the process.
SicEmBaylor
4/27/2006, 03:29 PM
Back in my rah-rah Republican phase (when I was younger and didn't know ****), I wanted to believe this. And why wouldn't I? Who doesn't want to believe that they can have their cake (lower taxes) and eat it too (more tax revenue)? But who's to say the Republicans know where the peak of the Laffer Curve is any better than the Democrats?
Ed Zachery
Well, I guess if you wanted to take that view of it the GOP may be setting it too low (by some opinion), but it's definitely set too high by the average democrat.
Nonetheless, I'm not a fan of "tax cuts no matter what" unless the economy just really needs a sudden boost. However, in the long run paying off the defecit is far far more important to me.
Cut federal spending, balance the budget, pay off the debt, THEN cut taxes.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/27/2006, 03:30 PM
Hey william, been taking lessons from Tuba on building straw men to knock down because it's easier than addressing real complex issues? As many posters more clever than I have suggested, you seem to be looking for a flame-out rather than a discussion.
I'm rather with Ike on this one, although he's prob'ly more lefter than I amI agree with that, too. His comments don't seem leftist to me, either. I stated that back on post #26 or thereabouts. His post #65 above is sensible, too.
Easily my biggest problem is with restrictions that prevent us from domestic oil production.
I have always thought that a forward thinking energy company would hold a competition like the Ansari X prize. The contest would be the best alternative automobile motor to the combustion engine.
Put up some gigantic prize like $100,000,000 for the winner with the rights to the technology of the winner going to the contest sponsor.
I have always thought that a forward thinking energy company would hold a competition like the Ansari X prize. The contest would be the best alternative automobile motor to the combustion engine.
Put up some gigantic prize like $100,000,000 for the winner with the rights to the technology of the winner going to the contest sponsor.
I can't believe I never thought of something like that.
spek to you.
SicEmBaylor
4/27/2006, 03:36 PM
I think we do need short term govt intervention, and I'll explain why. Ordinarily I am of the opinons that most economical problems do get solved by the markets acting as markets do, however I consider energy policy to be a special case that does indeed require national attention. There is too much riding on it. I don't think the markets have the ability to make a seamless transition from widespread use of oil to alternative forms of energy without a very large guiding hand that can only come in the form of government. Government is the only agency that really ever takes a look at long term cause and effect. Most corporate entities, especially now, don't look much farther than the next quarter. But this is a long term problem. Without some governement intervention in the form of R&D investment and tax incentives, we are likely to end up with a hodge podge of alternative fuels when the oil runs out that don't inter-operate well together. A situation like this could be especially damaging to, say, the military, who still need some kind of fuel for their planes and tanks.
We don't know what the next big advance in fuels will be, nobody does, and a lot of companies are going to be timid about sticking their necks out to do the R&D to develop alternative fuels while oil is still the cheapest alternative when a) they don't know if they can make it competitive in the first place, and b) they have no idea if their pet alternative fuel will be widely adopted. Many companies will view that situation as just throwing money down the drain, especially if they think their competitors might find a better solution. But the fact is that we need that research and development to happen, and we need to have the infrastructure already in place when its time to go to something other than oil on a large scale. For those reasons, I argue that government has to have a hand in the process.
I think you're probably right here on all accounts. The problem for me is that I'm simply unwilling to allow the Federal government to do anything it doesn't have the enumerated power to do. While on the one hand from a policy stand point, Federal intervention is needed in order to come up with a long term solution to the energy problem and to move our economy off its dependence on oil. However, from an ideological standpoint I can't accept that solution.
The only constitutional way to justify such a governmental intervention would be on national security grounds.
And I really believe that given enough time the free market would come up with a solution as more and more consumers demanded an alternative to gas powered cars. However, I'm not so sure the market can adjust in a time frame fast enough to deal with the problem especially if we're faced with having our mid-east supplies suddenly cut off.
So, like I said I think you're right that from a policy stand point the Feds need to intervene, however I have a problem justifing it ideologically.
SicEmBaylor
4/27/2006, 03:37 PM
I have always thought that a forward thinking energy company would hold a competition like the Ansari X prize. The contest would be the best alternative automobile motor to the combustion engine.
Put up some gigantic prize like $100,000,000 for the winner with the rights to the technology of the winner going to the contest sponsor.
That's not going to happen, because why would a company encourage someone to come up with a product that would put them out of business?
This would be a bit like Pepsi awarding a prize to someone who could come up with a drink to replace the cola.
Scott D
4/27/2006, 03:38 PM
I have always thought that a forward thinking energy company would hold a competition like the Ansari X prize. The contest would be the best alternative automobile motor to the combustion engine.
Put up some gigantic prize like $100,000,000 for the winner with the rights to the technology of the winner going to the contest sponsor.
it'd certainly have to be more productive than paying a CEO 1.3 billion in pension.
mdklatt
4/27/2006, 03:39 PM
Well, I guess if you wanted to take that view of it the GOP may be setting it too low (by some opinion), but it's definitely set too high by the average democrat.
We weren't exactly in an economic doldrum under Clinton. There is too much other crap going on in the economy to pin everything on the tax rate. The reason tax revenues are increasing right now is because the economy is growing--which it tends to do no matter what. How do we know tax revenue wouldn't have increased even more without the tax break?
Economics = WAG
Cut federal spending, balance the budget, pay off the debt, THEN cut taxes.
AMEN.
Scott D
4/27/2006, 03:39 PM
That's not going to happen, because why would a company encourage someone to come up with a product that would put them out of business?
This would be a bit like Pepsi awarding a prize to someone who could come up with a drink to replace the cola.
not exactly. Because by financing a project as such, the company could also place themselves in the position to 'own' the rights to development of said alternative energy for mass usage, standing to garner said company even more money.
SicEmBaylor
4/27/2006, 03:41 PM
not exactly. Because by financing a project as such, the company could also place themselves in the position to 'own' the rights to development of said alternative energy for mass usage, standing to garner said company even more money.
True, but then would the Feds allow the nation's energy to be controlled by one company? And what would the lack of competition do to the price of this newly found energy source?
Stoop Dawg
4/27/2006, 03:41 PM
I think we do need short term govt intervention
There's no such thing, bro.
I think we do need short term govt intervention, and I'll explain why. Ordinarily I am of the opinons that most economical problems do get solved by the markets acting as markets do, however I consider energy policy to be a special case that does indeed require national attention. There is too much riding on it. I don't think the markets have the ability to make a seamless transition from widespread use of oil to alternative forms of energy without a very large guiding hand that can only come in the form of government. Government is the only agency that really ever takes a look at long term cause and effect. Most corporate entities, especially now, don't look much farther than the next quarter. But this is a long term problem. Without some governement intervention in the form of R&D investment and tax incentives, we are likely to end up with a hodge podge of alternative fuels when the oil runs out that don't inter-operate well together. A situation like this could be especially damaging to, say, the military, who still need some kind of fuel for their planes and tanks.
We don't know what the next big advance in fuels will be, nobody does, and a lot of companies are going to be timid about sticking their necks out to do the R&D to develop alternative fuels while oil is still the cheapest alternative when a) they don't know if they can make it competitive in the first place, and b) they have no idea if their pet alternative fuel will be widely adopted. Many companies will view that situation as just throwing money down the drain, especially if they think their competitors might find a better solution. But the fact is that we need that research and development to happen, and we need to have the infrastructure already in place when its time to go to something other than oil on a large scale. For those reasons, I argue that government has to have a hand in the process.
If the government said "Our military will run on [insert alternate fuel source here]" it would probably create a defacto standard that everyone else would follow. If you got the military, USPS, and all govt agencies on board you'd have an instant market. Then it's not risky to develop that technology at all, you've already got a market. Fuel stations pop up all over town and now it's easier for the consumer to choose that option as well. In that sense, I'd say govt can play a large role.
I'd also say that govt can (and should) impose regulations to protect the environment. We can probably debate all day on what regulations those might be and what parts need to be protected, but I'd conceed that the govt has a role to play there. However, it's not an economic one, it's an environmental one.
To summ up, the govt (and especially military) should select an alternative fuel source and standardize on it long before any oil shortage occurs. This is not necessarily an effort to drive a particular technology, it's an effort to maintain the viability of the military. The fact that it drives a particular technology would likely be a significant side-effect. The govt should regulate environmental issues. The govt should *not* get involved in the economics of it all. That's my take, anyway.
mdklatt
4/27/2006, 03:43 PM
That's not going to happen, because why would a company encourage someone to come up with a product that would put them out of business?
If "energy" companies can't envision ways to profit from new technologies than they deserve to go out of business.
And don't get me started on the OU's new "energy" college.
Scott D
4/27/2006, 03:48 PM
True, but then would the Feds allow the nation's energy to be controlled by one company? And what would the lack of competition do to the price of this newly found energy source?
That returns to the fact that people have their prices, and those formulas would likely end up in the hands of other energy companies within months if not years.
I think you're probably right here on all accounts. The problem for me is that I'm simply unwilling to allow the Federal government to do anything it doesn't have the enumerated power to do. While on the one hand from a policy stand point, Federal intervention is needed in order to come up with a long term solution to the energy problem and to move our economy off its dependence on oil. However, from an ideological standpoint I can't accept that solution.
The only constitutional way to justify such a governmental intervention would be on national security grounds.
And I really believe that given enough time the free market would come up with a solution as more and more consumers demanded an alternative to gas powered cars. However, I'm not so sure the market can adjust in a time frame fast enough to deal with the problem especially if we're faced with having our mid-east supplies suddenly cut off.
So, like I said I think you're right that from a policy stand point the Feds need to intervene, however I have a problem justifing it ideologically.
And thats a fine justifcation for opposition, and wonderfully illustrates the difference between myself and 90% of our politicians (and you I am guessing). I try in 95% of cases to be practical before being ideological. I only turn to ideology when a proposed solution greviously violates an ideological stance that I have, and even then, I question whether my ideological views may be outdated or 'incorrect'. The way I see it in this case, you are right that this is somewhat outside of the purview of limited government, which I like, however, in our wonderful experiment here in America, I view the powers we grant the government to be a fluid and ever changing thing. When we think they need more, we (hopefully, with great trepidation) grant them more, and when we think they have to much (again, hopefully) we take it away. In this case, I believe that this should be within the scope of government...
mdklatt
4/27/2006, 03:52 PM
I try in 95% of cases to be practical before being ideological. I only turn to ideology when a proposed solution greviously violates an ideological stance that I have, and even then, I question whether my ideological views may be outdated or 'incorrect'.
Yay!
SoonerInKCMO
4/27/2006, 03:53 PM
And don't get me started on the OU's new "energy" college.
So, how well do you think the IEEP is fulfilling its mission to "develop quality research and technical understanding of energy systems, organizations and global supply and demand"?
;)
Jeopardude
4/27/2006, 03:53 PM
Well, you see, with the money we don't spend on fossil fuels, we can spend on forcd abortions, burning the churches, taking away guns, and teaching hot man on pumpkin sex to grade school kids. Is that the kind of liberal answer you wanted? Something tells me it is.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Oklahoma!
There's no such thing, bro.
If the government said "Our military will run on [insert alternate fuel source here]" it would probably create a defacto standard that everyone else would follow. If you got the military, USPS, and all govt agencies on board you'd have an instant market. Then it's not risky to develop that technology at all, you've already got a market. Fuel stations pop up all over town and now it's easier for the consumer to choose that option as well. In that sense, I'd say govt can play a large role.
I'd also say that govt can (and should) impose regulations to protect the environment. We can probably debate all day on what regulations those might be and what parts need to be protected, but I'd conceed that the govt has a role to play there. However, it's not an economic one, it's an environmental one.
To summ up, the govt (and especially military) should select an alternative fuel source and standardize on it long before any oil shortage occurs. This is not necessarily an effort to drive a particular technology, it's an effort to maintain the viability of the military. The fact that it drives a particular technology would likely be a significant side-effect. The govt should regulate environmental issues. The govt should *not* get involved in the economics of it all. That's my take, anyway.
I'd love to see that happen too, but theres a slight problem with it. Imagine tomorrow that the Army announces that it is accepting bids to produce hydrogen powered tanks. suddenly lots of R&D goes into hydrogen power and we probably get pretty good at it. But then some other person/company/whatever comes along and says "oh hey wait a minute, I've just developed an alternative fuel that is 80% more efficent", and people start jumping on that bandwagon. Suddenly, the Army could be left with a fleet of tanks that are well within their engineered lifespan and no more fuel to run them on.
Granted, I do conceed that that is not very likely, but it is possible, and I want our people at the Pentagon to fully consider risks like that if and when they take them. Doing such a thing does run the risk of costing the government (and taxpayers) much much more in the future if the government does not make a wise choice in the first place.
<edit> and yes, you are right, there is no such thing as short term government intervention, but there should be. I was taking the wonderfully naieve view that our government is a rational body.
Scott D
4/27/2006, 04:04 PM
Ike, I thought it was the $20k staplers and $5k paperclips that insured that ;)
SicEmBaylor
4/27/2006, 04:50 PM
Does anyone have a link to one of those charts they show on the news from time to time that breaks down the cost of gas per gallon by showing where it goes? Like how many cents to taxes, how many in profits to gas companies, etc.?
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/27/2006, 05:08 PM
Does anyone have a link to one of those charts they show on the news from time to time that breaks down the cost of gas per gallon by showing where it goes? Like how many cents to taxes, how many in profits to gas companies, etc.?When the RINO'S in congress start clamping down even more on the oil industry, how much of the petroleum $money that goes to the govt.(taxes on oil and gasoline) will they be willing to forfeit, in order to ease the fuel cost burden on the public?
mdklatt
4/27/2006, 05:16 PM
Heh!
How high gas prices make politicians stupid. (http://www.slate.com/id/2140613)
Stoop Dawg
4/27/2006, 05:40 PM
Heh!
How high gas prices make politicians stupid. (http://www.slate.com/id/2140613)
I think I agree with all of that.
Harry Beanbag
4/27/2006, 05:52 PM
Does anyone have a link to one of those charts they show on the news from time to time that breaks down the cost of gas per gallon by showing where it goes? Like how many cents to taxes, how many in profits to gas companies, etc.?
http://www.conocophillips.com/NR/rdonlyres/390CEF2D-BE8B-47F3-A8B9-D0E92ADCB010/0/ProfitsGasPump1thru32006ave.gif
http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/other_resources/energyanswers/oil_profits.htm
mdklatt
4/27/2006, 05:56 PM
http://www.conocophillips.com/NR/rdonlyres/390CEF2D-BE8B-47F3-A8B9-D0E92ADCB010/0/ProfitsGasPump1thru32006ave.gif
http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/other_resources/energyanswers/oil_profits.htm
Does gasoline really need marketing?
Choose gasoline for all your internal combustion fueling needs!
It's all the same ****. I just buy whatever is the cheapest/most convenient. I don't care what brand it is*.
*Mostly--I refuse to buy from any of the rat bastard stations that jacked up their prices on 9/11.
Harry Beanbag
4/27/2006, 05:59 PM
Does gasoline really need marketing?
Choose gasoline for all your internal combustion fueling needs!
It's all the same ****. I just buy whatever is the cheapest/most convenient. I don't care what brand it is.
Mostly--I refuse to buy from any of the rat bastard stations that jacked up their prices on 9/11.
Well, who knows what percentage of the Distribution/Marketing slice is made up of marketing. I would guess that distribution represents the vast majority of that portion.
And yeah, I don't really care where I buy it either, convenience is the overriding factor. All the gas is the same anyway, maybe different detergents are added or whatever, but it's the same crap.
mdklatt
4/27/2006, 06:00 PM
I would guess that distribution represents the vast majority of that portion.
Yeah, but for all we know Tuba is pulling down Bruce money.
soonerscuba
4/27/2006, 06:06 PM
People also seem to forget that when you buy gas, you also go in buy a carton of smokes, a case of beer, some candy and a hustler. Exxon makes money on this **** too.
Harry Beanbag
4/27/2006, 06:10 PM
People also seem to forget that when you buy gas, you also go in buy a carton of smokes, a case of beer, some candy and a hustler. Exxon makes money on this **** too.
So? Are they supposed to give it away?
mdklatt
4/27/2006, 06:11 PM
People also seem to forget that when you buy gas, you also go in buy a carton of smokes, a case of beer, some candy and a hustler. Exxon makes money on this **** too.
A lot more than they do on the gasoline. Gasoline is to gas stations what movies are to movie theaters: just something to get you in line at the snack counter.
soonerscuba
4/27/2006, 06:13 PM
So? Are they supposed to give it away?
Hey, I was defending them as a business, I love high gas prices and hope that Exxon gets so rich and so bloated with power that a) people stop buying their gas and b) they use their new pile of money to do R&D on alternative fuels and get a huger pile of money.
And yes, it would be nice if beer and hustler was free.
Harry Beanbag
4/27/2006, 06:13 PM
A lot more than they do on the gasoline. Gasoline is to gas stations what movies are to movie theaters: just something to get you in line at the snack counter.
Besides, aren't most stations privately owned or franchised?
Stoop Dawg
4/27/2006, 06:14 PM
And yeah, I don't really care where I buy it either, convenience is the overriding factor. All the gas is the same anyway, maybe different detergents are added or whatever, but it's the same crap.
It's the same crap ... until they dump it into their rusting, dirty, leaky underground tank with a foot of water in the bottom of it.
PSA: Never buy gas at a station while the truck is there filling the underground tanks. YWIA.
Harry Beanbag
4/27/2006, 06:15 PM
Hey, I was defending them as a business, I love high gas prices and hope that Exxon gets so rich and so bloated with power that a) people stop buying their gas and b) they use their new pile of money to do R&D on alternative fuels and get a huger pile of money.
I doubt my pile of money would go very far doing R&D on alternative fuels.
And yes, it would be nice if beer and hustler was free.
Agreed. :D
mdklatt
4/27/2006, 06:22 PM
Besides, aren't most stations privately owned or franchised?
I think so.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f9/C-apu.gif/200px-C-apu.gif
Harry Beanbag
4/27/2006, 06:23 PM
I think so.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f9/C-apu.gif/200px-C-apu.gif
That's what I thought. :)
royalfan5
4/27/2006, 06:23 PM
Isn't part of the reason for the high profits due to the fact that there is insufficent capacity in the exploration fields in both equipment and talent to soak up the profits for Petroleum based R&D. Also fwiw, the margin on ethanol right now are exceeding that of gasoline(At least for the time being, it looks like corn prices are going to be healthy this year, but ethanol will still be pulling it in) Also right now the amount of capital being pumped into ethanol is amazing, including all lot from the Mid-east. This could lead to an ethanol bubble in the future. However Bio-diesel is poised to really take off because we will have very cheap soybeans in the near future because energy costs are lower for raising beans, and soy acres are at an all-time high which will lead to a little bit of a glut.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/27/2006, 06:29 PM
Isn't part of the reason for the high profits due to the fact that there is insufficent capacity in the exploration fields in both equipment and talent to soak up the profits for Petroleum based R&D. Also fwiw, the margin on ethanol right now are exceeding that of gasoline(At least for the time being, it looks like corn prices are going to be healthy this year, but ethanol will still be pulling it in) Also right now the amount of capital being pumped into ethanol is amazing, including all lot from the Mid-east. This could lead to an ethanol bubble in the future. However Bio-diesel is poised to really take off because we will have very cheap soybeans in the near future because energy costs are lower for raising beans, and soy acres are at an all-time high which will lead to a little bit of a glut.We must fight for the free flow of liquified soybeans, at all costs!
picasso
4/27/2006, 07:18 PM
I heard today those evil companies are making 7 cents on the dollar for gas. on the other end, the government is making nearly 70 cents on the tax. hmmmm. true?
critical_phil
4/27/2006, 10:36 PM
I heard today those evil companies are making 7 cents on the dollar for gas. on the other end, the government is making nearly 70 cents on the tax. hmmmm. true?
tucker carlson showed some sort of statistic similar to this on his show tonight. it was something more like 3:1 (tax:oil co. profits)
GottaHavePride
4/27/2006, 10:45 PM
tucker carlson showed some sort of statistic similar to this on his show tonight. it was something more like 3:1 (tax:oil co. profits)
Is he the bowtie-wearing *********?
proud gonzo
4/27/2006, 11:27 PM
did you know he shows up when you do a GIS for "smarmy"? I'm not EVEN kidding.
he's higher up on the GIS for "*********" though
http://www.washspkrs.com/cropped_speakers/TuckerCarlson.jpg
mrssoonerhubler
4/27/2006, 11:42 PM
Everybody Carpool? I don't know. :D
TheHumanAlphabet
4/28/2006, 09:43 AM
Exxon makes money on this **** too.
WHy do you hate Exxon? So does Chevron, BP, Shell, Valero, 7-11, Conoco, ad nauseum...
Chevron's quarterly profits were up 49% to $4 billion.
Wish I was getting some of their bonuses.
mdklatt
4/28/2006, 09:47 AM
Chevron's quarterly profits were up 49% to $4 billion.
Wish I was getting some of their bonuses.
www.etrade.com
SoonerInKCMO
4/28/2006, 09:58 AM
I heard today those evil companies are making 7 cents on the dollar for gas. on the other end, the government is making nearly 70 cents on the tax. hmmmm. true?
Apples vs. Oranges - Profit vs. Revenue.
TheHumanAlphabet
4/28/2006, 10:01 AM
Chevron's quarterly profits were up 49% to $4 billion.
Wish I was getting some of their bonuses.
MAny oil companies have "salary at risk", my employer does not...
handcrafted
4/28/2006, 10:04 AM
Coupla points here: You all know to what side I lean politically, but here's the thing: I'm kind of an environmentalist, too. Fossil fuels are smelly. I'd like us to find something else. I'm generally in favor of reasonable environmental legislation or regulation if it doesn't utterly kill one sector of the economy. The Federal government is doing way too many things that it has no business doing, but energy and natural resources management isn't one of them. The government can and should be in that business and I don't mind paying taxes to support it. IMO it's a national security issue as much as anything.
I would like my taxes to go to discovering alternative energy sources, though. If it weren't for a bunch of wacko lib groups, we'd have the majority of our electricity generated by nuclear power right now, along with a combination of other sources (wind for us in the plains, tidal generators for the coast, etc.).
And BTW Ike, if your "ideology" gives way to "practicality" all the time, then there's no point in having an ideology. Just call yourself a pragmatist and go on, because you really don't believe in anything.
SoonerInKCMO
4/28/2006, 10:32 AM
I agree with most of what you said HC - the only thing I would have a quarrel with is that I think the NIMBYs that are at least partly responsible for the lack of nuclear power come from both sides of the political aisle. I don't know what percentage of the total blame would go to conservative NIMBYs, but I'm sure it isn't zero and that makes it a bit unfair to blame it all on 'wacko lib groups'.
handcrafted
4/28/2006, 10:50 AM
I agree with most of what you said HC - the only thing I would have a quarrel with is that I think the NIMBYs that are at least partly responsible for the lack of nuclear power come from both sides of the political aisle. I don't know what percentage of the total blame would go to conservative NIMBYs, but I'm sure it isn't zero and that makes it a bit unfair to blame it all on 'wacko lib groups'.
Maybe so, but the "No Nukes" crowd got all the press in the 1970s, and they were the primary means by which public sentiment turned against nuclear power plants. The fearmongering was just out of control, and when 3 Mile Island happened the press was all over it and blew it so far out of proportion that it turned into misinformation and propaganda, not news reporting. Around that time PSO was trying to built a nuke plant in eastern Oklahoma and the "No Nukes" crowd shut the project down by the same methods.
SoonerInKCMO
4/28/2006, 10:57 AM
Yeah, I'm not saying that the tree huggers don't deserve a majority of the blame... just not all.
Stoop Dawg
4/28/2006, 01:17 PM
I think your inability to read, comprehend, and intelligently respond to other people's opinions is the issue. But maybe that's just me.
Do you also go by handcrafted or dbhuge?
I try in 95% of cases to be practical before being ideological. I only turn to ideology when a proposed solution greviously violates an ideological stance that I have, and even then, I question whether my ideological views may be outdated or 'incorrect'.
And BTW Ike, if your "ideology" gives way to "practicality" all the time, then there's no point in having an ideology. Just call yourself a pragmatist and go on, because you really don't believe in anything.
QED.
Scott D
4/28/2006, 01:20 PM
WHy do you hate Exxon? So does Chevron, BP, Shell, Valero, 7-11, Conoco, ad nauseum...
I can think of 1.3 billion reasons why a majority of Americans hate Exxon right now.
Scott D
4/28/2006, 01:20 PM
Coupla points here: You all know to what side I lean politically, but here's the thing: I'm kind of an environmentalist, too. Fossil fuels are smelly. I'd like us to find something else. I'm generally in favor of reasonable environmental legislation or regulation if it doesn't utterly kill one sector of the economy. The Federal government is doing way too many things that it has no business doing, but energy and natural resources management isn't one of them. The government can and should be in that business and I don't mind paying taxes to support it. IMO it's a national security issue as much as anything.
I would like my taxes to go to discovering alternative energy sources, though. If it weren't for a bunch of wacko lib groups, we'd have the majority of our electricity generated by nuclear power right now, along with a combination of other sources (wind for us in the plains, tidal generators for the coast, etc.).
And BTW Ike, if your "ideology" gives way to "practicality" all the time, then there's no point in having an ideology. Just call yourself a pragmatist and go on, because you really don't believe in anything.
ok Sister Veronica ;)
handcrafted
4/28/2006, 01:59 PM
QED.
If by "QED" you mean "Stoop Dawg considers any poster he doesn't agree with to be not reading his posts and making an intelligent response", then yes.
handcrafted
4/28/2006, 02:00 PM
ok Sister Veronica ;)
:confused:
Sheesh, all I was saying was that if you are willing to compromise your beliefs when it's practical to do so, then you really don't hold those beliefs in very high regard.
Scott D
4/28/2006, 02:01 PM
:confused:
I was waiting for you to slap Ike's hands with a ruler or yardstick :)
Pricetag
4/28/2006, 02:04 PM
Around that time PSO was trying to built a nuke plant in eastern Oklahoma and the "No Nukes" crowd shut the project down by the same methods.
Nuke Black Fox!
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/28/2006, 02:06 PM
Ike is supposed to be a lib? His posts on this thread don't indicate he wants an all-intrusive govt, or even one that meddles into areas that are not proper.
mdklatt
4/28/2006, 02:08 PM
Ike is supposed to be a lib?
Not at all. He's a moderate, just like 90% of the other people here that get labelled as "libz".
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/28/2006, 02:11 PM
Not at all. He's a moderate, just like 90% of the other people here that get labelled as "libz".Maybe he's more conservative than "moderate"?
Scott D
4/28/2006, 02:13 PM
Maybe he's more conservative than "moderate"?
and maybe you are more of a 'dirt libz' than a 'pubz' :D
mdklatt
4/28/2006, 02:16 PM
Maybe he's more conservative than "moderate"?
Depends on the issue.
I get that impression that's he's like most Americans, a candidate for the Purple Party (http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/politics/16713/).
Stoop Dawg
4/28/2006, 03:02 PM
If by "QED" you mean "Stoop Dawg considers any poster he doesn't agree with to be not reading his posts and making an intelligent response", then yes.
Thanks for driving my point home yet again.
Stoop Dawg
4/28/2006, 03:04 PM
:confused:
Sheesh, all I was saying was that if you are willing to compromise your beliefs when it's practical to do so, then you really don't hold those beliefs in very high regard.
Which is exactly the OPPOSITE of what Ike said he did.
"I only turn to ideology when a proposed solution greviously violates an ideological stance that I have"
You're making this too easy. Try harder.
wow. I didn't realize this thread would become a referrendum on where I stand....
If you want to lump me into a particular category, forget it, because its very likely that I will deviate rather greatly from the norm of whatever category you want to put me in. I swing liberal on a number of issues, and conservative on other issues, and quite often I disagree with both sides.
for those that don't get my 'pragmatism', I'll walk you through, real slow like.
take the notion of the energy crisis. Here is how my brain works.
Step 1: Most practical solution I can think of
solution) Round up all the smart people with any expertise in energy, physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering. Give them nearly unlimited funds and a set amount of time. Tell them to give me a working solution that meets whatever parameters I set for an alternative source of energy. clean, cheap, abundant, easily transported, etc. Give them an appropriate amount of time.
Step 2: check to see if that violates principles.
answer) yes, quite a bit in fact. I'm fully against rounding people up willy nilly, and equally against telling them what to do.
Step 3: are those principles still valid
answer) oh hells yeah.
Step 4: find a new solution, repeat steps 1-4 as needed.
wow. I didn't realize this thread would become a referrendum on where I stand....
You can't pin down Ike. He is an enigma wrapped in a :twinkies:
You can't pin down Ike. He is an enigma wrapped in a :twinkies:
really, I'm just a :twinkies: :)
Scott D
4/28/2006, 03:59 PM
damn pitchers ;)
proud gonzo
4/28/2006, 04:27 PM
http://www.breakfastforlunch.com/skillet/kool-aid-man.jpg
GottaHavePride
4/28/2006, 04:38 PM
Depends on the issue.
I get that impression that's he's like most Americans, a candidate for the Purple Party (http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/politics/16713/).
Bad marketing there - purple's kinda gay.
Good metaphor for this country, though. You go around mixing blue and red together and eventually the whole place just winds up looking gay.
NTTAWWT. ;)
Pricetag
4/28/2006, 04:47 PM
You can't pin down Ike. He is an enigma wrapped in a :twinkies:
It would be a Twinkie thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.
proud gonzo
4/28/2006, 04:51 PM
That's a big Twinkie.
That's a big Twinkie.
I love ghostbusters quotes.
Im out. It's time to go throw fastballs at little kids and teach em how to take one for the team.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.