You said that I never criticize a democrat, so I pointed out five or six that I had criticized and you blew it off, saying that Kennedy doesn't count, Jackson isn't a politician, etc. etc. Well, you didn't say politician, you said democrat, but I will point out that Kennedy is a politician and so is Jackson having run for President of the United States. Incidently calling you blind is not a personal insult, it is a metaphor for not seeing the situation clearly. Salty calls me blind all the time! :grin:
That is true but an increase in world supply combined with a drop in demand(we already have that), will effect world price. And the argument is that sending $120/barrel to Iran/Venezuela/Saudi is worse then giving it to a domestic company. Keeping more $ at home is a benefit fairly easy to understand.
Certainly it helps reduce foreign dependence. But Republicans are suggesting that it can reduce gas prices which is entirely false and also suggest that it can eliminate foreign oil dependence which is very misleading. We use 25% of the worlds oil and have 3% of the worlds oil reserves. The only solution is to get off the oil as much as possible, yet Exxon posts unprecedented profits and gets Billions in subsidies, while solar and wind power producers got their tax credits cut out. The biggest American wind producer was going to build a new turbine factory in Ohio, but with the loss of tax credits is now building it in Denmark, the worlds wind-power leader. That's 300 engineering jobs lost to overseas because our government is influenced by the Oil Lobby and had an Oil Man in the White House. Years ago Denmark began rewarding producers of alternate energy and discouraging use of oil by instituting a carbon limit. They have almost no domestic oil production and were hemorrhaging $Billions to the middle east. Now they have a huge wind and solar power capacity, have unemployment of less than 2% and their industries are flourishing. We need to wake up and quit letting the Oil Industry set American energy policy.
i think this sentiment, and the similar one expressed by mccain, is raw pride. not pragmatic, not rational, not sober, not good for the US. I'd guess much of it comes from a Vietnam hangover. i'd much rather "lose" a war than occupy a country for 10 yrs, spend $$$ out the a__ and lose thousands of soldiers----all for the grand prize of MAYBE. since im sure many/most of you here know more about the Vietnam war than i do, should the US have stayed in Vietnam through the 70's. its looking more and more like a valid comparison. how would the world, or more importantly, the US been any better off? is the only real answer that the killing fields wouldnt have happened? which would be a great reason to stay, but this philosophy seems contradictory to general conservative philosophy, and it is why i question the motivation.
An increase in world supply will reduce prices, combined with a reduction in use and development of other energy sources will help it drop further. The Republican nominee advocates drilling, and developing alternative energy sources. The democrats only advocate alternatives and reduction, with no solution to how we bridge this gap. Voter pressure will assure that the dems waffle and allow drilling or they will lose their seats. Obama is already changing his tune. The outer continental shelf, anwar, and the rockies change that number completely. It is only accurate if we never drill any more than today. Then you should be excited about Palin since she has actually done what you have talked about and the other candidates have only talked about it. She cut into their rising profits and sent it back to the voters. There is nothing to suggest that McCain/Palin will be in the pockets of Big Oil.
a whole2 cents a barrel. maybe it is pure waffling, but from the entire discussion of the matter it sounds more like they're saying "ok, voters, you want it that bad. we'll do it. but it wont help and it will not be at the expense of the real fixes" speaking of waffling on this issue. didnt mccain used to be against anwar drilling? besides, he's been in the congress since forever---has he ever initiated off-shore drilling legislation? (serious question)
Gas was less than a buck a gallon. The situation now demands a fresh look. Ben Hogan used to drive the ball over trees and cut the corner. Now the trees are 100 feet tall.
Worldwide demand will remain high for a long time unless China and India embrace alternative energy. I don't see drilling dropping the price of gas enough to be the reason to drill because the drop will be small. If the companies drilling are US companies, I suppose extra monies being generated by the US is a plus, but aren't US gas companies already making record profits? How much of that money will the average US citizen see or indirectly benefit from? Does it? I can't imagine the change will be significant enough to lower the price of gas enough so the average citizen will feel it.
Not true. Our proven reserves include all the oil we know is there, it is not about how much we produce. McCain has accepted over $1 million from the oil and gas industry. At least 15 of McCain's top advisers have lobbied for big oil (LINK), which is why he now acts in their best interests, opposing environmental legislation and alternative energy plans. McCain is desperate to distance himself from President Bush. But according to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, McCain has received millions in donations from the same oil, coal, nuclear, chemical, utility, and auto companies that helped the Bush administration create its energy plan that raised gasoline to $4 a gallon. Sarah Palin's strong support for drilling in the ANWR is on the record. Palin's husband is an employee of British Petroleum - the British oil giant with significant interests in Alaska's oil wealth.
Well, you did name some names but there was no substance. Not what I was looking for. Anyway, here is the deal. You could go join our thread telling us where you sit before you tell us where you stand then we have an idea where you are coming from. That is one improvement that should be made in this forum. People state their opinions not knowing where one stands on the issue. Ok, I feel better then. I haven't read many of your posts between the two of you.
