I think the answer to that question is quite clear..... http://www.wsws.org/sections/category/about/about.shtml
The fact is he had tried to do several things about it. On a short-term basis he has advocated increased exploration and drilling for new energy sources. But the Democrates and some Republicans have fought him to a standstill on this issue. Secondly, he has made it a goal to develop hybrid fuels including ethanol and hydrogen. Because of of the increased federal spending he has authorized, it has been estimated that we could have hydrogen cars in 10 to 15 years.
Easy there, cowboy. Don't strike first with 'cocksucker' and then commence to lecturing me. I'll be fine. You worry about you, ok? But I still don't get why you make the perpetual claim of it being a waste of your time, yet continue responding. I'm not making you waste your time, you're making that choice.
Of course I would because I would know that I could not be president forever, even though the world would want it that way. Besides, nothing says that they can't try to be well-liked AND about money. Those two things often go hand-in-hand.
'Tried...advocated...goal....could have.' A politician's mantra. Lots of empty promises, no actual accomplishment or significant progress.
hey, if you dont want my advice, dont take it. i was telling you that trying to bait me with your "hey look how upset and angry you are" routine was a waste of YOUR time, because i dont play that game. i refused to play it 3 times just in this thread. i gave you advice on how to be civil and not start pointless arguments. like i said, i am a humanitarian.
There's no other 'game' being played here. Your thing about the 'bait' is an illusion. I'm a smartass, and I reply when people say things to me. That's all there really is to it. If you don't like it, pretty much the worst thing in the world you can do is respond. There is nothing for me to accomplish, so I'm not wasting my time anymore than I am by being here in the first place. If there's something cooler happening at a particular time, I won't be posting.
I keep hearing this connection between Bush/Cheney, Saudi Arabia and the oil companies, but I don't understand how he, or any President, could control the price of oil around the world. Most of the world's oil supply is controlled by countries that never liked the U.S., like the OPEC countries, Venezuela, etc. Can you, or anyone, explain to me what our government could do to lower oil prices?
I've never insinuated that the president has any control over the worldwide price of oil, and I'm not asking him to lower it. Just because they have their hands in the cookie jar doesn't mean they set the price for the cookies. However, isn't there some screwy law in La that says that gasoline must be marked up at least a certain percentage at the pump? We could definitely do without that and I wouldn't lose any sleep. Setting a minimum profit is just as bad as setting a maximum profit. The only thing I'd like to see done is exactly what you described earlier: incentive-based R&D for alternates. It's similar to the way I'd like to see incentives/tax breaks encouraging companies to donate money to the welfare fund, thus alleviating some of the tax burden from the citizens (of course, this must also be done in coordination with a massive reduction in the amount of welfare disbursed). In both cases, no one's hand is being forced.
So you are suggesting that they might be illegally benefiting from these record oil company profits? Maybe I'm just being naive, but considering how many enemies Bush has made since becoming President, it's hard to believe that some credible individual or news organization hasn't discovered it yet. But I've been wrong before...
