High gas prices drive support for drilling
By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News
Published August 18, 2008 at 9:05 p.m.
Updated August 19, 2008 at 10:05 a.m.
Photo by Matt McClain © The Rocky
Taylor Dunn of Colorado Conservation Voters puts up a sign on a fake oil derrick as protesters demonstrating against the Oil and Gas industry that is operating in the state of Colorado held a press conference on the steps of the State Capital in downtown Denver, on Aug. 6, to try and persuade the companies to put Colorado families ahead of profits.
Coloradans, like many Americans, like to heap scorn on oil and gas companies. Even so, they appear to back more drilling in the state, believing it will cut gas prices and dependence on foreign oil.
Those are the conflicting findings of a Rocky Mountain News/ CBS 4 News poll of 500 registered voters conducted Aug. 11-13, reflecting the two minds voters bring to the questions, pollsters said.
On one hand, the 66 percent of Coloradans who have unfavorable impressions of oil and gas companies are angry about high gas prices and the record profits enjoyed by energy companies, said pollster Lori Weigel of Public Opinion Strategies, which conducted the poll.
On the other, 57 percent of respondents were concerned there will be too little oil and natural gas development in Colorado.
"People want lower gas prices," said pollster Craig Hughes, director of research of RBI Strategies and Research, who consulted on the survey. "They think the easiest way to do that is to increase drilling."
Weigel's firm generally polls for Republican candidates, while Hughes' generally works with Democratic candidates.
The survey comes at a time when energy companies have assumed a high profile in Colorado amid the state's natural gas boom, which has seen a tripling of state permits to drill for fossil fuels - to beyond 6,000 a year - since 2003.
The industry is also at the center of two major public policy debates in the state:
* The state agency charged with regulating oil and gas development is considering a major overhaul of environmental rules that govern how, when and where wells are drilled. Deliberations on the proposed rules begin today before the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
* And voters in November will consider a ballot initiative, supported by Gov. Bill Ritter, that would eliminate a property tax credit for the industry, generating some $300 million a year to be used for college scholarships, as well as wildlife, renewable energy and infrastructure projects.
Weigel cautioned that while 57 percent of respondents are concerned about too little drilling, the number needs "a big asterisk" because there is "massive distinction" by region, she said.
On the Western Slope, for example, where drilling activities have accelerated most visibly, people are more evenly divided.
"People who are at ground zero of energy development are much more divided on that specific issue," Weigel said.
Weigel said the poll also found that people in the metro area, and in other areas where there's little obvious presence of energy drilling, "have no concept of the oil and gas development that's taking place" around towns such as Rifle and Durango.
Meg Collins of the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, a trade group, said the high unfavorable ratings in the poll show the industry needs to do "a better job of educating people in the states we do business, so they understand the contributions the industry makes and have a more balanced picture of the industry."
She believes the stronger backing for more drilling is tied to the public's concerns about an over-reliance on foreign energy sources, often from countries unfriendly to the United States. "We put the nation at risk," she said.
But Duke Cox, an activist with the Western Colorado Congress and a home builder, said the poll results show the oil and gas industry has succeeded in "misleading the public" into believing that more drilling in Colorado will lower costs.
"The price of oil is based on a worldwide market. It has nothing to do with how much we drill Colorado," said Cox, accurately noting that Colorado is a far greater source of natural gas than oil.
As for natural gas, industry critics note that new pipelines running outside the state and opening Colorado's supply to new markets have led to major price increases - a point the industry concedes.
Natural gas prices have spiraled up, environmentalists point out, even though drilling in Colorado has increased three-fold in five years.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
August 19, 2008
1:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Drill Enviro Udall for more drilling. Call his office and ask why he wants to stop domestic drilling, extraction, refining and supply. -- (303) 820-2008
Drill Union Udall for real employee free choice. Call his office and ask why Union Udall wants to take away peoples secret ballot. -- (303) 820-2008
Drill Union Udall for the right to work. Call Union Udall and findout why he supports forced union membership & forced union dues. -- (303) 820-2008
August 19, 2008
5:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Domino writes:
We have seen folks switching from their cars to mass transit. There should be a national effort to increase buses, light rail and trains, especially high speed inter-city routes in the dense east coast areas. There may be a need for air travel, but it does not work on the short hops back east.
High gas prices is actually a godsend in the movement to curtail global warming. Politicians who want more drilling are in the pockets of the oil companies, who found that denial of global warming was not working, except for those who were already on their side. So, they are now pushing for more drilling, which would not have a quick payback. To convince folks, they are lying about the amount of oil reserves in the US. Much of the claimed reserves are the very difficult areas, such as the shale oil which would use up all the needed water in Colorado for their profits.
August 19, 2008
5:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sensible writes:
Simply put,
Decreasing the price at the pump is a matter of eliminating negative speculation, it has nothing to do with increasing near-term supplies.
The reason for the high prices is because short-term, MID-TERM, and LONG-TERM oil sources are under threat (i.e. enviros and the middle east).
To decrease the level of speculation, opening up new ground in the U.S. and establishing oil and gas INFRUSTRUCTURE (both regulatory and physically), is what it's all about. If the gov't allows more viable areas for drilling, there is absolutely NO QUESTION that will decrease the price at the pump IMMEDIATELY, mainly b/c that heals our mid-term and long-term crisis (from a speculative standpoint, reality is not the issue).
The RMN nor any other dreary drib-drab-lib crew is ever going to concede to these facts. That is, in nut shell, how commodity futures function. Again, reality is not the issue.
Don't believe me? Look at uranium in the last 4 years. It is an exact replica. A bunch of liars came out and said they would bring all this uranium onto the market b/c the prices were so high, it made the price crash to $64.50, and there is even LESS uranium production than last year when it was $138/lb!
It's all about speculation (which it should be).
August 19, 2008
5:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sensible writes:
a note in defense of speculation...
without speculation, which fears reality, we would be in the reality of no secureity of supply. As it is, speculation forces the people to make it right, before it goes wrong.
Kind of like doing your homework for a big test.
Or like saving college $$ for your kids, when you don't know if they'll live that long, or turn into bums, or be lib idjuts w/out a clue, etc.
Kind of like "Global Warmasts" speculating about the destruction of earth, so stop emitting greenhouse gases.
If we don't speculate, we get caught with our pants around our ankles and we really are in trouble.
August 19, 2008
6:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sensible writes:
Domino -
One question...
Is ignorance really bliss?
August 19, 2008
6:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
bluecollarbytes writes:
Siphoning the lifeblood out of businesses which risk capital in hopes of returning a profit for its shareholders while providing the fuel we all need.-We're in the initial stages of that.
If drilling for additional supplies within our borders never drops the price a penny we're still better off increasing supplies under our control in this whacked out world of Putins, Ahmadinejihads, and Chavezes.
One could take the arguments against oil development and apply them to food. Why should we 'rape' the nutrients from our own soils when we can buy food grown elsewhere? In fact, drop all subsidies to farmers and imported food might actually be cheaper in some cases. If our farmlands were left dormant, how long before mini-ecologies sprang up on them, everything from natural "wetlands" to the newest variety of knat?
August 19, 2008
6:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
bluecollarbytes writes:
I think more attention needs to be paid to the auto-cuss-correction feature on this sight.
Since when is a word bad if it starts with S, and ends with ucking?
August 19, 2008
6:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
the story doesn't mention 1 thing about the fact that our high gas prices and rate hikes on energy are brought to us as a result of the environmentalist blockades, lawsuits, and compliance with ever increasing environmental regulations. Start getting rid of these and prices will drop as the futures market reacts to the news that the supply could increase. The popular belief that it's the oil companies is a clever misdirection while the true issue continues its silent mission, the global warming hoax is part of what you're feeling today at the pump, the CO2 police are active and unless you learn about what the green agenda is doing to your wallet soon, it'll be too late.
August 19, 2008
6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sixtysixdeuce writes:
As bluecollarbytes said, even if fuel prices remain so high, the reduction in foreign dependency is positive.
On that note, for all those short-sighted folks who are all set to approve Ritter's initiative to cut the property tax credit, basic economics tells us that it is not the oil and gas companies who will suffer. When the cost of doing business goes up, companies and corporations pass the buck on to the consumer. They'll get that $300m back via increases in your energy costs. If voters approve this measure, they've basicaly voted in a new tax that will support all the listed beneficiaries mentioned in the initiative. And we'll be one step closer to socialism.
August 19, 2008
7:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sensible writes:
Backward96 -
get a clue chump.
The world has lots and lots and lots of oil... The U.S., Canada, and the UK control the price of oil, despite China, India, et al's growth.
US, Canada, and the UK investors dictate the speculative futures.
Increasing the supply is not the issue.
SECURING THE SUPPLY IS THE ISSUE. Anyone who disagrees with me, PLEASE give a reasonable (i.e. Sensible) rebuttal.
August 19, 2008
7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Denverboy1 writes:
Hello Ghoax....
Unless Im mistaken..and often I am.. has not Bush stripped the EPA of it's ability to enforce Enviro laws ? Yet your stance is that thoes very laws are the reason for high oil prices...When 65% of our oil is imported . Do our Enviro-laws encompass the Middle East and South America ? How can present domestic laws enforced or not have any effect on import prices ?
Even if we gave the oil Co. all the land they wanted, it would years before any meaningful domestic price reduction was felt..There is always a better way..perhaps not as profitable for Oil and Gas Co. but feel the wind against your face or look up from the ground and see that big ball of light in the sky...our Sun..there is plenty of energy just waiting to be had..Our star produces more energy in three seconds than Mankind has used or produced from the ground including all the atomic power plants and bombs combined. It powers EVERYTHING we live on. There would be NO OIL without it..There would be nothing without it..
We can harness this vast flux of energy..It's not Si-Fi it just takes will . It has powered our planet for billions of years..Our Sun is the long term solution.. She shines 365 days a year and will do so for a long..long time.. Oil is finite..we can begin to feel that reality now...yet the sun..........
August 19, 2008
7:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
sunshinestate writes:
Isn't it interesting how the price has fluctuated-basically downward- in the past weeks?
Watch carefully and one sees a trend towards promotion of offshore drilling ....due the very real mostly very negative disruption to land management.
The conservative interior west hunter community has been cast as the new "radical" "elitist" "Enviro".Clearly something had to give.
August 19, 2008
7:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
LaszloPanaflex writes:
The oil companies are *not* drilling in millions of acres already available to them. They are in no hurry to increase supply because they like the price of oil where it is. More drilling is simply throwing more effort in the wrong direction, and it will have no effect on current prices. We need a sustainable plan, not more of the same.
August 19, 2008
8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
denverbulldog writes:
Forward,
Socialize? Yikes!
It would not secure our supply, rather diminish it. I do not trust any government to reinvest the capital needed to keep wells running properly. The oil business is capital intensive in order to keep things running and there is no way our leaders would let that money go back in. They would see the billions coming in and start siphoning with no regard to the billions that are needed to go back out. Why do you think supply is decreasing in countries like Venezuela, Russia, and Mexico?
August 19, 2008
8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
steve00 writes:
The local price of gas has dropped due to a decrease in demand. When gas hit $4, demand dropped 4%. People found a way to drive less. Enviros should applaud the conservation that a high gas price brings. If it was $7 a gallon, demand would drop 20%. Domestic drilling stops being a discussion when the price per barrel drops. The ONLY reason companies are pushing for more domestic drilling is the current price per barrel. If demand drops and the middle east oil countries continue dropping the price per barrel, the oil companies will cancel all the drilling projects. Remember Parachute in the early '80s? I say let 'em drill and tax 'em to death while we can. They're going to stick it to the consumer anyway so may as well keep some bucks here.
August 19, 2008
8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
robbyr2 writes:
Why do we want to drill for oil? So what? The oil companies have said they aren't going to build any more refineries as long as we even think about subsidizing wind and solar power. So we drill for oil and then just let it sit?
August 19, 2008
8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
engineer writes:
I am yet to hear one plausible counter-argument to the following point:
Drilling should be encouraged in the US not to drop prices, but to stop the irresponsible environmental destruction exportation that the US system currently relies upon. We are ALREADY drillling in the Artic, in Siberia, where there are little enviro control and even less enforcement. An area around this drilling in the 90's was considered a disaster zone by the government from the pollution.
The US has some of the world's most strict drilling regulations. We need to supply clean oil from the US for US use, and stop ruining third world countries simply because it is easier. We need to deal with our own environmental degredation!! As a whole, the world would benefit.
I have posted this over 50 times in various forums, and have been completely ignored by the anti-drilling crowd.
August 19, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
steve00 writes,
"I say let 'em drill and tax 'em to death while we can."
Maybe someone should tax you to death. Do you understand that excessive taxation is simply stealth of private property? Should we pass a law allowing the public to confiscate your assets? Your idea for excessive taxation is tyranny of the majority. The majority decides that it wants to confiscate assets of an industry. Legally stealing from an industry is an immoral policy.
Unfortunately, many others believe in excessive taxation. The consequences of excessive taxation (beyond the morality of legal theft) are less production, lower employment levels, and higher prices for oil and every thing dependent on oil (almost the entire economy). Your delusions of excessive taxation will have terrible consequences.
Even if you could just take money from the oil companies without any consequences, who are the oil companies? The oil companies are owned by a broad cross section of Americans. Pension funds and mutual funds have large investments. The oil companies employ many hard working individuals. Even if the consequences of your excessive taxation just impacted the oil companies, large numbers of Americans would be impacted.
August 19, 2008
8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
ActualThinker writes:
People get duped so easy. 1)Speculators have read and understand all of the oil studies that have been done over the years that all conclude that the increase to supply (1% in 5-10 years) will be outweighed by India/China's growth. You think that opening up drilling is going to cause them to suddenly forget what is common knowledge? They wouldn't be very good at what they do then. Speculating is a questionable practice that does need some further investigation, however we've already seen that the slightest fears will cause them to send oil prices up, while it takes sizable drops in demand for those prices to edge back down, this will do nothing to that. 2)There are lots of places in the United States that aren't being used that are available for oil drilling. Ask yourself, why can't they use those first, they either know its not enough to affect supply or dont want prices to go down, either way its not going to be solved by off shore drilling. 3)Republicans have been signing the same bills banning oil drilling and giving tax breaks to oil companies for years. Now they want to be the good guys? Please tell me no one here is that naive.
The answer is to focus heavily on renewable energy now so that in 10 years we can be almost entirely be using solar/wind/hydrogen, and then supplement whats left with our own supply completely taking us out of oil dependence. We could be a leader for other countries to model and grow our economy heavily as they come to us for the same things. And we'd stop funding terrorist organizations!! We should have done this after 9/11 but the republican government has made very little effort over the last 7 years, we can't risk any longer waiting thinking band aid drilling is the solution.
August 19, 2008
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Steph writes:
Let's just cut through all the bull (drilling vs. antidrilling). The entire mess is just a way for W to give a huge gift to his oil buddies before he leaves. That's all this is about.
August 19, 2008
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
cterryr2 writes:
Goes to show there are a lot of stupid people in this country. Drilling more will help little. Research the hard science and understand we EXPORT oil.
August 19, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Steph writes:
The Republicans are going along with W in flimflamming the country (just like they did with WMD in Iraq) and the Democrats have absolutely no cajones and are folding. Both parties should be ashamed as well as the Americans who are buying this bull.
August 19, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
denverbulldog writes:
Tbone,
The reserve is irrelevant here and has little, if anything, to do with how our country gets and distributes oil.
August 19, 2008
9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
bronco writes:
I hope gas goes to $10 a gallon. Look at all the investement and change in behavior at $4. Do the Republicans mention the fact that supplies harvested here will not be nationalized and thus be for sale on the open international market. Maybe it will drop prices for the chinese!
August 19, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
ActualThinker,
You are denying basic laws of economics to justify the Democratic Oil Blockade. We have a large supply of oil and natural gas that can be developed in an environmentally safe manner. Our restrictions on energy development are the most demanding in the world. Development of our energy resources will impact world supply and price. You have a bizarre idea to force oil companies to drill where there is not sufficient oil to justify development. This idea will raise industry costs and reduce production, not increase production. The goal of the left is reduced production of our energy so they promote bizarre ideas.
The left understands basic economics. They are fearful that development of our own energy resources will lower prices. The left has repeatedly stated that high oil prices are good. The left sees high oil prices as a step to their Utopian goal of a world without oil. Unfortunately, the rest of the world does not share in the delusions of the American left. Even Canada is committed to developing their own energy resources. The left's opposition would never have permitted development of the Canadian oil sands. The left (the Messiah himself) has indicated that we cannot import Canadian oil because the oil sands development produces too much CO2.
The Democratic Oil Blockade is an immoral policy designed to create an artificial shortage of a vital resource. The consequences of this immoral policy are chaos in the transportation, travel, and manufacturing industries, school district budgets out of control due to diesel costs, and much higher inflation across the economy. The American public is starting to realize the consequences of the Democratic Oil Blockade. The left is desperate to maintain the blockade.
August 19, 2008
9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
bronco writes:
North american oil reserves peaked in 1970, I thiink its time to give something else a try. WHY NOT?
August 19, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
bronco writes:
Oh, yeah, what is it about "strategic oil reserves" and "protected areas" that you neocons don't get?
August 19, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
engineer writes:
bronco - give a shot at a counter-argument to my post, about 12 posts up. You could be the first.
Froward, you going to step up? Anyone?
August 19, 2008
10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Meter6 writes:
Froward - You obviously don't understand the impact that socializing oil would have on this country. I'll give you a short answer. I'm assuming that you don't know that oil companies and oil service companies are publicly owned and produce billions, let me reiterate, BILLIONS of dollars for the American people in the form dividends, stock yields, and TAXES of all things. Socializing this industry would cripple our economy. Trust me, there are a lot of seniors out there that are thanking god that their stock portflios contained assets in oil companies right now.
August 19, 2008
10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
JustSayin writes:
Protected areas? PROTECTED AREAS?? We don't need no stinkin' protected areas!!
So it's all about economics, eh? It's real easy to sit here along the Front Range of Colorado and say let's drill in some remote place you'll never see, be it the West Slope away from I-70 or Alaska, or advocate drilling off the coasts of some other state.
What if there were oil or some other energy resource under Rocky Mountain Nat'l Park - would you be so eager to drill or dig then no matter what?
August 19, 2008
10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
dukeco1 writes:
Engineer said,
"The US has some of the world's most strict drilling regulations. We need to supply clean oil from the US for US use, and stop ruining third world countries simply because it is easier. We need to deal with our own environmental degredation!! As a whole, the world would benefit."
Those strict regulations are from the desire of Americans to not see "environmental degradation". Third world countries were always very profitable for Big Oil, until recently. Nationalization of oil industries is pushing them to press to drill here. They want to remain profitable. Let's see them change their exploration to stock buy back ratio. Maybe if they paid fair prices in third world countries they wouldn't have gotten tossed out. Maybe the U.S. should nationalize our fossil fuel industry.
We need to keep diminishing demand with a vengeance. Move to alternatives with an unrelenting urgency. Prosecute the thieves like our country depends on it. We can do this.
August 19, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
JustSayin writes:
Amen, Charlie_B, "drill here, drill now" is the new abortion issue, the new 'war on terror" issue, the new "no taxes on the rich" issue, the new" what can we distract them with now" issue......
August 19, 2008
1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
Some of you want to see $10 a gallon gas so it forces many of us to invest and then buy alternative energy. What about the people who can not afford $10 a gallon gas or tens of thousands of dollars for solar and wind technology? Eventually alternative energy will become more affordable but what about the time in between when Americans who live pay check to pay check are paying $10 a gallon or having to buy a very expensive electric/hybrid/alternative energy vehicle or house?
It will force many of us to lose our homes and then force us to move into apartments closer to our work, because we can not afford a home in Denver. The dramatic increase in energy costs will destroy what is left of the middle class and create a larger poorer class that will be forced to live on government welfare.
How is this a good thing?
August 19, 2008
1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
Charles_B writes,
"If it's a "Democratic Oil Blockade" please tell us all why Republicans have been continuously signing the drilling ban even through the six years when they controlled congress."
Republicans have been trying to lift the blockade for many years. Do you recall Clinton's 1995 veto of ANWR drilling? Do you recall Bush's continued calls for ANWR and OCS drilling? Do you recall that Democrats (our own Ken Salazar) stopped regulations about oil shale development. The Democratic Oil Blockade is under serious attack. Despite the tremendous pain and suffering from this immoral and delusional blockade, the Democrats refuse to lift it. The motto of the Democratic Oil Blockade is "not here, not now, not ever, be happy for $20/gallon gas (except for the exalted DNC users of gasoline powered vehicles)."
I certainly do not work for the energy industry although I would consider it an honor if I did. The energy industry is bringing a vital product to market under tremendous (and unjustified) criticism and attacks. Without this vital resource, life would not be feasible as we now enjoy it. I am just a well informed conservative trying to combat the dangerous delusions of the left.
August 19, 2008
1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
JustSayin,
Like your kind has never used any scare tactics. My 7 year old came home with a very worried look on his face, because people like you are telling him that the end of the world is going to happen if we don't do something about global warming right now.
By the way I am still waiting for New York and Florida to disapear into the ocean. When is that going to happen?
You got to love it when your kind has to lower themselves to scare our children to get results.
August 19, 2008
1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
So, the pro-drillers are now conceding that even more drilling (we're already the third largest producer of oil in the world) won't necessarily reduce prices. Now they're telling us it will "secure" our domestic supply - whatever that vague statement is supposed to mean. Because it's no secret that how much we consume here is vastly larger than how much we can produce, even including new drilling.
What's more, I haven't seen a single statement from one US-based oil company who has promised any oil drilled here, will stay here. And do you know why? Because it would be a stupid thing for them to do! Selling their oil on the world market is much more profitable than restricting it to domestic markets only, in fact, who knows if they could even turn a profit if they did the latter.
So much for securing our domestic supply.
I understand that increasing the world supply might help prices from climbing more than they would if that new oil wasn't added...but quite frankly, I think prices are going to climb anyway. So, it could just be a matter of one day paying $7.89 a gallon instead of $8.00.
Is it really worth tearing up every last untouched place for more of the stuff?
August 19, 2008
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
cdmdenver writes:
OIL PRICES=GREATEST SCAM EVER!
There is NO oil shortage!
"The world is awash in oil"
Don't believe it, check and do the research yourself.
The price of oil has been falling, are GAS PRICES FALLING!
H*LL NO! Gas prices will continue to rise, until
somebody starts investigating.
Drilling will help, so will alternative fuels,
SUPPLY AND DEMAND, Demand is down,
due to U.S. citizens reducing driving, mass transit,
mopeds, why are Gas prices staying artifically high!
Contact Udall and all his cronies, tell them to support
HB 215
August 19, 2008
1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Interesting article about how ineffective the Democratically controlled congress has been on pretty much everything...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12191...
August 19, 2008
1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
Charles_B,
You apparently did not read my posts. I identified specific instances of Republicans trying to lift the blockade. Conservatives never had control of the US Senate. There were enough RINOs who sided with Democrats especially given the Senate rule on cloture. If conservatives had controlled the Senate, the ban would have been lifted or at least modified substantially. Clearly, there is no debate now. The Democrats are fighting to keep as many restrictions as possible while Republicans want to lift the ban entirely.
Regarding your other point about $10/gallon gasoline, our own Senator Salazar was against oil shale and OCS development even if the price went to $10/gallon. There is a YouTube video of his responses to Senator McConnell's call for a conditional lifting of the ban. Salazar is no different than other Democrats. They do not want additional exploration no matter how high gasoline becomes.
August 19, 2008
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Charles B. Nice to chat with you again
Nice to bring your strawman to the party. Multiple people on this thread have stated they are happy about Higher gas prices. Domino said it. Steve00 wanted $7/gallon and bronco stated he wanted $10/gallon
All 3 stated that higher gas prices over current prices are a very good thing. 1 even said it was a godsend..........
So you bring in the strawman of what politician. You look up the quotes Charles.
Again nice chatting with you Charles B.
August 19, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
mmanino: "They do not want additional exploration no matter how high gasoline becomes."
So you really think increased drilling will keep gas prices affordable? I could be wrong, but I honestly think high prices are here to stay, regardless, and they're only going to go up. It seriously worries me that some of you folks appear to believe that increased drilling is the panacea to affordable prices at the pump.
August 19, 2008
2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
COLib, Charles B was referring to politicians advocating for $10/gas.
This is what he said to mmanino: "Who does? I want quotes. What mainstream politician has overtly expressed this as a policy initiative?"
Pay attention before going on attack.
August 19, 2008
2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
mytwosense,
Before you attack me, why dont you pay attention before you attack me........... I greeted Charles B. and I also said nice chatting with him. I like Charles. He and I disagree alot but have respect for him. Charles referred to "jaymoveonorg" Not the other fellow. Jay did not refer to any politician....he referred to "SOME" I showed Charles who the some were. Had nothing to do with mmanino.
As another said on here "Pay attention before going on attack."
And attacking? You attacked me before you had all of the information I gave you on the candle/Excel townhouse burning......even after you had proof you accused me of fibbing........ Never retracted So dont use that on me M2S.
August 19, 2008
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
wow...so many myths and misinterpretations.
let's go over it again.
even bush's own folks agree that it may be up to 25 years before we see any impact on prices if we drill tomorrow.
there is already 68 million of acres of land approved for drilling (including off shore) which have been proven to have enough resources to increase our domestic oil production by a full 50% and natural gas by 75%
in addition, demand does not account for the price increases we've seen over the last eight years...thus demand will not solve the problem...unless of course you can make the case that demand has risen 300% over the last 8 years....
http://zfacts.com/p/35.html
we can take immediate steps to increase domestic oil production and put the supply demand experiment to the test using land already earmarked for it.
considering those facts, the myths about the "democratic oil blockage" are ignorant. period. let me repeat that. those kind of talking points illustrate one thing and one thing only...that the user is ridiculously uneducated on the subject.
now...if you want to address political obstructionism in regards to this issue, find out which politicians are against leveraging our SOR's in order to influence global production...as has been successfully done in the past.
find out which republican president established the moratorium on lease sales in the ocs.
find out which industry lackeys still don't support increased oversight of the oil and speculation markets.
find out which politicians are against incentivizing oil companies through the retention of portions of their corporate welfare benefits to drill on the millions of profitable acres they've already stockpiled.
find out which politicians continue to support those republican policies of the last 8 years that have further destabilized the middle east and devalued the dollar.
i'd wager a guess that with that knowledge and logic under your belts, you might have the ability to stop yourselves from spouting foolish talking points in support of idiotic policy.
but i've been wrong before.
August 19, 2008
2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Sorry, CoLib, but I thought you were being sarcastic to CB. At any rate, yes, he was addressing jaymoveon (my bad), but he still was asking for quotes about $10/gas from politicians, not people on this forum. So I'm not sure why you responded with quotes from the latter.
August 19, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
What's up MTW. How's the babe?
August 19, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Sorry, MTS.
August 19, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
sorry....just had to point out the laughably ignorant hypocrisy here:
jaymoveonorgy says in response to those who support actions to curb global warming and the "scare tactics" they use:
"My 7 year old came home with a very worried look on his face, because people like you are telling him that the end of the world is going to happen if we don't do something about global warming"
and then goes on to say that those who support the development of alternative energy sources will:
"force many of us to lose our homes"
classic.
August 19, 2008
2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
m2s that is why I questioned Charles. jaymoveonorg did not reference politicians when he used the term "some of you". When using the term "some of you" in a conversation, in my mind, refer to those in the discussion thread, not politicians.........that was an added inference that I questioned Charles on.
Actually the word politician was never used within that post from which Charles quoted.
If it were an assumption that jaymoveonorg meant politicians, that should have been clarified before the challenge, should it not?
August 19, 2008
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Funny story jay, when I was fifteen my high school biology teacher got it through my head that the world was ending. It was more of Thomas Malthus' earth's carrying capacity junk.
I woke up in the middle of the night, literally screaming that I never wanted to bring children into this horrible world.
August 19, 2008
2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
spencer jr...do we need to have the peer reviewed discussion again?
August 19, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Hey spencerr...baby's doing wonderfully! He's such a joy, so happy and laughing. (Honestly, I hope we can all eventually put our bickering past us and work together to come up with ways to make this world a place our children will continue to stay happy in as they grow up.)
I hope your little girl is bringing you just as much joy. I'm sure she is. Having children gives us new perspectives on so many things. It's kind of like having a chance to grow up again ourselves!
August 19, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
I was just giving an anecdote of my past jay. It was not political, and I am not arguing today.
August 19, 2008
2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Using scare tactics on a 7 yr old is fair game for Jay....... but not even that he cant quote it correctly
I support alternative energies Jay, but I do not support $10/gallon to force the issue. So please quote correctly and in the context of post as it pertains to what others are saying.
But misquoting and then taking out of context is your forte jay.
So Jay lets talk about your reference here. Do you think people will lose their homes and livelyhood iif $10/gallon hits us in the short term. ie before alternative energies are affordable to the masses? That was this discussion before you bastar%ised it.
August 19, 2008
2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
jay btw your first post on here had meat to it and had a dialogue in mind. Actually enjoyed reading it Had some valid points. Hopefully those on BOTH sides of the aisle read it
August 19, 2008
2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Hey, MTS,
She is cooing now. She makes the most beautiful little noises right as we are getting ready to go to sleep.
Yeah, I'm not getting into the bickering today.
1. I'm not mad enough at libs right now.
2. I have to leave work in a minute.
3. I have spent more time in the last three months than someone should in a lifetime bickering with libs about this crud.
August 19, 2008
2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
CoLib, regardless, Charles B was not challenging jaymoveon that no one on this thread was advocating for $10/gas, yet your post to him inferred that he was, even though he clearly asked for quotes from politicians. Charles B was having discussions with other people about the policies of our public officials, and perhaps that is why he interpreted "some of you" as Democratic politicians. Yes, some clarification got lost in the discussion.
August 19, 2008
2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spenc, I know what you mean. I get so weary of the eternal arguments. Perhaps I need to rethink some of my ways of "communicating." And maybe not get so riled up by the initial rude comments I read, because of course, that just flames me to be rude right back.
I love those little noises! My son is finally starting to say something that sounds like "ma-ma-ma-ma-ma"...FINALLY. He's been saying "da-da-da" and something that sounds like "doggy" (we have three dogs) for months now. Yet I'm the one he's around the most!
August 19, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
MTS
Here is what Charles stated "August 19, 2008
1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
jaymoveon claimed:
"Some of you want to see $10 a gallon gas so it forces many of us to invest and then buy alternative energy."
Who does? I want quotes. What mainstream politician has overtly expressed this as a policy initiative?
Nobody. It's a straw-man and you have no credibility."
That was his entire post.
I answered the "Who does" part of that question. Now lets segway to Charles next statement of Nobody. It is a strawman and you have no credibility.....statement.
No reference, inference was EVER given by jaymoveonorg to qualify that statement of politicians. This was added to the statement by Charles. Should never have been part of the qualifications.
August 19, 2008
2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
engineer writes:
dukeco1 - not really a plausible counter-argument there. Let's try again everyone (repost from above):
"Drilling should be encouraged in the US not to drop prices, but to stop the irresponsible environmental destruction exportation that the US system currently relies upon. We are ALREADY drillling in the Artic, in Siberia, where there are little enviro control and even less enforcement. An area around this drilling in the 90's was considered a disaster zone by the government from the pollution.
The US has some of the world's most strict drilling regulations. We need to supply clean oil from the US for US use, and stop ruining third world countries simply because it is easier. We need to deal with our own environmental degredation!! As a whole, the world would benefit.
I have posted this over 50 times in various forums, and have been completely ignored by the anti-drilling crowd."
August 19, 2008
2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"I support alternative energies Jay, but I do not support $10/gallon to force the issue."
this is another strawman argument, colib. why in the world would you think supporting the development of alternative energy sources is equal to supporting $10/gallon gasoline?
and btw...you must have accidentally posted under "jaymoveorg" instead of your usual handle...as i was quoting him...maybe if you'd just stick to the one name you wouldn't get confused...
August 19, 2008
2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
MTS,
I have learned over my arguments with you and Malis and a few others that it is all about two sides with two different agendas. It is really very subjective. We all have our scales out, and before we came to the argument, we each weighed what is more important to us; ideologies (gov good or bad, corporate good or bad, gov't hands off, gov can do it better, individual vs. state, vs. fed. rights), economics, environment, whatever.
It is not that anyone is necessarily wrong. They just go searching for the point in the argument, no matter how weak, that goes with their agendas.
No one will ever convince anyone on one of these things of anything, no matter how well they argue.
The only reason to keep coming back is to unwind jay's fallacious arguments (the problem with him is that he usually doesn't argue your side's strong points. He insists that liberalism is hands down superior and without its problems).
August 19, 2008
3 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
MTS I am not trying to be rude to you in any way. I apologize if that seems to be the case. I like our conversations. We may not agree all the time, but we are spirited in what we do. That is a good thing.
I just hate some of the tactics on here that skew what is said and what the intentions of those posts just for political blustering.
It has been a very long time since Charles and I have chatted about anything.....Heck last time we did, his alter ego NotChasB accused us of being buddies........and not in just the beer drinking sense of the words!!!! LOL Just because I did not agree with how NotChasB was misquoting and being an arse to a fellow person on this forum
August 19, 2008
3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
jay thanks for the assumptions dude. This is the only login name I have.
If you would have taken the time to read all of the posts on here you would find multiple people are supporting higher and higher gas prices as to force alternative energies. Read them Jay. Nice way for you to use soundbite tactics to make your stupid points. My point was exactly that...... I DO NOT SUPPORT HIGHER GAS TAXES TO FORCE ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES........ Simple, to the point and is in context with other posters I have named..........
Keep twisting the quotes, and the context....... It is really becoming a highlite of our day here..........
August 19, 2008
3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
That's cool, CoLib. I didn't think you were being rude to me.
Spencerr, what I think derails so many of these conversations is that we all fail to see that ultimately we want many of the same things. If we could just keep that in mind, we might discuss more productively about the means to get those things.
For example, both sides ultimately want to feel free, in charge of their own destinies, and in control of their own lives. A lot of conservatives feel that government is the single underlying cause preventing this, while many libs fear that corporate power is becoming too big and is threatening these freedoms.
If you really get to the heart of the matter, we probably all see instances of abuse of power in both government and business, but we've ended up having to defend one or the other when making our case against the entity we feel is the most threatening. Thus, libs who feel business should be regulated are accused of wanting government to be our nannies, while conservatives who believe in less regulation are accused of being Big Business toadies.
At least that's my perspective.
August 19, 2008
3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Jay..... And yes I support Alternative energies. Actually in process of investing in them for my residential needs. And working hard to start an Eco based consulting company. btw How are your Alternative energy needs coming along? Need any help? Bury the hatchet Jay and lets work together.....can reduce costs, and do better for the environment. If you think you have hurt my feelings, well being a project manager, you are pretty tame compared to some of my business partners.......... If your scared say your scared and lets move on.
August 19, 2008
3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Nice post MTS Nice! Thanks
Off to meetings so everyone enjoy their day!
August 19, 2008
3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
ActualThinker writes:
mmammino- So by your definition, increasing the supply of oil by 1% over the next 5-10 years is "a lot"?? That study was done by YOUR president's energy staff on what drilling all of our off shoring drilling capabilities would do. How is this 1% increase over 5-10 years going to drop prices again? Please explain. Your natural gas is a great example, Colorado is producing a lot more natural gas over the last few years, and yet the price is still significantly more. Do you see how that works? It doesn't make a dent in the big picture, it's a band aid. A already used, rotten band aid. It does nothing to fix us long term. I'm not against it for environmental reasons, I'm against the lies its producing, people have this notion that we start drilling off shore and gas will drop below $3 tomorrow, I almost want the republicans to succeed so maybe when nothing happens to prices people will stop falling for the junk they spew. ANWR is a different animal that even many republicans including McCain are against. Republicans had a president and a senate/house majority for the last six years until recently, if it was just a democratic blockade then they would have done something then wouldn't they? Instead they presided over the greatest price explosion in our history, and gave tax breaks to their buddies. They sat around and did nothing until its election year and now keep spreading mistruths in hopes people like you fall for it.
August 19, 2008
3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"I DO NOT SUPPORT HIGHER GAS TAXES TO FORCE ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES."
calm down, colib. take a breath. less emotions more logic.
that statement and your earlier statements aren't one in the same.
again...it is a false dilemma and a chicken littlesque to try to make a connnection between alternative energy development and skyrocketing gas costs to the tune of $10/gallon.
furthermore, who is talking about raising gas taxes to $10/Gallon...do you have a source for that kind of rhetoric?
August 19, 2008
4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Jay, I misspoke on gas taxes. I meant PRICES not TAXES. Multiple people on here are saying that they approve of higher gas PRICES to force alternative energies. I have listed their names so please read above...... Was trying to multitask and failed on that piece of it Jay. But hey my work budget is on track, on time on budget so that is a good thing.....bonus is that my mistake here allowed you to accuse me of crap without clarification. So both of us happy Jay.
Again what alternative energies are you investing in to aleviate our energy needs and to move to alternative energies? Or because I am bringing this home, I assume that is a strawman also......... Do as you say Jay not as you do?
August 19, 2008
4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
jackson_foi writes:
AT, you must be right, it is very curious that none of the Repubs want to drill in ANWR. They must want prices to stay higher since ANWR is the one place where production would be available soon. The delivery system (TAPS) is already in, the technology to drill at 80 below is being used 60 miles away, and the resource would add 20% to the US oil supply. The proposed drilling site is on the coastal plain (think offshore Louisiana) not mountain valley (like Estes Park). Isn't that odd.
August 19, 2008
4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
familyortiz writes:
Drilling without any effort in reducing consumption, is nonsense. If you knew an addict, would you just give him more of the drug without reducing the use? My opinion is that a large number of americans don't want to give up a thing and yet have it all. Wake up!
August 19, 2008
4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
ActualThinker writes:
Jackson-I'm with you if you can prove to me it will do anything close to 20% boost you've mentioned. I've read several articles that all put it more like 3%. Keep in mind that the companies drilling it are global, and prices are set globally. We export oil currently and would end up exporting some of that too so 20% increase in the U.S.'s production does NOT mean 20% increase in U.S. supply at all. The U.S. for its large increases in price still have some of the cheapest gas, oil companies will continue to deliver this oil where it's most profitable for them.
We still haven't mentioned our refinery capabilities are near maxed out now, it takes years to get one of those up and running so even more oil doesn't help if we cant turn it in to gas. So by the time we figure this all out and open up more refineries wouldn't we be better off setting up solar and wind grids and powering cars through this electricity and possibly hydrogen so that we dont go through the same thing every 10 years? Oil no matter where its drilled in the U.S. is not renewable. The Sun and the Wind, those aren't going away, and I'm pretty sure the sun isn't funding any terrorist groups either (though I never trusted the wind).
August 19, 2008
4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Meter6 writes:
Froward - You rely too much on the media for your information. Oh no! The oil companies have reached record profits again what does this mean? Well not much really. There are other more accurate ways to measure how much money a company is making aside from profit alone. The media chooses profit because for some reason some people think that it's a bad thing to make money so it causes an uproar of jelousy. One way to measure profitability is profit margin. Profit margin measures how much money a company makes on each dollar of sales. Guess what Exxon/Mobil's profit margin was. 50 cents to the dollar, nope. 25? Nope. 10? Nope. Try about 6. Exxon makes 6 cents for every dollar of it's oil sales. It has been this way for years.
Profit margin is an indicator of a company's pricing policies and its ability to control costs. So what does this mean? Two things, Exxon is not gouging and it's really expensive to produce oil.
August 19, 2008
5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Meter6 writes:
familyortiz - Oil is not an addiction it's a necessity. My car runs on gas, so does yours, and so does darn near every other mode of transportation in this country, therefore we require oil to function. It would be nice if we didn't require oil, but we do and we need to come to grips with that fact. Wake up! There is nothing else that is currently viable for our transportation needs other than gas.
By the way, I have read on here that many folks think that supply has absolutely no effect on the price of gas. This is crazy talk. I also gathered that many folks on here that were making these comments have acknowledged that they are on the left. If in fact the supply makes no difference why are democrats in favor of robbing from the reserves to lower prices? This is a dumb tactic for many reasons, but here are two: Hurricane season is upon us and Russia is suddenly reviving it cold war attitude. Let's leave those reserves alone shall we.
The reason gas prices have not fallen along with the slide in oil is due to an economic phenomena called "rockets and feathers." Google it. It's the gas stations doing the gouging, not the oil companies. Who's really increasing their profit margins? Here's a link and a quote: "One result, obvious to me now that it has pointed out, is that retailer profit margins are higher when prices are falling (and consumers do less shopping around) and lower when prices are rising."
http://www.knowledgeproblem.com/archi...
August 19, 2008
5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
ActualThinker writes:
Meter-Retailer mark up is an interesting article, I'll have to look more in to that. I'll have to disagree with you on a necessity though. Gas in Europe is above $7/gallon most everywhere. It's still a necessity to them, but they use quite a bit less, they also have much smaller cars. Next time you are on the highway count how many SUV's you see that only have one person in them. That's not a necessity. A car having more than 4 cylinders is not a necessity either. We will probably always need some oil, but our addiction is that we waste way more than we need. It's pathetic the lack of growth in MPG over the last 30 years. Carmakers focused on finding ways to put 10 cupholders in cars and stupid "necessities" instead.
August 19, 2008
5:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Meter6: "The reason gas prices have not fallen along with the slide in oil is due to an economic phenomena called "rockets and feathers." Google it. It's the gas stations doing the gouging, not the oil companies."
That's a first. If there's one party that both the left and the right have refrained from blaming, it's the gas station retailers. I thought it was common knowledge that retailers make only pennies per gallon sold.
In fact, there was an interesting article about Exxon gas station operators recently, where more and more are going out of business because Exxon keeps raising their rents. One operator had invested $800,000 over the last few years in his station and had yet to make a profit. He said he would have been better off just investing his money in Exxon stock.
Here's a link to another article about diminishing profits for gas retailers, if you're interested: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/...
August 19, 2008
5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Charles, Your comments were to jaymoveonorg not mmaninnos that I was referring to. I think that your comments got intermingled...... at least that is what I kind of figured out after reading multiple times to try and see where it was coming from. That was after discussing with M2S that I looked into it further.
btw you still owe me a beer from that discussion with your alter ego NotChasB........ Forget the current day, wifes b-day...... but dont forget a beer promise :-) Later my friend
August 19, 2008
6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
jackson_foi writes:
Right again AT. The 20% does refer to US production. So, 1MMBPD would be 20% of the current 5. None of it would be exported, as that deal was cut a long time ago. So it would go to the refineries on the west coast, which are currently running something else. The total US demand is about 16. An extra million would easily fit into our system, but the barrels which are coming here would have to go someplace else. Perhaps China, perhaps Japan, but those would be world market transactions at those prices. The world produces about 76MMBPD per day, so the extra 1 would amount to about 1%, and would have an effect on price.
August 19, 2008
7:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
engineer; it has always been a mystery to me why so-called environmentalists don't seem to be too concerned with most other parts of the world drilling with far less regard to the environment than the U.S.
Sensible; it is as simple as you state the speculation that we will drill is enough to at least stabilize prices and probably drop them some . Just think if "big oil" took no profit (8-9%) the price would go down about .32 cents. Of course federal tax dollars would suffer too (no profit to tax). The price of gas in some areas would go down even more than .32 cents if it was not taxed at all.
August 19, 2008
8:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
Charles_B,
Obama has stated that we should not import Canadian crude from oil sands. He objects to the supposed CO2 levels in the production process. When the Canadians objected to his statement, Obama seemed to back off. Who knows what Obama will really do if he is elected.
The American left is totally out of step with the rest of the world. The rest of the world is allowing exploration for oil and natural gas in promising areas. We have the strictest environmental regulations and private investors willing to risk billions on exploration but the left will not permit development. We are the only country that does not reprocess plutonium. Most other countries have substantially scaled back non economically viable wind and solar projects. The left here insists on outrageously expensive wind (hundreds of miles in the midwest) and solar (100 square miles) projects. The rest of the world is building clean coal plants and synthetic oil from coal. The left here insists on blocking every coal initiative.
The rest of the world is in line with a "develop everything" philosophy. The left here is delusional in their pursuit of a world without fossil fuels.
August 19, 2008
8:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Obama, if elected will tow the party line and go a little further to the left towards socialism.
August 19, 2008
8:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
ActualThinker writes:
mmannino-There have been a couple dozen decent "left" ideas on this thread that specifically countered your earlier remarks but you seemed to have ignored those and still blame the left for problems republicans are just as responsible for (or even more considering the majority in both houses and presidency they did nothing with). Oil and coal are finite resources that are being used very quickly. Do you really want to go thru these issues every decade? We have to conserve these resources as much as possible and develop renewable ones, I'm not sure how you don't see that but I would like for both my future and my kids to not be dealing with these problems over and over again.
August 20, 2008
7:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
MTS, if you are still around,
I believe you are correct to a point, at least about nannyism. However, I think people ultimately are torn between the weights of two different perspectives. Take home ownership and building. Government wants you to have a permit, even for dinky stupid add-ons. From one perspective, the owner thinks, "why should I get one? It is my home. Government butt out!" From the other perspective, the owner thinks "hey, this is a good thing. A government inspector will come in afterward and make certain the contractor I used did a good job."
Forgive me, but I am trying to stay non-political about everything.
I think other decisions are similar. On the one hand, people feel good that their tax money goes into programs that help the poor, and they loathe the idea that one person can make millions while another has to rely on healthcare. On the other hand, that same person knows that if government simply takes from one for the benefit of the other, the economy will likely suffer. And besides, the loser in that situation likely put in sixty or eighty hour days and/or a lot of risk to his own personal well-being in order to make all that money. You and I take these opposing positions. We know the strong points of our own arguments (I would argue that I also know your side of the argument pretty well, and that from you listening to my rants, you know my argument pretty well too). We have each decided that our strong points trump the other's. Of course, there is more to this argument, but I'm trying to stay brief.
Some value the protection the government brings over the freedom that government takes away. Some value life more than liberty.
And from these ideological decisions, we all bring our agendas to the table.
August 20, 2008
7:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
MTS, all that being said,
I believe that you are correct to a point. People want the same thing...for this world to be the best place possible. It is our perspective on how to best accomplish that that differs.
People from both parties, like jay, think that they can both have their cake and eat it. They can't. Essentially, everyone on both sides relies on a "strawman argument," as far as building up their own argument and downplaying the other side's. I downplay global warming. You downplay the economic disadvantages of an all out war on global warming. That is why I hate the term strawman. We all have our own perspectives, and we all depend upon strawmen, at least as perceived by the other side.
I have chosen the economy over everything, and I value individual freedom over that of the state's and state power over that of the nation. I believe that this country was founded on hard work and the incentive (this is the land of opportunity) of working one's way up in the socioeconomic ladder. Even though some are left behind, that is what made this country so great.
There are those who think radically different; the socialists (and there are those in between, like you and most liberals and conservatives). They believe in federal government and that it is necessary to govern...well, everything. They make us put our seat belts and put our kids in car seats. They make us quit smoking. They redistribute wealth in the form of "programs." Many run-of-the-mill libs agree to a point with these ideas. However, they value the overall health of society and believe that they have the ability to make it better.
While I value the overall health of our society, I think by "nannying," the government actually creates an atmosphere of dependence that is self-perpetuating and self-growing, that will eventually lead us to become a waning society, such as France.
August 20, 2008
7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Let me explain the last point. We are the last world power. We are the only one in the world capable of sticking up for ourselves. We are an economic giant, and we are a military giant. Japan and the EU are both economic big boys too. No one else in the world has our military power (though China may be getting close). China is the closest thing to a world power that is left besides us. Russia is pathetic in that it values its military more than its people. China is working on both.
During and directly after the time when Napolean marched across Europe, France was the premier world power (followed by Britain, Austria, Germany, the Ottoman empire). France is the most notable because of the two who still remain in their former forms (Britain being the other), France is the weaker. During WWII, pacifist elitest France rolled over when Germany decided to try to take over the world. We had to rescue them (with the help of Russia), and we have been playing world policeman ever since, whether for good or ill.
France is a nice place, but like so many other cultures throughout time, it would dissapear in ashes only to be reborn as another entity later on if it were not for the U.S. to back it up. They would be speaking German or Russian now if it wasn't for us.
America my be devoid of a dominant, singular culture (beyond capitalism, which I would argue is a waning culture here), but it stands in the way of tyrants destroying others. That is why it is currently the greatest country in the world. Watch us go the way of France, and you will see worldwide turmoil. Iran invading Iraq. China and N. Korea invading Japan and S. Korea. Russia building up its former Soviet power. Venezuela invading Colombia. Everyone invading Israel.
We are the only ones stopping it, so we had better avoid going the direction of France.
August 20, 2008
7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Way more political and off point than I meant it to be. I don't care if you agree with me. It is just my perspective (and that of a lot of good thinking people).
August 20, 2008
9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr, I agree with you that the government can be overbearing, restrictive, and basically a bureaucratic nightmare. That happens when any entity becomes too centralized, too big...and it can happen with business, too, especially when they begin to monopolize a market.
Speaking of which, you mention what made this country great is hardworking people - and I believe you were using capitalists as an example. It's true these people were almost superhuman in their persistence and innovation, however, their ideas never would have gotten off the ground without labor - including slave labor, not just African Americans, but Chinese "coolies" and other workers imported from different countries.
Additionally, many of these capitalists - John D. Rockefeller and his Standard Oil Company is an instructive example - did a great deal to actually crush competition and establish chokeholds on industry. You once mentioned you'd almost rather see America ruled by a "benign dictator" - a rather odd wish coming from someone who says he values individual freedom - so perhaps you actually admire such totalitarian capitalism.
When it gets to that point, I don't. In fact, I believe there is a certain point where capitalism has to be saved from itself, because left unchecked, tyrannies are born. I don't want to be ruled by a tyrant in government and I don't want to be ruled by a tyrant in business. If you think it's just a matter of "then don't by their product" you are dead wrong.
At any rate, I think you view the history of America from rather rosy-tinted glasses.
It's not that I don't admire much of what the early capitalists accomplished. It's just that I don't assign them the only role in "making our country great." They were architects, to be sure, but it took plain old unglamorous labor to actually lay the bricks.
And so, I also give a great deal of credit to the muckrakers and social activists of the day for assuring - often at the threat of their own lives - that these vital members of humanity weren't crushed into the dust.
August 20, 2008
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
ActualThinker,
I countered every argument. Here are my points.
The left is against economic freedom. They want to control the types of energy sources developed and seize the profits of industries not developing the right energy sources. The left is actively trying to stop every coal power plant.
The left wants high energy prices at least in the short term. Many Democrats echoing remarks on this thread have stated the virtues of high gas prices. The chosen one has even stated that high energy prices are good except that he wants the prices to rise slowly.
The left ignores basic economic principles. A large increase in oil supply will have a substantial impact on price. In addition, development of domestic energy sources will create economic growth.
The American left is out of touch with the rest of the world. Other countries are developing available energy sources both conventional and non conventional. The French rely on nuclear power. The Chinese are developing coal and nuclear power. Many European countries are scaling back renewable projects because of development problems and non economic viability.
The left has dangerous delusions of a world without fossil fuels even in the short term. Both Gore and the chosen have stated the goal of elimination of fossil fuels in power plants in 10 years. This delusion if enacted will lead to an energy meltdown.
The left wants massive subsidies and mandates for non economically viable energy sources. The proposed legislation to mandate renewables is strong evidence of the left's intention.
We are experiencing problems as a result of obstructionist energy policies. These policies have restricted development of conventional energy sources (oil, natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear) for 30 years. I welcome private investment in any energy technology. I am firmly opposed to mandates for any energy technology. I can live with some development subsidies but mandates only lead to boondoggles like corn-based ethanol.
August 20, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
mmanino: "I welcome private investment in any energy technology. I am firmly opposed to mandates for any energy technology."
What is your position on energy tax subsidies? Do you support keeping them in place for oil companies? If so, do you also support granting subsidies for renewable energy technologies?
August 20, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
No, mytwosense,
I don't view America with rosy tinted glasses. America had (still has) its problems. They were worse back then. Children died in factories, the military killed unionized strikers, monopolies were created and defended at all costs. You are right. Government has its place.
I wasn't talking about entrepreneurs only. I was talking about all Americans including coolies and slaves (and other labor). Though the institutions in which they existed were pure evil, their descendants are Americans now. The descendants of coolies are actually even more prosperous than most white middle class people now. American immigrants worked hard and risked everything to be here and make better lives for themselves. America was built on their sweat.
And if you read the entire post from that other thread, I recanted and called my wish for "benevolent" (not benign) conservative rule nothing more than wishful thinking. He was right, checks and balances, and furthermore, I have always known and have always struggled with the reason he was correct. Even if you had your perfect ruler in charge (yours would be more akin to Al Gore while mine would be more akin to Buckley), eventually he would die or get deposed, replaced by a corrupt knucklehead. You don't give me enough credit; I was arguing with a self-destructive wannabe libertarian who accused me of not being a true conservative because I am going to vote for a man who is not conservative (McCain), rather than going his route and shooting myself in the foot by voting for Obama.
Anyway, under benevolent conservatives (libertarian leaning, of course), government would butt out and people would be free to mostly do whatever they wanted within the limits already set by law.
The last part was in defense of myself.
I really didn't intend to get into politics with you, and I am done arguing with you. You are a liberal, and I am a conservative. I am mostly aware of your positions, and neither of us will convince the other.
I like you. I think you are a nice person. My best friend and his dad are both socialists, so I obviously don't associate purely based on politics.
Anyway, it has been nice talking to you!
August 20, 2008
9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
mmanino: "The left ignores basic economic principles. A large increase in oil supply will have a substantial impact on price."
If all other variables hold constant. Like demand. The cost of production. Uninterrupted distribution. And that the oil companies will naturally want to glut the market with as much of this new supply as possible.
Do you really believe that demand isn't going to increase? That drilling offshore and extracting oil from shale isn't more expensive? That a volatile Middle East and Africa won't threaten distribution channels? That oil companies would make the profoundly stupid business decision to glut the markets to excess capacity and see their prices drop?
It's not just a simple matter of supply and demand, my friend. There are numerous factors to consider which have on effect on both, and you seem to be ignoring them all.
As I said in an earlier post, I believe that additional drilling, which is going to take years to produce a "great supply" of oil, will not prevent gas from reaching exhorbitant prices. It may, however, mean we're paying $7.89 a gallon rather than $8.00.
And if you people obstruct every effort to get renewable energy sources in place before then, we're going to be in a world of hurt.
August 20, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr, sorry I didn't see where you recanted the benevolent dictator thing.
Anyway, you make strange assumptions about me. When have I ever raved about Al Gore? I don't dislike the guy, and I believe he's actually done more with his life than most other failed candidates for the Presidency. But, I hardly view him as some sort of Messiah.
I don't view anyone as that, in fact, except the actual Messiah!
I would like to see brave political leaders from both parties, or Independents and third parties, and frankly, (with the exception of Independents and third parties), I think most are in the pockets of corporations now. It's simply that expensive to run for political office in this country, perhaps they have little choice, I don't know. Dennis Kucinich is one of the few brave holdouts, and I honestly used to think the same about McCain. Not sure where he's at these days, though. I don't like some of the advisors he's conferring with.
Basically, I'm for a strong democracy. I recognize for one to truly succeed, the people need to be educated and have a healthy self-regard. Many forces at work in this country undermine that, and truth be told, probably some from the liberal faction, too.
August 20, 2008
10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
I actually wrote a long counterpoint to your argument with Mmannino, but I am not going to post it. I am going to be good.
McCain is doing what he has to in order to get elected. He can't get elected without conservative support. I don't like a lot of his positions, but he is better than a democrat to me. Anyway, I like that he obviously has relatively conservative economic advisors. And at this point in a presidential election, if you, as a liberal, have a republican running for president who has been preaching renewable energy for the last ten years, you are doing good.
I meant no offense with the Al Gore comment. It was a "for example." I honestly don't know who you think would be best suited to run the country, nor do I pretend to.
August 20, 2008
10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr: "Anyway, I like that he obviously has relatively conservative economic advisors."
What do you think of Phil Gramm?
Also, I would have been interested in your response about my post to mmarino. Wonder if he/she will actually offer any counterpoints. I'm just throwing some possibilities out there, because I honestly don't believe that offshore drilling and oil shale development are a slam dunk to affordable prices. But hey, I'm just some anonymous gal in the peanut gallery, what do I know?
August 20, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
That is my whole point about this forum. As the peanut gallery, we are wasting a lot of time and emotion, for not being able to affect anything.
I don't know anything about Phil Gramm, so I will google it. Just a minute...
...okay, I am taking it you don't like his recent famous quote about whiners.
First of all, I don't like that he made a lot of his money by investing in porn.
However untactful his comments, however, I think a lot of Americans agree with the basic gist. I think a lot of my issues with liberal thought are because it plays to the "whining." To me, it is the equivalent of a fourth grade election, where the kids complain that they can't chew gum in class and they don't like detention, so little Suzie gets up in front of the class and promises that she will let everyone chew gum and skip detention if she is elected. The kids ignore the practicality of her policies and simply vote for her because of her populist agenda.
This downturn in the business cycle is largely caused by media incessantly talking about its inevitability for the last three or four years (another point he made).
My diagnosis; Economically sound, but without any morals.
August 20, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Hmmm, I was thinking more along the lines of his and his wife's architecture of the infamous Enron Loophole. Look it up, and then ask yourself, "economically sound" for who? A lot of folks believe that piece of legislation is playing a key role in the soaring prices within the oil futures market now, too.
I didn't even know he was involved in investing in porn. Yikes.
August 20, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Here is my take on your arguments with mnmnmnmn. I am done arguing though, so believe what you will but know whatever your response, I will not provide a counterpoint, and all you will have managed to do is make me a little angrier today.
"One quick jab, MTS, regarding your post with mmannino.
There is a government-contrived energy shortage happening right now, caused by leftist politicians over the last thirty years stalling the creation of nuclear power plants, oil refining capacity, and restrictions on where companies can drill. In my opinion, this is a hedge for their bet that we would be out of oil by now anyway.
You are right. When the oil does finally get to market fifteen years from now, it will be more expensively produced oil than the "low hanging fruit" that we have mostly already finished drilling. It may lead to an increase in pollution, not just the CO2 kind.
I would just like to point out that your way of thinking over the last thirty years has caused us to find ourselves where we are now.
Supply and demand is the only thing driving price (besides the cost of input). Those things you mention, such as speculators, factor into the equation (they affect supply and/or demand). They may take supply off the market and help to drive up prices.
The super long-term answer is green technology. Government needs to stay out of it altogether until it can compete on its own with oil; no subsidies or increased taxes, either for oil or the green companies. America is in a world of hurt now and will continue to be in an increasing world of hurt for the duration of our lives if we (essentially) go cold turkey on oil.
You will see our energy sector transformed, but you will also see the transformation of our entire economy, and at least for the first few decades, it will mean a far weaker economy because of runaway inflation caused by us using (economically )inefficient and relatively expensive incarnations of green energy."
I would also point out that increasing American production where increased worldwide drilling would happen anyway (it will, regardless of whether we are the ones doing it) would essentially mean that oil jobs do not get outsourced. To be brief, the import/export ratio (otherwise known as the trade deficit) would improve for America, and there would be more good paying American jobs in this sector.
August 20, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Anyway, MTS, have a nice day! I have to get back to work (ugghhh, have you ever awakened for work feeling sick to your stomach at the prospect of spending another day doing the job you do?)
August 20, 2008
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
I needed to familiarize myself with your enron "loophole."
Deregulating a monopoly without creating more competition is always shaky business. Maximizing profit does not necessarily equate to maximizing benefit, especially when the entity is a monopoly in its market. There must have been something in it for the Grahams. I doubt he did this based on his economics training.
Immoral but intelligent then. Essentially the same conclusion as before.
I still prefer his economics to Obama's advisor's.
August 20, 2008
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr, the only way you can argue liberals are to blame for high energy costs for consumers is if you omit several factors, which you did:
1) The past eight years have been incredibly friendly for the oil industry in this country. More leases than ever have been granted, and Bush has essentially taken the teeth out of the EPA.
2) For years, Jeb Bush was one of the primary obstacles to offshore drilling in Florida.
3) If thirty years ago, fuel efficiency standards had been enacted, most of our fleet would now be converted to high mileage per gallon. No matter the price of gas at the pump, Americans would ultimately be spending less on gas.
4) Deregulation of the oil futures market which allowed excess capacity to be taken off the markets and thus, helped drive up prices.
5) A stupid and stupendously expensive war in Iraq, which has contributed to a volatile and uncertain market.
6) Obstruction by the oil and auto industry of electric car technology coming to the mass market.
7) Conservative assistance with all of the above.
August 20, 2008
1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
And yet, you are still ignoring most of the supply side of the energy market, laying blame, in the end, on conservatives.
Open your eyes a little (no offense meant, really!). This is your side's agenda. You want oil to be expensive so that greens can compete. You are fine with supply stagnating because it means that greens will have their chance sooner. Stop trying to argue that repubs had the more significant part to play in the skyrocketing price of gas. There are many factors involved, not the least of which is Chinese demand, which is uninhibited because government subsidizes it for them. Supply is huge (inhibited mostly by Dems). Demand is big too (and you wish that the government would have made the consumption choices for the people thirty years ago that would affect historical and current demand. I believe that people can decide for themselves).
You(r party) are torn because green policy, in its current baby form, hurts the poor. However, a significant part of your coalition are die hard watermelons (green on the outside...). This is a rift in your party equivalent to the current republican rift between social conservatives and New York conservatives (economics and military only conservatives).
This is the single reason that McCain is even slightly capable of holding Obama at bay during this upcoming election. The democrats are having to decide between pandering to the poor or pandering to the greenies.
On the other hand, McCain is moderate and believes in renewables, so if that is your issue, there isn't much of a difference between the two.
August 20, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
I really didn't want to go here with you again. It is my stance that we simply have two different agendas and have weighed the variables differently from our two different points of view.
I am willing to make concessions about my weak points (aka, your strong points). You make few concessions, even if you know they are there. You defend everything, even if it is indefensible. You could just admit your agenda and agree to disagree with me.
Dems are largely to blame for an oil supply (and non-green energy in general including nuclear) shortage that is currently driving up prices. They are more concerned with the environment.
Repubs, on the other hand, are not so concerned with the environment (because they mostly believe that the issue has been developed as a strawman argument). There are lesser demand issues which they are bad on, but their libertarian instincts keep telling them to not let government interfere in those, and again, they don't feel the environmental problem is that serious.
There may be subtle variations from person to person. We have built our agendas based upon the significance in our own minds of each variable.
There is nothing for someone like you to argue with someone like me about. We are in agreement with most of the basic facts. We are in disagreement regarding how important each fact is.
That is why politics is taboo in casual social settings. Too much emotion, and really, nearly everyone already knows the same basic facts. It is their interpretation that is different. The only thing that takes the country in a different political direction is a change in mood. The facts always remain the same.
Up until recently, the country was headed leftward. I think because of gas prices, its leftward migration may be ebbing off a little.
August 20, 2008
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Anyway, MTS, thought I would just give you MTS. Most of us do want the world to be as good as possible. We just have different ideas as to what that entails.
(playful elbow) I still think that you and yours are sukkers and pawns of the real socialists.
August 20, 2008
2 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
colib, it sounds like you've figured out why your argument is a strawman. don't feel bad, happens to all of us from time to time.
we aren't faced with a false dilemma either....we can incentivize alternative energy development without resorting to forcing gas to $10 a gallon to do it. i also don't see anyone suggesting that we actively do this either...but rather correctly pointing out that the higher gas goes, the more sacrifices folks will be willing to make to find another source of energy.
as far as what i've done...we recycle of course, drive less, replaced windows, home systems and appliances with more efficient models, take bags to the grocery store and use biodegradible poop bags, grow a garden, etc etc...many of the same "little things" that everyone can do to decrease their footprint. i also started a company a few years ago and structured it so that all employees can telecommute from their respective homes in their respective markets. i used to float between several different offices in denver and several in other parts of the country and have honestly found that folks are more productive and much less stressed when not having to fight the commute and spend the extra money on gas. we plan on putting solar on our home here in denver but are waiting until the final addition is completed before pulling the trigger. we live very near downtown so try to bike as much as possible when we socialize. hope you're also doing some things to reduce your impact on our environment.
"you are still ignoring most of the supply side of the energy market, laying blame, in the end, on conservatives."
i am not seeing that at all, spencer, in fact i think it is you who is ignoring some of the facts surrounding this issue.
now...unless you've found a way to illustrate that global demand increased 300% since 2001, you can't make the case that supply and demand have played any bigger of a role in skyrocketing energy costs than the less politically inconvenient factors for you...like conservative policies that devalued the dollar and further destabilized the middle east...not to mention blatant refusal to increase oversight of the markets.
lucky for the rest of us, we don't mind reminding some of you that you've got to take ALL of those factors into account, instead of obsessing on a couple...trying for instance, to scapegoat one (like alternative energy development) and parrot right wing industry talking points about others (increasing domestic production through drilling in environmentally sensitive areas instead of more sensible avenues).
you're not alone in this rhetoric, spencer jr, so i don't want you to think i'm picking on you….oh…and by the way....i thought we'd established that the socialism rhetoric just makes you look ignorant.
August 20, 2008
2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
jay, I thought we established that you were supposed to let MTS do all your arguing because whenever you touch a keyboard, you look ignorant.
I've already debunked your fallacious supply and demand argument - see my last posting on Europeanization of democratic party.
Shoo fly.
August 20, 2008
2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
spencer jr, please dont pout because you can't refute the facts.
either you can...or you can't...attacking me isn't going to help your cause.
did you think you could just go on posting far right wing rhetoric without reprisal?
if you can prove that demand went up 300%...then i missed it.
please post your source and try to leave "socialistic" myths out of it.
http://zfacts.com/p/35.html
otherwise, i'd love for you to address the other factors that have cause fuel costs to skyrocket under the republicans' watch.
remember kids...politically inconvenient facts are still facts...no matter what rush tells you.
August 20, 2008
2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
jay, another example of you posting things that hurt your own cause. The graph you posted show prices and market-equilibrated supply and demand pairings. Like I said. You are not showing me a "demand" graph. Go take econ 101.
August 20, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr: "And yet, you are still ignoring most of the supply side of the energy market, laying blame, in the end, on conservatives."
I listed seven factors, and four of them - more than half my list - are directly related to supply.
August 20, 2008
2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
1, 2, and 4 make three. Florida republican governors don't count because they are pandering to a moderate crowd; they should be ashamed to call themselves republicans. They are pandering.
Remaining low-hanging fruit is off limits (ANWR), and speculators inflame the problem, not cause it. The three points you had directly relating to supply.
August 20, 2008
2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
anyway, mts,
really done this time. I am going home for the day.
August 20, 2008
2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr: "Florida republican governors don't count because they are pandering to a moderate crowd; they should be ashamed to call themselves republicans. They are pandering."
To whom? I would guess at least some of the entities they're "pandering" to are the lucrative tourism and fishing industries Florida depends on, which would be badly damaged, maybe even wiped out if a bad enough spill occurred in Florida waters.
I also think it's interesting that you believe any Republican concerned with environmental issues should be ashamed to call themselves a Republican. I'm telling you, you people are backing yourselves into an unenviable corner if you persist in opposing all things environmental. The Dems did it with abortion, and I can see Republicans doing it with the environment.
Glad I'm an Independent!
August 20, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
of course it's not a "demand" graph, spencer jr...that's the point.
it's a PRICE graph. now...unless you can show that demand increased with prices...your argument holds no water.
clear it up for you?
so...any thoughts on the factors discussed above?
August 21, 2008
6:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
No, MTS (if you can even find this post at this point),
We are not against everything environmental. We are against government telling us what is best for us and making rules and regulations. The real problem for us is that we are starting to see that the "environmental" issue of man-made global warming is becoming more and more deflated by science. With each passing year that global temperatures do not increase (going on 11 or 12 now, I believe) and each new study by an academic formerly on the band wagon that debunks man's role in global warming, we dig our nails in deeper. And it is not only a matter of ideologically knowing that our federal government was created as a loose bridge to the union of the fifty states, meant to do little more than provide national defense and force the issue of national unity during international struggles and during internal squabling. It is also a matter of economics, which we have already established is not your strong point, not that it even matters to people with your agenda.
Go green technology! Just go at your own pace without government help!
You accuse us of fighting the end. We are not. We are fighting the means.
August 21, 2008
7:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Anyway, we also have different perceptions about abortion. The dems may have lost you because of their support of abortion, but it is one of their stronger unifying issues. It seems to me they have garnered far more support from social liberals because of that issue than they have alienated social conservatives like yourself.
The fundamental difference between cons and libs, at least regarding domestic issues - Libs see a problem, and they deploy government to fix it in the most direct way possible. Cons see a problem and either ignore it because they know the market will probably take care of it, because it is a subjective social issue, because they know that direct intervention will do more harm than good, or because because the libs are falsely screaming "the sky is falling."
Florida Republicans should be spanked, not because they are for environmental fixes, but because they have jumped on the bandwagon of the wolf-crying, government-will-fix-everything, liberals. McCain should be spanked for the same reason, but at least he is migrating, for the moment, to the Right to try to keep the con base voting for him (which many of us are not).
Anyway, the following quote (by the late...W.H.B.), I think does justice to your reaction to my views.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
August 21, 2008
7:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
I am offended by the numerous ways liberal solutions fail with regard to economic logic, i.e. the chain of negative side-effects that follows liberal policy around. However, unlike you, I try to understand the other side's point and at least give it credit for its merits (usually, the intent is good). I also know that there are a lot of ultra-intelligent people in this world, both in history and now, and they sat on both sides of the isle...so there are intelligent people on both sides, even though libs can't see past the first move of a chess game.
August 21, 2008
7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Anyway, popular politics will eventually be the end of America. One day, the country will lie on its back naked, unsuspecting, and turn its head just in time to watch the present incarnation of Russia or China unstrap its belt and start removing its pants...
Popular rule might be a fairer form of government. But it is not better.
Economics, the dismal science, is not popular to the masses, at least not market economics. Nor is war.
One day we will be a big wimpy France, and we will be obliterated.
August 21, 2008
7:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
It is inevitable. It is how all great nations go down; they forget that they were born from blood and their people worked hard to be great, and their leaders start worrying more about how to stay in power and please the masses.
Great government is about letting your own people be free enough to work hard and/or innovate and find their place in the world, while simultaneously protecting them (even if that means a little perceived bullying).
August 26, 2008
2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
HighwayRobbery writes:
The exorbitant price of fuel has driven up the price of everything from the increased production and shipping costs. I have yet to hear more than a sugar coated one liner from either candidates as to their plans to bring Americans relief. Does either candidate even have a plan other than to support new off shore drilling. It is easy to say we need to decrease our dependence of foreign oil and seek out alternative fuel sources, but where's the beef...where's the plan?
a site to share if you should be interested...
www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com