We are committing national suicide
James Runavich, Denver
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
The March 12 Mike Thompson editorial cartoon showing President Bush and Vice President Cheney missing the beauty of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and only seeing oil is ridiculously shortsighted.
Besides the fact that the cartoon would be more appropriate with 20 feet of snow covering the ground (as it is most of the year), and the fact that 99.99999 percent of the population will never see ANWR in person, and technology has come so far as to dramatically reduce our drilling footprint to a minuscule area, environmentalist wackos tug at our heartstrings with garbage like this.
We are paying near $4 a gallon for gas now because we are dependent on foreign oil and have ignored our own reserves. We are committing national suicide by not using our natural resources. If we don't start being realistic about our asinine energy policies dictated by emotion rather than reality we will be more at the mercy of foreign governments than we are now.
Drill ANWR, drill offshore, use wind power, use thermo, convert coal to synthetic oil, build nuclear power plants.
We must think with our heads not our hearts or we will be in a great depression soon enough when gas hits $10 a gallon.
May 21, 2008
8:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Excellent letter.
Most landscapes are beautiful whether it be green pastures, rolling hills, magnificent mountains, peaceful forests, or tranquil shores. Animals are also beautiful creations.
Having said that, I believe human existence is the most beautiful creation of all. And everything else was made for us. We were not created to subsist without the nutrients of the earth or animals.
If you ask me what matters more, humans or landscapes; humans or animals; I always choose humans. The world will long tolerate our meager existence. The land of ANWR, in the blink of time's eye, will hardly remember our puny presence. If there is a resource there that we must extract to better our nation, extract it!
I do wonder how liberalism could have existed in man's prehistoric days. Would hunters actually listen to the female sentimentalists complaints about killing deer and other beautiful animals? I doubt it. I am sure the women probably cringed at the thought of killing such creatures, which is probably the main reason why men handled the dirty job, but I am sure they all feasted gloriously during those cold nights.
May 21, 2008
9:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sweetpickle writes:
Use it now, let the future worry about itself.
If we can make it last another 50 years I'll be OK.
May 21, 2008
9:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jack_Bauer writes:
oil hit $133 a barrel today and all congress can do is question oil company executives. They have about as much common sense as a rock at this point and the people of this country are going to give them even more control?
Maybe releasing our coastlines, roan, ANWR etc, will help in the long term but the stalling tactics by our do nothing congress has finally caught up to us and now oil prices have more than doubled in the last year alone while they sit back and talk only about renewables and why big oil is making an 8% profit.
Yes, renewables are needed but this innovation is going to take time and ethanol is not the answer as has been proven time and again by the law of unintented consequences liberals so conveniently ignore.
Right now we are on the verge of economic collapse and again the congress are only concerned about big oil's average 8% profit margin. They should investigate microsoft - they average 23%, Pepsico 18-1/2%+ if pepsico sold as much soda pop as exxon/mobile sold in gasoline they'd be screaming from the rafters.
All the while we are now complete slaves to the OPEC cartel and it is getting worse by the day. I say if Saudi Arabia isn't willing to strong arm increasing production within OPEC that the price of their new military hardware goes up at ten times the amount oil futures currently are. We do have a weak dollar you know, and we don't take the euro.
If we could flood the market with our own oil we could help to drive the cost down to more reasonable levels, buy that is asking too much.
May 21, 2008
11:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
The more energy-independent we are,the more OPEC is dependent on India and China,who might not adhere as punctiliously as the West to the law of supply and demand.As in "accept our offer or we'll invade you and take it all".....All of a sudden the Chinese are getting suicide-bombed and everybody loves the USA.
But a bunch of suits in Washington yelling at another bunch of suits in Washington won't bring cheap synthetic petroleum products or sugarcane down South.
I know that work on revolutionary developments is kept top secret and we wouldn't know anyway,so here's hoping that if there's a Manhattan Petroleum Project going on,it's somewhere other than Beijing.
May 22, 2008
3:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
RememberThis writes:
Agree wholetankedly
May 22, 2008
5:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
rpmcmurphy writes:
Oil industry experts are predicting $15.00 per gallon gas in 3 years here in the USA. Who can afford that? Do we really want to destroy the nation to save a few hundred acres of tundra that none of us will ever see? It is time to DEMAND that our elected officials make use of our national, natural resources. After all, they do belong to the people of this nation. Anything less, that leads to the destruction of our economy, is treason. Hang'em high.
May 22, 2008
5:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
ANWR is estimated to provide us with an entire 3 years worth of fuel. Let's get in there and piss that away as fast as we can, and maybe a miracle will happen in that time so we can run our cars on water or something...
May 22, 2008
6:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
dont get your shorts up in a twist just yet. the leaders of the democrap party are getting a bill passed to SUE OPEC and with that they will bring the oil producers to their knees. john edwards has agreed to work on the case for only 39% of what the democrap court will say the OPEC nations owe us.
now this is how true energy is found and developed.
any body know how bo or hillbillary plan on lowering the price of gas other than taking oil company profits for social programs? they dont talk about it very much in the way of a solution do they. where is algore with a solution and not just his blow hard ego out there?
May 22, 2008
7:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
seeingeyeseesall writes:
The price of oil is based on the world's total loss of faith in the American banking system and dollar, and has little to do with demand or supply right now. Bush has wasted a trillion dollars in defense contracts, invaded and occupied an unarmed country, permitted - encouraged - the looting of the world's banks with structured investment paper that is now worthless BUT is being propped up to the tune of another trillion dollars by the Federal Reserve ... the oil suppliers are awake, folks, and they don't want our money because they know there's nothing behind it but a printing press... the price of oil will soon equal the price in Euros, that's all that's happening ... it's a switch to a known-good reserve currency, away from the dollar and if you were in their position, looking at the chaos that is America's financial policy, you would do it too.
May 22, 2008
7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
Excellent opinion piece by James Runavich.
Excellent comments by John_II, although a little sexist. Today there are no 'female sentimentalists,' at least not on these comment sections; heck, they are the killers!
May 22, 2008
7:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
Before drilling in the arctic, bite the bullet and lower the speed limit. Get out of bed 15 Minutes earlier to go to work. Put higher mileage standards on the car industry. Our "95 ford escort gets 40 mpg, it can be done. See any big Suvs in England? no, they bit the bullet long ago and drive smaller cars. Stop using so much plastic, buy those shopping bags at a buck apiece and use them. use the oil out of Iraq to pay for the war and their liberation. If we are called upon to liberate a country like we did in Kuwait, charge them for it. Make state executives live within 20 miles of where their job is and drive their own vehicles. There are many ways to slow the bleeding if we just do it, and make these politicians accountable, promises don't get it, Their inaction has got us to this point, this voter getting tired of the bull manure.
May 22, 2008
7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"ANWR is estimated to provide us with an entire 3 years worth of fuel. Let's get in there and piss that away as fast as we can, and maybe a miracle will happen in that time so we can run our cars on water or something..."
Using that idiotic logic, then no one would drill for any oil in any location. Of course, the entire claim that ANWR only has 3 years worth of reserves, is idiotic itself... but then why bother using the fact and truth when that will just undermine the enviro-wacko position.
May 22, 2008
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
SASQUATCH writes:
$300 CRUDE & $15 AT THE PUMP:
Charles Maxwell, dean of the Wall Street Oil Analysts, said it will take $12 to $15 a gallon to get Americans to let go of what he called the “precious freedom of mobility.” As much as Maxwell laments the loss, he sees no other way for the U.S. to impose enough conservation to deal with the growing imbalance between oil demand and supply that he sees developing around 2010 and getting worse in 2012 or 2013, as the world hits a “peak” in conventional oil production.
Because he expects Americans to hang on for dear life to their freedom of mobility, Maxwell says there will have to be a “stomping exercise” to “get them to let go.” Basically, Maxwell said, Americans’ freedom of mobility will have to be stomped on by allowing the supply-constrained price of oil to steadily rise starting in 2010, reaching $180 a barrel in 2015 and $300 a barrel in 2020.
--------
Forty years of experience accurately calling energy markets--and now his latest call is for $300 crude p/b. Meanwhile, the eco-hysterical enviro-phobes offer us windmills and solar that won't add one single drop of crude. Maxwell's CONSERVATION DRIVEN/SUPPLY CONSTRAINT scenario will get NO (000.000) relief from today's failed recycled solutions from the Jimmie Carter era.
I hope it hurts!
May 22, 2008
7:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
SASQUATCH writes:
MAXWELL'S BIO:
As global oil consumption rises and oil production peaks and ebbs, prices will shoot higher — a lot higher, says Maxwell. Maxwell forecasts $180 oil by 2015, and $300 a barrel by 2020. (Courtesy Yahoo Tech Ticker)
Charles Maxwell
Bio: Educated at Princeton as an undergraduate and Oxford as a graduate, Charles T. Maxwell entered the oil industry in 1957 and worked for a major international oil company for 12 years in the US, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. His background has been in four traditional sectors of the industry—producing, refining, transportation, and marketing. In 1968, Mr. Maxwell joined a well-known Wall Street firm as an oil analyst. Known as the “Dean of Energy Analysts, in polls taken by Institutional Investor magazine, Mr. Maxwell has been ranked by the US financial institutions as the No. 1 oil analyst for the years 1972, 1974, 1977 and 1981-1986. In addition, for the last 17 years he has been an active member of an Oxford-based organization comprised of OPEC and other industry executives from 30 countries who meet twice a year to discuss trends within the energy industry. Mr. Maxwell is currently employed by Weeden and Co..
------
SASH first met CM in the early-mid 1970s when he worked for CJ Larence....He made me and my private pension participants a $T-O-N$ of money. Nobody but nobody gets my attention like a successful money maker!
May 22, 2008
8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
This letter is fetid garbage resting on the shuddering heap of a premise that drilling in ANWR will have anything more than a long-deferred and minuscule effect on the cost of gas.
I challenge anyone urging drilling in ANWR to prove otherwise.
Investment in alternative energy resources is the *only* long term solution to keeping the cost of energy affordable. More crapping in our own backyard is not.
May 22, 2008
8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
John_II, I found this statement to be a perfect example of your epic narcissism:
"I believe human existence is the most beautiful creation of all. And everything else was made for us."
I think it's time you climbed down from that pile of turtles Yurtle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmDFqq...
May 22, 2008
8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Congress suing OPEC is ridiculous!! Congress and special interest groups are a major part of the problem!! Drill!!!!!
May 22, 2008
8:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
Even if we had all the oil we need and some. Even if we drill off our coasts and ANWR. Even if we started getting oil from Iraq, ( which I think they owe us). Even if we had so much oil and the price went down to $15.00 a barrel and the Saudi's were asking us for loans. We don't have the refineries to convert it! Do people think gas comes from the well to their vehicle?
It is more than one thing causing our gas crisis. It it a combination of things. It is only going to get worse because of the crazy out of control global warming freak show happening all around the country. If I hear green jobs one more time I'm gonna puke! What the hell is a " green job " anyway?
May 22, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
xeeian writes:
yeah! let's shoot it all up now, and when it's gone, we'll worry about it then.
May 22, 2008
8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
CB,
That was such a heart-warming story of Yurtle the Turtle. What a great ending. He became king of the trees, and the birds, and bees, and a house, and bush, and a cat. Many of those other turtles had improved views of the world as well. Good for the turtles!
May 22, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
Vudumom,
A "green job" is what the ObamaMama is trying to pull on us. I.e. green = inexperienced. You may recall different jobs that Mrs. Bill Clinton's husband's girlfriend was good at. But the OmamaMama (term of nannyism) green job could pose a more dangerous Wag the Dog situation.
May 22, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
ham writes:
It's almost funny, but it's sad, to see Diane Feinstein (DEMOCRAT!) trying to grill big oil execs on Capitol Hill hearings, blaming BIG OIL for high gas prices! It's the DEMOCRATS, stupid, who are to blame for America not using it's own resources, and shuffling BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars out of the country for gasoline. We even have to import refined gasoline, due to the lack of any new refineries, courtesy of enviromental wackos and congressional regulations. America needs to drill and refine our our oil, now! Pay attention, Democrats. We cannot continue this path in the name of absurd enviromental protectionism.
May 22, 2008
8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
SASQUATCH writes:
CONGRESSIONAL SOLUTION: SUE OPEC TO PUMP MORE...
So OPEC oil and OPEC wealth creation is good--we want them to pump more (lower prices) and we want to pay them with our wealth. In contrast, we have higher taxes for Exxon and Conoco and don't allow them to explore, drill, pump or refine here (higher prices)--everything is out of bounds. OPEC pays no US taxes, Big Oil pays $billions to the USA.
More OPEC oil is good...more American oil is bad....The Dems solution: $135 p/b and going north!
May 22, 2008
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
I have a question for all you rightwingers. Why are you blaming the democrats? Didn't Bush have a Republican congress for 6 years? Why didn't something get done then? I have another question. Has anybody looked at the thousnds of capped oil wells that we have in this country? And they have been capped for years. But of course big business can't make millions uncapping those they make their money drilling new ones.
May 22, 2008
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
RainbowWarrior writes:
While you fools in the front range cry about the price of gas and want to drill every last place on the planet to hit that light sweat crude center in the middle of the planet you believe exsists, and refuse to even consider conservation and alternatives, sustainable life styles and cheap mobility are being perfected in many places around the world and special places right here in Colorado.
Those that can adapt are well on their way to a sustainable future.
Then there's the rest of you idiots that aren't going to be able to cut it, because you are unwilling to give an inch and try something new.
I can only pray that you will soon see the light, and realize there will be life after oil. And the sooner we move on and start working as a team to make the most of what we have available to use, the better life will be and an amazing new future of opportuntiy will appear.
When one door closes another door opens!
We all know our addiction to fossil fuels must end. The procrastination to move on must end. The back bitting and name calling does nothing but polorize and alienate people who can make important contributions to solutions.
Why don't some of you little people grow up and add something positive rather than the same negative rants day after day after day?
May 22, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Answer to first dilligaf question. Republicans had both houses, but they barely had the senate and did not have the ability to break the fillibuster. Secondly, some of those Republicans were RINO (Republican In Name Only) such as the terminator turned governator or the governor of Florida (though I don't know the Senator's exact name).
Second question; I'd rather be able to commute to my job than worry about an eyesore capped oil well that, in a thousand years, will be a rusted out, half-buried anthropoligical treasure trove for some future civilization.
May 22, 2008
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Sustainable is a word that socialists use to justify the downturn our economy will take when they and the enviro's get their ways. Sustainable means that our economy will not grow anymore and that we will all live in a utopia where we hand over our paychecks to the government and dry farm tomatoes in our back yard to supplement our dismal paychecks because we cannot afford to eat. We all blissfully keep an eye out for the neighborhood children and congregate at seven every evening to sing kumbaya and maybe smoke some homegrown cannibis.
Sustainable is a nice word that will eventually lead us to the pipe dream socialist utopia that hardcore left wingers dream of.
Maybe one day they will wake up and realize that energy technology is making progress and that while one day, oil will go the way of the dinasaurs, we didn't actually need to turn America into a socialist ghetto where we were all created equally dirt poor.
May 22, 2008
9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
KelcyCo writes:
There is a finite amount of oil in the ground. We use oil for more than gasoline for our cars. Petroleum based products are everywhere. You can`t be in the hospital without them. Using all the oil up to fuel our automobiles is foolish beyond belief. We need to be creating alternatives given our transportation intensive society to wean us off petroleum based products in our cars thus leaving oil for everything else we use it in. In the mean time the car companies should be working on engines that actually get good gas mileage because I`m pretty confident that they have not bothered to work on it to date. They had no incentive to spend the money. The first company to do so will make money hand over fist. Every place I look driving around my town you see big trucks and SUVs sitting in those car parks with for sale signs on them.
We will eventually need to use oil found in places like ANWR but for now it is a good insurance policy to keep it there for when the rest of the wells run dry and we still need or want all those petroleum based products that are not gasoline.
May 22, 2008
9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
SASQUATCH writes:
TIMES UP...NO MORE BULLSHIIT FEEL-GOOD...ITS TIME TO DRILL!
Failure to act now means economic recession, economic depression, plantactory closures, Tobacco Road, skyrocketing unemployment and layoffs, lower incomes, less spending, higher energy prices, squeezed household budgets, collapsing investment, becoming uncompetitive in a rapidly globalizing economy, huge trade defits, a collapsing dollar, surging inflation, higher interest rates, compromised natioal security...
Next week the list of negative consequences grows to include include...
May 22, 2008
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Geta_clue writes:
Liquid fuels like gasoline and diesel can be made for less than $2 a gallon from domestic coal. The Chinese are doing it in mass and we are doing nothing.
May 22, 2008
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Geta_clue, if you're right about that, we are the Saudis of the coal world, and we should get on it.
Sasquatch, you are showing these people the road, while I am showing them the final destination. Some libs actually realize what their agenda will cause, and they are quite happy to go there. The sad ignorant rest of them are the ones that will be wishing that they were not so media-brainwashed and dependant on academic "experts" opinions. Fortunately, we will reap what we sew, and long before we go all the way down that horrible path, some of the blissfully ignorant will wake up and start voting for people who will make gasoline affordable.
May 22, 2008
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
jconder45 writes:
Spencerr- yeah, I suppose "responsibility" is just a code word for "socialism" too. After all "socialism" is just anything that you don't want.
May 22, 2008
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
No, jconder45, responsibility is a thing that Americans should take for themselves, something socialists don't do.
Be responsible for yourselves. Responsibility has little application when used as an environmental or anti-oil term because in the short term, we need oil, or we will soon go broke. And debate is still out about whether manmade global warming even exists, or if it does, whether it is not just some negligible event with small actual effect that leftists are just using as an emotional lure for their would-be constituents.
May 22, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
RJS07 writes:
Here is an explanation of what is really going on.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files...
Go to the link above. You probably haven't heard about this--the media is NOT exactly running with the story. However THIS is why the price of energy and food is so high.
The testimony from Michael Masters to the Senate Subcommittee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, it will knock your socks off.
There is gross speculation occurring in all the commodities markets and it is being hidden in the commercial side of the ledger because the CFTC granted an exemption to the Goldman Sachs of the world from a banking law that was instituted by congress back in the 30s to keep banks out of the commodities futures markets. That exempting throws all their market activity into to the commercial side which is for hedgers, basically.
The exemption allows unfettered access by institutional investors to buy energy futures as an investment asset, for large pension funds as an example. They want a winning investment for the long haul so they tend to add to and hold on to those positions for several years.
I wonder what will happen when the bulk of the baby boomers hit retirement age and these institutional investors need to cash in, sell those futures contracts? Currently they have something like $260 billion dollars invested. Could the inevitable down draft that will be caused from liquidating those futures contracts threaten the liquidity of those pension funds? I think so.
Two weeks ago the head of the CFTC testified before congress that market speculators were not the problem with the relentless run in commodities futures markets. Either he was lying to congress and should be held in contempt of congress, fired and prosecuted, or he wasn't aware of what was going on and since that is his job, he should be fired anyway.
Every voting citizen in the U.S. needs to understand how and why they are getting screwed at the pumps and at the grocery store.
May 22, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
RJ, hopefully, that bubble will burst sooner or later because people who get rich from speculation deserve to get hurt when the bubble bursts. The get the reward of taking the risk sometimes, but if they hang around too long, they will also reap the disaster. All I have to say is that there had better not be a government bailout when it happens.
I would also contend that the price of oil has gone from below sixty dollars a barrel five or six years ago to more than double now because of supply and demand caused by increased industrialization in China and India, but there is no doubt that speculators who don't like the dollar (and for good reason), are a good part of the problem.
Maybe gas will stabilize with proof that the fed is done increasing interest rates. Although, that may not be the only reason the dollar is weakening. It was bound to happen anyway because of the trade deficit. It has been out of equilibrium since the late sixties, and the dollar weakening is a way the market naturally adjusts itself.
With any luck, the bubble will break, and the speculators, and their constituents, will all be out on their butts.
May 22, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Not a single person supporting drilling ANWR has been able to come up with a shred of evidence that it would have a positive effect on the long term cost of energy.
Not surprising.
May 22, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
We can't drill our way out of this mess.
A whopping 400 days worth of oil supply in ANWR? What good will that do us?
None.
Solar and wind is where its at. Time to build, not drill.
May 22, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Charles_b,
The simple law of supply and demand dictates that with an increased supply and all other things being equal, the price of an item will decrease. That's why the Dems are crying for the whitehouse to open up the strategic oil reserves, even though that will only help by about five cents a gallon. If we can drill in Anwar and manage to build the refining infrastructure that the Dems won't let us, the cost should stabilize a bit, if not drop.
May 22, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
Who says the US would get the oil, if we drilled ANWR?
Oil is a world commodity. What if the chineese bid higher for that oil?
If that happened, we would not get a single drop, since the oil companies could sell it to china for more that they can sell it to the us.
Then were would we be? We would have despoiled a national treasure, for the benefit of the chineese.
Brilliant.
spencerr - Didn't the saudis agree to release 300k more barrels a few weeks ago? I haven't noticed a price drop, have you?
May 22, 2008
10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Charles B- I challenge you to prove that you are intelligent since that will be impossible.
May 22, 2008
10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
The U.S. consumes more than twenty million BPD. Three hundred thousand is a drop in the bucket, and if I remember correctly, the Saudis said that they would not increase production.
Anyway, ANWR has between 4 and 12 billion barrels in it, and we would not be using ANWR exclusively for our oil supply, so even if we took ten percent of our useage from there a day, prices would be affected.
Furthermore, the portion of ANWR that they will be drilling is less than 1% of ANWR's area. So it will not be despoiled. And I don't think you can fairly argue that if we start pumping oil out of the ground, the Chinese will straight up outbid us for the oil that comes out of the ground. They will get some of it. We will get some of it. If they could just straight outbid us for oil, how come we still have any of it?
May 22, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
SASQUATCH writes:
$300 CRUDE, $15 AT THE PUMP....AND YOU!
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/ppmsc/00200...
May 22, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
From Boortz.com:
The way Dick Durbin's question should have been answered:
"Tell us, Senator, do you honestly believe that this government; the government that gave us Social Security and pork spending, could run these oil companies any better than we do? The American people instinctively know that if this was a government operation they would be waiting for days just to be able to put ten gallons of gas in their tank. Frankly, Senator, you don't know the difference between an profit and a profit margin, and you would be hard pressed to make a successful attempt at running a corner gas station."
May 22, 2008
10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
SASQUATCH writes:
80% CHOOSE HANDGUN OVER FREE FUEL!
A new and used car dealer in Butler, Missouri, Max Motors, is offering his customers a choice between two sales incentives with their vehicle purchase: $250 in gasoline or a free semi-automatic handgun.
"We got high gas prices, theft, carjackings, innocent people getting hurt," Walter Moore, from Max Motors, told KMBC-TV. It seems the resourceful dealer is offering car buyers a solution for it all -- and the gun is proving to be the popular choice with 80 percent of his customers choosing the firearm over free fuel.
May 22, 2008
11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
CB - You're too funny. You throw an assertion out there and challenge people to prove you wrong. How about backing up your assertion first? Then we can start shooting holes in your "proof."
BTW - Great debating tactic though!
Does anyone here think the crude oil market might just go the way of the housing market? You know, explode with never seen before record prices before reaching it's peak... and then plummet?
Markets have a self correcting tendency that seems to appear whenever things begin to shift to far in one direction or the other.
Not to mention that it usually takes a "crisis" for man to get off his proverbial "butt" and create innovative solutions to cure the problem. I'm sure in due time some of these other factors will come into play and our current problem will by like that of the gasoline rationing/shortage of the 70's. Nothing but a distant memory at best.
May 22, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
Just an observation. It seems to me ( I may be wrong)some of you will research it but none of this was happening until Al Gore starting the global warming,inconvenient truth ,carbon footprint magical mystery tour.
May 22, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Tbone said:"Solar and wind is where its at. Time to build, not drill."
Problem is that big oil would have to be able to fiqure out how to put a meter on the sun and wind. That is why that will never be a answer. It's all about money.
May 22, 2008
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
You can put a meter on how much of the energy created by sun and wind was used, though. Teh problem with wind and solar is that it is crazy expensive (economically inefficient)and undependable, and if we went off of oil in favor of these, we would freeze at night and when there is no wind, and we would still be paying out our ears for energy.
May 22, 2008
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
SASQUATCH writes:
TODAY'S WSJ:
America has large amounts of oil and gas, but our efforts to extract it have been significantly reduced by the federal moratorium on drilling. America remains the only nation in the world that has curtailed access to its own energy supplies. Meanwhile China will soon begin drilling for oil off Cuba and in Venezuela.
Among the worst anti-energy policies we have experienced was President Carter's 1980 "windfall profits tax" on oil companies, which reduced domestic oil production by between 3% and 6% and increased imports by 8% to 16%. Yet last week Majority Leader Harry Reid and 20 other Senate Democrats introduced a similar 25% tax.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
We better do something fast...let's sue OPEC!
May 22, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Correct!!! Geta clue!! America is the Saudi Arabia in coal. Yes we have that much!!!!!
Ask congress and special interest groups why we are NOT converting our coal into liquid fuels!!
Also, why is alternative fuel technology taking so loooooong to be of much help?? I think politics and money have had a great deal to do with quashing alternative fuel advances!!!!
The author of the LTE is correct!! America is definately committing energy suicide if we don't act in some aggressive capacity NOW!!!
Drill. Covert natural resources!(coal) Build refinerys. Grow and convert sugar cane into ethanol instead of using corn! Sugar cane is cleaner and burns more efficiently. Consider nuclear power plants the list goes on and on!! There are a multitude of alternative energy sources available. That is, if our clueless politicians will get out of the way and let America become totally independent of foreign oil!!!!!!
May 22, 2008
12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
T1anda, google (harry reid nevada coal power plant), and you will get a mess of good articles about how politics is messing up these alternate energy technologies' viability. Google crist and florida instead, and you will see more examples.
May 22, 2008
12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Sorry, T1anda, the very liberal articles that pull up when you google those do not mention the important part of these politician's opposition to the coal plants. All of the coal plants shot down in Nevada and Florida are IGCC, aka gasified coal plants. The pieces that come up are pro-al gore propaganda.
May 22, 2008
12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
why do we have to keep debunking the same right wing myths over and over everytime the wingnuts shake the etch-i-sketch??
"We are paying near $4 a gallon for gas now because we are dependent on foreign oil and have ignored our own reserves. We are committing national suicide by not using our natural resources"
the letter writer shoots holes in his own position by sticking to these far right inaccuracies propagated by the likes of Rush and Rosen.
we aren't "ignoring" our own reserves. we can't drill our way out of this mess even if we opened all the reserves up that are currently under the review process.
global demand hasn't quadrupled since the republicans took office so it is obvious to anyone with an education that other factors are at play including instability in the middle east, devaluation of the dollar, inflation and profit-spawned speculation. folks need to remember that some of these factors are produced from bad policy decisions on behalf of our government. nothing more nothing less.
it's a wonder why we don't see the republican extremists screaming about changing the leadership in washington as often as we see them shilling for the oil companies and beating the rushian drum about new drilling.
May 22, 2008
12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
RainbowWarrior writes:
I can not believe the lies and bogus information that gets posted here! The use of intimidation and name calling, put downs and narrow minded junk to make a feel good point about prolonging the end of the fossil fuel era that just needs to go away.
The alternatives work, and excuse me but sustainable is not code for socialistic. When did debt free and a credit on your electric bill from solar become anti-capitalistic or backwards? When did growing your own food and being in control of your life become a failure? When did domination over offers by fear and intimidation become the American way?
I can stand in a place of integrity by the actions and the choices I have made to lead by example and show the way to others who are interested in sustainable practises that work and improve the quality of life for those that are willing to work just a little harder and use the gray matter between their ears for more than bulleying others to maintain the status quo. While you are pointing your white collar corporate criminal plastic figures at others for the problems you have created and demand to perpetuate a failing conservative agenda that got us to this point in the first place, others will be leading us away in a new direction with honesty and inovation, not into the past to make the same mistakes, but into a future that some of the regulars here simply do not have the desire or capcity to even imagine.
May 22, 2008
12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
To quote Jack Welch (although it wasn't about alternative energy):
CHANGE BEFORE YOU HAVE TO.
This seems such a fundamental concept that anyone could grasp...yet the anti-alternative energy folks absolutely refuse to.
Here is another fundamental piece of common sense:
WHY WOULD YOU USE UP THE LAST OF YOUR IRREPLACEABLE ENERGY RESOURCES BEFORE THE REPLACEABLE ONES ARE FULLY IN USE?
But again with this, too, the antis plug their fingers in their ears, screw their little eyes shut, and shake their heads back and forth. "Don't wanna hear it, don't wanna have to think, pleeeeeeeeeeeeease just let the big oil companies take care of us waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!"
I thank the heavens above that progress is marching right on and over the naysayers. If we depended on them to actually do anything new or innovative, we'd all be screwed.
May 22, 2008
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Oil is through the roof, not because of failed republican policies but because of a combination of speculation and demand outstripping supply. One good way to fix that is to increase supply, which we cannot do until we increase refining capacity and drilling.
And credit on your electric bill is socialist because it is a taxpayer subsidy for using an inefficient, expensive, and undependable source of electricity. It is redistributing my money to someone who chooses to depend on inneficient and costly energy. Let me say again, it is government redistributing my money. Government command of economic resources = socialism.
I love tomatoes, and I grow them in my back yard for fun, but it is not my prerogative to bog down our economy for the sake of "sustainable." Sustainable is a word that means slowing down to a more reasonable growth, if any...in the context with which you are using it. Sustainable is you telling me that I have to pay out my ear for energy one way or the other (be it oil or alternative) because you either have a socialist or environmental (or both) propaganda/chosen lifestyle.
Sustainable is the government interfering and purposely slowing down the economy, and the socialists like it because it justifies their weakened economic end, and the enviros like it because their Al Gore-brainwashed butts believe everything they hear in the media.
jay is not a socialist. He is just a confused democrat who is more conservative than he is willing to admit. You, my friend, are towing the socialist line.
May 22, 2008
12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
And twosense, libs have been crying about the end of oil supplies for decades now. We should have run out by now. Why aren't we? Because the scientists and libs were wrong? I don't disagree with alternative fuels, but it doesn't happen economically overnight. Within the last ten years, we have seen hybrids, electrics, and H-powered cars. We are getting there. It doesn't happen overnight, and there will come a point where something replaces it. It will. You don't have to force it to happen more quickly by not allowing us to do what we need to in order to keep our citizens and their pocketbooks afloat right now.
May 22, 2008
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
T1Panda: "Also, why is alternative fuel technology taking so loooooong to be of much help??"
In which area? Cars? Utilities?
I can tell you with the former, it doesn't help when oil companies like Shell buy up electric car technology patents and sit on them to stall the widespread use of low-oil usage cars. However, more and more hybrids are being produced, but of course, buying a new car is prohibitive for a lot of folks.
With utilities, cost has also been an issue. Your average homeowner typically has to put up a lot of money to install a solar energy system, BUT...there are several companies now offering special financing models that only require about $2K up front, and then you lock in with those companies a certain rate per watt.
Also, our current electricity grid across the country could use some tweaks to integrate new forms of energy. There are several companies who are also specializing in this kind of endeavor, check out this one at: http://www.greentechmedia.com/article...
There are other cost issues, and in terms of solar materials, apparently "thin film" solar panels are increasingly more cost effective and efficient.
It's not just solar, wind, biofuels, hydro and so on that are the "answer." There is so much happening now in the alternative energy industry, and some very well known companies are contributing to this. There are a thousand different technologies and conservation methods and attitudes and opinions that will work together to really transform our current dependence on oil.
And some of this stuff is pretty cool! I was reading that Xerox just invented a kind of paper where the ink disappears within two days. So you can use it over and over again. This will particularly be helpful for businesses where folks print a lot of stuff they only need to read once or twice. In another thread, I was inspired to do a search on human-powered energy, and came across a company who is working on a technology for nightclubs. Apparently, dancers will triggers mechanisms under the dance floor which in turn will generate energy.
It sounds like whacky farfetched stuff, but, well...that's the future! And it's actually a lot closer to now than we think. In my opinion, anyway.
May 22, 2008
12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
It's the deficit stupid. Gas costs about the same. The dollar is only worth about half of what it was in 2003. I don't understand why people think the "environmental whackos" have anything to do with the devaluation of the dollar and our crippling debt. Iraq is costing us more than goodwill in the world it is destroying our currency. See the problem with right wingers is you can't see the tree in the forest. Go look at what a euro is worth now compared to 2003. Our myopic president and his supporters bear 100% of the blame for their own policies. The "environmental whackos" want us off of fossil fuel to reduce our carbon footprint and it doesn't matter if the fuel costs fifty cents or a thousand dollars a gallon. Even if we increase our supply by opening something reasonable like Bakkan the fuel will still be expensive because foreign currencies continue to strengthen against the dollar every day we waste in Iraq. Does the fact that Bush is redistributing income by destroying our currency make him a commie? Maybe you people that fear this the most should take a look at GW and the facts without your blinders on.
May 22, 2008
12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Bingo, two sense, I agree wholeheartedly with every statement you made in your last post. I just feel that we have to think short-term as well as long term. These technologies are coming, but they are not here yet. When they get here and are cost-effective, it will be awesome. Ever since gas climbed regularly over two bucks, we have been getting closer, but we don't need to be emptying our pockets at four or five dollars a gallon in order to see this technologies become more present.
May 22, 2008
1 p.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
Also Earl,
In my opinion Saudi does owe us for the damage done on 911 by fifteen Saudis with Saudi visas funded with Saudi money. Too bad George thinks he needs to hold their hands and kiss their butts.
May 22, 2008
1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr: "Oil is through the roof, not because of failed republican policies but because of a combination of speculation and demand outstripping supply. One good way to fix that is to increase supply, which we cannot do until we increase refining capacity and drilling."
In other words, you have no problems with the monetary system that runs oil supply distribution - i.e., prices being driven up by legalized bookies. And you think the answer is to continue feeding that system.
This makes zero sense. It's like staving off a bear trying to break into your house by flinging him the rest of the food left in your refrigerator!
spencerr: "And credit on your electric bill is socialist because it is a taxpayer subsidy for using an inefficient, expensive, and undependable source of electricity. It is redistributing my money to someone who chooses to depend on inneficient and costly energy. Let me say again, it is government redistributing my money. Government command of economic resources = socialism."
I would bet my last dollar you have NEVER made this complaint about corporations and other businesses who write off their utility bills as a business expense at tax time.
In fact, as I told another poster recently, if you people are going to start using this as one of your arguments, you better be prepared to call every single person and business who takes advantage of any kind of tax write-off a Socialist.
May 22, 2008
1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Working backward two cents, no, they are capitalists. They are taking advantage of a system. When I write off my medicine, I am not a socialist, I am an opportunist. I'm not stupid, nor are you. I would use a government subsidy to put solar panels on my roof because I am an opportunist. However, I have problems with the people who got these things put into law in the first place. In my less than perfect world, we pay taxes for road infrastructure and military, two public goods, and everyone takes personal responsibility for their own choices in life.
And I do have problems with that monetary system, and when the bubble busts, I will be laughing at the dumb ass speculators that lost their lunch on it.
May 22, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
lol...you know you've hit an inconvenient nerve with the far right wing extremists when they start calling you "socialist"
May 22, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
I didn't call you a socialist jay. Go away.
May 22, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
"credit on your electric bill is socalist because its a taxpayer subsity blah blah...."
Dude, this is easily the stupidest thing ever posted on this board.
Look - if you want to install solar, good for you. If you get CREDIT on your electric bill - even better for you. By the way, last I checked, that credit came from the ENERGY COMPANY. How is getting paid from the electric company a taxpayer subsidy? spencerr, the gov't HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. The gov't IS NOT REDISTRUBITING YOUR MONEY, Eistein.
Only an idiot would complain about free energy, and getting paid by your electric company.
Why am I not surpirised that its the republicans complaing about this stuff? And why is it that the repubs insist on sticking to the old way, and giving all their money to big oil?
Money back from the electric company? NO thanks! That's socalism! The American Way is to give all your money to big oil and the electric company!!!
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Is it any wonder how we got into this situation in the first place?
May 22, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr, my biggest concerns about doing even more exploration and drilling are that yes, they will decimate what's left of the most beautiful country in the world. I really don't think there is another country that has such a diverse range of physical grandeur, and it would really suck to see even more of it torn up and polluted. I really don't believe the current energy industries are that committed to environmental responsibility, either. They will fight for decades in the courts to shirk their share of clean up, anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to the news can see this.
My other concern is that ramping up our drilling even more will simply procrastinate other alternative measures. First, by switching the public's focus, so they'll stop demanding alternative measures. Second, because the government tax incentives will once again, largely be concentrated on the old ways of producing energy rather than the new ways.
The fact is, we already drill a lot. My understanding is that in the Western Interior alone, the majority of BLM land is actually leased for drilling and exploration activities.
Another important point - do some real research on the pro-drilling arguments, and you'll notice few proponents actually support government restrictions on selling whatever is drilled domestically only on the domestic markets. I can tell you as world demand is only going to skyrocket, the profit-driven oil companies and their shareholders will insist on being allowed to sell that oil to the global markets.
In other words, it will not decrease what we pay at the gas pump at all.
In the meantime, more of our land is torn up and alternative technologies will be that much further behind in development and usage because we switched the focus from them back to oil.
May 22, 2008
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Look a little deeper, Tbone, you don't think the energy companies are gettings subsidies themselves for getting you to put alternate energy on the roof. The government is subsidizing it.
Yeah, free stuff, credits, that is the whole basis of what the Democrats are about. And I'll take advantage of it, and then for the good of this country, I will try to get it changed.
Look a little more deeply before calling someone stupid tbone.
The American way is to spend the fruit of one's labors however he wishes, Ei(n)stein. I don't want to spend it on gas, that is why we should drill in ANWR.
May 22, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
redwhiteandBLUE writes:
The End is near.
May 22, 2008
1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr, just one more comment, and thanks for the conversation, btw.
I wanted to acknowledge public opinions and attitudes. That is really what is going to drive our energy policies going forward. One thing I would love to see is more people pressure their workplaces to allow for telecommuting, at least part of the week. Using gas prices as a reason will certainly help, and companies will also save money by eventually being able to lease smaller workplaces.
That would be a wonderful offshoot of our current energy problems in terms of transportation costs. Spend less time on the highways, more time at home. (Might even help fix some of our social ills, too...like a generation of latchkey kids having to fend for themselves and ending up getting in too much trouble.)
Anyway, that's a much better alternative in my opinion than taking the bus or carpooling. I'm an environmentalist, yeah, but I had to agree with a poster who once said, "I don't want to take the bus. I went to college so I wouldn't HAVE to take the bus anymore!"
:)
May 22, 2008
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Also, two sense, I never said that we should only sell domestically. Demand is worldwide, and it will only go up. You're right. The portion of ANWR that would get drilled is less than 1% of its total area. Anyway, you tell me to do real research, and I can tell you that you are putting words in my mouth if you think I said anywhere we should only sell domestically.
May 22, 2008
1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
One last thought on your last thought, and then we will go our separate ways again. I commute from Lakewood to Boulder, and even without the cost of fuel, it sucks. I was supposedly going to get my ability to work from home like six months ago, and it hasn't happened. I agree with you...for non-industrial workers, it would be awesome if everyone just worked from home.
May 22, 2008
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Oil is through the roof, not because of failed republican policies but because of a combination of speculation and demand outstripping supply."
sure, speculation and demand, as i said, are factors, but acknowledgint the politically inconvenient fact that republican policies have also contributed to the quadruple in oil costs over the last 8 years isn't "towing the socialist line"....nor is it unpatriotic, unamerican or pro-terrorist. the devaluation of the dollar, inflation and instability of the middle east are HUGE factors in the skyrocketing rise of gas prices, and were greatly influenced by...you guessed it....policy decision of the right wing that you supported.
so i guess you, in addition to those "environazis", are partly to blame for the price of gas.
May 22, 2008
1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr, I didn't intend to imply *you* are suggesting we only sell domestically. I was stating that most of the proponents out there don't advocate it, I had no idea if you did or not.
But...it puzzles me why you wouldn't. Because it cancels out your entire argument for drilling, which is based on cost. You seem to think that drilling domestically will ease what we're paying at the gas pump...but if we don't sell what we produce domestically only to our domestic markets, then how will it???
May 22, 2008
1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr: "I commute from Lakewood to Boulder, and even without the cost of fuel, it sucks. I was supposedly going to get my ability to work from home like six months ago, and it hasn't happened. I agree with you...for non-industrial workers, it would be awesome if everyone just worked from home."
That DOES suck. I feel your pain, albeit indirectly. My husband has a pretty far commute and it's no fun for him, either. I am blessed in that I have chosen a way to make a living that allows me to work from home, and for myself, at that.
So in addition to a mass movement towards working from home...maybe more folks will opt to become entrepreneurs, too!
May 22, 2008
1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
jay, I didn't call you a socialist. My argument with rainbowfairy or whatever his name is is that, essentially, sustainable growth is enviro and/or socialist jargon. He is arguing like a socialist, if you listen carefully to his language.
I have never said that the fact that Republicans are partially responsible for the cost of oil (your words not mine) is towing the socialist line. Democrats share some blame too, BTW. Reid in Nevada was a one man wrecking crew in shooting down clean coal technology at some plants in his state. What will replace that clean coal...either something dirty or something more expensive (or both), i.e. oil.
I have never said unamerican, unpatriotic, or pro-terrorist when referring to a democrat or complete socialist. Stop putting words into my mouth. You are arguing with me about things I never said.
May 22, 2008
1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
twosense. I am just trying to come up with the right idea. I'm right there too.
May 22, 2008
1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
jay - Considering the Saudis' and OPEC are not amidst any "instability" in their region, your "factors" you keep ranting about are far from being "huge" contributors to the current rise in the world (not just the US) oil market.
May 22, 2008
1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Oil is through the roof, not because of failed republican policies"--spencerjr
well...that's not exactly accurate is it?
"Democrats share some blame too"---spencerjr
share the blame with who? those evil environmentalists?
absolutely they do. they haven't done enough to force the republicans to come up with something besides more of the same. i completely agree. hopefully the dems can gain enough seats in nov to get break the stalemate and get somethings accomplished that have the support of the majority of americans without having to worry about the predictable hinderance from the republicans.
that said, let's not pretend that the dems have been supporting the republican fiscal irresponsibility and the policies that led to the quagmire in the middle east that have led to inflation, devaluation, recession (or on the cusp) and instability in the middle east...which represent much larger market dynamics than reid's coal stance.
as has been established several times over the last couple of years, the rushian talking points about anwr reflect an extremely small influence on the global market. better that our president leverage the nearly billion barrels we have at hand to force more production and thus have a much larger impact on the single factor of supply and demand...which of course again is just one of several factors that can be manipulated to address the gas crisis.
btw, what is "towing the socialist line" about supporting the movement towards renewable energy, spencerjr? i'm not following your logic there, but maybe you have a different way to look at it that i'm not seeing.
May 22, 2008
1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Remember the definition of a straw man, jay?
Person A (spencer) has position X ("sustainable growth is environ and/or socialist jargon").
Person B (jay) ignores position X and presents position Y. Y is a distorted version of X. In this case, Y is a distorted version of X because jay says "acknowledgint the politically inconvenient fact that republican policies have also contributed to the quadruple in oil costs over the last 8 years isn't 'towing the socialist line'". Spencerr never claimed that this "acknowledgement" was "towing the socialist line", so you have offered a distorted version of his comment. You've superficially represented the view of the person you with whom you have a dispute in order to make that view easier to refute, at least in your own mind.
Your argument is a straw man, jay.
May 22, 2008
2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
mytwosense, in reply to a post which I didn't see, even by increasing world supply, rather than U.S. supply specifically, it still affects the supply side of the equation, even if not by nearly as much. It seems to me though, and I admit that I haven't done much more than the econ 101 analysis of it (so I haven't really researched anything that I am arguing with you about).
Anyway, I think I agree with everyone on here that oil is too expensive. I am also a "practical" environmentalist. We do what we can within reason. By not doing something that could help bring down the cost of oil, I think we are being foolish. One day we will have alternative energy, and we won't have to depend on gov't subsidies to influence demand, and that will be great.
May 22, 2008
2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
jay...why are you arguing with me. Let Rainbow fight for himself. I never said that environmentalism and socialism are equal. I said that rainbow was using language that implied socialistic. sustainable growth, self dependance and something about not bullying others into the American way. That word, socialism leaves a bad taste on my mouth, but some people are quite proud of it, and if rainbow is not a socialist, then he has friends and/or professors or some other type of acquaintances who are. And I apologize to him for namecalling, because it is a bad name for me...it may not be for him though.
However, you're not off the hook. I said that the government control of economic resources is socialism. If you disagree, say so. So, government taking taxpayer money, and reallocating it from the people toward a specific cause is an example of, at the very least, compartmental socialism (and sometimes these people who advocate for government reallocation are socialists, and sometimes they simply feel like they are doing the right thing). I was making an observation, albeit I was being a little nasty about it, that Rainbow was talking like a socialist. I didn't call you a socialist, so don't worry about it.
May 22, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
KW: "ay - Considering the Saudis' and OPEC are not amidst any "instability" in their region, your "factors" you keep ranting about are far from being "huge" contributors to the current rise in the world (not just the US) oil market."
I have to be reading your post wrong. Are you being sarcastic? Because if you're actually serious, my question is: what in the hell do you call the war in Iraq if not a major source of instability in the Middle East? And do you seriously believe it's not a major factor driving oil price speculation??
I HAVE to be reading your post wrong!!
May 22, 2008
2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
" I never said that environmentalism and socialism are equal."
and i never said you said that, junior.
you made a comment about my post that republican policies didn't have blame for skyrocketing fuel costs (which of course effects so much of the rest of the economy). just wanted to make sure you didn't have any confusion on that matter.
"So, government taking taxpayer money, and reallocating it from the people toward a specific cause is an example of, at the very least, compartmental socialism "
that is certainly your opinion...but then wouldn't by that logic the oil companies also be part of this evil socialist conspiracy?
so...if i have your position correct...it is not only renewable energy initiatives that are "towing the socialist line"...but also the oil company initiatives.
i wonder if exxon knows that it's "towing the socialist line".
May 22, 2008
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
More specifically, I was arguing about sustainable being code for socialism. It is my argument, and it may be a shaky one, that sustainable is often used by left WINGERS to advocate for slowing down the economy either because they are environmentalists who actually believe that the environment is in dire trouble, or because they are socialists, who advocate slowing down the economy (industrial activity, consumerism, etc.) becasue it does not fit their paradigm of economic system. Re-visiting rainbows original post, perhaps I was a little quick to throw accusations. But revisiting his rebuttal, he does sound a little like a utopian socialist.
May 22, 2008
2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
jay, your logic fails. One of the problems with socialism (as opposed to market-based), is that people take advantage. Paraphrasing that conservative dude that just died a couple of months ago, "the problem with socialism is socialism. The problem with capitalism is capitalists." Now, capitalists capitalize and take advantage of socialism too. The system is in place, so lets take advantage of it. By your logic, I am a socialist, which I am not. I will accuse you of being a socialist if you act like you want government to reallocate money to various causes. I guarantee that big oil would happily do away with a system that they can take advantage of if it means that government won't tax their money in the first place. It is part of the compromise that is our mixed economy. The socialists get some of their bones, but the capitalists help them eat them.
May 22, 2008
2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
spencerjr, let me get this straight.....so you think that the push for renewables is an attempt by "left wingers" to "slow down the economy" because they are "environmentalists" or they are "socialists"...and you think those who support the move towards renewable energy are "utopian socialists"?
is elvis involved?
May 22, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Just because you take advantage of the elements of socialism within our society does not mean that you are a socialist. A socialist is an idealist who believes in socialism. Big oil, you, me, Eli, mytwosense, and everyone on this string with the possible exception of rainbow is not a socialist. Even then, rainbow is probably not a true socialist, just someone who believes in higher taxes and redistribution of wealth to a point. The rest of us are people who live within and interact with our current system, for better or for worse, whether or not we agree with it. it has elements of capitalism and socialism.
By your logic, you are a pure capitalist because you joined the rat race and went to work, yet I know that you do not believe in pure markets and thus are not a pure capitalist.
May 22, 2008
2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
You take words out of context and put words in my mouth, jay. When I say left WING, I mean the extreme end of it, the socialists and hardline enviros. Yes, yes, yes. They know that they are slowing down production with their ideologies, and they are fine with it. Everybody else to the right of them but left of center is their pawn. A moderate push for renewable energies within the realm of practicality is fine and has nothing to do with purposefully slowing the economy down. I do not believe that all people who push for renewable energy at some level are socialists. You are putting a generalization into my mouth that I never said. A reasonably absolute generalization at that.
May 22, 2008
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
jay, you are building a strawman argument by misrepresenting my arguments and then attacking your own weaker version of my argument. You finally understand what a strawman is!!! I am proud of you! Seriously I must be a little dense because it took me a minute to see what you were actually doing. You do not believe the stuff you are arguing...you are simply making the point that you do actually know what a strawman is.
May 22, 2008
2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
mts - On the contrary, you read my post most accurately. jays assertion of "instability in the middle east" contributing hugely to the rise in oil prices is greatly flawed in two main areas.
1) The "middle east" is a continent of many huge countries covering thousand upon thousands of miles from one end to the other. Iraq is a mere speck in size and is crammed into a far corner between Iran and Saudi Arabia. To say the suicide bombers in a Baghdad market are affecting the flow of oil in Saudi is like saying the rebels in southern Mexico are disrupting oil pumping in Canada. There is little impact, if any at all.
2) (and most important) OPEC is a group of thirteen countries made up of Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. The organization has maintained its headquarters in Vienna since 1965. Considering the vast and far reaching distance between most of the members of OPEC, not to mention the headquarters is no where near Iraq, it's ridiculous to claim the unrest in one small, currently non contributing member nation is causing all this upheaval.
Jay just loves to blame all the worlds troubles on Bush and the reps. Be his view fact or (as most of the time) fiction.
May 22, 2008
2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"jays assertion of "instability in the middle east" contributing hugely to the rise in oil prices is greatly flawed in two main areas."
wait a minute...i said that instability in the middle east was a factor contributing to higher gas prices. nothing more, nothing less. kw, are you saying that you don't believe that middle east instability affects gas prices?!?
"Jay just loves to blame all the worlds troubles on Bush and the reps."
i never said this either...try to keep up. i said that it is ridiculous to claim, as spencerjr did, that republican policies are blameless for skyrocketing oil prices.
spencerjr....how are questions "strawman arguments"?
May 22, 2008
2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay,
Your straw man argument was very clearly explained twice on this thread, at 1:58 and 2:35. Do you need the definition of a straw man once more, or do you finally get it after all the time the three of us spent on it yesterday?
May 22, 2008
3 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jim writes:
When ignorance hits $150 a barrel I want driling rights on that man's head. (A paraphrase of John Hightower's comment diricted at Bush 41.)
We promised ourselves in 1975 during the OPEC embargo this would never happen again to us or our children. 1975 saw the Pinto, insulated stormwinds, increased home insulation, 55 mph speed limit CAFE mileage requirements and tax credits for installation of active and passive energy as well as generous federal grants for the developement of alternative energies.
The 1995 political shortage went away as did most of the energy saving inititives. Current oil prices are much more supply and demand based than political. China and India were minor players in 1975.
A true American is one who plants a tree knowing he will never enjoy its shade (annon.) When will we ever learn?
May 22, 2008
3 p.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
jay at 1:29pm today:
"the devaluation of the dollar, inflation and instability of the middle east are HUGE factors in the skyrocketing rise of gas prices, and were greatly influenced by...you guessed it....policy decision of the right wing that you supported."
jay contradicts himself at 2:46pm:
"wait a minute...i said that instability in the middle east was a factor contributing to higher gas prices. nothing more, nothing less."
Actually you not only made the statement, you felt the need to capitalize the word HUGE.
Well, which is it jay? You're beginning to sound like a cross between Obama and Hillary with all this flip flopping.
jay continued:
"kw, are you saying that you don't believe that middle east instability affects gas prices?!?"
I explicitly said the impact of the minor altercation in one small portion of such a vast region has "little impact, if any at all."
And considering Iraq hasn't been a contributing member to OPEC since March 1998, OPEC surely isn't missing any flow from Iraq at this point in time nor at any time since Bush took office.
May 22, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
that is outstanding, kw. truly.
according to you, instability in the middle east has little impact if any at all on gas prices.
wow.
thanks for that...you get the willful ignorance award for the day.
well done sir.
rush would be proud.
republican policies have destabilized the middle east.
instability in the middle east causes gas prices to go up.
therefore, republican foreign policies (including those pesky irresponsible fiscal policies) have contributed to the skyrocketing gas prices.
so...again...i hear a lot of folks on the far right whining about those evil environmentalists and how they are causing $4 a gallon gas...but it's funny...i don't hear any whining about how we should vote a change in policy from the whitehouse.
hypocrisy fostered by blind political loyalty?
could be.