OT: 2008 Elections

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon May 19, 2008 12:34 pm

matthewk wrote:
JackDog wrote:Instead, we should sit back, bleed to death as a nation? I don't believe so.
You may not think so, but MessiObama may think so. I heard a portion of his speech in Oregon voer the weekened. I don't have the exact quote but to paraphrase: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees all the time and expect that other countries are going to say OK".

My response: "Yes We Can":)

What was it Cheney said around the time the war started?

We're not going to alter our lifestyles one bit and we'll do whatever it takes to sustain it?

That was almost $100 barrel and about $2 a gallon ago.

SUV sales have plunged for now.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon May 19, 2008 12:35 pm

JackB1 wrote:
Read the article, but I already heard most of this Fri on the news. It did give some more insights though, but nothing surprising. The Saudis are pumping solely due to worldwide supply and demand....not because Bush wants more. They also know he is on the way out and they have little to gain by succumbing to his wishes.

I made no assumption that it was because of Bush. I completely understand what the Saudis are doing.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon May 19, 2008 2:18 pm

wco81 wrote:
What was it Cheney said around the time the war started?

We're not going to alter our lifestyles one bit and we'll do whatever it takes to sustain it?

That was almost $100 barrel and about $2 a gallon ago.

SUV sales have plunged for now.

He also said the Iraq war would last "weeks, rather than months"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/ ... 4228.shtml

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon May 19, 2008 4:07 pm

So the best explaination for Obama's hypocrisy is to take shots at Cheney?

The same guy who was spouting "Yes We Can" and "Hope" is now hinting we should get accustomed to a lower quality of life. So which is it? Hope or despair?

I'm all for using less energy (I traded in my 15mpg Blazer for a 30mpg Matrix and we keep our heat at 68). But the last thing I want is the government deciding what temperature my home should be at and what I can eat.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon May 19, 2008 4:10 pm

wco81 wrote:Looks like industry isn't in a big hurry to harvest these sources yet.

The industry would LOVE to harvest these sources. The head of Shell a couple of weeks ago made the rounds stating that we need to get more oil from our own lad and import less. It's the government that's stopping them from going after it. Meanwhile, China and others are going after a lot of the same oil we could be getting ourselves.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon May 19, 2008 4:25 pm

matthewk wrote:
The same guy who was spouting "Yes We Can" and "Hope" is now hinting we should get accustomed to a lower quality of life. So which is it? Hope or despair?

Boy that sure is simplifying everything quite a bit.

All Obama is saying is that we need to change our habits if we want to cut down on our oil consumption. That doesn't sound like "despair" to me.
Just because Obama is touting "Hope" and "Yes We Can" doesn't mean everything is all rosey. He clearly says that all the time.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon May 19, 2008 4:42 pm

matthewk wrote:So the best explaination for Obama's hypocrisy is to take shots at Cheney?

The same guy who was spouting "Yes We Can" and "Hope" is now hinting we should get accustomed to a lower quality of life. So which is it? Hope or despair?

I'm all for using less energy (I traded in my 15mpg Blazer for a 30mpg Matrix and we keep our heat at 68). But the last thing I want is the government deciding what temperature my home should be at and what I can eat.

Obama never said anything about maintaining our energy-intensive lifestyle by finding more oil, AFAIK.

And I'm pretty sure his slogans have nothing to do with finding cheap gas for SUVs.

The energy industry had a receptive congress and administration for most of this decade (although Bush prohibited drilling off FL for obvious reasons).

What stopped them from getting the things they wanted? I like how some people blame environmentalists as if they have any power. Do you really think Greenpeace and similar groups wield the same kind of clout that the energy industry does politically?

Which groups are giving politicians millions and getting billions back in subsidies?

Do you really think Bush had the EPA and other regulatory agencies obey the Sierra Club?

Offshore drilling is probably opposed by tourism industry and people who own expensive property. They also oppose putting wind mills offshore too, even though there's no danger of spills.

Shell is a Dutch company, BTW.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon May 19, 2008 5:26 pm

wco81 wrote:Offshore drilling is probably opposed by tourism industry and people who own expensive property. They also oppose putting wind mills offshore too, even though there's no danger of spills.

Right. So, like I said, it's not the oil industry that is opposed to getting the oil. If they were allowed to by the government, they would.

BTW, I never mentioned Greenpeace or the Sierra club.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon May 19, 2008 5:28 pm

wco81 wrote:Shell is a Dutch company, BTW.

Maybe it was the head of the US part of Shell, maybe it was a different oil company. The point is, that an oil exec stated that they WANT to drill more in the US, but can't. His solution to high oil prices was to not import so much.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon May 19, 2008 5:32 pm

JackB1 wrote:Boy that sure is simplifying everything quite a bit.

I wanted to make sure you could understand it

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon May 19, 2008 5:44 pm

matthewk wrote:I'm all for using less energy (I traded in my 15mpg Blazer for a 30mpg Matrix and we keep our heat at 68.

68? That would be a f*cking sauna at our place. We keep it at 62 during the upstate N.Y. winters.

Take care,
PK

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon May 19, 2008 7:14 pm

matthewk wrote:
wco81 wrote:Offshore drilling is probably opposed by tourism industry and people who own expensive property. They also oppose putting wind mills offshore too, even though there's no danger of spills.
Right. So, like I said, it's not the oil industry that is opposed to getting the oil. If they were allowed to by the government, they would.

BTW, I never mentioned Greenpeace or the Sierra club.

True but a lot of people critical of current policy tend to blame the environmentalists. Truth is a bit more complicated.

Same for refineries or nuclear plants. In the case of refineries, there may be siting and permitting issues, including environmental considerations. But the other part is that refineries were low margin businesses, especially when oil was under $30 as it was at the start of this decade.

On nuclear plants, there's a lot of political opposition because the fundamental problem of disposal isn't solved. For everyone who advocates building plants, are you willing to dump the waste nearby where you live? Or downwind from a disposal site?

Back to offshore drilling. The oil companies probably want subsidized or very cheap leases to drill in federally-controlled areas, just as they get with some sites on land. Can they guarantee that there's enough oil to affect global supply and reduce prices?

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon May 19, 2008 7:37 pm

pk500 wrote:
matthewk wrote:I'm all for using less energy (I traded in my 15mpg Blazer for a 30mpg Matrix and we keep our heat at 68.
68? That would be a f*cking sauna at our place. We keep it at 62 during the upstate N.Y. winters.

Take care,
PK

Im cold reading that

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon May 19, 2008 7:44 pm

Why is gas so much more expensive in europe?

http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2008/04/eu ... t-350.html

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon May 19, 2008 8:28 pm

They have much higher gas taxes, which they use to build and maintain their public transportation infrastructure.

They also have tolls on their equivalents of the interstate highways we have here.

There's a story that Rockefeller wanted a market for oil so he got Henry Ford to work on mass producing cars.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, there was decent public transportation but all the investment went towards car ownership.

Ike justified interstate highway system on the basis of national security, the need to move forces from one end of the country to the other but it basically enabled suburban sprawl.

Until the oil embargo in the '70s and the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, US was able to make sure Arab govts. were friendly to our needs. That took some investment, whether it was having the CIA overthrow Mossadeq or having military assets able to deploy anywhere in the Middle East.

We've been spending our tax dollars so that we wouldn't have to spend as much on oil and gas. We haven't really paid that much less than Europe.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon May 19, 2008 9:05 pm

wco81 wrote:. We haven't really paid that much less than Europe.

Okayyyyyy

They pay twice as much.

Next.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Mon May 19, 2008 9:16 pm

pk500 wrote:
matthewk wrote:I'm all for using less energy (I traded in my 15mpg Blazer for a 30mpg Matrix and we keep our heat at 68.
68? That would be a f*cking sauna at our place. We keep it at 62 during the upstate N.Y. winters.

Take care,
PK

So is this the scale...

72 --- Republicans
68 --- Democrats
62 --- Libertarians

Haha...

Smurfy · Post by **Smurfy** » Mon May 19, 2008 11:02 pm

wco81 wrote:Until the oil embargo in the '70s and the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, US was able to make sure Arab govts. were friendly to our needs. That took some investment, whether it was having the CIA overthrow Mossadeq or having military assets able to deploy anywhere in the Middle East.

To be fair, wasn't it Britain that asked for help in the deposing of Mossadegh? Oh, and of course Iran isn't an Arab nation.

Other than that little bit of almost irrelevant nitpicking, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Urban sprawl in North America was very much a matter of social engineering. It didn't have to happen this way.

Smurfy · Post by **Smurfy** » Mon May 19, 2008 11:07 pm

XXXIV wrote:
wco81 wrote:. We haven't really paid that much less than Europe.
Okayyyyyy

They pay twice as much.

Next.

The point is that if you also consider what you pay indirectly to subsidize what you pay at the pump (portions of the military and CIA budgets) then you don't get much less than what the Europeans pay.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon May 19, 2008 11:09 pm

Smurfy wrote:
XXXIV wrote:
wco81 wrote:. We haven't really paid that much less than Europe.
Okayyyyyy

They pay twice as much.

Next.
The point is that if you also consider what you pay indirectly to subsidize what you pay at the pump (portions of the military and CIA budgets) then you don't get much less than what the Europeans pay.

I got the point...I DONT buy it...The miltary and the CIA do alot more than get gas at cheaper prices...Thats just paranoid leftist fantasy.

Anyone with a logical answer?

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Mon May 19, 2008 11:12 pm

fecking liberals

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon May 19, 2008 11:33 pm

How much has been spent just on the carrier groups deployed regularly in the Persian Gulf? They're not there to protect sand.

Even conservatives acknowledge the indirect costs of securing oil over the decades, only they seemed to have noticed it recently in the context of oil money funding Islamic extremism.

Then there are the billions of tax dollars spent on roads and other infrastructure to promote motoring.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon May 19, 2008 11:49 pm

wco81 wrote:How much has been spent just on the carrier groups deployed regularly in the Persian Gulf? They're not there to protect sand.

Even conservatives acknowledge the indirect costs of securing oil over the decades, only they seemed to have noticed it recently in the context of oil money funding Islamic extremism.

Then there are the billions of tax dollars spent on roads and other infrastructure to promote motoring.

It's a conspiracy!!!!

What're you suggesting...horse and buggy resurgence?:lol:

Seriously, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if we'd just get up to Montana, and Alaska, and drill. Get our own oil, on our own soil, double (at least) the refineries, add a LOT of new jobs-good, secure ones-and we can set our own damn prices in a few years. We'd be able to do that now, but noooooo...

We've got no one with a backbone that will say 'to hell with politics-we need this, and I'm going to fight for it, special interest groups be damned.'

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue May 20, 2008 12:16 am

Are the motivations behind these policies that opaque to you?

They probably will drill in ANWR and other domestic areas some day. But unless the geologists are wrong, the production will not be enough to prevent continued imports of most of the oil we use.

US, Russia, Canada and some scandinavian countries will also fight over rights to suspected deposits in the Arctic. Last year, Russia sent some sub to plant their flag on the ocean floor and claim oil rights.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... stunt.html

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Tue May 20, 2008 12:29 am

wco81 wrote:Are the motivations behind these policies that opaque to you?

No, it's not opacity that's the problem-it's that I don't pretend to 'know' things that some of you claim to have an inside track on. You don't 'know' what you're purporting to know here, wco. You are assigning motive based upon whatever makes 'them' look the most sinister. It's an old play from an even older playbook...