Finally! Someone with brains

[RandallNeighbour]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPch2k63uj4&eurl=http://www.xanga.com/lladnar777

[RandallNeighbour]

Oh yeah, happy codependence day!

(I decided America isn't independent any longer. OPEC has us by the balls).

[Brucelee]

Good stuff. Way too logical and straight forward for the candidates, who will continue the same old, same old.

God Bless America, we are going to need it.

:D

[rick3000]

That was a fantastic monologue.

Vote Joe American '08! :D

[Jump]

Will someone please explain to Joe American that oil companies are publicly traded entities meaning that once they extract the oil, it is no longer ours. What we need is:

1) The Government to get into the oil business and force out the oil companies.
2) Let's just make Iraq a U. S. territory. We are there, we have semi-control of the country, we've spent hundreds of billions on the place (granted, it is money borrowed from countries like France and China). Energy problem solved (for the duration of our lives, your children are still screwed). How about we actually get something out of this war?

[Brucelee]

Will someone please explain to Joe American that oil companies are publicly traded entities meaning that once they extract the oil, it is no longer ours. What we need is:

1) The Government to get into the oil business and force out the oil companies.
2) Let's just make Iraq a U. S. territory. We are there, we have semi-control of the country, we've spent hundreds of billions on the place (granted, it is money borrowed from countries like France and China). Energy problem solved (for the duration of our lives, your children are still screwed). How about we actually get something out of this war?


I see three errors in your logic:

1-The government LEASES the right to drill for oil to any oil company who cuts the deal. What they do with the oil is subject to negotiation with the owner of the land. Hence, assuming the govt knows how to negotiate (arguably they do not), they can cut whatever deal they can make.

2- It would almost certainly be illegal to "make Iraq" a territory of the US. Moreover. this action would most certainly cost us more in the long run. The ramifications are almost endless.

Having said that, there are again, deals we can negotiate for access to that oil. Since we have troops on the ground, now is the time to negotiate.

3-Forcing the oil companies out of business would liikely be illegal also and certainly puts us up there with fine countries like Venezuela. I assume you don't like that company to keep?

Moveover, what in your experience makes you believe the govt is as competent at getting oil as say, Exxon. What in your experience makes you think the govt will screw us any LESS than the oil companies?

I like the capitalistic system. If Exxon is making a lot of money on us, I can buy there stock. Not so with the fed govt.

[Jump]

Ahhhh, capitalism. It seems to me I brought that very point up in a previous thread? Let's revisit those thoughts based on your comments. The oil companies as publicly traded companies have one responsibility and objective that supersedes all others and that is to maximize shareholder value. I read somewhere that the oil companies currently have drilling rights to something like 40 million acres on American soil that they aren't drilling on. Why? It is much cheaper for them to get the oil elsewhere. I believe I've also heard that much of it is a lower grade oil. Do you really expect the oil companies to agree to go after the oil you are promoting on a contract that will reduce shareholder return? Not going to happen. Sure, we may as well try to do something but anyone who thinks it is a panacea for the current energy problem is a fool. There is far more involved than just simply going in and getting the oil.

[Quickurt]

Jump,
You are obviously in the wrong place to be spouting your just learned in college socialism/communism.
Everything you spout has been tried, several times, and it has ALWAYS been a dismal failure. It WILL also always be a dismal failure.
A command economy will not work because no single person has the intelligence to replace the instituional intelligence of millions of people doing what is right for them. IF no single person has this intelligence, then a committee will be worse, as has been proven over and over. When you put mulitple intelligences on a committee, you must SUBTRACT IQ's from the total to arrive at the combined IQ of the committee.
The Soviet Union no longer exists because it could come no where near competing with the capitalist west in producing ANYTHING. The only reason they had any military strength was they forced the workforce at gunpoint, to the detriment of producing anything else. They had to buy wheat from us, EVERY YEAR because their wonderful owned and controlled by the government farms didn't produce shit, even though they had at least three times the land area we used to feed us, them and most of the rest of the world, while we continued to pay a large percentage of our farmers to NOT grow anything because there was no need for it and no more space to store it.
The only reason China has moved into the modern world is because they adopted capitalist economy while trying to maintain communist society. Watch China carefully as they now try to show off their new world image while trying to keep the western cameras away from what they don't want seen, during the olympics.
In closing, I'll makwe you the Rush Limbaugh challenge:
You show me three things the government does efficiently, and we'll discuss this further.

[Quickurt]

Sorry,
I read Jump's misguided, juvenile rants before telling RandallNeighbor
THANKS!!! :dance:
I emailed that out to my politics group, as well as many others in my address book because this video needs to be seen by every American.
I'm so sick of the two asswipe parties and the media deciding on what issues are going to be discussed and debated during an election cycle and continuing to totally ignore the main issues controlling the lives of the 300,000,000 not running for office. :cheers:

[Brucelee]

[QUOTE=Jump]Ahhhh, capitalism. It seems to me I brought that very point up in a previous thread? Let's revisit those thoughts based on your comments. The oil companies as publicly traded companies have one responsibility and objective that supersedes all others and that is to maximize shareholder value. I read somewhere that the oil companies currently have drilling rights to something like 40 million acres on American soil that they aren't drilling on. Why? It is much cheaper for them to get the oil elsewhere. I believe I've also heard that much of it is a lower grade oil. Do you really expect the oil companies to agree to go after the oil you are promoting on a contract that will reduce shareholder return? Not going to happen. Sure, we may as well try to do something but anyone who thinks it is a panacea for the current energy problem is a fool. There is far more involved than just simply going in and getting the oil.[/QUOTE


Thanks for calling me a fool, especially for something I never suggested.

No, drilling for more oil in the US is not a panacea and I have yet to say so. I have also not heard anyone else suggest that it is either. However, to NOT drill for oil that you have in the fact of world wide demand increases seems illogical. If you have a logic for that strategy, by all means, please send it on along.

I have happy that you have "heard that the oil companies are not drilling on land they have rights to and that this oil is of a lower grade. Cites would be more impressive than what you "heard."

As for the companies selling it on the market, they will do what they are allowed to do. However, as someone who wants to nationalize the oil industry, I would suggest to you that what happens to oil that is owned by the US Govt and is leased to the oil companies for drilling is open to negotiation.

Ergo, whatever deal that makes sense to both to both sides will get done. I of course, am skeptical of the govt's ability to cut a good deal but more so of their ability to get into the oil business.

Yes, there is much more involved than simply going and getting the oil. However, I guess you are suggesting that we just leave it there.

That seems like a fine strategy. Hey, you don't like capitalism, I get that. However. you really never propose any other workable ideas either, so it is, what it is.

Unless you like socialism, then you can move to France or GB. That's what they have there. Oh, and really tiny little cars too.

Freedom is a wonderful thing. :)

[Brucelee]

I like Jump's logic. The fed govt is inept in literally everything they do. The list is endless.

However, this time they will get it right. They will solve the energy issues AND deal with the mythical global warming/CO2 problem.

Utopia, straight ahead, brought to you by the same folks who got you into this mess.

What am I missing here?

[Quickurt]

Jump,

Why does someone who believes as you do own a high powered sportscar?
Driving a Boxster with a Prius belief structure must make for some sleepless nights? :confused:

[Brucelee]

Iraq's Oil Surge
July 5, 2008;


Here's a thought experiment: Assume that Iraq's democratic government declared it was nationalizing its oil industry, a la Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, while excluding American companies from the country. How do you think U.S. politicians would react? With angry cries of "ingratitude" and "this is what Americans died for"?


Of course they would, led no doubt by that critic for all reasons, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. So it is passing strange that Mr. Schumer and other Senators are now assailing Iraq precisely because it is opening up to foreign oil companies, especially to U.S. majors like Exxon Mobil and Chevron. For some American pols, everything that happens in Iraq is bad news, especially when it's good news for the U.S.

Iraq announced this week that it is inviting global competition to develop its major oil reserves, with 35 oil companies invited to bid. By tapping outside capital and expertise, Iraq hopes to increase production by 60%, providing a much-needed boost to its own coffers and the world's tight oil supply.


This is welcome news. With elections looming later this year and next, the temptation for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government must have been to play the nationalist card – the way that Mr. Schumer did against Dubai Ports World's proposed U.S. investment in 2006 (see, for instance, "Ports of Gall"). Many Iraqis remain suspicious of outside oil companies – the legacy of a colonial past in which Iraq felt exploited for its oil.

Instead, Iraq chose competitive bidding that will bring in the best expertise to exploit its national resource. Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani is predicting that, with outside help, Iraq could become the second or third largest oil-producing country in the world. Today it produces about 2.5 million barrels a day, compared to 11 million for the world-leading Saudis. Foreign companies will be required to have an Iraqi partner, and to hire Iraqis, while most oil revenues will still flow to the Iraqi people.



What seems to irk Mr. Schumer – and running mates John Kerry and Missouri's Claire McCaskill – is Iraq's decision to sign shorter-term, no-bid service contracts with Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Total and Chevron. Most of these firms had extensive experience in Iraq prior to Saddam Hussein's nationalization, and were chosen because their knowledge will help Iraq boost near-term production. The contracts will run no more than two years, and all five firms have spent the past three years providing training, analysis and advice to Iraq – free of charge.

The Democrats nonetheless stomped their feet in a letter last week to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. They demanded that she intervene to stop the Iraqis "from signing contracts with multinational oil companies until a [national oil law] is in effect in Iraq." Their complaint is that a hydrocarbon law is one of the Bush Administration's "benchmarks for reconciliation" in Iraq, and that these oil contracts would only "further deepen political tension in Iraq and put our service members in even greater danger." They also griped that the five firms would get an "insider's advantage" to later oil bidding.


Also piling on is House baron Henry Waxman, who is upset with a separate contract that the Kurdistan Regional Government has signed with Texas's Hunt Oil. Mr. Waxman thinks the Bush Administration didn't do enough to stop the deal. Then again, this is old news, as the contract was signed last year. And while the Baghdad central government wasn't pleased the Kurds had moved on a contract without national approval, the deal hasn't impeded Iraq's broader progress.

We doubt French politicians are objecting to Total's contract, but American Democrats are so blinkered about Iraq that they now object even to U.S. companies getting business on the merits. The hydrocarbon law would help to clarify revenue-sharing between Baghdad and Iraq's outlying provinces. But even without that law, oil revenues are already flowing throughout the country, including to Sunni-majority areas.

The faster and more efficiently the oil deposits are developed, the more revenue there will be to distribute. And the faster Iraq will be able to rebuild on its own – which is what Democrats say they want. Meanwhile, by inviting foreign partners, Iraq is avoiding the trap of nationalization that has harmed so many countries. It concentrates political power, undermining democracy. National oil companies also tend to underinvest in technology, letting harder-to-exploit oil become a wasting asset.

What the U.S. should promote in Iraq is some kind of oil trust, or stock or revenue dispersal, that would give individual Iraqis a share of their oil wealth. This would be both a tool to build national unity and to prevent any one political group from dominating Iraq's main revenue source. If Mr. Schumer wants to help on that score, he might do some good.

[JackG]

Jump,

Why does someone who believes as you do own a high powered sportscar?
Driving a Boxster with a Prius belief structure must make for some sleepless nights? :confused:


It's the typical liberal / socialist thought process.

"Do as I say, not as I do." :rolleyes:

[Sboxin]

An observation: 'joe american' video looks a lot like the Newt Gringrich video currently circulating.

Both have workable ideas.

But, the Iraq idea sticks in my craw a bit...

IMHO of course :)

Ed :cheers:

[Jump]

Wow, there is a serious problem with reading comprehension on this site isn’t there? I simply point out the obvious of what would need to happen for the pipe dream of more drilling on American soil to actually impact prices and I get labeled a communist? Nowhere did I mention that this is what I wanted to happen or even supported. Give me a break.

I am all about capitalism and fully accept the current price of gas. I’m not happy about it but I accept it. I do believe that the very same thing that screwed up the real estate market for the average American is the same thing that is causing the rapid increase in gas prices over the last year, greed. If you are going to tell me that capitalism and greed are one in the same, then I guess we’ll have to disagree on that. The speculators are driving the cost and eventually that market will bust as well and oil prices will return to a more normal level.

Brucelee, here are some citations for you. There is a search engine called Google where you can get more:

“According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, production is currently occurring on just 20 percent of the 38.5 million acres of outer continental shelf that oil and gas companies currently hold drilling rights to. Onshore, oil companies hold the drilling rights to nearly 43 million acres of federal land and are only producing on 28 percent, according to the Bureau of Land Management. “

http://www.e85fuel.com/news/2008/060608/big_oil_report.pdf
http://www.hvpress.net/news/126/ARTICLE/4662/2008-06-27.html

You should all be happy to know that the oil companies are starting offshore exploration off the Florida coast. Why? Because with the current value of oil, it is in their economic interest to do so. Of course, if the cost of oil drops again they will probably pull their exploration. So what do you want, exploration and drilling on American soil or a low cost of oil. They don’t go hand in hand.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iAmaMKv9dF1vMEghI_Y9HKQruRnAD91NN0NO0

Another example, there is lots of known oil in western North Dakota but the oil pumps have been sitting silent for the last 20 years. Why? It wasn’t in the oil companies economic interests to extract the oil based on the costs versus the return. It was much cheaper to get the oil elsewhere meaning more profit for their shareholders.


Let me try to make this very simple. The oil companies are in business to make a profit. They are going to make decisions based on what is in their own best interest. They don’t care what we want them to do or about what we are paying at the pumps. They have plenty of places to get oil here and around the world without us having to give them more. They have no reason to increase supply because there isn’t the demand for it as current world wide oil production is exceeding demand. They don’t care that we want them to get our oil. If they do get our oil, it probably would no longer be our oil. They will get the oil where it costs them the least and has the ability to make them the most profit. That place isn't here.

The economy and oil prices are pretty much exactly where I expected them to be at the end of this administration’s term. I find it humorous that China was brought into the discussion. A country that we have borrowed tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars from over the last 7 years to sustain our economy. That is shameful and embarrassing isn't it? I definitely am not happy about what this administrations policies have done to the value of the dollar. I’m going to Europe for 2 weeks in September (flying World Business Class by the way) on vacation and the cost of the Euro is just ridiculous. My hotel room on Champs-Elysees Ave in Paris is going for $800 per day. Not good.



Thanks for calling me a fool, especially for something I never suggested.

You are talking in circles here. Here is what I said, "Sure, we may as well try to do something but anyone who thinks it is a panacea for the current energy problem is a fool." If you don't think it is a panacea, then obviously I didn't call you a fool.


Why does someone who believes as you do own a high powered sportscar?


Wow, I've always considered it to be a great handling sports car but I've never considered it as "High Powered".

[Brucelee]

Jump,

Without addressing your snide remarks and superior attitude, I would suggest that no one has an problem comprehending what you say. I just don't agree with you take on what might occur in the future. You have it preordained as such, I believe it is not so fixed in stone.

Like many, you make assertions about the future which you hold as true. I would suggest a test.

Simply make the oil leases available on a bid basis. I THINK this is exactly what is happening in Iraq. Seems these oil companies ARE interested in oil sourcing, as they are lined up trying to deal.

Again, for the third time, this is a negotiation. It will be pretty clear in this process what the companies will or will not agree to.

You seem to assume that all of the oil companies operate in lock step yet it is pretty clear that they compete prettty damn hard in sourcing oil. So, it is my contention that it is very easy to figure out what the oil companies will or will not do. Remember, its about profit growth and EPS, NOT just profit per barrel. If I can pump more than the next guy, I win.

So, lets say that no one shows up? Then, I think the feds have a clear opp to get into the oil business. That is what they do when the private sector will not step up and fill a need.

You keep asserting that the oil companies will do whatever is in their best interests. That is true of all companies. However, markets constrain, so if the owner of the oil creates conditions that the oil companies don't like, they can walk.

Of course, other companies can walk right in.

That is capitalism.

In the future, keep your remarks more civil.

Thanks for playing.

[Quickurt]

I've watched and read enough of the oil company investigations to know a few things.
1- the oil leases they have and are not drilling are because it's not profitable to try to produce those areas. Just because the oil companies lease land to explore, does not mean there is a profitable pool to drill, it means they leased the land to do exploration.
2- the oil companies are all asking the government to open the areas in question because they KNOW there are profitable pools to drill, and they want to drill and produce them.
3- most of what we've seen, to date, has been the congress grandstanding and spouting bogus information (like all the acres the companies are not drilling) to deflect the truth that they have been restricting all energy production for many decades to placate the loud mouthed, well financed, but miniscule segment of the population known as environmentalists.
None of us want to deface or destroy anything on earth, not just in America, however, the green/environmental movement refuses to step into the 21st century and realize that we are drilling and producing oil all over the world with virtually no environmental impact.
Google is full of Alaska oil drilling and production photos, where is the environmental disaster?

[Brucelee]

Lets think this through:

The US has land with proven oil reserves sitting down below. There are at least 35 oil companies world wide that can extract the oil for a profit. According to Jump, they NOT ONE of these companies will be interested in drilling for oil.

I would like to sit on the board of one of those companies and listen to the CEO tell me why he does not want to expand the business and increase earnings.

Sounds a bit far fetched to me. However, the acid test is to see what happens in Iraq. If Jump is right, not one will belly up to the bar and bid.

[Brucelee]

From a June 25 interview by CNBC's Larry Kudlow with James Hackett, CEO of Anadarko Petroleum:

Mr. Kudlow: What about . . . the leases. I heard a U.S. senator on one of the talk shows yesterday say well, "there's 41 million acres worth of leases out there, but they're only using 10 million." . . . What is your response to that argument?

Mr. Hackett: Well, one, it shows a very poor understanding of how the oil and gas business actually works. It's a bit like the real estate development arena. If you were developing a real estate development, you wouldn't just do it on one acre, you wouldn't just build one house. To make it economic you'd actually buy, let's call it 50 acres and you'd build a housing development.

In our case, we don't just take just one lease to get a well drilled. We actually take several leases if we're lucky enough to get them. It's all competitively bid. The federal government collects billions of dollars from this stuff. It's as if they don't get anything, if you listen to the soundbites. We also pay annual rentals.

So we're putting together an economically developable area because remember, we're drilling miles into the ocean sometimes, miles into the ground, without knowing there's anything there. So to assume it's on that one acre that you actually bought is crazy. And so what we'll do is we'll actually get 10 or 15 leases, and then we'll drill, and then we'll figure out if it's there or if it's on the next lease next door.

And these things take time. You have to permit them. You have to shoot seismic to be able to do the right science, image it below salt. And then you go and drill it, if you're lucky enough to get a permit, after you've done all your environmental studies.

[Brucelee]

Using the logic of the Democrats in opposing drilling because it would take 10 years to produce anything, we would have no pecans, walnuts, oranges, apples, lumber, or interstate highways. Short-sighted thinking by the people we have entrusted to guide this country has gotten us in this mess."

[Quickurt]

Using the logic of the Democrats in opposing drilling because it would take 10 years to produce anything, we would have no pecans, walnuts, oranges, apples, lumber, or interstate highways. Short-sighted thinking by the people we have entrusted to guide this country has gotten us in this mess."
Party politics fuels the fire of elected ignorance.

[Brucelee]

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. - A federal judge has overturned a decision by the U.S. Forest Service to allow oil and gas drilling near a forest and a river in Michigan's northern Lower Peninsula.

ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. District Judge David Lawson of Detroit ruled Thursday the agency had acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" in 2005 by giving Savoy Energy LP of Traverse City a permit to drill an exploratory well near the Au Sable River's south branch.

The proposed wellhead would be located in the Huron-Manistee National Forest about three-tenths of a mile from the Mason Tract, a 4,679-acre wilderness area prized by anglers and other outdoor recreationists.

Forest supervisor Leanne Marten said when approving Savoy's application that the project wouldn't significantly harm the environment and the company would be required to keep noise to a minimum.

But the judge ruled the Forest Service didn't consider how degrading the area could harm tourism, and said the agency did a "woefully inadequate" job of evaluating how the drilling might affect the Kirtland's warbler, an endangered songbird that nests in the area.

Two environmental groups, the Sierra Club and Anglers of the Au Sable, sued the government to halt the drilling. Joining the suit was Tim Mason, whose grandfather, auto executive George Mason, donated the original 1,200 acres to the state upon his death in 1954 and asked that it be maintained as wilderness.

"The ruling supports what my grandfather's vision was. It's a victory," said Mason, a Woodstock, Ill., businessman.

Huron-Manistee spokesman Ken Arbogast referred a request for comment to the U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the Forest Service in court. Andrew Ames, a spokesman for the department, said its attorneys were studying Lawson's ruling and had not decided whether to appeal.

A message seeking comment was left with Savoy.

Leaders of the environmental groups urged the company and the government to look for other places to explore for oil and gas.

"We've said from the beginning we didn't want to stop them from drilling," said Marvin Roberson, a forest policy specialist with the Sierra Club. "We want them to drill from a place that won't be harmful to the old-growth forest or the recreational experience."

Although the Mason Tract is state property, the federal government owns rights to minerals beneath it and leased production rights to Savoy. In 2003, the company filed for a permit to drill into one of its lease holdings.

The plan was to clear about 3.5 acres of forest for a well site on federal land, then drill beneath the Mason Tract at an angle. If enough gas or oil was found, the company intended to install a pipeline and build a production facility about a mile east of the well.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management approved the project shortly after the Forest Service granted the permit. But it has been on hold since Lawson issued an order in December 2005 blocking the company from clearing land to get started.

[Quickurt]

"We've said from the beginning we didn't want to stop them from drilling," said Marvin Roberson, a forest policy specialist with the Sierra Club. "We want them to drill from a place that won't be harmful to the old-growth forest or the recreational experience."

What they are really saying;
"Because we know that place does not exist. Pick as many places as you want and we'll sue you at everyone of them until you give up."

[Brucelee]

"We've said from the beginning we didn't want to stop them from drilling," said Marvin Roberson, a forest policy specialist with the Sierra Club. "We want them to drill from a place that won't be harmful to the old-growth forest or the recreational experience."

What they are really saying;
"Because we know that place does not exist. Pick as many places as you want and we'll sue you at everyone of them until you give up."


I think their agenda is clear. Years back, I used to send money to the sierra club. No more.

[fragdude]

Heres food for thought:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7S-lxQ1SN0&feature=related

[Quickurt]

Heres food for thought:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7S-lxQ1SN0&feature=related
I can go on youtube and do the same thing about anyone. This clown has no proof of anything he claims. I shill for big oil? a Professional actor? Says who?

[fragdude]

I can go on youtube and do the same thing about anyone. This clown has no proof of anything he claims. I shill for big oil? a Professional actor? Says who?

Im just playin devils advocate. Decently legitimate points are made in both videos. But, didn't the first one seem a bit professional :)

who knows? not I, thats for sure

[Brucelee]

As far as I can tell, the US Congress had not had an effective energy policy in place for the past 35 yrs.

I suggest that is a fact.

Who pays the price for this? I think the tax payer.

I suggest this is a fact.

Game, set, and match.

Ditto, illegal immigration.

Ditto, Social Secruity and medicare.

Ditto, financial management/ federal deficit.

Any dissenters, lets hear it?

Thanks

:)

[Quickurt]

I can't argue with a word of that, Brucelee!

The guy in the supposed expose' of Joe America exposes himself in the first paragraph when he claims Joe America is an agent for big oil. First off, who the hell is "big oil?" Second, and primary for me is the first thing, and I mean within about two seconds, the PROFFESSIONAL GW alarmists do when a real scientist debunks there BS is start screaming, "He's being paid by BIG OIL!! BIG OIL!! BIG OIL!!"
SO when I hear that all too familiar rant, I know who HE is.

[Quickurt]

As far as I can tell, the US Congress had not had an effective energy policy in place for the past 35 yrs.

I suggest that is a fact.

Who pays the price for this? I think the tax payer.

I suggest this is a fact.

Game, set, and match.

Ditto, illegal immigration.

Ditto, Social Secruity and medicare.

Ditto, financial management/ federal deficit.

Any dissenters, lets hear it?

Thanks

:)
Another thing the supposed Joe America debunker is doing is defelectintg the issue into a personal attack, in order to NOT discuss the issues brought up. He's constantly saying to "take what I say in consideration" (paraphrasing), but DON'T take what Joe America is saying into consideration.
Bruce hits the nail on the head, above.
The main point of JA is don't promise us a sound energy policy, immigration policy, financial policy, etc., etc., etc.
Spell out your policies NOW and the people will vote for the one they think is best.
We've heard the promises too long, and we're sick of no policy ever developing, so develope the policy NOW, not after.
We're no longer interested in voting against the worse guy. We want to vote for the best guy, so lay the cards on the table, or fold and take your ass home, where you belong.

[Dr. Kill]

Using the logic of the Democrats in opposing drilling because it would take 10 years to produce anything, we would have no pecans, walnuts, oranges, apples, lumber, or interstate highways. Short-sighted thinking by the people we have entrusted to guide this country has gotten us in this mess."

I love this forum. :D

So to throw in my .02 since no one asked, I agree with the short-sighted comment, but I think the “we won’t see any benefit for 10 years” argument is bogus for at least two reasons:

1) If a material amount of new drilling begins, we will see an immediate decline in gas prices due to a shift in price of oil futures. Speculation does play a part in what we pay at the pump.
2) The current 10 year benchmark is not due to technology constraints, rather it is a function of government red tape. Oil company representatives have stated that, if the government would relax the hoops they make companies jump through, they could shorten that 10 years down to 18 months.

[Brucelee]

I love this forum. :D

So to throw in my .02 since no one asked, I agree with the short-sighted comment, but I think the “we won’t see any benefit for 10 years” argument is bogus for at least two reasons:

1) If a material amount of new drilling begins, we will see an immediate decline in gas prices due to a shift in price of oil futures. Speculation does play a part in what we pay at the pump.
2) The current 10 year benchmark is not due to technology constraints, rather it is a function of government red tape. Oil company representatives have stated that, if the government would relax the hoops they make companies jump through, they could shorten that 10 years down to 18 months.


Indeed. It is always interesting to hear these prejorative statements that present as fact something like the 10 yr figure. The media almost NEVER asks these folks to dig below and down into these so called facts to understand exactly WHY it takes 10 yrs. This is how bad the media has become. They simply parrot what is said and then go home for a beer.


I do like watching Lou Dobbs take his daily swing at government. Dems, GOP, fed employees, they all take it in the shorts.

Lou Dobbs in one of the few investigative journalists left in the US without a political agenda.

Go Lou.

[gmboxster]

Thanks Randall for an excellent thread!! Politicans just dont get it. They would rather stay in power and line their pockets than to actually help the people they are in office to help. As JoeAmerica said the politicans are millionaires so they really dont care about the average american. If a politican was on fire I would gladly help them it out with some of that overpriced gasoline.