|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 26, 2005 11:35:36 GMT -5
You are the one adding the "Just" to that sentence ... not the ones you are presenting yourself as disagreeing with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Sept 26, 2005 11:39:14 GMT -5
As far as I can tell the current adminstrations talking about alternatives has been just that talking. There's alot of posturing from the pro-oil side but not much action.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 26, 2005 12:01:05 GMT -5
Give me a break Mantis ... there is a lot of posturing on ALL sides without a lot of action. That is why we've been having debates about energy for decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Sept 26, 2005 12:11:34 GMT -5
The approach of "let's just find more oil" is sort of like suggesting that a crack addict find more crack to deal with his addiction. Obviously there are those who don't really feel the dependence on oil is the problem...they feel a shortage of oil might be becuase we're dependent on it, but they have no problem with the dependence itself. Very well put. We ARE addicted - - we MUST find a way to rehabilitate ourselves. It IS an almighty nigh-impossible tall order. That is no reason to dismiss it out of hand. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Sept 26, 2005 12:35:59 GMT -5
Personally, I think alot of it has to do with the fact that we're not producing any more refineries. You can have barrells of oil everywhere, but if you have no way to refine, it really doesn't do anyone much good. I think that you can build more refineries without doing much more drilling or starting excessive drilling.
That being said though, let's look at this realisticly. GM and the Oil lobby is not going to give up oil. You can talk "alternative fuels" all you want, but I don't think it's going to happen for a while. I think that the only thing that would change that would be a mass mobilization of people upon Washington and I don't really see that either. Basically, I think you should move to New York, L.A., San Fran or any other major city where there is really good public transit and sell your car if you're vehemently against oil and oil companies. There you go: problem solved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Sept 26, 2005 12:41:33 GMT -5
Give me a break Mantis ... there is a lot of posturing on ALL sides without a lot of action. That is why we've been having debates about energy for decades. Your point? You're arguing that all sides agree that our dependence on oil is a problem, which isn't true. You're arguing that everyone is interested in reducing the amount of oil we use, which also isn't true. Of course there's posturing in both side if you'd like to point where out I've defended them I'll gladly give an apology until then I stand by my statement that those in power, ie Team Bush and Big Oil, aren't interested in weaning our oil consumption are therefore aren't doing anything substantial about it. |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Sept 26, 2005 13:07:41 GMT -5
Can you ultralibs stop pretending this ANWAR stuff is all about the oil? It's about spreading Democracy to the people of Iraq.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Sept 26, 2005 13:23:34 GMT -5
It's not just Team Bush that's been in the pockets of the oil lobby. There has been much evidence to point out that it's been Team Administration since oil was discovered in this country. From Standard Oil to Exxon, I feel like this problem has been a problem from all sides for over a hundred years.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Sept 26, 2005 13:25:02 GMT -5
You know the one thing I have been thinking about is that with this whole Katrina and Rita thing, with the enormous cost, you'd think that the spending to cut would be for the War. It's probably wishful thinking on my part, but I could potentially seeing the plus side of this being that we pull out of the War.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 26, 2005 13:28:48 GMT -5
You know the one thing I have been thinking about is that with this whole Katrina and Rita thing, with the enormous cost, you'd think that the spending to cut would be for the War. It's probably wishful thinking on my part, but I could potentially seeing the plus side of this being that we pull out of the War. Why is spending on the war examined over wasteful spending for nothing - ie bridges to nowhere? |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Sept 26, 2005 13:30:16 GMT -5
Because it is a bridge to nowhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Sept 26, 2005 13:32:38 GMT -5
It seems the majority of the country agrees with you Skvor. Not that that matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Sept 26, 2005 15:20:01 GMT -5
I'm sorry, Chrisfan, but I find that bridges for Iraq is NOWHERE. I find that promoting and strenghthening democracy on our own soil is far more helpful to the American people than Iraq. I don't buy that argument of we're only helping out the Iraqi people either, or we would be going to North Korea, Darfur, Chechnya, South America, and the list goes on and on and on of the terrible regimes that we are not helping out. I also hate that counter argument of alot of people that we can't help everyone either, well.........there were cases far more dire to our interests and the human rights violations of the people than that of Iraq.
Personally, we have much to stamp out here at home before we start promoting things overseas.
So......about that drilling.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 26, 2005 15:37:55 GMT -5
I wasn't looking to debate the validity of the war Skvor - I think that's been done enough. I was simply asking why it seems that war spending is mentioned instantly when budget issues come up, but other spending, deemed wasteful by just about everyone, is not.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Sept 26, 2005 16:39:58 GMT -5
A resounding, "YES" from me. The EPA is not our friend. I'm convinced that they actually care more about the caribou than people. The EPA is inflicted with human hatred and animal worshipping worldview that is devoid of common sense and reason. I would love to see this backed up. Otherwise, it seems to me that the question should be, "When did Melon become an extremist wacko?" |
|
