Thank you, Obama - gas $2.13/gallon
Find a Conversation
Thank you, Obama - gas $2.13/gallon
| Sat, 11-08-2008 - 7:43pm |
I guess since we can already blame Obama for Russia's belligerence and the disastrous economy, logic would dictate that he is to credit for me paying $2.13/gallon for gas today.

Pages
logic would dictate.......
Logic? It's been quite a while since I've seen ány of that here..... but I did get your 'tongue-in-cheek' here and LOL @ your attempt to add some humour
"As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows
Scientists are puzzled, but the phenomenon seems to fit the latest global-warming models"
More at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html
Even if one does not believe that human activity contributes to global warming, there is ample reason to avoid the pollution and environmental cost of fossil fuel and nuclear power sources.
Geopolitically, reliance on fossil fuels has cost hundreds of thousands of lives in needless wars; and enabled totalitarian regimes like that of Hugo Chavez to flourish with money from oil sales.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
Facts stifle the will, hobble conviction.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
>>> Would you have been equally fervent in defending horse breeders, farriers, stable owners, etc., a hundred years ago?
I didn’t “defend” the oil companies, I simply said that you can’t legislate the invention of technology. And throwing money at a problem doesn’t mean the problem will be solved, especially if the solution is innovation…it will happen when it happens and the transition won’t have to be forced.
As it stands now, we don’t have any viable replacements for our petroleum based society, and there are none on the foreseeable horizon. Also, any transition to “new energy” is going to take this country DECADES to accomplish…and during that time we’ll need oil, and plenty of it.
>>> Fossil fuels "aren't 'fossil' fuels"? Huh?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=273259
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1897
>>> Oil companies ARE making record profits. We haven't yet taken away their ability to make money hand over fist--even as they blather on about the uncertainty of future earnings, need to drill more, fewer environmental restrictions....blah, blah, blah.
When you deal in a harvested product, with considerations for human and natural events, there is obviously going to be uncertainty concerning the future, but that doesn’t prevent them from selling large quantities today at market prices. And obviously, if the oil is more plentiful and easier to acquire, the cost to the consumer will be less, so it’s in our benefit to provide them access to off-shore fields and to lessen unnecessary restrictions.
>>> But as other technologies become widely used, mass-produced, and by extension, cheaper, alternative energy companies will have a chance to prove viable competitors--and profits won't be solely in the pockets of oil companies. Hasten the day! However, change isn't easy and fossil fuels have been subsidized, heavily, for over half a century.
As I said, when the alternative technologies work you won’t have to shove them down people’s throats. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, they aren’t viable replacements. As for subsidies…Obama’s already talking about dumping money into “new energy” and it’s likely that new technologies will be as heavily subsidized as the oil industry has been.
>>> Got substantiation for your claims about global warming? Or are we just supposed to accept, on your word and that of vested interests, that human activity is such a piddling contributor to ice melting off the North Pole?
Well, we could start with the simple fact that the earth isn’t warming. LOL! Beyond that, yes, there are many studies, both historical and scientific that show the “warming” is cyclical, and not man made. I have not, however, seen any studies that can prove a direct correlation between man and global warming…or even the fact that the earth is now in a warming period. You might remember that in the mid-70s, “scientists” were all up in arms about “man-made global cooling” and the danger of the earth entering a new ice age. It was a load of bunk too.
>>> Regarding the claim that Obama plans on "complete capitulation to our enemies". Please provide the quote and/or links.
Again, we could start with his stated promise to meet with our enemies unconditionally. Then traipse over to his response to the Russian invasion of Georgia and move frighteningly on from there.
>>> I realize that we get a sizable amount of our oil from OPEC. http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html Stats are from this past September.
Right…and most of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico, and even where OPEC is concerned, Saudi Arabia is an ally.
>>> The past eight years have seen the nation go from thriving economy to foundering, international super-power status to has-been status, and massive unease from the populace at large about the future of the country. http://www.conference-board.org/economics/ConsumerConfidence.cfm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96599102&ft=1&f=1003
No, not really. We’re the only super-power, and several of Europes current leaders won their seats on a specifically pro-American platform, defying the liberal notion that “the world hates us.”
Our economy has also grown more than 20% over the past 8 years…that’s 20% MORE than in the dot.com boom years that Clinton presided over. Considering we started in a recession, were attacked almost immediately and are conducting two wars, that kind of growth is phenomenal. The current crisis is the offspring of the Dem sub-prime lending program, and NOT the fault of the Republicans or Bush who tried to impose regulation but were blocked by the Democrats.
>>> Only time will tell how well Obama does but he won't have to work real hard to look better than the execrable leader we've had since 2001.
7 years of economic growth, near record low unemployment, low inflation, defending the nation against our enemies, seven years and counting without another attack on the country…thanks President Bush.
With Obama…if he keeps his word he’ll screw the economy and Russia is already rattling their sabers at him because he’s so inexperienced. Heaven help us.
True, it's not possible to legislate new technology. That said, we HAVE used government programs to research, develop and test scientific theories--like the atomic bomb, for instance. And subsidies have been used to foster technologies, even "mature" ones like that of fossil fuels. But the oil companies aren't interested in innovation UNLESS they control it and since that innovation would cost money to develop and they're making money hand over fist right now with old technology, howls of "drill, baby, drill", and the continued loosening of environmental constraints by BushCo........not much incentive, is there?
We do have viable alternatives and more are being developed. I've seen wind farms in Kansas, Wyoming, California, New Mexico..... Apparently turbine production can't keep with demand. Go to Hopland, California and visit the Real Goods store there. They're not yet mainstream America but could be before much longer--solar energy is their forte.
Doubtless it would take decades to switch to renewable forms of energy if those with a vested interest in the status quo were put in charge. But hopefully, they won't. Evidently I have greater faith in good old American gumption, because like Al Gore, I think a switch could be effected much faster.
That's an interesting theory about fossil fuels being inorganic and renewable. Who knows, maybe they are. But they're still basically dirty fuels. And the theory is even less widely held in the scientific community than that of global warming! I see no reason whatsoever to give even more environmentally sensitive lands and waters into the hands of oil companies. So doing will definitely slow a shift to alternatives because change is challenging and humans usually trend towards cheap (people don't realize the other costs of fossil fuels in terms of environmental and geopolitical impact) and easy. We were facing energy challenges in the 70's. Look what came of that.
Speaking of which, yes, I remember the debate going on about whether emissions would act to trap warmth and cause a greenhouse effect; or whether minute particles would reflect light and heat back into space possibly taking us into an ice-age. But fossil fuels are dirty and nuclear wasteproducts are toxic for thousands of years. Why foul the nest, regardless of whether it's warming or cooling?
There's a vast difference between meeting one's adversaries and "capitulating". Moreover, saber-rattling when our military is stretched thin with two wars (as McCain did when Georgia and Russia were at odds) is ignorant beyond words. Don't make threats unless you can back them AND ARE WILLING TO PUT WORDS INTO ACTION; or you come across as impotent/inept (see: pre-emptive war in Iraq).
Saudi Arabia is an ally of expediency. The nation is home to some of the most virulently fundamentalist Muslims--the Wahhabi sect. Many of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Perhaps you've forgotten but the Sauds gave Bush short shrift this summer when he pleaded for more oil production during the period of $120+per barrel oil. Some allies. Interesting that Bush didn't go plead for more oil production from Canada, eh? Why do you suppose he went to an OPEC country instead?
Our global stature has been undercut horribly by BushCo's intemperate and ignorant actions. Our traditional allies have reservations about aligning themselves with us now. Sure, some nations elected leaders which favor the U.S.--like France with Sarkozy. Others, like Australia booted out leaders who had joined the "coalition of the willing".
Where did you get the numbers on the economy? I have heard about rising unemployment, failure of the bailout to have the desired impact (boy, was it a hoot hearing Hank Paulson argue with Jim Lehrer and insist on separating "the system" from "the economy" on the PBS NewsHour tonight). And given the wails of distress coming from Detroit, it's not the automotive industry which gained in this flourishing economy you mention. Sooooo....who did? Oil companies?!
I find it ironic that supporters of the GOP, who were in uncontested power for six years, who still control the White House and who still number enough to block fillibuster-proof legislation, are adamant that it was the Democrats to blame for our current economic woes. Either the GOP is ineffectual even when it controls two branches of three, or it's disingenuous and totally unwilling to be held accountable (this in the party which prates about personal responsibility). Ugly either way.
Thank Bush? Hell will freeze over before I commend an arrogant mule-headed idiot--and those are the NICE descriptives I have for him. Kinda funny to talk about what might happen under Obama given our current situation with BushCo. Heaven help us, indeed.
Last but not least, if you are who I think you are, this probably will be the second and last response I write.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
Facts stifle the will, hobble conviction.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
>>> Even if one does not believe that human activity contributes to global warming, there is ample reason to avoid the pollution and environmental cost of fossil fuel and nuclear power sources.
First of all, it's ridiculous to say, our argument might be entirely wrong, but you should do what we say anyway. Second...what are the "ample reasons?" I can see the sense in working to lower pollution, but the US has gotten a LOT cleaner over the past 30 years...no reason to run around like chickens with out heads cut off, killing business and the economy over a boogeyman.
>>> Geopolitically, reliance on fossil fuels has cost hundreds of thousands of lives in needless wars; and enabled totalitarian regimes like that of Hugo Chavez to flourish with money from oil sales
Which wars? And even if we stopped using oil, what do you think the reaction would be from the rest of the world?
>>> True, it's not possible to legislate new technology. That said, we HAVE used government programs to research, develop and test scientific theories--like the atomic bomb, for instance.
Those programs are usually military in nature.
>>> And subsidies have been used to foster technologies, even "mature" ones like that of fossil fuels.
The government subsidizes a lot of things, I don’t know why the left is so fixated on the oil companies. They provide an invaluable service and product for, usually, a pretty reasonable price. Their profit margin is the same as, or less than, most US businesses.
>>> But the oil companies aren't interested in innovation UNLESS they control it and since that innovation would cost money to develop and they're making money hand over fist right now with old technology, howls of "drill, baby, drill", and the continued loosening of environmental constraints by BushCo........not much incentive, is there?
Wrong. First of all, NO ONE is interested in innovation unless they can control it, or at very least, profit from it, that’s why we have patents and copyright laws.
Second, even if someone invented a car that could run on wind tomorrow, it would still take decades to transition from one technology to the other and have it integrated into our society…and perhaps many decades more to reach around the globe, and even then, we would still need petroleum for all of our plastics and lubricants.
The oil companies have nothing to fear from “alternative energy” in the forseeable future…and even less if they actually owned the patents on it and could profit from the sale of that technology.
>>> We do have viable alternatives and more are being developed. I've seen wind farms in Kansas, Wyoming, California, New Mexico..... Apparently turbine production can't keep with demand. Go to Hopland, California and visit the Real Goods store there. They're not yet mainstream America but could be before much longer--solar energy is their forte.
Pipe dreams. The ratio of land/sea requirements to the area that they provide for makes the technology too inefficient for practical use across the country…plus, it removes that land from potential future development. When you can get the technology down to one low profile turbine to power one house, you might be on to something.
>>> Doubtless it would take decades to switch to renewable forms of energy if those with a vested interest in the status quo were put in charge. But hopefully, they won't. Evidently I have greater faith in good old American gumption, because like Al Gore, I think a switch could be effected much faster.
If that were true, then every home in America would have solar panels on the roof and a Prius in the driveway…but they don’t.
>>> That's an interesting theory about fossil fuels being inorganic and renewable. Who knows, maybe they are. But they're still basically dirty fuels.
To some degree. The reason we don’t live under a dark cloud is because as the technology gets better, fuel consumption becomes cleaner and more efficient. I can see no reason that trend wouldn’t continue.
>>> And the theory is even less widely held in the scientific community than that of global warming!
That’s true, but there are too many anomalies in the “fossil fuel” theory for it to make sense to me…but you’re obviously entitled to your own opinion.
>>> I see no reason whatsoever to give even more environmentally sensitive lands and waters into the hands of oil companies. So doing will definitely slow a shift to alternatives because change is challenging and humans usually trend towards cheap (people don't realize the other costs of fossil fuels in terms of environmental and geopolitical impact) and easy. We were facing energy challenges in the 70's. Look what came of that.
We should give the oil companies leases to those lands for three reasons…1) because there’s a strong belief that large quantities of oil are there…2) because the area isn’t “environmentally sensitive” and we have very safe drilling methods…3) because other countries will soon tap these resources.
And with regard to your concerns about “slowing the shift to alternatives”… Obama clearly shares these erroneous beliefs with the glee he showed when gas prices went up, but it’s simply a fact that if we lost all of our oil tomorrow, it wouldn’t make alternative fuels any more viable any quicker. They either work or they don’t and their either practical enough for the public to desire them or they aren’t.
>>> Speaking of which, yes, I remember the debate going on about whether emissions would act to trap warmth and cause a greenhouse effect; or whether minute particles would reflect light and heat back into space possibly taking us into an ice-age. But fossil fuels are dirty and nuclear wasteproducts are toxic for thousands of years. Why foul the nest, regardless of whether it's warming or cooling?
As I said, I’m not a big supporter of taking drastic action “just because.” It also depends on what you mean by “foul the nest.” I’m a supporter of making the world as clean as possible, but damaging businesses and the economy because it makes treehuggers feel good will leave a pretty “foul nest” too.
>>> There's a vast difference between meeting one's adversaries and "capitulating".
In this case, meeting them without pre-conditions WOULD be capitulating.
>>> Moreover, saber-rattling when our military is stretched thin with two wars (as McCain did when Georgia and Russia were at odds) is ignorant beyond words. Don't make threats unless you can back them AND ARE WILLING TO PUT WORDS INTO ACTION; or you come across as impotent/inept (see: pre-emptive war in Iraq).
It’s a bit of a misnomer to describe out military as “stretched thin.” Less than 20% of our military are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we’re more than capable of destroying any nation on earth without deploying a single soldier or fighting any war or engagement with only a modest increase in men and armament. What the Russian’s saw in McCain’s reaction was strength and determination…what they saw in Obama’s was weakness…the kind of weakness that caused OBL to call the US a “paper tiger” and prompted the 9/11 attacks.
>>> Saudi Arabia is an ally of expediency.
Besides England, they’re all “allies of expediency.”
>>> The nation is home to some of the most virulently fundamentalist Muslims--the Wahhabi sect. Many of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Perhaps you've forgotten but the Sauds gave Bush short shrift this summer when he pleaded for more oil production during the period of $120+per barrel oil. Some allies. Interesting that Bush didn't go plead for more oil production from Canada, eh? Why do you suppose he went to an OPEC country instead?
I guess he went to Saudi Arabia because of his family connections, but I could be mistaken, and it’s unlikely that the US would jump through hoops at the request of one of our allies if it didn’t serve our interests. But the President wouldn’t have had to make that trip if the oil companies were allowed to do off-shore drilling.
>>> Our global stature has been undercut horribly by BushCo's intemperate and ignorant actions. Our traditional allies have reservations about aligning themselves with us now. Sure, some nations elected leaders which favor the U.S.--like France with Sarkozy. Others, like Australia booted out leaders who had joined the "coalition of the willing".
Sorry, but aside from liberal rhetoric, I’ve yet to see how our “global stature has been undercut horribly by BushCo’s intemperate and ignorant actions.” No one has refused to trade with us, heck China is backing our wars and bail out…European tourists aren’t turning their noses up at the US to vacation and study in Canada…and the leaders of France and Germany were both elected on pro-America platforms…where’s the hate?
>>> Where did you get the numbers on the economy? I have heard about rising unemployment, failure of the bailout to have the desired impact (boy, was it a hoot hearing Hank Paulson argue with Jim Lehrer and insist on separating "the system" from "the economy" on the PBS NewsHour tonight). And given the wails of distress coming from Detroit, it's not the automotive industry which gained in this flourishing economy you mention. Sooooo....who did? Oil companies?!
The numbers I mentioned are available in numerous articles…
Did you know that just over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent? In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy, and much larger than the total economic size of nations like India, Mexico, Ireland, and Belgium.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/the_bigbang_story_of_us_privat.html
Despite growth levels considerably below previous levels, a March 2006 report by the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee showed that the U.S. economy outperformed its peer group of large developed economies from 2001 to 2005. (The other economies are Canada, the European Union, and Japan.) The U.S. led in real GDP growth, investment, industrial production, employment, labor productivity, and price stability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration
…but they obviously pre-date the “economic crisis” which was brought about by the Democrats sub-prime lending scheme, which is now, unfortunately affecting everyone, including certain car companies.
>>> I find it ironic that supporters of the GOP, who were in uncontested power for six years, who still control the White House and who still number enough to block fillibuster-proof legislation, are adamant that it was the Democrats to blame for our current economic woes. Either the GOP is ineffectual even when it controls two branches of three, or it's disingenuous and totally unwilling to be held accountable (this in the party which prates about personal responsibility). Ugly either way.
The current crisis has it’s origins in Democrat programs like the Community Reinvestment Act and their tacit support of banks making these loans with “guarantees” by Dem run Fannie and Freddie. When regulation was proposed by both McCain and Bush, it was blocked in committee with party-line opposition. And as far as Republicans being ineffectual when it controls two branches of three, it appears that the Dems have been even less successful when they’ve controlled Congress over the past 2 years, so I guess we’ll see how they do when they’ve got the run of the board.
>>> Thank Bush? Hell will freeze over before I commend an arrogant mule-headed idiot--and those are the NICE descriptives I have for him. Kinda funny to talk about what might happen under Obama given our current situation with BushCo. Heaven help us, indeed.
Again, for the bulk of the Bush term the country was safe and prosperous. Our current woes are the progeny of the Democrats, and with Obama’s inexperience and tax and spend socialist policies, I fear the country is in for some really troubled times…if not outright dangerous ones.
>>> Last but not least, if you are who I think you are, this probably will be the second and last response I write.
Not a problem…I know who you are and I wasn’t afraid to debate the issues with you…but to each their own.
Pages