[Snow-i]

"It's time to take this tragedy and turn it into an opportunity," Sen. Bill Neslon, D-Fla

and further...

"I congratulate the president on saying we are now going to declare that this nation is getting on the road rapidly to breaking our dependence on oil. We are at a point now, through research and development, that we are going to wean ourselves from petroleum addiction."


These are scary times my friends. Your catastrophe is their opportunity to further their agendas, and they're not even trying to hide it anymore. How about doin what you were sposed to in the first place before we write you any more cheques?

Seriously. Disgusting.

[Snow-i]

Sorry Mods,

wasn't paying attention, this was sposed to be in the Pol lounge from the beginning.

Thanks for the move.

[TheoCryst]

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that we don't have a dependence on oil? That we aren't pouring billions of dollars every week into foreign countries for petroleum? Or that it's somehow wrong, now that one of the risks of oil drilling is laid bare for all to see, to seize the opportunity to break a vicious cycle of addiction?

[stumblinmike]

I think he's being sarcastic...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

Or that it's somehow wrong, now that one of the risks of oil drilling is laid bare for all to see, to seize the opportunity to break a vicious cycle of addiction?

LOL, you mean, after they made safe close-shore drilling impossible, and pushed the oil companies to high-risk deep-see drilling ?

If they hadn't regulated it away from the shore, we would be safely drilling and not have to endure this catastrophe.

But again, the government always finds a way to make things worse and turn gold into a pile of shit.

-t

[stumblinmike]

That poor oil company never stood a chance! What kind of monsters are we?

[besson3c]

Government turns things into shit? Wow turtle, why have you never said that before?

What agenda are you referring to, Snow-i?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Government turns things into shit? Wow turtle, why have you never said that before?

I thought you obsessed over this stuff. You should know.

-t

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

LOL, you mean, after they made safe close-shore drilling impossible, and pushed the oil companies to high-risk deep-see drilling ?

If they hadn't regulated it away from the shore, we would be safely drilling and not have to endure this catastrophe.

But again, the government always finds a way to make things worse and turn gold into a pile of shit.

-t

Right, so then BP could fail to plug a leak even closer to shore. Awesome!

If there's so much oil so close to shore, then why not just drill onshore? Wouldn't that be 'safer'? Yes, there are restrictions, but it occurs to me that oil companies are more inclined to drill where the freaking oil is.

And the restrictions are due as much to NIMBYism as anything the feds are doing. The state of Florida, of all places, is restricting near-shore drilling. Why? They're concerned about the impact on their beaches. Seems they're placing a higher priority on ongoing tourism revenue than some possible temporary revenue for oil barons.

But hey, if only it were as simple as 'we should drill wherever we feel like'. Because there could never be any other externalities, so let's just blame the government...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Right, so then BP could fail to plug a leak even closer to shore. Awesome!

If there's so much oil so close to shore, then why not just drill onshore? Wouldn't that be 'safer'? Yes, there are restrictions, but it occurs to me that oil companies are more inclined to drill where the freaking oil is.

And the restrictions are due as much to NIMBYism as anything the feds are doing. The state of Florida, of all places, is restricting near-shore drilling. Why? They're concerned about the impact on their beaches. Seems they're placing a higher priority on ongoing tourism revenue than some possible temporary revenue for oil barons.

But hey, if only it were as simple as 'we should drill wherever we feel like'. Because there could never be any other externalities, so let's just blame the government...

I suspect that on/off-shore drilling thing is in part being used as a proxy to express frustration against environmentalists in general.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I suspect that on/off-shore drilling thing is in part being used as a proxy to express frustration against environmentalists in general.

It's a bunch of BS. Even if near-shore drilling were allowed anywhere, it wouldn't preclude companies from drilling far offshore if there's oil to be had. And it's far from free of risk and impact.

[Kerrigan]

Even the newswires are starting to frame their coverage of the event as yet another Obama failure.

[ort888]

Our country? Is it a ****ing hive mind?

I think first and foremost they are angry about all the damn oil.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Government turns things into shit? Wow turtle, why have you never said that before?

What agenda are you referring to, Snow-i?

Cap and trade.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Cap and trade.

That's a big jump.

I don't think anybody disagrees that weaning ourselves off of oil products would be a good thing. Even if you don't buy into any of the environmental reasons there is a whole host of other security/economic/geo-political reasons. What we disagree on is how to get there, but Nelson was not advocating any particular tactic.

[olePigeon]

So, how is this any different than Halliburton taking advantage of war to make money?

[BadKosh]

One Man SIX VOTES????

Residents get 6 votes each in suburban NY election - Yahoo! News

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Right, so then BP could fail to plug a leak even closer to shore. Awesome!

If there's so much oil so close to shore, then why not just drill onshore? Wouldn't that be 'safer'? Yes, there are restrictions, but it occurs to me that oil companies are more inclined to drill where the freaking oil is.

And the restrictions are due as much to NIMBYism as anything the feds are doing. The state of Florida, of all places, is restricting near-shore drilling. Why? They're concerned about the impact on their beaches. Seems they're placing a higher priority on ongoing tourism revenue than some possible temporary revenue for oil barons.

But hey, if only it were as simple as 'we should drill wherever we feel like'. Because there could never be any other externalities, so let's just blame the government...

Stop making sense; that's not allowed here.

I love it when people look for reasons to blame the government. It shows that they've been had by the powerful and wealthy, who've done a phenomenal job in the past 3 or 4 decades of convincing people to send their money to them instead. They are ignorant of history, and forget what made this country the most prosperous on the planet in just a few decades after WWII.

[BadKosh]

So, what other forms of energy are ready for use by the general populace now? Beuler...... Beuler........Beuler......? Hydrogen? No. The Hydrogen distribution and stations aren't here yet. Electric? Except the cars batteries are limited, and the swap the battery at a charging station part isn't available. Wind Power? Not much. Coal isn't good for vehicles, but OK for power plants if the scrubbers are in place. Nuke plants? When? The rest of the green concepts for energy are BS. A bunch of 'wouldn't it be great if we could make a (insert pipe dream here)' nonsense from the left is of course worthless.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Seriously. Disgusting.

Most people I talk to on a regular basis are tired of politicians, period, playing politics with every issue and ignoring reality.

We're tired of giving loans to people who can't pay them back, and then apologizing for foreclosures and lost tax revenue. We're tired of what those practices do to the value of everyone else' home and neighborhood and town.

We're tired of unions being promoted at the expense of job creation, and we're tired of special deals being given to political groups for their "support".

We're tired of a media that represents the interests of about 1/3 of the population.

We're tired of programs that create and attenuate dependency on government, unions, and politics.

We're tired of retirement programs that commit the public to outrageous expenditures, even when our own portfolios are being sliced and diced by tax uncertainty.

We're tired of paying 50% or more per year in taxes so that other people pay nothing and/or get their EITC so they can buy big new TVs and such.

We're tired, really, of a political class who does things regardless of what the cost to America will be. This includes getting incompetent ideologues elected to national office just because it makes them "feel good" or look good for the history books. "Look what I've done for YOU!!!!!"

We're tired of hearing about everything as a "crisis": global warming, for example, never has been a crisis, and won't be until old Sol ramps up in a few billion years. But it sounds good -- let's transfer wealth to all these "new" industries because it's a crisis. Let's take control of all these "new" industries and businesses because it's a crisis. Wow.

Forget raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, these are a few of my FAVORITE things.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So, what other forms of energy are ready for use by the general populace now? Beuler...... Beuler........Beuler......? Hydrogen? No. The Hydrogen distribution and stations aren't here yet. Electric? Except the cars batteries are limited, and the swap the battery at a charging station part isn't available. Wind Power? Not much. Coal isn't good for vehicles, but OK for power plants if the scrubbers are in place. Nuke plants? When? The rest of the green concepts for energy are BS. A bunch of 'wouldn't it be great if we could make a (insert pipe dream here)' nonsense from the left is of course worthless.

Great, so let's just keep buying 3/4 of our oil from foreign sources into perpetuity. Maybe we can drill more and make it just 73/100. Good plan!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

If there's so much oil so close to shore, then why not just drill onshore? Wouldn't that be 'safer'? Yes, there are restrictions, but it occurs to me that oil companies are more inclined to drill where the freaking oil is.

A 'point' only a leftist drone could applaud.

As has been pointed out:

Domestic oil and natural gas production has failed to keep pace with growing demand, but this is not because the nation is running out of energy. In the 1990s, the federal government placed severe restrictions on new energy development, especially in many promising offshore areas.

At the time, oil and natural gas were cheap, and the need for additional energy was not seen as significant. In addition, the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill led to heightened environmental concerns about offshore energy production. The political path of least resistance was to give environmental concerns precedence over future economic considerations.

As a result, access to 85 percent of federally controlled offshore areas has been restricted, including the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, portions of the areas off the shores of Alaska, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

Gee whiz! Why don't they just drill closer to shore?!! *forehead slap!* Why didn't the oil companies think of that!?

Everything is so simple and painted with rainbow colors in lefty-land.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Great, so let's just keep buying 3/4 of our oil from foreign sources into perpetuity. Maybe we can drill more and make it just 73/100. Good plan!

No but abandoning oil as an energy source without a replacement is really stupid. The point I was making before you replied without reading my words.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

A 'point' only a leftist drone could applaud.

Gee whiz! Why don't they just drill closer to shore?!! *forehead slap!* Why didn't the oil companies think of that!?

Everything is so simple and painted with rainbow colors in lefty-land.

What's your point? There's oil in deep water too. What's to stop companies from ALSO drilling in deep water?

And what's so surprising about that quote? When oil is cheap, it doesn't make economic sense to drill in expensive/high risk areas. Duh! Who'd have thunk that would make its way into politics?

But let's not let common sense interfere with your right-wing looniness.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

No but abandoning oil as an energy source without a replacement is really stupid. The point I was making before you replied without reading my words.

Who said anything about 'abandoning' oil?

[BadKosh]

Obama. Drilling moratorium. (1st step in taking over and ruining the US oil industry.) Tree Huggers, Environmental wackohs etc.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Obama. Drilling moratorium. (1st step in taking over and ruining the US oil industry.) Tree Huggers, Environmental wackohs etc.

Only in right-wing loony-land does 'not increasing drilling' = 'abandoning'.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

What's your point? There's oil in deep water too. What's to stop companies from ALSO drilling in deep water?

So now your 'point' shifts from "why don't they just drill onshore where it's safer!?" to "why don't they just drill in deep water?!"

You're just the house of solutions, aren't you?

Next up:

Leftist: "Why don't they just drill in ANWR?!!! Just go where the oil is!! Problem solved!" *dusts hands*
Lefty peanut gallery: "Yes, brilliant point! Damn right wingers!"

And what's so surprising about that quote? When oil is cheap, it doesn't make economic sense to drill in expensive/high risk areas. Duh! Who'd have thunk that would make its way into politics?

Yes, because oil is ALWAYS cheap and plentiful! Thank you, Mr. forward-thinker. Now ask again snidely why don't we just keep buying oil from foreign sources in perpetuity.

Come to think of it, you should be in politics- you've got that way of ignoring the obvious with statements of faux-relevance down pat. You'd fit right in!

[besson3c]

Wow, this thread has been crapped on.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So now your 'point' shifts from "why don't they just drill onshore where it's safer!?" to "why don't they just drill in deep water?!"

You're just the house of solutions, aren't you?

Reading comprehension. Try it sometime. The lament here was that allowing close-shore drilling would have prevented this disaster. That is false, unless the gov't also banned deep-water drilling. But right-wing loonies couldn't have that!

Yes, because oil is ALWAYS cheap and plentiful! Thank you, Mr. forward-thinker. Now ask again snidely why don't we just keep buying oil from foreign sources in perpetuity.

I will. So what's your plan? Oil is getting more expensive and less plentiful every day, and gee whiz - people will want to go to greater lengths to get it! Shocking!

Come to think of it, you should be in politics- you've got that way of ignoring the obvious with statements of faux-relevance down pat. You'd fit right in!

Yeah, sorry, can't help it if you can't comprehend simple concepts and understand the relevance. You make a perfect right-wing nutjob!

[ort888]

I think the contention was that near shore wells would drink the milkshake of deep water drills.

Anyway, I really don't know, because I'm not an expert. But it sure is fun to blame whoever is going to best reinforce my existing world view.

Here's the blame game checklist... just check off the ones that make you feel the smuggest.

O Evil Corporations
O Lack of Government Regulations
O Corrupt Bungling Government
O Oil-Loving Republicans who favor drilling and big oil
O Tree-Hugging Democrats who forced the oil rigs to dangerous areas
O Obama for not doing anything
O Bush for loosening regulations on big oil

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Reading comprehension. Try it sometime. The lament here was that allowing close-shore drilling would have prevented this disaster. That is false, unless the gov't also banned deep-water drilling. But right-wing loonies couldn't have that!

That doesn't even make any sense- but then why would I expect you to?
The issue isn't banning deep water drilling- it's not having to resort to it because you can drill much safter close-shore. You know, the point you were trying to dispute using a totally ignorant non-argument to begin with? Gee, that's really a difficult point for you? Wait, of course it is.

Oil is getting more expensive and less plentiful every day, and gee whiz - people will want to go to greater lengths to get it! Shocking!

Another classic example of faux-relevance!

Yes, shocking that if nitwit enviro-weenies whine for 20 straight years "Don't drill here! Don't drill there!" "No nukes!" "No coal!" etc. etc. that the only remaining areas to go for oil are going to be more dangerous- both politically and geographically, and that *gasp!* things like the gulf oil spill are more likely to happen.

Now quick, make with another faux-relevance statement that pretty much ignores all this, something brilliant like "Why don't they just drill where the oil is!!??!"

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

That doesn't even make any sense- but then why would I expect you to?
The issue isn't banning deep water drilling- it's not having to resort to it because you can drill in much safter close-shore. Gee, that's really a difficult point for you? Wait, of course it is.

Wait, so you're telling me that oil companies are going to choose not to drill where there's oil? Now who's having difficulty with a simple point?

Another classic example of faux-relevance!

Yes, shocking that if nitwit enviro-weenies whine for 20 straight years "Don't drill here! Don't drill there!" "No nukes!" "No coal!" etc. etc. that the only remaining areas to go for oil are going to be more dangerous- both politically and geographically, and that *gasp!* things like the gulf oil spill are more likely to happen.

You only consider it 'faux' because you can't comprehend the relevance. The restrictions made sense at the time, because the risks and impact from externalities outweighed the potential benefits. Now that situation is reversing, and we have to make some decisions about whether to pursue that avenue or other alternatives.

Now quick, make with another faux-relevance statement that pretty much ignores all this, something brilliant like "Why don't they just drill where the oil is!!??!"

...and you can make another snide remark illustrating your lack of grasp on this subject. Maybe some enlightening fodder like 'Kill all the enviro-weenies!!!!' Sheesh...

[BadKosh]

Close the Borders?

FOXNews.com - Uptick in Violence Forces Closing of Parkland Along Mexico Border to Americans

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

The restrictions made sense at the time, because the risks and impact from externalities outweighed the potential benefits.

We've always done it that way...why change?

So where are the replacement energy sources the tree-huggers were all blathering about? They never had practical ideas. Never. Send lawyers. Sounds like another liberal jack-ass.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I think the contention was that near shore wells would drink the milkshake of deep water drills.

Here's a map of the drilling rigs, past and present, just around New Orleans. Something tells me you have to poke a lot of straws to get at all the milkshakes....

Map of New Orleans Gulf Coast Oil Platforms

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Wow, this thread has been crapped on.

That's why I try not to post in threads in the PWL unless I can be one of the first 3-5 posts, before it turns into a massive hate-fest.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

We've always done it that way...why change?

Did you bother to read my next sentence?

Originally Posted by Me

Now that situation is reversing, and we have to make some decisions about whether to pursue that avenue or other alternatives.

So where are the replacement energy sources the tree-huggers were all blathering about? They never had practical ideas. Never.

Well, we had an electric car in the 90s that many people wanted and that would go 120 miles. We have an electric car today that's faster than most other production cars available, and goes 250 miles. We have a number more on the way at a variety of price points that will meet a variety of needs. Among other things, we have increases in the efficiency of PV panels, and viable and more prevalent options in wind and water energy. But no, nothing has improved at all. And it couldn't possibly continue to.

As oil gets more difficult to get (and thus more expensive), and people are more and more forced to pay its true economic cost, these alternatives, even in their current state, will get a lot more attractive. Even more so as they improve.

Also a side benefit is that when something goes wrong with an offshore oil rig, we get an ocean full of oil and destroyed coastlines. When something goes wrong with an offshore windmill, we get a splash.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I think the contention was that near shore wells would drink the milkshake of deep water drills.

Anyway, I really don't know, because I'm not an expert. But it sure is fun to blame whoever is going to best reinforce my existing world view.

Here's the blame game checklist... just check off the ones that make you feel the smuggest.

O Evil Corporations
O Lack of Government Regulations
O Corrupt Bungling Government
O Oil-Loving Republicans who favor drilling and big oil
O Tree-Hugging Democrats who forced the oil rigs to dangerous areas
O Obama for not doing anything
O Bush for loosening regulations on big oil

You forgot Bin-Laden.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Well, we had an electric car in the 90s that many people wanted and that would go 120 miles. We have an electric car today that's faster than most other production cars available, and goes 250 miles. We have a number more on the way at a variety of price points that will meet a variety of needs. Among other things, we have increases in the efficiency of PV panels, and viable and more prevalent options in wind and water energy. But no, nothing has improved at all. And it couldn't possibly continue to.

Like I said before, unless the distribution of new energy sources are developed the electric car is a toy. Windmills are scenery. It took almost 30 years to get gas stations along the roads enough to allow people to get from place to place. It took railroads almost 45 years from their start to get to offer coast to coast rail travel. From the first airplane ride in 1911 to air travel for the almost masses took 25 years, and not really until after WWII. Along the way, lots of rich investors went bankrupt in all those endeavors. New technologies will need bucks too. Where are those tree huggers?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Like I said before, unless the distribution of new energy sources are developed the electric car is a toy. Windmills are scenery. It took almost 30 years to get gas stations along the roads enough to allow people to get from place to place. It took railroads almost 45 years from their start to get to offer coast to coast rail travel. From the first airplane ride in 1911 to air travel for the almost masses took 25 years, and not really until after WWII.

WTF are you talking about? If there's any technology that has its distribution infrastructure already largely in place, it's the electric car. Check the wire that leads from your computer. It leads to a little outlet in the wall. Gee - there's electricity in there! There's also distribution infrastructure already in place, often along major roadways. Couldn't possibly use that!

Basically, the infrastructure is already in place to handle short-range travel, which, if it were all-electric (not that that will happen any time soon) would be a HUGE reduction in oil usage. And all that's needed for longer-range travel is the endpoints (offsite charging stations).

You're right about one thing though - nothing is ready to replace all oil consumption tomorrow. So we better hope the state of affairs in the world doesn't change such that that becomes necessary.

Along the way, lots of rich investors went bankrupt in all those endeavors. New technologies will need bucks too. Where are those tree huggers?

They're investing in those endeavors. People creating car companies, or suppliers to car companies. People creating and investing in wind and solar farms. Electric companies investing in better distribution capabilities. Some will go bankrupt, and some will prosper. Your point?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

That's why I try not to post in threads in the PWL unless I can be one of the first 3-5 posts, before it turns into a massive hate-fest.

Smart!

I mean, what can you do in a thread like this at this point other than add "Liburls are soooo stupid.... NO, conservatives have their heads up their asses!!"

Don't you guys get tired of every thread ending up like this? Some of you guys need to work on being more interesting and entertaining, and just a litttttllllleeee less repetitive.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Smart!

I mean, what can you do in a thread like this at this point other than add "Liburls are soooo stupid.... NO, conservatives have their heads up their asses!!"

Don't you guys get tired of every thread ending up like this? Some of you guys need to work on being more interesting and entertaining, and just a litttttllllleeee less repetitive.

Pot, meet kettle!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Pot, meet kettle!

I'm highly entertaining, I don't know what you are talking about! Maybe you're thinking of somebody else?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's a big jump.

You're right, and thats whats so disgusting about this,

I don't think anybody disagrees that weaning ourselves off of oil products would be a good thing. Even if you don't buy into any of the environmental reasons there is a whole host of other security/economic/geo-political reasons. What we disagree on is how to get there, but Nelson was not advocating any particular tactic.

No but he was advocating his political using a disaster as justification.

Now is not the time to overhaul our energy situation. Now is the time to devote our resources towards cleaning up the spill, securing our borders, reigning in government spending, dismantling ineffective government beauracracies, etc BEFORE we embark on a life-changing shift in energy resources. It is disgusting to think that the same people who brought us this disaster (who've yet to do ANYTHING meaningful to mitigate/solve the crisis) will be reshaping the way our country runs to their benefit.

You must solve the problems of today before you can tackle the problems of tomorrow...Otherwise the only change you have is more of the same, as we've seen over the last 18 months. Will the MMS be overseeing this great oppurtunity to break our addiction to oil? Will it be this congress who has time and again proved its great incompetence to do what we pay them to do?

If you want a better energy situation, why not push towards nuclear? The cleanest, most environmentally friendly, safest form of energy we have. Why not? It doesn't write as fat a cheque as millions of bird-killing, neighborhood ruining windmills which do not produce an ROI worthy of my tax dollars. This is what our country is angry about. We don't want more rhetoric and impractical promises. We want real result today and the experts in each of the fields we require reform in have established the best way to do that given real world examples. Somehow a politician with NO EXPERIENCE IN RUNNING ANYTHING IN ANY OF THESE FIELDS somehow knows better. Thats what we are angry about. That is what we are tired of. Enough is enough. We need practical solutions which our congress and executive branch has failed to even consider, let alone provide since 2005. Enough is enough.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So, how is this any different than Halliburton taking advantage of war to make money?

That irrelevant and even if it weren't, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Smart!

I mean, what can you do in a thread like this at this point other than add "Liburls are soooo stupid.... NO, conservatives have their heads up their asses!!"

Don't you guys get tired of every thread ending up like this? Some of you guys need to work on being more interesting and entertaining, and just a litttttllllleeee less repetitive.

You can offer solutions and discuss the merits of the ideas proposed within instead of posting thousands of words and saying next to nothing, kinda like our politicans.

Its time to start worrying about our bottom line. We're too far in the red in too many areas to entertain anything other than solutions and government accountability. Something that dems and repubs in congress have for too long evaded.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No but he was advocating his political using a disaster as justification.

To the extent that anything a politician says is advocating their political position, sure. But there's nothing in those statement that directly addresses any political gain.

Now is not the time to overhaul our energy situation. Now is the time to devote our resources towards cleaning up the spill, securing our borders, reigning in government spending, dismantling ineffective government beauracracies, etc BEFORE we embark on a life-changing shift in energy resources. It is disgusting to think that the same people who brought us this disaster (who've yet to do ANYTHING meaningful to mitigate/solve the crisis) will be reshaping the way our country runs to their benefit.

I couldn't disagree more. Our lack of energy independence is a major contributor to our problems. Deficits exacerbated by war spending to stabilize regions where our only interest is oil and/or defending its price basis on the dollar. Businesses clamping down due to price instability of energy, contributing to job instability. Disasters stemming from the increased risk necessary to keep the needle flowing. A $1B+ / day trade deficit before we even get out of bed. We would ALL benefit from energy independence.

You must solve the problems of today before you can tackle the problems of tomorrow...Otherwise the only change you have is more of the same, as we've seen over the last 18 months.

Yes, and the way I see it, our addiction to oil is a problem of today.

If you want a better energy situation, why not push towards nuclear? The cleanest, most environmentally friendly, safest form of energy we have. Why not? It doesn't write as fat a cheque as millions of bird-killing, neighborhood ruining windmills which do not produce an ROI worthy of my tax dollars.

I agree. We should be expanding nuclear as well. But - with an eye to the fact that it is not renewable and someday the piper will need to be paid on it as well. It is still kicking the can down the road, but it's a much smaller can and a much longer road...

'Bird-killing, neighborhood ruining'? Something tells me the folks along the Gulf Coast know something about that...

This is what our country is angry about. We don't want more rhetoric and impractical promises. We want real result today and the experts in each of the fields we require reform in have established the best way to do that given real world examples. Somehow a politician with NO EXPERIENCE IN RUNNING ANYTHING IN ANY OF THESE FIELDS somehow knows better. Thats what we are angry about. That is what we are tired of. Enough is enough. We need practical solutions which our congress and executive branch has failed to even consider, let alone provide since 2005. Enough is enough.

I'm angry about the fact that I still don't think this is the rock bottom that every addict needs to get off the sauce...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Now is not the time to overhaul our energy situation. Now is the time to devote our resources towards cleaning up the spill, securing our borders, reigning in government spending, dismantling ineffective government beauracracies, etc BEFORE we embark on a life-changing shift in energy resources. It is disgusting to think that the same people who brought us this disaster (who've yet to do ANYTHING meaningful to mitigate/solve the crisis) will be reshaping the way our country runs to their benefit.

Why does this have to happen in sequence? Energy is intertwined with much of this first of all, and we all know that this is overdue and we all know how long this process will take. If you are interested in demanding more from our government, how about insisting that they do more than one thing at a time?

As far as your comment about the government being responsible for the disaster (and of course it is debatable that they are single-handedly to blame), who would you propose to push us to a shift in energy resources instead?

If you want a better energy situation, why not push towards nuclear? The cleanest, most environmentally friendly, safest form of energy we have. Why not? It doesn't write as fat a cheque as millions of bird-killing, neighborhood ruining windmills which do not produce an ROI worthy of my tax dollars. This is what our country is angry about. We don't want more rhetoric and impractical promises. We want real result today and the experts in each of the fields we require reform in have established the best way to do that given real world examples.

Doesn't advocating for nuclear power just contradict what you just wrote about how we shouldn't be even looking at this now?

Somehow a politician with NO EXPERIENCE IN RUNNING ANYTHING IN ANY OF THESE FIELDS somehow knows better. Thats what we are angry about. That is what we are tired of. Enough is enough. We need practical solutions which our congress and executive branch has failed to even consider, let alone provide since 2005. Enough is enough.

I think your argument has lost focus.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why does this have to happen in sequence?

Because they can't even seem to get the basics right. Why trust incompetence to handle the HUGE things when they can't even handle the catalyst event even remotely competently? They need to be held accountable for their actions before their constituents sign over their current way of life for the goal of a better one.
[/quote]

Energy is intertwined with much of this first of all, and we all know that this is overdue and we all know how long this process will take. If you are interested in demanding more from our government, how about insisting that they do more than one thing at a time?

There are way more pressing issues at hand that directly threaten our country now that 70% of the country is unhappy about. What makes you think our congress is equipped to make these decisions when you have reps like etheridge walking around assaulting college kids? The government has used up their benefit of the doubt in the opinions of most of our citizens. No more blank checks.

And lets be clear, I'm not demanding more from our government. I'm demanding they do what we pay them to do, and thats to represent us. I'm demanding they get the basics right before they insist on doing more.

As far as your comment about the government being responsible for the disaster (and of course it is debatable that they are single-handedly to blame), who would you propose to push us to a shift in energy resources instead?

I'm proposing that our government focus on the issues at hand before shifting our energy resources which sustains our very economy (or whats left of it). I'll gladly entrust that custodial responsibility to a congress that proves its competency in handling issues such as border control, oil disasters, economics and finances. The current congress/administration has failed ALL of these categories. Basics first.

Doesn't advocating for nuclear power just contradict what you just wrote about how we shouldn't be even looking at this now?

We? Lets first ask "Who is we?" This is a government vs people situation and has been for awhile. The "we" you speak of should be talking about solutions to our problems. "We" just need a congress that will listen. "We" don't have that. Until "we" do, "they" shouldn't be looking at this now. The solutions are out there, and are echoed every single day. "They" choose not to listen to them and carry on in their own merry way while millions suffer through unemployment, wasted tax dollars, election manipulation, assault, and ineffective borders etc etc. Not to mention the whole gulf thing.

I think your argument has lost focus.

I think you fail to understand my position. I think you don't want to understand my position because it shatters the feel-good warm-fuzzy utopia Obama and congress are trying to sell you. I'll let you in on a little secret - They are only interested in themselves.