Hermit_ Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 Hi all, Just for a second,drop the politcal party(s) lines,ok? When the heck,if ever, are we going to stop the use of oil?To heat our homes and gas our autos?When? KB Alright then.. no mention of political parties. I think some possible answers to your question is are: We can start making a bona fide move in that direction when.. 1 We no longer have an oil-industry-supporting government that outsources the job of writing our national energy policy to oil industry lobbyists and CEOs. 2. Arnold Schwarzenegger becomes the national energy czar.. a cabinet level position.. for the next POTUS. 3. Americans (private and public sector, both) collectively agree to make an "energy revolution" a top national priority.. which means a willingness to robustly fund (yes, via tax revenues and private investments, both) R&D of alternate energy sources and the building of a nation-wide infrastructure to support new technologies. 4. The biggest profiteers in the oil industry are.. for the greater good of our national security and national economic interests.. mandated by law to invest a percentage of their profits into R&D of alternate energy technologies. However,.. as long as oil barons and their cronies are setting the US national energy policy, no serious movement away from fossil fuel dependency will take place in our country. ..imho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Alright then.. no mention of political parties. I think some possible answers to your question is are: We can start making a bona fide move in that direction when.. 1 We no longer have an oil-industry-supporting government that outsources the job of writing our national energy policy to oil industry lobbyists and CEOs. 2. Arnold Schwarzenegger becomes the national energy czar.. a cabinet level position.. for the next POTUS. 3. Americans (private and public sector, both) collectively agree to make an "energy revolution" a top national priority.. which means a willingness to robustly fund (yes, via tax revenues and private investments, both) R&D of alternate energy sources and the building of a nation-wide infrastructure to support new technologies. 4. The biggest profiteers in the oil industry are.. for the greater good of our national security and national economic interests.. mandated by law to invest a percentage of their profits into R&D of alternate energy technologies. However,.. as long as oil barons and their cronies are setting the US national energy policy, no serious movement away from fossil fuel dependency will take place in our country. ..imho. So, not in the forseeable future Just joking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirchzep27 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Repubs aren't inclined to let pesky little facts.. you know, reality.. stop them from having their pipe (line) dreams, middlezep. Republican wet dream.. at moment of climax: The timing of the offshore drilling idea is crazy. Then there is -mccain saying that these offshore wells wouldnt br productive for years as well. I think that when experts on tv point toward conservation, because there is no choice for anything else in the time being, its a sign of change. Apparently -general motors has great battery technology developed...but we'll have to hope and see about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit_ Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 kermit, that is a beautiful little "dream world" scenero that you pictured there. The fact is that if we committed to using our own resources again, opec would panic and drop the price of oil. It has happened before and would happen again. The price of oil has fallen over the past few weeks just because the talk of drilling has been in the news, because they are so paranoid about it. And what is your problem with nuclear energy?? Does it kill frogs or something?? P-diddle, my problem with nuclear energy is 1. the risk of meltdown (borrowing your quote: "it has happened before and would happen again"); 2. the dangers involved in transporting radioactive waste material; 3. the problem of storing radioactive waste material (where and how); and 4. it kills frogs.. or something []. We have an opportunity.. borne of necessity.. to move forward toward new, clean, safe energy technologies. Nuclear energy is neither new, clean, or safe.. so why would we postpone (yet again) moving to new, clean, and safe energy technology and choose instead to fallout.. erm.. to fall back on a technology that we already know is neither safe or clean? It makes no sense. To do so would be myopic in vision, short on inspiration, and reckless in judgment. And what's your problem with striving for new, clean, safe energy technologies?? You know, other than the fact that you have a kneejerk opposition to anything progressive.. anything requiring vision, inspiration, and wisdom.. and anything that doesn't carry with it an inherent risk to humans, the environment, and the entire planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthekingshorses Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 great thread Hermit. McCain just said he wants to build 45 new nuclear power plants! now that's an environmental wacko. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 P-diddle, my problem with nuclear energy is 1. the risk of meltdown (borrowing your quote: "it has happened before and would happen again"); 2. the dangers involved in transporting radioactive waste material; 3. the problem of storing radioactive waste material (where and how); and 4. it kills frogs.. or something []. We have an opportunity.. borne of necessity.. to move forward toward new, clean, safe energy technologies. Nuclear energy is neither new, clean, or safe.. so why would we postpone (yet again) moving to new, clean, and safe energy technology and choose instead to fallout.. erm.. to fall back on a technology that we already know is neither safe or clean? It makes no sense. To do so would be myopic in vision, short on inspiration, and reckless in judgment. And what's your problem with striving for new, clean, safe energy technologies?? You know, other than the fact that you have a kneejerk opposition to anything progressive.. anything requiring vision, inspiration, and wisdom.. and anything that doesn't carry with it an inherent risk to humans, the environment, and the entire planet. Wonder were your guy BO stands on this issue? Looks like all over the place as usual.. Obama In July 2007: "I Actually Think That We Should Explore Nuclear Power As Part Of The Energy Mix": Obama: "I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix. There are no silver bullets to this issue." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_Vy2U6pDEE_ Obama In September 2007: "I Don't Think That We Can Take Nuclear Power Off The Table": Obama: "I don't think that we can take nuclear power off the table. What we have to make sure of is that we have the capacity to store it properly and safely, and that we reduce whatever threats might come from terrorism." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Hanover, NH, 9/26/07) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRIy24xxj14_ Obama In December 2007: "I Am Not A Nuclear Energy Proponent": Obama: "I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. I am not a nuclear energy proponent." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Town Hall Event, Newton, IA, 12/30/07) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32eHlQKAN8A_ Obama In June 2008: "nvest Some R&D Into Seeing Whether We Can Store Nuclear Waste Safely, Or Reuse It": Obama: "I've said this before, I don't think that nuclear power is a panacea. But I also think that given that it doesn't emit greenhouse gases, for us to invest some R&D into seeing whether we can store nuclear waste safely, or reuse it. These are all areas where the market interacting with a clear set of rules by the federal government and billions of dollars devoted to research and development can, I think, trigger the kind of economic growth that we haven't seen in this country for a long time." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Meeting With Democrat Governors, Chicago, IL, 6/20/08) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9aSxkzv8Q4_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit_ Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) Wonder were your guy BO stands on this issue? Looks like all over the place as usual.. It seems pretty clear to me that Obama doesn't particularly favor the idea of nuclear energy, but he's not closing his mind to the idea either. That seems like a fairly reasonable.. and moderate.. position to me. I realize how that might seem confusing and "all over the place" to you, whiningbluerain.. ya know,.. on account of the concept of "open mindedness" being so unfamiliar to you. Or maybe you're confused by it because it doesn't quite fit with your perception of Obama as a radical ultra-left wing liberal, eh? So rather than acknowledge that he's taken a reasonable, moderate position on nuclear energy, you simply trot out the republican canned "looks like he's all over the place as usual" [why is it that I hear Bill O'Reilly's voice saying that?] talking point, eh? aw well.. I understand how hard this is for you, muh-man ( ). I realize McCain's simpleton "bomb, bomb, bomb" and "drill, drill, drill" plans are much easier for you to grasp.. huh? Edited July 17, 2008 by Hermit_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 P-diddle, my problem with nuclear energy is 1. the risk of meltdown (borrowing your quote: "it has happened before and would happen again"); 2. the dangers involved in transporting radioactive waste material; 3. the problem of storing radioactive waste material (where and how); and 4. it kills frogs.. or something []. Pfft, Canada is there for that Hermit, duh [i don't have a problem with Nuclear Energy as long as extensive measures to prevent another Chernobyl are taken] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrum Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 The polls show that Americans are seeing through him. 'The Visible Man' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 It seems pretty clear to me that Obama doesn't particularly favor the idea of nuclear energy, but he's not closing his mind to the idea either. So I guess Obama's position is 'well maybe, but then again maybe not' right? Yeah, that gets my vote.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 72%, huh? Cite your source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marolyn Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 So I guess Obama's position is 'well maybe, but then again maybe not' right? yea, those damn intellectuals...thinking all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 So I guess Obama's position is 'well maybe, but then again maybe not' right? No, it's called "leaving options open". You don't want to close yourself off to a potential choice before the choice can be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 It was on "The Today Show" yesterday morniong on NBC. So basically not from a reputable poll. All reputable polls that have been released show Obama with a lead over McCain. A small sample size of people on the Today Show is not enough with which to make ANY assumption about one candidate's lead over another. Neither candidate has at any time had that large of a lead over the other. Period. You cannot take that as any indicator about what the country thinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/15/Pol...94951216157718/ ABC-Washington Post. 72% think McCain would be good Commander-in-Chief 48% think Obama would be Good Commander-in-Chief Edited July 17, 2008 by Pb Derigable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Pb that doesn't seem to add up, I guess they added the illeagles to the tally lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) yeah somebody commented on it. It's not an either or poll. you can pick both or none or one. I like my new avatar. It is my favorite. Edited July 17, 2008 by Pb Derigable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 (edited) yea, those damn intellectuals...thinking all the time. Yeah, that last 'intellectual' Presidential nominee you dems came up with worked out real well for you didn't he? Edited July 18, 2008 by cryingbluerain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 (edited) The truth is, when you have a nation like ours, with so many to chose from, it't a sad day for America when these two are the best we can come up with. Love him or hate him, at least Bill Clinton was one smart cookie. Yeah, he messed around, but what did that have to do with the way he ran the country? These two can't hold a candle to him. Neither have half of his brains. I've never said Obama is the perfect candidate and I'm sure there are Republicans who think they can do better than McCain. However, this country elects its leaders by the voice of the people and so far the two left standing are Obama and McCain. As much as you and others might not like that as our choices, I'd rather have that than the system revamped to take the say away from the people. I loved Bill Clinton as President and wish we could have a President like him in the WH again. He was and still is one of my favorite Presidents, I don't begrudge you that at all. My parents are Republicans but voted for him in 1992 and 1996. I know a lot of other people that think the same way. Yeh, the Obama crowd is getting nervous about his constant flip flops, and conservative leanings. Quit making mass assumptions. I'm not getting nervous about anything. He's the candidate I chose, he is the candidate I will stick with until this whole dog and pony show is over. And as for his "conservative leanings", you ask any Democrat if they'd rather have someone who can become more centrist or a Democrat who leans so far over to the left they're practically a Communist, I think you'd know which one they'd choose. It's far better for him to include more people than exclude them. There are a lot of Independents and people who plain don't know who to choose yet who would be put off by someone who is damn near Socialist. If he went over that far, it's political suicide. So apparently he's damned if does, damned if he doesn't. Edited July 18, 2008 by Electrophile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit_ Posted July 18, 2008 Author Share Posted July 18, 2008 great thread Hermit. McCain just said he wants to build 45 new nuclear power plants! now that's an environmental wacko. Cheers, allthekingshorses. Yeah, I know,.. McCain wants to build 45 new terrorist targets. Brilliant, huh? So I guess Obama's position is 'well maybe, but then again maybe not' right? Yeah, that gets my vote.. First of all,.. Obama's not trying to get your vote, muh-man. He knows full well that people like you will never vote for him no matter what,.. so he's already written you off. He's trying to reach intelligent open-minded voters who are willing to hear him out and consider what he has to offer. Secondly,.. no, it means 'I'm not in favor of building more nuclear power plants because I think other options are probably better,.. but I'm willing to hear what others have to say about it before I rule it out as an option'. That might be confounding to you, whiningbluerain, but it sounds pretty darn clear, mature, reasonable and open-minded to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 If the oft-repeated mantra of "10 years for new production from domestic drilling" is considered too long to wait, how is the liberal option faster? Weaning ourself from oil dependence can happen in LESS than 10 years? Explain please. Like it or not, this country is invested in fossil fuels, and when I say this country I mean the people - not the big-shots and corporations. Everyone has cars. Is everyone supposed to go out and buy a new battery-powered car when it's developed and just drop off your old car at the junkyard? Good Morning America did a report showing how the increased price of the hybrids offsets the savings in fuel, so that it takes around 5 years to reach break-even. And for the bazillionth time, conservatives aren't pushing for more oil through domestic drilling just to have more oil to burn - it's in addition to pursuing alternate sources. But the reality is viable (read: readily adaptable) alternate energy sources will take a lot longer than 10 years to put into everyday use. In the meantime, we need relief. We can't move our houses, we live in the sprawling transportation age. There's no buses running through the suburbs - at least not here. No subways, trains, whatever. So when I've been mocked for saying many liberal ideas "Sound great but aren't very practical / It looks good on paper", this is what I mean. Sure it'd be great to be rid of our dependence on oil, especially foreign oil, as soon as possible. It's just that "as soon as possible" isn't very soon. And again, over 10 years ago this same argument was used to counter drilling then. I can so easily hear the same thing echoing in another 10 years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 It was on "The Today Show" yesterday morniong on NBC. Does it really surprise you that of the people polled: They were asked - Who would be a better Comander in Chief? That 72% would say McCain. Even if I were a Obama supporter, this would not surprise me. What is so hilarious and shallow though, is how Obama's positions keep leaning more and more to the right now. While Mc Cain has always been a liberal Republican, I never thought that Obama would sound more conservative then McCain. Just give him a few more weeks though........................... Yeah and more than 50% of the population thought George W Bush would make a better commander-in-chief and look how fucked up that was... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marolyn Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Yeah, that last 'intellectual' Presidential nominee you dems came up with worked out real well for you didn't he? ...and what we ended up with is working out soo much better, huh? ....guess maybe we should now lower our standards even more by voting another anti-intellectual who graduated 5th from the bottom of his class at the naval academy...(read that the other day...somebody please tell me that is not really true...) i really don't like the idea of telling my kids..."you don't need to bother studying hard at school, just slide on through and someday you too can be president...as a matter of fact you don't even need to be average." ...it would almost be laughable if it weren't so sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit_ Posted July 18, 2008 Author Share Posted July 18, 2008 What about Obama's daily flip flops, several listed above. What do you think about those?? Your plagiarized list has been addressed/refuted/debunked in another thread. [how many threads did you post that in.. begging for someone to pay attention to you?] Anyway.. answer me this: how many days has this campaign been going on? [Obama announced his candidacy on May 2, 2007: approx 443 days ago] And answer me this: how many so called "DAILY flip-flops" have you listed? [8]. Methinks you have quite a few days unaccounted for, Planet-Zero. ..will we be seeing a list of the other 435 flip-flops any time soon? [i answered for you to spare you from spraining your brain cell. Call it my good deed for the day. ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirchzep27 Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 In regards to offshore drilling, i think that just dealing with the marketplace is going to be the way it is. In -spain the truckers went on strike not too long ago and this week, 3,000 japanese fishermen went on a strike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.