Democrats in Congress choking off USA oil supply-when 67% ofAmericans want to drill !

This is saddlebag's brain on drugs:
"Republican Liar" wrote:

*Why has the right been blocking oil for so long? Why didn't they open ANWR
when they had control of both branches of government? Why has the right
failed for so long to get anything done? Why has Bush been on vacation all
this time? The republicans hate America and want everyone to pay more for
gas at the pumps.

I don't think that's the case.

He's being very emotional about it and a bit of a drama queen as well,
but his first point is well taken. The GOP had complete control of
the national government for six years. Even the Supremes favored
administration policies until very recently.

But aside from that, his main point is that the GOP is as responsible
for keeping drills out of ANWR as anybody else. The order forbidding
drilling in ANWR and offshore was signed by Republican GHW Bush. In
particular, his point that during the six years of GOP control, there
was no effort made to open ANWR because the GOP couldn't get enough
votes.

But you can definitely blame Republicans for running up the deficit by
drunken sailor spending and while concurrently lowering taxes. Big
debt lowers the value of our currency. Who wants to invest in a
country with such a big debt paying such poor interest?

You can definitely blame Republicans for deregulating everything
including the mortgage industry to the point that con men run the
show. The result is our housing crisis, the straw that broke the
camel's back.

You can definitely blame Republicans for policies that encourage our
business to export *productive* jobs overseas leaving us with a nation
full of people whose only skills are poodle grooming and massage
therapy. When trading with overseas nations for necessities like
cars, electronics, and oil, it's good to produce something we can
export in trade. Printing more money solves nothing.

And to expect a Democratic Congress to change anything when Bu$h vetos
everything is a bit unrealistic. I find most Dems to be spineless
weasels, but they still beat overt criminals.

Agreed.*

Swill

*note: this is not intended as criticism
--
Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! Gobama!

In article , says...

"Eat the rich" wrote in message
...
I wish you would do some research before posting. Only takes a second
with the internet. The United States has in oil reserves at current
consumption rates a little more than three years of oil, if you were
to exclude oil from other countries.

Remember when the genius Ronald Reagan ripped the solar panels off of
the White House. Remember all of the Republicans and some Democrats
who voted to keep subsidizing oil companies with tax breaks and who
voted against funding the research and development of alternative
energy sources? And all of you yahoos who can't do math or do a
little research before barfing up your drill-more nonsense posts,
you're partly to blame, too.

Try including oil shale, nuclear and coal technology into the equation. New
technology sounds fine but first something has to be developed, tested,
improved upon and proven to be of a practical nature. Then the next huge
step is a distribution, supply and maintenance system to support it.
Hydrogen cars would be great except there are almost no places to refuel
such cars. Of course, we could encourage thousands of refill stations be
established but, hey, that would mean a few entrepreneurs would become quite
wealthy and, well, we can't have some ******* actually make a lot of money.
But then again, we could tax the hell out of him and his companies.

Many new products are found to have unwanted consequences so we have to be
careful. The creation of asbestos was great until we found out about
health hazards of exposure. And the unexpected realization that
discontinued use of the standard light bulb in favor of the new ugly bulb
involves a hazardous waste problem. No more throwing your expired bulb in
the trash can.

Yes, by all means look to new technology to reduce consumption of oil but
right now we use oil. We can't run our cars today on the promise of maybe
something better ten years from now.



The first thing we should do is promote conservation, instead of
trying to drum up business for Exxon. Why are conservatives
against conservation? If right-wingers were not oil company errand
boys, they'd talking about mass transit, telecommuting, and higher
CAFE standards, not drilling ANWR for oil.

In . net
www.bobbarr2008.com wrote:

The first thing we should do is promote conservation, instead

Why "instead"? Does it have to be an either-or proposition for you?

of trying to drum up business for Exxon.

Why just Exxon? Do you hold stock in Marathon, Hess, Shell, BP, Chevron
or Total?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

In article , says...
In . net
www.bobbarr2008.com wrote:

The first thing we should do is promote conservation, instead

Why "instead"? Does it have to be an either-or proposition for you?


No, not at all, why is it that way for right wingers?
(Well, of course it's because conserving oil is bad for the oil
business. Right?)

of trying to drum up business for Exxon.

Why just Exxon? Do you hold stock in Marathon, Hess, Shell, BP, Chevron
or Total?

Exxon sucks the most, but they're all pretty much the same.

In .net
www.bobbarr2008.com wrote:
In article ,
says...
In . net
www.bobbarr2008.com wrote:

The first thing we should do is promote conservation, instead

Why "instead"? Does it have to be an either-or proposition for you?


No, not at all, why is it that way for right wingers?

You were the one who used the word "instead"; just what do you think
that means?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

In .net
www.bobbarr2008.com wrote:

In article ,
says...

Why just Exxon? Do you hold stock in Marathon, Hess, Shell, BP,
Chevron or Total?

Exxon sucks the most, but they're all pretty much the same.

All pretty much the same? Meaning they all suck?

How, exactly do they all suck?

They make a product and offer it for sale, which you may buy, or not.

Just like any other business.

Do you want it for free?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

In article , says...
In .net
www.bobbarr2008.com wrote:
In article ,
says...
In . net
www.bobbarr2008.com wrote:

The first thing we should do is promote conservation, instead

Why "instead"? Does it have to be an either-or proposition for you?


No, not at all, why is it that way for right wingers?

You were the one who used the word "instead"; just what do you think
that means?


Well drilling might help the oil companies make more money
10 years down the road. OPEC will just cut production by
the amount of the new oil supply to keep prices stable so
the consumer will not benefit at all. Wouldn't it be smarter
to do things that will actually save average Americans money
today? I don't understand what your problem is with that.

In article , says...
In .net
www.bobbarr2008.com wrote:

In article ,
says...

Why just Exxon? Do you hold stock in Marathon, Hess, Shell, BP,
Chevron or Total?

Exxon sucks the most, but they're all pretty much the same.

All pretty much the same? Meaning they all suck?

How, exactly do they all suck?

They make a product and offer it for sale, which you may buy, or not.

Just like any other business.

Do you want it for free?


They suck because Exxon funds junk science to discredit climate change,
because the solution inevitably means buying less of what they sell.
But to put profits above an existential threat to human life is
unconscionable. And they suck because this whole war in Iraq was about
getting access back to Iraqi oil after Saddam nationalized the oil
industry there. Sorry, that's not my problem. The best course of action
for the American people was always to just buy the oil we need on the
world market and work to develop alternatives.

In .net
www.bobbarr2008.com wrote:

Wouldn't it be smarter to do things that will actually save average
Americans money today? I don't understand what your problem is with
that.

You were the one who said "instead", remember?

Nobody but you seems to be interested in restricting choices.

If it was up to me, you'd be free to do whatever you think is best, so
long as you leave me alone to do what I need to do.

Simple, isn't it?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

In .net
www.bobbarr2008.com wrote:

They suck because Exxon funds junk science to discredit climate
change, because the solution inevitably means buying less of what they
sell.

Well, you certainly don't want any other opinions offered but yours, do
you?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN