# Who are the fools buying into more drilling?



## wihosa

I know this is hard for some but the fact is expanding drilling into environmentally sensative areas will not lower gas prices.

Not now and not for the foreseeable future. The drilling issue is again a distraction from the fact that we have allowed our dependence on oil to jepordize our security. 

The future will belong to whoever first converts to an all electric society/economy. Fossil fuels are a relic from the past, championed by those who love to have us anti up everyday as we fill our gas tanks. 

Photovotaics and wind generation are off the shelf technologies just waiting for us to use.

Had we not followed the direction of Bush and Cheney for the last eight years we could have been well on our way to a clean and sustainable future of cheap and abundant energy.

The money spent in Iraq could have been invested in this future, instead it was wasted trying to hold onto the past. That past only enriches the rich while impovershing our whole nation.


----------



## AllieBaba

What the hell is photovotaics?????

And wind generation isn't practical. They either make too much energy and blow out their computers or they don't make enough and back up sources have to be tapped into.


----------



## sealybobo

wihosa said:


> I know this is hard for some but the fact is expanding drilling into environmentally sensative areas will not lower gas prices.
> 
> Not now and not for the foreseeable future. The drilling issue is again a distraction from the fact that we have allowed our dependence on oil to jepordize our security.
> 
> The future will belong to whoever first converts to an all electric society/economy. Fossil fuels are a relic from the past, championed by those who love to have us anti up everyday as we fill our gas tanks.
> 
> Photovotaics and wind generation are off the shelf technologies just waiting for us to use.
> 
> Had we not followed the direction of Bush and Cheney for the last eight years we could have been well on our way to a clean and sustainable future of cheap and abundant energy.
> 
> The money spent in Iraq could have been invested in this future, instead it was wasted trying to hold onto the past. That past only enriches the rich while impovershing our whole nation.



Here is what I learned on Randi Rhodes (NOVA M RADIO) the other day.  The Democrats have introduced 4 bills that would have created immediate relief for Americans, but the GOP blocked all 4.  No to ending the enron loopholes, no to ending speculation, no to windfall profit taxes and NO to a compromise where we let the oil companies drill offshore and they sell some of that gas to America, rather than on the world market.

The only solution the GOP says is to let the oil companies have all our land/oil.  

The Democrats need to speak up though.  Why do they consistently let the GOP make them look foolish?

The oil companies get our oil cheap.  The GOP congress 00-06 assured that by limiting how much the oil companies would ever have to pay for a barrel of oil.  So the oil companies want to sell the oil on the world market, not to us.  The oil companies also buy oil for us on the world market.  That's why they are able to say their costs have gone up.  So the reason the oil companies are making record profits is because of the GOP law that said the oil companies never have to pay more than $56 a barrel.  

So they don't lie to us when they say their costs have gone up.  They have.  But that they just pass on to us.  They just don't mention that America isn't getting any more per barrel since oil prices have gone up.  We get 1999 prices.  I say we need to renegotiate with the oil companies.  

Oh, but the GOP will say that prices will go up if that happens.  And that's probably true.  That's why these industries need to be heavily regulated.  It's our oil.  If the oil companies won't sell us our oil for cheap, fuck them.  I'm sure we can get someone else to do it.  How about Hugo Chavez?  He socialized Venesuela's oil and seems to be doing alright.  

But pay attention to the fact that he says Chaney and Bush tried to assassinate him.  After everything we've learned, is there any doubt?  

Who killed the battery car?  In fact, who killed the guy who figured out how to get a car to run on h2o?  google it.

Republicans want to socialize losses and privatize the profits.


----------



## wihosa

Your not knowing what photovotaics is is exemplary of your ignorance. Photovotaics is the proccess of direct conversion of sun light into electrical energy. Solar energy if you will. It is important to differentiate between PV and solar water heating that was common twenty years ago (still a viable and energy saving low tech resource).

As for wind, not only is it practical, it is very competitive price wise and getting more so all the time.Science News reported a couple years back that not only have recent advances in generator technology made it cheaper and more reliable but also that there are enough areas of suitable winds within 100 miles of every US metro areas to supply vitually all our electric power, the potential is virtually unlimited.


----------



## sealybobo

ps.  In the past Chaney said he would consider windfall profit taxes.  Today he says no way.  Another flip flop for big business.  Nice.


----------



## DiamondDave

wihosa said:


> Your not knowing what photovotaics is is exemplary of your ignorance. Photovotaics is the proccess of direct conversion of sun light into electrical energy. Solar energy if you will. It is important to differentiate between PV and solar water heating that was common twenty years ago (still a viable and energy saving low tech resource).
> 
> As for wind, not only is it practical, it is very competitive price wise and getting more so all the time.Science News reported a couple years back that not only have recent advances in generator technology made it cheaper and more reliable but also that there are enough areas of suitable winds within 100 miles of every US metro areas to supply vitually all our electric power, the potential is virtually unlimited.



Idiot

If you would actually have used the proper term of *photovoltaics*.... as in voltage derived from converting radiant energy... people would understand you


And while wind is viable in terms of efficiency... not in the amount of generation that would be needed at this time... same with solar... nuke is more viable than both of those, plus takes much less land


----------



## DiamondDave

sealybobo said:


> Here is what I learned on Randi Rhodes (NOVA M RADIO) the other day.



the only way to follow up that statement is with the word "NOTHING"

You preach that like gospel and bash on partisan hacks from the other side....??

get real


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> Idiot
> 
> If you would actually have used the proper term of *photovoltaics*.... as in voltage derived from converting radiant energy... people would understand you
> 
> 
> And while wind is viable in terms of efficiency... not in the amount of generation that would be needed at this time... same with solar... nuke is more viable than both of those, plus takes much less land



If the Egyptians would have had nukes and stored them in their pyrimads, we would still have to stay away from them to this day because of their radioactiveness.  

Have you ever heard of all the nuclear waste we have dumped in the Pacific?  So god forbid you go sailing or even worse, SCUBA DIVING near some of that shit.  

You don't care about anything except for yourself.


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> the only way to follow up that statement is with the word "NOTHING"
> 
> You preach that like gospel and bash on partisan hacks from the other side....??
> 
> get real



Find one time when she/they are acting like Rush limbaugh or Slanity or O'Reilly.

Just because your side are all liars, don't assume the other side is.  Especially when you've never listened.


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> the only way to follow up that statement is with the word "NOTHING"
> 
> You preach that like gospel and bash on partisan hacks from the other side....??
> 
> get real



I asked you on another topic if you are ok with monopolies.  Want to answer the question?


----------



## DiamondDave

sealybobo said:


> If the Egyptians would have had nukes and stored them in their pyrimads, we would still have to stay away from them to this day because of their* radioactiveness*.
> 
> Have you ever heard of all the nuclear waste we have dumped in the Pacific?  So god forbid you go sailing or even worse, SCUBA DIVING near some of that shit.
> 
> You don't care about anything except for yourself.



That would be RADIOACTIVITY... doofus

Even with the waste, which is much less than in the older technology with nukes, it is still one of the most viable, efficient, and less land taxing ways to generate the power we will need...


----------



## DiamondDave

sealybobo said:


> I asked you on another topic if you are ok with monopolies.  Want to answer the question?



And I answered you.... but evidently you cannot read


----------



## DiamondDave

sealybobo said:


> Find one time when she/they are acting like Rush limbaugh or Slanity or O'Reilly.
> 
> *Just because your side are all liars*, don't assume the other side is.  Especially when you've never listened.



And that just says it all... you are an absolute brainwashed uber-leftist partisan hack... brainwashed beyond belief


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> That would be RADIOACTIVITY... doofus
> 
> Even with the waste, which is much less than in the older technology with nukes, it is still one of the most viable, efficient, and less land taxing ways to generate the power we will need...



I don't mind responsible nuke technology then.


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> And that just says it all... you are an absolute brainwashed uber-leftist partisan hack... brainwashed beyond belief



What?  I remember when O'Reilly first came out.  He said he wasn't a Conservative or a Democrat.  He lied!!!!

Same with Glenn Beck.  I figured him out in about 10 minutes.


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> And I answered you.... but evidently you cannot read



I'll assume you are against monopolies.  Well then let me ask you, "who would break up the monopoly"?  And you would answer, "the government", and i would say, "SOCIALIST"

Which is just about how dumb you sound when you say it.  LOL.  As if I can hear you.

Thank god.  I assume you actually sound like Diamond Dave Lee Roth.  How annnoying.


----------



## wihosa

Chipped Diamond
Just because you found a more precise definition for PV doesn't mean you have spent any time understanding it's potential.

Nuclear power is so expensive that it is not even in the game when all real costs are counted. The companies that run these power plants don't pay for the refinement of the fuel or for the longterm storage. If they did, what do suppose the cost would be?

Maybe it would be smarter to subsidize the energy sources of the future, instead of the past.

DUH!


----------



## DiamondDave

sealybobo said:


> I'll assume you are against monopolies.  Well then let me ask you, "who would break up the monopoly"?  And you would answer, "the government", and i would say, "SOCIALIST"
> 
> Which is just about how dumb you sound when you say it.  LOL.  As if I can hear you.
> 
> Thank god.  I assume you actually sound like Diamond Dave Lee Roth.  How annnoying.



Hmmm... responsibility of government is to create the law, and enforce it... preventing against monopolies is like preventing against socialism (one being private total control versus elitist government total control)... to keep totalitarianism out of a governmental system based on liberties and freedoms and the rights of all...


----------



## wihosa

Listening to a righty explane how the "miracle of the markets" will always make things right is like listening to a Communist explain how communism works perfectly on paper.


----------



## DiamondDave

wihosa said:


> Chipped Diamond
> Just because you found a more precise definition for PV doesn't mean you have spent any time understanding it's potential.
> 
> Nuclear power is so expensive that it is not even in the game when all real costs are counted. The companies that run these power plants don't pay for the refinement of the fuel or for the longterm storage. If they did, what do suppose the cost would be?
> 
> Maybe it would be smarter to subsidize the energy sources of the future, instead of the past.
> 
> DUH!



Said nothing about a more precise definition.... said something about you spouting off against someone when you don't even know the actual term.... 

Nuke is not more expensive... it is expensive to build considering safety... but in upkeep, etc, it is not more expensive in the long run...


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> Hmmm... responsibility of government is to create the law, and enforce it... preventing against monopolies is like preventing against socialism (one being private total control versus elitist government total control)... to keep totalitarianism out of a governmental system based on liberties and freedoms and the rights of all...



Ok, so the government should do something about what the oil companies are doing to us.  And the media being bought up by a few powerful corporations.  And the mortgage companies predatory lending to us.  And probably a bunch of other shit I can't think of right now.

Being a monopoly isn't bad.  It's what the monopoly does to us that is bad.  And the corporations are doing things that are bad to us.  

So you understand that monopolies are bad.  Do you understand why they are bad?  What do monopolies do to us?  I bet if I wikipedia it, a lot of what is bad about monopolies will be what corporations are doing to us today.  Let me see.

In political discourse, the term monopoly is frequently invoked as a blanket generalization in criticism of firms with large market share or lack of what is perceived as "fair" competition.[3] 
The latter usage of the term is more predominant among non-economists than economists and while its assertions may hold true, it is not based upon the definition of "monopoly," used by economists.

A monopoly should be distinguished from monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of a product or service; a monopoly may also have monopsony control of a sector of a market. Likewise, a monopoly should be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which several providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods.

BINGO.  We may not have a problem with a Monopoly today dave.  But the same problems you get with a monopoly, we are seeing on a grand scale.  It's more COLLUSION!!!!

No close substitutes: A monopoly is not merely the state of having control over a product; it also means that there is no real alternative to the monopolised product. 
A price maker: Because a single firm controls the total supply in a pure monopoly, it is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price by changing the quantity supplied. 


Some argue that it can be good to allow a firm to attempt to monopolize a market, since practices such as dumping can benefit consumers in the short term; and once the firm grows too big, it can be dealt with via regulation. When monopolies are not broken through the open market, often a government will step in, either to regulate the monopoly, turn it into a publicly owned monopoly environment, or forcibly break it up (see Antitrust law). Public utilities, often being natural filiations and less susceptible to efficient breakup, are often strongly regulated or publicly owned. AT&T and Standard Oil are debatable examples of the breakup of a private monopoly. When AT&T was broken up into the "Baby Bell" components, MCI, Sprint, and other companies were able to compete effectively in the long distance phone market and began to take phone traffic from the less efficient AT&T server.


----------



## wihosa

Yo Diamond,
Pay attention, what would it cost if the nuclear power operators had to pay for the refinement and storage of the fuel?

Oh that's right, you are one of the duped so you never have to answer the pertinent questions, just simply assert that "Nuke is not more expensive". 

By the way PV is commonly known as the direct conversion of sun light into electrical energy even thought it is the radiant energy in the sunlight which is actually converted. Again this quibble is nothing but a diversion from my point, a typical righty tactic.


----------



## DiamondDave

sealybobo said:


> Ok, so the government should do something about what the oil companies are doing to us.  And the media being bought up by a few powerful corporations.  And the mortgage companies predatory lending to us.  And probably a bunch of other shit I can't think of right now.
> 
> Being a monopoly isn't bad.  It's what the monopoly does to us that is bad.  And the corporations are doing things that are bad to us.
> 
> So you understand that monopolies are bad.  Do you understand why they are bad?  What do monopolies do to us?  I bet if I wikipedia it, a lot of what is bad about monopolies will be what corporations are doing to us today.  Let me see.
> 
> In political discourse, the term monopoly is frequently invoked as a blanket generalization in criticism of firms with large market share or lack of what is perceived as "fair" competition.[3]
> The latter usage of the term is more predominant among non-economists than economists and while its assertions may hold true, it is not based upon the definition of "monopoly," used by economists.
> 
> A monopoly should be distinguished from monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of a product or service; a monopoly may also have monopsony control of a sector of a market. Likewise, a monopoly should be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which several providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods.
> 
> BINGO.  We may not have a problem with a Monopoly today dave.  But the same problems you get with a monopoly, we are seeing on a grand scale.  It's more COLLUSION!!!!
> 
> No close substitutes: A monopoly is not merely the state of having control over a product; it also means that there is no real alternative to the monopolised product.
> A price maker: Because a single firm controls the total supply in a pure monopoly, it is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price by changing the quantity supplied.
> 
> 
> Some argue that it can be good to allow a firm to attempt to monopolize a market, since practices such as dumping can benefit consumers in the short term; and once the firm grows too big, it can be dealt with via regulation. When monopolies are not broken through the open market, often a government will step in, either to regulate the monopoly, turn it into a publicly owned monopoly environment, or forcibly break it up (see Antitrust law). Public utilities, often being natural filiations and less susceptible to efficient breakup, are often strongly regulated or publicly owned. AT&T and Standard Oil are debatable examples of the breakup of a private monopoly. When AT&T was broken up into the "Baby Bell" components, MCI, Sprint, and other companies were able to compete effectively in the long distance phone market and began to take phone traffic from the less efficient AT&T server.



Companie*s*... hmm... not a monopoly... 1 oil company, I would scream monopoly... many companies... nope... sorry... even if your conspiracy theory feeble mind wants it to be to justify your control system.... and funny, we have no control over the OUTSIDE entity called OPEC and the global oil market that determines the worldwide price....

You can compete against the oil companies... get the capital together (if you actually earn money), pool it with others with your vision... spearhead it up... 

You want to spearhead the alternatives that will eventually, far down the road, replace oil... go for it... do it up... research, invest, create the company to bring the oil companies down...


nah... you would rather scream your ridiculous conspiracy theories and shout great words to rile up those who think everyone owes them something except for themselves, like "collusion"... it's so much simpler for you... does not force you to understand the real world, the concept of a free society, and anything except a socialist control system


----------



## DiamondDave

wihosa said:


> Yo Diamond,
> Pay attention, what would it cost if the nuclear power operators had to pay for the refinement and storage of the fuel?
> 
> Oh that's right, you are one of the duped so you never have to answer the pertinent questions, just simply assert that "Nuke is not more expensive".
> 
> By the way PV is commonly known as the direct conversion of sun light into electrical energy even thought it is the radiant energy in the sunlight which is actually converted. Again this quibble is nothing but a diversion from my point, a typical righty tactic.




Hmmm... much like a gas station does not refine the gas itself... various companies/corporations along the way provide different stages of the process to supply the final product...

or is that too hard for your little mind to understand?


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> Companie*s*... hmm... not a monopoly... 1 oil company, I would scream monopoly... many companies... nope... sorry... even if your conspiracy theory feeble mind wants it to be to justify your control system.... and funny, we have no control over the OUTSIDE entity called OPEC and the global oil market that determines the worldwide price....
> 
> You can compete against the oil companies... get the capital together (if you actually earn money), pool it with others with your vision... spearhead it up...
> 
> You want to spearhead the alternatives that will eventually, far down the road, replace oil... go for it... do it up... research, invest, create the company to bring the oil companies down...
> 
> 
> nah... you would rather scream your ridiculous conspiracy theories and shout great words to rile up those who think everyone owes them something except for themselves, like "collusion"... it's so much simpler for you... does not force you to understand the real world, the concept of a free society, and anything except a socialist control system




OPEC isn't practicing COLLUSION or MONOPOLISTIC practices?  So you are cool if a couple companies fuck us, just as long as they don't go under one name?

Standard Oil was a monopoly and the government broke them up.  They are still all owned by the same men.  So yes, they are in COLLUSION, IMO.  More than OPINION.  I'm not blind.


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> Hmmm... much like a gas station does not refine the gas itself... various companies/corporations along the way provide different stages of the process to supply the final product...
> 
> or is that too hard for your little mind to understand?



Gas stations are getting fucked by the oil companies too.  They say they don't make shit on oil anymore.  Only on the products they sell inside.  Not good when many put gas on their credit card at the pumps.  

"various" companies dave?  Do you mean like Haloburton, KBR and Blackwater type "various".  

LOL.  Same company Dave.


----------



## wihosa

OK Desperate Dianond,

I'll put it in easy to understand terms, it's mot companies or middle men who refine the nuclear fuel, it's our government. We subsidize the nuclear energy business to the tune of billions every year.

Wouldn't it be smarter to invest in a future of clean sustainable inexpensive and abundant energy rather than expensive and dangerous energy?

Oh, that would mean admitting you are wrong, one of the duped, so go ahead tell me about how photovotaics is not technically direct conversion of sun'light' into electrical energy.


----------



## AllieBaba

sealybobo said:


> Here is what I learned on Randi Rhodes (NOVA M RADIO) the other day.  The Democrats have introduced 4 bills that would have created immediate relief for Americans, but the GOP blocked all 4.  No to ending the enron loopholes, no to ending speculation, no to windfall profit taxes and NO to a compromise where we let the oil companies drill offshore and they sell some of that gas to America, rather than on the world market.
> 
> The only solution the GOP says is to let the oil companies have all our land/oil.
> 
> The Democrats need to speak up though.  Why do they consistently let the GOP make them look foolish?
> 
> The oil companies get our oil cheap.  The GOP congress 00-06 assured that by limiting how much the oil companies would ever have to pay for a barrel of oil.  So the oil companies want to sell the oil on the world market, not to us.  The oil companies also buy oil for us on the world market.  That's why they are able to say their costs have gone up.  So the reason the oil companies are making record profits is because of the GOP law that said the oil companies never have to pay more than $56 a barrel.
> 
> So they don't lie to us when they say their costs have gone up.  They have.  But that they just pass on to us.  They just don't mention that America isn't getting any more per barrel since oil prices have gone up.  We get 1999 prices.  I say we need to renegotiate with the oil companies.
> 
> Oh, but the GOP will say that prices will go up if that happens.  And that's probably true.  That's why these industries need to be heavily regulated.  It's our oil.  If the oil companies won't sell us our oil for cheap, fuck them.  I'm sure we can get someone else to do it.  How about Hugo Chavez?  He socialized Venesuela's oil and seems to be doing alright.
> 
> But pay attention to the fact that he says Chaney and Bush tried to assassinate him.  After everything we've learned, is there any doubt?
> 
> Who killed the battery car?  In fact, who killed the guy who figured out how to get a car to run on h2o?  google it.
> 
> Republicans want to socialize losses and privatize the profits.



It is a mathematical impossibility to learn anything from Randi Rhodes. Unless you're dumb as dirt yourself, in which case you might learn some new cuss words.


----------



## wihosa

And there you have what passes for an argument by a righty, just say "you're dumb as dirt"


----------



## busara

AllieBaba said:


> It is a mathematical impossibility to learn anything from Randi Rhodes. Unless you're dumb as dirt yourself, in which case you might learn some new cuss words.



i'd like to see that math.

ive never heard of the guy so cant comment on him, but with the hatred being thrown his way i should check him out


----------



## Ravi

AllieBaba said:


> What the hell is photovotaics?????
> 
> And wind generation isn't practical. They either make too much energy and blow out their computers or they don't make enough and back up sources have to be tapped into.


If we could only harness that wind tunnel between your ears.


----------



## wihosa

Randi is a woman, and I've found her to be quite accurate. She has to be, she's on the radio against the whole right wing propagana arm of the Repubs.


----------



## DiamondDave

wihosa said:


> OK Desperate Dianond,
> 
> I'll put it in easy to understand terms, it's mot companies or middle men who refine the nuclear fuel, it's our government. We subsidize the nuclear energy business to the tune of billions every year.
> 
> Wouldn't it be smarter to invest in a future of clean sustainable inexpensive and abundant energy rather than expensive and dangerous energy?
> 
> Oh, that would mean admitting you are wrong, one of the duped, so go ahead tell me about how photovotaics is not technically direct conversion of sun'light' into electrical energy.



Admitting I am wrong... only if I were....

To put it in easy to understand terms... I don't support subsidizing anything...

In terms of true cost and with all the research seen... nuke is one of the most expensive to build... but the total costs (even in OTHER countries that use it much more than we do) in the long run, are cheaper than other technologies AT THIS POINT...

What would be smarter, and what ones like you don't seem to understand, would be to deal on both parts of the spectrum... dealing with the technologies we must use today and in the near future (oil, coal, nuke, etc) ALL THE WHILE researching into making the other forms of energy production viable in the scale that we will need them for in the future....

And I am not here to lecture you on energy or electric production... but you seem to want to lecture people on things such as photo*vol*taics, even though you cannot use the correct terms when trying to explain it


----------



## AllieBaba

wihosa said:


> Randi is a woman, and I've found her to be quite accurate. She has to be, she's on the radio against the whole right wing propagana arm of the Repubs.



Share. What has she been accurate about? Give us an example, and some proof to back it up.


----------



## Ravi

Randi Rhodes is a loon. Not in Coulter's class, or even Rushbo's, but a loon nevertheless.


----------



## sealybobo

Ravi said:


> Randi Rhodes is a loon. Not in Coulter's class, or even Rushbo's, but a loon nevertheless.



Give me an example of something she said that makes her a loon.  I could tell you many positions Rush, Hannity or O'Reilly have that  make them nuts.  So tell me what makes Randi a loon.  

The other Air America and Nova M Radio hosts are good, but they don't tell me anything I don't already know.  They just give Progressive's a voice.  Randi & Rachel Maddow tell us stuff the mainstream/drive by/Corporate Media's won't tell us.

What do you think of Rachel Maddow?  She's not "over the top", which might be why you don't like Randi.  

I think this is why even some Progressives/Liberals don't like me.  I fight back.  Most liberal are pussies.  They are smart, but pussies.


----------



## Ravi

sealybobo said:


> Give me an example of something she said that makes her a loon.  I could tell you many positions Rush, Hannity or O'Reilly have that  make them nuts.  So tell me what makes Randi a loon.
> 
> The other Air America and Nova M Radio hosts are good, but they don't tell me anything I don't already know.  They just give Progressive's a voice.  Randi & Rachel Maddow tell us stuff the mainstream/drive by/Corporate Media's won't tell us.
> 
> What do you think of Rachel Maddow?  She's not "over the top", which might be why you don't like Randi.
> 
> I think this is why even some Progressives/Liberals don't like me.  I fight back.  Most liberal are pussies.  They are smart, but pussies.


Over the top, certainly. Most of the time she sounds like she's drunk. I'm not saying she never makes some good points, but she's a nut.


----------



## manifold

wtf is Randi Rhodes? ?!?!


----------



## sealybobo

Here are a couple of headlines for those who haven't had the time to study both economics and history: 
1. There is no such thing as a "free market." 
2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering). 
The conservative belief in "free markets" is a bit like the Catholic Church's insistence that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System in the Twelfth Century. It's widely believed by those in power, those who challenge it are branded heretics and ridiculed, and it is wrong. 
In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government. 
Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government. 
And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by government. 
Which explains why conservative economics wiped out the middle class during the period from 1880 to 1932, and why, when Reagan again began applying conservative economics, the middle class again began to vanish in America in the 1980s - a process that has dramatically picked up steam under George W. Bush. 
The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop corporations from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." This is, at best, destructive to national and international economies, and, at worst, destructive to democracy itself. 
Markets are a creation of government, just as corporations exist only by authorization of government. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business. 
If you want to play the game of business, then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest. 
Which requires us to puncture the second balloon of popular belief. The "middle class" is not the natural result of freeing business to do whatever it wants, of "free and open markets," or of "free trade." The "middle class" is not a normal result of "free markets." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs." 
The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. It is, quite simply, an artifact of government regulation of markets and tax laws.


----------



## AllieBaba

Randi is like the female equivilent of Michael Savage.


----------



## Ravi

Too much metal, big hair, and leather pants.


----------



## Charles_Main

The only fools I see are those who buy the idea that Drilling for our own oil would not be a good thing, and those who believe the propaganda that claims it will have little or no effect on prices.

Learn about futures markets and the Law of supply and demand!!

or you could keep ignoring the Economist who say it will help, and instead keep listening to the Democrat Policy committee.


----------



## CharlestonChad

Charles_Main said:


> The only fools I see are those who buy the idea that Drilling for our own oil would not be a good thing, and those who believe the propaganda that claims it will have little or no effect on prices.
> 
> Learn about futures markets and the Law of supply and demand!!
> 
> or you could keep ignoring the Economist who say it will help, and instead keep listening to the Democrat Policy committee.



Ha. You keep these energy threads entertaining though, cause you spout off the same disproved points over and over and over and over.


----------



## Charles_Main

CharlestonChad said:


> Ha. You keep these energy threads entertaining though, cause you spout off the same disproved points over and over and over and over.



Nothing has been disproved, except maybe in the minds of Democrats and Liberals who choose to ignore the facts and Believe the Democrat Policy committee instead. 

However keep believing the lies all you want, it does not bother me.


----------



## CharlestonChad

Nuclear energy powers 53% of southcarolina's electrical energy needs. If we can do it, anyone can. 

Match that with wind, solar, geothermal, and biofuels and we'd get this nation to the point where we don't have to be deceived into wars to support our suv habits.


----------



## Ravi

Charles_Main said:


> The only fools I see are those who buy the idea that Drilling for our own oil would not be a good thing, and those who believe the propaganda that claims it will have little or no effect on prices.
> 
> Learn about futures markets and the Law of supply and demand!!
> 
> or you could keep ignoring the Economist who say it will help, and instead keep listening to the Democrat Policy committee.


Actually, Charles, you unquestionably believe what you are told by the RNC. Quite a few of us google around, find conflicting reports, and decide that no one seems to be telling the truth.

For instance, what assurance do you have that the oil companies would give us a discount rate? Did you know that they are suing the federal government to get out of their agreement to pay royalties on profits over a $100 dollar a barrel price? If they get to own the oil leases, will they actually drill it? And if they do, will they pay for any screw ups they may cause...i.e. oil spills?


----------



## Charles_Main

CharlestonChad said:


> Nuclear energy powers 53% of southcarolina's electrical energy needs. If we can do it, anyone can.
> 
> Match that with wind, solar, geothermal, and biofuels and we'd get this nation to the point where we don't have to be deceived into wars to support our suv habits.





I agree whole 100% with this, but this will take time and in the mean time, I want to use our oil, not theirs!!

Only 12 million of the 21 Million barrels of Oil we use a day come from over seas, and Much of that could be replaced with expanded domestic drilling.


----------



## Charles_Main

Ravi said:


> Actually, Charles, you unquestionably believe what you are told by the RNC. Quite a few of us google around, find conflicting reports, and decide that no one seems to be telling the truth.



No Ravi you choose to believe that about me. I like you Google around all the time. And I have read many a report, and article By ECONOMISTS who all say Drilling now would have an immediate effect on prices. 

I would add that the Internet is not the only source of Information. I went to this thing called school where I learned all about supply and Demand, and even a little about Futures markets. I do not need anyone to tell me how they work, or if Drilling would have an effect on Prices. I know it will.

Also as I have said many times in the past, Prices are not the best reason to drill. The trade deficit and supplying Nations like Saudi with Billions of our money are 2 very good reasons to use our own oil, that have NOTHING to do with prices. Lowering Prices is simply the most popular reason frankly because most people do not pay much attention to politics, or Economics, but Everyone pays attention to their wallets.

I could care less what the Dems or Republicans say about it. I choose to believe Economists.


----------



## CharlestonChad

Charles_Main said:


> I agree whole 100% with this, but this will take time and in the mean time, I want to use our oil, not theirs!!
> 
> Only 12 million of the 21 Million barrels of Oil we use a day come from over seas, and Much of that could be replaced with expanded domestic drilling.



Bush is talking about tapping our reserves to peak oil at 1% of our daily consumption in 2030. What fantasy world do you live in where oil is traded decades in advance? 

It only took this nation 30 years to get from a picnic sized computer to the ipod nano. I'm pretty damn sure we got the altE ball rolling a long time ago, and we shouldn't have much problem meeting the demand of altE as oil prices continue to rise. 

If you put so much faith in markets, then let the demand for altE grow and watch the development increase exponentially.


----------



## Charles_Main

Like I said chad, I am all for every alternative you can come up with. I just think the transition to them will take longer than you think. It is not just a matter of perfecting the tech. After it is perfected People have to transition to it. That will take time and Money. More time than I think you imagine it will. 

I am not a drill only guy. I want to do it all. Every damn thing we can do to get us off foreign Oil ASAP and oil all together eventually.

OH and I could care less what Bush says about it, He is a moron. I choose to believe the countless economist who say that the mere act of announcing we plan to drill would effect price.

Also as I have said I do not think Prices should be the only reason, or are the best reason to drill. I am sure you know by know why I think we should do it. Franky it has little to do with Prices.


----------



## sealybobo

Ravi said:


> Actually, Charles, you unquestionably believe what you are told by the RNC. Quite a few of us google around, find conflicting reports, and decide that no one seems to be telling the truth.
> 
> For instance, what assurance do you have that the oil companies would give us a discount rate? Did you know that they are suing the federal government to get out of their agreement to pay royalties on profits over a $100 dollar a barrel price? If they get to own the oil leases, will they actually drill it? And if they do, will they pay for any screw ups they may cause...i.e. oil spills?



bless you!  sometimes I feel alone here.


----------



## DiamondDave

sealybobo said:


> bless you!  sometimes I feel alone here.



You shouldn't... seems like (unfortunately) there are quite a few super-partisan left-wing hacks here


----------



## Charles_Main

Bobo should feel alone, alone in his own delusional dream world. 

Hey Bobo why don't you negative rep me again like a child so I can repay you with 2 of the same. I do not initiate neg reps, but if you are going to be a child and do it to me, I will return the favor 2 fold 

Oh an I am sorry to everyone else for breaking my no name calling rule, but for Bobo I will always make an exception.


----------



## sealybobo

Charles_Main said:


> Bobo should feel alone, alone in his own delusional dream world.
> 
> Hey Bobo why don't you negative rep me again like a child so I can repay you with 2 of the same. I do not initiate neg reps, but if you are going to be a child and do it to me, I will return the favor 2 fold
> 
> Oh an I am sorry to everyone else for breaking my no name calling rule, but for Bobo I will always make an exception.



You learned about s&d and futures in truck driving school?  lol

Hey, I wonder if in monroe, mi today mccain mentioned the 1966 enrico fermi partial nuclear meltdown accident that happened?


----------



## Gunny

wihosa said:


> I know this is hard for some but the fact is expanding drilling into environmentally sensative areas will not lower gas prices.
> 
> Not now and not for the foreseeable future. The drilling issue is again a distraction from the fact that we have allowed our dependence on oil to jepordize our security.
> 
> The future will belong to whoever first converts to an all electric society/economy. Fossil fuels are a relic from the past, championed by those who love to have us anti up everyday as we fill our gas tanks.
> 
> Photovotaics and wind generation are off the shelf technologies just waiting for us to use.
> 
> Had we not followed the direction of Bush and Cheney for the last eight years we could have been well on our way to a clean and sustainable future of cheap and abundant energy.
> 
> The money spent in Iraq could have been invested in this future, instead it was wasted trying to hold onto the past. That past only enriches the rich while impovershing our whole nation.



Bullshit.  Just announcing we intend to drill will lower gas prices.  Do you think doing nothing while we remain dependent on oil is sheer genius?  That begs the question WHO is the fool?

The money invested in foreign oil FAR outweighs the money spent in Iraq.  Of course, we're MUCH brighter.  We can build windmills up the ass with no regard for what wildlife they disturb, but heabven forbid we touch the 85% of OUR OWN oil reserve because we migh force some fish to fuck a few feet away.

Get a little reality into your argument, huh?


----------



## DiamondDave

Gunny said:


> Bullshit.  Just announcing we intend to drill will lower gas prices.  Do you think doing nothing while we remain dependent on oil is sheer genius?  That begs the question WHO is the fool?
> 
> The money invested in foreign oil FAR outweighs the money spent in Iraq.  Of course, we're MUCH brighter.  We can build windmills up the ass with no regard for what wildlife they disturb, but heabven forbid we touch the 85% of OUR OWN oil reserve because we migh force some fish to fuck a few feet away.
> 
> Get a little reality into your argument, huh?



Yet the little fool wihosi and ones like him believe Nazi Pelosi and her belief that releasing some from the strategic reserves will reduce gas prices

Let's look at the logic of that for a second... releasing a little will provide relief, but drilling for a lot won't...

typical lib logic


----------



## Gunny

DiamondDave said:


> Yet the little fool wihosi and ones like him believe Nazi Pelosi and her belief that releasing some from the strategic reserves will reduce gas prices
> 
> Let's look at the logic of that for a second... releasing a little will provide relief, but drilling for a lot won't...
> 
> typical lib logic



The oil in the strategic reserve is paid for at "yesterday's prices."  Replacing it at current or future prices will only drive the price up.


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> You shouldn't... seems like (unfortunately) there are quite a few super-partisan left-wing hacks here



really?  because it feels to me like there are more super right wing partisan hacks here.

btw, I wasn't always this way.  I liked reagan and daddy bush, until daddy bush ran again.  I was nearing graduation and he was horrible.  or was it carters fault?

anyways, clinton was great and the gop congress he worked with was horrible.  dole, newt, barr.....

and then baby bush and the 00-06 gop with delay & hastert.  even worse.  foley, vetter, craig.

they sure didn't do anything to win me over.  

did you vote for clinton?  then you are the partisan hack.


----------



## jreeves

wihosa said:


> *I know this is hard for some but the fact is expanding drilling into environmentally sensative areas will not lower gas prices.*Not now and not for the foreseeable future. The drilling issue is again a distraction from the fact that we have allowed our dependence on oil to jepordize our security.
> 
> The future will belong to whoever first converts to an all electric society/economy. Fossil fuels are a relic from the past, championed by those who love to have us anti up everyday as we fill our gas tanks.
> 
> Photovotaics and wind generation are off the shelf technologies just waiting for us to use.
> 
> Had we not followed the direction of Bush and Cheney for the last eight years we could have been well on our way to a clean and sustainable future of cheap and abundant energy.
> 
> The money spent in Iraq could have been invested in this future, instead it was wasted trying to hold onto the past. That past only enriches the rich while impovershing our whole nation.



Have you ever heard of supply and demand? Hmmm....It works like this the more supply you have, the lower prices are.....


Alternative energy is great, but until we have cheaper alternatives than oil, the dependacy will remain.


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> You learned about s&d and futures in truck driving school?  lol
> 
> Hey, I wonder if in monroe, mi today mccain mentioned the 1966 enrico fermi partial nuclear meltdown accident that happened?



Did you learn about it in pots and pans sales school?


----------



## Care4all

Gunny said:


> The oil in the strategic reserve is paid for at "yesterday's prices."  Replacing it at current or future prices will only drive the price up.



tis true gunny, but today's prices are 20% lower than yesterday's prices, so we would be buying the replacement at lower prices....

also, i believe every time we released some of the reserves on to the market in the past, prices went down...thus the relief for us, but also....we repurchased the reserves at lower prices....

there may be other reasons not to release our oil reserves, but i do not believe that rebuying at a higher price is one of them, because i don't believe this will happen....

care


----------



## DiamondDave

sealybobo said:


> really?  because it feels to me like there are more super right wing partisan hacks here.
> 
> btw, I wasn't always this way.  I liked reagan and daddy bush, until daddy bush ran again.  I was nearing graduation and he was horrible.  or was it carters fault?
> 
> anyways, clinton was great and the gop congress he worked with was horrible.  dole, newt, barr.....
> 
> and then baby bush and the 00-06 gop with delay & hastert.  even worse.  foley, vetter, craig.
> 
> they sure didn't do anything to win me over.
> 
> did you vote for clinton?  then you are the partisan hack.



I was in the Army in 92 during the first Clinton election... did not like any of the 3 (Perot was qualified for treasury secretary and that was about it, I hated how Bush backtracked and was pansying to the UN, and Clinton was even seen then as a slimeball)... abstained from the presidential portion of the vote... 96, I definitely voted against him after seeing the havoc he was wreaking on the military while I was in.... was a McCain guy in 2000, but definitely voted for Bush over Gore... and in 04 I voted more to keep Kerry out than for total approval of Bush... Voted dem once in 88, as I was ignorant in my youth

And in local elections I do vote DEM on occasion.... as in everything, I weigh the issues and history of candidates on a scorecard against my beliefs and the charges of the constitution


----------



## sealybobo

Gunny said:


> Bullshit.  Just announcing we intend to drill will lower gas prices.  Do you think doing nothing while we remain dependent on oil is sheer genius?  That begs the question WHO is the fool?
> 
> The money invested in foreign oil FAR outweighs the money spent in Iraq.  Of course, we're MUCH brighter.  We can build windmills up the ass with no regard for what wildlife they disturb, but heabven forbid we touch the 85% of OUR OWN oil reserve because we migh force some fish to fuck a few feet away.
> 
> Get a little reality into your argument, huh?


 
Actually, doing nothing will lower prices.  An economist NPR today said that gas is going lower because we aren't  driving as much.  Something about it turning back to a bull or bear market.

He also said the fed lowering interest rates had something to do with prices and the value of the dollar too.

I could explain how the gop's iraq spending and deregulating the mortgage industry are responsible, but you wouldn't understand.


----------



## DiamondDave

jreeves said:


> Did you learn about it in pots and pans sales school?




nah.. his lover whispered it in his ear while bobo laid beneath pillow biting


----------



## Gunny

sealybobo said:


> really?  because it feels to me like there are more super right wing partisan hacks here.
> 
> btw, I wasn't always this way.  I liked reagan and daddy bush, until daddy bush ran again.  I was nearing graduation and he was horrible.  or was it carters fault?
> 
> anyways, clinton was great and the gop congress he worked with was horrible.  dole, newt, barr.....
> 
> and then baby bush and the 00-06 gop with delay & hastert.  even worse.  foley, vetter, craig.
> 
> they sure didn't do anything to win me over.
> 
> did you vote for clinton?  then you are the partisan hack.



LMAO!  If there was ONE conservative on this board, the extremists on the left would swear it was right wing.  Been listening to THAT BS for quite awhile .

Guess y'all need to learn to count.


----------



## jreeves

Care4all said:


> tis true gunny, but today's prices are 20% lower than yesterday's prices, so we would be buying the replacement at lower prices....
> 
> also, i believe every time we released some of the reserves on to the market in the past, prices went down...thus the relief for us, but also....we repurchased the reserves at lower prices....
> 
> there may be other reasons not to release our oil reserves, but i do not believe that rebuying at a higher price is one of them, because i don't believe this will happen....
> 
> care



I don't believe we should release the Strategic oil reserves for a different reason. We haven't developed oil sources here in the United States and we get a vast majority of our oil from hostile governments....


----------



## Gunny

Care4all said:


> tis true gunny, but today's prices are 20% lower than yesterday's prices, so we would be buying the replacement at lower prices....
> 
> also, i believe every time we released some of the reserves on to the market in the past, prices went down...thus the relief for us, but also....we repurchased the reserves at lower prices....
> 
> there may be other reasons not to release our oil reserves, but i do not believe that rebuying at a higher price is one of them, because i don't believe this will happen....
> 
> care



When was the last time the oil reserve was filled?  I didn't mean yesterday as in 24 hours ago.  That's why I caveated it with quotations.  Even if prices drop a little, they aren't going to drop to what they were even a year ago.  So we're STILL resupplying at a higher cost, so it WILL happen.


----------



## jreeves

DiamondDave said:


> nah.. his lover whispered it in his ear while bobo laid beneath pillow biting



I get this mental picture of Bobo as Chris Farley on Saturday Night Live, the motivational speaker "who lives in a van down by the river". Don't know if you seen it. 
Chris Farley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Popular characters performed by Farley included himself on "The Chris Farley Show" (a talk show in which Farley would often "interview" the guest and get very nervous and ask very simple-minded or irrelevant questions), an over-the-top motivational speaker named Matt Foley (who constantly reminded characters that he lived in "a van down by the river")[9]


----------



## Gunny

sealybobo said:


> Actually, doing nothing will lower prices.  An economist NPR today said that gas is going lower because we aren't  driving as much.  Something about it turning back to a bull or bear market.
> 
> He also said the fed lowering interest rates had something to do with prices and the value of the dollar too.
> 
> I could explain how the gop's iraq spending and deregulating the mortgage industry are responsible, but you wouldn't understand.




NPR?  So THAT's what's wrong with you.

Understand YOU?  Probably not.  But that doesn't mean shit.  I can understand a 6 months old baby better than I can your incoherent gibberish.


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> I was in the Army in 92 during the first Clinton election... did not like any of the 3 (Perot was qualified for treasury secretary and that was about it, I hated how Bush backtracked and was pansying to the UN, and Clinton was even seen then as a slimeball)... abstained from the presidential portion of the vote... 96, I definitely voted against him after seeing the havoc he was wreaking on the military while I was in.... was a McCain guy in 2000, but definitely voted for Bush over Gore... and in 04 I voted more to keep Kerry out than for total approval of Bush... Voted dem once in 88, as I was ignorant in my youth
> 
> And in local elections I do vote DEM on occasion.... as in everything, I weigh the issues and history of candidates on a scorecard against my beliefs and the charges of the constitution



Now why did you vote against Reagans Vp?  Dukakis?  lol

I'm greek though so I appreciate that.

We invented democracy you know.  lol

And our military was still bad ass when clinton gutted it you know.  Do you like the deficit spending we have now?  A lot of that is military.  We spend more than every other country combined.  Probably half of it is corrupt waste/needless.

So the one time you voted dem the guy lost.  That's funny.  Really curious what you had against Bush 1.


----------



## Gunny

jreeves said:


> I get this mental picture of Bobo as Chris Farley on Saturday Night Live, the motivational speaker "who lives in a van down by the river". Don't know if you seen it.
> Chris Farley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Popular characters performed by Farley included himself on "The Chris Farley Show" (a talk show in which Farley would often "interview" the guest and get very nervous and ask very simple-minded or irrelevant questions), an over-the-top motivational speaker named Matt Foley (who constantly reminded characters that he lived in "a van down by the river")[9]



Really?  Kind of reminds me of Stuart Smalley ....


----------



## DiamondDave

sealybobo said:


> Now why did you vote against Reagans Vp?  Dukakis?  lol
> 
> I'm greek though so I appreciate that.
> 
> We invented democracy you know.  lol
> 
> And our military was still bad ass when clinton gutted it you know.  Do you like the deficit spending we have now?  A lot of that is military.  We spend more than every other country combined.  Probably half of it is corrupt waste/needless.
> 
> So the one time you voted dem the guy lost.  That's funny.  Really curious what you had against Bush 1.



You had to be in to realize the harm Clinton was doing to the military... ranging from policy, to downsizing, etc

As for why I voted against GHWB, as stated I was young and ignorant in the first election I could vote in... I really did not know any better and did not know enough looking in to the candidates... age has brought me wisdom... knowing what I know now, I would have voted for GHWB, if I would take into account only what was known in 88... I would have still abstained in 92 as none of the candidates were really worthy and none would have been a good choice or lesser of 3 evils... I really detest GHWB and consider him one of the 3 worst presidents (along with Clinton and Carter) of the 2nd 1/2 of the 20th century


----------



## Care4all

Gunny said:


> When was the last time the oil reserve was filled?  I didn't mean yesterday as in 24 hours ago.  That's why I caveated it with quotations.  Even if prices drop a little, they aren't going to drop to what they were even a year ago.  So we're STILL resupplying at a higher cost, so it WILL happen.




you're probably right, though we were buying oil daily, so it would be dollar averaged on the year....

but the price DOES drop from releasing them....like the last time clinton released reserves it dropped to $10 bucks a barrel from around $23 a barrel i believe?  maybe it was $20?  this was still about a 50% reduction in oil prices for a period of time....during which we rebought them....then eventually they went up....


----------



## Gunny

Care4all said:


> you're probably right, though we were buying oil daily, so it would be dollar averaged on the year....
> 
> but the price DOES drop from releasing them....like the last time clinton released reserves it dropped to $10 bucks a barrel from around $23 a barrel i believe?  maybe it was $20?  this was still about a 50% reduction in oil prices for a period of time....during which we rebought them....then eventually they went up....



The price of gas to the consumer sure didn't fluctuate that much.  And THAT is the whole point here.  Oil companies aren't going to drop prices any further than they have to and no way are they going to drop to previous levels.  

Any break IS a break, and they count on us buying off on that theory.  Last time they increased sharply they dropped off at the end and everyone shut up about it.


----------



## Your Overlord

wihosa said:


> I know this is hard for some but the fact is expanding drilling into environmentally sensative areas will not lower gas prices.
> 
> Not now and not for the foreseeable future. The drilling issue is again a distraction from the fact that we have allowed our dependence on oil to jepordize our security.
> 
> The future will belong to whoever first converts to an all electric society/economy. Fossil fuels are a relic from the past, championed by those who love to have us anti up everyday as we fill our gas tanks.
> 
> Photovotaics and wind generation are off the shelf technologies just waiting for us to use.
> 
> Had we not followed the direction of Bush and Cheney for the last eight years we could have been well on our way to a clean and sustainable future of cheap and abundant energy.
> 
> The money spent in Iraq could have been invested in this future, instead it was wasted trying to hold onto the past. That past only enriches the rich while impovershing our whole nation.



It's the dependance of oil from other countries that causes the issues
this post fully ignores reality
and assumes that any sort of alternative is ready or available to bring to market
the main point is to have the least dependance on foreign oil 
while not shattering our economy which is primarily based on oil
so the idea is to do 
EVERYTHING including alternative energy development and marketing
and drilling EVERYWHERE (like the rest of the world does)
Iraq has nothing to do with the gas price
it's estimated that we have as much oil on American land as the rest of the world 
and we are laughing stocks for not developing it
like the russians and canadians and south americans are doing
in a safe and environmentally sound manner


----------



## Your Overlord

Gunny said:


> LMAO!  If there was ONE conservative on this board, the extremists on the left would swear it was right wing.  Been listening to THAT BS for quite awhile .
> 
> Guess y'all need to learn to count.



I dunno everytime I make a conservative statement I get pummelled with left wing propaganda so much that I don't really know where to begin
and it hardly seems like arguing about it will make any difference


----------



## sealybobo

Gunny said:


> Really?  Kind of reminds me of Stuart Smalley ....



37 yrs old, 5'7, former college wrestler and metro detroit powerlifting champ.  Still have the biceps, calves, shoulders, back and chest but I have a gut because i'm 37 and work in an office.  I'm pure bred greek so of course i'm genetically more athletic than typical american guys.

you guys probably look like rob schneider, david spade and andy dick.  lol.

I see you guys as golfers.  not muscular but not fat either.


----------



## Care4all

here's an article writen in 2007 about ANWR...it still can relate to the topic...


Will Drilling the Arctic Refuge Really Solve Our Oil Woes?

Will Drilling the Arctic Refuge
Really Solve Our Oil Woes? 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After a year of soaring gas pump prices and high home heating costs, many policymakers and analysts want to tap the oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Drilling pristine Alaskan lands is a shortsighted and ineffective strategy tantamount to placing a band-aid over a compound fracture. For long-term solutions that make economic and environmental sense, policymakers should act to increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy, and to eliminate fuel-economy loopholes for light trucks and SUVs. 

Reaping What We've Sown:
The Current Oil "Crisis"
In 2000, the United States imported 54% of its oil products, sending $180,000 overseas each minute. Depending on imports leaves Americans vulnerable to oil's price volatility. The solution is not more oil, but less dependence on oil.



Drilling the Arctic:
An Unwise Choice
After the energy crisis
of the 1970s, most areas of the economy reduced their reliance on oil substantially. Today, only 2% to 3% of US electricity is generated from oil. Thus oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would have virtually no impact on California's energy crisis or other power-generation issues.

Drilling in the refuge would provide a very short-term solution for a long-term problem. A recent government study estimates that 3.2 billion barrels of oil could be economically recovered from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This is only enough oil to fuel the US vehicle fleet for a mere 6 months. Alternatively, it could supply US industrial, commercial, residential, and power generation needs for 17 months (and that's at 1998 consumption levels). Why plunder the last true US wilderness for such a paltry return?



Real Transportation Solutions:
Fuel-Efficient SUVs and Alternative Fuels
Transportation is the largest consumer of oil in the country (67%), and thus is highly vulnerable to volatile oil prices. With the fuel economy of new passenger vehicles at a 20-year low, American drivers feel the pinch when gas prices soar. Booming sales of SUVs and light trucks are responsible for this plummeting fuel efficiency.

*If we opened the Arctic Refuge today, oil would not being flowing until 2010. But if we start to increase SUV and light truck fuel economy today, by 2015 we could save as much oil as economically recoverable from ANWR over 50 years.* And drivers would save $25 billion a year at the pump. To give automakers the incentive to make these technologies available to consumers, policymakers must close the fuel-economy loophole that allows light trucks to burn 33% more gasoline per mile than passenger cars. Affordable technologies are currently available to boost SUV and light truck fuel economy without sacrificing power.

Other, more advanced technologies -- some already in production and others available in the near future -- can make even greater impacts on our oil dependence.

Hybrid engines, which combine an electric motor and gasoline engine, can boost the fuel efficiency of any vehicle.


Fuel cells, which could be in showrooms this decade, provide a zero-emission, gasoline-free method to power all cars and trucks.


Real Energy Solutions: Efficiency and Renewable Energy

A better answer to power outages and price spikes than drilling in the Arctic Refuge is to decrease demand through efficiency and to increase electricity production from renewable sources. Because renewable power does not rely on fossil fuels, it is not subject to the price volatility that plagues power plants, most of which run on coal and natural gas.

By enhancing energy efficiency and acquiring more energy from renewables, the United States could save about 580 million barrels of oil annually by 2010. At this rate, in just 5.5 years we could save as much oil as is economically recoverable from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, leaving this oil in the ground will keep nearly 1.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide from reaching the atmosphere and contributing to global warming.

Those who call for drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are looking for quick fixes rather than sustainable solutions. Through fuel-efficient automobiles, energy efficiency, and increased renewable energy, we can lower the demand for oil. Through improved choices, America can avoid the pitfalls of oil overdependence.




Nine Steps to Reduce Oil Consumption
Upgrade fuel-economy standards for SUVs and light trucks. 
Offer tax incentives for advanced, fuel-efficient vehicles. 
Establish public benefit trust funds to promote energy efficiency. 
Reduce industrial energy use through incentives and voluntary agreements. 
Adopt more stringent energy codes for new industrial, commercial, and residential buildings. 
Remove barriers to development of industrial energy facilities that simultaneously generate steam and electric power. 
Provide incentives for using energy-efficient technologies in existing buildings. 
Require appliances and other products to be energy efficient. 
Implement renewable portfolio standards in electricity markets.


----------



## dilloduck

Care4all said:


> here's an article writen in 2007 about ANWR...it still can relate to the topic...
> 
> 
> Will Drilling the Arctic Refuge Really Solve Our Oil Woes?
> 
> Will Drilling the Arctic Refuge
> Really Solve Our Oil Woes?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> After a year of soaring gas pump prices and high home heating costs, many policymakers and analysts want to tap the oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Drilling pristine Alaskan lands is a shortsighted and ineffective strategy tantamount to placing a band-aid over a compound fracture. For long-term solutions that make economic and environmental sense, policymakers should act to increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy, and to eliminate fuel-economy loopholes for light trucks and SUVs.
> 
> Reaping What We've Sown:
> The Current Oil "Crisis"
> In 2000, the United States imported 54% of its oil products, sending $180,000 overseas each minute. Depending on imports leaves Americans vulnerable to oil's price volatility. The solution is not more oil, but less dependence on oil.
> 
> 
> 
> Drilling the Arctic:
> An Unwise Choice
> After the energy crisis
> of the 1970s, most areas of the economy reduced their reliance on oil substantially. Today, only 2% to 3% of US electricity is generated from oil. Thus oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would have virtually no impact on California's energy crisis or other power-generation issues.
> 
> Drilling in the refuge would provide a very short-term solution for a long-term problem. A recent government study estimates that 3.2 billion barrels of oil could be economically recovered from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This is only enough oil to fuel the US vehicle fleet for a mere 6 months. Alternatively, it could supply US industrial, commercial, residential, and power generation needs for 17 months (and that's at 1998 consumption levels). Why plunder the last true US wilderness for such a paltry return?
> 
> 
> 
> Real Transportation Solutions:
> Fuel-Efficient SUVs and Alternative Fuels
> Transportation is the largest consumer of oil in the country (67%), and thus is highly vulnerable to volatile oil prices. With the fuel economy of new passenger vehicles at a 20-year low, American drivers feel the pinch when gas prices soar. Booming sales of SUVs and light trucks are responsible for this plummeting fuel efficiency.
> 
> *If we opened the Arctic Refuge today, oil would not being flowing until 2010. But if we start to increase SUV and light truck fuel economy today, by 2015 we could save as much oil as economically recoverable from ANWR over 50 years.* And drivers would save $25 billion a year at the pump. To give automakers the incentive to make these technologies available to consumers, policymakers must close the fuel-economy loophole that allows light trucks to burn 33% more gasoline per mile than passenger cars. Affordable technologies are currently available to boost SUV and light truck fuel economy without sacrificing power.
> 
> Other, more advanced technologies -- some already in production and others available in the near future -- can make even greater impacts on our oil dependence.
> 
> Hybrid engines, which combine an electric motor and gasoline engine, can boost the fuel efficiency of any vehicle.
> 
> 
> Fuel cells, which could be in showrooms this decade, provide a zero-emission, gasoline-free method to power all cars and trucks.
> 
> 
> Real Energy Solutions: Efficiency and Renewable Energy
> 
> A better answer to power outages and price spikes than drilling in the Arctic Refuge is to decrease demand through efficiency and to increase electricity production from renewable sources. Because renewable power does not rely on fossil fuels, it is not subject to the price volatility that plagues power plants, most of which run on coal and natural gas.
> 
> By enhancing energy efficiency and acquiring more energy from renewables, the United States could save about 580 million barrels of oil annually by 2010. At this rate, in just 5.5 years we could save as much oil as is economically recoverable from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, leaving this oil in the ground will keep nearly 1.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide from reaching the atmosphere and contributing to global warming.
> 
> Those who call for drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are looking for quick fixes rather than sustainable solutions. Through fuel-efficient automobiles, energy efficiency, and increased renewable energy, we can lower the demand for oil. Through improved choices, America can avoid the pitfalls of oil overdependence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nine Steps to Reduce Oil Consumption
> Upgrade fuel-economy standards for SUVs and light trucks.
> Offer tax incentives for advanced, fuel-efficient vehicles.
> Establish public benefit trust funds to promote energy efficiency.
> Reduce industrial energy use through incentives and voluntary agreements.
> Adopt more stringent energy codes for new industrial, commercial, and residential buildings.
> Remove barriers to development of industrial energy facilities that simultaneously generate steam and electric power.
> Provide incentives for using energy-efficient technologies in existing buildings.
> Require appliances and other products to be energy efficient.
> Implement renewable portfolio standards in electricity markets.



Where does the funding come from to pay for all these incentives ? I save at the pump and pay more in taxes ?


----------



## sealybobo

Your Overlord said:


> I dunno everytime I make a conservative statement I get pummelled with left wing propaganda so much that I don't really know where to begin
> and it hardly seems like arguing about it will make any difference



nancy pelosi, patriot act, clinton surplus, they stole floria and ohio, racists, lied us into iraq, pro choice, pork, larry craig, vetter, abramoff, foley, rove, delay, 9 11, harry reed, walter reed hospital, support the troops and bring them home, monopolies, tax breaks to the rich, don't ask don't tell, windfall taxes, enron loopholes, anthrax, saddam, surge, offshore drilling.


I didn't want to disappoint you.  lol


----------



## Gunny

sealybobo said:


> 37 yrs old, 5'7, former college wrestler and metro detroit powerlifting champ.  Still have the biceps, calves, shoulders, back and chest but I have a gut because i'm 37 and work in an office.  I'm pure bred greek so of course i'm genetically more athletic than typical american guys.
> 
> you guys probably look like rob schneider, david spade and andy dick.  lol.
> 
> I see you guys as golfers.  not muscular but not fat either.



Really?  You sound more like a pencil-necked GEEK to me.  

Do you realize just how stupid that statement about being more athletically gifted than Americans is?  

And no Mr Athletically Gifted ... I look like something that would make you piss your pants and your "resume" is novice at best.


----------



## Gunny

sealybobo said:


> nancy pelosi, patriot act, clinton surplus, they stole floria and ohio, racists, lied us into iraq, pro choice, pork, larry craig, vetter, abramoff, foley, rove, delay, 9 11, harry reed, walter reed hospital, support the troops and bring them home, monopolies, tax breaks to the rich, don't ask don't tell, windfall taxes, enron loopholes, anthrax, saddam, surge, offshore drilling.
> 
> 
> I didn't want to disappoint you.  lol



Looks like all of your posts.


----------



## jreeves

Gunny said:


> Really?  You sound more like a pencil-necked GEEK to me.
> 
> Do you realize just how stupid that statement about being more athletically gifted than Americans is?
> 
> And no Mr Athletically Gifted ... I look like something that would make you piss your pants and your "resume" is novice at best.



This is who I visualize for Bobo...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0vZGE-HMrQ&feature=related]YouTube - Matt Foley Tribute[/ame]


----------



## sealybobo

Gunny said:


> Looks like all of your posts.



Trust me, you'd need a gun puss.


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> Trust me, you'd need a gun puss.



Lmao...sure you don't know me but I would need a gun. I bet you I could outsmart you for one, I have proved that over and over.


----------



## sealybobo

Gunny said:


> Looks like all of your posts.



Hey, my buddy james lee is fighting in the ufc in august.  google james lee ufc for exact dates.  I believe this month.  maybe even this weekend..  shit, its august already?  I used to whip him.  but I stopped wrestling before ufc was even popular.  he's getting old too.  he and everyone that knew me back then all ask me if I wish ufc was around back when I was in my 20's.  

I doubt you have the ground game to handle me.  

and no you wouldn't be able to keep me from getting inside on you.  

let me guess, you learned lethal blows in the service?  you better land one or I would drop you on your head.  knock some sense in you.  humble you.  

ps.  I beat up a marine when I was a junior in highschool.  telegraph strip.  he headlocked me and I had to suflay him on his head.  he almost chocked me out.  crazy fucker.  he even took several punches to his balls.  my friends and I will never forget that.  I shouldn't of thrown my mcd milkshake in his face for taking cuts in front of me.


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> Hey, my buddy james lee is fighting in the ufc in august.  google james lee ufc for exact dates.  I believe this month.  maybe even this weekend..  shit, its august already?  I used to whip him.  but I stopped wrestling before ufc was even popular.  he's getting old too.  he and everyone that knew me back then all ask me if I wish ufc was around back when I was in my 20's.
> 
> I doubt you have the ground game to handle me.
> 
> and no you wouldn't be able to keep me from getting inside on you.
> 
> let me guess, you learned lethal blows in the service?  you better land one or I would drop you on your head.  knock some sense in you.  humble you.
> 
> ps.  I beat up a marine when I was a junior in highschool.  telegraph strip.  he headlocked me and I had to suflay him on his head.  he almost chocked me out.  crazy fucker.  he even took several punches to his balls.  my friends and I will never forget that.  I shouldn't of thrown my mcd milkshake in his face for taking cuts in front of me.



Lmao...you are one badass...


----------



## Chris

wihosa said:


> I know this is hard for some but the fact is expanding drilling into environmentally sensative areas will not lower gas prices.
> 
> Not now and not for the foreseeable future. The drilling issue is again a distraction from the fact that we have allowed our dependence on oil to jepordize our security.
> 
> The future will belong to whoever first converts to an all electric society/economy. Fossil fuels are a relic from the past, championed by those who love to have us anti up everyday as we fill our gas tanks.
> 
> Photovotaics and wind generation are off the shelf technologies just waiting for us to use.
> 
> Had we not followed the direction of Bush and Cheney for the last eight years we could have been well on our way to a clean and sustainable future of cheap and abundant energy.
> 
> The money spent in Iraq could have been invested in this future, instead it was wasted trying to hold onto the past. That past only enriches the rich while impovershing our whole nation.



Nice post. America needs to stop wasting gas and stop moving toward clean energy. Grampa McCain is in the pocket of the oil and nuclear power industries.


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> Nice post. America needs to stop wasting gas and stop moving toward clean energy. Grampa McCain is in the pocket of the oil and nuclear power industries.


Barrack conserving...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEwDG7hjlgQ&feature=related]YouTube - Obama Lectures Americans to Give Up SUVs, Then Hops in One[/ame]


----------



## editec

If we could but harness the machismo on some of these boards, we could stop metering our homes, eh?


----------



## sealybobo

Gunny said:


> Really?  You sound more like a pencil-necked GEEK to me.
> 
> Do you realize just how stupid that statement about being more athletically gifted than Americans is?
> 
> And no Mr Athletically Gifted ... I look like something that would make you piss your pants and your "resume" is novice at best.



Piss my pants?  With laughter?

Fight Finder - James Lee's Mixed Martial Arts Statistics

Here is my buddy James Lee.  fighting September 6th.  Order it on PPV, if you can afford it.  

UFC : Ultimate Fighting Championship


----------



## manifold

bobo* said:
			
		

> I'm pure bred greek so of course I like the cock.






disclaimer: bobo is a fictional character created for the purposes of artistic expression.  Any resemblence to real blowhards of USMB disrepute is purely coincidental.


----------



## sealybobo

manifold said:


>



Did you know Greeks invented sex?  But it was the Italians that introduced it to women.


----------



## manifold

You send conflicting messages about your sense of humor and tolerance for being razzed. 



PS:  I added a disclaimer to my previous post.


----------



## sealybobo

manifold said:


> You send conflicting messages about your sense of humor and tolerance for being razzed.
> 
> 
> 
> PS:  I added a disclaimer to my previous post.



I need to spread around some points before I can negative hit Charles Main again.  Sorry.


----------



## Ravi

sealybobo said:


> I need to spread around some points before I can negative hit Charles Main again.  Sorry.


Bobo, I'm always willing to take excess rep.


----------



## manifold

sealybobo said:


> I need to spread around some points before I can negative hit Charles Main again.  Sorry.



A pos rep would've accomplished the same thing there monkey spank!


----------



## manifold

Glory be to the gods on high!


----------



## sealybobo

manifold said:


> A pos rep would've accomplished the same thing there monkey spank!



I'll positive rep you when I can, promise.


----------



## sealybobo

Ravi said:


> Bobo, I'm always willing to take excess rep.



and so it is done.


----------



## Ravi

sealybobo said:


> and so it is done.


Sweet! After I spread it around, I owe you one.


----------



## manifold

btw:  Of the two common Greek stereotypes with which I'm familiar, I concluded that the gay one was the less offensive.


----------



## wihosa

DiamondDave said:


> Admitting I am wrong... only if I were....
> 
> To put it in easy to understand terms... I don't support subsidizing anything...
> 
> In terms of true cost and with all the research seen... nuke is one of the most expensive to build... but the total costs (even in OTHER countries that use it much more than we do) in the long run, are cheaper than other technologies AT THIS POINT...
> 
> What would be smarter, and what ones like you don't seem to understand, would be to deal on both parts of the spectrum... dealing with the technologies we must use today and in the near future (oil, coal, nuke, etc) ALL THE WHILE researching into making the other forms of energy production viable in the scale that we will need them for in the future....
> 
> And I am not here to lecture you on energy or electric production... but you seem to want to lecture people on things such as photo*vol*taics, even though you cannot use the correct terms when trying to explain it



Ah, so I mis-spelled the word, well I guess that proves it, you're a better speller than I.

Unfortunately for you you're wrong about everything else.

Setting aside the completely unsoved problem of nuclear waste, which remains hazardous for literally tens of thousands of years, just on the economic score nuclear is a poor choice (if people want nuclear power then they should be willing to store the hazardous waste in their own backyards instead of putting it out of sight, out of mind in some hole in the ground in some one else's backyard). Nuclear produced electricity is vastly more expensive than wind generated electricity right now. We don't have to wait for some day way off in the future when the fossil fuel industry has used up all fossil fuels (and completly polluted the Earth), to change over to sustainable and clean energy. The research has been done, wind generation is viable now and is coming on line despite the fossil fuels industry's attempts to stop it.The only thing standing in the way is the brainwashed thinking of people like you.

As Barak Obamba said yesterday "It's as if they are proud of being ignorant".


----------



## wihosa

jreeves said:


> Barrack conserving...
> YouTube - Obama Lectures Americans to Give Up SUVs, Then Hops in One



So this proves that he does not believe in energy efficient vehicles?

No, this proves he lives in America where large energy efficient vehicles don't exist.

Typical right wing propaganda.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

35 percent of every barrel goes towards something that makes our life better. Wind and sun can't do this. That's another huge reason why we need oil. The OP wouldn't have been able to type his message without oil. Why don't dems acknowledge this?  I haven't heard them talk of how oil has advanced the world. This type of rudimentary reasoning exhibited by the dems is out of touch and severely diminishes any credibility they have towards energy.


----------



## sealybobo

LordBrownTrout said:


> 35 percent of every barrel goes towards something that makes our life better. Wind and sun can't do this. That's another huge reason why we need oil. The OP wouldn't have been able to type his message without oil. Why don't dems acknowledge this?  I haven't heard them talk of how oil has advanced the world. This type of rudimentary reasoning exhibited by the dems is out of touch and severely diminishes any credibility they have towards energy.


----------



## Care4all

LordBrownTrout said:


> 35 percent of every barrel goes towards something that makes our life better. Wind and sun can't do this. That's another huge reason why we need oil. The OP wouldn't have been able to type his message without oil. Why don't dems acknowledge this?  I haven't heard them talk of how oil has advanced the world. This type of rudimentary reasoning exhibited by the dems is out of touch and severely diminishes any credibility they have towards energy.



oil and fossil fuels certainly is what drove our industrialized nation for about the last century!

HOWEVER, it was CHEAP oil that benefitted us....

we no longer have this luxury available to us....it is time to move on to the NEXT fuels that will do this for us, for the next century!  and self sufficient, clean energy would be the key, verses sending our wealth overseas for fuel....

care


----------



## sealybobo

Care4all said:


> oil and fossil fuels certainly is what drove our industrialized nation for about the last century!
> 
> HOWEVER, it was CHEAP oil that benefitted us....
> 
> we no longer have this luxury available to us....it is time to move on to the NEXT fuels that will do this for us, for the next century!  and self sufficient, clean energy would be the key, verses sending our wealth overseas for fuel....
> 
> care



Hey, since the GOP weakened the dollar so much and the cost of everything has gone up, let's go to our unions and have them demand companies pay us all 15% more than we make now to make up for it.

Oh yea, we aren't in a union.  I forgot.  Screwed.


----------



## Care4all

we can move towards electric cars....and get the electric from water, wind, natural gas, solar and nuclear.....

there will be some things that won't convert to electric and will continue to need oil or their byproduct of gasoline, i realize such....  hopefully, our own oil can accomodate those smaller needs, someday....or our own oil plus maybe some of canada's?


----------



## wihosa

Lord Fish,
Thank you for pointing out another reason that our dependence on oil for energy is stupid. 

Oil is an incredibly valuable resource for the manufacturing of plastics, chemicals, fertilizers and more, so why do we want to continue wasting it for creating energy when we can get all the energy we need simply by harnessing the sun and wind?

Oh, that's right, we want to continue to be slaves to the fossil fuel industry, we like over paying for energy.

Do you suppose that people in the future will want to use plastics? Chemicals? Fertilizer?

I'm sure people in the future will be happy that we wasted all the oil by buring it up. Oh well who cares about the next generation, right?


----------



## sealybobo

Care4all said:


> we can move towards electric cars....and get the electric from water, wind, natural gas, solar and nuclear.....
> 
> there will be some things that won't convert to electric and will continue to need oil or their byproduct of gasoline, i realize such....  hopefully, our own oil can accomodate those smaller needs, someday....or our own oil plus maybe some of canada's?



Look up Stan Meyer's.  UTUBE him too.  He invented a car that ran on water and had spoken repeatedly about how he was being threatened by oil companies, but refused to bow to their wishes of abandoning the project...

And he was murdered.

Do some homework on Carneige, JP Morgan, Jay Gould and Rockafellor.  They were ruthless.  They started and owned our Federal Reserve and also started Standard Oil.  Many of them were influenced by the Darwinian conclusion that the strong eventually will destroy the weak. Their faith in Darwinism helped them to justify this view as morally right. As a result, they felt that their ruthless (and often illegal and lethal) business practices were justified by science. They also concluded that Darwinian concepts and conclusions were an inevitable part of the unfolding of history and consequently practising them was not wrong or immoral, but was both right and natural.

Darwins critical influence on the ruthless extremes of capitalism

I believe this is in essence, the same for the right wingers that we debate with on these boards.  Whether or not they want to refer to themselves as Republicans or Independants or Libertarians, this is what we are up against.


----------



## sealybobo

DiamondDave said:


> Yet the little fool wihosi and ones like him believe Nazi Pelosi and her belief that releasing some from the strategic reserves will reduce gas prices
> 
> Let's look at the logic of that for a second... releasing a little will provide relief, but drilling for a lot won't...
> 
> typical lib logic



Now I understand you better:

A review of the writings of the leading robber baron capitalists reveals that many of them were influenced by the Darwinian conclusion that the strong eventually will destroy the weak. Their faith in Darwinism helped them to justify this view as morally right. As a result, they felt that their ruthless (and often illegal and lethal) business practices were justified by science. They also concluded that Darwinian concepts and conclusions were an inevitable part of the unfolding of history and consequently practising them was not wrong or immoral, but was both right and natural.

Darwins critical influence on the ruthless extremes of capitalism


----------



## sealybobo

jreeves said:


> This is who I visualize for Bobo...
> YouTube - Matt Foley Tribute



This one is for you too jreeves:

A review of the writings of the leading robber baron capitalists reveals that many of them were influenced by the Darwinian conclusion that the strong eventually will destroy the weak. Their faith in Darwinism helped them to justify this view as morally right. As a result, they felt that their ruthless (and often illegal and lethal) business practices were justified by science. They also concluded that Darwinian concepts and conclusions were an inevitable part of the unfolding of history and consequently practising them was not wrong or immoral, but was both right and natural.

Darwins critical influence on the ruthless extremes of capitalism

Now I understand you.


----------



## editec

sealybobo said:


> This one is for you too jreeves:
> 
> A review of the writings of the leading robber baron capitalists reveals that many of them were influenced by the Darwinian conclusion that the strong eventually will destroy the weak. Their faith in Darwinism helped them to justify this view as morally right. As a result, they felt that their ruthless (and often illegal and lethal) business practices were justified by science. They also concluded that Darwinian concepts and conclusions were an inevitable part of the unfolding of history and consequently practising them was not wrong or immoral, but was both right and natural.
> 
> Darwins critical influence on the ruthless extremes of capitalism
> 
> Now I understand you.


 
J.P. Morgan​ 



 
This famous portrait of J.P. Morgan (done from life incidently) pretty much says it all, I think.​ 
The personal editorial the artist put into it, isn't quite so obvious in color.​ 
One wonders if J.P. missed it, or saw it and it pleased him, or if he and the artist conspired to give it this effect.​ 
for those of you unfamiliar with this image, or who are wondering what on earth I'm talking about?​ 
Keep looking, you'll see it eventually.​


----------



## sealybobo

editec said:


> J.P. Morgan​
> 
> 
> 
> This famous portrait of J.P. Morgan (done from life incidently) pretty much says it all, I think.​
> The personal editorial the artist put into it, isn't quite so obvious in color.​
> One wonders if J.P. missed it, or saw it and it pleased him, or if he and the artist conspired to give it this effect.​
> for those of you unfamiliar with this image, or who are wondering what on earth I'm talking about?​
> Keep looking, you'll see it eventually.​




How can anyone think turning over our finances to these guys and letting them start the federal reserve in 1913 was a good idea?  Or when I say the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional.  Or that these guys bribed Congress and Hoover to let them essentially take over our country.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

wihosa said:


> Lord Fish,
> Thank you for pointing out another reason that our dependence on oil for energy is stupid.
> 
> Oil is an incredibly valuable resource for the manufacturing of plastics, chemicals, fertilizers and more, so why do we want to continue wasting it for creating energy when we can get all the energy we need simply by harnessing the sun and wind?
> 
> Oh, that's right, we want to continue to be slaves to the fossil fuel industry, we like over paying for energy.
> 
> Do you suppose that people in the future will want to use plastics? Chemicals? Fertilizer?
> 
> I'm sure people in the future will be happy that we wasted all the oil by buring it up. Oh well who cares about the next generation, right?




As a geologist, yes, mine it, drill it, pump it, excavate it, refine it.  It makes the world a better place.  That's what geology does.  I'll throw in a caveat for ya though.  I am for sound environmental practices.


----------



## sealybobo

Care4all said:


> we can move towards electric cars....and get the electric from water, wind, natural gas, solar and nuclear.....
> 
> there will be some things that won't convert to electric and will continue to need oil or their byproduct of gasoline, i realize such....  hopefully, our own oil can accomodate those smaller needs, someday....or our own oil plus maybe some of canada's?



i just talked with my really smart friend.  I haven't talked to him in awhile.  He turned me on to the fact that the Income Tax is unconstitutional and he loves Ron Paul.

He was telling me that regulations are the problem.  I said, "but the oil companies need to be regulated", and he said, "you don't understand, the regulations protect the oil companies, not us."  I was like "huh" and he was like, "yea uh huh".  I said, "like, no way" and he said, "yea yes way".

Just kidding.

But what he was saying is that the oil companies don't mind being made out to be the bad buy because they are getting record profits.  It is the Governments fault.  

If they would let the real free market do it's work, oil prices would go down, or people will drive less and people would develop new technologies.  But because oil lobbyistts pay politicians to pass laws in their favor, they win.

I don't agree with everything he says, but he puts it a better way than the people here do.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Care4all said:


> we can move towards electric cars....and get the electric from water, wind, natural gas, solar and nuclear.....
> 
> there will be some things that won't convert to electric and will continue to need oil or their byproduct of gasoline, i realize such....  hopefully, our own oil can accomodate those smaller needs, someday....or our own oil plus maybe some of canada's?



Oil is the same as natural gas.  It's natural.  Im all for wind, water, solar, nuclear.  They're just not practical right now and there's no immediate transition into them.  Thirty years from now I believe there will be.  Too keep oil prices about the same while we advance technologically, it's certainly logical to drill and exploit the shales and oil that we do have.


----------



## busara

LordBrownTrout said:


> Oil is the same as natural gas.  It's natural.  Im all for wind, water, solar, nuclear.  They're just not practical right now and there's no immediate transition into them.  Thirty years from now I believe there will be.  Too keep oil prices about the same while we advance technologically, it's certainly logical to drill and exploit the shales and oil that we do have.



why arent they practical right now? its far easier to say 'we'll do it when technology is better' than to say 'lets get it done now.' stalling is not a good tactic


----------



## wihosa

LordBrownTrout said:


> Oil is the same as natural gas.  It's natural.  Im all for wind, water, solar, nuclear.  They're just not practical right now and there's no immediate transition into them.  Thirty years from now I believe there will be.  Too keep oil prices about the same while we advance technologically, it's certainly logical to drill and exploit the shales and oil that we do have.



Drilling is investing in the past. And it is stupid. Wind and solar are practical right now. This line about "someday, eventually, blah blah blah is just for people who lack critical thinking skills.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

busara said:


> why arent they practical right now? its far easier to say 'we'll do it when technology is better' than to say 'lets get it done now.' stalling is not a good tactic



We don't have an infrastructure set up to implement those alt energies plus more R and D is needed for them to be feasible.  And I believe they will be in twenty years.  I'm not saying don't do the research right now.  It's ongoing.  As soon as the private sector emerges with a reliable, viable product that rivals and is cheaper than oil, I'll be buying it.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

wihosa said:


> Drilling is investing in the past. And it is stupid. Wind and solar are practical right now. This line about "someday, eventually, blah blah blah is just for people who lack critical thinking skills.





Have you been out west to see the R and D concerning shale excavation and the amounts?  It's only practical to exploit what we have.


----------



## jillian

sealybobo said:


> i just talked with my really smart friend.  I haven't talked to him in awhile.  He turned me on to the fact that the Income Tax is unconstitutional and he loves Ron Paul.



Your friend isn't "really smart". The argument that the Income Tax is unconstutional is an absurd one. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that people are attracted to the "tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax." *The court called the tax protester arguments "wholly defective and unsuccessful."[12] Ideas associated with the tax protester movement have been forwarded under different names over time. These ideas have been put forth, for example, in the broader Christian Patriot and Posse Comitatus movements, which generally assert that the Constitution has been usurped by the federal government.*

Tax protester (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Either way, it's a silly position to take. Given what I've heard from Ron Paul, he doesn't have a clue about what the Constitution says either. I can see where he'd appeal to certain types that have issues with authority.



> If they would let the real free market do it's work, oil prices would go down, or people will drive less and people would develop new technologies.  But because oil lobbyistts pay politicians to pass laws in their favor, they win.
> 
> I don't agree with everything he says, but he puts it a better way than the people here do.



If you're accurately stating your friend's arguments, he's incorrect there as well. The "free market" wouldn't result in lower prices than we're paying. What *might* happen is that even more of the oil would be shipped to India and China.... a much more likely scenario.

The issue of subsidies to oil companies and tax policy surrounding them, including the export of domestic oil supplies is a separate issue.


----------



## jillian

sealybobo said:


> i just talked with my really smart friend.  I haven't talked to him in awhile.  He turned me on to the fact that the Income Tax is unconstitutional and he loves Ron Paul.



Oh...and next time you speak with your friend, give him this:



> Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments
> 
> By Bernard J. Sussman, JD, MLS, CP
> 
> Foreword (by Mark Pitcavage)
> 
> What follows this introduction is a truly extraordinary collection of cases and decisions dealing with the "paper terrorism" tactics of the so-called "patriot" movement. While some members of this movement prefer the use of guns or bombs, the weapons of choice for many others are harassing lawsuits, harassing filings, bogus documents ranging from counterfeit money to counterfeit identification cards, tax protest arguments, and many related activities. Often these tactics are accompanied by bizarre legal or, more accurately, pseudolegal language. Many people who encounter such tactics for the first time are surprised and sometimes confused by the strange and unexpected arguments that show up in the courtroom.



Idiot Legal Arguments Page 1

Did you know there's even a bunch of ijits who claim they're Moors and not subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of this country?

That doesn't go real far either.... unless of course this fictitious moorish country has also given them diplomatic immunity.


----------



## sealybobo

jillian said:


> Your friend isn't "really smart". The argument that the Income Tax is unconstutional is an absurd one. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that people are attracted to the "tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax." *The court called the tax protester arguments "wholly defective and unsuccessful."[12] Ideas associated with the tax protester movement have been forwarded under different names over time. These ideas have been put forth, for example, in the broader Christian Patriot and Posse Comitatus movements, which generally assert that the Constitution has been usurped by the federal government.*
> 
> Tax protester (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Either way, it's a silly position to take. Given what I've heard from Ron Paul, he doesn't have a clue about what the Constitution says either. I can see where he'd appeal to certain types that have issues with authority.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're accurately stating your friend's arguments, he's incorrect there as well. The "free market" wouldn't result in lower prices than we're paying. What *might* happen is that even more of the oil would be shipped to India and China.... a much more likely scenario.
> 
> The issue of subsidies to oil companies and tax policy surrounding them, including the export of domestic oil supplies is a separate issue.



First of all, the US Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional, so why are you telling me what a lower court said?  Do they trump the Supreme Court?  The Supreme Court never changed their position.  But Congress passed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act illegally, over Xmas break, when there weren't enough of them in Washington to vote....  

And why turn over our money system to JP Morgan, Carnege & Rockafellor?  The three most corrupt men in US history?  That doesn't strike you as strange?  

You know what?  Watch Freedom to Fascism dvd.  You'll learn everything you need to know.  I'm not going to debate it all from memory.

And this is why some people get found not guilty of tax evasion.  Show me the law!  But you roll the dice that a jury of 12 will understand the facts.  I would hate to have you on my jury.  That's why I pay my taxes, unconstitutional or not.


----------



## sealybobo

jillian said:


> Your friend isn't "really smart". The argument that the Income Tax is unconstutional is an absurd one. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that people are attracted to the "tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax." *The court called the tax protester arguments "wholly defective and unsuccessful."[12] Ideas associated with the tax protester movement have been forwarded under different names over time. These ideas have been put forth, for example, in the broader Christian Patriot and Posse Comitatus movements, which generally assert that the Constitution has been usurped by the federal government.*
> 
> Tax protester (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Either way, it's a silly position to take. Given what I've heard from Ron Paul, he doesn't have a clue about what the Constitution says either. I can see where he'd appeal to certain types that have issues with authority.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're accurately stating your friend's arguments, he's incorrect there as well. The "free market" wouldn't result in lower prices than we're paying. What *might* happen is that even more of the oil would be shipped to India and China.... a much more likely scenario.
> 
> The issue of subsidies to oil companies and tax policy surrounding them, including the export of domestic oil supplies is a separate issue.



I just showed him your reply and he is laughing at you.  LOL.


----------



## sealybobo

jillian said:


> Oh...and next time you speak with your friend, give him this:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot Legal Arguments Page 1
> 
> Did you know there's even a bunch of ijits who claim they're Moors and not subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of this country?
> 
> That doesn't go real far either.... unless of course this fictitious moorish country has also given them diplomatic immunity.



I cut and pasted your replies and emailed it to him.  He'll reply.  

And seriously, watch Freedom to Fascism.  It'll wake your ass up.


----------



## jillian

sealybobo said:


> I just showed him your reply and he is laughing at you.  LOL.



One... the US Supreme Court has NEVER ruled the income tax unconststitutional. 

Two... your "smart friend" can laugh all he wants. I pretty much guarantee in any court he tried to make those arguments he wouldn't be laughing.

And you can take that to the bank.

And while you're there:



> Some protesters include false quotations in their arguments. Radio personality Dave Champion contends that the following verbiage is a quotation from the case of Evans v. Gore in his own arguments on the internet about federal income taxes:
> 
> The sixteenth [amendment] does not justify the taxation of persons or things (their property) previously immune . . .it does not extend taxing power to new or excepted citizens&#8230;it is intended only to remove all occasions from any apportionment of income taxes among the states. It does not authorize a tax on a salary. [ . . . ][73]
> 
> The quoted material by Dave Champion is false; it does not appear in the Court's decision.[74] In Evans v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court actually did rule that a federal income tax on certain income of federal judges was unconstitutional. The Evans v. Gore ruling has been interpreted as barring application of the Federal income tax to a Federal judge who had been appointed prior to the enactment of the tax.[75] This was the Court's year 1920 interpretation of the "Compensation Clause", the rule that Federal judges "shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office" under Article III, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The decision in Evans v. Gore was eviscerated in the 1939 U.S. Supreme Court decision of O'Malley v. Woodrough,[76] and was expressly overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court itself in 2001, in the case of United States v. Hatter.[77] In Hatter, the Supreme Court stated: "We now overrule Evans insofar as it holds that the Compensation Clause forbids Congress to apply a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory tax to the salaries of federal judges, whether or not they were appointed before enactment of the tax."[78]
> 
> *Neither the Supreme Court nor any other federal court has ever ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution) does not authorize a Federal income tax on compensation for personal services*.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Evans_v._Gore


----------



## sealybobo

jillian said:


> One... the US Supreme Court has NEVER ruled the income tax unconststitutional.
> 
> Two... your "smart friend" can laugh all he wants. I pretty much guarantee in any court he tried to make those arguments he wouldn't be laughing.
> 
> And you can take that to the bank.



watch the dvd and learn
1.  you are wrong about the supreme court
2.  people do get away with it in court
3.  They even explain people like you and your brainwashed mentality.  

No wonder both dems and republcans are catering to corporations, out of control, corrupt and bankrupting this country.  Why not when sheeple like you won't do a damn thing about it.  In fact, you defend them.  WOW


----------



## jillian

sealybobo said:


> watch the dvd and learn
> 1.  you are wrong about the supreme court
> 2.  people do get away with it in court
> 3.  They even explain people like you and your brainwashed mentality.
> 
> No wonder both dems and republcans are catering to corporations, out of control, corrupt and bankrupting this country.  Why not when sheeple like you won't do a damn thing about it.  In fact, you defend them.  WOW



No. I'm not...

No...they don't...

You're deluding yourself.

I don't know who this elusive "them* is... but I do know what's done in Court. And you are 100% incorrect.


----------



## sealybobo

jillian said:


> No. I'm not...
> 
> No...they don't...
> 
> You're deluding yourself.
> 
> I don't know who this elusive "them* is... but I do know what's done in Court. And you are 100% incorrect.



The dvd will site specific court cases where people were found not guilty.  When the judge can't show the jury the law that states people must pay income tax, the jury has no choice but to find them not guilty.

And some jurors are like you, so I wouldn't try it.  Brainwashed thinking an unconstitutional tax is patriotic and right.  Sad.  

Just watch it.  I promise you will not be so cocky.

Of course your little google search is going to squash what I am telling you.  This is one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on the American people.

The income tax was to pay for WW2.  Why is it still around?

Only direct income taxes are constitutional.  If you want a road, charge me a road tax.  School, school tax.  The dvd will show you all the legal taxes we pay.  The income tax only goes towards the interest on the national debt.  The JP morgans and Rockafellors took over our $ and therefore took over our freedom.  Control the money, control the people.  Why did we need them to manage our finances?  And they love it that we are going further into debt.  Because the more we go into debt, the more they OWN us.  

Our founding fathers said no direct taxes.

Now don't quote me on every thing I just said.  Watch the damn dvd and wake up.  No one I have shown talks like you.  They usally say, "oh well, what can we do about it".  But they don't dispute the facts.  Because the dvd shows you just how little you and every other American knows.  You know NOTHING!  

People who get duped or conned never know it at the time.  You were in the clueless stage.  Right now you are in the denial stage.


----------



## chopcrazy

sealybobo said:


> Hey, since the GOP weakened the dollar so much and the cost of everything has gone up, let's go to our unions and have them demand companies pay us all 15% more than we make now to make up for it.
> 
> Oh yea, we aren't in a union.  I forgot.  Screwed.



when you say the dollar has weakened so much, is the dollar moving away or towards the mean for historical exchange rate? I would not count the euro since it does not have much history. How does the exchange rate compare historically against the british pound, yen or other major currencies?


----------



## jillian

See, here's the thing. I'm not going to watch a DVD that goes against everything I've learned about the law in all the years I studied it and all the years I've practiced it.

NO SUPREME COURT CASE HAS EVER FOUND INCOME TAX UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE IS TELLING YOU... IN WHATEVER FORMAT THEY'RE TELLING IT TO YOU.

Don't believe everything you hear just because someone says something you wish were true.


----------



## sealybobo

chopcrazy said:


> when you say the dollar has weakened so much, is the dollar moving away or towards the mean for historical exchange rate? I would not count the euro since it does not have much history. How does the exchange rate compare historically against the british pound, yen or other major currencies?



I don't know.  But someone told me something interesting the other day.  Many countries in the EU, like Greece, regret joining.  Because now Greece can't just make more drakmas when they want.  So they lost control.  

I don't know what you are asking me.  I'd say the yen will rule soon.  The Euro is not going to last forever.  And the dollar is not going to be very important to the rest of the world soon.  

We used to be the largest creditor in the world, so of course we were the beacon.  Now, we owe everyone.  So we have lost our standing already.  Not completely, but it's in the process.


----------



## monkeysuit

We have allowed our dependency on foriegn oil to ruin us not our own oil in your environmentally sensitive areas.


----------



## sealybobo

jillian said:


> See, here's the thing. I'm not going to watch a DVD that goes against everything I've learned about the law in all the years I studied it and all the years I've practiced it.
> 
> NO SUPREME COURT CASE HAS EVER FOUND INCOME TAX UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE IS TELLING YOU... IN WHATEVER FORMAT THEY'RE TELLING IT TO YOU.
> 
> Don't believe everything you hear just because someone says something you wish were true.



I'll give you the same advice.  These truths have been erased from the history books.  Maybe if you watched the dvd, you could then go look and see I'm right...or wrong.  

I work at Thomson Reuters.  Do you use our tax books?  

The rule, not law, says something to this affect.  "those who are requred to pay state taxes are required to pay federal income taxes"

You know the tax laws are about the most confusing shit, right?  Why do you think they make them that way?  We were duped.

I didn't quit my job when I found this out.  Neither do you.  And as a lawyer, I promise you will LOVE the dvd.  Freedom to Fascism.  Aaron Russo directed and starred in it.  Of course they painted him to be a nut, but I disagree.  Please watch it.  It has to interest you if you are in tax law.  

I promise it will be easier for you to understand than it was for me because you will know if and what is bullshit and you'll know how to investigate.

Remember, the IRS book is not law, right?  The Internal Revenue Code is not LAW.  Those are tax rules.  

The IRS is like a government mafia.  They are above the law.  You'll see all this in the dvd.  Anyways, I hope you give it a see.


----------



## chopcrazy

sealybobo said:


> I don't know.  But someone told me something interesting the other day.  Many countries in the EU, like Greece, regret joining.  Because now Greece can't just make more drakmas when they want.  So they lost control.
> 
> I don't know what you are asking me.  I'd say the yen will rule soon.  The Euro is not going to last forever.  And the dollar is not going to be very important to the rest of the world soon.
> 
> We used to be the largest creditor in the world, so of course we were the beacon.  Now, we owe everyone.  So we have lost our standing already.  Not completely, but it's in the process.



With China's growth, why wouldn't the yuan rule more than the yen?

My question was whether the dollar was reverting back to the mean or away from the mean for the exchange. If the dollar is moving towards the mean, than it is normal and if we have been at the mean for a while than it is normal for it to be moving away. The dollar cannot be strong forever.

If the dollar is not going to be important, than tourism will take a big hit. The USA is one of the highest income per capita countries.


----------



## sealybobo

chopcrazy said:


> With China's growth, why wouldn't the yuan rule more than the yen?
> 
> My question was whether the dollar was reverting back to the mean or away from the mean for the exchange. If the dollar is moving towards the mean, than it is normal and if we have been at the mean for a while than it is normal for it to be moving away. The dollar cannot be strong forever.
> 
> If the dollar is not going to be important, than tourism will take a big hit. The USA is one of the highest income per capita countries.



We will become Australia or Canada.  Not bad, just not the leader.  And I'm ok with that I guess.  Maybe with a weak dollar we can start manufacturing again?  Who knows.


----------



## Gunny

sealybobo said:


> Trust me, you'd need a gun puss.





sealybobo said:


> Hey, my buddy james lee is fighting in the ufc in august.  google james lee ufc for exact dates.  I believe this month.  maybe even this weekend..  shit, its august already?  I used to whip him.  but I stopped wrestling before ufc was even popular.  he's getting old too.  he and everyone that knew me back then all ask me if I wish ufc was around back when I was in my 20's.
> 
> I doubt you have the ground game to handle me.
> 
> and no you wouldn't be able to keep me from getting inside on you.
> 
> let me guess, you learned lethal blows in the service?  you better land one or I would drop you on your head.  knock some sense in you.  humble you.
> 
> ps.  I beat up a marine when I was a junior in highschool.  telegraph strip.  he headlocked me and I had to suflay him on his head.  he almost chocked me out.  crazy fucker.  he even took several punches to his balls.  my friends and I will never forget that.  I shouldn't of thrown my mcd milkshake in his face for taking cuts in front of me.





sealybobo said:


> Piss my pants?  With laughter?
> 
> Fight Finder - James Lee's Mixed Martial Arts Statistics
> 
> Here is my buddy James Lee.  fighting September 6th.  Order it on PPV, if you can afford it.
> 
> UFC : Ultimate Fighting Championship



You "suflayed" him did you?  

When you were in jr high the elementary school bully still shook you down for your milk money, so shut the fuck up already.


----------



## Charles_Main

sealybobo said:


> You learned about s&d and futures in truck driving school?  lol


No that I learned about in High school dumb ass.


----------



## Charles_Main

sealybobo said:


> We will become Australia or Canada.  Not bad, just not the leader.  And I'm ok with that I guess.  Maybe with a weak dollar we can start manufacturing again?  Who knows.



Gotta love defeatist losers lefties!
OH and feel free to keep Neg repping me like the little childish asshat you are Bobo. I wont play that game anymore.


----------

