A Step in the Right Direction

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]wirewound wrote:
flyboy51v wrote:
Sue OPEC … nationalize the refineries … put an extra tax on the oil companies.

I think we can safely assume that any pretense that these guys are NOT marxists has been officially dropped at this point. The mask is off …

Socialism is the future. How long it takes to get here is the only question.[/quote]

I will agree with you in that we are on the path to a more socialist government, however I’m not nearly as excited about it as you seem to be. Collectivism has failed wherever it has been used. What is driving the US towards collectivism is the weakening of the individual. The loss of rugged individualism. Lazy, unthinking people who can’t do for themselves, are willingly giving up individual liberty for the false security of government. Sad really.

I, along with everyone else, eagerly await your examples.

[quote]According to holonic theory, things organize themselves according to hierarchies. Oppressive hierarchies are to be avoided, but all hierarchies synergize AND suppress qualities of those holons that are below.

To use chemistry or physics as an example - atoms synergize (organize) subatomic particles but also suppress some of their qualities. Molecules organize AND suppress the qualities of atoms - the chlorine atoms in NaCl behave very differently than elementally pure chlorine atoms behave. One is essentially nutritious while the other is toxic.

Capitalism is creating problems it cannot solve - this is the driving force of system evolution. Hence, some new organizing structure must evolve to solve the problems of capitalism. We have not hit the tipping point, but we are closing in on it. At that point, the energy of the collapsing capitalist system will fuel the rise of the next system. The next system will then create problems even MORE complex than our current problems - prompting yet another evolutionary jump.

Unless we cannot organize ourselves quickly enough to correct the current systems problems - in that case, we will simply become extinct. Typically, self-preservation causes us to correct…but at every new jump forward, there is the possibility we’ve hit our adaptive limit.[/quote]

LOL! what a load of shyte. You remind me of the traditional karate folks who always work so hard on explaining to me their fight theory. Of course the minute they enter the ring or the cage, all that goes out the window in a hurry.

You’re over thinking this. Capitalism works, always has. Tell me, where has capitalism failed where it has been implemented?

82

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

  1. If oil companies have 68 million acres alloted for exploring/drilling, and they haven’t touched it, how can they claim they need more oil fields? or that a democratic congress has prevented oil exploration, etc. What do you think about this?

Because the oil companies have a better idea of where they want to drill than Congress or you or I. If they think ANWR or coastal drilling is more productive than somewhere else then they should get a crack at it.
[/quote]

I’m perfectly willing to believe this is true.

However: have oil companies actually argued that the 68 million acres are not going to be productive? Have they actually explored there? Or do they have some other reason to believe that these acres will not be productive?

As far as I can tell, this really hasn’t been discussed and debated yet. I think it should be.

83

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
wirewound wrote:
Capitalism is creating problems it cannot solve.

Example?

Socialism creates problems socialism cannot fix. You cannot tax your way to prosperity.
[/quote]

It’s hard to believe that anyone believes otherwise.

[quote]
Capitalism does have its problems, not much incentive to take care of the environment for example.[/quote]

Yeah, externalities are a problem - though I’d say we need to extend towards these resources, not retract it. If no one owns it, people dump on it. “Tragedy of the Commons,” etc. Which is why the worst environmental catastrophes take place anywhere resources are “commonly”/state owned: China, Russia, former soviet states, etc.

84

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

  1. If oil companies have 68 million acres alloted for exploring/drilling, and they haven’t touched it, how can they claim they need more oil fields? or that a democratic congress has prevented oil exploration, etc. What do you think about this?

Because the oil companies have a better idea of where they want to drill than Congress or you or I. If they think ANWR or coastal drilling is more productive than somewhere else then they should get a crack at it.

I’m perfectly willing to believe this is true.

However: have oil companies actually argued that the 68 million acres are not going to be productive? Have they actually explored there? Or do they have some other reason to believe that these acres will not be productive?

As far as I can tell, this really hasn’t been discussed and debated yet. I think it should be.

[/quote]

I have no idea of the what is going on in those untapped acres but the economics of the situation has totally changed. It may not have been worth it extract oil at $ 20/bbl but it may be well worth it @ $ 100/bbl.

The fact that the haven’t done it yet does not mean it is not worthwhile to do it now there as well as some prohibited areas.

85

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
wirewound wrote:
Capitalism is creating problems it cannot solve.

Example?

Socialism creates problems socialism cannot fix. You cannot tax your way to prosperity.

It’s hard to believe that anyone believes otherwise.

Capitalism does have its problems, not much incentive to take care of the environment for example.

Yeah, externalities are a problem - though I’d say we need to extend towards these resources, not retract it. If no one owns it, people dump on it. “Tragedy of the Commons,” etc. Which is why the worst environmental catastrophes take place anywhere resources are “commonly”/state owned: China, Russia, former soviet states, etc.
[/quote]

Hooker Chemical dumped all kinds of stuff into the Love Canal (insert your own joke) and then covered it with dirt and sold it to the city for $ 1.

86

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
The liberals do not want to drill because they do not want the price of oil to drop. They want high oil prices because oil is evil. Of course if you increase supply dramatically (which we can) the price will go down - econ 101!!! Supply and demand apparently works with everything except oil. Amazing.

Congress will not vote on this unless enough dems feel heat in their district and are worried about getting re-elected.

If the coasts are opened up the markets will sense that it is a matter of time before ANWR and everything else is on the table - thereby causing the market to realize that supplies will only be increasing.

And don’t forget about natural gas - we have even larger quantities of natural gas.

I agree. Natural gas should actually be a huge part of the solution imo. I wonder if anyone’s done research on the relation between future (< 5 years away) supply of oil and current prices. I do get the sense the that the enviros are rather excited about this high price - they often talk about the environmental costs of more drilling/oil, and skirt the question of the importance of getting the price of oil down. [/quote]

Don’t forget about coal to synthetic oil. South Africa’s been banking on that for years now.

Coal + Natural Gas + More Drilling = No energy crisis.

87

[quote]tedro wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
The liberals do not want to drill because they do not want the price of oil to drop. They want high oil prices because oil is evil. Of course if you increase supply dramatically (which we can) the price will go down - econ 101!!! Supply and demand apparently works with everything except oil. Amazing.

Congress will not vote on this unless enough dems feel heat in their district and are worried about getting re-elected.

If the coasts are opened up the markets will sense that it is a matter of time before ANWR and everything else is on the table - thereby causing the market to realize that supplies will only be increasing.

And don’t forget about natural gas - we have even larger quantities of natural gas.

I agree. Natural gas should actually be a huge part of the solution imo. I wonder if anyone’s done research on the relation between future (< 5 years away) supply of oil and current prices. I do get the sense the that the enviros are rather excited about this high price - they often talk about the environmental costs of more drilling/oil, and skirt the question of the importance of getting the price of oil down.

Don’t forget about coal to synthetic oil. South Africa’s been banking on that for years now.

Coal + Natural Gas + More Drilling = No energy crisis.
[/quote]

We really don’t have a crisis now. No waiting in lines at gas stations like we did when the government interfered with prices.

88

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
We really don’t have a crisis now. No waiting in lines at gas stations like we did when the government interfered with prices.[/quote]

89

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…“Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior advisor to McCain�??s campaign, acknowledged in a conference call to reporters that new offshore drilling would have no immediate effect on supplies or prices.”

I guess he too is a POS.

or you’re still just a total lying sham.

You keep coming back to this strawman argument. No one expects an immediate price reduction if we start new drilling today.

You ignore the economic reality that more drilling = more supply = better prices = more money staying in the US instead of lining Hugo Chavez’s pockets.

I just don’t know how to deal with idiots like you. [/quote]
Dude! are you retarded? the point is not enough supply to cause a significant reduction.

Bush’s energy agency says ANWR reduces the price of oil by 75 cents a barrel. 75 cents!. Thats’ pennies on a gallon of gas. And that happens 3 presidential terms from now! It’s a fake solution! Get it?

90

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Tell me, from where did you draw your numbers stating that increased domestic drilling will only have a five cent decrease in the price of gas, over the course of twenty years?

Lumpy, are you making shit up? tsk, tsk…

[/quote]

Bush’s dept of Energy.
ANWR: U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis
Coastal: U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

A 75 cent reduction in a barrel of oil = pennies on a gallon of gas. Add in the coastal which will have production rates half of ANWR (theoretically) and you get a couple more pennies. OVER A DECADE FROM NOW!

Boy oh Boy were you duped!

And I’m sure apologies from you to readers forthcoming…?

91

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

With his willingness to respond to the gas price crisis with bold measures, McCain shows himself to be a pragmatist while Obama comes off as an ideologue to puts climate change ahead of making it possible for the average American to get to work.

Funny how stupid they pretend to be. “Bold Measures” is known as pandering to stupid voters (the Micks, Bigflamers, and Zaps of the world).

No mention of how the pennies saved a decade from now is going to help get Americans to work. (wouldn’t want to educate clueless voters don’t ya know!)

This is idiotic. We need oil in the future. We need to drill now to get it. You offer no solution whatsoever.

[/quote]

Ok, at least you’re moving on…Coastal drilling not a solution for reducing costs anytime soon. And the minuscule savings 10, 20 years not worth it. So better solutions needed…

92

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

With his willingness to respond to the gas price crisis with bold measures, McCain shows himself to be a pragmatist while Obama comes off as an ideologue to puts climate change ahead of making it possible for the average American to get to work.

Funny how stupid they pretend to be. “Bold Measures” is known as pandering to stupid voters (the Micks, Bigflamers, and Zaps of the world).

No mention of how the pennies saved a decade from now is going to help get Americans to work. (wouldn’t want to educate clueless voters don’t ya know!)

Pennies??? You really are clueless. Did someone dump somem dirty oil on you as a child? You really seem to hate the stuff.

[/quote]
What you were thinking dollars!!?? What a fool!
But damn! If a barrel goes down $.75 from ANWR how much do you think gas goes down? Good lord! Are there any serious republicans in here?

93

The most important thing is to be developing alternative energy sources. But having an actual appreciable domestic production will also help too. BOTH of things are longterm solutions. Oil rigs don’t get built overnight. The problem is we don’t really know if there’s much domestic production to be had. and we won’t be able to know until we’re well into the process. I think we SHOULD look to devloping domestic sources, but it should be concentrated. We shouldn’t fuck up our ENTIRE coastline and wildlife refuges when it’s very unclear what we’re going to get. And it’s unlikely to drop prices all that much.

94

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…“Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior advisor to McCain�??s campaign, acknowledged in a conference call to reporters that new offshore drilling would have no immediate effect on supplies or prices.”

I guess he too is a POS.

or you’re still just a total lying sham.

You keep coming back to this strawman argument. No one expects an immediate price reduction if we start new drilling today.

You ignore the economic reality that more drilling = more supply = better prices = more money staying in the US instead of lining Hugo Chavez’s pockets.

I just don’t know how to deal with idiots like you.
Dude! are you retarded? the point is not enough supply to cause a significant reduction.

Bush’s energy agency says ANWR reduces the price of oil by 75 cents a barrel. 75 cents!. Thats’ pennies on a gallon of gas. And that happens 3 presidential terms from now! It’s a fake solution! Get it?
[/quote]

They are fake numbers. People cannot explain why the price of oil is what it is right now and we are expected to believe that a politically motivated study can accurately predict more than a decade in the future?

The reality is that it is money and jobs staying in the US plus more supply on the market. Good news for all except the whackos.

95

[quote]100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

With his willingness to respond to the gas price crisis with bold measures, McCain shows himself to be a pragmatist while Obama comes off as an ideologue to puts climate change ahead of making it possible for the average American to get to work.

Funny how stupid they pretend to be. “Bold Measures” is known as pandering to stupid voters (the Micks, Bigflamers, and Zaps of the world).

No mention of how the pennies saved a decade from now is going to help get Americans to work. (wouldn’t want to educate clueless voters don’t ya know!)

Pennies??? You really are clueless. Did someone dump somem dirty oil on you as a child? You really seem to hate the stuff.

What you were thinking dollars!!?? What a fool!
But damn! If a barrel goes down $.75 from ANWR how much do you think gas goes down? Good lord! Are there any serious republicans in here?
[/quote]

I might as well talk to my dog. I would get much more sense out of him. You are on the same wave length as Alan Colmes.

96

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
…

I might as well talk to my dog. I would get much more sense out of him. You are on the same wave length as Alan Colmes.
[/quote]

It really is amazing isn’t it? it is like a pipeline to the DNC.

97

I would be curious to compare the monetary and logistical cost of building the facilities for harvesting these offshore reserves with that of building comparable power output from solar power.

I’m of the mindset that our smartest move would be to diversify our economy as broadly as we can over the next 10 years. I think it would be wisest to take the opportunity that we have now to invest in getting our homes, businesses and industry running on alternative sources, and save our oil primarily for vehicles and reserves.

20 billion barrels of oil found offshore is relatively insignificant. It is a band-aid on a bullet wound. We would consume all of that in under 3 decades, and then what? The problem with encouraging the massive financial investment for offshore drilling seems to be a case of short-term versus long-term investing.

It might ameliorate many of our energy concerns in the short-term, but it will also put us further down that path, and make it significantly more difficult to change course when that time inevitably comes.

of course, none of the people that are supporting offshore drilling will even be alive when that time comes…

98

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
I would be curious to compare the monetary and logistical cost of building the facilities for harvesting these offshore reserves with that of building comparable power output from solar power.

I’m of the mindset that our smartest move would be to diversify our economy as broadly as we can over the next 10 years. I think it would be wisest to take the opportunity that we have now to invest in getting our homes, businesses and industry running on alternative sources, and save our oil primarily for vehicles and reserves.

20 billion barrels of oil found offshore is relatively insignificant. It is a band-aid on a bullet wound. We would consume all of that in under 3 decades, and then what? The problem with encouraging the massive financial investment for offshore drilling seems to be a case of short-term versus long-term investing.

It might ameliorate many of our energy concerns in the short-term, but it will also put us further down that path, and make it significantly more difficult to change course when that time inevitably comes.

of course, none of the people that are supporting offshore drilling will even be alive when that time comes…
[/quote]

All of these things can and will happen if the government lets us.

99

Could be, or we will continue to collectively shoot for the path with the fastest returns and the least staying power, digging a deep hole even deeper.

100

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…“Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior advisor to McCain�??s campaign, acknowledged in a conference call to reporters that new offshore drilling would have no immediate effect on supplies or prices.”

I guess he too is a POS.

or you’re still just a total lying sham.

You keep coming back to this strawman argument. No one expects an immediate price reduction if we start new drilling today.

You ignore the economic reality that more drilling = more supply = better prices = more money staying in the US instead of lining Hugo Chavez’s pockets.

I just don’t know how to deal with idiots like you. Dude! are you retarded? the point is not enough supply to cause a significant reduction.

Bush’s energy agency says ANWR reduces the price of oil by 75 cents a barrel. 75 cents!. Thats’ pennies on a gallon of gas. And that happens 3 presidential terms from now! It’s a fake solution! Get it?

They are fake numbers. People cannot explain why the price of oil is what it is right now and we are expected to believe that a politically motivated study can accurately predict more than a decade in the future?

The reality is that it is money and jobs staying in the US plus more supply on the market. Good news for all except the whackos.
[/quote]

Oh, the numbers are fake. Glenn Beck must have the real ones. God, you just make it up as you go…