Print
E-mail
Share
iPod
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
FacebookLETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Democrats guilty of the worst outsourcing
Fri, Jul 4, 2008 (2:03 a.m.)
The determination of the Democrats to deny America the right to drill its own oil has plunged this nation into its fuel-energy crisis. They, of course, are pointing the finger of blame at Big Oil, speculators, gas-guzzling SUVs and the Republicans.
But, without a doubt, it is the Democrats’ anti-domestic drilling stance that has put us at the mercy of foreign governments for the oil required to operate our country.
It is a conspicuous contradiction for Democrats to condemn the “outsourcing” of jobs and money for “work that can be done right here at home,” while their opposition to drilling is the cause of billions of petrodollars being “outsourced” for oil that we could be unearthing right here at home.
But, “not to worry,” the Democrats reassure us. We can just flip the switch from our oil dependency to “alternative sources.” However, all the wind power, geothermal power, solar power, ethanol power and cooking-grease power combined cannot save America from the economic collapse confronting it right now.
Although these and other “alternative” possibilities have promise, they are in the laboratory stage of development. Meanwhile, America’s economy will remain dependent upon Jurassic juice for some time.
Oil is the essence of this country’s economic survival. Understand that an “essence” is that part of a thing’s identity upon which the greatest number of its other parts depend. Oil is the source of the energy that fuels the grid that feeds the power throughout the entire machinery of America’s economic infrastructure.
It is readily observable that the cost of living for every American — in one way or another — is negatively affected by the ever-rising price of gas. That is the magnitude of the peril America faces because the Democrats refuse to allow us to bring up the oil that is in our own back yard.
Discussion: 43 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Southwest trims Las Vegas flights
- $25,000 check cuts no ice with bartender
- Hip-hop mogul Knight posts bail after Vegas arrest
- Eastside Cannery casino to open Thursday
- Court rules in favor of Vegas unions
- Man shot in North Las Vegas casino lot identified
- New media, new questions
- New blood helped Tropicana, union heal old wounds
- Henderson announces first female police chief
- Traffic plan for Las Vegas I-15 work being aired
Blogs
Elsewhere
‘Suge’ Knight makes bail and parties on the Strip
Sports: UNLV
Rougeau to chat Friday with UNLV hoops fans
Judgment Days
Welcome to the 2008 season ... from my perspective
Winning The West
Reid speech calls for unity, attacks McCain (5 Comments)
Joe Brown
Killers frontman discusses politics... reluctantly
Winning The West
Roll call a landslide for Obama (7 Comments)
Culture Blog
Speaking of the demise of live oldies music . . .
Now and Then
"Smaller A" better than the "Big A"
Calendar
- Bridge to Forgiveness art exhibit at Atomic Testing Museum (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.)
- Hawthorne Heights at VooDoo Beach at the Rio (6 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
- Jeff McBride Magic at the Edge at Palace Station (7:30 p.m.)
- Acoustic Strip with Love Pentagon at House of Blues (8 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
-
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Really? Republicans ruled the Presidency and Congress for over 6 years, yet they never enacted any legislation to do this drilling. And there were Republicans who were against this drilling at that time as well. How do you explain that?
Simplistic supply side thinking has no place in the argument regarding drilling on pristine Alaska land. The US Geologic Survey estimates (with 95% confidence interval) that there is 5.7 billion barrels of oil under the Anwar region of northern Alaska. At it’s peak the proposed field would produce 1 million barrels/day. Wow that’s a lot of crude… Until you consider that according International Energy Agency, current worldwide consumption is 85 million barrels/day.
Two points: 1/85th of anything is a very small percent. Second, one must not think for a minute that if this oil is taken from the ground the companies that accomplish this will sell it exclusively to the US. Is a global economy baby and energy companies are going to sell their products to the higher bidder.
Furthermore, the strenght of the dollar which is pegged to the cost of oil has been negatively impacted by some pretty crappy fiscal policy. War spending aside, taking the nation from little debt to record debt in seven years may have something to do with the cost we now pay for gas. Democrates, hardly.
Even if the oil is drilled in America it is still sold on the world market. We would not see a reduction in our prices at the pump.
There are over 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil that should be open to drilling in US.
There are over 21 billion barrels of offshore that should be opened in the USA.
"Republicans ruled the Presidency and Congress for over 6 years, yet they never enacted any legislation to do this drilling."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10560979
The Democrats filibuster the drilling.
Obamamonics....do not drill for we love high gas prices.
Screw the America people. Let them lose jobs.
Nance, Republicans opted not to use the nuclear option and remove filibusters in 2005. Now, they're taking advantage of filibusters as they're not in power. That's hypocritical to note.
And please stop with the shale oil sham. There has not been a single drop of commercially viable oil to come from the shale debacles in Utah and Colorado. Shale oil technology is in its infancy, and if it ever matures, will rely on carbon sequestration, another unproven technology, to mitigate its environmental impacts. The other risks, such as subsurface environmental problems, like arsenic and selenium draining into groundwater from in situ retorting, pose even greater risks with no proven solution.
Not to mention... in order to produce your 1.5 trillion barrels of oil would require 60,000,000 tons of shale. (1 ton of shale may produce 25 gallons of oil) That's a gargantuan amount of land to pillage for an unproven technology. RAND estimates the mining and excavation projects involved in shale production will dwarf the largest open-pit mines. Have you ever seen the Kennecott copper mine in Utah? Imagine several of them.
What about the electricity needs of shale production? "The RAND report estimates that turning out 100,000 bbl of oil per day would require 1.2 gigawatts of electricity. "A million barrels a day would demand at least 10 power plants, plus five new coal mines to feed them," says Randy Udall, a Colorado energy analyst." Where is the electricity going to come from?
And you've still never answered the question: how would you bring prices down in the short term? So far, you've proposed an unproven technology in its infancy and more drilling, which by most estimates wouldn't produce oil, or affect crude prices for at least ten years.
What's your brilliant plan?
My brilliant plan is about 10 million times better than your man..Obama's plan.
Obama's plan is to do nothing. If fact, he said he loves high gas prices. His plan is to have gas prices to go up, up, up, up and up some more.
If somebody announced an aggressive energy plan that including opening ANWR, offshore drilling, shale oil and new refineries that had clearly demonstrated new supply within 3 years then that would immediately have an impact on the futures trades.
I noticed you did not attack the 2.5 billion of oil for offshore. New Drilling in the gulf can occur within 2 years for there is already oil drilling infrastructure in the area.
Ten years ago, there were similar arguments the “Hell no new drilling” crowd. They would say, “How would new drilling help prices tomorrow? It will take years for that drilling to hit the market” I am sure 10 years from now, you, like a broken record, we be barking the old argument when gas is at $10 a gallon.
Thanks for the information on shale oil. It shows it can be done. It is far more feasible to do than the magical electric car that does not exist. Also, all the power plants do not exist that would be needed to support 100 million magical electric cards.
I am not against the use of filibusters. Whoever wants to filibuster can do a filibuster to their hearts desire. I was just showing that Democrats were the ones that stopped offshore drilling.
Obama and Democrats: "We do not care if gas prices go to $10 a gallon...Hell it can be $20 a gallon. We do not care if millions are forced out of work. We do not care if hundreds of billions of cash flow out of the USA into foreign countries hands. No way no how over our dead bodies we will ever ever ever allow new drilling in the USA."……followed by crying and rolling on the floor kicking and screaming.
They, like you, will repeat the above every 10 years.
Yes, you still completely lack any short-term mitigation of oil prices. You cite fantasy timelines of 2 years for more drilling, even though I've sourced an oil company spokesperson saying it will take an additional 10 years to bring more offshore drilling into the picture.
You brazenly gloss over the FACTS of the U.S. shale oil sham, that it's an unproven technology that has yet to produce a single drop of commercially viable oil, and it further wreaks massive environmental catastrophe without other, unproven or fantasy technologies. That's a great plan.
Meanwhile, we have hybrid vehicles now that double most vehicles current fuel mileage, in addition to newer technologies by companies like Tesla, which do produce electric cars and the Volt from GM, which will be introduced shortly after Obama assumes the presidency and institutes his plans for increased hydroelectric, solar and geothermal energy, thus mitigating the environmental effects of energy production.
In addition, you have CARB and EPA mileage mandates which will futher wean us from oil. Both of those programs came from the Democrats, with heavy opposition from the Republicans.
Why hasn't Bush released his Executive Moratorium on offshore drilling? Congress could authorize the companies to drill wherever they saw fit, but Bush stands in the way.
J gets owned again and responds with more of the same... It's really funny watching him try to defend a fallacy.
Yes, shale oil sounds great in theory, but when you break it down, it's closer to snake oil -- which J constantly tries to sell.
That said, Schwarzenegger is against offshore drilling. It will take years to affect the market and cost billions. Why not invest those billions in either a biofuel or a no-fuel vehicle?
Get us off the oil standard and the problem goes away...
You guys should just scream every 5 years: "NO DRILLLING. NO DRILLING....IT WILL TAKE YEARS TO SEE THE BENEFIT".
Play that record over and over and over and over again.
Eventually your crazy absolute "NO DRILLING" will create an economnic mess in this country if it has not already started.
I hope the voters will remember your screaming "NO DRILLING" each time one of them loses a job because of YOU!
You do not understand that people are losing their jobs in Las Vegas because of high gas prices.
You do not understand that is occuring accross the country.
I know that you and your buddies, Reid and Obama, do not care about the people losing jobs.
What is your solution? You have no solution.
During that time, you will just play that record,
"NO DRILLLING. IT WILL TAKE YEARS TO SEE THE BENEFIT"
"NO DRILLLING. IT WILL TAKE YEARS TO SEE THE BENEFIT"
"NO DRILLLING. IT WILL TAKE YEARS TO SEE THE BENEFIT"
"NO DRILLLING. IT WILL TAKE YEARS TO SEE THE BENEFIT"
"NO DRILLLING. IT WILL TAKE YEARS TO SEE THE BENEFIT"
"NO DRILLLING. IT WILL TAKE YEARS TO SEE THE BENEFIT"
.....while Amercians lose jobs.
Since you can't read...
"Why not invest those billions in either a biofuel or a no-fuel vehicle?
Get us off the oil standard and the problem goes away..."
"Get us off the oil standard and the problem goes away..."
You really no absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
The best current electric car goes 200 miles and needs a re-charge. It takes 10-12 hours to re-charge. It only holds 2 people with a storage area the size of bread box. It has no radio and a very poor AC system.
They have been at trying to build better electric cars for about 15 years now. You have no freaking clue on long it will take to build one that is useful.
If we exchange an electric car for each gas car then you have no freaking idea how many new power plants that would require. It would probably require hundreds of new power plants. Again, you have no freaking clue do you.
I guess you think you can snap your fingers and get that within 10 years or something.
At the minimum even in your imaginary drug induced world, it will take 40 to 50 years to even hope that this magically world will come to place.
What are you going to do? Are you going to require every person to buy a new electric car? Where is that money coming from? How much money is it going to take to develop a good electric car? How much money to build the hundreds of new power plants?
You have no freaking clue what you are doing to this country.
"Why hasn't Bush released his Executive Moratorium on offshore drilling?"
Again you are stating a red herring.
http://origin.denverpost.com/business/ci...
There are two bans on offshore drilling. One is by executive order and the other is a law passed by Congress.
Even if Bush did an executive order it could not override the law passed by Congress.
“…hydroelectric, solar and geothermal energy, thus mitigating the environmental effects of energy production."
Hydroelectric?????? Where did that come from? Are you taking about the mythical ocean wave systems? I have not heard of plans to build more dams. I doubt that the greenies would allow it.
Solar is not a 24/7 system. I know you have no clue what that means. Even the ones that store energy will not be considered 24/7 system. At the most you can hope for solar is that it can supplement regular systems but one cannot not rely on solar to be used for core energy needs.
For example, you have a requirement to generate during the summer peak time 100,000 units of energy. Let’s say you have a solar system that can generate 200,000 during the day and store 100,000 for use at night. What happens if the sun does not shine for a week? You are screwed. You could not store enough energy at a cost effective means to handle such situations. You can have backup non-solar system to provide the 100,000 units of energy, like a coal plant. But does your little brain understand having a backup system that large is foolishly expensive and wasteful.
This is what solar will be used for. During the hot summer months, they will run the real power plants, like coal, nuclear and natural gas, at 80% capacity. They will use solar to supplement. It still is very silly and expensive. But to you please people like you, this will happened. It will cause higher utility bills, but heck you guys like that.
I am OK with geothermal. It does have some downsides. Geothermal power plants, like in Nevada, will be spread out over large tracts of pristine wilderness areas. It usually releases sulfuric gases into the air which will stink up the neighborhood but if there are in located in wilderness then I guess that does not matter. Over time the robustness of a geothermal plant will diminished and for economic reasons the plant will be shut down. The huge cooling towers that will dot the wilderness will hopefully be removed. The heat source will diminished over time because it is being consumed by the geothermal plant, therefore geothermal plants are not considered to be renewable energy system.
"And you've still never answered the question: how would you bring prices down in the short term? So far, you've proposed an unproven technology in its infancy and more drilling, which by most estimates wouldn't produce oil, or affect crude prices for at least ten years.
What's your brilliant plan?"
And yet you STILL fail to let us in on your brilliant plan to lower gas prices in the interim. You propose the shale sham, which can't produce anything as of yet, and may not for decades, and more drilling, which would bring the cost of oil down by... ? Who knows, because you surely don't. You refuse to answer the question. Because you can't.
The fact is that if we doubled U.S. production overnight, not possible even with your faulty logic, that would be 12 million barrels, which would add 6 million barrels, and do almost NOTHING to the overall cost of crude. We're talking pennies off the price.
That's your grand plan. Instead of paying $4.50, we'd be paying $4.45. I'm sure millions and millions of jobs depend on that nickel... at least in your mind.
Bush's executive moratorium is not a red herring. It stands in the way of more offshore drilling. (Hence the word: moratorium) He's a coward for not lifting it. And it's cowardly to make excuses for him.
Not that I expect any more from someone who sees 10,000 approved permits for drilling as some sort of obstacle to drill. Only your warped mind would see that as a problem.
No one has said "No More Drilling." No one. It's your age-old straw man argument, and it's debunked and trite and meaningless. Kinda like you.
But please, enlighten us as to your grand plan to lower gas prices more than your mythical nickel. The fact is: you don't have one, and neither does flip-flopper McCain.
The "NO DRILLING" surely will put downward prices on gas.
Yep...Obamanomics at work there....
Keep screaming and yelling your crazy absolute boneheaded belief..."NO DRILLING!!!!!"
Yep, that is the ticket.
Obama solution for high gas prices....NO DRILLING.
Keep preaching that line.
I am very confident that the American people will see how stupid you and your Obama man really are.
"Not that I expect any more from someone who sees 10,000 approved permits for drilling as some sort of obstacle to drill."
Those permits are for exploration of possible energy sources. Most will not have viable oil reserves.
But we clearly have billions of oil that can be easily drilled offshore and in ANWR.
We have trillions of billions of shale oil that can be retrieved too.
Keep up the red herring game. America people will see through that too.
Obviously, you are anti-new drilling.
No one has said "No More Drilling." No one. It's your age-old straw man argument, and it's debunked and trite and meaningless. Kinda like you.
But please, enlighten us as to your grand plan to lower gas prices more than your mythical nickel. The fact is: you don't have one, and neither does flip-flopper McCain.
Admit it. You will fight tooth and nail before there is one inch of new drilling in ANWR or offshore or shale drilling. Why fight so hard? It is obvious that these sites will produce significant supply of oil that will impact the price of oil.
You say this will not help with gas prices.
People like you said that 10 years ago when you demanded those items off limit.
You would let the country burn in hell before agreeing to new drilling in those areas.
Go hide in the BS Democratic talking points argument that there are billions of oil ready for drilling on existing leases. Oh by the way, can you source that argument? The only place you see that BS is on the Democratic websites. LOL….good valid sources there.
Do me a favor.
Please, keep playing these games.
Keep telling the America people that there is no need to drill in these places.
When gas prices hit $7 a gallon, just keep on playing you games. Make up some more crappie bogus stuff.
The America people are not that dumb.
I guarantee that in ten years if you play this song “It will take so long to get benefits from drilling” that it will be so old with American public.
Sooner are later they are going to nail like you to this wall of BS that you are building.
I hope Obama is following your game plan.
As a matter of fact I can source that argument, a June 2008 report by the House Committee on Natural Resources.
"In the last four years, the Bureau of Land Management has issued 28,776 permits to drill on public land; yet, in that same time, 18,954 wells were actually drilled. That means that companies have stockpiled nearly 10,000 extra permits to drill that they are not using to increase domestic production."
As a matter of fact, the same report goes on to say, "Between 1999 and 2007, the number of drilling permits issued for development of public lands increased by more than 361%, yet gasoline prices have also risen dramatically, contradicting the argument that more drilling means lower gasoline prices. There is simply no correlation between the two."
"The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that it will require 8 to 10 years after opening ANWR before oil is produced from any new leases. Furthermore, it would be 20 years after opening ANWR before oil production reached its peak of only 780,000 barrels per day. Production at that level would start to drop within a short time."
"According to the EIA, opening ANWR would reduce U.S. crude oil imports, but not until 2022-2026 and only by a few percentage points. Further, it would not significantly increase total world oil production, nor would it significantly affect world oil prices."
In other words, your entire argument is bogus. LOL.
No one's playing games. You're foolishly touting unproven technologies in the guise of lowering prices a whopping nickel per gallon. Your hysteria and yelping doesn't help your case, either, Nance.
The games and outright lies are coming from you. Let's quote you, "We have trillions of billions of shale oil that can be retrieved too." So if you take that literally, which any rational person would not, you argue we have 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of oil available in shale. What kind of lunatic loopy math is that? Source that. LOL!
Trying to make sense of your pitiful attempts at logic just make me laugh. You're a riot.
"June 2008 report by the House Committee on Natural Resources."
Hmmmmmm...who runs the House Committee on Natural Resources....wonder who? Chinese? Russians? ...could it be DEMOCRATS?????
Good sourcing...keep up the good work....two thumbs up for theBS.
LOL, no ability to dispute the facts, huh?
Gonna go rely on your 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of shale oil?
That's what I thought.
Your entire argument is debunked.
Let's look at the EIA report that those facts are based on:
"With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively.1 Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil2 prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."
"There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region. The USGS oil resource estimates are based largely on the oil productivity of geologic formations that exist in the neighboring State lands and which continue into ANWR. Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR. Thus, the potential ultimate oil recovery and potential yearly production are highly uncertain."
That report was commissioned by Ted Stevens, who you may know as the Republican senior Senator from Alaska. (aka, the "internet is a series of tubes!" guy) So your great plan will reduce the price of gas by pennies. All that bluster and fluster for pennies... unless OPEC decides to compensate for ANWR by reducing output... which means it would have NO IMPACT.
It's fun to watch you squirm when presented with actual facts.
Off-shore drilling can occur in less than 2 years….“… opponents of drilling overestimate the time frame for new development, and some projects have turned around in 18 months.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0620/p02s0...
ANWR is just a tiny part of the Alaska national park system. It only comprises 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres. This demonstrates the stubbornness of the “Hell no to new drilling” crowd.
The amount of oil reserves at ANWR is debatable. This site say: “Government geologists say ANWR could contain as much as 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That's enough to replace all our Persian Gulf imports for 10 years or more. At peak production levels, ANWR could provide 1/10 of total U.S. oil needs” I believe the higher the price of oil is than it makes the economically viable of retrieving oil more likely.
http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=6...
At this site it claims that the government requires a 7 to 10 year process just to procure a lease.
If they speed up that process then some believe that oil from ANWR can start flowing in 6 to 8 years.
http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm
The information you're quoting directly contradicts itself.
Your Sibelle "source" claims of ANWR "There is a 95% probability of being able to technically recover 4.254 billion barrels of oil, and a 5% probability of recovering 11.8 billion barrels of oil. The mean expected estimate is of being able to technically recover 7.7 billion barrels of oil. "
Your Heartland source says 16 billion, and your CSMonitor "source" has no idea how much oil is in ANWR. So how much, Nance? 4.2 billion barrels? 11.8? 7.7? 16? Your sources directly contradict each other.
And as for the CSMonitor claim of an overestimated time for new drilling? Mickey Driver from Chevron says realistically it's between 8 and 10 years for a new strike. I'd take the word of an oil company spokesperson over an opinion piece in the Christian Science Monitor any day. And your Sibelle information contradicts the CS Monitor information.
LOL, do you even read the sites you quote from?
But NONE of your information is able to counter the EIA report, which points out that ANWR would have little to no effect on the price of crude, and OPEC could just slow production to compensate. In other words, the John McCain Placebo Effect is your only plan... a plan that even McCain himself knows won't help gas prices more than a few pennies per gallon.
You fail again.
Let’s go over this again.
"Obamanomics"....prices going up then do not drill for new oil, especially in the biggest known oil reserves in the USA.
Please announce this over and over and over again.
Say, "The Democrats do not want what to drill because they believe it will not help gas prices." Hell, I will donate a dollar for the TV ads.
The EIA report is dated. It was written years before our $144 for a barrel of oil.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0620/p02s0......
This article explains why the estimates are so different.
It is based on the price of oil. If oil is cheap then it is not worth the cost to go after the harder to get oil. If price of oil, like now, is very high then it justifies the additional cost of retrieving the harder to get oil. Therefore the higher estimates are more appropriate in today’s oil price market.
I am sure that if we wanted to we could drill off shore or in ANWR and have those producing oil in a no more than 4 years.
If oil hits $225 a barrel, then all this discussion will be mute.
I am willing to say even Obama will be pro-offshore drilling at that time.
If he is not pro-offshore and it is still before November 4th then John McCain will be the next President of the USA.
Wonk wonk wonk... how many times do I have to prove you wrong tonight?
The EIA report I quoted was released in May 2008, not years ago, your CS Monitor link is broken (like your rhetoric) and you still can't answer your own problem: exactly how much oil is in ANWR? Which of your three sources do you believe, and which two are lying? How would you account for OPEC reducing production to keep supply steady?
The rest of your blathering is the same debunked junk you repeat ad nauseam. No answers, just the age-old defeatist Republican tautology. Fail, fail, fail, that's all you've done.
The report was published in May 2008 not generated in May 2008.
This shows how dated the report is. In their data charts, it lists oil prices around $65 a barrel which is half the current cost of $144 a barrel.
Still, I am OK with your message and really really want you to spread it.
Obama message: "The Democrats do not want new drilling because they believe it will not help gas prices."
I want to place ads next to the employement ads. When a person just lost their job and is looking for jobs they will see the ad. They will then they will have this warm fuzzy feeling about the Democrats.
Obviously you've given up. Quibbling over the date of a report? That's weak, even by your standards.
You can't debunk their findings over the impact (or complete lack thereof) of ANWR's oil on international crude prices.
You can't disprove the 361% increase in drilling permits between 1999 and 2007.
You can't dispute the 10,000 approved domestic drilling permits that are being unused by the oil companies.
You can't debate the threat that OPEC could compensate for domestic production and make the crude from ANWR JUST AS EXPENSIVE as crude from Saudi Arabia or Iran.
You can't even decide how much oil is in ANWR, citing multiple sources which contradict each other.
McCain himself said that his plan is to give people a false sense of security. That's your grand, failed plan... the John McCain Placebo Effect. All your caterwauling over pennies per gallon? We could achieve that through some simple conservation.
It's not a surprise Nance is a champion of McCain's failed, floundering energy policies.
"You can't disprove the 361% increase in drilling permits between 1999 and 2007.
You can't dispute the 10,000 approved domestic drilling permits that are being unused by the oil companies."
theBS pull this BS from the June 2008 report by the House Committee on Natural Resources which is ran by Democrats.
Do you need a refill on that Kool-Aid that you are drinking there?
"You can't debate the threat that OPEC could compensate for domestic production and make the crude from ANWR JUST AS EXPENSIVE as crude from Saudi Arabia or Iran."
Sounds like a good argument to drill for oil in the USA. It is like we have gold but "NO DO NOT GET THE GOLD.....GOD FORBID!". Oil generated off US soil increases US jobs and keeps that cash within the US and increases government revenue.
Obama's plan: "Folks, I love high gas prices. (opps was the mic on?) I do feel your pain. In 2070, we will have a solution that will cost trillions of dollars to implement. But in the short term, we are going to help you by speeding up the unemployment checks. Good night and remember, I love high gas prices."
So prove me wrong, Nance. Prove that there wasn't an increase in the number of permits. Prove that 10,000 or so permits remain unused. Cite a source.
The problem is: you can't. You offer no quotes or citations disputing that information. You're the worst kind of Republican, someone who will discount FACT because it was written by someone who doesn't follow the same ridiculous warped logic as you.
If that doesn't sound like a George Bush sycophant, I don't know what does.
You still offer no facts, no evidence, nothing. Just the same old busted logic.
All you have are fantasy quotations from the voices in your head... and McCain's Placebo Effect. If someone's brainwashed here, it is clearly you. In cowardice you resort to making up a quotation from Obama?
Admit it, Nance, your rhetoric is completely bankrupt. You're embarrassing yourself.
Obama: "You lost your job because of high gas prices. Here is a gold star for you. I love high gas prices. If your neighbor loses his job then have them call me. I got a gold star for them, too."
You still offer no facts, no evidence, nothing. Just the same old busted logic.
All you have are fantasy quotations from the voices in your head... and McCain's Placebo Effect. If someone's brainwashed here, it is clearly you. In cowardice you resort to making up a quotation from Obama?
Admit it, Nance, your rhetoric is completely bankrupt. You're embarrassing yourself.
Damn, look what I missed...
J gets his azz handed to him and all he can do is make up fake Obama quotes...
And J, by investing major amounts of dollars, we could be off the internal combustion engine in ten years. I'm not going to waste my time explaining the nuances of the plan, since you clearly can't grasp simple A to B connections...
LOL, Jack.
Nuance + Nance?
That's just a recipe for failure.
"And J, by investing major amounts of dollars, we could be off the internal combustion engine in ten years"
Obviously, you are clueless on how much money it would take to get your wet dream.
Obama: "I love high gas prices. It is the best thing in the whole wide world. I could care less if everybody lost their jobs. That is not important to me. HELL NO, WE WILL NOT DRILL!!!!"
Like a petulant child, Nance refuses to pack it in.
So instead of your fetid, comically inane fantasy conversations, let's read what John McCain said about his own oil policy on June 24th:
"At a town hall in Fresno, CA, McCain admitted that the offshore drilling proposal he unveiled last week would probably have mostly “psychological” benefits, NBC/NJ’s Adam Aigner-Treworgy notes. “Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial."
In other words, it will make us feel good, but won't help. McCain admits his plan won't work.
It's political opportunism at it's worst, and something I altogether expect from flip-flopper McCain and his sycophants.
Nance is a hypocrite, holding Obama to a higher standard than his own candidate. Your desperation and lack of credibility is glaringly obvious. Luckily, the voters in November will see right through your charade.
Obama, Reid, Ms. Taxus, all Democrats: "What high gas prices? Oh, those high gas prices. The America people need high gas prices to force them off fossil fuels. It is very good that we have high gas prices. What? People are losing jobs. That is OK for in the next 30 years we are going to spend billions of taxpayer money on unproven technology. Hopefully, one or two of them will get hired. The rest should learn to live off government hand outs."
Nance, you've already been exposed as a liar and a hypocrite... and that's in the last 24 hours.
What else do we expect from Jim Gibbons' #1 fan?
jfnance32 - You have no idea how to use a BEV. Are you married? If so, how far does your wife drive in a day? For that matter, how far do you drive in one day? Do you have two cars? If you have two cars and either one of you drives less than 100 miles per day, why can't one of the cars be a BEV? Run it all day, come home, and plug it in. Your BEV will be ready to go next morning with no gas, but a full battery. Who cares if it takes all night to charge? If you need to run to LA for something, take the other car. From what I have seen, most two car families could use one BEV and one gas/diesel/hybrid car or truck as their individual needs require. You do not need a 400 mile range and 10 minute charge times if you use a BEV this way. The exception to this is for the few people who live in the middle of nowhere.