Senator John Kerry: Soldiers for Oil Is OK; Drilling in ANWR is Not!!!
decker2k02
this Bozo.
Tim Perdue
"decker2k02" <decke...@NOSPAMPLEASE.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:sd16cuc2adasrke10...@4ax.com...
> To this traitor, Soldiers are expendable, Caribou are not. Go figure
> this Bozo.
You're a one-dimensional idiot. Kerry wants to look past oil and move to
hydrogen, which even the auto industry is getting excited about.
Tim
decker2k02
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 23:16:23 GMT, "Tim Perdue" <t...@gotocity.com>
wrote:
Jerry Okamura
"Tim Perdue" <t...@gotocity.com> wrote in message
news:bLHw8.88653$G72.63872@sccrnsc01...
As a primary fuel or are you talking about fuel cells? If I recall,
hydrogen is an even more difficult gas to handle and more dangerous than
gasoline. Even if we committed to using hydrogen as a fuel, it would take a
very long time to develop the distribution system it would seem to me. If
you are talking about fuel cell, we have been working to develop a fuel cell
for an very long time now. We still have not solved the technical hurdles,
not to mention the cost factor. In the meantime we are dependent on oil
whether we like it or not. Besides, even if we develop alternative methods
to power our automobiles, that is a realively long way away.
Mike Flannigan
> > this Bozo.
>
> You're a one-dimensional idiot. Kerry wants to look past oil and move to
> hydrogen, which even the auto industry is getting excited about.
>
> Tim
You're talking about an incredibly expensive retooling of not only the
energy industry, but the auto industry as well. Then we can talk about the
increased hazards involved in transportation. As long as the cost of a
barrel of oil can yield a gallon of gas under probably $5.00 - $10.00 a
gallon it just ain't gonna happen. So we're still hooked on the middle-east
aren't we?
Kerry and the Democrats criticize development of Anwar as something that
won't yield any results for 7 - 10 years, while the vision of hydrogen would
require a mountain observatory.
Opposition to Anwar is purely political, hinged on hopes that people can be
convinced that Republicans want to destroy a vast reserve and the Democrats
are the only one standing against environmental Armageddon. Informed people
know this pure B.S. Including Kerry, the Democrats and most of the leftist
posters here.
Tim Perdue
"Mike Flannigan" <mflan...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AXJw8.24793$oj5.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> You're talking about an incredibly expensive retooling of not only the
> energy industry, but the auto industry as well.
The auto industry is moving towards this. The retooling is going to have to
take place sooner or later. You do realize that oil supplies are not
infinite right? What happens 10 years from now when china has more cars on
the road than the US?
> Then we can talk about the
> increased hazards involved in transportation. As long as the cost of a
> barrel of oil can yield a gallon of gas under probably $5.00 - $10.00 a
> gallon it just ain't gonna happen. So we're still hooked on the
middle-east
> aren't we?
>
> Kerry and the Democrats criticize development of Anwar as something that
> won't yield any results for 7 - 10 years, while the vision of hydrogen
would
> require a mountain observatory.
Mountain observatory? Huh? The auto industry is looking at hydrogen cars,
probably combustion rather than fuel cell, starting in 2007. You should try
reading more, in particular read about the recent Big Three + Honda meeting
on this subject.
> Opposition to Anwar is purely political, hinged on hopes that people can
be
> convinced that Republicans want to destroy a vast reserve and the
Democrats
> are the only one standing against environmental Armageddon. Informed
people
> know this pure B.S. Including Kerry, the Democrats and most of the leftist
> posters here.
The real solution, at least in the interim, is to mandate higher gas
mileage, as in force the use of the hybrid-electric cars, and at the same
time work on domestic exploration.
Tim
Tim Perdue
> Whatever you say chicken boy. Methinks you're passing hydrogen.
About as intelligent as your first post.
Tim
Ricky C.
Domestic exploration try an get that past the environmentalist whackos.
--
Ricky C.
"If it's smokin your tweakin is peakin" ;-)
Tim Perdue
"Ricky C." <"If it works"@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3CC39F1B...@cox.net...
> Domestic exploration try an get that past the environmentalist whackos.
...and try to get mandatory fuel increases, using technology we have today,
through the Big Oil whackos that run the republican party...
The two need to compromise.
Tim
John Slade
"Mike Flannigan" <mflan...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AXJw8.24793$oj5.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> > > this Bozo.
> >
> > You're a one-dimensional idiot. Kerry wants to look past oil and move to
> > hydrogen, which even the auto industry is getting excited about.
> >
> > Tim
>
> You're talking about an incredibly expensive retooling of not only the
> energy industry, but the auto industry as well. Then we can talk about the
> increased hazards involved in transportation. As long as the cost of a
> barrel of oil can yield a gallon of gas under probably $5.00 - $10.00 a
> gallon it just ain't gonna happen. So we're still hooked on the
middle-east
> aren't we?
>
> Kerry and the Democrats criticize development of Anwar as something that
> won't yield any results for 7 - 10 years, while the vision of hydrogen
would
> require a mountain observatory.
>
First of all it's "ANWR" which stands for Alaskan National Wildlife
Reserve. And there are other things besides hydrogen like methanol and
hybrid cars that use much less gas. It's a pitty people think drilling in
the ANWR will suddenly stop all foreign oil from coming into this country.
It's just plain dumb.
> Opposition to Anwar is purely political, hinged on hopes that people can
be
> convinced that Republicans want to destroy a vast reserve and the
Democrats
> are the only one standing against environmental Armageddon. Informed
people
> know this pure B.S. Including Kerry, the Democrats and most of the leftist
> posters here.
It's not BS. The ANWR is pristine. If you develop it, it won't be
pristine. That is reason enough.
John
Ricky C.
Environmentalist compromise, your trying to be funny right?
The Truth
news:aa153...@enews3.newsguy.com:
>
> "Mike Flannigan" <mflan...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:AXJw8.24793$oj5.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>> > > To this traitor, Soldiers are expendable, Caribou are not. Go
>> > > figure this Bozo.
>> >
>> > You're a one-dimensional idiot. Kerry wants to look past oil and
>> > move to hydrogen, which even the auto industry is getting excited
>> > about.
>> >
>> > Tim
>>
>> You're talking about an incredibly expensive retooling of not only the
>> energy industry, but the auto industry as well. Then we can talk about
>> the increased hazards involved in transportation. As long as the cost
>> of a barrel of oil can yield a gallon of gas under probably $5.00 -
>> $10.00 a gallon it just ain't gonna happen. So we're still hooked on
>> the middle-east aren't we?
>>
>> Kerry and the Democrats criticize development of Anwar as something
>> that won't yield any results for 7 - 10 years, while the vision of
>> hydrogen would require a mountain observatory.
>>
>
> First of all it's "ANWR" which stands for Alaskan National Wildlife
> Reserve. And there are other things besides hydrogen like methanol and
> hybrid cars that use much less gas. It's a pitty people think drilling
> in the ANWR will suddenly stop all foreign oil from coming into this
> country. It's just plain dumb.
So lets let perfect be the enemy of the good. Just because it will not
supplant all of the mideast oil is no reason not to supplant some of it.
>> Opposition to Anwar is purely political, hinged on hopes that people
>> can be convinced that Republicans want to destroy a vast reserve and
>> the Democrats are the only one standing against environmental
>> Armageddon. Informed people know this pure B.S. Including Kerry, the
>> Democrats and most of the leftist posters here.
Yeah. But once you have staked out a ridiculous position you must defend it
to the death lest you be exposed for the poser and liar that you are.
Witness the lengths the Dems went too to deny Clinton's crimes.
> It's not BS. The ANWR is pristine. If you develop it, it won't be
> pristine. That is reason enough.
Have you seen where the drilling will take place? It is on the northern
coastal plain and is dark 6 months a year. -50 degrees most of the time.
Desolate. Nothing there. Maybe 2000 acres out of 19 million and you claim
it will despoil the whole reserve? You need to read Ann Coulter's article
"9 out of 10 Caribu suport drilling".
And besides, who really cares? There is more damage being done there by
sightseers wanting to see what the fuss is about than any drilling will do.
Mike Flannigan
> Reserve.
Granted, I had it wrong, but seems you do as well. It's "Alaskan
National Wildlife REFUGE".
> And there are other things besides hydrogen like methanol and
> hybrid cars that use much less gas. It's a pitty people think drilling in
> the ANWR will suddenly stop all foreign oil from coming into this country.
> It's just plain dumb.
No one thinks that John. As usual you mischaracterize what people you
disagree with actually say and think. Which tells me you don't really
believe what YOU say. So what is your ulterior motive?
BTW. It's pity, not "pitty". Also, the belabored reader would appreciate a
comma after "hydrogen". So there.
> > Opposition to Anwar is purely political, hinged on hopes that people can
> be
> > convinced that Republicans want to destroy a vast reserve and the
> Democrats
> > are the only ones standing against environmental Armageddon. Informed
> people
> > know this pure B.S. Including Kerry, the Democrats and most of the
leftist
> > posters here.
>
> It's not BS. The ANWR is pristine. If you develop it, it won't be
> pristine. That is reason enough.
I see you've received your DNC fax.
The area proposed for drilling is on one-hundredth of 1 percent of the total
refuge and is not "pristine". Among the many natural inhabitants are roads,
military installations, an airstrip, a school, houses and stores.
Funny. The last time I had this conversation with someone in this forum they
ended their reply with the same, exact phrase, "The ANWAR is pristine."
Then I pick up the paper this morning and there's George Will with an
article
in which he muses about the area slated for drilling as being "described by
people more passionately devoted to preserving it than visiting it, as
"pristine"".
Rather like turning on the TV on Sunday morning and watching the various
Democrats parrot the exact same words and phrases on all the different
political programs.
People who have no contact with each other will reach the same conclusions
stated in different ways when the truth is their goal. Lies and propaganda
have to be choreographed.
Mike Flannigan
to
> take place sooner or later. You do realize that oil supplies are not
> infinite right?
About 200 years according to estimates I'm familiar with.
> Mountain observatory? Huh? The auto industry is looking at hydrogen cars,
> probably combustion rather than fuel cell, starting in 2007. You should
try
> reading more, in particular read about the recent Big Three + Honda
meeting
> on this subject.
Where are the buyers of these cars going to fuel up? Have you given no
thought to the massive investment the oil industry would have to make in
order to make these vehicles sellable to the public? Again, as long as the
price of a gallon of gas remains below what would seem to me a very high
threshold, it just ain't gonna happen, and Detroit (or Japan) ain't gonna
make'm.
> > Opposition to Anwar is purely political, hinged on hopes that people can
> be
> > convinced that Republicans want to destroy a vast reserve and the
> Democrats
> > are the only one standing against environmental Armageddon. Informed
> people
> > know this pure B.S. Including Kerry, the Democrats and most of the
leftist
> > posters here.
>
> The real solution, at least in the interim, is to mandate higher gas
> mileage, as in force the use of the hybrid-electric cars, and at the same
> time work on domestic exploration.
Looks like we agree. Some claim that higher gas mileage mandates would force
auto makers to build even lighter and more dangerous vehicles, but no one
really needs 200 horses to pull just themselves and a few more people.
John Slade
"The Truth" <4...@here.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91F8B7AE2...@66.75.162.198...
That 2000 actres figure is horse shit. That does not represent the
network of pipes and roads needed for the project. Ann Coulter is a nut
plain and simple. She has a very interesting debating technique. When you're
losing the debate, lie at all costs and make up information. I don't need to
read an article from someone who has publicly stated that her "job" is to
piss off liberals and Democrats. She has little credibility. She has even
less credibility than Rush Limbaugh. Maybe you should read the article about
how Rush Limbaugh said volcanoes destroy the osone layer more than people
and then got caught in a lie on Nightline. It was so funny to see him try
and defend his position while debating with someone who actually knew what
they were talking about. Look ANWR drilling just isn't worth it. The oil
won't be available for 7-10 years. So how is that going to solve any
problems now? What could solve the problem is something that is available
now like methanol and hybrid cars. Both of those exist today and are in use
today.
John
John Slade
> > First of all it's "ANWR" which stands for Alaskan National Wildlife
> > Reserve.
>
> Granted, I had it wrong, but seems you do as well. It's "Alaskan
> National Wildlife REFUGE".
>
Actually we were both wrong. It's the ARCTIC National Wildlife Refuge
or ARCTIC National Wildlife Reserve. But the main point is that Bush keeps
getting an ass kicking over trying to get ANWR drilling passed. He's done
everything from offer support to Israel for drilling to cutting the amount
of acres to be used. Seems the Democrats and the sensible Republicans keep
handing him his ass on the issue. He didn't even get a majority let alone
the 60 votes to break a filibuster. He's going to give it up soon.
Especially when the Democrats take the house and keep the Senate this
November.
> > And there are other things besides hydrogen like methanol and
> > hybrid cars that use much less gas. It's a pitty people think drilling
in
> > the ANWR will suddenly stop all foreign oil from coming into this
country.
> > It's just plain dumb.
>
> No one thinks that John. As usual you mischaracterize what people you
> disagree with actually say and think. Which tells me you don't really
> believe what YOU say. So what is your ulterior motive?
>
Well the spin the Bush folk are putting on this is that it will make a
difference in the foreign oil coming into this country. But it is a sad fact
that some ignorant folk believe that ANWR drilling will stop all foriegn oil
coming into this country. I had a conversation with one at a local
electronics store.
There is no development in the ANWR. It is pristine. George Will is full
of low grade horse shit. There is a small town within the boundaries of ANWR
but they do not drill for oil. It is for all intents and purposes pristine
and time and time again Bush has to be reminded of that fact.
John
Tim Perdue
> > The auto industry is moving towards this. The retooling is going to have
> to
> > take place sooner or later. You do realize that oil supplies are not
> > infinite right?
>
> About 200 years according to estimates I'm familiar with.
Bwahahahahaha. Yeah, Rush Limbaugh probably is the source you're familiar
with. Sorry, 10 billion people driving cars running on fossil fuels will not
last 200 years... even assuming you could take the global warming effects.
> > Mountain observatory? Huh? The auto industry is looking at hydrogen
cars,
> > probably combustion rather than fuel cell, starting in 2007. You should
> try
> > reading more, in particular read about the recent Big Three + Honda
> meeting
> > on this subject.
>
> Where are the buyers of these cars going to fuel up? Have you given no
> thought to the massive investment the oil industry would have to make in
> order to make these vehicles sellable to the public? Again, as long as the
> price of a gallon of gas remains below what would seem to me a very high
> threshold, it just ain't gonna happen, and Detroit (or Japan) ain't gonna
> make'm.
Try reading a little bit besides what Exxon sends you in the mail. Even if
you don't believe in global warming (and you'd have to be a shill to ignore
what's going on there), fossil fuels are not sustainable as china, india,
and other develop.
Tim
Tim Perdue
> Rather like turning on the TV on Sunday morning and watching the various
> Democrats parrot the exact same words and phrases on all the different
> political programs.
Well I have to hope your smart enough to see the Repubs doing the same
thing... Kind of like the Repub lies about increasing fuel efficiency would
mean giving up the SUVs and more highway deaths.
The lies on both sides are repugnant. It's too bad we can't get a
congress/president that wants to do what's right for the long-term health of
the country and the economy.
Simply drilling for oil in alaska is not going to solve all the problems,
but you won't hear the Repubs admit that.
Tim
Mike Flannigan
> won't be available for 7-10 years. So how is that going to solve any
> problems now?
I see. Don't plan for the future because the future isn't here yet. Don't do
anything unless you can see immediate results. The only thing stupider than
this pathetic Democrat sponsored argument designed to sway their idiot
constituents is people who actually repeat it.
Mike Flannigan
"John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:aa37o...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Mike Flannigan" <mflan...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:OU3x8.1000$Y03.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> > > First of all it's "ANWR" which stands for Alaskan National Wildlife
> > > Reserve.
> >
> > Granted, I had it wrong, but seems you do as well. It's "Alaskan
> > National Wildlife REFUGE".
> >
>
> Actually we were both wrong. It's the ARCTIC National Wildlife Refuge
> or ARCTIC National Wildlife Reserve.
Damn. I knew that. I just wanted to see if you knew.
> But the main point is that Bush keeps
> getting an ass kicking over trying to get ANWR drilling passed. He's done
> everything from offer support to Israel for drilling to cutting the
amount
> of acres to be used. Seems the Democrats and the sensible Republicans keep
> handing him his ass on the issue. He didn't even get a majority let alone
> the 60 votes to break a filibuster. He's going to give it up soon.
> Especially when the Democrats take the house and keep the Senate this
> November.
John. Be honest for just a moment. Do you REALLY believe most of the
Democrats oppose ANWR drilling out of some sort of ethical conviction? I can
promise you they don't. They oppose drilling for purely POLITICAL reasons.
Your first clue should be when they start making ridiculous augments to
oppose it. Like, it will take years before it will start producing. Well no
shit. Because something we will need in the future will take time doesn't
mean you never start. It only means we should have started years ago.
The reason this didn't pass is because the Democrats have done enough
polling and focus groups to know that most people are not very informed on
this issue and have the idea that drilling in ANWR would be akin to strip
mining Yellowstone. I guarantee you not one in a thousand people understand
that the area proposed is an extremely tiny fraction of the reserve and the
potential yield would almost equal what we import from Saudi Arabia for 25
years. I myself have never heard these facts explained even once on TV where
most people get their information, not even the simple fact that the
proposed area is a tiny fraction of the total reserve. I have however, seen
many times footage of herds of caribou thundering across the open plain
while it is explained that this is where they want to drill. Not even the
fact that drilling can now be done with minimal impact to the environment is
so much as mentioned.
The Democrats simply seized upon what they saw as a political opportunity to
be perceived as saving the earth while painting Bush as a plunderer. And
they knowing did so at the expense of the nation. If most people knew a few
simple facts about this issue they would support drilling overwhelmingly,
and the Democrats would have voted for it without so much as peep.
And Bush offered support to Isreal for drilling in ANWR? What?
> > > And there are other things besides hydrogen like methanol and
> > > hybrid cars that use much less gas. It's a pitty people think drilling
> in
> > > the ANWR will suddenly stop all foreign oil from coming into this
> country.
> > > It's just plain dumb.
> >
> > No one thinks that John. As usual you mischaracterize what people you
> > disagree with actually say and think. Which tells me you don't really
> > believe what YOU say. So what is your ulterior motive?
> >
>
> Well the spin the Bush folk are putting on this is that it will make
a
> difference in the foreign oil coming into this country. But it is a sad
fact
> that some ignorant folk believe that ANWR drilling will stop all foriegn
oil
> coming into this country. I had a conversation with one at a local
> electronics store.
Then the fact that this failed means stupid Democrats out number stupid
Republicans doesn't it.
> There is no development in the ANWR. It is pristine. George Will is full
> of low grade horse shit. There is a small town within the boundaries of
ANWR
> but they do not drill for oil.
George Will didn't say they drill for oil there. He said that in the area
where drilling would have occurred is less than "pristine" because there are
roads, military installations, an airstrip, a school, houses and stores. Do
you know what "pristine" means John?
And George Will is only one of many people to have pointed this out. I'm not
sure there would be enough "low-grade" to go around.
> It is for all intents and purposes pristine
> and time and time again Bush has to be reminded of that fact.
Jeezzz. You mindlessly parrot a focus group term for Gephart and Dashel to
go out and use to misinform people and you don't even seem to know it. I
just can't figure out if your a witless victim of calculated leftist
propaganda or if you run around spreading silly nonsense as a knowing lackey
of the Democrat party.
Mike Flannigan
have
> > > to take place sooner or later. You do realize that oil supplies are
not
> > > infinite right?
> > About 200 years according to estimates I'm familiar with.
> Bwahahahahaha. Yeah, Rush Limbaugh probably is the source you're familiar
> with. Sorry, 10 billion people driving cars running on fossil fuels will
not
> last 200 years... even assuming you could take the global warming effects.
So you think current oil reserves will last how long? And for what reason?
> > Where are the buyers of these cars going to fuel up? Have you given no
> > thought to the massive investment the oil industry would have to make in
> > order to make these vehicles sellable to the public? Again, as long as
the
> > price of a gallon of gas remains below what would seem to me a very high
> > threshold, it just ain't gonna happen, and Detroit (or Japan) ain't
gonna
> > make'm.
>
> Try reading a little bit besides what Exxon sends you in the mail. Even
if
> you don't believe in global warming (and you'd have to be a shill to
ignore
> what's going on there), fossil fuels are not sustainable as china, india,
> and other develop.
I know, you've already said that. Would you like to respond to what I said
now, or have I exceeded your intellectual capacity?
Ricky C.
> I just can't figure out if your a witless victim of calculated leftist
> propaganda or if you run around spreading silly nonsense as a knowing lackey
> of the Democrat party.
I think it's both! ;-)
--
Ricky C.
"Tweak it!" ;-)
Mike Flannigan
> > Democrats parrot the exact same words and phrases on all the different
> > political programs.
>
> Well I have to hope your smart enough to see the Repubs doing the same
> thing.
The Republicans are nowhere nearly as bad. Equivocating may make you feel
open-minded, but the idea that both parties are equally guilty simply isn't
true.
> Kind of like the Repub lies about increasing fuel efficiency would
> mean giving up the SUVs and more highway deaths.
If the government simply mandates higher fuel efficiency I can guarantee you
that vehicles will become lighter and less safe. Manufacturers that opt to
reduce engine sizes and horse power will lose market share to the
ones that keep their cars and trucks fast and powerful. So auto makers are
going to make them lighter. That's not a lie. It's just the reality of it.
Now, if your going to mandate HOW manufacturers increase fuel efficiency,
then you'll effectively have Washington bureaucrats micromanaging the design
and construction of automobiles.
> The lies on both sides are repugnant. It's too bad we can't get a
> congress/president that wants to do what's right for the long-term health
of
> the country and the economy.
>
> Simply drilling for oil in alaska is not going to solve all the problems,
> but you won't hear the Repubs admit that.
Who is peddling ANWR as an all encompassing panacea? Where do you get this
from? ANWR is just a first small step in a balanced, long range plan, but we
can't even take the first baby step for pure partisan politics. It's very
disturbing.
Typically, the Democrats have done a very good job of selling their snake
oil, while the Republicans have failed to even advertise.
Mike Flannigan
> > propaganda or if you run around spreading silly nonsense as a knowing
lackey
> > of the Democrat party.
>
> I think it's both! ;-)
You think so? Is it possible? Can one be witless and knowing at the same
time?
Ricky C.
Stranger things have happened. Well maybe not knowing but definitely a lackey
of the Democrat party. ;-)
Ricky C.
Stranger things have happened. Well maybe not knowing but definitely a witless
victim of calculated leftist propaganda and a lackey of the Democrat party. ;-)
John Slade
>
> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:aa37o...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >
> > "Mike Flannigan" <mflan...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:OU3x8.1000$Y03.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> > > > First of all it's "ANWR" which stands for Alaskan National Wildlife
> > > > Reserve.
> > >
> > > Granted, I had it wrong, but seems you do as well. It's "Alaskan
> > > National Wildlife REFUGE".
> > >
> >
> > Actually we were both wrong. It's the ARCTIC National Wildlife
Refuge
> > or ARCTIC National Wildlife Reserve.
>
> Damn. I knew that. I just wanted to see if you knew.
>
Sure you did. You thought ANWR was the word "anwar" and not an acronym.
That would have probably given you trouble if you tried to find "Anwar" on a
map.
> > But the main point is that Bush keeps
> > getting an ass kicking over trying to get ANWR drilling passed. He's
done
> > everything from offer support to Israel for drilling to cutting the
> amount
> > of acres to be used. Seems the Democrats and the sensible Republicans
keep
> > handing him his ass on the issue. He didn't even get a majority let
alone
> > the 60 votes to break a filibuster. He's going to give it up soon.
> > Especially when the Democrats take the house and keep the Senate this
> > November.
>
> John. Be honest for just a moment. Do you REALLY believe most of the
> Democrats oppose ANWR drilling out of some sort of ethical conviction?
I believe that most Democrats want to protect the environment and
crisscrossing pristine areas of Alaska with pipes won't do that.
> I can
> promise you they don't. They oppose drilling for purely POLITICAL reasons.
> Your first clue should be when they start making ridiculous augments to
> oppose it. Like, it will take years before it will start producing. Well
no
> shit. Because something we will need in the future will take time doesn't
> mean you never start. It only means we should have started years ago.
>
That argument here is that people think ANWR drilling will actually
reduce foriegn oil from Arab countries. It may but the amount is so tiny it
isn't worth distroying prisint areas in the wilderness where there is no
development. Seems 56% of the American people want the refuge to remain
closed to oil drilling. 40% thing we should drill. With numbers like that,
Bush is asking for it every time he tries to put it in legislation.
> The reason this didn't pass is because the Democrats have done enough
> polling and focus groups to know that most people are not very informed on
> this issue and have the idea that drilling in ANWR would be akin to strip
> mining Yellowstone. I guarantee you not one in a thousand people
understand
> that the area proposed is an extremely tiny fraction of the reserve and
the
> potential yield would almost equal what we import from Saudi Arabia for 25
> years. I myself have never heard these facts explained even once on TV
where
> most people get their information, not even the simple fact that the
> proposed area is a tiny fraction of the total reserve. I have however,
seen
> many times footage of herds of caribou thundering across the open plain
> while it is explained that this is where they want to drill. Not even the
> fact that drilling can now be done with minimal impact to the environment
is
> so much as mentioned.
>
I wish this were true but current drillig in Alaska has resulted in oil
spills through busted pipes and wells. It has been damaging to the
environment. Any time you drill for oil in an area, it destroys some part of
the environment. Maybe you don't know this but oil drilling invites the
worst sort of people. In the drilling, a lot of times they pump chemicals in
the ground to bring oil up to the surface. Also after they empty some oil
deposits, they pump industrial waste in it. I probably know more about this
than most folk because I grew up in the woods in an oil field. Yep, I bet
you never would have guessed that I'm an oil man. I own oil wells. I also
know that oil wells are connected by pipes. That little sliver in Alaska
would soon be covered in pipes. Also I bet that estimate of acerage used is
the estimate of where the equipment touches the ground. Also there are roads
and oil men. They have to live up there in the tundra. They would have to
build a town. That's because the tiny town that is there is not where
they're going to drill. This will have an impact on the enviornment.
> The Democrats simply seized upon what they saw as a political opportunity
to
> be perceived as saving the earth while painting Bush as a plunderer. And
> they knowing did so at the expense of the nation. If most people knew a
few
> simple facts about this issue they would support drilling overwhelmingly,
> and the Democrats would have voted for it without so much as peep.
>
Bush painted himself as a plunderer. Notice how they tried to open up
ANWR by cutting the amount of acerage? That's because once that pristine
area is opened, it won't belong before they open up more and more. They
won't just open it up for oil drilling. They'll open it up for oil drillig
they'll open it up for everything from hotels to whore houses.
> And Bush offered support to Isreal for drilling in ANWR? What?
>
Yep. They offerd a ten year extention on the pact to supply Israel with
oil in case of disruption if the Senate opened up ANWR. Yep they pulled out
all the stops.
Here's one article on it.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/04/17/senate.anwr/?related
> > > > And there are other things besides hydrogen like methanol and
> > > > hybrid cars that use much less gas. It's a pitty people think
drilling
> > in
> > > > the ANWR will suddenly stop all foreign oil from coming into this
> > country.
> > > > It's just plain dumb.
> > >
> > > No one thinks that John. As usual you mischaracterize what people you
> > > disagree with actually say and think. Which tells me you don't really
> > > believe what YOU say. So what is your ulterior motive?
> > >
> >
> > Well the spin the Bush folk are putting on this is that it will
make
> a
> > difference in the foreign oil coming into this country. But it is a sad
> fact
> > that some ignorant folk believe that ANWR drilling will stop all foriegn
> oil
> > coming into this country. I had a conversation with one at a local
> > electronics store.
>
> Then the fact that this failed means stupid Democrats out number stupid
> Republicans doesn't it.
>
Nope. It means it failed because the American people don't want it and
8 republicans voted against it.
> > There is no development in the ANWR. It is pristine. George Will is full
> > of low grade horse shit. There is a small town within the boundaries of
> ANWR
> > but they do not drill for oil.
>
> George Will didn't say they drill for oil there. He said that in the area
> where drilling would have occurred is less than "pristine" because there
are
> roads, military installations, an airstrip, a school, houses and stores.
Do
> you know what "pristine" means John?
>
Nobody lives in the area where they want to live. Just wildlife lives
there. They want to drill on the costal plain. The fact is there are
pristine areas in Alaska. The oil companies want to drill in those areas.
What don't you understand about that? Pristine means pure and that perfectly
describes the costal plain where they want to drill.
> And George Will is only one of many people to have pointed this out. I'm
not
> sure there would be enough "low-grade" to go around.
>
> > It is for all intents and purposes pristine
> > and time and time again Bush has to be reminded of that fact.
>
> Jeezzz. You mindlessly parrot a focus group term for Gephart and Dashel
to
> go out and use to misinform people and you don't even seem to know it. I
> just can't figure out if your a witless victim of calculated leftist
> propaganda or if you run around spreading silly nonsense as a knowing
lackey
> of the Democrat party.
>
Are you saying that there are no pristine areas in ANWR? I don't
mindlessly follow anyone. You seem to parrot someone who claims that
because a small town exists in ANWR, that oil companies don't want to drill
in currently pristine areas.
John
>
John Slade
> > > Rather like turning on the TV on Sunday morning and watching the
various
> > > Democrats parrot the exact same words and phrases on all the different
> > > political programs.
> >
> > Well I have to hope your smart enough to see the Repubs doing the same
> > thing.
>
> The Republicans are nowhere nearly as bad. Equivocating may make you feel
> open-minded, but the idea that both parties are equally guilty simply
isn't
> true.
>
Republicans are the worst of the lot. They would give up human lives for
oil so they can keep their friends rich.
> > Kind of like the Repub lies about increasing fuel efficiency would
> > mean giving up the SUVs and more highway deaths.
>
> If the government simply mandates higher fuel efficiency I can guarantee
you
> that vehicles will become lighter and less safe. Manufacturers that opt to
> reduce engine sizes and horse power will lose market share to the
> ones that keep their cars and trucks fast and powerful. So auto makers are
> going to make them lighter. That's not a lie. It's just the reality of it.
>
This is an assumption that a lighter car is less durable. There are
materials that are lighter than steel and stronger. Materials such as kevlar
and some graphite materials. There are also aluminum alloys that are just as
strong if not stronger than steel. If these materials are good enough for
miliary aircraft, they are good enough for cars civilians drive.
>
> Who is peddling ANWR as an all encompassing panacea?
Republicans in congress are saying it's vital to national security that
we drill in ANWR. I wonder what they're planning to do for the 7-10 years it
will take to get the oil. I guess we will just be insecure. Anyone who
believes this is terminally stupid.
> Where do you get this
> from? ANWR is just a first small step in a balanced, long range plan, but
we
> can't even take the first baby step for pure partisan politics. It's very
> disturbing.
>
It's not "pure partisan politics". There are many enviornmentalist
groups who are in this only to protect the ANWR. They don't get paid ANY
money and volunteer their time to support their cause. On the other hand the
many of the folk who want ANWR drilling are not concerned one bit about
national security or foreign oil. They are just moth peices for oil
companies who want to make money from ANWR oil.
> Typically, the Democrats have done a very good job of selling their snake
> oil, while the Republicans have failed to even advertise.
Republicans are selling the idea that ANWR is important to getting us
off foreign oil. Hell if republicans thought that, why did they support
Desert Shield and Desert Storm? Republicans for the most part about making
money regardless of who or what it hurts. That's the very reason the Bush
family is great friends with the royals in Saudi Arabia and those very same
royals raise money for suicide bombers. Oh wait let me change that to
"homicide bombers" as Bush calls them. Hell they don't even have a democracy
in Saudi Arabia and Bush sent Dick Cheney to kiss Fahd's ass. "War on
terror" my ass. If they really want to hurt terrorism, cut down on oil
purchases.
John
Tim Perdue
> I know, you've already said that. Would you like to respond to what I said
> now, or have I exceeded your intellectual capacity?
Obviously it's beyond your capacity to understand fossil fuels are a finite
resource, and not sustainable over the course of 10-20 years of development
in the third world.
I don't think anyone can spell it out more simplistically for you.
Tim
Tim Perdue
>They oppose drilling for purely POLITICAL reasons.
> Your first clue should be when they start making ridiculous augments to
> oppose it. Like, it will take years before it will start producing.
Kinda like how the Repubs made up lies about how you would have to drive
tin-can 2-seaters in order to meet the 50% increase in fuel economy
standards... We already know that full-size SUVs can get 40+ mpg using
hybrid-electric vehicles using today's technology.
The real solution is in the middle.
Tim
Tim Perdue
> The Republicans are nowhere nearly as bad.
One-dimensional shill.
>
> If the government simply mandates higher fuel efficiency I can guarantee
you
> that vehicles will become lighter and less safe. Manufacturers that opt to
> reduce engine sizes and horse power will lose market share to the
> ones that keep their cars and trucks fast and powerful. So auto makers are
> going to make them lighter. That's not a lie. It's just the reality of it.
Uneducated shill.
We already know that full-sized SUVs can get around 40-mpg TODAY, let alone
13 years from now.
http://www.hybridford.com/index.asp
Tim
Thumper
wrote:
Ford is coming out with one next year.
Thumper
Mike Flannigan
> > time?
>
> Stranger things have happened. Well maybe not knowing but definitely a
witless
> victim of calculated leftist propaganda and a lackey of the Democrat
party. ;-)
Don't be so sure that they're simply stupid. A lot of them used to be
"normal people", then they went to sleep one night and woke up slithering
out of a pod.
Ricky C.
Your right, the more he post the more this becomes clear to me. ;-)
Mike Flannigan
> > Your first clue should be when they start making ridiculous augments to
> > oppose it. Like, it will take years before it will start producing.
>
> Kinda like how the Repubs made up lies about how you would have to drive
> tin-can 2-seaters in order to meet the 50% increase in fuel economy
> standards... We already know that full-size SUVs can get 40+ mpg using
> hybrid-electric vehicles using today's technology.
>
> The real solution is in the middle.
This is what I want you to do. Take a piece of paper and write this down:
"The worlds oil supply will be depleted between 2012-2022", 10-20 years, and
SUV's will still be on the road and be using "hybrid-electric" power in
order to generate 40 miles per gallon by 2004. Put this piece of paper in a
safe place and remember to look at it two years from now, and then in 20.
Maybe then you'll realize what a fool you've been, but I doubt it.
Tim Perdue
> > Kinda like how the Repubs made up lies about how you would have to drive
> > tin-can 2-seaters in order to meet the 50% increase in fuel economy
> > standards... We already know that full-size SUVs can get 40+ mpg using
> > hybrid-electric vehicles using today's technology.
> >
> > The real solution is in the middle.
>
> This is what I want you to do. Take a piece of paper and write this down:
> "The worlds oil supply will be depleted between 2012-2022", 10-20 years,
and
Who has claimed the oil will be depleted then? I don't think I've heard that
yet.
> SUV's will still be on the road and be using "hybrid-electric" power in
> order to generate 40 miles per gallon by 2004.
You probably can't comprehend this, since it is written above the 3rd-grade
level:
http://www.hybridford.com/index.asp
> Put this piece of paper in a
> safe place and remember to look at it two years from now, and then in 20.
> Maybe then you'll realize what a fool you've been, but I doubt it.
Just because you're an uninformed shill doesn't give you a right to cast
stones.
Tim
Ricky C.
How much will the Escape cost?
The retail price of the Escape HEV hasn't been announced.
We can only imagine. Can anyone say Cadillac Escalade?
Can I tow a trailer with an HEV?
Yes, the Escape HEV is rated for towing up to 1,000 pounds.
That will handle my jet ski but how the hell will I tow my boat and my RV with
this thing?
Cadillac Escalade 2WD towing capacity - 7,400 lbs. Now with that I can tow my RV
and my and my boat.
Ricky C.
How much will the Escape cost?
Mike Flannigan
drive
> > > tin-can 2-seaters in order to meet the 50% increase in fuel economy
> > > standards... We already know that full-size SUVs can get 40+ mpg using
> > > hybrid-electric vehicles using today's technology.
> > >
> > > The real solution is in the middle.
> >
> > This is what I want you to do. Take a piece of paper and write this
down:
> > "The worlds oil supply will be depleted between 2012-2022", 10-20 years,
> and
>
> Who has claimed the oil will be depleted then? I don't think I've heard
that
> yet.
Has your mind taken a leave of absence? Your words no more than two days
ago:
"Obviously it's beyond your capacity to understand fossil fuels are a finite
resource, and not sustainable over the course of 10-20 years of development
in the third world.
I don't think anyone can spell it out more simplistically for you."
>
> > SUV's will still be on the road and be using "hybrid-electric" power in
> > order to generate 40 miles per gallon by 2004.
>
> You probably can't comprehend this, since it is written above the
3rd-grade
> level:
> http://www.hybridford.com/index.asp
Checked out the web-site, very impressive. I hope I'm wrong. I still want
you to write down what I said. Despite Ford's savvy marketing, I'll still
bet I'm right.
> > Put this piece of paper in a
> > safe place and remember to look at it two years from now, and then in
20.
> > Maybe then you'll realize what a fool you've been, but I doubt it.
>
> Just because you're an uninformed shill doesn't give you a right to cast
> stones.
You like that word, "shill" don't you. How many times are you going to call
me that?
Mike Flannigan
> > If the government simply mandates higher fuel efficiency I can guarantee
> > you that vehicles will become lighter and less safe. Manufacturers that
> > opt to reduce engine sizes and horse power will lose market share to the
> > ones that keep their cars and trucks fast and powerful. So auto makers
> > are going to make them lighter. That's not a lie. It's just the reality
> > of it.
> Uneducated shill.
Ahhhhh...."Shill". Funny you should mention it. I went trolling off the left
coast just a few days ago and hauled me in fine catch. Now I know some
people like theirs breaded and fried, while others like it baked, but
myself, I like
mine raw, with a twist of lemon and dash of Tabasco.
Ricky C.
shill
One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe
bystanders into participating in a swindle.
Tim Perdue Wed 1:26 PM wrote:
"Obviously it's beyond your capacity to understand fossil fuels are a finite
resource, and not sustainable over the course of 10-20 years of development in
the third world".
Tim Perdue Thu 7:56 PM wrote:
"Who has claimed the oil will be depleted then? I don't think I've heard that
yet".
Who's the shill here Tim?
Ricky C.
Don't forget the garlic!!!
The Truth
>
> "The Truth" <4...@here.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns91F8B7AE2...@66.75.162.198...
>> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote in
>> news:aa153...@enews3.newsguy.com:
>>
>> >
>> > "Mike Flannigan" <mflan...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:AXJw8.24793$oj5.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>> >> > > To this traitor, Soldiers are expendable, Caribou are not. Go
>> >> > > figure this Bozo.
>> >> >
>> >> > You're a one-dimensional idiot. Kerry wants to look past oil and
>> >> > move to hydrogen, which even the auto industry is getting excited
>> >> > about.
>> >> >
>> >> > Tim
>> >>
>> >> You're talking about an incredibly expensive retooling of not only
>> >> the energy industry, but the auto industry as well. Then we can
>> >> talk about the increased hazards involved in transportation. As
>> >> long as the cost of a barrel of oil can yield a gallon of gas under
>> >> probably $5.00 - $10.00 a gallon it just ain't gonna happen. So
>> >> we're still hooked on the middle-east aren't we?
>> >>
>> >> Kerry and the Democrats criticize development of Anwar as something
>> >> that won't yield any results for 7 - 10 years, while the vision of
>> >> hydrogen would require a mountain observatory.
>> >>
>> >
>> > First of all it's "ANWR" which stands for Alaskan National
>> > Wildlife
>> > Reserve. And there are other things besides hydrogen like methanol
>> > and hybrid cars that use much less gas. It's a pitty people think
>> > drilling in the ANWR will suddenly stop all foreign oil from coming
>> > into this country. It's just plain dumb.
>>
>> So lets let perfect be the enemy of the good. Just because it will not
>> supplant all of the mideast oil is no reason not to supplant some of
>> it.
>>
>> >> Opposition to Anwar is purely political, hinged on hopes that
>> >> people can be convinced that Republicans want to destroy a vast
>> >> reserve and the Democrats are the only one standing against
>> >> environmental Armageddon. Informed people know this pure B.S.
>> >> Including Kerry, the Democrats and most of the leftist posters
>> >> here.
>>
>> Yeah. But once you have staked out a ridiculous position you must
>> defend it to the death lest you be exposed for the poser and liar that
>> you are. Witness the lengths the Dems went too to deny Clinton's
>> crimes.
>>
>> > It's not BS. The ANWR is pristine. If you develop it, it won't
>> > be pristine. That is reason enough.
>>
>> Have you seen where the drilling will take place? It is on the
>> northern coastal plain and is dark 6 months a year. -50 degrees most
>> of the time. Desolate. Nothing there. Maybe 2000 acres out of 19
>> million and you claim it will despoil the whole reserve? You need to
>> read Ann Coulter's article "9 out of 10 Caribu suport drilling".
>>
>
>
> That 2000 actres figure is horse shit. That does not represent the
> network of pipes and roads needed for the project.
Tankers don't use roads. And pipe lines aren't going to ruin the other
18,998,000 acres.
> Ann Coulter is a
> nut plain and simple. She has a very interesting debating technique.
> When you're losing the debate, lie at all costs and make up
> information. I don't need to read an article from someone who has
> publicly stated that her "job" is to piss off liberals and Democrats.
> She has little credibility.
Shoot the messenger tactic you are using if far too apparent. And no matter
who the messenger is does not change the facts of the message.
> She has even less credibility than Rush
> Limbaugh. Maybe you should read the article about how Rush Limbaugh
> said volcanoes destroy the osone layer more than people and then got
> caught in a lie on Nightline. It was so funny to see him try and defend
> his position while debating with someone who actually knew what they
> were talking about.
Ireelevant to the point about ANWR.
> Look ANWR drilling just isn't worth it. The oil
> won't be available for 7-10 years. So how is that going to solve any
> problems now?
ANWR has become an emotional political icon for the left. There is no basis
for not getting oil out of ANWR other than it might upset and hurt the
feelings of a small group of fanatical obstructionist environmental zelots.
> What could solve the problem is something that is
> available now like methanol and hybrid cars. Both of those exist today
> and are in use today.
And they are not economically feasable. They never will be. They require
subsidies to be "affordable". The only way they will ever become
"affordable" is if you wackos succeed in artificially driving up the cost
of oil based energy in comparison. You are well on your way, but it is a
sham, a lie.
Tim Perdue
> > > "The worlds oil supply will be depleted between 2012-2022", 10-20
years,
> > and
> >
> > Who has claimed the oil will be depleted then? I don't think I've heard
> that
> > yet.
>
> Has your mind taken a leave of absence? Your words no more than two days
> ago:
>
> "Obviously it's beyond your capacity to understand fossil fuels are a
finite
> resource, and not sustainable over the course of 10-20 years of
development
> in the third world.
>
> I don't think anyone can spell it out more simplistically for you."
That said nothing at all about it being "depleted" in 10-20 years. What it
means, for the feeble-minded who never took economics, is that the price of
oil is going to go up-up-up from here as China/India and others start to
develop and drive more cars.
And that assumes that we don't care about global warming. Basic economics,
which is beyond your comprehension, will come into play.
> You like that word, "shill" don't you. How many times are you going to
call
> me that?
Until you start thinking for yourself.
Tim
Tim Perdue
"Ricky C." <"If it works"@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3CCA2C69...@cox.net...
> Tim Perdue Wed 1:26 PM wrote:
> "Obviously it's beyond your capacity to understand fossil fuels are a
finite
> resource, and not sustainable over the course of 10-20 years of
development in
> the third world".
>
> Tim Perdue Thu 7:56 PM wrote:
> "Who has claimed the oil will be depleted then? I don't think I've heard
that
> yet".
>
> Who's the shill here Tim?
Ricky Shit-for-brains, I did NOT use the word "depleted" in my message did
I?
No, I didn't. But basic economics (beyond your mental capacity) says oil
prices are going to go higher and higher as more of the 3rd-world develops
(particularly china). And the increasing cost of oil is just one part - it
assumes that global warming is a non-issue.
Unfortunately we do not have the political leadership to confront the coming
economic issues that will result.
Tim
Ricky C.
What's the matter da little baby can't admit what he said? You said both
statements I cut and pasted them from your posts. Let go of your little dick and
go look. I guess next you'll say it depends on what the meaning of the word
"depleted" is.
Mike Flannigan
cast
> > > stones.
> >
> > You like that word, "shill" don't you. How many times are you going to
call
> > me that?
>
> shill
> One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe
> bystanders into participating in a swindle.
>
> Tim Perdue Wed 1:26 PM wrote:
> "Obviously it's beyond your capacity to understand fossil fuels are a
finite
> resource, and not sustainable over the course of 10-20 years of
development in
> the third world".
>
> Tim Perdue Thu 7:56 PM wrote:
> "Who has claimed the oil will be depleted then? I don't think I've heard
that
> yet".
>
> Who's the shill here Tim?
Nice observation. Pretty cynical shell game or the beginning stages of
Alzheimer's I'd say.
Mike Flannigan
> > "Obviously it's beyond your capacity to understand fossil fuels are a
> > finite resource, and not sustainable over the course of 10-20 years of
> > development in the third world".
> >
> > Tim Perdue Thu 7:56 PM wrote:
> > "Who has claimed the oil will be depleted then? I don't think I've heard
> > that yet".
> >
> > Who's the shill here Tim?
>
> Ricky Shit-for-brains, I did NOT use the word "depleted" in my message did
> I?
That "fossil fuels are a finite resource, and not sustainable" would imply
to anyone that you're arguing depletion. Perhaps it's your language skills
that are at fault.
Mike Flannigan
> means, for the feeble-minded who never took economics, is that the price
of
> oil is going to go up-up-up from here as China/India and others start to
> develop and drive more cars.
I've argued the very same effects of market forces (to which you've never
responded, except to call a shill). Mindlessly opposing the exploration of
domestic oil will shorten the time frame. Is that your motivation?
> And that assumes that we don't care about global warming. Basic economics,
> which is beyond your comprehension, will come into play.
>
> > You like that word, "shill" don't you. How many times are you going to
> call
> > me that?
>
> Until you start thinking for yourself.
If you'd like to persuade me to your way of thinking you'll have to express
your opinions with a little more than name calling I'm afraid.
Tim Perdue
> What's the matter da little baby can't admit what he said? You said both
> statements I cut and pasted them from your posts. Let go of your little
dick and
> go look. I guess next you'll say it depends on what the meaning of the
word
> "depleted" is.
Depleted is quite clear, and I never said it. You made it up to exaggerate.
You still don't get Economics 101?
Tim
Tim Perdue
> > oil is going to go up-up-up from here as China/India and others start to
> > develop and drive more cars.
>
> I've argued the very same effects of market forces (to which you've never
> responded, except to call a shill). Mindlessly opposing the exploration of
> domestic oil will shorten the time frame. Is that your motivation?
Actually, I have not opposed domestic exploration. Re-read my posts. Who has
alzheimers now?
I advocate a balanced approach, which is increasing fuel economy using
TODAY's technology, while also drilling.
Too bad the ultra-right-wingers like yourself cannot understand that simply
drilling is not the sole solution.
Tim
Mike Flannigan
has
> alzheimers now?
You're in favor of ANWR drilling then? You chimed in on a debate over the
pros and cons of ANWR drilling with your claims of high fuel efficiency
vehicles as though you were claming that ANWR isn't necessary. If I made
assumptions then I was wrong, but you tend to say very little in your posts
and ignore what your responding to as well.
> I advocate a balanced approach, which is increasing fuel economy using
> TODAY's technology, while also drilling.
If future gasoline prices rise the way you think they will then the market
will force that to happen anyway, no help from the government.
> Too bad the ultra-right-wingers like yourself cannot understand that
simply
> drilling is not the sole solution.
My words from a previous post to you:
"Looks like we agree. Some claim that higher gas mileage mandates would
force
auto makers to build even lighter and more dangerous vehicles, but no one
really needs 200 horses to pull just themselves and a few more people."
The point is that simply reducing the house power (my idea to which you
never responded, again, except to call me a shill) in today's vehicles would
accomplish that goal very quickly, but market forces will provide hurdles
that will have to be overcome, otherwise Detroit will simply make vehicles
lighter and more dangerous because people like powerful cars.
How much does that SUV on that Web-site you posted weigh in comparison to
current SUV's?
And try and pay attention to whom you are posting. Your making conversing
with you close to impossible.
Mike Flannigan
> oil so they can keep their friends rich.
You claim to be an "oil man". Why do oppose ANWR by parroting nothing more
than specious textbook Dashel canard? So you can make sure you keep the
price up and keep you and your oil buddies rich? Republicans want more
exploration. Democrats want less. More oil = lower price. Less oil = higher
price. So spare me your extreme leftist numb skull propaganda.
> > > Kind of like the Repub lies about increasing fuel efficiency would
> > > mean giving up the SUVs and more highway deaths.
> >
> > If the government simply mandates higher fuel efficiency I can guarantee
> you
> > that vehicles will become lighter and less safe. Manufacturers that opt
to
> > reduce engine sizes and horse power will lose market share to the
> > ones that keep their cars and trucks fast and powerful. So auto makers
are
> > going to make them lighter. That's not a lie. It's just the reality of
it.
> >
>
> This is an assumption that a lighter car is less durable. There are
> materials that are lighter than steel and stronger. Materials such as
kevlar
> and some graphite materials. There are also aluminum alloys that are just
as
> strong if not stronger than steel. If these materials are good enough for
> miliary aircraft, they are good enough for cars civilians drive.
Yeah, one can only imagine the price of an automobile built from aircraft
grade metals. But there I go again, dealing with reality.
> > Who is peddling ANWR as an all encompassing panacea?
>
> Republicans in congress are saying it's vital to national security
that
> we drill in ANWR. I wonder what they're planning to do for the 7-10 years
it
> will take to get the oil. I guess we will just be insecure. Anyone who
> believes this is terminally stupid.
>
> > Where do you get this
> > from? ANWR is just a first small step in a balanced, long range plan,
but
> we
> > can't even take the first baby step for pure partisan politics. It's
very
> > disturbing.
> >
>
> It's not "pure partisan politics". There are many enviornmentalist
> groups who are in this only to protect the ANWR.
Reasonable people see this as a trade off between minimal environmental
impact and a potential pay off in a lot of oil, but the extremist
environmentalist have the Democrat party bought and paid for on this issue,
and their minions of fear mongered, brainwashed toadies have received their
marching orders. After all, the Republicans are evil and the Democrats are
saintly. So whatever the Democrats say, well, it must be true.
> They don't get paid ANY
> money and volunteer their time to support their cause. On the other hand
the
> many of the folk who want ANWR drilling are not concerned one bit about
> national security or foreign oil. They are just moth peices for oil
> companies who want to make money from ANWR oil.
>
> > Typically, the Democrats have done a very good job of selling their
snake
> > oil, while the Republicans have failed to even advertise.
>
> Republicans are selling the idea that ANWR is important to getting us
> off foreign oil. Hell if republicans thought that, why did they support
> Desert Shield and Desert Storm?
This defies logic. We need to reduce our dependence by finding more domestic
sources of which ANWR is only one. If you think this is the only source the
Environmentalist who have the Democrat party in their pocket have opposed or
will oppose in the future you're dreaming.
> Republicans for the most part about making
> money regardless of who or what it hurts. That's the very reason the Bush
> family is great friends with the royals in Saudi Arabia and those very
same
> royals raise money for suicide bombers.
> Oh wait let me change that to
> "homicide bombers" as Bush calls them. Hell they don't even have a
democracy
> in Saudi Arabia and Bush sent Dick Cheney to kiss Fahd's ass. "War on
> terror" my ass.
Ever hear of a place called Iraq? Do you think we can topple Sadam without
Saudi co-operation? I'm just glad we have a President who's willing to take
some heat in order to facilitate some long range planning. Anyone who thinks
such a risky political move as meeting with the Saudi prince was done
because they're simply oil buddies as got to be stupid.
> If they really want to hurt terrorism, cut down on oil
> purchases.
We can't Einstein. You and your Democrat masters won't let us for no other
reason than Republicans are evil and Democrats are virtuous. So much for the
ability to reason things out for yourself.
Mike Flannigan
Yes, but only after they've been caught, otherwise, you'll only scare them
away.
Tim Perdue
> You're in favor of ANWR drilling then?
I'm in favor of energy independence. Actually, if I were US Dictator, we'd
have a 100% nuclear/hydrogen economy, which is doable today and sustainable
for something like millions of years if we recycle the waste and use thorium
and/or breeder reactors.
But in a society controlled by big oil interests and hysterical
environmentalists who hate nuclear, the best we can hope for is an unlimited
pipeline of oil and maybe force through some fuel economy mandates someday.
> If future gasoline prices rise the way you think they will then the market
> will force that to happen anyway, no help from the government.
Yes, the invisible hand of the market will work it out in the end. But I
fear our economy will be wrecked in the meantime, we will continue to run a
dangerous trade deficit while handing money to hostile powers, etc etc. We
will continue to meddle in places that don't want our meddling, overthrow
elected presidents as Bush just tried to do in Venezuala....
> The point is that simply reducing the house power (my idea to which you
> never responded, again, except to call me a shill) in today's vehicles
would
> accomplish that goal very quickly, but market forces will provide hurdles
> that will have to be overcome, otherwise Detroit will simply make vehicles
> lighter and more dangerous because people like powerful cars.
OK, you have lost Shill status.
According to Christian Science Monitor, it is the quest for horsepower that
is going to cause Detroit to adopt the hybrid-electrics. The HEVs have lots
of torque at low RPMs, so they can be marketed as more powerful, and just
coincidentally get better gas mileage.
> How much does that SUV on that Web-site you posted weigh in comparison to
> current SUV's?
As far as I know, it is a regular Ford Escape with a different drivetrain
stuck in it.
Tim
Tim Perdue
> Shoot the messenger tactic you are using if far too apparent. And no
matter
> who the messenger is does not change the facts of the message.
You have no facts, just your endless diatribes.
Tim