OT: Anyone have comment on the 60-Minute story about "oil sands" in Canada
jabadoodle
"sand" is infused with oil. There are 175 billion barrels of proven oil
there. Which is second only to Saudi Arabia's 260 billion.
This evidentially can and will mean plenty of oil for many years. And
oil that is not dependent on the Middle East.
My first though was, why have I never heard of this before. I consider
myself at least moderatly informed. Read the papers, watch the news, etc.
With all the focus on energy, oil, gas prices, etc for years...where has
this
info been? Or did I just miss this story somehow?
Of course, that doesn't help in the long, long run. And it is difficult
to get, so it won't lower prices back to $1.50/gallon. And burning oil
still emits green-house gases (if you belive in that sort of thing;)
Story at:
http://tinyurl.com/9dls4
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/20/60minutes/main1225184.shtml
atl_...@yahoo.com
jabadoodle wrote:
> Evidentially in Alberta Canada there are huge "sand" fields where the
> "sand" is infused with oil. There are 175 billion barrels of proven oil
> there. Which is second only to Saudi Arabia's 260 billion.
>
> This evidentially can and will mean plenty of oil for many years. And
> oil that is not dependent on the Middle East.
>
> My first though was, why have I never heard of this before. I consider
> myself at least moderatly informed. Read the papers, watch the news, etc.
> With all the focus on energy, oil, gas prices, etc for years...where has
> this
> info been? Or did I just miss this story somehow?
Like you say below, it's just not a very viable form of crude, being
difficult to extract.
>
> Of course, that doesn't help in the long, long run. And it is difficult
> to get, so it won't lower prices back to $1.50/gallon. And burning oil
> still emits green-house gases (if you belive in that sort of thing;)
What's NOT to believe? It's scientific fact that burning fossil fuels
emits green house gases.
Jeff Rigby
"jabadoodle" <jabad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43d68204$0$74532$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
US comes from Canada, the oil fields in the US and South America. We get
less than 10% of our oil out of the middle east.. This is why comments
about Bush starting the war in Iraq over oil sound so stupid.
Oil prices are influenced by world oil prices and Canada will sell and ship
oil to China or anyone who pays more for the oil. We generally are the best
customers as the shipping charges are less.
DSK
> Evidentially in Alberta Canada there are huge "sand" fields where the
> "sand" is infused with oil. There are 175 billion barrels of proven oil
> there. Which is second only to Saudi Arabia's 260 billion.
>
> This evidentially can and will mean plenty of oil for many years. And
> oil that is not dependent on the Middle East.
>
> My first though was, why have I never heard of this before.
Because you haven't been paying attention?
You also missed a key point of the story... "oil sands" are
expensive & difficult to extract, and do not yeild high
quality crude oil.
>
> Of course, that doesn't help in the long, long run. And it is difficult
> to get, so it won't lower prices back to $1.50/gallon.
Umm, no.
But when the price of gas at the pump gets into the
$10/gallon range (in todays' adjusted dollars) it will help
keep the situation stable for a long time. The oil sands are
one reason why I don't believe that the end of the petroleum
boom (have you heard of the Hubbert Peak?) spells the end of
civilation, as some are saying.
> .... And burning oil
> still emits green-house gases (if you belive in that sort of thing;)
>
A better question is... does greenhouse gas believe in you?
Why do some people seem to think that Earth's capacity to
absorb man's pollution is infinite?
DSK
Jeff Rigby
<atl_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138132074.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
make Canada temperate again
Don White
but you may be too late.. China has it's eyes on the resource now.
They're flush with money thanks to Wal-Mart shoppers.
Doug Kanter
news:CzvBf.120$dF5...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> Why do some people seem to think that Earth's capacity to absorb man's
> pollution is infinite?
The answer: 54%
Bryan
"jabadoodle" <jabad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43d68204$0$74532$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
For me, a more interesting question would be, if Canada actually has the
oil, why would they choose to sell it to the USA instead of somewhere else;
for example, China, Russia, etc.?
Bryan
"Doug Kanter" <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LRvBf.1693$wk5....@news02.roc.ny...
I thought it was 46%.
JimH
"Bryan" <brya...@pac.bell.net> wrote in message
news:Z0wBf.14141$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Simple............because of the almighty dollah!
Doug Kanter
54% never question why their president held energy policy meetings with
attendees whose identities are kept secret. That's your number.
Dan J.S.
"jabadoodle" <jabad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43d68204$0$74532$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
Very expensive to get it out. I think at $55 a barrel (where the market
needs to be) it becomes profitable. They are hiring people up there like
crazy right now - as a matter of fact CNN had a story that a local McDonalds
needs to pay over $18 an hour to get people to work at these fields.
jabadoodle
>>
> I can't imagine anyone that doesn't know about it. Most of our oil for
> the US comes from Canada, the oil fields in the US and South America. We
> get less than 10% of our oil out of the middle east..
Well, it looks like it
> This is why comments about Bush starting the war in Iraq over oil sound so
> stupid.
The fact that we currenly get a relatively small percentage of our
oil from the Middle East neither supports nor refutes the accusation
that Bush went into Iraq for oil.
One could currently be getting 100% of their income form a job
and 0% from robbing banks. Yet, they might rob a bank to get the money.
I'm not saying that Bush went to Iraq for oil. But saying it's a stupid
supposition
because we don't currently get our oil there doesn't make logical sence (or
is
stupid, if you prefer).
There is oil in Iraq. Did Bush in whole or in part start the war in Iraq to
get the oil and/or to control some of it's pricing and use?
Hey - thanks for responding to my thread. These are the types of thoughts
I was hoping to get. It's interesting to me to see what others are thinking.
jabadoodle
"DSK" <d...@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message news:CzvBf.120>
> Because you haven't been paying attention?
Uh, no. I guess by definition you could say that because I didn't know this
agruably large fact, I haven't been paying attention. But i do read the
paper
daily, read various news magazines, talk politics and world events with
various people, etc. So I really don't think it's not paying attention. But,
well, ok.
>
> You also missed a key point of the story... "oil sands" are expensive &
> difficult to extract, and do not yeild high quality crude oil.
>
Umm, no. I didn't miss that point. I typed "And it is difficult
to get, so it won't lower prices...". I get and got that point.
And, by the way, according to the 60-Minutes story:
Asked if the processed oil is as good as that pumped in Saudi Arabia, Mather
says, "Absolutely as good as. In fact, it even trades as a, at a premium
because it's high quality crude oil."
So, evidentially, you missed some points in the story.
>> .... And burning oil
>> still emits green-house gases (if you belive in that sort of thing;)
>>
By the way, and you seem to be at least the second person to miss my point
here, so
it's probably my fault: I wasn't saying that *I* don't believe that
green-house gasses
are emmitted and cause problems. But I know from previous discussions on
this group
that some people here do doubt this. It was a subtle tilt to/at those
people.
Well, thanks for answering. I appreciate it.
Don White
fair trying to entice young people with free airfare out, one months
rent and better pay than local stores can offer. Hundreds lined up to
check it out.
jabadoodle
>
Actually, you may be right on that count. For example, a few weeks ago I
went
to a lecture given by Fareed Zakaria. Just now I was relistening to it via
the internet.
I noticed that he mentions, though very breifly, this source of oil. So
obviously i wasn't
paying close enough attention at that moment, at least.
thunder
If you haven't already heard about it, Venezuela also has large oil sand
deposits. Again, though, extraction is an expensive project.
RichG
them forever. Only ( as was mentioned by an earlier poster ) when the oil
prices get high enough..do the sands become profitable to produce. Oil is
"fungible"... it doesn't matter where the oil comes from ....its price will
adjust to the market plus or minus shipping and refining costs.
Solar, wind, atomic... etc. power all can come on-stream when the price
gets high enough. For years, it was believed that the Arabian oil companies
would LOWER the price of oil anytime it got too high, so that the users
wouldn't put the time and money into finding alternative ways to produce
energy. That option seems to be eroding for their governments due to
population issues.
Personally, ( and I don't like big government) I'd love to see the US
Government GRADUALLY add enough taxes on oil to drive the price up slowly
over a ten year period. That would, I'd hope, force us to find better and
more replaceable sources, and to build more efficient vehicles. .. I drive a
big Ford Expedition... The extra taxes should go directly into the social
security trust fund without further access by the politicians.
RG
Calif Bill
"Don White" <whi...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:5KvBf.556$VV4....@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
So you figure you will sell your country also?
Calif Bill
"Shortwave Sportfishing" <onetw...@four.com> wrote in message
news:3f9dt11ai16cmvk7t...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:37:35 -0500, "jabadoodle"
> <jabad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Evidentially in Alberta Canada there are huge "sand" fields where the
>>"sand" is infused with oil. There are 175 billion barrels of proven oil
>>there. Which is second only to Saudi Arabia's 260 billion.
>>
>>This evidentially can and will mean plenty of oil for many years. And
>>oil that is not dependent on the Middle East.
>>
>>My first though was, why have I never heard of this before. I consider
>>myself at least moderatly informed. Read the papers, watch the news, etc.
>>With all the focus on energy, oil, gas prices, etc for years...where has
>>this
>>info been? Or did I just miss this story somehow?
>>
>>Of course, that doesn't help in the long, long run. And it is difficult
>>to get, so it won't lower prices back to $1.50/gallon. And burning oil
>>still emits green-house gases (if you belive in that sort of thing;)
>
> oil in the persian gulf combined.
>
> just cant get it out.
And that is the rest of the story. Figure out a way to economically recover
the oil, and you will be richer than Bill Gates.
JohnH
DSK
>>
>
jabadoodle wrote:
> Actually, you may be right on that count.
It was still an unduly harsh statement... I am tact-impaired
and did not mean to be insulting. I apologize for the
implication.
> ...For example, a few weeks ago I
> went
> to a lecture given by Fareed Zakaria. Just now I was relistening to it via
> the internet.
> I noticed that he mentions, though very breifly, this source of oil. So
> obviously i wasn't
> paying close enough attention at that moment, at least.
>
I do that all the time.
But what I meant to say was that unless you dig for reliable
info on any given subject, including at least some history,
then you will be sold a false picture by the "news" media
because they are both trying to sell themselves as
entertainment and shoveling an agenda at you. The best of
them try to minimize bias, the least scrupulous glorify
themselves as "fair & balanced."
For example, have you read about the Hubbert Peak? At least
taken a glance at the relative curves of world oil supply,
projected, against world demand, which is ramping up even
more steeply than predicted? The world *is* headed into a
state of permanent energy crisis... I use the word 'crisis'
because several underlying assumptions on which we
implicitly operate will change. The fundamentals will be
upset & the old ways will inevitably be vanquished. This may
not be an orderly process (in fact, it's certain not to be
for some parts of the world).
For example, the situation with regard to our massive
consumer economy... the underlying assumption is that
economies of scale & persuing the cheapest possible labor is
the way to maximize profit, based on the further assumption
that transport of goods will be cheaper over time. Sorry,
but the cost of transport is already ramping up & is pushing
inflation (further study- look up the difference between
"demand-pull" and "cost-push" inflation... you'll also be a
better investor with this knowledge, so something at least
is gained).
I am not an expert in oil production but several sources I
recall have said that oil sand is low grade & expensive to
pump. Technology changes things though ;)
For the most part this has been an interesting discussion,
thanks for starting it.
Regards
Doug King
Wayne.B
<bmcke...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>And that is the rest of the story. Figure out a way to economically recover
>the oil, and you will be richer than Bill Gates.
Economical is relative to other alternatives. You can get to
economical by improving extraction efficiency, or you can get there by
doing nothing as the cost from conventional sources rise.
We are on our way to door number two.
Calif Bill
"JohnH" <jher...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:28idt1hr2bgu5ci3e...@4ax.com...
Economically. The oil products are needed for a lot more than energy these
days. Even if we had great electric cars and nuclear to charge them up
(they are less efficent than hybrids do to charging losses and electricity
transmission line losses. You going to build a nuclear power plant just to
generate enough heat to break down the oil shale? Pollution free
production.
Calif Bill
"Wayne.B" <waynebatr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i5udt1hhjfrmth999...@4ax.com...
No economical is figuring out a cheaper way to do it. Economics' dictate
whether they are economically viable to extract at higher costs.
JohnH
wrote:
I'm not an engineer, and know next to nothing of the extraction process
from oil shale. But, nuclear energy is relatively clean. The Navy has been
using small reactors in ships for years. I'd like to see small ones
scattered all over the country. They don't require a lot of room, they
don't take a lot of manpower, and they're fairly safe.
--
John H
******Have a spectacular day!******
Doug Kanter
It can't be, Tom. Simply impossible.
Doug Kanter
We can't provide enough security for the ones we already have, and you want
more of these plants?
Doug Kanter
"Calif Bill" <bmcke...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ZeDBf.5147$rH5....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
We should focus on small things we CAN change, and these may be things whose
benefit we won't see in our lifetimes. They'll be things our children and
grandchildren do differently. For instance, play a game with young cashiers.
When you buy 6 things at the supermarket, and the cashier is about to put
them in 5 plastic bags, ask them if they know what the raw material is for
plastic. You'll find that the majority do not. Give them back most of the
bags.
I think there should be enormous surcharges on stupid packaging, to the
point where it will no longer be worth selling certain products. At the same
time, teach kids about the absurdity of certain products, in terms of waste.
Example:
http://www.kraftfoods.com/om/bn/c_Products/Lunchables.htm
Doug Kanter
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:17:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Shortwave Sportfishing" <onetw...@four.com> wrote in message
>>news:qg9dt1le135n6aunf...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:11:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"DSK" <d...@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:CzvBf.120$dF5...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>>>
>>>>> Why do some people seem to think that Earth's capacity to absorb man's
>>>>> pollution is infinite?
>>>>
>>>>The answer: 54%
>>>
>>> no dumbass - the answer is 47.
>>
>>It can't be, Tom. Simply impossible.
>
>
> its 42.
But seriously, if every voter in this country had the opportunity to speak
to Nookular Boy face to face for 10 minutes, what percentage do YOU think
would ask him "Excuse me, but WTF do you think you're doing?"
JohnH
wrote:
Yup. Little ones. Everywhere. I'd donate part of my back yard.
Security? Big fence and a Stinger.
JohnH
wrote:
>
Do away with the plastic bags entirely. Paper is better, and my brother (a
Weyerhaeuser scientist) would love it.
P. Fritz
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:34:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Shortwave Sportfishing" <onetw...@four.com> wrote in message
>>news:1cret1t361ta76gan...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:17:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Shortwave Sportfishing" <onetw...@four.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:qg9dt1le135n6aunf...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:11:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>>> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"DSK" <d...@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:CzvBf.120$dF5...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do some people seem to think that Earth's capacity to absorb
>>>>>>> man's
>>>>>>> pollution is infinite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The answer: 54%
>>>>>
>>>>> no dumbass - the answer is 47.
>>>>
>>>>It can't be, Tom. Simply impossible.
>>>
>>> heh - sorry, you are right.
>>>
>>> its 42.
>>
>>But seriously, if every voter in this country had the opportunity to speak
>>to Nookular Boy face to face for 10 minutes, what percentage do YOU think
>>would ask him "Excuse me, but WTF do you think you're doing?"
>
>
> if the average voter in this country had ten minutes with GWB, they
> would come away impressed and with a good feeling about him
> personally.
Having done so, I agree. But it was amazing to see him change once the TV
light went on........sort of like a deer in the headlights.
>
> and the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42.
>
> so there.
DSK
>>>to Nookular Boy face to face for 10 minutes, what percentage do YOU think
>>>would ask him "Excuse me, but WTF do you think you're doing?"
> "Shortwave Sportfishing" <onetw...@four.com> wrote
>>id bet not even 5 percent.
>>
What about the 49% who saw thru his phony Texas accent from
the git-go?
>>if the average voter in this country had ten minutes with GWB, they
>>would come away impressed and with a good feeling about him
>>personally.
>
P. Fritz wrote:
> Having done so, I agree.
Of course, you were among those people who tend to think
President Bush has never made a mistake and shouldn't have
to answer questions, much less actually follow the Constitution.
And this is a good example of the "Me, Too" posts that just
add SO MUCH to this discussion group.
DSK
Doug Kanter
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:34:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Shortwave Sportfishing" <onetw...@four.com> wrote in message
>>news:1cret1t361ta76gan...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:17:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Shortwave Sportfishing" <onetw...@four.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:qg9dt1le135n6aunf...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:11:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>>> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"DSK" <d...@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:CzvBf.120$dF5...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do some people seem to think that Earth's capacity to absorb
>>>>>>> man's
>>>>>>> pollution is infinite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The answer: 54%
>>>>>
>>>>> no dumbass - the answer is 47.
>>>>
>>>>It can't be, Tom. Simply impossible.
>>>
>>> heh - sorry, you are right.
>>>
>>> its 42.
>>
>>But seriously, if every voter in this country had the opportunity to speak
>>to Nookular Boy face to face for 10 minutes, what percentage do YOU think
>>would ask him "Excuse me, but WTF do you think you're doing?"
>
>
> would come away impressed and with a good feeling about him
> personally.
>
>
> so there.
I don't know, Tom. Even if you take away the invasion completely as an
issue, he's got some pretty odd things happening. You really think 95% are
oblivious to these things?
Doug Kanter
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:32:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Example:
>>http://www.kraftfoods.com/om/bn/c_Products/Lunchables.htm
>>
>
> hmmm - those are about the only thing i can eat one handed. :>)
How do you open them with one hand?
Calif Bill
But those small reactors are run by highly trained techs. And you think
some nutcase would not love a bunch of small reactors spread around the
countryside? Bigger ones, are most likely more efficient also. I
understand oil shale is broke down by cooking the crushed shale. Heats the
oil enough to flow.
Calif Bill
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:34:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Shortwave Sportfishing" <onetw...@four.com> wrote in message
>>news:1cret1t361ta76gan...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:17:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Shortwave Sportfishing" <onetw...@four.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:qg9dt1le135n6aunf...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:11:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>>> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"DSK" <d...@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:CzvBf.120$dF5...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do some people seem to think that Earth's capacity to absorb
>>>>>>> man's
>>>>>>> pollution is infinite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The answer: 54%
>>>>>
>>>>> no dumbass - the answer is 47.
>>>>
>>>>It can't be, Tom. Simply impossible.
>>>
>>> heh - sorry, you are right.
>>>
>>> its 42.
>>
>>But seriously, if every voter in this country had the opportunity to speak
>>to Nookular Boy face to face for 10 minutes, what percentage do YOU think
>>would ask him "Excuse me, but WTF do you think you're doing?"
>
>
> if the average voter in this country had ten minutes with GWB, they
> would come away impressed and with a good feeling about him
> personally.
>
> and the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42.
>
> so there.
Can not be the answer to everything. Takes 6 numbers for the lotto. And
you can not pick 42 42 42 42 42 42 and hope to win.
Calif Bill
70% of those 49% would vote Democrat no matter who was the candidate. If
the majority of the voters used their brain we would not have at least 50%
of the congress persons we have now, and we would have a decent candidate
from both major parties!
JohnH
wrote:
If the Navy can train 'em, MIT should be able to do so. Besides, since the
Navy is training them, there is a ready source.
We had (have?) nuclear tipped missile spread all around the countryside.
Sure they have to be secured, but I'd think the big ones take a lot more.
--
John H
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
P. Fritz
Why am I not surprised that some people cannot refrain from a presonal
attack.......as well as his little snip job........somethings will never
change.
>
>
JohnH
wrote:
I cannot think of a time when a political thread *didn't* turn into an
acrimonious, name-calling flame war.
P. Fritz
It is pretty apparent which "side" the majority of it is still coming from.
JohnH
wrote:
I agree with Chuck. It's better to leave the politics out completely. As to
'sides', I think it's pretty even.
DSK
>>acrimonious, name-calling flame war.
>
Well, sure. That's because such a high percentage of people,
mostly on one side, think that lies & slander are perfectly
logical ways to promote one's political agenda.
P. Fritz wrote:
> It is pretty apparent which "side" the majority of it is still coming from.
>
Looking in a mirror?
At this point, with most of pig-pilers, Krause-obsessed
cretins, and me-too-ers gone or at least temporarily quiet,
it's garingly obvious where the majority of flamers & name
callers stand. Are you so eager to race down the same road
again? I thought you might just be able to resist, but
apparently not.
DSK
P. Fritz
Unfotunately, there are a few that will take every chance to turn threads
political and negative.
> As to
> 'sides', I think it's pretty even.
That I will disagree. ......unless you wish to equate numbers with voracity
:-)
Doug Kanter
>>I don't know, Tom. Even if you take away the invasion completely as an
>>issue, he's got some pretty odd things happening. You really think 95% are
>>oblivious to these things?
>
> i base this on a friends of mine who, as it happened, had the chance
> to meet president clinton and came away with a positive impression.
>
> mind you, these were staunch conservatives who hated president
> clinton with a passion in terms of what they thought he represented.
>
OK, but you're talking about what's on the surface. Bush may be a real nice
guy, and I might even let him borrow my lawnmower. However, he's still got
some very shifty policies that have no place in a modern democracy. His
secretive energy policy meetings are a perfect example.
DSK
>>>issue, he's got some pretty odd things happening. You really think 95% are
>>>oblivious to these things?
No, but what percent do you think actually base their
political opinions on facts they observe in the real world?
> "Shortwave Sportfishing" <onetw...@four.com> wrote
>>i base this on a friends of mine who, as it happened, had the chance
>>to meet president clinton and came away with a positive impression.
>>
>>mind you, these were staunch conservatives who hated president
>>clinton with a passion in terms of what they thought he represented.
>
One of the consistent characteristics of most national
leaders is that they have charisma, an ability to make
people like them.
One who believes in evolution might describe it as a
self-selecting trait, since those that don't have it don't
rise to national leadership.
Doug Kanter wrote:
> OK, but you're talking about what's on the surface. Bush may be a real nice
> guy, and I might even let him borrow my lawnmower. However, he's still got
> some very shifty policies that have no place in a modern democracy. His
> secretive energy policy meetings are a perfect example.
>
Sure, and the cheerful admission that they've been illegally
spying on American citizens, and requested the "liberal
biased media" to keep quiet about it until after the
election... WTF?
But the one thing I have learned from political discussions
in this newsgroup is that a lot of people would be perfectly
happy to let Geroge Bush Jr give their daughters a bottle of
tequila and take her behind the barn. The man absolutely
cannot possibly ever do anything wrong in their eyes, no
never never never. So let's just let this sleeping dog lie,
OK? For the betterment of this discussion group?
DSK
Doug Kanter
>>>>I don't know, Tom. Even if you take away the invasion completely as an
>>>>issue, he's got some pretty odd things happening. You really think 95%
>>>>are
>>>>oblivious to these things?
>
> No, but what percent do you think actually base their political opinions
> on facts they observe in the real world?
I'd say that roughly seven one-hundredths of a percent of those who voted
for him actually understanding what's now unfolding before their eyes.
Calif Bill
Those missiles were in hardened silos. The AF base I was on originally had
B-52's. The nukes were in hardened bunkers with lights / motion detectors /
no guards / triple fence / mine field between fence. They figured the
guards could arrive before any body could make it in to the bunker. I had a
business years ago that backed up the Concord Naval Weapons station. The
really potent stuff was separated out with wire, guard towers, lots of
lights. Nut case escapee from an mental hospital broke in to the compound.
Running across the compound, not one guard could hit him. I do not know if
the replaced guards, or gave them more rifle range time. And how many navy
nuke engineers are there.
Calif Bill
"P. Fritz" <paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet> wrote in message
news:11tfh06...@corp.supernews.com...
From you. This was actually a pretty civil discussion until Mr. Fritz waded
in.
Calif Bill
Both sides handle the facts loosely. You were fairly civil until this post.
DSK
> Both sides handle the facts loosely.
Sure, that's the party line.
One side has "issues" with fiscal impropriety & conflict of
interest, misleading the country about reasons for launching
a war, broadcasting untruths as justification for changing
domestic policy, bypassing the Constitution, paying lip
service to international treaties & even human decency while
secretly violating same, spending millions on totally
fictional smear campaigns, etc etc.
The other side has a leader who once got a blow job.
Gee, that *does* look totally even. Thanks for pointing it out!
> .... You were fairly civil until this post.
>
Sorry, I was provoked. Generally I try to make it quite
clear when I'm being intentionally rude & insulting. After
all, why insult somebody if they're not going to notice?
But as a matter of strategy, it's been proven that
counter-battery fire doesn't work very well on usenet. So
let me say that I'm not doing this as a matter of regular
policy, OK?
DSK
Reggie Smithers
I don't think you will find many political post that ever remain civil.
As Chuck highlighted the real problem is then the political
differences and political wars start to creep into the on topic posts.
Since this is a non moderated group, people can and do discuss anything
they want, but don't fool yourself that rec.boats will ever be able to
have civil discussions on politics, guns or religion.
--
Reggie
***************************************************************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.
***************************************************************
JohnH
wrote:
So we put the reactors in hardened silos. Don't know how many navy nuke
folks are out there. But, if the Navy can train 'em, so can a university.
Doug Kanter
>
> its all a matter of orientation.
Those others refused to reveal which industry execs were at their energy
policy meetings? I must've missed that. I can understand why a president
might not reveal the fact that he met with the head of a foreign
intelligence agency, but a meeting which determines the quality of the air
we breathe? That's highly suspicious, although the results of the meetings
usually explain everything.
Calif Bill
> Calif Bill wrote:
>> Both sides handle the facts loosely.
>
> Sure, that's the party line.
>
> One side has "issues" with fiscal impropriety & conflict of interest,
> misleading the country about reasons for launching a war, broadcasting
> untruths as justification for changing domestic policy, bypassing the
> Constitution, paying lip service to international treaties & even human
> decency while secretly violating same, spending millions on totally
> fictional smear campaigns, etc etc.
>
> The other side has a leader who once got a blow job.
>
> Gee, that *does* look totally even. Thanks for pointing it out!
>
I did not know Bush got a blow job. ;(
Clinton told all of us the truth when getting us involved in the Balkans?
LBJ was totally truthful in the Gulf of Tonkin, as well as informing
everybody that is wife was a major investor in SeaLand who got the major
transport contract for SEA? Both sides are very free and loose with facts.
JFK was very truthful and forthcoming on Bay of Pigs?
Calif Bill
"Reggie Smithers" <spamremov...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gsCdnXjOQqtmWEXe...@comcast.com...
I was chiding Snipper not DSK. DSK was civil up until Skippy intervened.
Doug Kanter
What did Clinton lie about with regard to the Balkans?
Calif Bill
And how many guards are available for those hardened silos? Just build
major central nuclear plants. The power is easy to transport. About a 3%
transmission line loss. And building a 500 mile 3-500 KVA line is a lot
cheaper than building a power plant. I understand the releasing of Shale
oil is sort of like converting tires back to oil products. Chop up the
tires and start a fire under them. Some of the tire will burn generating
heat, and part will melt and enough heat breaks down the rubber to its base
oil. Just build a large furnace like an electric arc steel mill and cook
the shale. But this requires going to nuclear and since that is outlawed in
most states, we are out of luck. Odd that we the inventors of the nuclear
power plant, do not really use them, while France is 80% nuke and Japan is
in the range also. Modern nuclear power plants in France are all build from
the same plans. 100% identical. An operator from one can go to another and
know exactly what to do and where to go to the bathroom. We build at the
most 2 power plants the same when we built them. Retrain an operator to go
to a sister plant is required.
DSK
> I did not know Bush got a blow job. ;(
He didn't either, but he's sobered up since then.
> Clinton told all of us the truth when getting us involved in the Balkans?
Pretty much. He also worked hard *before* invading to try
and resolve the problem, only to be criticized by
Republicans for not intervening to save lives. Clinton then
got the UN and NATO to commit major forces to the intervention.
Odd that you'd be eager to compare Bush's record on Iraq to
Clinton's in the Balkans, unless you're an undercover
Socialist like NOYB.
> LBJ was totally truthful in the Gulf of Tonkin, as well as informing
> everybody that is wife was a major investor in SeaLand who got the major
> transport contract for SEA?
LBJ was a crooked SOB, granted. He was also a Southerner who
backed the civil rights program, while the Republicans of
the time opportunistically grabbed up the nigger-haters votes.
OTOH that's going back 40 years now, shall we total up all
the Republican "issues" since then? Or keep it to more
recent greivances?
> ....Both sides are very free and loose with facts.
Actually, I don't disagree very much with that, but I
disgree enough to present a few more facts.
Which party in the last 20 years has had a Vice President
censured by his own majority in Congress for fiscal
imporprieties & conflict of interest, in *starting a war*?
And how many VPs have publicly told other high gov't
officials to 'go f%%% themselves' when that censure was
mentioned?
The list could go on and on and on, but you will probably
continue to duck & dodge my point, which is that only in a
very highly partisan view is political distortion,
extortion, and bald-faced lying, practiced equally by both
sides.
For another thing, the Democrats have so little authority
right now that they don't need to lie about anything.
DSK
P. Fritz
As is obvious by the few that take every opportunity to turn a thread
political and stark the snarky personal attacks, like dsk above. If
anybody need to look in a mirror, it is him.
P. Fritz
I think you need to reread the thread.
My post replying to Tom.
"Having done so, I agree. But it was amazing to see him change once the TV
light went on........sort of like a deer in the headlights."
DS's post with the immediate person attack
"Of course, you were among those people who tend to think
President Bush has never made a mistake and shouldn't have
to answer questions, much less actually follow the Constitution.
And this is a good example of the "Me, Too" posts that just
add SO MUCH to this discussion group."
So much for you "civil discussion"
JohnH
wrote:
Hell, we're training guards all the time. Ft. Benning goes through
thousands of potential guards a year.
The problem with major, central plants is their size, land requirements,
obtrusiveness and attitude of the public (especially the uneducated public)
towards them. The financial commitment for one of the major sites is
astronomical.
The little ones fit on submarines. They can be built over time. They can be
built by the same folks who are building them now.
France was smart. Nuclear power plants are all over the place. I've never
been to Japan, except the airport in Tokyo, so can't say much about it.
Doug Kanter
"Fred Dehl" <fred...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns975782A1...@66.26.32.9...
> "Doug Kanter" <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:SO7Cf.811$qg....@news01.roc.ny:
>
>> What did Clinton lie about with regard to the Balkans?
>
> office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
> ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
> States."
Sorry, but that makes no sense, unless you believe Bush is guilty of the
exact same thing with regard to Iraq. Do you?
Doug Kanter
>
> Just curious, though... Can you explain what satisfaction you get out of
> concluding that your jackass is less of a jackass just because someone
> else's jackass is also a jackass? It still leaves you with a jackass.
One was an intelligent man doing what he felt was best at the time. The
current one is a bumbling idiot, guided by religion, acting as a mouthpiece
for others whose main interest involves protecting their personal
investments.
Doug Kanter
> defending the Constitution of the United States? And don't repeat the
> hyperbolic partisan blather of your previous response.
No part of the Balkan routine was related in any way to the Constitution.
However, this country has an endless mental illness when it comes to
"helping" around the world, and I don't expect pols to be immune to it. I
*do* expect them to be honest about their reasons, and not insult the
intelligence of the 46% who *have* intelligence.
Calif Bill
"Doug Kanter" <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F4bCf.1875$wk5...@news02.roc.ny...
And why could it not be Bush doing what he felt was best at the time? Even
Clinton's people said SH had WMD's. We had no national interests in going
into the Balkans! And why should be give the Muslim's a region in Serbia.
Just because they were there is the year 1480? Albania is the Columbia of
Europe. The major supplier of drugs. The Albanians ran death camps for the
Germans, and did it with a lot more gusto than the Germans did. We had
absolutely no reason to be there!
Calif Bill
Those small plants the navy uses have lots of water to cool them as they are
at sea. And cost per plant is rather large I would guess. My brother was
one of the builders of the small nuke plant at our Antarctic base. It now
has been dismantled and even the dirt around it shipped back here. The
costs for 100 megawatts of small 10 megawatt plants would probably be 40
times the cost for one large 100 megawatt plant. Plus the security costs
would be 10x. And a nuclear plant is a lot better neighbor than a oil or
coal fired plant. You can camp next to the one at San Onofre Calif.
Calif Bill
Personally I would like more of the politicians told to 'go f%%%
themselves'. The last VP was either stupid, which I will not argue, or very
naive on campaign financing via Buddhist Monks. The Dem's in Congress have
lived by lies. Ted Kennedy comes to mind rather quickly. But sides are the
shits.
Doug Kanter
> And why could it not be Bush doing what he felt was best at the time?
Why not? Because I have my own opinions. I'm am sometimes in a position to
hire people. If Bush came to me for a job, I might let him rake my leaves,
under close supervision for the first dozen times. That's all I believe he's
qualified for. I do not feel he is in any position to know what's
appropriate anyplace outside of a 3 foot circle around his shoes.
Just my opinion, mind you. Based totally on observation.
Calif Bill
"Harry Krause" <harry....@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> Wow...first real political post I've seen here in some time, and I had
> nothing to do with it!
>
> Speaking of politics, what think you of the latest news from so-called
> Palestine? The Hamas terrorists won the election.
Notice number 6 headline.
> HEADLINES 2029
> Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in
> the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia,
> formally known as California. White minorities still
> trying to have English recognized as Mexifornia's
> third language.
>
> Spotted Owl plague threatens northwestern United
> States' crops and livestock.
>
> Baby conceived naturally. Scientists stumped.
>
> Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual
> marriage.
>
> Middle East still closed off. Physicists estimate it
> will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity
> decreases to safe levels.
>
> France pleads for global help after being taken over
> by Jamaica.
>
> Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now
> be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has
> banned all smoking - everywhere.
>
> George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2032.
> Vows to find Bin Laden.
>
> Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to
> $17.84 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.
>
> 85-year, $75.8 billion study: Diet and Exercise are
> the keys to weight loss.
>
> Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs.
>
> Japanese scientists have created a camera with a
> shutter speed so fast, they now can photograph a woman
> with her mouth shut.
>
> Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.
>
> Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates
> their civil rights.
>
> New federal law requires that all hatchets, meat
> forks, fly swatters, and rolled-up newspapers must be
> registered by July 1, 2030.
>
> Congress authorizes direct deposit of formerly illegal
> political contributions to campaign accounts.
>
> Capitol Hill intern indicted for refusing to have sex
> with congressman.
>
> Congress replaces Estate Tax with Conception Tax.
> IRS faces layoffs if birth rate drops.
>
> and ......
>
> Florida voters confused by new voting machines
>
Calif Bill
> defending the Constitution of the United States?
I did not put the Constitution in the argument. As to the safety of the US,
we are much better off with Saddam out of the picture. Just in the
petro-politics of what currency is the valid currency for Petro-dollars.
Calif Bill
"Calif Bill" <bmcke...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3QbCf.6276$rH5....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
P. Fritz
I have no arguement with that.
>
>
Doug Kanter
>
I didn't, and you're missing the point. Are you saying that every single
idea and piece of legislation supported by a president has to be related to
the Constitution?
JohnH
wrote:
You don't have to convince me! I'm already a believer in nuclear power. I
might go along with triple or quadruple the cost, but not 40 times. The
nice thing is that the initial outlay isn't nearly as great. Not all 100mgw
need be produced at one time. A gradual approach would be better than *no*
approach.
The plants dotted all over France aren't all located on big lakes or
rivers. The smaller the plant, the smaller the cooling requirements, I'd
think.
JohnH
Calif Bill
>
>> As to the safety of
>> the US, we are much better off with Saddam out of the picture.
>
How many points did you amass during Somalia?
Calif Bill
The hearings and paperwork are probably pretty close for a 10 mw or a100 mw
plant. As to cooling, do not need a large lake, just the ability to replace
the water evaporated in the cooling process. And in my travels in France,
it looks like a very moist country. Probably high water table, and copious
amounts of rain. Lots of the Midwest and East coast would fulfill those
requirements. Problem with the West is the lack of water in a lot of areas.
Other than Seattle and down the coast to about Monterey, CA and maybe 100
miles inland, it is desert.