Obama plays more golf than Bush
Br...@rip.ax.lt
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8631153.stm
US President Barack Obama has played golf 32 times since he took
office, more than his predecessor George W Bush did during his
entire presidency.
He most recently played on Sunday, when the volcanic ash cloud over
Europe forced him to cancel plans to attend the funeral of Poland's
president.
The golfing figures were compiled by Mark Knoller of CBS Radio, the
unofficial White House statistician.
Mr Bush, who played 24 times, was mocked for his fondness of the
game.
In an interview following the bombing of the UN headquarters in
Baghdad, the former president was filmed on a golf course calling
on "all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist
killers", then pausing before saying: "Thank you. Now watch this
drive."
Sid9
<Br...@rip.ax.lt> wrote in message
news:fc6c636bdc7491f9...@rip.ax.lt...
.
bush,jr was a lazy 9 to 5 Prez.
buzz
At least he put in time being President. All Urkel Obama can do is spend
millions of tax payers dollars flying all over the country to give
campaign speeches, or in front of a TV camera. I doubt this fool even
knows where the Oval Office is.
"forget the truck...everybody can buy a truck."...Urkel Obama
Not in your economy Mr. Urkel Obama
"Navy corpse-man"...Urkel Obama (three times)
http://www.calcitynews.com/article/09/NOVEMBER/09-MyName-Is.html
http://rlv.zcache.com/anti_obama_dont_drink_the_cool_aid_tshirt-p235592236153625507q6yv_400.jpg
Liberal slogan: "Cool-Aid Cool-Aid, tastes great, Cool-Aid Cool-Aid,
can't wait".
Barack Hussein Obama...mmm mmm mmm
Send HIM to Pakistan to fight Osama...mmm mmm mmm
Simple-minded lying dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
liberals...morons electing morons.
Sex offender? Rapist? Child molester? Pedophile? Deal in child porn? Any
or all of these and not in jail? Thank a lib, especially a lib judge.
Joe Cool
> BBChttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8631153.stm
Obama plays more golf than Bush did.
SO FUCKING WHAT???
cop welfare
>
> - Show quoted text -
yeh, but bush was/is scared of horses.
and besides, he rode bicycles all the time.
that's as bad as golf, isn't it?
worse, since he gets a few moments peace.
and didn't he ride condi, too?
if anybody can prove that he rode condi i'll stop saying bad things
about him.
thedockson
video or your just a typical rightwinger furthering lies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3p9y_OEAdc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSRxNPqqUH4
Obummah in '12@whitehouse.org Throw The Bummah Out in '12
"Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hql32n$ouk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>===========
Obama's so lazy , he has to read teleprompters 9 to 5 .
William Clark
buzz <bu...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Oh, good Lord, another racist wingnut moron. Some of these guys are
starting to make Bertie and Moderate look of almost normal intelligence.
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
>BBC
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8631153.stm
>
>US President Barack Obama has played golf 32 times since he took
>office, more than his predecessor George W Bush did during his
>entire presidency.
>
Bush is so fucking stupid no one would play golf with him.
He spent his weekends lying around on the White House sofa, jerking
off with Jeff Gannon and eating pretzels -- at least that's what he
claimed.
William Clark
Nathan Bedford Forrest <N...@aol.com> wrote:
> Proud of yourself ? Gee, you get to tell a few niggers that you
> bravely called someone racist. Be sure and wash your mouth when
> you pull it from their black asses.
>
> Behind your back, they are laughing at you;
> "BWAHAHAHA Another dumb ass honkey trying to suck up."
Another dumbass racist trying to be a big boy. Go on back to
alt.sesamestreet.org where you belong.
Sid9
"Nathan Bedford Forrest" <N...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:m5kss5tcvh0rm6h1k...@4ax.com...
> bravely called someone racist. Be sure and wash your mouth when
> you pull it from their black asses.
>
> Behind your back, they are laughing at you;
> "BWAHAHAHA Another dumb ass honkey trying to suck up."
>
>
>
.
Hey asshole, get your stench off my computer.
Hor...@net.net
this crap:
>> on "all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist
>> killers", then pausing before saying: "Thank you. Now watch this
>> drive."
>>
>.
>.
>bush,jr was a lazy 9 to 5 Prez.
>
You want to talk about lazy. Clinton did nothing before noon. and
even then he was always an hour late for meetings.
Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmare.
Hor...@Horvath.net
My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."
Hor...@net.net
<Evict Obummah in '1...@Whitehouse.org> wrote this crap:
>
>> .
>> bush,jr was a lazy 9 to 5 Prez.
>>
>>===========
>
>Obama's so lazy , he has to read teleprompters 9 to 5 .
Obama can't read a newspaper unless it's on a teleprompter.
Fred K. Gringioni
<Hor...@net.net> wrote in message
news:p5pss55jq85eqrund...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:33:20 -0400, "Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote
> this crap:
>
>>> on "all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist
>>> killers", then pausing before saying: "Thank you. Now watch this
>>> drive."
>>>
>>.
>>.
>>bush,jr was a lazy 9 to 5 Prez.
>>
>
> You want to talk about lazy. Clinton did nothing before noon. and
> even then he was always an hour late for meetings.
Clinton had many, many failings, but I'll bet he never did anything as low
as taking a mulligan and calling the result "making par".
aeiouy
It wasn't his playing golf that pissed everybody off. It was his playing
golf and taking vacations while running the country into the fucking ground.
If everything he did turned out great nobody would give a shit how many
rounds he played. But everything EVERYTHING he touched turned to shit.
Actually a pretty amazing record in a fucked up sort of way.
BAR
William Clark
Nathan Bedford Forrest <N...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:19:15 -0400, William Clark
> Doesn't change the fact that you are a kiss ass and a suck up.
> How does that black ass taste ?
Jolly good, all those big words like "black" and "suck". I'll be Mommy
helped you with those, didn't she?
*PLONK*
Rightardia
set to beat Ronald Reagan's vacation record. During bush's 8 year
presidency he spent nearly a year at Camp David and another year at his
Crawford ranch.
Apparently he was taking care of business with his base, "the have mores."
Obama will never beat that Bush record. I wonder why conservative
posters didn't mention this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/18/bush-spent-487-days-at-ca_n_158902.html
--
Rightardia: The progressive alternative to conservative fascism.
MNMikeW
"William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-25F013....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
You do realize if you don't crosspost they wont be in here right? Must be
your street stupid acting up again.
Carbon
> On 04/21/2010 04:41 AM, aeiouy wrote:
>> <Br...@rip.ax.lt> wrote in message
>
>> playing golf and taking vacations while running the country into the
>> fucking ground. If everything he did turned out great nobody would
>> give a shit how many rounds he played. But everything EVERYTHING he
>> touched turned to shit. Actually a pretty amazing record in a fucked
>> up sort of way.
>
> Of course, Bush set a record for vacation days while president and was
> set to beat Ronald Reagan's vacation record. During bush's 8 year
> presidency he spent nearly a year at Camp David and another year at
> his Crawford ranch.
>
> Apparently he was taking care of business with his base, "the have
> mores."
>
> Obama will never beat that Bush record. I wonder why conservative
> posters didn't mention this?
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/18/bush-spent-487-days-at-
ca_n_158902.html
Inconvenient truths are never mentioned. Actually given Wubya's abysmal
record I'm surprised they were able to dig up even that much.
William Clark
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
Who do you suppose began the cross-post? Once they are in, they are in.
Duh.
Moderate
You are such a Usenet rookie :-)
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
And you are such a sweet little echo. By the way, how about that $500
wager that I can't produce 50 publications of mine? You seem to be
quietly trying to pretend it never was.
Moderate
"William Clark" <wcl...@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wclark2-248642...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
I posted my response to your request for a wager. Did you forget? Now you
want to start all over again?
Another Usenet rookie move.
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
> "William Clark" <wcl...@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:wclark2-248642...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <hqnp5p$f99$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> > "Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:clark-C04142....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >> > In article <838l43...@mid.individual.net>,
> >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> You do realize if you don't crosspost they wont be in here right? Must
> >> >> be
> >> >> your street stupid acting up again.
> >> >
> >> > Who do you suppose began the cross-post? Once they are in, they are in.
> >> > Duh.
> >>
> >> You are such a Usenet rookie :-)
> >
> > And you are such a sweet little echo. By the way, how about that $500
> > wager that I can't produce 50 publications of mine? You seem to be
> > quietly trying to pretend it never was.
>
> I posted my response to your request for a wager. Did you forget? Now you
> want to start all over again?
Yes, but your initial response was as weasely as this one. You talk a
big story, but you won't back it up.
R&B
I believe they were called "Billigans."
Randy
R&B
This is especially ironic coming from members of the right. You'd
think the smaller-government types would WANT their president playing
golf, or playing checkers, or painting, or making model airplanes, or
doing something, ANYTHING BESIDES "Presidenting," as such diversions
would, at least theoretically, keep him from pushing for more
government action.
I thought the right preferred government INaction. You know, that
whole Reagan mantra about government being the problem (which it always
is whenever they're in power).
But alas, it seems this president has been able to push through a
stimulus package, health care reform and is now about to pass major,
sweeping financial reform -- all while he's been playing more golf than
his predecessor. Imagine that -- a mullti-tasker in the White House.
Contrast this to George W. Bush, who couldn't walk and chew gum at the
same time, and I can see how it could be a huge culture shock for some.
Randy
R&B
Choking on pretzels.
Or was he choking on Jeff Gannon?
Randy
R&B
I liked Ike. Ike played more golf than any five presidents combined.
And he presided over eight of the best years America has enjoyed, with
massive expansion OF THE MIDDLE CLASS (unlike the recent booms, where
most of the expansion has been at the top, at the expense of the middle
class).
Some day, you'd think the Repubs would realize that it wasn't Reagan,
but Eisenhower, they should have been trying to emulate.
If they did, they'd be unbeatable.
Heck, I might even vote for them.
But instead, all their policies are tilted toward helping big
corporations and squashing the little guy.
And for years, they've been able to sell it to the little guy and
persuade him to vote against his own self interest.
But those days are gone.
I liked Ike. I hated Dubya.
Funny, but Ike wouldn't even be allowed in the Republican party today.
Neither would Barry Goldwater. They'd both be deemed "too liberal."
That's how extremist the Repubs have become.
Randy
John B.
>
> - Show quoted text -
I remember when there were liberals in the Republican Party -- Sen.
Harry Byrd of Va., Sen. Mac Mathias of Maryland, Sen. Lowell Weicker
of Conn. who was more liberal than a lot of Dem. senators. These guys
were welcome and respected by their Republican colleagues. No one
tried to punish them for voting "wrong," No one called them RINOs. But
that was back when there was civility and mutual respect in Congress.
Those days are over.
John B.
>
> - Show quoted text -
The so-called comedian Dennis Miller was on Fox News yesterday(?) and
said he wanted Obama to do the White House Easter Egg Roll, pardon the
Thanksgiving Turkey, fund the military and do nothing else. You'd
think people like him would be happy that Obama plays golf.
Moderate
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ee930af-7be1-4700...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
***********************************************
We are happy that he plays golf. The pundits are simply pointing out the
irony that according to Democrats, Bush golf = bad. Obama golf = good. The
old double standard is pretty obvious.
Moderate
**********************************************
I remember when John Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for
you; but what you can do for your country."
There has certainly been change.
annika1980
> And he presided over eight of the best years America has enjoyed, with
> massive expansion OF THE MIDDLE CLASS (unlike the recent booms, where
> most of the expansion has been at the top, at the expense of the middle
> class).
>
> Some day, you'd think the Repubs would realize that it wasn't Reagan,
> but Eisenhower, they should have been trying to emulate.
>
> If they did, they'd be unbeatable.
>
> Heck, I might even vote for them.
>
> But instead, all their policies are tilted toward helping big
> corporations and squashing the little guy.
>
> And for years, they've been able to sell it to the little guy and
> persuade him to vote against his own self interest.
>
> But those days are gone.
>
> I liked Ike. I hated Dubya.
>
> Funny, but Ike wouldn't even be allowed in the Republican party today.
> Neither would Barry Goldwater. They'd both be deemed "too liberal."
>
> That's how extremist the Repubs have become.
>
> Randy
In 1953 the top individual income tax rate was 92%.
Now it's 35%. Lots more millionaires and poor people today, but no
middle class.
Howard Brazee
<none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote:
>Contrast this to George W. Bush, who couldn't walk and chew gum at the
>same time, and I can see how it could be a huge culture shock for some.
Those aren't criteria that matter to a president. I also see IQ as
being over-rated. Political philosophy and the ability to get one's
philosophy into law is what matters.
When the president's philosophy matches mine, obviously he's good.
When his philosophy is counter to mine, obviously he's bad.
I don't like corporate welfare, I don't like foreign wars, I like
treating all citizens the same, and I don't like code words that
ignore meaning (your government programs are socialism, my programs
aren't). Code words do allow me to evaluate the talker quickly
though, for instance when someone refers to the "socialist Kenyan", I
can go elsewhere for rational thought.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>We are happy that he plays golf. The pundits are simply pointing out the
>irony that according to Democrats, Bush golf = bad. Obama golf = good. The
>old double standard is pretty obvious.
Valid point. Same thing for Bush corporate welfare vs Obama
corporate welfare, or Bush foreign wars not making us safer vs Obama
foreign wars not making us safer, or Bush record deficit vs Obama
record deficit.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>I remember when John Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for
>you; but what you can do for your country."
>
>There has certainly been change.
I suspect mostly the change is that we can better see what politicians
are actually doing.
BAR
how...@brazee.net says...
>
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:31:35 -0500, "Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >We are happy that he plays golf. The pundits are simply pointing out the
> >irony that according to Democrats, Bush golf = bad. Obama golf = good. The
> >old double standard is pretty obvious.
>
> Valid point. Same thing for Bush corporate welfare vs Obama
> corporate welfare, or Bush foreign wars not making us safer vs Obama
> foreign wars not making us safer, or Bush record deficit vs Obama
> record deficit.
What is corporate welfare?
John B.
> In article <sej1t5dtc74lohmo7o1birljf5vgciu...@4ax.com>,
Exploration subsidies to oil cos. whose profits are in the billions.
Carbon
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:20:13 -0400, "R&B"
> <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote:
>
>> Contrast this to George W. Bush, who couldn't walk and chew gum at
>> the same time, and I can see how it could be a huge culture shock for
>> some.
>
> Those aren't criteria that matter to a president. I also see IQ as
> being over-rated. Political philosophy and the ability to get one's
> philosophy into law is what matters.
Possibly intelligence isn't the most important thing, but it certainly
is very important. You have to be able to understand the issues in order
to deal with them effectively. History has shown us what happens when
the differently abled somehow get elected to high office.
Carbon
> I liked Ike. Ike played more golf than any five presidents combined.
> And he presided over eight of the best years America has enjoyed, with
> massive expansion OF THE MIDDLE CLASS (unlike the recent booms, where
> most of the expansion has been at the top, at the expense of the
> middle class).
>
> Some day, you'd think the Repubs would realize that it wasn't Reagan,
> but Eisenhower, they should have been trying to emulate.
>
> If they did, they'd be unbeatable.
>
> Heck, I might even vote for them.
>
> But instead, all their policies are tilted toward helping big
> corporations and squashing the little guy.
>
> And for years, they've been able to sell it to the little guy and
> persuade him to vote against his own self interest.
>
> But those days are gone.
>
> I liked Ike. I hated Dubya.
>
> Funny, but Ike wouldn't even be allowed in the Republican party today.
> Neither would Barry Goldwater. They'd both be deemed "too liberal."
>
> That's how extremist the Repubs have become.
I can't remember the name of the law in broadcasting which required the
media to grant equal time to opposing points of view. Once that got
killed the airwaves were filled with screeching pinheads doing the
bidding of their masters. Public discourse has become very, very
polarized.
I can't help but think that it's soon going to bite the Republicans in
the ass. It could be that the core group of true believers isn't large
enough to win national elections.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> Those aren't criteria that matter to a president. I also see IQ as
>> being over-rated. Political philosophy and the ability to get one's
>> philosophy into law is what matters.
>
>Possibly intelligence isn't the most important thing, but it certainly
>is very important. You have to be able to understand the issues in order
>to deal with them effectively. History has shown us what happens when
>the differently abled somehow get elected to high office.
The "smartest guys in the room" may be more competent at implementing
bad policies - and they *know* they're right.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>I can't help but think that it's soon going to bite the Republicans in
>the ass. It could be that the core group of true believers isn't large
>enough to win national elections.
I don't see them getting a majority, but if the Republicans split,
they may get a plurality.
Carbon
> On 23 Apr 2010 00:52:52 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Those aren't criteria that matter to a president. I also see IQ
>>> as being over-rated. Political philosophy and the ability to get
>>> one's philosophy into law is what matters.
>>
>> Possibly intelligence isn't the most important thing, but it
>> certainly is very important. You have to be able to understand the
>> issues in order to deal with them effectively. History has shown us
>> what happens when the differently abled somehow get elected to high
>> office.
>
> The "smartest guys in the room" may be more competent at implementing
> bad policies - and they *know* they're right.
Dick Cheney on line one. So, what's really required is intelligence plus
a desire to do the right thing.
I do not naively imagine the right thing to equate to whatever I happen
to think is important. For example, the recent healthcare legislation. I
was unhappy that it didn't include a single payor clause. In my opinion,
that's the only thing that will break the deathgrip big healthcare has
on the American people. But say I was Obama and shot for the moon. There
is a good chance that I would have lost, as others have in the past.
Obama at least got something out of them.
So was his compromise better than what I would have done? Very likely it
was.
BAR
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
Isn't it amazing that people will listen to those "screeching pinheads"
and advertisers want to advertise on the stations that have "screeching
pinheads"? Air America tried to do the "screeching pinhead" thing but
nobody wanted to hear what they had to say, no advertisers wanted to
spend money to reach a couple of hundred people if that many listened to
Air America.
What you've seen with the "screeching pinheads" on radio is a true free
market. The people get what they want, the advertisers get to put their
products in front of the most people for fewest dollars per set of eye-
balls.
It hasn't bit the republicans in the ass yet. They are 50/50.
BAR
@k11g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
Have you taken to riding a bicycle to punish the oil companies? Have you
sat down and thought about how important the oil companies are to your
daily life? The oil companies don't just put gas in your car.
John B.
>
> - Show quoted text -
It was called the Fairness Doctrine. If it were revived, I don't think
it would require broadcasters to give equal time to liberal
alternatives to Beck and Limbaugh. One problem with it was that
broadcast stations that interviewed political candidates had to give
equal time to their opponents, including fringe party candidates. So,
once people announced for public office, no one would interview them.
John B.
> In article <4b6a2d21-32da-46ff-9c67-caf6239777c3
> @k11g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, Bert, I thank God for Exxon/Mobil every day. But I don't think
they need federal aid to pay for exploration.
Carbon
> In article <4bd0f4d3$0$4883$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
>> media to grant equal time to opposing points of view. Once that got
>> killed the airwaves were filled with screeching pinheads doing the
>> bidding of their masters. Public discourse has become very, very
>> polarized.
>>
>> I can't help but think that it's soon going to bite the Republicans in
>> the ass. It could be that the core group of true believers isn't large
>> enough to win national elections.
>
> Isn't it amazing that people will listen to those "screeching pinheads"
> and advertisers want to advertise on the stations that have "screeching
> pinheads"? Air America tried to do the "screeching pinhead" thing but
> nobody wanted to hear what they had to say, no advertisers wanted to
> spend money to reach a couple of hundred people if that many listened to
> Air America.
>
> What you've seen with the "screeching pinheads" on radio is a true free
> market. The people get what they want, the advertisers get to put their
> products in front of the most people for fewest dollars per set of eye-
> balls.
>
> It hasn't bit the republicans in the ass yet. They are 50/50.
*whoosh*
My claim was that public discourse is polarized. How about you look up
the word polarize in the dictionary? Go ahead, we'll wait...
BAR
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
How about you read a history book or two and come to the realization
that public discourse has always been polarized. And, it will always be
polarized and there is nothing you can do about it due to the fact that
humans have something called a brain and those brains are not all wired
exactly the same.
Grow up Carbs and stop looking for your workers utopia.
BAR
0522cf...@h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
But, you do believe that they need to be regulated and not allowed to
drill for oil on land that they own or that they can lease.
Hor...@net.net
<kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>>
>> You want to talk about lazy. Clinton did nothing before noon. and
>> even then he was always an hour late for meetings.
>
>Clinton had many, many failings, but I'll bet he never did anything as low
>as taking a mulligan and calling the result "making par".
He did have a different definition of, "is." I'm sure he had a
different definition of, "par."
(Probably four holes in one day.)
Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmare.
Hor...@Horvath.net
My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."
R&B
And with every purchase of gas and oil you make, you are funding Middle
East extremism.
We have to live with the oil companies for now.
But wouldn't you agree that America (and, for that matter, the planet)
would be better off if we developed clean energy technologies that
would power our transportation and everything else?
Then, once oil is rendered a moot point, let the towel-heads in the
Middle East figure out how to sell...sand.
Randy
R&B
Bar,
For the record, in most every market, the #1 most-listened-to radio
station has about a 10 share. In major markets, it's usually about
half that.
In other words, about 90-95 percent of the listening audience is
listening to something else besides the #1 most listened-to station.
That's why, for the last twenty years or so (and even more recently),
advertisers only assign a small portion of their advertising budget to
radio. Their "media mix" skews heavily toward TV (partially because
it's more expensive to begin with), some on print, some outdoor, some
radio (arguably the best value for the dollar), and in recent years,
some "new media" (like the internet).
But that doesn't change the fact that the #1 station in most markets
has less than 10 percent of the radios that are on in their market
tuned to their station. That's just a fact, and it's been that way for
decades...in most market (not all, but certainly in the vast majority).
Randy
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
If they do it with the regard for safety and the environment that we
have just witnessed in the Gulf of Mexico, then - hell, yes!
MNMikeW
"R&B" <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote in message
news:2010042316284257996-noneofyourbusiness@allcom...
.
>>
>> Have you taken to riding a bicycle to punish the oil companies? Have you
>> sat down and thought about how important the oil companies are to your
>> daily life? The oil companies don't just put gas in your car.
>
>
> And with every purchase of gas and oil you make, you are funding Middle
> East extremism.
That's why we need to drill our own. It's there, we just have to get it.
>
> We have to live with the oil companies for now.
>
> But wouldn't you agree that America (and, for that matter, the planet)
> would be better off if we developed clean energy technologies that would
> power our transportation and everything else?
That would be great! But it's not realistic right now. We will get there
someday, but we need to do something in the meantime.
>
> Then, once oil is rendered a moot point, let the towel-heads in the Middle
> East figure out how to sell...sand.
>
> Randy
>
I don't think we'll ever be entirely free of oil. But we could be free of
Middle East oil. "Towel-Heads"? Really Randy?
BAR
none_of_yo...@all.com says...
>
> On 2010-04-23 07:53:43 -0400, BAR said:
>
> > In article <4b6a2d21-32da-46ff-9c67-caf6239777c3
> > @k11g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Apr 22, 6:54 pm, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <sej1t5dtc74lohmo7o1birljf5vgciu...@4ax.com>,
> >>> how...@brazee.net says...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:31:35 -0500, "Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> We are happy that he plays golf. The pundits are simply pointing out the
> >>>>> irony that according to Democrats, Bush golf = bad. Obama golf = good. The
> >>>>> old double standard is pretty obvious.
> >>>
> >>>> Valid point. Same thing for Bush corporate welfare vs Obama
> >>>> corporate welfare, or Bush foreign wars not making us safer vs Obama
> >>>> foreign wars not making us safer, or Bush record deficit vs Obama
> >>>> record deficit.
> >>>
> >>> What is corporate welfare?
> >>
> >> Exploration subsidies to oil cos. whose profits are in the billions.
> >
> > Have you taken to riding a bicycle to punish the oil companies? Have you
> > sat down and thought about how important the oil companies are to your
> > daily life? The oil companies don't just put gas in your car.
>
>
> And with every purchase of gas and oil you make, you are funding Middle
> East extremism.
That is why I want to drill in ANWR, the West Coast, the Gulf Coast, The
East Coast and off of Florida where the Cubans and the Chinese are
drilling for oil. We can keep all of the money within the US of A.
> We have to live with the oil companies for now.
We have to live with oil companies because we refuse to build nuke
plants, we refuse to build more coal plants.
> But wouldn't you agree that America (and, for that matter, the planet)
> would be better off if we developed clean energy technologies that
> would power our transportation and everything else?
No, I wouldn't agree. There are no viable alternative energy sources to
oil, natural gas, hydro-electric and nuclear.
We have viable clean energy right now and it is called hydro-electric
and nuclear. These two methods of energy creation have the advantage of
being variable, meaning you can turn them on and off and you can
increase them and decrease them to meet the current demand.
You cannot make the wind blow to power your wind turbine if the wind
isn't blowing. And, the wind turbines are having some problems
destroying themselves. A wind turbine that isn't turning is just a piece
of field art. Geo-thermal takes too much land to be viable for most of
the people in the country. You can build a geo-thermal field in a city
that is paved over with streets and buildings.
> Then, once oil is rendered a moot point, let the towel-heads in the
> Middle East figure out how to sell...sand.
Nice racist comment Randy. Shows your true colors.
The solution is to drill for our own oil rather than paying others for
their oil.
BAR
none_of_yo...@all.com says...
Since the advent of Carbon's screeching pinheads the Republicans have
won 3 presidential races and the Democrats have won 3 presidential
races. Hence the Republicans are 50/50 with the screeching pinheads on
the radio.
R&B
The Fairness Doctrine was a victim of the Reagan Administration FCC,
and it gave rise to political talk radio becoming the force that it is
today. This is a fact, and no one in broadcasting would deny it. It
is common knowledge.
In the years since the Reagan FCC began the process of deregulation
(which continued right through the Clinton years, which lifted the
restrictions on the number of stations any group could own),
conservatives have often asserted that the reason why conservative talk
radio has taken a greater hold than liberal talk radio is due to the
nation being decidedly more conservative than liberal, a theory that
would seem plausible during the Bush 41 and 43 years (although not so
much during the Clinton and Obama years).
As you might expect, I have a somewhat different take.
I believe conservative talk radio is more successful than liberal talk
radio because liberals tend not to listen to talk radio. The vast
majority of them listen to MUSIC radio, and many more listeners to
music radio just don't care about politics at all.
Fact: In very few markets is the talkradio station #1 in listenership.
I can name maybe one or two markets where this is true. I'd be hard
pressed to name any others.
Jerry Del Colliano, long time publisher of a daily industry rag called
Inside Radio (he now publishes a daily e-rag called Inside Music Media)
is now spending some of his time teaching at a university, so he's
around Generation Next a lot (as I was a couple years ago when I was
teaching part-time at a broadcasting school). He believes, and based
on what I saw from my former students and what I know of my own son, I
agree with his assessment, that this younger generation coming up is
just less confrontational than their parents, and don't relate to talk
radio at all. It predicts a gloomy future for talk radio as its
current listeners grow older and die off. (Talk radio's ratings would
support this thesis, as it skews decidedly 45+, and really, 55+. There
just aren't very many younger people listening to political talk
radio.) That's not to say there's not a younger audience for talk
radio. There is. But it's mostly SPORTS talk. Political talk? Not
so much. That's for the older crowd. The younger people can't figure
out why the older folks can't figure out ways to work things out
amongst themselves, and surveys have shown they are not only merely
disinterested in talk radio, but they have strong negative feelings
toward it. If you own stock in companies that do a lot of talk radio,
you've got about five more years before you'd be wise to start selling,
IMHO.
I've long believed that the vast majority of liberals would just rather
spend their hours with a radio listening to MUSIC.
As for the Fairness Doctrine, I do believe it has jettisoned the public
dialogue about politics into a decidedly polarized place. And it's no
accident that conservative talk radio has grown as the restrictions on
ownership was lifted, allowing companies (like Clear Channel and
others) to gobble up hundreds of properties. I've spent 40 years in
the business, and for all the talk about the so-called "liberal" media,
I've never once run into a liberal who was in corporate management at
any broadcasting company. It's just the worker bees who tend, in
certain pockets, to be liberal. The pinstripes running the company are
certainly not. It is ironic in a way that Ronald Reagan, who was
elected in two sweeping landslide elections, may be best remembered for
a legacy of polarizing America for generations because of his actions
to deregulate broadcasting and rescind the Fairness Doctrine. But make
no mistake -- his actions have had that net effect. There's no
ignoring the fact that the division between the left and right in
America has never been greater than it's been since Reagan was in
office and these new rules paved the way for talk radio to become what
it is today.
But I don't see the Fairness Doctrine being repealed. I would favor
its repeal, even though a great deal of my income comes from working
with talkradio stations. But it is important for people to remember
that the public airwaves belong to us all, not just to the right or the
left. The Communications Act of 1933, which largely defined the
mission of broadcasters, said that broadcasters were to be a public
trustee (of the airwaves) and to operate in the public's best interest.
Not in the interest of any particular political party. If you wanna
know the truth, the only real reason radio and television stations
exist (as far as the government is concerned, anyway...and they're the
ones issuing licenses to operate stations) is to be there to provide
emergency information in case of a weather emergency or, heaven forbid,
a collossal attack by a foreign power -- you know, like the nukes are
coming. Funny, but whenever those weather bulletins are aired, they
never say this information is only for conservatives or liberals.
They're for THE PUBLIC. The PUBLIC airwaves are for everyone, not just
members of one political persuasion. That's why I would favor repeal
of the Fairness Doctrine. But it won't happen.
The bigger, hotter issue these days among broadcasters is an issue few
of you have probably ever heard of, but it's one of the hottest topics
these days in radio circles. It is the question of whether radio's
exemption from the performance tax should be repealed.
On the surface, the big record companies want to push for this
performance tax to be levied on music-playing radio stations,
ostensibly to allow the record companies to have the governemnt collect
fees from broadcasters, which can then, in turn, trickle down to the
record companies so they can pay the artists who perform on the records
for their records' use by these radio stations. Up to this point,
radio stations have been exempt from paying such a performance tax
because, it was theorized, the very playing of these songs on air
provides exposure of the recordings to the public, which drives record
sales. WIthout radio airplay, these record companies wouldn't sell
shit. Which is true.
Record companies are, by their nature, evil. No one believes the
artists will ever see a dime of this trickle down money. If the record
companies really cared about artists, they'd have taken care of them
all along. But they never have. That's why if you're a recording
artist, there's not much money these days in making records. The money
is in concert tours (and nowadsys, since Clear Channel has virtually
turned that industry into a monopoly, everybody, including the artists,
is getting screwed there, too). Plus, record companies are just way
behind the curve. The Napster case of a few years ago brought to light
how the record industry is still operating under 1960s-70s business
plans without much in the way of adaptation to the new digital age.
Record companies go after consumers, sueing file-sharing downloaders of
their music, when what they should really be doing thanking them for
exposing their product while the record companies rejigger their
business models. But no.
Radio stations already pay music publishers ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for
the right to play music. (That money goes to composers -- the people
who WRITE the songs, not to the artists themselves...unless the artist
happened to write the song, too.) I recall from my 25 years
programming radio stations, these BMI/ASCAP/SESAC licensing fees were
the second biggest line item in our operating budget, right behind
salaries. It's a percentage of the radio station's gross revenue.
Now with this other "performance tax" looming (which some members of
the left in Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, support), you can bet
that if broadcasters' exemption is lifted, it will surely drive many
smaller music radio stations out of business, or force them to go to
some other form of programming. Like TALK. Many believe it will do
the same thing to quite a few larger market music stations. Bottom
line, you're likely to see a number of music stations go all-talk in
the coming years if the exemption is lifted.
If that were to happen...and most industry observers consider it a near
certainty -- it's very feasible that you could start seeing more and
more progressive talk formats pop up, if only because the conservatalk
arena is so full already. Music stations will flip and go talk, and
they won't all want to compete for the conservative listener. Heck you
might hear more specialized talk. Maybe All Golf, All the Time.
(Although I doubt that.)
And then we can all sing the Don McLean refrain from the song American
Pie, "the day the music died."
Randy
John B.
> In article <4bd1e237$0$4859$9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,> > > In article <4bd0f4d3$0$4883$9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
The public discourse in the US today is more polarized than it has
been since the 60s.
John B.
> In article <9d594137-e159-43c2-84d6-
> 0522cf5d5...@h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course they need to be regulated. And of course they should be
allowed to drill.
John B.
> In article <2010042316284257996-noneofyourbusiness@allcom>,
> none_of_your_busin...@all.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2010-04-23 07:53:43 -0400, BAR said:
>
> > > In article <4b6a2d21-32da-46ff-9c67-caf6239777c3
>
> - Show quoted text -
Almost everything you say here is factually innacurate.
Neither the Chinese nor the Koreans have oil operations in the
Atlantic.
We don't refuse to build nuke plants. There are something like 22 nuke
plants pending in the NRC right now.
We don't refuse to build coal plants. There is no market for them.
There are viable alternative energy sources to oil, natural gas, hydro-
electric and nuclear. They are wind, solar and biofuels. Denmark gets
about 75% of its power from renewables.
The solution is not to drill for our own oil, because we don't have
enough oil to make a difference.
R&B
That's correct.
I've long argued that talk radio is mostly talking to the already
converted. Preaching to the choir, as it were.
See my article at the end of this thread, where I renamed it MORE
MUSIC, LESS TALK.
Randy
BAR
@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
Oh ok.
> Neither the Chinese nor the Koreans have oil operations in the
> Atlantic.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/02/03/cuba-plans-new-
offshore-drilling-in-search-for-big-oil-finds-in-the-gulf-of-mexico.html
>
> We don't refuse to build nuke plants. There are something like 22 nuke
> plants pending in the NRC right now.
Pending what? Pending for how long?
>
> We don't refuse to build coal plants. There is no market for them.
>
> There are viable alternative energy sources to oil, natural gas, hydro-
What are the viable alternatives? Keep in mind that my wife is an
electro-chemist specializing in energy systems and I will ask her about
your alternatives.
What do you want to talk about? Hydrogen fuel cells? What does it cost
to get the Hydrogen into the fuel cells? Right now it isn't a viable
solution. Solar? You couldn't power a car you would buy with just solar.
Do you want to talk about hybrid and electric technology? What is the
cost of creating the battery packs that are used in the hybrids and the
electric cars?
By cost I am not looking for just the dollar amount, there is a cost to
the environment to mine, process and manufacture the batteries. And,
what happens when the batteries wear out? What do you do with them?
Recycling batteries is a nasty and dirty process. When you plug your
electric care in to recharge it where does that electricity come from,
oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydro-electric? If you think electric
cars are the solution you are stupid, you a just moving the problem form
the vehicle to the power producer.
So, please do tell me the viable alternatives?
R&B
I think the others are correct in saying that the public discourse,
while more coarse in nature overall, is no more polarized today than
it's ever been.
What's changed is our willingness to discuss politics in the open. I
grew up hearing again and again that there are two things you don't
talk about in polite company -- religion and politics. The inference
being that you're not going to change anyone's mind.
The internet has given people access to their own 15 minutes of fame,
and in the process, many have siezed it, and even tried to extend it
beyond 15 minutes by becoming bloviators.
- Guilty as charged. -
But the more troubling change is in Washington, where the coarseness of
dialogue has reached a fever pitch. It wasn't so long ago -- as recent
as the Reagan years -- that there was an air of civility, even when
foes had diametrically opposing views. Think Reagan and Tip O'Neill.
That changed when Bush 41 took office. Then the right never even gave
Clinton a honeymoon in the White House like every other president
enjoyed. Of course Bush 43 took office under such extenuating
circumstances following the Florida recount, it's hard to calibrate his
early months. Given the contentious nature of how that election was
finally settled, he should have taken a conciliatory, unifying tone
(especially after running as "a uniter, not a divider," but he did the
exact opposite. Then 9/11 happened and America united anyway...for a
while, until many started seeing the lies.
Now Obama takes office and no sooner is he in there that the Repubs are
fighting him every step of the way. Again, no honeymoon. They chose
instead to ignore the will of the people that was clearly expressed at
the polls. (People forget, but Obama won by a larger majority than
Reagan did when he beat Carter. Look it up.)
While the contentiousness of political dialogue among citizens like us
doesn't especially bother me, the fact that they can't sit down and
hammer things out together in Washington DOES. It used to be that the
party in the minority had the good sense to know that the majority of
Americans made them the minority, and they needed to go along to get
along. This Republican minority hasn't yet learned that lesson. And
they're making asses of themselves in the process.
Randy
Howard Brazee
>We have to live with oil companies because we refuse to build nuke
>plants, we refuse to build more coal plants.
Just curious, who's "we"? The government, the voters, the NIMBY
community, the power companies, the regulators, those who believe oil
is cheaper (no matter who's getting the profits)?
Which of the above can or will change?
BAR
how...@brazee.net says...
>
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:49:26 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >We have to live with oil companies because we refuse to build nuke
> >plants, we refuse to build more coal plants.
>
> Just curious, who's "we"? The government, the voters, the NIMBY
> community, the power companies, the regulators, those who believe oil
> is cheaper (no matter who's getting the profits)?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
> Which of the above can or will change?
All can change, the questions is will they change. The we most likely
not to change is the we that is being bought off by the we comprising
the government.
John B.
> In article <mq84t51rtotot7j0vsqodm87mcq8a72...@4ax.com>,
What?
Fred K. Gringioni
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:83eeoh...@mid.individual.net...
>>
> I don't think we'll ever be entirely free of oil. But we could be free of
> Middle East oil. "Towel-Heads"? Really Randy?
Someday the world will be free of it. It's a finite resource. There won't be
a choice. The process for creating it happens over geologic time (millions
of years). We're using it nearly infinitely faster than it gets created.
We likely won't live to see it (the world running out of oil), but someday
it'll happen.
Fred K. Gringioni
"BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.263be70e8...@news.giganews.com...
>
> So, please do tell me the viable alternatives?
If we want to consume from domestic sources, it's all about wind and natural
gas.
Wind needs to have the transmission lines from the Great Plains states to
the coast subsidized by the government in order to be viable. It'd be smart
though. It's better than sending those $$$ into the world oil market. In the
world oil market, half the vendors are not our friends. We need to starve
them of $$$, not give them more.
BAR
kgrin...@hotmail.com says...
Can you generate power from wind turbines on demand?
What about exploiting our own oil reserves? Why not suck our own oil out
of our own ground?
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
And dump it in the Gulf of Mexico as we are doing right now.
John B.
> In article <hr23iu$v...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> kgringi...@hotmail.com says...
Because we don't have enough to make a difference. It's as simple as
that.
Carbon
> In article <hr23iu$vl$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> kgrin...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> natural gas.
>>
>> Wind needs to have the transmission lines from the Great Plains
>> states to the coast subsidized by the government in order to be
>> viable. It'd be smart though. It's better than sending those $$$ into
>> the world oil market. In the world oil market, half the vendors are
>> not our friends. We need to starve them of $$$, not give them more.
>
> Can you generate power from wind turbines on demand?
>
> What about exploiting our own oil reserves? Why not suck our own oil
> out of our own ground?
That will happen, but there will never be enough to meet demand.
Hor...@net.net
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>> What about exploiting our own oil reserves? Why not suck our own oil out
>> of our own ground?
>
>Because we don't have enough to make a difference. It's as simple as
>that.
Phooey! We have more oil than Saudi Arabia. That's a fact, jack.
Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Drill baby drill.
John B.
>
> >> What about exploiting our own oil reserves? Why not suck our own oil out
> >> of our own ground?
>
> >Because we don't have enough to make a difference. It's as simple as
> >that.
>
> Phooey! We have more oil than Saudi Arabia. That's a fact, jack.
>
> Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Drill baby drill.
>
>
> My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
> ultimate power in the universe."
Really? Where the hell is it, then?
William Clark
<ec5b7987-a03f-430c...@29g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
Floating in the Gulf of Mexico right now ? :-)
Hor...@net.net
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>>
>> Phooey! We have more oil than Saudi Arabia. That's a fact, jack.
>>
>
>Really? Where the hell is it, then?
Right under your butt.
Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmare.
Hor...@Horvath.net
John B.
>
>
>
> >> Phooey! We have more oil than Saudi Arabia. That's a fact, jack.
>
> >Really? Where the hell is it, then?
>
> Right under your butt.
>
> Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmare.
>
>
> My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
> ultimate power in the universe."
Gee, what a charmer you are. The US has about 21 billion barrels of
oil reserves. Saudi Arabia has 267 billion.
Alan Baker
<e3cf726e-07f9-4c84...@k36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ummmm...
One thing to note: OPEC assigns production quotas in part based on
stated size of one's reserves. Therefore, it is in every OPEC country's
interest to exaggerate.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
John B.
> In article
> <e3cf726e-07f9-4c84-a58c-a2b0ad9c9...@k36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's irrelevant. Horvath claimed that the US had more crude that
Saudi Arabia. Even accounting for any exaggeration by the Saudis,
there is no way that's true.
Alan Baker
<500ea102-335a-4375...@z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree that it's highly unlikely. :-)
But then it depends whether or not you include oil shale, doesn't it?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#Oil_shale>
John B.
Oil shale is not oil and is not included in any measure of U.S. oil
reserves.
Jack Hollis
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Oil shale is not oil and is not included in any measure of U.S. oil
>reserves.
The Dutch have developed a technique to extract liquid oil from shale
deposits, so there's no doubt that it's oil.
And if it ever becomes economically feasible to extract oil from
shale, then it would be classified as reserve and the US would jump to
the top of the chart.
It's just a matter of time.
Alan Baker
<bb6a61d1-b537-43df...@k36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
Substitute "oil shale" for "tar sands" and I'm sure there were many who
would have said the same thing 30 years ago.
William Clark
Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
Meanwhile, we continue to dump the real stuff into the Gulf of Mexico.
Brilliant.
John B.
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:46:26 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>
> >Oil shale is not oil and is not included in any measure of U.S. oil
> >reserves.
>
> The Dutch have developed a technique to extract liquid oil from shale
> deposits, so there's no doubt that it's oil.
>
> And if it ever becomes economically feasible to extract oil from
> shale, then it would be classified as reserve and the US would jump to
> the top of the chart.
>
> It's just a matter of time.
To extract oil from shale, you need copious quantities of two things
-- electricity and water. Most of the shale in the U.S. is in parts of
CO, WY and UT where there is little water and no electricity. In order
to process that shale, you'd have to build electric power plants and
divert river water that already belongs to states and municipalities.
It would be extremely expensive and administratively difficult and
that's why the oil industry isn't interested in doing it.
annika1980
state.edu> wrote:
> In article <s03ft515kqqqpv7r57oi60bl2n6a7v2...@4ax.com>,
DRILL, BABY, DRILL !!!
R&B
> "R&B" <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote in message
> news:2010042316284257996-noneofyourbusiness@allcom...
> .
>>>
>>> Have you taken to riding a bicycle to punish the oil companies? Have you
>>> sat down and thought about how important the oil companies are to your
>>> daily life? The oil companies don't just put gas in your car.
>>
>>
>> And with every purchase of gas and oil you make, you are funding Middle
>> East extremism.
>
> That's why we need to drill our own. It's there, we just have to get it.
Even during the '08 campaign, Obama agreed that drilling off our shores
is a good idea. But unlike the Palin "drill, baby, drill" crowd, Obama
acknowledges that it's not the solution, but just one piece of the
short-term puzzle.
I agree.
We should exploit all avenues to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
But experts on both sides agree that there's not enough oil off
American shores to consider this a viable long-term solution. It may
ease things a little. But very little.
That said, we're all in agreement that "every little bit helps."
Let's just not try to paint this option into something more than it is.
It's a piece of the puzzle. That's it.
> We have to live with the oil companies for now.
>>
>> But wouldn't you agree that America (and, for that matter, the planet)
>> would be better off if we developed clean energy technologies that
>> would power our transportation and everything else?
>
> That would be great! But it's not realistic right now. We will get
> there someday, but we need to do something in the meantime.
So when should we start working on development? Twenty years from now?
Fifty? A hundred?
The sooner we start working on development, the sooner we can free
ourselves from oil, and in the process, render the Middle East
economically irrelevant.
> Then, once oil is rendered a moot point, let the towel-heads in the
> Middle East figure out how to sell...sand.
>>
>> Randy
>>
> I don't think we'll ever be entirely free of oil. But we could be free
> of Middle East oil. "Towel-Heads"? Really Randy?
Free from oil should be the goal. Completely free from oil. We may
never get all the way there. But shouldn't that be the goal?
Randy
Jack Hollis
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 27, 9:22=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:46:26 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>>
>> <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Oil shale is not oil and is not included in any measure of U.S. oil
>> >reserves.
>>
>> The Dutch have developed a technique to extract liquid oil from shale
>> deposits, so there's no doubt that it's oil. =A0
>>
>> And if it ever becomes economically feasible to extract oil from
>> shale, then it would be classified as reserve and the US would jump to
>> the top of the chart.
>>
>> It's just a matter of time.
>
>To extract oil from shale, you need copious quantities of two things
>-- electricity and water. Most of the shale in the U.S. is in parts of
>CO, WY and UT where there is little water and no electricity. In order
>to process that shale, you'd have to build electric power plants and
>divert river water that already belongs to states and municipalities.
>It would be extremely expensive and administratively difficult and
>that's why the oil industry isn't interested in doing it.
If there's no interest then it's hard to explain why Shell has a major
project going on in Colorado. See: Mahogany Research Project
Also:
"The Bureau of Land Management recently received ten applications (by
eight companies) for a pilot program to develop Colorado’s shale
reserves. The program allows the companies access to public lands for
the purpose of testing shale-extraction technologies. You see below an
interesting mix of large, publicly traded oil giants and small,
privately held innovators.
* Natural Soda, Inc. of Rifle, Colorado.
* EGL Resources Inc. of Midland, Texas.
* Salt Lake City-based Kennecott Exploration Company.
* Independent Energy Partners of Denver, Colorado
* Denver-based Phoenix Wyoming, Inc.
* Chevron Shale Oil Company.
* Exxon Mobil Corporation.
* Shell Frontier Oil and Gas Inc."
http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/
As I said, it's a matter of time. As the price of oil continues to go
up and the technology to extract oil from shale gets better,
eventually it will become profitable. Then the 1.3 to 1.6 trillion
barrels of oil will be counted as reserve.
The idea that the world is anywhere near running out of oil is pure
fantasy.
Jack Hollis
<none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote:
>The sooner we start working on development, the sooner we can free
>ourselves from oil, and in the process, render the Middle East
>economically irrelevant.
You have to remember that the US is the world's number 3 oil producer,
so anything the US does to hurt the oil industry hurts US interests as
well. The US could be producing a lot more oil than it does, but
ultimately, the US buys very little of its oil from the Middle East.
MNMikeW
It's already started but it just might take 100 years.
John B.
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:38:44 -0400, "R&B"
>
> >The sooner we start working on development, the sooner we can free
> >ourselves from oil, and in the process, render the Middle East
> >economically irrelevant.
>
> You have to remember that the US is the world's number 3 oil producer,
> so anything the US does to hurt the oil industry hurts US interests as
> well. The US could be producing a lot more oil than it does, but
> ultimately, the US buys very little of its oil from the Middle East.
The US is also the world's largest oil importer, at 12.2 million
barrels per day. About 2.5m per day comes from the Middle East. That's
more than "very little."
The US used to be the world's largest producer of tobacco. I don't see
that hurting the tobacco industry has hurt US interests.
John B.
> On 2010-04-23 16:37:36 -0400, MNMikeW said:
>
Absolutely. Denmark gets 75% of its power from renewables. France gets
65% of its power from nuclear. I don't know if we can ever get away
completely from fossil fuels, but we can certainly get to where they
account for less than half of our energy supply.
MNMikeW
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfa51889-1003-4c64...@e40g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite John.
http://www.ambottawa.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/8A89D4E5-1E40-4042-BA20-1B983B0EB40B/0/renewable.pdf
Jack Hollis
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You have to remember that the US is the world's number 3 oil producer,
>> so anything the US does to hurt the oil industry hurts US interests as
>> well. =A0The US could be producing a lot more oil than it does, but
>> ultimately, the US buys very little of its oil from the Middle East. =A0
>
>The US is also the world's largest oil importer, at 12.2 million
>barrels per day. About 2.5m per day comes from the Middle East. That's
>more than "very little."
That's about 11% which could easily be replaced by domestic
production. The highest the US ever got from the Middle East was
around 16%.
In any case, the idea that the US is sending all the money it spends
importing oil to the Middle East is totally wrong. Besides, US oil
and construction companies make billions in the Middle East working in
the oil and gas sector.
>The US used to be the world's largest producer of tobacco. I don't see
>that hurting the tobacco industry has hurt US interests.
The US tobacco companies are highly diversified. Tobacco sales in the
US have been hurt by anti-tobacco legislation. However, unlike oil,
the US is not that big in the tobacco market.
Jack Hollis
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Absolutely. Denmark gets 75% of its power from renewables. France gets
>65% of its power from nuclear. I don't know if we can ever get away
>completely from fossil fuels, but we can certainly get to where they
>account for less than half of our energy supply.
You might want to check these figures, especially Denmark. I think
Franc's percent from nukes is over 75% and they export power made by
nukes as well.
Moderate
The US also produces more nuclear power than France.