Trade your car in on a SchwinnS13FX wrote:**** Alaska what about the hole thats being drilled in my bank account hehe.
The reason I replied as I did is I find T Boone Pickens more credible in that we cannot drill our way out of our current level of consumption.We must reduce our oil consumption and it was quite clear that as prices rose to $5 a gallon consumption did in fact drop.mtcookson wrote:If you only watched for a minute then you likely didn't get anywhere close to where he has some pretty compelling proof of it all... and I'm not sure I understand why you have a problem with him... he's trying to point out major corruption. What's wrong with that?
Just curious... are you thinking he's trying to compel people to get them to get oil from Alaska? If so, that's not really the case at all. Actually, he gives some pretty damning reasons why we actually can't get oil from Alaska. If you're against "drilling" in Alaska you might actually kind of like the video.
Mattaudtatious wrote:What is constantly ignored by those who are against drilling is that those for drilling are NOT saying we don't work towards other means of energy. We simply want to ensure we can cover our own azzes in case countries we get oil from decide to either stop selling to us or just stop producing.
Pissed at who?audtatious wrote:Eventually people are going to get even more pissed.
Isn't it a function of government to set energy policy?audtatious wrote:Of course, if your whole plan is to force more people to require the Government to provide for them then you just keep it up.
No they don't. They can simply sell to other countries instead of us.telcoman wrote:
Matt
The countries currently selling to us need to keep selling or they don't eatIt is in their interest to try and control production & keep prices high
Gov as a wholetelcoman wrote:Pissed at who?
Blah blah blahtelcoman wrote:Perhaps the administration that has been in power for the past eight years and had control of congress for the past six years?
Ah. It's the function of the gov to intentionally allow gas prices to go through the roof in order to force a means to their ends? In this case, the Democrats who are leading the Congress.telcoman wrote:Isn't it a function of government to set energy policy?
If not who do you think should set United States energy policy?
When you allow lobbyists to strongly influence our energy policy as this present administration has done you end up with the present situation that we are presently in.
OMG!1!1! the world is falling down around us and it's all the fault of that one ******* in the white house!!!!!! The great Obamarama will save us from ourselvestelcoman wrote:High oil consumption, high prices, automobile companies facing huge losses, loss of jobs, economy in a shambles, etc.
What a stupid thing to say. It is not our responsibility to make sure other Countries have food on their tables. They don't just have food on their tables but they are living very richly off of the money Americans pay at the pump, and I don't give a **** if it is $11 a gallon in Europe. The point is that it could be less and it isn't because of OUR corrupt Government.telcoman wrote:
The countries currently selling to us need to keep selling or they don't eatIt is in their interest to try and control production & keep prices high
Simple.WDRacing wrote:Fact, we aren't importing Alaskan oil...why?
Fact, we pay to much for Arabic oil...why?
Answer those questions...
DDT is banned in the US, not 3rd world countries. Also, there is a cheap cure for malaria available (artemisinin) which is largely ignored by countries outside of China.WDRacing wrote:Enviro freaks made DDT get banned...afterwards over 3 million people in 3rd world countries died of Malaria. Thank God we saved the Mosquito's...
No, DDT is banned worldwide by the Stockholm Convention. However, they allow occasional limited use for disease control (i.e., for outbreaks, rather than general pesticide use).ishkabibble wrote:DDT is banned in the US, not 3rd world countries.
I quoted the Stockholm Convention info from Wikipedia ... they also make the same claim - look at the specific words "limit the use of DDT to malaria control".ishkabibble wrote:It is not banned for vector (e.g. mosquito) control. How does this equate to "limited, occasional use" in a reactive fashion? I'm not saying you are wrong, but you give no evidence of your claim.