i don't care who?

[BUGEYE]

well, the news today showed Romney vowing to drill in ANWR etc.  whatever it takes to bring down energy prices and put people to work.  that's kinda different from obama, don't ya think?
We  are   exporting   oil   now  . ANWR   oil   will   end   up   in   China   ,   and   the   speculators    will  keep   the  price   up   no   matter   how   much   surplus  oil   we   have.

It wouldn't have to be that way.  you can lay the blame on WA, OR and CA who won't let the oil companies build a terminal to offload or a pipeline to the refineries.

[R.W.Dale]

It doesn't matter where the oil goes.

The Oil market is a bucket with holes in it. It doesn't matter where the holes are or where the holes go. The price is set by how fast you pour the oil in and how high the levels remain in the bucket.


In the looooong term adding more supply will moderate prices somewhat.  However its not going to change consumption trends as demand rises in the rest of the developing world. After all there is only so much oil in the ground.


posted via mobile device.

[nomosendero]

It doesn't matter where the oil goes.

The Oil market is a bucket with holes in it. It doesn't matter where the holes are or where the holes go. The price is set by how fast you pour the oil in and how high the levels remain in the bucket.


In the looooong term adding more supply will moderate prices somewhat.  However its not going to change consumption trends as demand rises in the rest of the developing world. After all there is only so much oil in the ground.


posted via mobile device.

Yea & there's a whole bunch of it in the ground!!

[magooch]

well, the news today showed Romney vowing to drill in ANWR etc.  whatever it takes to bring down energy prices and put people to work.  that's kinda different from obama, don't ya think?
We  are   exporting   oil   now  . ANWR   oil   will   end   up   in   China   ,   and   the   speculators    will  keep   the  price   up   no   matter   how   much   surplus  oil   we   have.

It wouldn't have to be that way.  you can lay the blame on WA, OR and CA who won't let the oil companies build a terminal to offload or a pipeline to the refineries.

I live on the west coast and this is the first I've heard anything about the three states not allowing oil to be off-loaded at the refineries.  I see tankers going up the Columbia to Portland all the time and I'm reasonably sure that the refineries up by Anacortes, Bellingham and other locations around the state are still in business.  All of our gasoline here in SW Washington comes from Portland, Oregon.  Unless they've discovered some new technology, I think they're still making it out of oil.

[twoshooter]

regardless of how much is in the ground, it is finite, and the easiest and safest to get, which means cheapest, is gone. The bad thing is how little progress we have made in energy in the past 100 or so years, the level of efficiency, storage, transmission capacity etc. And it is not just energy, there  are myriad products made from petroleum. We may need the petroleum later for more important uses than burning it in an engine. 

[mcbammer]

The Oil market is a bucket with holes in it. It doesn't matter where the holes are or where the holes go. The price is set by how fast you pour the oil in and how high the levels remain in the bucket.


In the looooong term adding more supply will moderate prices somewhat.  However its not going to change consumption trends as demand rises in the rest of the developing world. After all there is only so much oil in the ground.


posted via mobile device.
[/quo    Yes  ,   The  oil   companies   must   meet   global    demand,  every   nation  needs   a   slice   of   the   oil  pie.    Should   we    hoard    the   oil   discovered    &   produced   on   U. S.   lands   ?   that   want   happen.  Isnt   ANWR   predicted   to   have   a   100  year   supply  ,  not   sure  .  maybe   for  one   nation   but  not a  world   market.

[nomosendero]

The Oil market is a bucket with holes in it. It doesn't matter where the holes are or where the holes go. The price is set by how fast you pour the oil in and how high the levels remain in the bucket.


In the looooong term adding more supply will moderate prices somewhat.  However its not going to change consumption trends as demand rises in the rest of the developing world. After all there is only so much oil in the ground.


posted via mobile device.
[/quo    Yes  ,   The  oil   companies   must   meet   global    demand,  every   nation  needs   a   slice   of   the   oil  pie.    Should   we    hoard    the   oil   discovered    &   produced   on   U. S.   lands   ?   that   want   happen.  Isnt   ANWR   predicted   to   have   a   100  year   supply  ,  not   sure  .  maybe   for  one   nation   but  not a  world   market.

ANWR, but then ND and on & on it goes.

[gypsyman]

Why not put an export tax on the oil? $100 a barrel. Oil company sells it to China, make them pay. Keep the oil in the US, whatever the market will bear. As far as who's left in the race, I'm leaning towards Santorum. Hasn't flip-floped on the issue's like Romney has. Gringrich lost me when he sat down with Polosi and did that global warming ad. As a history professor, he should have known that the world has gone thru warming and cooling periods long before man could have had any influence on it. gypsyman

[SHOOTALL]

Well it seems we vote for the better of two not so great choices , I can live with that this time. Don't like it much but I do realize you must stop the ship from sinking to the bottom before you can fix the hole.

[Dixie Dude]

Well said Shootall.  A big ship doesn't turn on a dime, and must turn slowly back to the right.  Same with a flywheel.  Even though Ross Perot was right, voting for him gave us Clinton.  Clinton was somewhat neutralized by a Republican house and senate.  If Libertarians want to change things, they have to be elected from the grass roots in city, county, and state levels.  That is why Ron Paul runs as a Republican, because he gets more exposure.  Either the libertarians have to come under the umbrella of the republican party and get people elected lower down to make a difference or risk loosing our country to the united left.  The right has to unite with compromises with each other to move the ship to the right.  If we had elected Al Gore we would be in far worse shape today. 

[coyotejoe]

People say a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote, but what could be a bigger waste than to vote for someone you really don't want to see elected?

 
 
A vote that helps insure the election of the greater evil, of course.

As if we know who will turn out to be the greater evil. With the possible exception of Ron Paul they all are lying low life politicians owned by someone else. I voted for Bush even though I knew he was an idiot in the pocket of his minders but I thought him the "lesser evil". Boy was I ever wrong! I never imagined even he was stupid enough to start two wars without end. I never imagined anyone could be so stupid as to invade Afghanistan. Bush was handed a balanced budget and managed to add five trillion to the national debt. We all love freedom and Bush did more to limit personal freedom than anyone past or present. I'm as sick as anyone of hearing Obama "blame Bush" but actually there is a very great deal of blame fairly placed on Bush's door step. I'm in no way a defender of Obama but actually, the worst thing Obama has done has been to continue what Bush started.

[Casull]

Boy was I ever wrong! I never imagined even he was stupid enough to start two wars without end.

 
 
Hmmm, I was under the impression that Saddam Hussein started that war when he invaded Kuwait.  As to Afganistan, I believe Alqueda (or however spelled) started that war on 9-11.
 
 
 

Bush was handed a balanced budget

 
Really?  You think maybe, just maybe, that projected "balanced budget" was effected by a terrorist attack barely 7 months into his first term that nearly destroyed the airlines industry and caused the stock market to drop by 50%?
 
 
 

We all love freedom and Bush did more to limit personal freedom than anyone past or present.

 
 
Uh, I believe that honor belongs to Lincoln.

[SHOOTALL]

Boy was I ever wrong! I never imagined even he was stupid enough to start two wars without end.

 
 
Hmmm, I was under the impression that Saddam Hussein started that war when he invaded Kuwait.  As to Afganistan, I believe Alqueda (or however spelled) started that war on 9-11.
 
 true
 

Bush was handed a balanced budget

 
Really?  You think maybe, just maybe, that projected "balanced budget" was effected by a terrorist attack barely 7 months into his first term that nearly destroyed the airlines industry and caused the stock market to drop by 50%?
 
 I don't remember a blanced budget in the 57 years I have been here
 

We all love freedom and Bush did more to limit personal freedom than anyone past or present.

 
 
Uh, I believe that honor belongs to Lincoln.

TR and FDR helped !

[coyotejoe]

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked New York City. That was the work of 14 criminals, none of whom were from Iraq and only one from Afghanistan. Ten of them were from Saudi Arabia, our good buddies in the middle East. If they had all been from France would we have leveled that country? Well I shouldn't have used that analogy, that idiot just might have.
 But it still amazes me that some people think you can end terrorist attacks by giving more people cause to hate us, which is exactly ALL we have accomplished or ever could possibly accomplish with those two insane wars.

[Casull]

But it still amazes me that some people think you can end terrorist attacks by giving more people cause to hate us

 
 
It amazes me that some people think you can end terrorist attacks by pretending they didn't happen or by making nice with terrorists.   

[SHOOTALL]

Back in the day if attacked you hammered the enemy until you were sure they would not be able to attack you for centuries . Then WW1 comes along and the league of nations and everyone wants to get involved with the punishment and then WW2 and everyone wants to rearrange who owns what but we can't look like conqures to the rest of the world.
Hows that working out for us ?
 
 

[yellowtail3]

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked New York City.

Quite true, and rarely emphasized.

That was the work of 14 criminals, none of whom were from Iraq and only one from Afghanistan.

Quite true, and rarely emphasized.

Ten of them were from Saudi Arabia, our good buddies in the middle East.

Quite true, and rarely emphasized.

If they had all been from France would we have leveled that country?

Almost certainly not.

But it still amazes me that some people think you can end terrorist attacks by giving more people cause to hate us, which is exactly ALL we have accomplished or ever could possibly accomplish with those two insane wars.

I don't know if it is amazing, but it certainly is grim. Some believe it; for others, it reinforces their ideology, and is convenient.

[coyotejoe]

Back in the day if attacked you hammered the enemy until you were sure they would not be able to attack you for centuries . Then WW1 comes along and the league of nations and everyone wants to get involved with the punishment and then WW2 and everyone wants to rearrange who owns what but we can't look like conqures to the rest of the world.
Hows that working out for us ?

Well we certainly "hammered" Iraq, they won't be "attacking" us but they didn't attack us in the first place, and didn't have the ability to attack us if they wanted to, so what was gained? Good cause for every Muslim in the world to distrust and despise the U.S. is the only thing gained from those two insane wars. You're not dealing with governments which can be taught a lesson or have their ability to wage war destroyed. It only takes one terrorist who is sufficiently inspired and those invasions of sovereign nations have inspired millions. Why is that so hard to understand?

[gypsyman]

I'll type this real slow, so some of you can read this. And, I'll put it in caps, so in case you don't have your glass's on, you can understand it. THEY DID IT BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION,NOT THEIR NATIONALITY!!! While I'm certainly not in love with the Saudi's, it wasn't their govt that influenced them, it was their religious extremists imam's. To bad after more than 10 years some of you still don't understand this fact. The govt's of Iran and Afghanistan did nothing to stop them from setting up bases and training camps. My guess is, they couldn't have got away with that in Saudi Arabia.gypsyman

[yellowtail3]

To bad after more than 10 years some of you still don't understand this fact. The govt's of Iran and Afghanistan did nothing to stop them from setting up bases and training camps.

Did al-keeda have training bases in Iran, that were utilized by the 9/11 kllers? If so... that's news to me, I wasn't aware of it.

[Casull]

What both coyotejoe and yellowtail so conveniently forget is that NYC had NOTHING to do with Iraq.  Never did.  Let me repeat . . . NEVER DID.  So . . . to make the argument that Iraq did not attack NYC reflects either ignorance or dishonesty.  The war in Iraq was due to Iraq's refusal to abide by the terms of surrender.  IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NEW YORK.

[Dixie Dude]

mcbammer, IF oil is drilled here, and offshore here, on government lands, and in Alaska, it provides thousands of good paying jobs.  Why send our money overseas, spend it here, put people to work here.  They spend their money here.  Money stays here, it provides jobs and taxes here. 

[mcbammer]

mcbammer, IF oil is drilled here, and offshore here, on government lands, and in Alaska, it provides thousands of good paying jobs.  Why send our money overseas, spend it here, put people to work here.  They spend their money here.  Money stays here, it provides jobs and taxes here.

Im   100%   for   drilling  .  the    oil   we   have   on   lands  &   shore  is   sold   on  the   world    market.  Global   demand   will   consume   our   reserves    up  .  Gotta   be   a   way    to  keep   our   resouces   here ,   and   stop   other  nations    driveing   the   price   up   . 

[coyotejoe]

What both coyotejoe and yellowtail so conveniently forget is that NYC had NOTHING to do with Iraq.  Never did.  Let me repeat . . . NEVER DID.  So . . . to make the argument that Iraq did not attack NYC reflects either ignorance or dishonesty.  The war in Iraq was due to Iraq's refusal to abide by the terms of surrender.  IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NEW YORK.

No, Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9-11, so why did Bush never once mention Iraq without also harping about 9-11? You should have posted that 10 years ago. The invasion of Iraq was supposedly justified by Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction", weapons which they didn't have and which NO CREDIBLE INTELIGENCE ever suggested they might have. Bush reacted like the bully of the block who got hit in the back with a snowball. He has no idea who threw it so he grabs the smallest kid he can catch and beats the tar out of him. The smallest kid Bush could catch was Afghanistan. He next invaded Iraq because he had already decided to do so and tasked the CIA with finding an excuse, so they ignored all they knew and gave the president what he asked for, a bucket of bull. There was NO reason to invade any country, nothing has been made better by doing so and that negative result was perfectly obvious from the start.

[Casull]

No, Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9-11,

 
Exactly.  So, why did you post the nonsense about Iraq not attacking NYC?  As if that was relevant.

[yellowtail3]

What both coyotejoe and yellowtail so conveniently forget is that NYC had NOTHING to do with Iraq.  Never did.  Let me repeat . . . NEVER DID.

NYC=9/11 attacks? Well, I've never thought Iraq was responsible for those attacks.


I do vaguely recall the idea that we were fighting in Iraq so that we wouldn't have to fight 'em here... or something to that effect. But then, there were multiple reasons offered for the war on Iraq at diff times, was my impression.

[Casull]

so why did Bush never once mention Iraq without also harping about 9-11?

 
 
Hmmm, I don't remember Bush ever saying that Iraq was responsible for 9-11.  I DO remember him talking about Iraq violating the no-fly zone, not allowing inspectors in, thumbing their nose at the terms of their surrender, possibly STILL possessing WMD's (which they clearly had prior to that time), etc.  I also remember him getting congressional APPROVAL for the war.

[BUGEYE]

iraq did indeed have WMD. they used them against their own people. remember the Kurds?

[coyotejoe]

I'll type this real slow, so some of you can read this. And, I'll put it in caps, so in case you don't have your glass's on, you can understand it. THEY DID IT BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION,NOT THEIR NATIONALITY!!! While I'm certainly not in love with the Saudi's, it wasn't their govt that influenced them, it was their religious extremists imam's. To bad after more than 10 years some of you still don't understand this fact. The govt's of Iran and Afghanistan did nothing to stop them from setting up bases and training camps. My guess is, they couldn't have got away with that in Saudi Arabia.gypsyman

There were NO AL qaeda in Iraq, Saddam would never permit any movement which might threaten his control. Afghanistan was, is, and always will be a haven for terrorists, ten years of war can never change that. We are so proud of our military power that we just can't seem to accept the reality that all of our power cannot bring  a largely illiterate, tribal culture to accept and play by our rules. They will never think as we think, want what we want, or live as we live and you can't force them to it, the best you can do is leave them the F alone. Just let them go on killing each other as they have done for centuries, there is nothing to be gained by giving them American men & women to kill and injure.
 But this was a thread about the up coming presidential election. My original point here was this is what 50 years of voting for "lesser evils" has brought us. If you like where we are then you're happy with the process which got us here. I say that to have no desirable candidate in the race, to give us only the choice of a Democrat jackass or a Republican jackass is giving us no alternative at all. But it will be that way until we the people really stand up and say, like that old "Network" movie, "I'm mad as hell and I won't take any more". So long as we keep accepting what they hand us with "oh well, at least he's not as bad as that other (censored word)", well, "keep on doing' what you always done and you'll keep on getting' what you always got". Oh, and don't forget, that's what got us Obama as well. I don't believe many people really "wanted" Obama, they just wanted the Republican administration even less.
 I fear we are a nation in very steep decline in every way. Corporate interests now run the world, so I think there really is little government can do to change the trajectory, much less turn it around, but we need to at least TRY to make our demands heard. Voting for a third alternative is a start in gaining just a little more "democracy" into the process.

[Dixie Dude]

I can agree with not exporting what we have.  However we are a net importer.  Alaskan oil is sold to Japan at the same price we import it from somewhere else, mainly because the tankers can't get through the Panama Canal to get it to Texas for refining.  So, since the distance to Japan is shorter from Alaska than from the middle east.  It is closer for us to import from the middle east in trade with Japan.