Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
10-14-2019 -- 10:47:43

Login with username, password and session length

Top 10 Posters

flew-da-coup (1303)
Hawaii596 (1015)
USMCPMEL (846)
griff61 (576)
Hoopty (548)
docbyers (544)
MIRCS (535)
CalLabSolutions (517)
PMEL_DEVIL-DOG (509)
Thraxas (498)
Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 19155
  • Total Topics: 3592
  • Online Today: 63
  • Online Ever: 242
  • (04-19-2014 -- 19:20:34)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 45
Total: 45


Poll

Who is your candidate for this election?

John Sidney McCain III
18 (69.2%)
Barack Hussein Obama
8 (30.8%)

Total Members Voted: 26

Voting closed: 02-03-2009 -- 22:59:00

Author Topic: The Presidential Race  (Read 48305 times)

Offline made-in-japan

  • Pinger
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Action Taken: +2/-4
Re: The Presidential Race
« Reply #45 on: 09-09-2008 -- 20:52:07 »
Quote from: dallanta link=topic=1104. msg11572#msg11572 date=1220971123
When I was a kid "made in japan" meant it was the cheapest crap on the market and a copy of something better.

Nice strawman.

flew-da-coup: As for me being in PMEL, I'm on this site, am I not? I'll prefer the rest to be anonymous.  I wish I had all the time to post but some people have lives outside of PMEL, you know?

And I'm not going to backpedal out of anything.  I know how much Biden, Obama, Palin and McCain are worth.  But I was comparing Obama to McCain and you red herring'd it into Sarah Palin.  Palin is not running for President herself except by proxy through McCain.  I brought it up because McCain's wife has an estimated net worth of around $100 million.  That's about 100 times what Obama's net worth is.  And we don't even know how much she really is worth because she will not release her tax records publicly. 

Anyway, I feel that a President who will tax himself even more is a pretty solid choice however.  Giving back to the system that allowed them to develop that amount of money is what is fair.  The characteristic of self sacrifice is always a redeeming quality and Obama is giving up more of his money so that all Americans are able to have the same basic living amenities such as decent housing, health care and a good education.

But I bet I will be labeled as a socialist now for that.  Whatever, I've got what I've needed out of this site so have fun grunting and arguing amongst yourselves.

Offline flew-da-coup

  • 9-level
  • *****
  • Posts: 1303
  • Action Taken: +17/-24
  • Missing in Action
Re: The Presidential Race
« Reply #46 on: 09-09-2008 -- 21:53:00 »
Why are you running away right when the dialog was just getting started.

Gee, I know people run away from my political arguements because they are founded in fact, but I never had someone run so quickly. :|
You shall do no injustice in judgment, in measurement of length, weight, or volume.Leviticus 19:35

Offline cobychuck

  • 5-level
  • ***
  • Posts: 238
  • Action Taken: +4/-1
Re: The Presidential Race
« Reply #47 on: 09-09-2008 -- 22:29:02 »
Quote from: dallanta link=topic=1104. msg11572#msg11572 date=1220971123
When I was a kid "made in japan" meant it was the cheapest crap on the market and a copy of something better.

Nice strawman.

flew-da-coup: As for me being in PMEL, I'm on this site, am I not? I'll prefer the rest to be anonymous.  I wish I had all the time to post but some people have lives outside of PMEL, you know?

And I'm not going to backpedal out of anything.  I know how much Biden, Obama, Palin and McCain are worth.  But I was comparing Obama to McCain and you red herring'd it into Sarah Palin.  Palin is not running for President herself except by proxy through McCain.  I brought it up because McCain's wife has an estimated net worth of around $100 million.  That's about 100 times what Obama's net worth is.  And we don't even know how much she really is worth because she will not release her tax records publicly. 

Anyway, I feel that a President who will tax himself even more is a pretty solid choice however.  Giving back to the system that allowed them to develop that amount of money is what is fair.  The characteristic of self sacrifice is always a redeeming quality and Obama is giving up more of his money so that all Americans are able to have the same basic living amenities such as decent housing, health care and a good education.

But I bet I will be labeled as a socialist now for that.  Whatever, I've got what I've needed out of this site so have fun grunting and arguing amongst yourselves.

    Why are you leaving this discussion?  I may not have a whole lot of input myself, but it certainly is interesting to see different political views come out under discussion.  So far, other than the cheap shot on your name from Dallanta, I thought you were having quite a good discussion with Coup.  Come back and play...

Offline Hawaii596

  • 9-level
  • *****
  • Posts: 1015
  • Action Taken: +16/-3
Re: The Presidential Race
« Reply #48 on: 09-10-2008 -- 12:56:10 »
In the interest of levity, I would like to say that if you put lipstick on a pig, it is no longer a pig.

Seriously (I'm not in a very serious mood this morning; but I'll try), I think (although I'm a McCain/Palin supporter) that a little too much has been made of Obama's remark.
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
from lecture to the Institute of Civil Engineers, 3 May 1883

Offline flew-da-coup

  • 9-level
  • *****
  • Posts: 1303
  • Action Taken: +17/-24
  • Missing in Action
Re: The Presidential Race
« Reply #49 on: 09-10-2008 -- 15:57:46 »
In the interest of levity, I would like to say that if you put lipstick on a pig, it is no longer a pig.

Seriously (I'm not in a very serious mood this morning; but I'll try), I think (although I'm a McCain/Palin supporter) that a little too much has been made of Obama's remark.

 I agree with you.
You shall do no injustice in judgment, in measurement of length, weight, or volume.Leviticus 19:35

Offline cobychuck

  • 5-level
  • ***
  • Posts: 238
  • Action Taken: +4/-1
Re: The Presidential Race
« Reply #50 on: 09-10-2008 -- 16:12:14 »
    I must have missed something along the way.  What remark are we talking about here?

Offline made-in-japan

  • Pinger
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Action Taken: +2/-4
Re: The Presidential Race
« Reply #51 on: 09-10-2008 -- 16:22:26 »
Quote from: flew-da-coup link=topic=1104. msg11578#msg11578 date=1220997180
Why are you running away right when the dialog was just getting started. 

Gee, I know people run away from my political arguements because they are founded in fact, but I never had someone run so quickly.  :|

Because it's retarded dick waving when I've presented factual information and you completely disregard it.  You call it biased and you expect me to continue? You are attacking me rather than the arguments presented so it's all seems rather childish at this point.  Even from the beginning of this thread, it was biased towards McCain.  And yes, I do enjoy "googling" because it's useful resource.  I guess looking up things rather than pulling the party line is just wrong.

But this is my last argument and then I'm done.  I noticed cobychuck supports McCain because he agrees with this whole "DRILL, DRILL, DRILL!" sentiment going around America nowadays.  But let me tell you something, domestic drilling will not cause our gas prices to go down now or within the next 10 years.  Those supporting drilling in Alaska will want to pay attention. 

America consumes over 20 million barrels of oil a day.  The United States Department of Energy estimates that there is between about 5. 7 billion to 16 billion barrels of crude oil in ANWR.  This is equivalent to 0. 4% or 1. 2% of the world's total daily consumption by 2030.  The EIA or Energy Information Administration, which is the independent statistical agency for the DoE, feels that drilling will not affect global oil prices.  Here's a direct quote:

"The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0. 41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0. 75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1. 44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case. "

Now if you consider that oil prices PER BARREL are sitting at $105 right now.  That's less than the peak of $147. 27 on July 11 of this year.  But the real kicker is even if we develop that oil production, OPEC still has America by the balls.  Right now, OPEC just decided that they are going to CUT BACK on their production because the price of oil is falling again.  Saudi Arabia says they won't decrease production but they are only our number 2 supplier; Canada being the first.  Here's the link: www. bloomberg. com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aph4v20TXX6E&refer=europe

They will decrease their production just to stay competitive and further our reliance on foreign oil.  If we really want to be energy independent, it's not going to come in an increase in domestic drilling but rather using that money through innovation in the development of alternative energies like wind, solar, thermal power or best yet, nuclear.  Resources are going to slowly run out in the next 100 years and we're not doing sh!t for our future generations.

If the natural resources of the world continue to be exploited at such a staggering rate, there will be nothing left to exploit.  Conservation strategies have been implemented, especially at times when an energy shortage has occurred, but these strategies are all but forgotten when the shortage passes.   Unfortunately, conserving resources at this point will only temporarily postpone the inevitable, which is total energy resource exhaustion.  Unless the lifestyles, and transportation habits, of the ever-increasing population that demand more, and more resources are dramatically changed, or new energy sources are discovered, conserving won't save us.

But hey, DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW!!!

Offline Hawaii596

  • 9-level
  • *****
  • Posts: 1015
  • Action Taken: +16/-3
Re: The Presidential Race - The Meaning of the lipstick and the pig
« Reply #52 on: 09-10-2008 -- 16:25:42 »
Recently Sarah Palin in one of her speeches asked the rhetorical question, "what's the difference between a pitbull and a hockey mom?" to which she replied, "lipstick."

In the last couple of days, Obama in one of his speeches made the comment, "if you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig."  

There is been a lot of media attention, speculating as to whether Obama was referring to Sarah Palin's comment.  So the media has been all over it the last couple of days.

The big question is whether he was making an offhanded remark about Sarah Palin or the Republican Party; and whether his use of the word "lipstick" is or is not a slam against Sarah Palin and/or women.
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
from lecture to the Institute of Civil Engineers, 3 May 1883

Offline Hawaii596

  • 9-level
  • *****
  • Posts: 1015
  • Action Taken: +16/-3
Re: The Presidential Race - Drill Here, Drill Now
« Reply #53 on: 09-10-2008 -- 16:49:32 »
Okay, I guess I'll weigh in on the drill here drill now debate.  One of my early apprehensions about McCain was that at first he was not willing to consider it.   But after hearing some of the inputs, gradually changed his mind.  Last I heard, one place where he and Sarah Palin still disagree is that she, as governor of Alaska (and formerly on some sort of energy board - don't remember the name of it), favors drilling in ANWAR.

It is strongly debatable how much oil prices will drop and how fast by drilling our own oil reserves; so I won't even make that case here (haven't done adequate research).

However, there are many arguments in favor of drilling our own oil, and very few against...

LOSS OF MONEY SUPPLY- One of the significant eroders of the dollar value has been the ever increasing percentage of our oil that we buy from foreign suppliers.  The dollar value will continue to face downward pressure (which will continue to drive oil prices up).

BUYING FROM OUR ENEMIES- We will continue to be dependent and therefore subservient to countries we don't have very good relations with.  This is a national security issue.

ONLY MAJOR INDUSTRIAL NATION THAT IS A NET IMPORTER- The United States is the only major industrialized nation that depends significantly on other countries for its oil supply.

PROVIDE MANY MORE JOBS- As we shift from importing the majority of our oil from other countries, many more jobs will be added in the coming decades in the energy sector.

AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN- All sides agree that just drilling for domestic oil will not solve our energy needs for the long term future.  Many other avenues also need to be explored and developed (solar, wind, NUCLEAR, geothermal, etc.).

WE HAVE THE LARGEST OIL SHALE RESERVES IN THE WORLD- The last figure I heard was somewhere between 700 and 800 billion barrels (more than twice what Saudi Arabia has.  This is a huge untapped resource, and may make us one of the worlds leading oil exporters long after Saudi Arabia has run out and reverts to a third world nation.

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF- It's amazing to me that there has been a restriction on even exploring those areas since the 1960s.  So inspite of what anyone says, we don't even know what we have out there, as we are not allowed to even test for the presence of petroleum.

FOREIGNERS DRILLING JUST OFF OUR SHORES- I believe it is China that is currently drilling off the coast of Florida, and we can't.  That makes no sense at all.

OIL SPECULATORS- The oil speculators account for perhaps 30%+ of the price per barrel.  Immediately after any legislation is passed to allow domestic drilling, the price per barrel will drop considerably.

SHORT TERM OIL PRODUCTION- It is estimated that a significant part of the places where we would drill off the continental shelf could significantly supplement domestic oil production in as little as 1 to 2 years (and thus bring down oil prices some).

ANWAR OIL PRODUCTION- I heard an interesting point recently that we bought Alaska originally because of the rich mineral and other natural resources it probably contained.  And now, when we need them, people who don't even live in Alaska are trying to tell them that they can not drill in their own area.  Alaskans, by the way, strongly support drilling in ANWAR.  Additionally, there is no compelling case that drilling in ANWAR will significantly damage the environment.  Those who oppose drilling in ANWAR, in my opinon, do so on purely political grounds.

CHINA AND INDIA- Both of these countries are drastically increasing their oil consumption; which is expected to continue to grow dramatically for many decades; driving the international cost of oil higher and higher.  Relying primarily on our domestic supply will be a strong hedge against this great cost increase.

Bottom line, we need to drill here, drill now for reasons of the nations economy and national security.  If we don't we will continue to be at the mercy of countries who would like to destroy our economy.  I also believe we need to strongly invest in other energy directions (including different fuels for our cars).  Then, once we no longer need the oil ourselves, we will continue to sell it to other countries around the world for a net gain.

Okay, that's my two cents.
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
from lecture to the Institute of Civil Engineers, 3 May 1883

Offline made-in-japan

  • Pinger
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Action Taken: +2/-4
Re: The Presidential Race
« Reply #54 on: 09-10-2008 -- 17:33:00 »
I'm not sure I understand how our national security is at risk when it comes to domestic oil production.  Are terrorists going to come into our country and blow up our oil wells because we're drilling?

LOSS OF MONEY SUPPLY- I'm not an economic major but I'm sure that oil isn't a significant factor at all.  What's more of a factor is the amount of debt that our country has accumulated as well as the subprime loan crisis.  Not to mention the amount of banks being taken over by the government has risen to 11 this year alone.

BUYING FROM OUR ENEMIES- Canada isn't really an enemy and we just gave $40 billion in military aid to Saudi Arabia.  The only top 5 supplier I can think of that could be considered an enemy is Venezuela and that's only because Hugo Chavez is very anti-America.

ONLY MAJOR INDUSTRIAL NATION THAT IS A NET IMPORTER- Mainly because we don't have large proved areas that could be considered productive to drilling.

PROVIDE MANY MORE JOBS- This is true but only if we search for alternatives now.  If we continue to rely on domestic drilling to get us through, we will continue to do so rather than

AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN- I agree with this wholeheartedly.

WE HAVE THE LARGEST OIL SHALE RESERVES IN THE WORLD- It's actually 1. 5-2. 6 trillion barrels in America.  However, there are numerous environmental concerns to consider when we discuss oil shale mining/drilling.  The first is that there is an even larger increase in carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions than with conventional fossil fuels.  Groundwater can also be contaminated if proper safety precautions are not followed.  Sulfates, heavy metals, and numerous different hydrocarbons, some of which are toxic and carcinogenic, can be released into the groundwater and cause not only erosion but a plethora of diseases and cancers.

Basically, oil shale mining/drilling will need to be regulated heavily just so the environmental impact will not caused irreparable damage.

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF- The problem still comes down to the environmental impact for me.  Hurricane Katrina really destroyed some oil platforms out in the Gulf of Mexico and created a huge oil slick that was rarely talked about.  Here's a picture of that oil slick from a Radarsat-1 satellite: http://i38.tinypic.com/21cwn9.jpg

FOREIGNERS DRILLING JUST OFF OUR SHORES- That is completely false and even Dick Cheney said so the next day after he said it.  "China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period," said Jorge Pinon, an energy fellow with the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami and an expert in oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico.  Martinez cited Pinon's research when he took to the Senate floor Wednesday to set the record straight. "

OIL SPECULATORS- Speculation will not stop simply because the United States opens itself up to domestic drilling.

SHORT TERM OIL PRODUCTION- My quoted study suggests otherwise when it comes to short term.  The Department of Energy doesn't seem to lie when it comes to stuff like this.

ANWAR OIL PRODUCTION- Of course Alaskans would support drilling in ANWR.  They get an annual check from the government based on the oil lease revenues.  It's a political position but it is also chiefly an environmental position as stated a few lines above.

CHINA AND INDIA- Both of these countries depend on African and Middle East nations for their supply of oil.  We don't do business with these countries like Sudan or Iran.  It's even a bigger incentive for us to concentrate our efforts on creating alternative energy sources so that our current domestic production can be exported to other nations.

I'm open to the idea of drilling but it's not a short term or long term solution.  We can not solely depend on it and decide to just throw a few bucks to research into alternative energies.  We should focus on these alternatives with domestic drilling being a secondary decision.  And as I stated previously, we need to change our lifestyles and our modes of transportation to further battle this energy crisis.  Developing our infrastructure to sustain growth but also to further relinquish our hold on oil dependence is what we need to do.  Domestic drilling is really just a blinder for the real problems happening.

Offline flew-da-coup

  • 9-level
  • *****
  • Posts: 1303
  • Action Taken: +17/-24
  • Missing in Action
Re: The Presidential Race
« Reply #55 on: 09-10-2008 -- 17:52:04 »
Quote from: flew-da-coup link=topic=1104. msg11578#msg11578 date=1220997180
Why are you running away right when the dialog was just getting started. 

Gee, I know people run away from my political arguements because they are founded in fact, but I never had someone run so quickly.  :|

Because it's retarded dick waving when I've presented factual information and you completely disregard it.  You call it biased and you expect me to continue? You are attacking me rather than the arguments presented so it's all seems rather childish at this point.  Even from the beginning of this thread, it was biased towards McCain.  And yes, I do enjoy "googling" because it's useful resource.  I guess looking up things rather than pulling the party line is just wrong.

But this is my last argument and then I'm done.  I noticed cobychuck supports McCain because he agrees with this whole "DRILL, DRILL, DRILL!" sentiment going around America nowadays.  But let me tell you something, domestic drilling will not cause our gas prices to go down now or within the next 10 years.  Those supporting drilling in Alaska will want to pay attention. 

America consumes over 20 million barrels of oil a day.  The United States Department of Energy estimates that there is between about 5. 7 billion to 16 billion barrels of crude oil in ANWR.  This is equivalent to 0. 4% or 1. 2% of the world's total daily consumption by 2030.  The EIA or Energy Information Administration, which is the independent statistical agency for the DoE, feels that drilling will not affect global oil prices.  Here's a direct quote:

"The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0. 41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0. 75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1. 44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case. "

Now if you consider that oil prices PER BARREL are sitting at $105 right now.  That's less than the peak of $147. 27 on July 11 of this year.  But the real kicker is even if we develop that oil production, OPEC still has America by the balls.  Right now, OPEC just decided that they are going to CUT BACK on their production because the price of oil is falling again.  Saudi Arabia says they won't decrease production but they are only our number 2 supplier; Canada being the first.  Here's the link: www. bloomberg. com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aph4v20TXX6E&refer=europe

They will decrease their production just to stay competitive and further our reliance on foreign oil.  If we really want to be energy independent, it's not going to come in an increase in domestic drilling but rather using that money through innovation in the development of alternative energies like wind, solar, thermal power or best yet, nuclear.  Resources are going to slowly run out in the next 100 years and we're not doing sh!t for our future generations.

If the natural resources of the world continue to be exploited at such a staggering rate, there will be nothing left to exploit.  Conservation strategies have been implemented, especially at times when an energy shortage has occurred, but these strategies are all but forgotten when the shortage passes.   Unfortunately, conserving resources at this point will only temporarily postpone the inevitable, which is total energy resource exhaustion.  Unless the lifestyles, and transportation habits, of the ever-increasing population that demand more, and more resources are dramatically changed, or new energy sources are discovered, conserving won't save us.

But hey, DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW!!!

Pot calling the kettle black? You have disregarded everything I have said and have yet to address my counter arguements. You present what you call facts, but they are not the complete story, ie..McCain voting against Vets Healthcare. It is obvious you drink the left wing Democrat Kool-Aid. You come here and present talking points you read somewhere being unable to address my response.  I am not the one "dick waving" here, it's you. Every post that you have made I have addressed your opinion, so I am not the guilty one.  Maybe it would help you to go back to the start of our dialog and read it again.
You shall do no injustice in judgment, in measurement of length, weight, or volume.Leviticus 19:35

Offline Hawaii596

  • 9-level
  • *****
  • Posts: 1015
  • Action Taken: +16/-3
Re: The Presidential Race
« Reply #56 on: 09-10-2008 -- 18:07:05 »
You make some good debate points.  Let me continue the next chapter...

NATIONAL SECURITY- The security issue is that countries unfriendly to the U.S. could manipulate oil supplies to us based on their philosophies or interests (such as Russia (former/future USSR).

LOSS OF MONEY SUPPLY- I can't debate as to other factors.  However, loss of money supply (I forget the figure - something like $70 billion per year) does have a long term impact on dollar values.  It is not the only factor, but is nevertheless a factor.

ONLY MAJOR NATION THAT IS NET IMPORTER- We have not been allowed to explore for thirty years.  We know of some resources, and there may or may not be many more.  But with the restriction disallowing exploration on the outer continental shelf, we have no way of knowing.

PROVIDE MANY MORE JOBS- As I stated in my previous post, what the two sides keep arguing about even though they agree on it is that we absolutely need to work strongly to develop other energy alternatives.

OIL SHALE RESERVES- I look at this as a long term piece of the solution.  I would postulate that no matter what view anyone has about them, they will eventually, unquestionably be harvested.  The question is, how soon.  The other piece of that question is, how to do it responsibly.  It may be a ways down the road (oil prices high enough to pay for it including restoration of land areas after harvesting).

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF DRILLING- Believe it or not, I am strongly in favor of doing the utmost in assuring the environment is protected.  I think there is the assumption by many that drilling there (or ANWAR) automatically presumes a significant probability of irreparable environmental damage.  I think the debate should not be about whether or not to drill, but how to provide adequate environmental safeguards.  My opinion is this is where the debate may head next.

FOREIGNERS DRILLING OFF OUR COAST- I'll have to look into that one.

OIL SPECULATORS-  Agreed that speculation will continue.  However, speculators drive price based on what they guess will be future supplies.  If it is believed by them that supplies will increase in the future (i.e. increased domestic production), their speculated price per barrel will adjust based on which direction they believe that supply will go.

SHORT TERM OIL PRODUCTION- I can't remember which oil company this person was president of.  But I have listened to numerous people in the industry over the last few months, and there is definitely differing opinions on this.  Some believe it may take 10 - 15 years, others believe it will take differing amounts of time (some increase short term, greater increases long term).

DRILLING IN ANWAR- The environmental position is a political position.  My understanding is that it will take about 2000 acres.  I believe the entire environmental argument is completely political.  This is why, the debate should significantly include discussion about what safeguards can, should or will be there that make the environmentalists happy.

CHINA AND INDIA OIL CONSUMPTION- It makes no difference whether we trade with them.  Their dramatic and continuing increases in oil consumption are gradually creating a global oil shortage which impacts what is available to us, including price.

BOTTOM LINE REPLY- The oil is going to one day run out.  We would be fools not to appropriately develop alternatives.  Brazil I think is the "poster child".  They use (I believe) sugar cane to produce fuels, and have recently discovered what may be a very large oil find off their coast; making them a net exporter.  This will have a big positive impact on their economy in years to come.  I have difficulty understanding why, as part of a comprehensive plan to bring us into the next century, this would not also make sense for us (with the obvious alterations in details to match our own resources).

-We need to domesticate our oil supply in a way that minimizes environmental impact.  
-We need to develop a lot more nuclear power.  
-We need to look at T. Boone Pickens plan for increased use of Natural Gas.  
-We need to develop off shore wind mill farms (and in other places).  We need to develop hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2015 (prototype already near completion).  
-We need to improve the cost efficiency of photo-voltaic cell technology.  
-We need to increase and improve hybrid automobiles.  
-We need to continue finding more and more ways to make homes and industries more energy efficient.  
-We need to kick this issues butt before it kicks ours.
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
from lecture to the Institute of Civil Engineers, 3 May 1883

Offline made-in-japan

  • Pinger
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Action Taken: +2/-4
Re: The Presidential Race
« Reply #57 on: 09-10-2008 -- 18:19:51 »
Quote from: Hawaii596 link=topic=1104. msg11591#msg11591 date=1221070025

-We need to domesticate our oil supply in a way that minimizes environmental impact.   
-We need to develop a lot more nuclear power.   
-We need to look at T.  Boone Pickens plan for increased use of Natural Gas.   
-We need to develop off shore wind mill farms (and in other places).   We need to develop hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2015 (prototype already near completion).   
-We need to improve the cost efficiency of photo-voltaic cell technology.   
-We need to increase and improve hybrid automobiles.   
-We need to continue finding more and more ways to make homes and industries more energy efficient.   
-We need to kick this issues butt before it kicks ours.


I can agree with all of these things.  I'm just really sketchy on domestic drilling and especially the Republicans plan because over the past eight years we've seen the energy policy dictated by the oil industry with this administration. 

Let me provide a graph from the EIA or Energy Information Administration in regards to domestic drilling and production.  I posted above about them and they come up with a lot of good speculative statistics.

As for flew-da-coup, you need to chill out.  You're still attacking me and I'm done bothering with you.

Offline Hawaii596

  • 9-level
  • *****
  • Posts: 1015
  • Action Taken: +16/-3
Re: The Presidential Race
« Reply #58 on: 09-10-2008 -- 18:31:03 »
I'll have to do some research.  Let's call it "round over" for today.  I have a bunch of work to do.  I'm enjoying the debate.  I'll just leave a few closing comments, and maybe do some more later, but likely tomorrow...

I am familiar with the eia website and have spent a couple of hours perusing it.  I noticed that your chart was consumption, as opposed to production.

One piece of info I have not found yet (and even the eia stuff was pretty out of date - last time I looked there - a few weeks ago), is good, believable, up-to-date estimates by country of reserves.  Every list I've found was either so cryptically set up or so out of date that I had trouble making sense of it.  I want to find the most accurate, up-to-date figures on estimated total reserves of every oil producing country in the world. 

With the concession that I totally agree that it is reasonable to be concerned (very concerned) about legitimately protecting the environment; the debate, I believe should not focus so much on IF, but on WHERE, HOW MUCH, HOW, and WHEN. 

Anyway, more later.

I enjoy a good, friendly debate.
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
from lecture to the Institute of Civil Engineers, 3 May 1883

Offline flew-da-coup

  • 9-level
  • *****
  • Posts: 1303
  • Action Taken: +17/-24
  • Missing in Action
Re: The Presidential Race
« Reply #59 on: 09-11-2008 -- 09:55:33 »
Quote from: Hawaii596 link=topic=1104. msg11591#msg11591 date=1221070025

-We need to domesticate our oil supply in a way that minimizes environmental impact.   
-We need to develop a lot more nuclear power.   
-We need to look at T.  Boone Pickens plan for increased use of Natural Gas.   
-We need to develop off shore wind mill farms (and in other places).   We need to develop hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2015 (prototype already near completion).   
-We need to improve the cost efficiency of photo-voltaic cell technology.   
-We need to increase and improve hybrid automobiles.   
-We need to continue finding more and more ways to make homes and industries more energy efficient.   
-We need to kick this issues butt before it kicks ours.


I can agree with all of these things.  I'm just really sketchy on domestic drilling and especially the Republicans plan because over the past eight years we've seen the energy policy dictated by the oil industry with this administration. 

Let me provide a graph from the EIA or Energy Information Administration in regards to domestic drilling and production.  I posted above about them and they come up with a lot of good speculative statistics.

As for flew-da-coup, you need to chill out.  You're still attacking me and I'm done bothering with you.

 You are done bothering with me because I bring common sense and logic to the table and you will not address it. That is okay, I understand why you will not address my responses. You simpley can't.

By the way, The Democrats think that off shore drilling is worth it. They just put out a plan to stop the ban on off shore drilling after they found out how out of touch they are. So what other Republican agendas are they going to adopt after finding out they are wrong on also?
« Last Edit: 09-11-2008 -- 10:07:42 by flew-da-coup »
You shall do no injustice in judgment, in measurement of length, weight, or volume.Leviticus 19:35

 

DISCLAIMER:  This site is not an official US Air Force site, it is intended for private use only.  It is not endorsed, in any way, by the US Air Force, the DoD, or any other governmental agency.  Additionally, all information found within this site is just that, it is NOT meant to be used in place of authorized publications.


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.

All forum content is the property of the respective poster, all the rest 2004-2017 by PMEL Forum.