It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats vote NO to lower gas prices

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   
I read this thread and wow… I become overwhelmed! It is obvious that we in this country are indoctrinated! Republican vs Democrat! The truth is that most of you do not even remember why you registered with your respective party. Neither party represents the bulk of the country, most of us are in the middle, or what I call the common sense league… It’s just that you will not admit it because of animosity to the party opposite of you. This behavior and way of thinking is stupid and leads our country to demise! I am a registered republican but and going to switch to independent. I am tired of all the BS… I would love nothing more than the logic party to be an option… Our energy problem needs fixed and fixed now… The Dems want a windfall tax, this is retarded! Why would you add a tax to an industry that receives government subsidies??? IT IS RETARED! My solution! End subsidies or redirect them, lift the ban on American drilling and exploration… Create Tax penalties against all oil presently exported overseas. Drill for more oil but do not tap it.. Drill the wells and cap them, essentially creating a new massive reserve! This will castrate speculators and decrease new money into the energy market. We must also stop massive spending! I wish I could say that we can leave Iraq but the fact is, Iraq has now become an investment, meaning we sank so much money into it that we cannot afford to abandon and or sell that stock.. We must stick with Iraq until the dividends are in our favor… I know most of you hate that but it’s the damn cold truth. We must make it law to produce flex vehicles, this would create a market for alternative fuel. We must create an energy Manhattan Project ! The mere fact of our country committing to such a thing would reduce oil prices! These are ideas! They might not be the best but they are a start! We must think outside the box! Our current two party system is not conducive to outside the box thinking! WE MUST CHANGE THIS!


P.S. For you electric car people: If we switched all 200 million cars to electric tomorrow our grid would be toast! Before we look at electric cars we must enhance our power grid. This leads us back to logic! What do we do to produce more energy?




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by argile2000
 


Wow, if you didn't say you were a former Republican, I would have sworn you were a Democrat. You know, back in the 1970's, President Carter even went so far as to dare and put solar panels up on the roof of the White House, only to have a one Republican, Mr. Ronald Reagan, promptly take them down just after inauguration. Yeah, he got a bad rap, particularly by the ones who traded arms for hostages, and those who weren't oil executives or CIA operatives, or those who weren't happy about a pro union and peace loving democrat being in office causing trouble for the military industrial complex.

So anyway, I just wanted to let you know that you are more than welcome to join the party and become a Democrat. Or stay independent, but above all, think for yourself. Either way, congratulations for seeing the Republican party for what it truly is.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow
reply to post by argile2000
 


Wow, if you didn't say you were a former Republican, I would have sworn you were a Democrat. You know, back in the 1970's, President Carter even went so far as to dare and put solar panels up on the roof of the White House, only to have a one Republican, Mr. Ronald Reagan, promptly take them down just after inauguration. Yeah, he got a bad rap, particularly by the ones who traded arms for hostages, and those who weren't oil executives or CIA operatives, or those who weren't happy about a pro union and peace loving democrat being in office causing trouble for the military industrial complex.

So anyway, I just wanted to let you know that you are more than welcome to join the party and become a Democrat. Or stay independent, but above all, think for yourself. Either way, congratulations for seeing the Republican party for what it truly is.




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow
reply to post by argile2000
 


Wow, if you didn't say you were a former Republican, I would have sworn you were a Democrat. You know, back in the 1970's, President Carter even went so far as to dare and put solar panels up on the roof of the White House, only to have a one Republican, Mr. Ronald Reagan, promptly take them down just after inauguration. Yeah, he got a bad rap, particularly by the ones who traded arms for hostages, and those who weren't oil executives or CIA operatives, or those who weren't happy about a pro union and peace loving democrat being in office causing trouble for the military industrial complex.

So anyway, I just wanted to let you know that you are more than welcome to join the party and become a Democrat. Or stay independent, but above all, think for yourself. Either way, congratulations for seeing the Republican party for what it truly is.






Whoa !!! Wait a sec.. Where did you get that from? I think both parties are dumb! Carter was stupid as hell! Solar panels in 1980 were prob about 5% efficient! I think you have absolutely no clue ! You have no understanding of what I posted! You are very indoctrinated my friend!



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by argile2000
 


Really? I don't think so much. That was revolutionary back then. Can you imagine if America would have followed that path and moved into a full blown alternative energy agenda path? Would we be where we were now?

Even if not, you blame him for making a symbolic statement for an alternative?

Why does that anger you? Honestly, I really want to try and understand the Carter haters...why would you be pissed off that Carter put solar panels on the roof of the W.H. Obviously the right wing was, becaus the golden calf Reagan imediately had them removed....




Carter was stupid as hell!


Maybe I'm missing something, but didn't he get the Nobel Peace Prize?


[edit on 13-6-2008 by skyshow]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow
reply to post by argile2000
 


Really? I don't think so much. That was revolutionary back then. Can you imagine if America would have followed that path and moved into a full blown alternative energy agenda path? Would we be where we were now?

Even if not, you blame him for making a symbolic statement for an alternative?

Why does that anger you? Honestly, I really want to try and understand the Carter haters...why would you be pissed off that Carter put solar panels on the roof of the W.H. Obviously the right wing was, becaus the golden calf Reagan imediately had them removed....




Because of logic… When the oil embargo happened in the 70’s we should have taken quantitative steps and not stupid symbolism! This means that we shoulda explored and developed more resources on top of massive capital investment into technologies. Carter was a wuss and illogical. Till this day he remains as such.. I.E trying to convince Hamas to change ways… Anyone that studies Geography and History knows better!



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   
skyshow!

The mods wil destroy me for this but oh well!

You are a pure example of indoctrinized! Your label is liberal, it says it in your name, and to limit yourself to that one way of thinking is dumb! In my opinion you have no understanding of the world! I think you need to read and open your eyes! If you are unable to do this then you might be a tool! Sorry to offend but I call it as I see it! Oh and Mods! I believe in free speech! If this guy cannot take criticism then he should not post!



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by argile2000
 

Good post and I agree except for two things. One was drilling and capping wells. Why would a company do that? Or are you suggesting the government do that? The other is the flex fuel cars. Biodiesel only makes sense if we make it from something like sugar cane which Brazil does. Making it from corn or something similar takes as much energy to make it and strains food supply. I agree, that we need an energy manhattan project, but it should be to find a way to genetically alter sugar cane or something similar to grow in our climate.

As far as political parties go, well it is an election year. Everything is political.

edit to add:

Here is a good article on the effects of biodiesel.

Time: The Clean Energy Scam



[edit on 6/13/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
reply to post by argile2000
 

Good post and I agree except for two things. One was drilling and capping wells. Why would a company do that? Or are you suggesting the government do that? The other is the flex fuel cars. Biodiesel only makes sense if we make it from something like sugar cane which Brazil does. Making it from corn or something similar takes as much energy to make it and strains food supply. I agree, that we need an energy manhattan project, but it should be to find a way to genetically alter sugar cane or something similar to grow in our climate.

As far as political parties go, well it is an election year. Everything is political.

edit to add:

Here is a good article on the effects of biodiesel.

Time: The Clean Energy Scam



[edit on 6/13/2008 by Hal9000]



Bravo, you bring up good points! I am glad to see pople really thinking. You have good questions and bring up a good point. I will think more about the solution. if you or anyone else has any Iw ould love to hear. Lets kep the thinking moving!



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


The vote was 9 to 6 against. That means 1 republican sided with the dems on this. It obviously would not have passed anyway because there are 8 dems and 7 republicans on the committee. However, how is this solely on the dems?

From everything I have seen it falls on both sides of the fence. You just have to understand what each side stands for. The Dems are more liberal and more of the 'tree hugging' variety. That's why they don't want to allow this to happen. There probably weren't any measures to prevent the amount of sites beyond the 50 mile mark. I can't say for sure but that would be something I would look at.

Uncontrolled drilling would not benefit us in the long run. Also, the prices would not be affected much if at all because we still would need the refineries to take on the burdon of processing the oil. How long do you think it would take to build say 10 platforms in the ocean and at least 3 to 5 refineries? Was this addressed in the proposal?

There is much more to it than "let's just drill and get gas prices down!" That's the good ole' boy attitude of the Texas oil barrens. They will profit while we still will have high gas prices.

Plus, I'm not so convinced that the Dems have our best interests in heart on this just as much as I am not convinced of the Republicans intentions.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Here is the way I see it...

With gas at over 4$ a gallon here, a 18 cent decrease is a JOKE! It will only make the tax defict go no where but up and really is paying 3.80-something a gallon all that much better than 4.08 a gallon? What about the imposition of a "wind fall" tax on large oil companies?????? You know why that is not happening is because many of the politicians in office have finicial stakes in big oil! The Bush family fortune is BUILT ON THE OIL INDUSTRY! Why is no one finding out, or making an estimate on the amount of profit his (and of course Cheney's too) family and business partners are making? So let me get this straight....

We are going to short change our country so these rich elietist pompus "jerks" (I could use many better terms here but am not allowed) can continue to rake in an obsene amount of profit?

Why can people not see through this BS?

As far as increased drilling goes, forget about it! I for one am VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT! If this was a permenant solution to the problem then I could see how the benetifits would out weigh the potential environmental issues but that is going to buy us what? 10 to 20 years tops?

WE NEED TO COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVE RENEWABLE FUELS THAT ARE HOPEFULLY LESS ENVIRONMENTALLY DESTRUCTIVE!

I propose we keep the federal gas tax and impose a wind fall taxation of engery companies put it all into a fund to grant monies to engineers/scientists to figure out some good alternative fuels! Kind of like what was done with big tobacco...
We could make an organization like the NIH and make it a peer-reviewed process where people write grants and get funded to help create alternative engery methods! Yeah, the NIH grant process is not the greatest and has limitations but it works! It will also allow free thought because the research will NOT be guided or driven by the engery giants like it currentally is!



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


apparently, you seem determined to foster divisiveness by insisting that this was purely a partisan move and "no explaination was given" when the article clearly states:
1) "Most offshore oil production and exploration has been banned since a federal law passed in 1981."
2)"the proposal has faced staunch opposition from environmental groups from states where the shorelines are under consideration for drilling, like Florida."
3)"The disappointing part about some of the energy policies being promoted (is) that it calls for more drilling when drilling really is the problem. And all we've got to show for pretty aggressive (domestic) drilling for the last 35 years is, again, $4 for a gallon of gas
And finally,
4)"There are 68 million acres right now that is available for exploration right now that the oil companies have — an area the size of Illinois and Georgia.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Hey DUDE there is no gas crisis its the US Dollar falling in value. What is going to save us is not drilling in some off shore, coastal, Arctic REFUGE it's a BAD IDEA.
Each American needs to take control of there energy needs. Get your self some solar panels get an electric car and take responsibility for your self.
Fix the Dollar, get independent thats what's going to help us.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
I'd like to hear the Democrats and Liberals explain this one away.

Today a House subcommittee voted against a Republican-led measure that would have led to drilling 50 to 100 miles offshore. This could have led to lower gas prices and is in conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey's Oil and Gas Assessment that there are hundreds of billions of barrels of oil under our own land and shores.

Now why would the Democrats vote AGAINST such a measure? Could it be that THEY are the ones who are profiting by the high gas prices and lowering prices would mean less profit for them?

I say follow the votes, not the propaganda. Democrats may say they care about pain at the pump, but their votes say otherwise.

www.foxnews.com...


interesting that it's never pointed out in the media that 80% of the oil pumped from alaska already, is sold overseas. do you really think the oil companies are somehow patriots for america??? any oil pumped from offshore of our country WILL NOT be used to lower prices here. it is always put into the world market at spot prices.

and democrats profiting????? are you kidding??? bush has been an oilman all his life and cheney was CEO of haliburton, and both of them have vast holdings in oil and oil related stocks in their blind trusts. in fact cheney still recieves renumeration other then stock from haliburton even though it is suppose to be illegal. WHAT NEXT?????.. oh, i know, DEMOCRATS STARTED THE IRAQI WAR!!!!

[edit on 13-6-2008 by jimmyx]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Yes Virginia, there is an oil shortage. It’s not that there is not enough oil but that it’s not being collected and refined quickly enough to keep up with the growth of demand. Drilling and refining more in the U.S. would reduce that problem. Strangely, Democrats ( on the whole) seem to think that drilling is not the answer. That’s sort of like saying: “I don’t have enough apples to eat - but planting more apple trees can’t possibly be the answer!”

Alternative energy is the long-term solution. But by that I mean long-term. There is not enough capability, at the current time, to just switch off the oil and go to alternative sources. Someday there will be. For now, we have to use what works - oil. And right now we are not producing enough of it.


Adding to this...if alternative fuels were a viable option, don't you think the oil providers would lower their prices in an effort to be competative?

Playing off the apple analogy: If my apples are about to become obsolete because of some alternative - synthetic version or pill - I think I'd lower the price of my apples so I wouldn't be stuck with inventory that will not sell.

Continuing with apples: “I don’t have enough apples to eat - but planting more apple trees can’t possibly be the answer!” But what if my neighbor believes that planting more apples IS the answer. So they plant an orchard BIGGER than mine - if I don't plant more apples and lower my price - I'll be out of business! Granted, this won't happen overnight - but the end-game will be inevitable.

In regards to the partisan politics issue: There is a difference between the two parties on how to deal with this problem. Dems seem to think that punishing the EVIL oil companies via windfall profits taxes will change their behavior. Think about that for a minute: If you raise taxes on any manufacturer or producer, who ulitmately pays the price - consumers. The price at the pump would climb even higher, as the suppliers passed the increased cost of doing business on to us. The oil companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to turn a profit - so any increase in the cost of business will NOT be absorbed by the company, because it would erode profits, which would result in less return-on-investment, which means Joe Bluecollar who's invested in the oil company via 401k plans or money market account - will have less to retire on and will be even more dependant on the government in his autumn years to survive.

The Reps, on the other hand, see it as - we need to take advantage of our own resources. By doing that, those other oil producers will see that we are serious about cutting them off. Think about that for a minute: If you know that you are about to loose your biggest and best customer - wouldn't you do everything within your power to try to keep them? Maybe give them a price break - or improve service?

Finally, as to the argument that oil companies should use their profits to do more R&D on alternative fuels. I believe they would do that if there was an outcry from the shareholders. If the shareholders, enmasse, would say to the company "I'm willing to deal with less return-on-investment, if it means you will use those funds for serious research into alternatives." You may snicker and say that that sounds a little 'Utopian' - really - is it any more 'Utopian' than thinking that we are all going to wake up tomorrow and not need oil anymore?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
This all goes back to Carter ( the 1st satan) no balls president that let the middle east think that they had any power. Then continued with the idiot and REAL satan Bill Clinton when he signed the bill to lift the restrictions on oil spec for his buddies back in 2000. Which brings us to today and Mr nice guy Bush who has bent over to be nice to the idiot libs instead of telling them in a nice way that they are commie pigs.

If the empty suite O bama gets elected them OH MY GOD he will make the idiot Carter look like a genius. O bama is nothing but a puppet for Soros the commie pig. aimo



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
To those that would support electric cars;

There are a number of "small" problems with your idea that bear pointing out, as follows;

1. There are approximately 250,000,000 (two-hundred-fifty million) vehicles in the United States. Only a small fraction are currently alternatively fueled. What are you going to do with all those existing vehicles? Dig a big hole and cover them up? Perhaps, you might say: “Gee, we can just recycle them!” Did you ever stop to consider the amount of energy that would be required to do so? Where is THAT energy coming from?
2. Ok, so let us continue with this. How are you going to replace all the existing vehicles with new alternative fueled ones? How are you going to produce 250,000,000 new vehicles without huge energy expenditures?
3. So let’s assume we CAN produce that many vehicles in a short enough period of time. You want to make them all electric (or hybrids) right? Well, one of the dirty little secrets of electric cars is that they have to be built to a very low weight to power ratio. That means lots of plastic. Plastic derived from petroleum based products. Still need lots of oil. What else would you build them out of? Wicker? Canvas? Please tell us.
4. Speaking of power to weight ratios: The reason you don’t see a lot of big electric trucks running around is because they are very inefficient. That’s why they use diesel engines – it gives the best (cheapest) power to weight performance. Do you propose having less inefficient trucks then? That would mean more of them would be required you know…
5. Not only do you need lots of oil, but you need lots of other toxic ingredients to produce the batteries, e.g. lead, mercury, nickel, acids, etc. Think that won’t cause a problem to produce and dispose of all those nasty by-products? What’s your plan for dealing with that?
6. Again 250,000,000 vehicles. How do you propose everyone replace their existing vehicle if they can’t afford it? Is the government going to buy me a new electric car if I can’t afford it? What about the companies that have long-term investments in their transportation. Eighteen-wheelers aren’t bought as a short-term investment. They’re expected to stay on the road as long as possible. That can mean decades. Do you plan on paying more taxes to buy new trucks for all those evil corporations?
7. Ok. So now that you’ve got all these electric cars on the road, how do you fuel them? As argile2000 earlier pointed out, the electric grid in this country cannot support a quick changeover to mass electric-powered transportation. Furthermore, where do you think that electricity is coming from? You’ve got to convert energy from something else to make the electricity. That means coal or nuclear. Are you in favor of building nuclear power plants in your neighborhood to produce the energy for your electric car? Why not? It’s your idea! Or how about hydro-electric? Going to put a dam on every river, stream and creek in the United States?

This is just a small list of the few minor difficulties that proponents of electric cars seem not to consider as pertinent. It figures. The modern education system we have produces people that are taught that every idea has merit. That’s untrue. The idea of electric cars, as of this moment, has no merit.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


Alternative energy is crap and expensive. We need to drill in the US everywhere possible. ANWAR is a hellhole, no one will ever go there and it needs to be drained of every drop now.

Oil is not running out, the amount of oil that can be pumped from the existing sources is almost at its peak, there are not enough refineries to produce gasoline in the US. China and India are consuming almost as much as the US and will continue to consume more in the future leaving us with less and higher prices.

Why not drill off of california and the gulf of mexico? ahh poor babies dont want to see oil rigs offshore...too bad idiots, we need the oil.

This is a liberal problem, screw the freaking enviro nuts and the liberal idiots, they are the only problem and the cause to higher prices right now.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn

Originally posted by dgtempe
THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME AGENDA.

The debate should be any government v. we the people.

Dont waste your breath in trying to pin this horrendous oil problem on the party being elected soon.


BINGO!!!

I thought that being elected was an honor bestowed on those who the citizens voted in office.

I was naive,

ever seen a two headed coin?

No matter your political leanings, take a step back, then look back into recent history (max 50yrs), look at the platforms presented, look at who was in control, CONGRESS,

That's right, your elected Representatives and Senators....

From my minimal research..

Our elected in the CAPITOL have been playing a shell game with our Great Grand parents, Grand parents, Parents, and now us....

My only question is...

How can we stop this endless cycle?

Anyone?


Easy, introduce something that I bang on about here in the UK. Its called a .....

NONE OF THE ABOVE vote!

Yes, its where you the dissatisfied voter, who know more than the current sheep voters, still can use your right to express your feelings about the inept and politically atrophic crop of candidates. And, when the main parties don’t get the mandate the void can be filled by those that ‘might’ just represent what you really want?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by RaDios
Yes Virginia, there is an oil shortage. It’s not that there is not enough oil but that it’s not being collected and refined quickly enough to keep up with the growth of demand. Drilling and refining more in the U.S. would reduce that problem. Strangely, Democrats ( on the whole) seem to think that drilling is not the answer. That’s sort of like saying: “I don’t have enough apples to eat - but planting more apple trees can’t possibly be the answer!”

Another good post, however because oil has been cheaper up till now, Americans have been foolishly wasting it on gluttonous vehicles. I think it is better to restrict it until we become more energy efficient, then maybe we don't need more wells and refineries.



The Reps, on the other hand, see it as - we need to take advantage of our own resources.

Now hold on. Aren't the republicans the ones bashing democrats for subsidizing ethanol and other domestic ventures? I think you have it backward. I don't agree with the approach taken on ethanol, as I stated earlier, because I don't think we are reducing greenhouse gases if they are burning rain forests to make it (see the article I posted earlier) and using the corn that would feed someone for a year to make one tankful of gas for an SUV.

There are other viable alternatives and we need to have the mahatten project type research to find it.

[edit on 6/13/2008 by Hal9000]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join