"Drill Baby Drill" Noun+Verb=GOP EnergyPolicy(let's all chant)

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
DNC three creepiest moments:

Creepiest moments from tonight's RNC speeches

3. Mike Huckabee telling a touching story about a teacher who taught her students a valuable lesson about respecting veterans ... which left onlookers uneasy about the purple bandaids belittling John Kerry's war wounds during the last convention.

2. Rudy Giuliani's catchphrase in support of more offshore oil production. Is there anything creepier than a serial adulterer that looks like Count Chocula leading a chant of “drill, baby, drill”?

1. Hilarious off-message moment: after leading the crowd in a chant of “zero” earlier in reference to executive experience, Rudy tried to change the message to that of Obama as flip-flopper. “How many times have we seen Barack Obama do this flip-flopping?” From the back of the X near where I was sitting, one guy immediately shouted “ZERO!”

I'm pretty sure he realized his mistake quickly. I'm equally sure he wasn't the only one who did this.

citypages

DNC three creepiest moments? A Freudian slip of momentous profundity!

Well, ikts either "Drill baby drill" or ....

(img)www.getagauge.com...(/img)

"Check those tires baby, check those tires"

Hmmm, tride to make the pic show up but I must be doing something wrong!! Sorry! Anyway, you get the point....

[edit on 4-9-2008 by GeneralLee]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by feydrautha

 

If there was enough to make a dent!

As for as creating jobs, helping the economy, and securing energy independence, green and renewable energy will provide all that.

It's like heroin, you can see it in this thread alone, squeeze and squeeze the last drop and lick the needle.

It's like you got it in your head that democrats like paying $5 a gallon.

[edit on 9/4/2008 by schrodingers dog]

alternative energy can right now, not even cover 20% of what we need, windmills are still very inefficient and very expensive, for instance...

so, we should simply sit on our hands and let the fate of energy costs be determined by hands other than our own? hardly...

building new nuke plants, refineries, and platforms will put americans to work with good paying jobs, a thing dems hate to see happen... those americans should rely on handouts from the dems while they shear those mean and nasty 'rich people' of their ill gotten gains, eh?

yeah, my heroes....

just talking about domestic drilling dropped petrol prices, think about what will happen when platforms and refineries start going up?

without freely available, very cheap electricity, fully electric cars will never be practical, and nuclear energy cost does not fluctuate when iran has a snit, or a hurricaine hits new orleans (again...)

energy independance make sense. period.

the dems will not allow that to happen, just ask them.

reply to post by mental modulator

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by jetxnet
It wouldn't just be ANWAR - but in states like North Dakota and others having millions upon millions of gallons of untapped Oil.

The US would also build refineries thus significantly reducing the cost of Oil transport.

What does Noun+Verb have to do with anything??

[edit on 3-9-2008 by jetxnet]

Ya and who is to say this would reduce the price anyways? HUH?

I'd say the net effect of keeping $700 billion in the US is worth it, no?

Originally posted by mental modulator
The radical right republicans voted down legislation to address oil speculation!

Because it wouldn't do a thing. They would merely move offshore to make them immune to US law.

Originally posted by feydrautha

Originally posted by Rook1545

How on earth is this a matter of national security? I just can't see how not drilling threatens the US in any way, shape, or form. That is like saying if we don't make more Twinkies, then babies will be born with 3 arms.

our country operates on energy, we depend on it to exist

if that energy is controlled by unpredictable forces outside of our control, then that is a fundamental security risk, we can be brought to a halt... our economy, our emergency services, everything.

see? that is what a direct connection looks like, now as for twinkies and babies?

typical leftie... as clueless and logic free as ever

I guess if I was a "leftie" you could say that. Just because I agree with some liberal ideas does not make me a liberal, I agree with alot of conservative ideas too.

The thing is you will never be able to control it. America simply does not have the resources to completely free itself from foreign energy dependence. Maybe if the US decided to play nice with the rest of the world instead of treating it like it's own private playground, there wouldn't be any issues. Be lucky the countries you are getting your oil from don't stonewall you. It is not in your Bill of Rights to have oil. I guess where you get alot of your fresh water from is also a security threat since it is outside of your control.

Let's say that they do decide to open up the drilling...what are you going to do when that doesn't help a damn thing?

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by greysave

 

Are you kidding me? I'll maybe say Anwar is somewhat uncertain, but the gulf?
The whole gulf deep shelf and all is completely mapped and surveyed. Their biggest obstacle in the past was that it was technologically difficult to drill deep. They've solved that and are ready to go at a moments notice. This oil is included in the report that Bush's people released and still concluded 3-4 cent correction. And Anwar is tiny.

When was the mapping done. You completely danced around the point that the mapping was done almost 4 decades ago. We have advanced much further since then. Why would the oil companies map areas that they can't drill?

Originally posted by greysave

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by greysave

 

Are you kidding me? I'll maybe say Anwar is somewhat uncertain, but the gulf?
The whole gulf deep shelf and all is completely mapped and surveyed. Their biggest obstacle in the past was that it was technologically difficult to drill deep. They've solved that and are ready to go at a moments notice. This oil is included in the report that Bush's people released and still concluded 3-4 cent correction. And Anwar is tiny.

When was the mapping done. You completely danced around the point that the mapping was done almost 4 decades ago. We have advanced much further since then. Why would the oil companies map areas that they can't drill?

Ok, maybe we're saying the same thing than.
The point I am trying desperately to get across is this.
According to the latest report released by the white house, which includes all know and mapped areas now restricted to drilling, says: If we extract ALL that oil, in ten years, it will affect the price of gas at the pump by 3-4 cents. This thread has affected the price of oil more than that.

And I tell you from the bottom of my heart. My only guide here is logic, forget democrat. You and I do not have divergent interests. If there was enough oil to make a difference, I say it right here right now "drill till you can't drill no more". Actually that sounds like another good slogan.

[edit on 9/4/2008 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by Rook1545

Originally posted by Rook1545
The US gets most of it's oil from Canada, not the ME. Maybe if you had done some critical thinking, a little research, you would not look like a uninformed jingoist.

The #1 and #2 exporters of oil to the US are Canada and Mexico.

What does that tell you?

That NORTH AMERICA has vast oil resources.

We are the foolish ones for not harvesting our own resources.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
There's not enough oil in the states, you can't get it out efficiently, and we don't have enough refineries.

See above.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

There's not enough oil in the states, you can't get it out efficiently, and we don't have enough refineries.

Build refineries concurrently with drilling. On closed military bases. The plans are already in place. Create tens of thousands of good paying jobs as a result.


[edit on 4-9-2008 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Rook1545

 

Originally posted by Rook1545
The US gets most of it's oil from Canada, not the ME. Maybe if you had done some critical thinking, a little research, you would not look like a uninformed jingoist.

The #1 and #2 exporters of oil to the US are Canada and Mexico.

What does that tell you?

That NORTH AMERICA has vast oil resources.

We are the foolish ones for not harvesting our own resources.

I agree with you, but North American resources do not equate to American resources. And the US really has no say over what Canada or Mexico do with their oil reserves, except hope that they keep sharing.

reply to post by Rook1545

And the US really has no say over what Canada or Mexico do with their oil reserves, except hope that they keep sharing.

Even more reason to become totally energy independent!

[edit on 4-9-2008 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Rook1545

 

And the US really has no say over what Canada or Mexico do with their oil reserves, except hope that they keep sharing.

Even more reason to become totally energy independent!

[edit on 4-9-2008 by jsobecky]

We usually don't agree, but here I am 100% with you. I just don't see how it is possible.

reply to post by greysave

Originally posted by greysave
And to comment on what you said, I never said that natural gas is renewable. It is though clean. That of course isn't good enough for you. You'd prefer that we have no gas at all.

Do you know what is done with natural gas right now (it is a product of drilling for oil)?

It is pumped back into the earth, for later harvesting. That's how plentiful it is.

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by greysave

 

Originally posted by greysave
And to comment on what you said, I never said that natural gas is renewable. It is though clean. That of course isn't good enough for you. You'd prefer that we have no gas at all.

Do you know what is done with natural gas right now (it is a product of drilling for oil)?

It is pumped back into the earth, for later harvesting. That's how plentiful it is.

That is when they actually save it. Since the gas sits on top of the oil, they usually burn it. That is 65% of what is makes up a flare on a flarestack.

At least the technology is getting better. It used to be that the companies had a choice between the oil or the gas. When they pumped out the NG there was no way to get the oil out since there was now a vacuum. With nitrogen recovery it bacame possible to pump that in to replace the gas and get oil out.

reply to post by greysave

Originally posted by greysave

Originally posted by Rook1545

Originally posted by FlyersFan
It can't change overnight. We still MUST drill. It's a matter of national security.

How on earth is this a matter of national security? I just can't see how not drilling threatens the US in any way, shape, or form. That is like saying if we don't make more Twinkies, then babies will be born with 3 arms.

I think he is saying that depending on countries like Venezuela for oil, makes it a matter of national security. That we should drill in order to prevent them from cutting the gas off and shutting us down. All of the "left" communist countries are nationalizing there oil reserves.

Yes, you are right. And other natonal security reasons: incidents like the recent Russian-Georgian dustup. What runs through Georgia? The BTC pipeline.



commons.wikimedia.org...:Georgian_Pipelines.gif



[edit on 4-9-2008 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by Rook1545
The thing is you will never be able to control it. America simply does not have the resources to completely free itself from foreign energy dependence. Maybe if the US decided to play nice with the rest of the world instead of treating it like it's own private playground, there wouldn't be any issues. Be lucky the countries you are getting your oil from don't stonewall you. It is not in your Bill of Rights to have oil. I guess where you get alot of your fresh water from is also a security threat since it is outside of your control.

Let's say that they do decide to open up the drilling...what are you going to do when that doesn't help a damn thing?

quite untrue, its myths perpetuated like this that convince so many to say 'whats the use?'

this keeps our environmental types happy, they'd rather see a dog poo in your yard than see anyone get in a car and drive to work...

it all comes down to blame america first, again? because we wont play nice? so very simplistic, and a completely useless offering for a scenario thats so complex.

be lucky that the countries we rely on for our energy dont what??

you make many points in favor of energy independence, i appreciate the help...

gloom and doom, why even try?

what a terrible attitude, are you sure you're not a liberal?

reply to post by feydrautha


Agreed. Just yesterday, Iran said they plan to cut back production to raise the price of oil, which has been dropping like a stone.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I'd say the net effect of keeping $700 billion in the US is worth it, no?

I have a lot of respect for you BUT your statement above its been currently use as tool for those who want to promote drilling and is actually the most intellectually dishonest comment coming out of the GOP, but they think that if they say it enough people would believe it.

700 BILLION !!!! WE ARE GOING TO KEEP 700 BILLION IF WE START DRILLING

Honestly? Lets see, giving the FACT that if we start drilling tomorrow we wont see a drop for at least 10 years, that means that nor McCain or Palin would be in office to see this come to fruition.

700 BILLION is an inflated figure because it refers to oil prices at a ALL TIME HIGH, I believe that we have seen oil hit PEAK demand, everybody talk about OIL PEAK but few take into consideration DEMAND PEAK and DEMAND DESTRUCTION, people and governments worldwide are changing their behaviours to expand their sources of energy and conserve, thats why the oil bubble has burst, and it would keep going down, some experts estimate as low as 50 dollars a barrel.

Even if we drill that oil is going to be sold in the FREE MARKET, because is all about the FREE MARKET RIGHT?!... so we are going to pay the same amount for the barrel that everybody else in the world does, and if oil from Saudi is selling at 100.00 and the U.S. is selling at 110.00 guess which one we going to buy here in the U.S.?

Lastly, analyst estimate that we drill and exploit all our fields we are going to add a mere 3% to global supply, given that our DEPENDANCE on NET PETROLEUM IMPORTS is a staggering 58.2% even if we keep all the oil that we drill ,which is an impossibility because oil is traded in the international market, we still going to need 55% on oil imports if demand for OIL products remain the same.

U.S. Dependance on NET PETROLEUM IMPORTS by EIA

People keep repeating this nonsense that is feed to them by their leaders as if they cant think for themselves and do some research and dont realize that all they want to do is getting the rich, richer, and pillage and rape the planet to oblivion.

People need to educate themselves before voting, not doing so is utterly irresponsible.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Bunch]

reply to post by jetxnet


It's not an Obama problem alone is all our supposedly for the people elected politicians problem how to help our nation stop been sucked away by big corporate oil companies that are funneling millions of dollar into the pockets of our for the people elected politicians to turn a blind eye to getting this nation out of oil dependency.

Drill, drill and more drill to keep fattening the big oil barons and their dirty corrupted whores ( I mean politicians) pockets.

Originally posted by Rook1545

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Rook1545

 

And the US really has no say over what Canada or Mexico do with their oil reserves, except hope that they keep sharing.

Even more reason to become totally energy independent!

[edit on 4-9-2008 by jsobecky]

We usually don't agree, but here I am 100% with you. I just don't see how it is possible.

Rook, more drilling won't solve the whole problem. But drilling along with every other possible alternative source will solve the problem.

We both want the same goals. It's good to have a level-heated debate on how to achieve those goals.

Originally posted by feydrautha
quite untrue, its myths perpetuated like this that convince so many to say 'whats the use?'

There is a big difference between saying what is the use, and trying to come up with a good plan. There has to be some ground in the middle that the apathetics and the chicken littles can agree on. It might take some time, but it is there.

this keeps our environmental types happy, they'd rather see a dog poo in your yard than see anyone get in a car and drive to work...

Screw the environmentalists. Most of them are clueless and don't realize that the tires for their bikes come from oil. Or that the tractors used to pick thier organic produce use diesel fuel.

it all comes down to blame america first, again? because we wont play nice? so very simplistic, and a completely useless offering for a scenario thats so complex.

You can't blame anyone else for America's problems but America. It is simplistic, but not useless. No other country created Americas problems.

be lucky that the countries we rely on for our energy dont what??

stone·wall - To refuse to answer or cooperate.

In other words, stop selling you resources.

you make many points in favor of energy independence, i appreciate the help...

You are welcome

gloom and doom, why even try?

what a terrible attitude, are you sure you're not a liberal?

Pretty sure. I don't subscribe to wing politics, I like to cherrypick my positions from either side based on my values and my morals, not someone else's.