Wow. The Republicans finally grew some balls

55 replies [Last post]
babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Check out the revolt in the House of Representatives.   The Democrats recessed for 5 weeks and refused...REFUSED...to allow a vote on an energy bill.    No voting. No discussing and then they want to take 5 weeks off.
 
Finally!! Time that we took back the House of Representatives and made them actually work for a damned living.  Do the people's business Nancy.  Vote.

IsOldSpiceRightForMe's picture
Joined: 2008-04-14

That's our tax dollars refusing to work.

snaggletooth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-13

babbling looney wrote:Check out the revolt in the House of Representatives.   The Democrats recessed for 5 weeks and refused...REFUSED...to allow a vote on an energy bill.    No voting. No discussing and then they want to take 5 weeks off.
 
Finally!! Time that we took back the House of Representatives and made them actually work for a damned living.  Do the people's business Nancy.  Vote.
 
One of my clients and friends has written some of the energy bills for the Republicans.  The Democrats won't even READ the bills. 
 
They don't want anything positive coming out while Bush is still in office.  Sucks for us.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

Agree or disagree, I can't imagine how congressional Dems think such a move will be received positively by the voting public.  In a year when conventional wisdom is that Dems ought to easily recapture the presidency, this looks like a big political blunder to me.  If you disagree, fine...enlighten me as to how this works for Obama.

Spaceman Spiff's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-08

snaggletooth wrote:babbling looney wrote:Check out the revolt in the House of Representatives.   The Democrats recessed for 5 weeks and refused...REFUSED...to allow a vote on an energy bill.    No voting. No discussing and then they want to take 5 weeks off.
 
Finally!! Time that we took back the House of Representatives and made them actually work for a damned living.  Do the people's business Nancy.  Vote.
 
One of my clients and friends has written some of the energy bills for the Republicans.  The Democrats won't even READ the bills. 
 
They don't want anything positive coming out while Bush is still in office.  Sucks for us.
Won't read the bills or can't read the bills.  There's a lot of big words in those documents. 

stokwiz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-04

Some Republicans say they are prepared to vote against a resolution to fund the federal government for the 2009 fiscal year unless Democrats agree to lift an offshore drilling moratorium. If the budget resolution fails, many agencies and departments would be denied money to operate and would be forced to close. Now we could see a government shutdown, which would be great.However I think it bit the republicans in the butt last time under Newt. Dems would gloss over why there was a shutdown and spin it to their advantage. If 1/2 the country is ignorant enough to vote for Obama, they'll believe anything. Glad to see the GOP growing a pair and using them .
 
Stok

snaggletooth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-13

Spaceman Spiff wrote:snaggletooth wrote:babbling looney wrote:Check out the revolt in the House of Representatives.   The Democrats recessed for 5 weeks and refused...REFUSED...to allow a vote on an energy bill.    No voting. No discussing and then they want to take 5 weeks off.
 
Finally!! Time that we took back the House of Representatives and made them actually work for a damned living.  Do the people's business Nancy.  Vote.
 
One of my clients and friends has written some of the energy bills for the Republicans.  The Democrats won't even READ the bills. 
 
They don't want anything positive coming out while Bush is still in office.  Sucks for us.
Won't read the bills or can't read the bills.  There's a lot of big words in those documents. 
 
Won't. 
 
"Can't" implies the democrats are stupid and illiterate.  This may be in some instances, but "won't" implies that they are choosing to not work on behalf of the people who elected them and appear to be doing so very selfishly.
 
It's just a matter of opinion, but I think "won't" is worse than "can't".  These senators don't even have to worry about the same issues we do.  When was the last time they actually filled a gas tank? 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

What is amazing to me is the complete and utter lack of coverage on this issue by the MSM.    People by and large have no idea what is going on.
 
The Republicans are back in the House today, including the Representative from my district.  The media doesn't want to cover this because they know that it is a losing issue for the Democrats and they are so far into the tank trying to get Obama elected.   They have enough votes in the House to pass this bill because even some of the Democrats are smart enough to listen to their own voters and will cross party lines to approve an expanded energy bill.  People are overwhelmingly in favor of opening up drilling and expanding our supply of oil.
 
The Dems think that people will blame the Republicans for high prices and then if Obama is in office he and they can become the heros.  This is why the media is suppressing this information, but like the Swift Boat issue, they can't keep the lid on indefinitely.   It will come out if the Republicans hold firm and don't give in.The Democrats would rather see people suffer, the market being depressed, businesses going bankrupt and jobs being lost so that they can try to grab power and get Obama elected.  They are sitting on the sidelines refusing to allow this or any other bill to come to the floor of Congress before the election.   
 
I hate to sound uncaring, but maybe it would have been better if the brave people on Flight 93 hadn't crashed in Pennsylvania and fulfilled its flight path, right into Congress and took out all of these useless bozos we have in office.
 
If it weren't for the internet and that I have a friend who works in the district office of my Rep we wouldn't know any of this.    If we were to see this bill (to expand drilling, exploration and refining) pass the market would pop up and oil futures prices would drop.
 
I'm sending emails supporting the Republican House members to my Congressman and all other Republicans encouraging them to continue to bring this isssue to the public's attention and DON"T GIVE UP.  I suggest you guys do the same.

now_indy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-28

The MSM media is ignoring the John Edwards "scandal" as well. If that was a republican, they would be ALL over it. Hypocrisy at it's finest. 

IsOldSpiceRightForMe's picture
Joined: 2008-04-14

I heard today that Obama is suddenly for offshore drilling now with his new energy plan.  Let the flip-flopping begin.
I also saw a funny picture from McCain, it was a tire gage that says "Obama's Energy Plan" on it. 

Spaceman Spiff's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-08

That inflate your tires quote from Obama was priceless.  If I were McCain I'd put that thing on a loop and play it constantly until election day.  Seriously, who writes this stuff for Obama?  Or did that come out of his very own brain?  I don't know which is a scarier thought, that he would think it or that he would buy into it and repeat it. 

IsOldSpiceRightForMe's picture
Joined: 2008-04-14
avise's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-12-12

babbling looney wrote:What is amazing to me is the complete and utter lack of coverage on this issue by the MSM.    People by and large have no idea what is going on.
 
The Republicans are back in the House today, including the Representative from my district.  The media doesn't want to cover this because they know that it is a losing issue for the Democrats and they are so far into the tank trying to get Obama elected.   These types of phony-baloney stunts get a lot of coverage...on the Daily Show and the political humor columns where they belong. And that is a non-partisan barb...from the late 90's til '06 the Daily Show has had great segments when the Dems put on the same silly spectacles. And none of their foolishness was covered by the Post, the Times or the networks either. On another note, Obama said keeping tires properly inflated would save more oil than we can get from coastal drilling. Engineers, NASCAR, mechanics, Ronald Reagan and others have said the same thing....why, because its true. If the 30% of cars that run underinflated tires aired up we would save far more gas than we can ever hope to recover form offshore reserves. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html

norway401's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-10-16

His obviously much more wise comments are as a result of his recently heralded " Majical Mystery Tour " or is it Jet Lag?????
He and his staff advise THEY are not FLIP FLOPPING????? Another way to increase fuel economy - remove anything from your trunk. You bet if the Edwards situation was reverse, a Republican, the press would be over the story like Stink On A Monkey.

IsOldSpiceRightForMe's picture
Joined: 2008-04-14

avise wrote:If the 30% of cars that run underinflated tires aired up we would save far more gas than we can ever hope to recover form offshore reserves.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6pVI56McsI

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

babbling looney wrote:What is amazing to me is the complete and utter lack of coverage on this issue by the MSM.    People by and large have no idea what is going on.
The same media that gave Bush a pass on the invasion of Iraq. No complaints about that? To be clear, I mean then, in 03, when it was happening. If the media had done t's job maybe enough questions would have been raised to derail the Bush trillion dollar war plan. Butttt, they were asleep at the wheel then, or in bed with Bush. Today nothing has changed other than bed hopping to a new sleeping partner. So why the outrage? As a republican you should be happy that Cheney, Rove, and Gonzales aren't in prison. If the media had pushed that's where they'd be.
 
The Republicans are back in the House today, including the Representative from my district.  The media doesn't want to cover this because they know that it is a losing issue for the Democrats and they are so far into the tank trying to get Obama elected.   They have enough votes in the House to pass this bill because even some of the Democrats are smart enough to listen to their own voters and will cross party lines to approve an expanded energy bill.  People are overwhelmingly in favor of opening up drilling and expanding our supply of oil.
 
Not so fast there skippy, em , I mean babs. Show me the overwhelming support. Yeah, the country is marginally in favor of off shore drilling, but not overwhelmingly so. And in states that will have to pay the piper if the shit hits the fan, like New Jersey for instance, not so overwhelming. Pretty much split. The uninformed SUV drivers humping down the Turnpike at 85 mph want drilling. Those who know better would rather not see one of the world's largest underground water supplies put on the pass line hoping the oil guys get it right. Corzine is right in his opposition to drilling.
 
The Dems think that people will blame the Republicans for high prices and then if Obama is in office he and they can become the heros.  This is why the media is suppressing this information, but like the Swift Boat issue, they can't keep the lid on indefinitely.   It will come out if the Republicans hold firm and don't give in.The Democrats would rather see people suffer, the market being depressed, businesses going bankrupt and jobs being lost so that they can try to grab power and get Obama elected.  They are sitting on the sidelines refusing to allow this or any other bill to come to the floor of Congress before the election.  
 
People will blame republicans for high prices? Gee doyathink? Let's see, secret energy policy engineered by Dr. Evil and now record profits by oil companies. Where were oil prices in 2001? Who else to blame? The ethanol debacle is pushing up food prices. Plus the e85 is crap gas.  Again, this is a Bush policy. Who should we blame? Record deficit that can do nothing but push interest rates up.  Who did that? Bush owns this mess. Of course with spin master Rove out of the picture he's having a tough time spinning his way around his failed economic policy.
 
Do you think that oil connected republicans really care about lowering energy costs? Again, our energypolicy is a secret. And now the repubicans who drafted that policy are closer than ever to getting the number one gift on their wish list, off shore drilling. Coincidence? Babs, the republicans are getting rich off that policy. Which brings me to your Swift Boat comment.
 
First, you do know the whole Swift Boat thing was a smear campaign that has since been debunked. Unfortunately, for the American people many were stupid enough to buy into it. And not because it cost Kerry the election, but because it cost America a fair election, again. We saw the same thing emerge duringthe democratic primary. Of course we all got the email that showed Obama not holding his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Alligiance. The email's purpose to tag Obama as anti american. ABC news polls conducted during the Ohio primary showed that, that email affected how voters voted. The sad news is that the picture in question was taken after the Pledge of Alliance and during the the song "America The Beautiful." No rule about that.
 
But let's move on to the big oil's love affair with anything Bush. You mentioned the Swift Boat campaign. Did you know that the Swift boat campaign against Kerry was privately funded? You can't have big politicalparty'sconductingsmear campaigns or paying for them. To fund the Swift boat campaign the repubilcans tapped T. Boone Pickens. T , who is an oil man, put up 40 million dollars of his own money to fund the campaign and get the book published. Why would an oil guy put up so much money to keep a president in office? Pickens is a smart business man, one of the smartest in the oil patch. Looking at oil prices in 2004 versus today, do you think that 40 million was a smart investment or money down the rat hole? Yet the naive think it was all about something that happened 30 years ago in Vietnam. or in this case , didn't happen. By the way ,I'm not a kerry fan, but i'm less a fan of liars. Which is what all the swift boat accusers are. And they were used by big oil to gain Bush another term. So, in their case stupid liars or sell outs. Take yor pick.
 
 
I hate to sound uncaring, but maybe it would have been better if the brave people on Flight 93 hadn't crashed in Pennsylvania and fulfilled its flight path, right into Congress and took out all of these useless bozos we have in office.
 
I'll let this comment speak for itself. But in 01 wasn't congress mostly republican?
 
If it weren't for the internet and that I have a friend who works in the district office of my Rep we wouldn't know any of this.    If we were to see this bill (to expand drilling, exploration and refining) pass the market would pop up and oil futures prices would drop.
 
Babs, on what planet? The oil gain won't be realized for years, far beyond the exp date of any futures trading today.
 
 
I'm sending emails supporting the Republican House members to my Congressman and all other Republicans encouraging them to continue to bring this isssue to the public's attention and DON"T GIVE UP.  I suggest you guys do the same.

avise's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-12-12

norway401 wrote:His obviously much more wise comments are as a result of his recently heralded " Majical Mystery Tour " or is it Jet Lag?????
He and his staff advise THEY are not FLIP FLOPPING????? Another way to increase fuel economy - remove anything from your trunk. You bet if the Edwards situation was reverse, a Republican, the press would be over the story like Stink On A Monkey.

avise's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-12-12

norway401 wrote: You bet if the Edwards situation was reverse, a Republican, the press would be over the story like Stink On A Monkey.I just Googled this up to see what you are talking about.  You are reading too many blogs.  I haven't been grocery shopping in the past month or so, but for a couple of years it seemed all the rags you now respect so much had nothing on their covers but pictures of Bush drunk; Laura scratching his face; Laura living in a hotel, etc. etc.  Thank G*d no one, not even you, was all over that nonsense either

norway401's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-10-16

Avise....in fact do not read blogs. Majical Mystery Tour his recent tour see Obama vsisits Middle East and Europe. See his comments on Energy , Taxation and other significant issues. ( Then versus Now ). Would you admit perhaps pandering for votes?
What publications are you referencing???? BTW , I do point out that ALL Politicians are very capable of saying whatever they think will get them elected. No diffference between Republicans or Democrats ( U.S. ) or Conservative or Liberals ( Canada ).

avise's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-12-12

When I googled John Edwards scandal, it led only to blogs who are getting their story from the National Enquirer. For at least a year it seemed the Enquirer only had front cover pictures of Bush with fingernail scratches on his face; Laura's hotel; and all sorts of Bush is on the Bottle B.S. I am pretty sure that the blogs that are all over this Edwards crap were just as upset that those "Bush is a Drunk" stories weren't picked up by the traditional media. Or probably not. First, I don't know why anyone should care about John Edwards, a guy who has demonstrably proven that he can not win any kind of election (You can't have a political career if you consistently gain 15% of the vote) . Secondly, why should the National Enquirer be the go-to source for news?

norway401's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-10-16

Avise - On Energy , I would ask what is the Democrat's Position to have Alternate Sources Of Energy? If you are suggesting Wind Power , Solar Power or BioFuels .....when are these expected to be on line? The Liberal Party in Canada is suggesting Raising Taxes and that would do what?
Not sure of you age ....... I do recall the Alternate Energy Sources have been around and discussed at great length for a least 20 years. That being said where are we now , frankly not that much further ahead. I would be more than happy to review either the Democrats ( U.S. ) or Liberals ( Canada ) Energy Plans that will be online to address the energy situation within the next 12-24 months.

IsOldSpiceRightForMe's picture
Joined: 2008-04-14

BondGuy wrote:The sad news is that the picture in question was taken after the Pledge of Alliance and during the the song "America The Beautiful." No rule about that.
 
Does this sound like "America The Beautiful" to you?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QCkgg5Kjo&feature=related
 
Oh and BondGuy, there is a rule about that.
 
U.S. Code: Title 36 : Section 301National anthem(a) Designation. - The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.(b) Conduct During Playing. - During a rendition of the national anthem - (1) when the flag is displayed - A) all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart;(B) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and(C) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; and(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

Old Spice: MikeButler...is that you?!!
BG:  Say what you want and by all means, support who you want, but I don't ever recall seeing a politician as talented at morphing positions and delivering a speech as Obama is.  I don't trust that guy any further than I can throw him...he makes Bill Clinton look downright clumsy in comparison.  I'm being as honest as I can here, but I don't recall a candidate in either party since I started voting in the Reagan era, that I've felt less comfortable about, or felt like was hiding more, than Obama.  As much as I'm not a Hillary Clinton fan, I feel far better about her as a potential president than I do Obama.  Heck, I'd feel far better about Al Gore, George Bush or John Kerry as a president than I would Obama.  It goes well beyond the questionable associations that have been disavowed and questionable positions that have recently changed.  I'm all for a man seeing the light and changing his mind, but I still have that nagging feeling that we really don't know how Obama feels about many positions and instead are watching him regurgitate positions that he feels the majority of us want to hear.  To be fair, McCain is not immune to this, as we've witnessed major position changes from him on drilling and immigration, but I don't feel nearly the same level of uncertainty that I do with Obama.
 
By all means, feel free to disagree, but I've reached the point where I feel like far too many of the politicians held out for us to consider are becoming far too slick and malleable for us to really know where they stand on issues, and in my opinion, Obama represents the sad zenith of this movement.  Personally, I prefer to see our leaders occasionally stumble verbally like McCain or yes, even Bush.  At least I feel like they're speaking from the heart.
 
Bomb away...

norway401's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-10-16

Another Flip Flop the NAFTA Agreement. Agree or disagree with NAFTA , Obama did say he would open up the Agreement again. Right , unfortunately he has to get the other two countries ( Canada & Mexico ) to agree to opening the agreement.
And for my Blogger friend......his staff admitted to staff members of the Canadian Government that the statement was political and was made for Domestic U.S. voters consumption.
Indyone - like you this politican ( Obama ) makes me feel very uncomfortable.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

IsOldSpiceRightForMe wrote:BondGuy wrote:The sad news is that the picture in question was taken after the Pledge of Alliance and during the the song "America The Beautiful." No rule about that.
 
Does this sound like "America The Beautiful" to you?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QCkgg5Kjo&feature=related
 
Oh and BondGuy, there is a rule about that.
 
U.S. Code: Title 36 : Section 301National anthem(a) Designation. - The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.(b) Conduct During Playing. - During a rendition of the national anthem - (1) when the flag is displayed - A) all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart;(B) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and(C) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; and(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.
 
I stand corrected, it was the National Anthem. Senior moment pulled the wrong song out. 
 
 Point still stands.
 
The email circulated was intended to smear Obama. It was a still photo published with the caption  " Barack Hussein Obama (that's his real name)  refused to not only put his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance but refused to say the Pledge....How in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next commander-in-chief? There is no mention in the email that the photo was taken during the National Anthem.
 
Point is it's smear campaign meant to mislead voters. And it worked. They even threw the 'M" bomb. If you want to to split hairs and defend the smearers, go for it.
 
As for the Flag code during the National Anthem:
 
 According to the Maryland Historical Society, home of the original manuscript of the Star Spangled Banner, modern custom does not require a hand over the heart. Respect shown through demeanor is all that is required. There is no hard and fast rule.
 
The code is apparently quite dated as is evidenced by the instruction that men not in uniform should remove their headdress. I guess baseball uniforms don't count.
 
Oh, and by the way, for smear defenders out there, none is facing the flag.
 
 
 

IsOldSpiceRightForMe's picture
Joined: 2008-04-14

BondGuy wrote:Star Spangled Banner, modern custom does not require a hand over the heart. Respect shown through demeanor is all that is required. There is no hard and fast rule.
 
Even if it's not required, shouldn't someone running for President of the United States of America show some patriotism and respect for the song and the flag and what they symbolize?  Shouldn't we expect that from our leader? 
 
Should our President at least have a little Patriotism? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2La7lBKS6U&feature=related
 
Shouldn't our President protect our country?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&feature=related

IsOldSpiceRightForMe's picture
Joined: 2008-04-14

One more and I'm done (I'm getting addicted to YouTube)
 
Before Obama spent so much time touring the world on his, whatever that tour was, maybe he should have spent a little more time at home learning about the country he hopes to lead:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Old spice, you are giving the smearers credibility. They win when you do that. The flag, the pin not issues. Yet THEY will try to get you to vote their way because of them.
 
In 04 Bush used a wedge issue to win Ohio. Not so smart folks from Ohio voted against their economic well being because of this wedge issue of gay marriage.
 
This is the same thing.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

IsOldSpiceRightForMe wrote:BondGuy wrote:Star Spangled Banner, modern custom does not require a hand over the heart. Respect shown through demeanor is all that is required. There is no hard and fast rule.
 
Even if it's not required, shouldn't someone running for President of the United States of America show some patriotism and respect for the song and the flag and what they symbolize?  Shouldn't we expect that from our leader? 
 
Should our President at least have a little Patriotism? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2La7lBKS6U&feature=related
 
Shouldn't our President protect our country?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&feature=relatedTrust me I'm no Obama defender...but do you have any proof that this YouTube video you posted is authentic?  It's not modified?  You have proof that this is Barack?I ask because these are some serious allegations in my humble opinions....

GWB43's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-31

joedabrkr wrote:
IsOldSpiceRightForMe wrote:BondGuy wrote:Star Spangled Banner, modern custom does not require a hand over the heart. Respect shown through demeanor is all that is required. There is no hard and fast rule.
 
Even if it's not required, shouldn't someone running for President of the United States of America show some patriotism and respect for the song and the flag and what they symbolize?  Shouldn't we expect that from our leader? 
 
Should our President at least have a little Patriotism? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2La7lBKS6U&feature=related
 
Shouldn't our President protect our country?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&feature=relatedTrust me I'm no Obama defender...but do you have any proof that this YouTube video you posted is authentic?  It's not modified?  You have proof that this is Barack?I ask because these are some serious allegations in my humble opinions....Fire all 537 o' dem Lets git dis here country back on da right track otay buh-weet

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

I hate to sound uncaring, but maybe it would have been better if the brave people on Flight 93 hadn't crashed in Pennsylvania and fulfilled its flight path, right into Congress and took out all of these useless bozos we have in office.
 
I'll let this comment speak for itself. But in 01 wasn't congress mostly republican?
 
Yeah.....so?  With any luck Lindsey Graham  and a whole bunch of other Republicans andn Democrats would have been at ground zero.  I would spare Zell Miller.
 
If it weren't for the internet and that I have a friend who works in the district office of my Rep we wouldn't know any of this.    If we were to see this bill (to expand drilling, exploration and refining) pass the market would pop up and oil futures prices would drop.
 
Babs, on what planet? The oil gain won't be realized for years, far beyond the exp date of any futures trading today.
 
That is absolutely not true.  There are oil wells that are known to be able to produce that were producing and were forced to be taken out of  capped and are just sitting there.  With the new technology we have today, we would be putting that oil on the world market in slightly over a year.
 
And the Swift Boat Vets were not a hoax. I know several of the boat Captians and others who served along with Kerry.  They are not liars.  Some are non political except for this and several are life time democrat voters.  It wasn't a partisan thing.   It was "Kerry is a lying scumbag who hung us out to dry thing".

now_indy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-28

avise wrote: norway401 wrote:
You bet if the Edwards situation was reverse, a Republican, the press would be over the story like Stink On A Monkey.I just Googled this up to see what you are talking about.  You are reading too many blogs.  I haven't been grocery shopping in the past month or so, but for a couple of years it seemed all the rags you now respect so much had nothing on their covers but pictures of Bush drunk; Laura scratching his face; Laura living in a hotel, etc. etc.  Thank G*d no one, not even you, was all over that nonsense either
 
Looks like Edwards finally admitted to lying all through his candidacy, what a class act
 
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195&page=1

Incredible Hulk's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-03-24

BondGuy wrote: The same media that gave Bush a pass on the invasion of Iraq. No complaints about that? To be clear, I mean then, in 03, when it was happening. If the media had done t's job maybe enough questions would have been raised to derail the Bush trillion dollar war plan. Butttt, they were asleep at the wheel then, or in bed with Bush. [COLOR>

Were they giving Bush a pass or the Senators that voted for the war, including her hienous Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, the pass?

People will blame republicans for high prices? Gee doyathink? Let's see, secret energy policy engineered by Dr. Evil and now record profits by oil companies. Where were oil prices in 2001? Who else to blame? The ethanol debacle is pushing up food prices. Plus the e85 is crap gas.  Again, this is a Bush policy. Who should we blame?

How about those silly chinese/indians that think they have the right to drive a car. Seriously, what will have more impact on demand...me properly inflating my tires, or some chinaman who previously rode a bike deciding to buy a car (even if it ets 30 mpg)?

I'm not sure if it's heinous or hienous

avise's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-12-12

now_indy wrote:avise wrote: norway401 wrote:
You bet if the Edwards situation was reverse, a Republican, the press would be over the story like Stink On A Monkey.I just Googled this up to see what you are talking about.  You are reading too many blogs.  I haven't been grocery shopping in the past month or so, but for a couple of years it seemed all the rags you now respect so much had nothing on their covers but pictures of Bush drunk; Laura scratching his face; Laura living in a hotel, etc. etc.  Thank G*d no one, not even you, was all over that nonsense either
 
Looks like Edwards finally admitted to lying all through his candidacy, what a class act
 
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195&page=1It is pretty disgusting of Edwards or any male (I won't call people who cheat on their spouses men). It's sad he did the same exact thing John McCain did to his ex-wife. I wonder if Edwards was banging as many women on the side as McCain did when he saw his wife was disfigured in an auto accident?

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

...touché.
 

At the same time, if we got rid of all the philandering politicians, who would run the country?!!

norway401's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-10-16

Politican's don't lie , they just forget The other thing that always amazes me is how the Liberals when caught always fall back on ...... well your guy did it too , even more that our guy.  

now_indy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-28

norway401 wrote:Politican's don't lie , they just forget The other thing that always amazes me is how the Liberals when caught always fall back on ...... well your guy did it too , even more that our guy.  
 
 I agree.
 
Avise, I'm not saying McCain is perfect. But, I don't remember McCain blatantly lying about it over and over.  It's like Clinton, if he and Hillary are ok with his philandering (and belive me she is, I'm from Arkansas and we've been hearing about it since the '80s), then so be it. But, when he continually lies right to your face about it, that's too much.

norway401's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-10-16

Avise , do you recall you suggesting that I was reading the Trash Mags Maybe you should take a break from the fawning three networks and at least have a peek at Fox News.....and before you say something silly like Neo Conservatives. Watch , listen and at least get some balance. For the sake of a reasonable conversation.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

avise wrote: now_indy wrote:avise wrote: norway401 wrote:
You bet if the Edwards situation was reverse, a Republican, the press would be over the story like Stink On A Monkey.I just Googled this up to see what you are talking about.  You are reading too many blogs.  I haven't been grocery shopping in the past month or so, but for a couple of years it seemed all the rags you now respect so much had nothing on their covers but pictures of Bush drunk; Laura scratching his face; Laura living in a hotel, etc. etc.  Thank G*d no one, not even you, was all over that nonsense either
 
Looks like Edwards finally admitted to lying all through his candidacy, what a class act
 
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195&page=1It is pretty disgusting of Edwards or any male (I won't call people who cheat on their spouses men). It's sad he did the same exact thing John McCain did to his ex-wife. I wonder if Edwards was banging as many women on the side as McCain did when he saw his wife was disfigured in an auto accident?
 
McCain spent the first half of his marriage in Hanoi Hilton and his wife was in an auto accident while he was there.  They both were disfigured and maimed.  When he got back from Viet Nam they tried to make their marriage work and it didn't.  Both of them had been changed from the persons they were when they got married.  Did he cheat on this wife? Yes.  Is this despicable?  Double yes. 
 
However, here is the big difference.  McCain was a private person at the time and the only people hurt by his infidelity were himself and his wife and family.   Edwards, on the other hand is not a private person. His betrayal was a selfish act that would damage many others. He was almost elected VP and was currently running for President.  His scandal not only hurts himself and his wife.......it also is a betrayal of his Party and the people who would have voted him into office.   A scandal like this would make it impossible to be an effective VP or President and he knew it.  
 
So while they both are cheating bastards. It isn't the same exact thing.   John McCain didn't parade his first wife around in a national campaign pretending to be the perfect little American family in order to advance his career.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Incredible Hulk wrote: BondGuy wrote: The same media that gave Bush a pass on the invasion of Iraq. No complaints about that? To be clear, I mean then, in 03, when it was happening. If the media had done t's job maybe enough questions would have been raised to derail the Bush trillion dollar war plan. Butttt, they were asleep at the wheel then, or in bed with Bush. [COLOR> Were they giving Bush a pass or the Senators that voted for the war, including her hienous Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, the pass?
 
Clearly, Bush. The senate was lied too along with the rest of us. Had the senate not been lied to by an admin bent on war who knows what the vote would have been?
People will blame republicans for high prices? Gee doyathink? Let's see, secret energy policy engineered by Dr. Evil and now record profits by oil companies. Where were oil prices in 2001? Who else to blame? The ethanol debacle is pushing up food prices. Plus the e85 is crap gas.  Again, this is a Bush policy. Who should we blame? How about those silly chinese/indians that think they have the right to drive a car. Seriously, what will have more impact on demand...me properly inflating my tires, or some chinaman who previously rode a bike deciding to buy a car (even if it ets 30 mpg)?
 
The repubs are pro big oil, which makes them pro big oil profits. The repubican politicans are are crying we feel your pain to their constituents while operating behind a cloak of secrecy to maximize the profits of the very companies that they pubicly vilify. Off shore drilling is just the latest way to get that done. Do you really think these people care about you? They only care that they can convert the pain you're feeling at the pump into dollars in their pockets. And many are dumb enough to buy into that.
China's oil consumption is up 7.5% year over year. That's huge and that they are joining the 21st century is why were are energy buyers here. Yet, China doesn't account for the spike in oil prices.
 
I guess you're laughing at the proper tire inflation thing? If you are, that's OK, McCain is. And of course McCain is pro big oil. He's got to deliver for his boys. As for the tire inflation thing, it's true.I'm not sure if it's heinous or hienous
 
It's heinous, but either way works for a disingenuous discription.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

babbling looney wrote:
I hate to sound uncaring, but maybe it would have been better if the brave people on Flight 93 hadn't crashed in Pennsylvania and fulfilled its flight path, right into Congress and took out all of these useless bozos we have in office.
 
I'll let this comment speak for itself. But in 01 wasn't congress mostly republican?
 
Yeah.....so?  With any luck Lindsey Graham  and a whole bunch of other Republicans andn Democrats would have been at ground zero.  I would spare Zell Miller.
 
If it weren't for the internet and that I have a friend who works in the district office of my Rep we wouldn't know any of this.    If we were to see this bill (to expand drilling, exploration and refining) pass the market would pop up and oil futures prices would drop.
 
Babs, on what planet? The oil gain won't be realized for years, far beyond the exp date of any futures trading today.
 
That is absolutely not true.  There are oil wells that are known to be able to produce that were producing and were forced to be taken out of  capped and are just sitting there.  With the new technology we have today, we would be putting that oil on the world market in slightly over a year.
 
Babs, with all due respect, not enough to make a difference. The repubs are pushing the drilling button to have something to sell to frustrated consumers in an election year. The funny thing is, drilling won't help the consumer, it will help big oil. More oil, more profits. meanwhile the little guy is still getting screwed.
 
And the Swift Boat Vets were not a hoax. I know several of the boat Captians and others who served along with Kerry.  They are not liars.  Some are non political except for this and several are life time democrat voters.  It wasn't a partisan thing.   It was "Kerry is a lying scumbag who hung us out to dry thing".
 
Babs. I certainly can't speak against people you know personally. However, all of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth have been discredited. Interestingly, once the election had passed, the wheel turned, and the truth came out. And noone defended them. Theire repub defenders were no where to be found. Poor SBVFT they were used and abused, much like the cheap whores they turned out to be. How about that Boone Pickens putting up 40 million of his own money to support them before the election and get their story out? Why do you think he did that?

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Babs, on what planet? The oil gain won't be realized for years, far beyond the exp date of any futures trading today.
 
That is absolutely not true.  There are oil wells that are known to be able to produce that were producing and were forced to be taken out of  capped and are just sitting there.  With the new technology we have today, we would be putting that oil on the world market in slightly over a year.
 
Babs, with all due respect, not enough to make a difference. The repubs are pushing the drilling button to have something to sell to frustrated consumers in an election year. The funny thing is, drilling won't help the consumer, it will help big oil. More oil, more profits. meanwhile the little guy is still getting screwed.
 
The oil that we KNOW is available can be put on the market in slightly more than a year.  Maybe not enough to make us energy independent, which is something I think can't be done or won't be possible for 20 to 30 years.  HOWEVER, the lie that it will be ten years and so we shouldn't bother, or whatever the newest bullshit excuse for not drilling in areas where there is proven oil is a lie and a diversion.     The Dems want to only allow drilling in areas that haven't been explored or that we know are not productive unlike the areas that have already been explored and are proven to have oil NOW.
 
I remember very well the 1970's oil embargo and the disaster for the economy then.  If we had actually begun a program of exploration and DEVELOPMENT of those discoveries THEN, we would be much better off now.  But....no...... we sit for 30 years with our thumbs up our butts and are forbidden by the eco-nazis and the liberal loons from doing anything...ANYTHING to develop our own resources.   Now they are again attempting to keep us from developing oil because it might be 10 years (magic pulled from the hat number) before yada yada yada.  Its like saying I want to lose 50 pounds and need to go on a diet but it will take a long time to lose that weight so screw it...I just won't diet.  
 
It will make a difference in that the future expectation (in just a few years) of increased oil production will lower the prices.  Maybe not tomorrow at the pump, but the trading futures will come down.  We've seen it in just the last few weeks when Bush made his statement.  If we could get those worthless clowns in Congress and the House to try to find their asses with both hands, you would see an even further drop.
 
Should we develop wind, solar etc?  Of course, but we can't just cut off the existing source of energy until we have developed enough of the alternatives and have developed a delivery system. 
 
As for drilling more oil in our own country I would think that you Bond Guy as a financial advisor would have some sense of why we might want to do this, but I'll put it in outline form for you.
1.  The revenues generated by that production will be for companies that are US. registered.
2. The profits of these companies are heavily heavily taxed and those revenues will create lots of lovely money to fund all your liberal feel good give away the farm programs.
3. The increased profits will do nothing but good for our client's portfolios and for the average Joe and Jill who largely hold mutual funds in their 401Ks and pension plans.
 
And while I'm irritated.  The (boo hoo) big profits that the media are always whining about for big nasty oil...... are about 8%     Pharama companies have profits in the 18 to 20% range.  Mabye we should slap them around for a while too?    
 
 http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23178.html
 

First Quarter 2008 Results

(Millions of Dollars)
Exxon
Conoco
Chevron
Total

Gross Sales
 $    116,000
 $     54,883
 $     64,659
 $    235,542

Income before tax
 $     20,192
 $       7,549
 $       9,677
 $     37,418

Income taxes 
 $       9,302
 $       3,410
 $       4,509
 $     17,221

Sales-based taxes 
 $       8,432
 n/a 
 n/a 
 $       8,432

All other taxes 
 $     11,607
 $       5,155
 $       5,443
 $     22,205

Total taxes 
 $     29,341
 $       8,565
 $       9,952
 $     47,858

Net Profits
 $     10,890
 $       4,139
 $       5,168
 $     20,197

Effective Income Tax Rate
46%
45%
47%
46%
 
 The Dems want the companies to spend money to explore in areas that will be expensive and non productive, while known oil wells are capped and shale oil is not to be allowed to be developed.  All for what?   I'll tell you what.  They want the country and the people to suffer until they can get a Democrat in the White House and then they can suddenly become the heros and allow the spigots to turn on.  It's all about power.  Them grabbing and keeping it and the public and the economy be damned. Bunch of freaking hypocrites. 
 
The government is the biggest beneficary of oil profits.  If they put a windfall tax, it will just raise prices and lower net profits at the expense of the consumer and at the expense of the stock holder and at the expense of all of our clients who own shares in mutual funds or who participate in public pension plans.
 
 

norway401's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-10-16

Babs - recently watched a show with John Hoffmeister the recently retired President of Shell Oil in the U.S. and your points are quite valid. He advised that oil could be pumped very quickly from the California area ( offshore ) and within months , the Atlantic coast he suggested as I recall about 24-36 months. The Northern Frontier ( Alaska ) in the 24-36 month period AND he pointed out the infrastructure, the pipeline going through Alaska and Canada makes the project very visable.
He pointed out that in the long term that this gives time to push alternate energy ( which he supports ) but helps reduce the North American dependence on other nations ie. the Middle East and those other friendly nations.
Your point is exactly on the money.....what is reasonable in terms of profits and your chart shows that very well. I do not ever recall any government deciding that ie. Technology Companies , Drug Companies were earning too much....so let's have a punitive tax applied to their profits. If their profits are in fact losses does that mean that the taxpayer should give them monies????

norway401's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-10-16

Alternate Energy Sources - perhaps I have missed the politicans and their programs. In both the U.S. and Canada considerable debate and " promises" about alternate programs. To date , I  have not heard any program that gives concrete timelines and percentages that are within a reasonable period of time. The other concern is the infrastructure to get these sources of energy to the marketplace. Without political commentary, I would like to see the timelines that are being proposed for alternate energy sources. I would guess not even close to the oil drilling option.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Talking about eco nazis; nice of you, living in a state with absolutely nothing to lose by drilling, fouling the water, and the air, to make such a judgement.
I live in New Jersey. And contrary to popular belief Jersey has the cleanest beaches and water in the country. I challenge you to go to any Jersey Beach at 9am on any summer morning and find so much as a gum wrapper. You won't find any trash. Why? because unlike Florida, the Carolina's, and most of the of the nation Jersey cleans every inch of its 127 mile coastline everyday. And, unlike most other states, they test the water quality every day. That's every beach, everyday.
 
 You might ask why they do that? Well, as usual it's about money. Jersey's multi billion dollar tourist industry depends on it. It's also why you hear about trash, or medical waste on Jersey's beaches. To find it you've got to look for it. Jersey looks for it, most other states don't.
 
What big oil wants is to drill 10 to 60 miles off the coast of Jersey. As well they want to drill off the coasts of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. That accounts for over 400 miles of coastline. One accident anywhere on that stretch and the oil ends up on Jersey's beaches.
 
Additionally, reviving old plans from the seventies include building a pipeline from the rigs to an collection point just outside of Philly. The pipeline will pass through a National Reserve of undeveloped land that encompasses over 1/3 of Jersey's land mass. It's undeveloped because under it sits one of the world's largest underground fresh water supplies. It's pristine. Not the kinda place one would want to pollute.
 
So those you call eco-nazis have a different agenda. And its not political. Its called not shitting where you eat. Our bread and butter are those beaches. Its not Ok for you foul them just so you can save 2 cents a gallon on gas five years from now. That aquifer is our drinking water. We've worked hard to maintain it's purity. It's not Ok to pollute it just so some oil company can book more profits.

norway401's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-10-16

Bond Guy - I am not suggesting anything , I am asking a question. For clarification , please note Offshore drilling is done off the coast of Newfoundland. So your suggestion that Canada is not drilling offshore is incorrect.
All that being said , I am simply asking the question " alternate energy sources " a timeline and distribution for the product/s. BTW , the province of Prince Edward Island has a Windmill Project that is up and running and now some group/s want it shut down as it apparently is in the path of migratory birds. My point is how , when and where are the projects going to be placed?
Also , you have never seen me post that is alright to pollute. I also know N.J. Coast well as family members have a summer Home in Sea Isle City.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Bond Guy, I live in California and with the new techologies that we have offshore drilling is extremely safe.  The last oil spill from drilling in Ca was in 1969.  Since then, a few things have changed.  
 
So those you call eco-nazis have a different agenda. And its not political. Its called not shitting where you eat.
 
It's also called telling people how to live in areas that they have no intention of visiting , living or having any real interest in the people who live and work there.  For example.  This summer we have been under a continual blanket of smoke, choking smoke worse than any smog I remember from the late 1950's in Los Angeles.  Why??? Because the eco nazis refused and still refuse to let responsible forestry management practices like thinning out underbrush that has grown up in the last 50 years in forests where fires have been unnaturally suppressed. They have shut down and turned entire towns into ghost towns because some stupid owl, which is preyed upon by other owls, was declining.    Not necessarily because of forestry practices but because :   "Mortality in the wild is thought to be very high (60 to 95%) for juveniles, especially during the dispersal stage. Adult mortality is estimated at 5 to 20% annually. Natural predators of the Spotted Owl include the Great Horned Owl, which preys on both adults and young; the red-tailed hawk, which preys on young; and the common raven, which may destroy eggs. Many juveniles starve to death.It is thought that Barred Owls will out-compete Spotted Owls for habitat, by being more aggressive, when the two species come into contact. "  The spotted owl is an inefficient dud of a bird and is going the natural way of many species.  Bye bye.
In addition to this "must not ever touch nature" attitude causing huge fires that have burnt up hundreds of thousands of acres of timberlands this year putting more carbon in the air  than all the cars in the world would for a generation,  they don't want to let anyone in to salvage what burnt timber there is and replant.  They would rather it rot and become bug infested and infect stands of good timber......all in the name of ....I don't know what.  Mother earth worship.  Heaven forbid we should actually manage the forest and let someone utilize the windfall of the burnt timber.
 
Meanwhile, a group is planning to put up on top of a visible mountain ridge about 50   480 foot tall windmills to generate 102 megawatts of energy.....when the wind actually blows. 
"The average American household uses about 9,000 kilowatts per year.  102Mw roughly translates to 11 homes for a year. "
This is right in the middle of migratory bird flyways.  So for the sake of 11 homes we permanently build ginormous, as tall as a 50 story building, noisy, vista destroying, bird chopping machines.  I guess it's ok to chop up geese, hawks, bald eagles in the name of "green" power and  also fine to burn down millions of green renewable trees to save a spotted owl.   The inconsistancy makes my head want to explode.   The people who are building this are getting huge tax breaks and credits.  The people who are for it don't give a rip about the impact on our area, the wildlife or the destruction of our economy (which is basically tourism based).  They aren't shitting where they live.  They are shitting where I live.  
 
This is why I couldn't care less about "green" energy, carbon credits or any of the other happy horseshit that the eco nuts come up with.   As far as I'm concerned Global Warming is a good thing.   Plants love it and its a heck of a lot easier to keep cool in the summer than to stay warm in the winter.  Bring it on.
 
In the mean time, while the latte sipping hemp wearing wanna be hippies are sitting on their redwood decks in San Francisco telling the rest of us how to live, what to eat, what to drive, how hot or cold my house should be and so on......our economy is becoming ever more unstable and subject to interuption at the whims of a few countries that could pull the rug right out from under us with the simple witholding of a portion of their oil supplies.   We have put ourselves in peril through stupidity and cow towing to special interst wack jobs.
Is so called "green" renewable energy a good idea. Alternative sources like solar and nuclear. Sure it is.  However, it is a long long long way off and isn't practical until we completely change our infrastrucure and delivery systems.  Until then, we need to increase the supply world wide and keep some of the income in our own country that is now going elsewhere.
 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

norway401 wrote:Bond Guy - I am not suggesting anything , I am asking a question. For clarification , please note Offshore drilling is done off the coast of Newfoundland. So your suggestion that Canada is not drilling offshore is incorrect.
All that being said , I am simply asking the question " alternate energy sources " a timeline and distribution for the product/s. BTW , the province of Prince Edward Island has a Windmill Project that is up and running and now some group/s want it shut down as it apparently is in the path of migratory birds. My point is how , when and where are the projects going to be placed?
Also , you have never seen me post that is alright to pollute. I also know N.J. Coast well as family members have a summer Home in Sea Isle City.
 
Where did i suggest Canada is not drilling offshore?
 
Sea Isle City? Corson's Inlet with it's great stripper fishing. Won't be so great with tar balls on the beach.
 
Migratory birds? About 20 miles south of Sea isle is Cape May NJ.  Cape may is recognized as the world capital of Birding. Migratory birds using the eastern flyway between Canada, the Artic and South America stop in Cape May. It's the great food that attracts them . Cape May has some fantastic restaurants!
 

norway401's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-10-16

Bond Guy my error , when posting was reviewing your comment and you referred to a State to Babs , I thought you were referencing my post and I related to Offshore Drilling from the Province of Newfoundland.
If you or I had the solution we WOULD BE GETTING THE BIG BUCKS Given that the Chinese are chomping at " the bit " to start extracting Oil off the U.S. Coast , I feel frankly more comfortable with ie. U.S. Firms than having the Chinese involved. I think if a problem did happen they would simply give North America the " Up Yours " in a minute.
If you get a chance.....read some of John Hoffmeister's comments. Interesting. Yes aware of Cape May.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

babbling looney wrote:Bond Guy, I live in California and with the new techologies that we have offshore drilling is extremely safe.  The last oil spill from drilling in Ca was in 1969.  Since then, a few things have changed.  
 
So those you call eco-nazis have a different agenda. And its not political. Its called not shitting where you eat.
 
It's also called telling people how to live in areas that they have no intention of visiting , living or having any real interest in the people who live and work there.  For example.  This summer we have been under a continual blanket of smoke, choking smoke worse than any smog I remember from the late 1950's in Los Angeles.  Why??? Because the eco nazis refused and still refuse to let responsible forestry management practices like thinning out underbrush that has grown up in the last 50 years in forests where fires have been unnaturally suppressed. They have shut down and turned entire towns into ghost towns because some stupid owl, which is preyed upon by other owls, was declining.    Not necessarily because of forestry practices but because :   "Mortality in the wild is thought to be very high (60 to 95%) for juveniles, especially during the dispersal stage. Adult mortality is estimated at 5 to 20% annually. Natural predators of the Spotted Owl include the Great Horned Owl, which preys on both adults and young; the red-tailed hawk, which preys on young; and the common raven, which may destroy eggs. Many juveniles starve to death.It is thought that Barred Owls will out-compete Spotted Owls for habitat, by being more aggressive, when the two species come into contact. "  The spotted owl is an inefficient dud of a bird and is going the natural way of many species.  Bye bye.
In addition to this "must not ever touch nature" attitude causing huge fires that have burnt up hundreds of thousands of acres of timberlands this year putting more carbon in the air  than all the cars in the world would for a generation,  they don't want to let anyone in to salvage what burnt timber there is and replant.  They would rather it rot and become bug infested and infect stands of good timber......all in the name of ....I don't know what.  Mother earth worship.  Heaven forbid we should actually manage the forest and let someone utilize the windfall of the burnt timber.
 
Meanwhile, a group is planning to put up on top of a visible mountain ridge about 50   480 foot tall windmills to generate 102 megawatts of energy.....when the wind actually blows. 
"The average American household uses about 9,000 kilowatts per year. 102Mw roughly translates to 11 homes for a year. "
This is right in the middle of migratory bird flyways.  So for the sake of 11 homes we permanently build ginormous, as tall as a 50 story building, noisy, vista destroying, bird chopping machines.  I guess it's ok to chop up geese, hawks, bald eagles in the name of "green" power and  also fine to burn down millions of green renewable trees to save a spotted owl.   The inconsistancy makes my head want to explode.   The people who are building this are getting huge tax breaks and credits.  The people who are for it don't give a rip about the impact on our area, the wildlife or the destruction of our economy (which is basically tourism based).  They aren't shitting where they live.  They are shitting where I live.  
 
This is why I couldn't care less about "green" energy, carbon credits or any of the other happy horseshit that the eco nuts come up with.   As far as I'm concerned Global Warming is a good thing.   Plants love it and its a heck of a lot easier to keep cool in the summer than to stay warm in the winter.  Bring it on.
 
In the mean time, while the latte sipping hemp wearing wanna be hippies are sitting on their redwood decks in San Francisco telling the rest of us how to live, what to eat, what to drive, how hot or cold my house should be and so on......our economy is becoming ever more unstable and subject to interuption at the whims of a few countries that could pull the rug right out from under us with the simple witholding of a portion of their oil supplies.   We have put ourselves in peril through stupidity and cow towing to special interst wack jobs.
Is so called "green" renewable energy a good idea. Alternative sources like solar and nuclear. Sure it is.  However, it is a long long long way off and isn't practical until we completely change our infrastrucure and delivery systems.  Until then, we need to increase the supply world wide and keep some of the income in our own country that is now going elsewhere.
 
 
Yeah, i hear you . I can't drive my jeep on some beaches because of the Plotting Plover. The plover, known in wildlife circles by its other name, dinner, is an endangered species. That's what happens when you build nests among fox dens and under Osprey roosts. The plover is a dumb little bird, but an important part of the food chain. It excels as lunch.
 
We also agree, we don't want uncaring outsiders screwing with our land and well being.
 
As for oil drilling being safe, I'm not buying that. Our region already is contributing to the country's enery production. The Philly port complex is the nation's second largest oil port. From that vantage point we know how unsafe dealing with oil can be.
 
The latest oil spill in the Delaware River took place in November of 2004 when a rust bucket single hulled poor excuse of a ship called the Athos ll hit a submerged anchor in the river. The resulting 115 mile long oil slick closed the river to all traffic for three days. It would have been longer but cold temps sank the oil. For months after every ship that entered or left the river had to be decontaminated. Only a third of the spill was recovered. That leaves 176,000 gallons of oil unaccounted for. A small amount of that is thought to have evaporated. And this in a very controlled environment, a river. The spilled killed wildlife, and closed the Salem Nuclear Power Plant 40 miles south. The fresh water intakes for much of the region were spared, not by man's efforts, but by nature's. We lucked out. And this was a minor spill.
 
The  epitaph to this story is the finger pointing that went on. No one wanted to own up causing the spill. Citgo pointed at the POS ship's owners. The ship owners pointed at the Coast Guard for not maintaining a clear channel. The Coast Guard pointed at Citgo for not maintaining a clean anchorage. Round and round it went and in some aspects still does. No one wants to pay the millions of dollars in clean up fees. And that anchor that caused the problem was dropped by an oil tanker whose owners get off scott free.
 
Walk along the banks just south of the accident site and you'll get tar all over your feet. And this is almost four years after the spill. Fishing is dead in the area as was clam fishing 60 miles south in the Delaware bay. For two years the horse shoe crabs were affected.
 
So when you say oil drilling is safe, well, we know better. Until it's completely fool proof we don't need it here.
 
 

norway401's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-10-16

BondGuy .....as an addendum to my post. I trust the Chinese Government with Offshore Drilling at the same level I trust them when it comes to their treatment of their own people.
Not a perfect world but at least with a Shell , Exxon , Gulf etc. there are ways to get them if problems should arise. Fool proof , not sure anything is fool proof.

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×