On Aug 12, 7:44Â pm, The Trucker
verizon.net> wrote:> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:14:29 -0700, Shrikeback wrote:
>>>> Â 2. Pelosi's actions have demonstrated that she does not intend to allow a vote on drilling.
>
>>> Non oil state GOP politicians don't really want Democrats to cave
>>> anytime soon either.
>
>>> As with abortion, the issue is more effective for Repugs to
>>> perpetually dangle in front of the ignorant.
>
>> No. It'll be far more beneficial to allow the drilling to
>> begin as soon as possible, such that the job creation
>> begins as well.
>
> Does the lying ever stop? Â Renewable energy creates much more employment
> opportunity than continuing the oil monopoly. Â
Even if that were true, where would the lie be
in my post above? Remember the troll KKKahill
claimed that Repugs have an interest in holding
this in front of the voters as a perpetual carrot,
like banning abortion, or (for democrats) nationalized
health care. Dangle dangle. I merely pointed out
that the benefits to passing this are undeniable,
and passing it will necessarily be good for the pugs.
> The price of fuel at the
> pump may be higher for renewable fuel but that cost is paid out  primarily
> as wages and those wages stay right here in the the USA.
To what renewable fuels do you refer? Corn ethanol? The
great agricultural pork barrel fuel? I mean you did use the
phrase "at the pump". Perhaps you are referring to some
other source of biofuel, and that's fine. But how does off-shore
drilling prevent such development?
> I am not going to
> defend the "broken window" fallacy. Â
That's good, because the sort of energy that would
create the most jobs would be created by labor itself.
Perhaps in a treadmill power plant. The workers hop
on the treadmill for a few hours and their leg power
turns the turbines.
> But don't blather about job creation
> from offshore drilling.
Offshore drilling will create jobs. It's a self-evident
truth. I am not sure what you want done that will
produce more jobs. Do windmills require more labor
than oil rigs? Do Chernobyls? Do solar plants? Do
hydroelectric dams? And how does off-shore drilling
prevent the construction of more Chernobyls?
>>> If Dems actually supported drilling ANWR then prices will still resume
>>> their spiral and what would Repug talking points be then?
>
>> Actually, beginning such drilling would encourage
>> the bursting of the current oil bubble. Â How do we
>> know there's a bubble? Â Because the rate of
>> increase has been greater than exponential.
>
> I have a news flash for ya, pal. Â We, the Democrats, with the threat to
> sell oil out of the SPR and the threat to restore actual regulation to
> prevent manipulation by hedge funds have already popped the bubble. Â You
> are a little too late with the fascist pig prancing.
The oil bubble has a ways to go. Anyway, no other country
on the planet restrains itself from harvesting the oil it has
within its reach. That is purely an American Greenola luxury.
But I find it ironic that you call disagreement "fascist
pig prancing" when you are the one who just called for
greater regulation.
As Mussolini put it, "Nothing against the State, nothing
above the State, nothing outside the State." But I guess
it's like Orwell observed, "fascist" doesn't mean anything
more than "I disagree with it."
> But I can't help but notice how the "We want an up and down vote on the
> ban" has changed to "We want a comprehensive energy bill". Â The
> Republicans have been bitch slapped by reality. They are trying to salvage
> what they can.
Check the polls. Do Americans support off-shore drilling or not?
Then, if anyone has been bitch slapped it is Pelosi, who, though
she will grandstand for the San Francisco Greenolas about
opposition to off-shore drilling, is encouraging Democrats who
are up for election to support it.
>>> "You ignorant poor will have to cycle for the next 20 years?"
>
>> That should make the Greenshirts happy. Â We'll get an
>> epidemic of erectile dysfunction among the poor, and
>> unless we nationalize health care (which ain't going
>> to happen, unless someone wants to face the mother
>> of all recessions), the birth rate of the poor will go
>> down. Â Paul Ehrlich will be sated.
>
> This is too moronic for comment other than it is moronic.
>>> The bluff is easy to call. Â A provision could be bundled into a
>>> comprehensive energy bill that allows more drilling but if the price
>>> of oil tops, say, $180/bbl in 3 years then the drilling halts and a
>>> hefty fuel tax-rebate program becomes effective.
>
>> Heh, why would the drilling halt when the price became so
>> beneificial to the driller? Â That makes about as much sense
>> as the rest of your goofy economic creationism.
I know you guys believe in this one religiously. I see no
reason for anyone to support it, unless they just want some
free money for doing nothing. What's wrong with Earned
Income Credits, which gives the working poor a negative
income tax rate?
>>> How would Repugs oppose such a bill?
>
>>> "You ignorant poor will have to cycle for the next 20 years?"
>
>> Maybe the poor aren't ignorant enough to believe
>> in tax cut recessions or fundamentalist Georgism.
>
> The current economic disaster is a Republican tax cut creation. Â
Horseshit.
> We were
> doing pretty well until the Gingrich capital gains tax cut. Â Then we had a
> stock market bubble. Â
After the nineties boom. Funny, KKKahill always blames the
nineties boom on Clinton tax hikes. Or something. Not the
Contract on America.
It's also funny that Obama wants to increase capital gains
(which affects the middle class too) even if that hike is
projected to reduce revenues. What's the purpose of hiking
a tax if not to increase revenues?
> Then we had the repeal of Glass-Steagal and the
> refusal of the Fed to control the money creating investment bankers and
> wall street wankers and that created the housing bubble. And now we have a
> short lived commodities bubble. Â Republicans blow bubbles. Â That's what
> they do.
Oh please. Surely you must remember
the commodities bubble of the late seventies.
