On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:05:51 -0700, Shrikeback wrote:
> 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.
There are no benefits to lifting the ban on offshore drilling as an open
ended lift. Any "benefit" to the Republican party is a detriment to
America and its people.
>> 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?
Any renewable fuel that is currently in use or seriously planned will
increase job opportunities in the USA. And all of the money stays in this
country unless the biofuel companies are owned by foreigners. For the
mosy part that is not true and unless the companies are profitable all the
money will still stay here in the USA.
Offshore development prevents biofuel development because it empowers
Republicans and oil companies who are threatened by biofuel development
and success. And where local biofuels are more typically locally owned
and operated the multinational oil companies are owned by Chinese and
Russians and whoever else. As George Bush and Dick Cheney simply __**GIVE
AWAY**__ the common American resources that could be used to pay the
national debt in return for the love and support of the multinational oil
companies forever and ever, the American people are consigned to unending
fascism forever.
>
>> 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.
That is a gross exaggeration, but the point is MINIMALLY valid. Americans
__MAY__ work more hours per gallon of fuel on a per capita basis. But the
wealth distribution would be far better. I say _MAY_ because awarding the
oil to the same people who already control the supply of oil will not
really do any good for prices. They will still charge whatever the market
will bear. It really isn't a supply problem in the current time. It is a
lack of competition problem. The only way to truly reduce the prices is
to increase the competition.
>> 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?
We are talking about biofuels. But probably the windmills will create
more jobs than offshore drilling.
> Do Chernobyls? Do solar plants? Do
> hydroelectric dams? And how does off-shore drilling
> prevent the construction of more Chernobyls?
How does one argue with a lying Republican shill?
>>>> 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.
BY way of admitting it is a bubble.
> Anyway, no other country
> on the planet restrains itself from harvesting the oil it has
> within its reach.
And this is supposed to be some sort of point in favor of us drilling all
our oil????????????????
> That is purely an American Greenola luxury.
It is actually an economic and strategic discussion. But the fascist pigs
want to paint it as the enviro-nazis versus the working people. The
Republican strategy is to create so many lies that it will be impossible
to refute them all. Some will make it through to dambassville. And the
people of dumbassvile will believe one or two of the lies that made it
past the overworked truth filters. The objective is to get just enough
dumbassville votes to make and election close enough to steal.
> But I find it ironic that you call disagreement "fascist
> pig prancing" when you are the one who just called for
> greater regulation.
Fascism has little to do with 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."
No. Biofuels are actually a very LOCAL economic package. Very un-state
like. Centralized energy is much more easily controlled by the state.
The "regulation of the futures markets" is merely a way to prevent large
hedge funds from manipulating the futures markets. But a moron would
probably call that fascism.
>> 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.
There are no recent polls. And even if there are recent polls that say
yes to offshore drilling they are contrived and misleading. It is
somewhat like WMD and mushroom clouds. When this deal is totally done the
Democrats will have won a major victory on this one. They already have
won a major tactical victory.
>
>>>> "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?
You miss the point of this proposed tax and rebate system probably on
purpose.
>>>> 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.
Oh.... Really. They have been running the country since 1995. You gonna
blame Clinton?
>> 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?
LIE.
>> 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.
I remember very high inflation. That would, indeed cause, an apparent
commodity price bubble. But the current bubble has happened with much,
much lower inflation.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
