Comments on: New McCain Ad Blames Obama For Gas Prices

[nothappyatall]

Its not UP to Obama or the Govt whether to allow drilling or not, the PEOPLE have repeatedly long term said they do NOT want drilling/refineries or clearcut logging, strip mining etc in ANWAR, Yellowstone, national parks, scenic areas, historic areas, wilflife refuges, national forests etc or in their "backyard"

The envoronmentalists and other groups always file many LAWSUITS to stop such projects onshore or offshore. EVen if the Givt gave a green light to the drilling, it is virtually certain Greenpeace, Earth First! Wildlife Federation and all the rest WILL file lawsuits to stop it- that''s a fact, so either change the laws to forbid such suits or accept the fact that these projects will NOT happen, period end.

[oceanjiber]

Drilling for oil is another way a fossil fuel addict will satisfy their opium high, just as stealing it from other countries. So to drill in America is just another form of acting out for oil addicts.. Odd thing is it won''t be that effective, will take many years, and has very little impact, may shave off just a few cents off a gallon.

Other nations are much more fuel efficient than America, all those SUV''s and cheap fuel are really the dino-vehicles of today.

Instead of drilling more unproductive holes in the ground, consider to start riding your bike, and brewing some alcohol in your yard to run your new Model-T, and don''t forget to thank Bush for making Model-T''s and Diesel engines popular again!! Yeah!

[oceanjiber]

Yes ofcourse there is vast energy resources on U.S. soverign territory, but is it really smart to continue to depend on something that will not last, like depending on your auxiliary tank without thinking about how to fill it up again?

Oil is called fossil fuel. Why is it called fossil fuel? Becuase it takes a real long time, very long time, to generate, like back when the dinasaurs were walking around. So if you want to continue to depend on dinasaur left-overs then, yes, drilling here is useful, but like all things, they are of limited supply.

Being more efficient at usage of energy and having the ability to identify other sources such as impulses from lightning strikes, hurricane force winds, ocean currents, solar panels on every roof, hydro-electric power, drilling hole into the earth to capture fusion power, these are all much more longer term renewable.

[atheismwins]

Explain how democrats are anti-energy? Posted by OceanJiber at 09:00 PM : Jul 21, 2008
---------------
I just did, but it sounds like you didn''t like my answer : )

Carry on. Nice chatting with you : )

[oceanjiber]

Explain how democrats are anti-energy? Let''s just ignore the Manhatten Project, and ignore that Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer.

Democrats are for energy evolution and invention, not energy stagnation by stay-the-course people, depend on the same old oil (fossil fuels, and invade other countries if you have to get it).

Nuclear energy was not discovered by capitalism, it was discovored by projects like the Manhatten Project. Republican''s have been against such big government projects as a foundation of their own values, small goverment, let capitalism run everything.

Consider looking into a mirror at your own policy of small goverment against Manhatten projects. It seems Republican''s like to announce great projects but never do anything about it like Bush announces a mission to Mars and I haven''t seen anything substantial on it in the last 7 years. Probably because all the money was spent on Iraq fullfilling the American oil addiction, but look, the war hasn''t ended, and we are still just as addicted to oil.

The war in Iraq war was clearly a bad tack in response to 911. This over-extended unnecessary war in Iraq is ultimately the reason why gas prices are where they are now, there is no other substantial reason for it than the war.

[atheismwins]

Athiesmwins, I''''m glad to meet an athiest, who appears like a stay the course guy, a bit of a contradiction, will be interesting to learn your logic.
Posted by OceanJiber at 08:41 PM : Jul 21, 2008
------------------
Well, it''s nice to meet you, too!

I''m afraid logic won''t help your cause on this one.

America has vast energy resources. Dems make them illegal. Dems lose votes.

Thanks for chatting :)

[oceanjiber]

Athiesmwins, I''m glad to meet an athiest, who appears like a stay the course guy, a bit of a contradiction, will be interesting to learn your logic.

Independent of the date dems voted into congress, Bush has veto power over them, please explain explicitly what policy Bush''s veto overided dems, or which policy Bush did not propose that was not approved by dems? If you can not explain it, I will have difficulty understanding the basis of your argument.

How can one explain that instability in the oil markets is not so directly related to a war in a region where most of the worlds oil is? If you have a playground of kids around a toy (representing oil) with all the kids around it fighting, how do you expect supply and access for the toy not to be effected?

The areas where oil companies can not drill only have psycological impact, using Bush''s own words. If you believe it to effect the markets, then you will also need to explain why Bush says it is pschological. Maybe Bush just wanted to supply it to help support this ad for the stay the course people.

[atheismwins]

99% of all species become extint, and the one''''s that stay the course, and don''''t adapt are the ones to become extinct.
Posted by OceanJiber at 08:41 PM : Jul 21, 2008
------------------
Would you be referring to the Democratic party? It is rigidly anti-energy. How many votes do you think this will cost them?

[oceanjiber]

Screw the foriegn controlled and dependent oil companies, and Budwieser, everyone needs to brew their own beer and alcohol in their yard and garage, and convert their engines to run on Acohol like the Ford Model-T did, and start brewing the alcohol in their yards see - http://journeytoforever.org/bio-fuel_library/ethanol_drane.html

Thank you Bush for bringing us back to the good old days of the Model-T and Dr. Diesel to run our Diesel''s off of peanut oil. Where are the peanut farmers????

I''m all 4 nuclear power to the max, but just like fossil fuels, nuclear power also has it''s limits, it is dug from the ground just like oil, there is a limited supply. Better to depend on something that re-generates instead of focusing on the petri-dish earth mentality of limited resources whether it be fossil fuel, nuclear or otherwise, it will run out from consumption by billions of humans on earth daily, and we will be suddenly without it like fish being shot in a barrel.

99% of all species become extint, and the one''s that stay the course, and don''t adapt are the ones to become extinct. To depend on fossil fuels and non-renewable sources of energy is a certain path to extinction, or back to cave man days, at the very least.

Evolve now, or die.
With the money we spent in Iraq we could have had a Walmart on Mars now, and turned the moon into a vacation resort, and probably discovered multiple new forms of energy. But we all know the priority was Iraq instead of Bin Laden.

[atheismwins]

LOL, this is so far fetched, mine as well blame Jesus for high gas prices! Posted by OceanJiber at 08:23 PM : Jul 21, 2008
------------------
Dems voted in gas around $2.30, oil around $60/barrel.

Removing Dems from office is the ONLY option.