News-Record.com

Old enough to remember the gas lines, even odd days? We have had both parties in power, and the results ?

"We have had both parties in power, and the results ? "

.. just remember that the next time you are tempted to post partisan tripe.

~

"We lacked foresight by not seeing how vulnerable we would be to an oil shortage."

Absolutely right. So how are we NOW handling the situation?

We CONTINUE to delay meaningful oil exploration and drilling in areas where we can control the output: ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf, the Bakken Oil Formation in ND, SD, & MT, and dozens of other sites. While we search for lovely "alternative energy sources," we continue to hamstring ourselves on the one PROVEN source ... oil.

In other words, even WITH the benefit of hard-learned hindsight, we are too damned stupid to ACT on it!

Picture this: The Saudis, the Chinese, the Russians and other "young tigers" taking the approach we are taking when it comes to providing plentiful energy from their own land. Not Bloody Likely!

GET ON WITH IT, CONGRESS!

~

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less now. Pay more later.

.. and you call yourself a conservative ..

ORR should be ashamed .. but he won't be .. call him "Mr Oblivious"!

Sorry dude, you earned it.

Yes, I do call myself a conservative, JDR. What do you call yourself?

Why should I be ashamed? We have plenty of oil and gas resources within our sovereign boundaries, but we are not allowed to drill, so we are dependent upon foreign countries. If we produced a larger portion of our own oil and gas, we would have much more economic freedom. It is the competition that we face from rapidly emerging countries like India and China that are competing with us for oil, and driving up the price.

JDR, I am not oblivious, and you are certainly not the expert on everything, even if you claim to be. Quit acting like Liberal Conservative Lite with the name calling. Discuss and debate like a person with intelligence. I know you can do it, if you only try,

In that story about the tiger, are we people or the old tiger? It confuses me.

I just wish this letter about foresight being hindsight had been written when foresight would have actually been foresight. That way, the tiger wouldn't eat us (whatever we are, in the parable) and we'd have plenty of energy somehow (because of the "real" foresight, not the fake kind that's really just hindsight). What was the energy policy, though, that we should have had back then?

One who advocates pissing away a finite resource .. as you are promoting, ORR, is not a conservative.

I'm truthfully not sure what to call myself - being all over the map - but clearly on this issue I am WAY more conservative than you.

We have plenty of oil and gas resources within our sovereign boundaries ... define plenty. 10 years? 100 years? Clearly not forever. What happens after 10 years .. when replacement technologies will just begin to emerge. What happens after 100 years .. then we'll wish we had oil for some of the process' for which there will be no substitute .. then the remaining juic, which tye USA will then have none of .. really will be liquid goal, and $1000 / oz.

We are not allowed to drill ... maybe. Maybe there's some too little, too expensive and too unknown (your ANWR / Outer Continental Shelf / Bakken Formation examples). Maybe there's so industry BS going on too .. remember also the original Alaska oil was to last us a zillion years.

We have plenty of oil and gas resources within our sovereign boundaries ... define "plenty". 10 years? 100 years? Clearly not forever. What happens after 10 years .. when replacement technologies will just begin to emerge? What happens after 100 years .. then we'll wish we had oil for some of the process' for which there will be no substitute .. then the remaining juic, which tye USA will then have none of .. really will be liquid goal at $1000 / oz?

We are dependent upon foreign countries .. only because we piss away more than we produce locally. It is a form of deficit spending.

If we produced a larger portion of our own oil and gas, we would have much more economic freedom ... maybe. One gets the same results by consuming a lesser portion.

It is the competition that we face from rapidly emerging countries like India and China that are competing with us for oil, and driving up the price ... hey, we agree.

Discuss and debate like a person with intelligence ... dude where you been? If this site were easier to search you would readily find I blow you away in this criteria .. countless of posts with facts and figures to back my positions, and certainly dozens of posts from you spouting opinion only without facts and figures - many of your opinions challanged by me .. friendly intelligent challenges that went unanswered.

Prove me wrong .. but you can't so don't even try. Hell find two where you responded with data and I'll concede. Yet again I will await your learned response.

Here's a typical example:

http://blog.news-record.com/opinion/letters/archives/2008/04/wrights_new_mansion_shows_he_i.shtml#comments

I'm still waiting for clarity on that post from you.

I further suggest you are a "conservative" defined solely by consistant republican votes. You believe what they say and don't follow what they do.

Here’s “The Way It Works”, by J.D. Rockefeller:

The role of a Politician is to give the people what they want (vs. the role of a Statesman, which is to give the people what they need). The Politician perceived as understanding best what people want will be elected. The Politician perceived as having provided what people want will get re-elected.

In very general terms, the Democrats perceive the people want health care and other "handouts" - including college scholarships - all paid for by taxing those perceived to have a surplus of cash.

In very general terms, the Republicans perceive the people want to be free of government. They tout a "free economy" that provides a surplus of cash for everyone’s pocket - allowing individual choice to purchase health care, college scholarships, etc.

The people, however, have experienced little fiscal difference nor seen any direct correlation between either party and economic goodness. Since there is little difference, Democrats would seem to have an advantage, except the people understand that Republicans have a better plan, it just that is never seems to pan out for the average Joe.

If Republicans were able to proof their plan actually worked, it would convince those that historically vote Democratic, but the Real World is rife with corruption and hypocrisy which is never addressed and Republicans have simply been caught too many times (hypocrisy). Republicans are instead seen providing expenditures indirectly (directing resources through de-regulation, faux-labeled legislation) into special interests (Corporations), and all this never trickles down into the people's pockets, so the "freedom of choice" proffered by Republicans is empty rhetoric.

Voters who are already Republicans are blind to this rhetoric vs. reality.

The Democrats are pretty simple. They say they will tax and spend – and that's what they do – direct expenditures into the people pockets (defacto providing the "freedom of choice" proffered by Republicans), or less directly but still overtly via the ostensive improvement of mankind through g-man health care and education. Regardless, there is rarely improvement. As for hypocrisy, contrast gay Democrats who run for national office and get re-elected, vs. “Loo Lover” Larry [Craig].

Voters who are already Democrats are equaly blind to reality.

So it all comes down to secondary issues: For whom do your parents vote? How strong does your minister speak about the unborn? Do you listen more to Rush Limbaugh or Amy Goodman?

>>>y .. AW .. nnn ..

hard staying awake waiting for ORR's response to intelligent conversation