kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > spierce Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I love his BP stance…“Mistakes happen”. > > > > Yeah, how about utter failures in ethical and > > responsible behavior by the company and a > series > > of practically unbelievable fvckups by all. > > > > Yup, deregulation is the key! > > > LOL. If not for REGULATION, oil companies could > drill for oil all over North America rather than > having to drill offshore where the technology > isn’t fully developed yet. I love how you liberals > love to regulate/eliminate oil drilling for > “environmental” reasons on land in North America, > therefore forcing Americans to purchase oil from > dictators and banana republics worldwide that have > ZERO environmental regulations. “All over North America”? Where is there oil all over NA in supplies that can meet US demand? I’d really love to know. Use theirs first, ours second. But hey, let’s just f’up our country like they f’up theirs. It’s OK, after the oils gone, we don’t need clean water, or even a clean planet. We just need profits.
There isn’t, but there’s plenty of on-shore oil to offset the need for offshore drilling. But the funny thing is, you ADMIT the scenario is true–for every barrel of oil the Democrats keep Americans from drilling at home, it’s a barrel that America purchases from nations that have NO real environmental standards at all whatsoever. That’s an undeniable FACT. And you just so much as admitted this fact–it’s not about the enviornment, it’s about not-in-my-backyard because if it were about the environment you’d fully support well regulated onshore domestic drilling rather than oil purchases from an African banana republic.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There isn’t, but there’s plenty of on-shore oil to > offset the need for offshore drilling. > > But the funny thing is, you ADMIT the scenario is > true–for every barrel of oil the Democrats keep > Americans from drilling at home, it’s a barrel > that America purchases from nations that have NO > real environmental standards at all whatsoever. > That’s an undeniable FACT. And you just so much as > admitted this fact–it’s not about the > enviornment, it’s about not-in-my-backyard because > if it were about the environment you’d fully > support well regulated onshore domestic drilling > rather than oil purchases from an African banana > republic. I don’t support any drilling here at all. It isn’t up to us to protect their land, they should be doing so to their land regardless. If they aren’t, it’s not our fault. There isn’t enough oil here to supply the US alone, thus it has to come from overseas. I would prefer they do so responsibly, but I guess our country has higher standards, unlike Paul. Even if I did, it’d have to be regulated well with minimal impact, same with offshore. The fact remains, Paul doesn’t know anything about the incident, this wasn’t some “gee wiz, sorry, it was an accident, I swear” event. This was a major screw up that was preventable.
Again, you admit it–and that’s more than most of my liberal Democrat friends will do. You admit that it’s not about the environment, it’s about the environment in your backyard. That’s fine–as long as you’re aware that us being dependent on foreign oil is f*cking up the worldwide environment much more than if we were MORE energy independent, which can come right now only with the current technology of domestic oil drilling and nuclear energy. That’s the only way right now, but the Democrats/liberals have continued to regulate America into energy dependence on foreign dictators and environmental anarchists.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Again, you admit it–and that’s more than most of > my liberal Democrat friends will do. You admit > that it’s not about the environment, it’s about > the environment in your backyard. That’s fine–as > long as you’re aware that us being dependent on > foreign oil is f*cking up the worldwide > environment much more than if we were MORE energy > independent, which can come right now only with > the current technology of domestic oil drilling > and nuclear energy. That’s the only way right now, > but the Democrats/liberals have continued to > regulate America into energy dependence on foreign > dictators and environmental anarchists. Blah blah blah, “Liberal democrat”. Please, drop the bullsh!t pigeonholing name-calling trash. I am pragmatic. I realize that the US has finite energy resources, I’d rather have somebody else use theirs first. Call me a prick, but it is what it is. It happens around us all of the time, the rich guy who hires a manual laborer instead of doing the work himself. Division of labor and allocation of resources. Sorry if that’s too complicated for you. I support a gamut of resources to ween us from foreign oil, including widespread usage of enhanced nuclear technology (including PB reactors, fast breeders…etc), as well as solar and wind throughout the best areas. I do love how you categorize the Democrats/Liberals who have kept us attached to oil, when, in fact, it was Carter who first put together the country’s first comprehensive energy plan that would have left us pretty much independent by this time. It was Ronnie-Ray-Gun-Spend-Everything-We-Got that sunk that plan, only to be followed up by the Bushes and their Carlyle-KKR-Haliburton-Saudi connections. What’s funny about a fool like you is that you fail to realize it’s NIMBYS on *ALL* sides that prevent moving forward. You look at the “Republicans” (who are actually RINOs), they’ve failed the last 30 years to do anything but shackle us to Saudi closer. If you look at the “liberals”, they would rather shut their lights off for an hour or drive a prius, or recycle, than have meaningful change (like good ole Teddy who was complete NIMBY about wind off Cape Cod…lol). Instead, you’d rather toss around names against somebody you’ve got no idea about. You’re part of the problem, not the solution.
It’s funny that you consider being called a liberal Democrat a pejorative. I think that says a lot about what the American Left has done for energy independence in the United States, such as demonize and turn the public against nuclear energy, and for the America as a whole (California, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, etc.). The fact is, Leftists and “environmentalists”–and crony capitalists like George W. Bush, one of America’s worst presidents–have delayed energy progress for decades through their lobbying and their demented belief system about environmental “regulation”. Take Barack Obama, for example, whose energy indepdence policy consists of doubling the production of wind energy in the United States–from 1% of our energy consumption to 2%, which is not an energy policy at all. The only sane energy policy is nuclear, but your type–liberal Democrats–will never let that become a reality, and as such, we will continue to get our energy from nations that ruin the planet, which is the irony–because your first post railing against Rand Paul was linked directly to your environmentalist belief about what “de-regulation” will do for the environment.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It’s funny that you consider being called a > liberal Democrat a pejorative. I think that says a > lot about what the American Left has done for > energy independence in the United States, such as > demonize and turn the public against nuclear > energy, and for the America as a whole > (California, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, > etc.). The fact is, Leftists and > “environmentalists”–and crony capitalists like > George W. Bush, one of America’s worst > presidents–have delayed energy progress for > decades through their lobbying and their demented > belief system about environmental “regulation”. > Take Barack Obama, for example, whose energy > indepdence policy consists of doubling the > production of wind energy in the United > States–from 1% of our energy consumption to 2%, > which is not an energy policy at all. > > The only sane energy policy is nuclear, but your > type–liberal Democrats–will never let that > become a reality, and as such, we will continue to > get our energy from nations that ruin the planet, > which is the irony–because your first post > railing against Rand Paul was linked directly to > your environmentalist belief about what > “de-regulation” will do for the environment. So, either you can’t read, can’t comprehend, or are an utter fvcking retard. That or you’re willfully being stupid. It doesn’t matter which. I stated above I’m more than willing to fully exploit nuclear energy using pebble bed and fast-breeder reactors to more fully complete the nuclear chain. Utilizing reactor systems, with a unified reactor design, storage, and casking, such as France or Japan have done, has proven to be safe and efficient. However, instead of actually ASKING what my nuclear policy is, you jump to conclusions and call names. Really, do you think you’re solving anything here? Then you’d trust the companies to regulate nuclear correctly? Of course, Paul would…lol. My best friend is a nuc in the Navy, 3 cruises on the Nimitz as a department sub-officer (Lt., soon to be commander), now a SWO (IIRC) for 3 years, then another 2 back on a carrier to take full control of the department. One of the most interesting statistics he quoted me was that I get more radiation exposure in a day of walking in the marble/granite lobby of my building than he can get in a month working right next to a reactor. He’s the smartest person I know, has 2 nuc engineering masters degrees (in diff specializations). We talk quite often about the high-degree of standardization, regulation, process control, and supervision their reactors undergo and how that can apply to civ reactors. Quite interesting conversations. I don’t get 1/2 of what he says, but it jives with what I read. But then again, I’m some evil Democrat/Liberal who hates nuclear. Right?
I didn’t say YOU don’t support nuclear, I said YOUR TYPE–Liberal Democrats and environmentalist whackos–don’t support nuclear energy. I believe it is YOU who need better reading comprehension skills. It’s the people–similar to you–who piss and moan about the environment who have spent 40 years lobbying against nuclear energy and domestic oil drilling and who complain about private industry and de-regulation, where the ONLY alternative is to buy oil from other nations that destroy the environment.
kkent, you are right on. If we don’t drill offshore how do we meet our energy demands or leave us less vulnerable to foreign energy interests, especially since PetroChina is already drilling off our shores. Either private interests that are accountable to our laws drill or supranational concerns drill and will inevevitably spill but we have no recourse. Lose lose. Our environmental interest and our national security interests both go down the tubes. Welcome to reality. On a side note highly recommended reading is Thomas Sowell’s Conflict of Visions. It will clarify this discussion and so many more that are bound to happen.
Clarification, just realized that my line might have been a few threads late. To avoid throwing things off, I agree with kkent about nuclear. It is about the only relatively clean fuel we can add to our mix and reduce our dependence on petro thugs or at least dilute their influence. Still highly recommend Thomas Sowell’s book.