Re: US Oil put off limits by Dems

Said techniques wouldn't be nearly so expensive or unreliable (think,
doofus, does the sun ever blink off???) now, if nearly 30 years ago
Pope Ronnie and St George the first (a lesson to keep oilmen away from
politics (and 'intelligence') if there ever was one) had funded solar
development instead of tearing the panels off the White House...

Your domestic development wouldn't reduce prices - if there was a
supply and demand-type shortage, we'd be waitin' at the pumps like
'73. It would keep us from freezin' in our sleepers a year later
than, oh, three years from now...



On Wed, 28 May 2008 04:01:46 -0500, "tscottme" <blahblah@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

But that's exactly what the Democrats propose during this time of high
energy prices. Rather than use the techniques that have produced the
domestic oil we now use, the Dems propose we replace current energy supplies
with new, very expensive sources that require vast new networks, difficult
engineering, and only then will we see what were the unforseen problems with
their suggestion.

We want to use oil equipment to produce oil, uranium to make heat, and the
Dems want to use the most expensive, least reliable methods, not because
they will be better. No the Dems support the "green" methods only because
they are very far away and very expensive. If they could think of some less
practical energy source that was even more expensive and farther into the
future that is what they would support. Their perfect energy source for the
US would be infinitely expensive and infinitely far into the future, which
would only coincidentally remove US from influence in the world I am sure.
That would be the Dems win-win solution.

.

Quantcast