Re: US Oil put off limits by Dems

Think doofus, do the clouds ever get between the xun and your colar cell?
Does the wind ever go calm? If adding more oil won't reduce prices why his
*** Durbin demanding the Saudis pump 1 million more barrels per day? There
has never been a period in history when world demand and world supply have
been so equal. That is why oil traders are betting the price will keep
rising, it's like musical chairs, only rather than running toward a chair
people rush to pay more to guarantee they get the oil the want.

It's not a coincidence that the people that don't understand markets, and
the people that want to throttle the US economy, and the people that want
the US knocked down a peg or few are also the people that block 85% of
off-chore oil, block oil-shale, block nuclear.

--

Scott

A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned "no people
in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom
by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." This is a lesson that
today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman

"FNG" <FNG@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gcou34trd3nk5393p33c10esq1sa6vct74@xxxxxxxxxx
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