Originally Posted by Carson

other sources of energy have already been developed, you need to lay the blame where it is due and thats oil companies, allowing them to drill more is playing into the hands of the enemy.

Originally Posted by steve k

You're stupidity has obviously reached new lows. I only hope you don't have any children to teach this insanity. What insanity is that pussy? Seems to me that all of these questions have long ago been answered and while you love to spout these inane theories in your pathetic attempt to "stick it to the man" the reality is different. What theories you crazy piece of shit? I didn't spout any theories Being you don't live in this reality, it is I who will honestly tell you that you really have no clue as to what you're talking about. You have absolutely no proof - other than anger and hatred for your government/country. So, to that end I would respectfully say to you that being Keith Olbermann, Bill Mahr or any of the liberal media haven't been able to find any definitive proof that the building were deliberately set a light and being that any one of them or 85% of the main stream media would like nothing better than to stick this dagger through Bush and Cheney's heart it is even more obvious that once again, you have no idea what your talking about. I'm not the one who claims to have super xray vision fruitcake. Either come up with real proof (& that doesn't include ridiculous websites and blogs) but REAL (w/ a capital 'R') or find something else to do. How clueless you really are. That's not something to be celebrated. Do you have any proof that I am wrong, no then we are both speculating and thats all you can do. You ought to really be disgusted with yourself. for being honest? I guess you admire deceit however, being that your obviously too stupid to feel that way, I'll give you the biggest insult I can possibly give anyone. Simply, I pity you.

Originally Posted by Carson

You don't have a clue what your talking about fool

Originally Posted by Dom1

Why wait until then? Do you really think those SUV's drive the price up that much? I don't.

Originally Posted by George O Well

>>>I think you've underestimated Stevie K. He ain't just ANY fool.

Let me see if I can paraphrase his writings on the subject of 9/11:

"I was 5-6 blocks from the WTC when the second plane hit. I know what I saw. Therefore, the government wasn't involved."

Is that about right?

Originally Posted by steve k

April 30, 2008
Start Drilling
By Robert Samuelson

WASHINGTON -- What to do about oil? First it went from $60 to $80 a barrel, then from $80 to $100 and now to $120. Perhaps we can persuade OPEC to raise production, as some senators suggest; but this seems unlikely. The truth is that we're almost powerless to influence today's prices. We are because we didn't take sensible actions 10 or 20 years ago. If we persist, we will be even worse off in a decade or two. The first thing to do: Start drilling.

It may surprise Americans to discover that the United States is the third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. We could be producing more, but Congress has put large areas of potential supply off-limits. These include the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and parts of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. By government estimates, these areas may contain 25-30 billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion of proven U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural gas (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves).

What keeps these areas closed are exaggerated environmental fears, strong prejudice against oil companies and sheer stupidity. Americans favor both "energy independence" and cheap fuel. They deplore imports -- who wants to pay foreigners? -- but oppose more production in the United States. Got it? The result is a "no-pain energy agenda that sounds appealing but has no basis in reality," writes Robert Bryce in "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence.'"

Unsurprisingly, all three major presidential candidates tout "energy independence." This reflects either ignorance (unlikely) or pandering (probable). The United States now imports about 60 percent of its oil, up from 42 percent in 1990. We'll import lots more for the foreseeable future. The world uses 86 million barrels of oil a day, up from 67 mbd in 1990. The basic cause of exploding prices is that advancing demand has virtually exhausted the world's surplus production capacity, says analyst Douglas MacIntyre of the Energy Information Administration. The result: Any unexpected rise in demand or threat to supply triggers higher prices.

The best we can do is to try to influence the global balance of supply and demand. Increase our supply. Restrain our demand. With luck, this might widen the worldwide surplus of production capacity. Producers would have less power to exact ever-higher prices, because there would be more competition among them to sell. OPEC loses some leverage; its members cheat. Congress took a small step last year by increasing fuel economy standards for new cars and light trucks from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. (And yes, we need a gradually rising fuel tax to create a strong market for more-efficient vehicles.)

Increasing production also is important. Output from older fields, including Alaska's North Slope, is declining. Although production from restricted areas won't make the U.S. self-sufficient, it might stabilize output or even reduce imports. No one knows exactly what's in these areas, because the exploratory work is old. Estimates indicate that production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge might equal almost 5 percent of present U.S. oil use.

Members of Congress complain loudly about high oil profits ($40.6 billion for ExxonMobil last year) but frustrate those companies from using those profits to explore and produce in the United States. Getting access to oil elsewhere is increasingly difficult. Governments own three-quarters or more of proven reserves. Higher prices perversely discourage other countries from approving new projects. Flush with oil revenues, countries have less need to expand production. Undersupply and high prices then feed on each other.

But it's hard for the United States to complain that other countries limit access to their reserves when we're doing the same. If higher U.S. production reduced world prices, other countries might expand production. What they couldn't get from prices they'd try to get from greater sales.

On environmental grounds, the alternatives to more drilling are usually worse. Subsidies to ethanol made from corn have increased food prices and used scarce water, with few benefits. If oil is imported, it's vulnerable to tanker spills. By contrast, local production is probably safer. There were 4,000 platforms operating in the Gulf of Mexico when hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit. Despite extensive damage, there were no major spills, says Robbie Diamond of Securing America's Future Energy, an advocacy group.

Perhaps oil prices will drop when some long-delayed projects begin production or if demand slackens. But the basic problem will remain. Though dependent on foreign oil, we might conceivably curb the power of foreign producers. But this is not a task of a month or a year. It is a task of decades; new production projects take that long. If we don't start now, our future dependence and its dangers will grow. Count on it.

Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

Originally Posted by A. Crowley

Sure thing, DOMmy.

Bring it.


Check Foxnews first for pics of Atta at the airport in Prague.

Originally Posted by Heckler

Drilling is NOT the solution, not even short term.

There are MANY alternative sources, most are already in use. With a program similar to the Apollo project they could be brought online en masse, probably in about the same time it would take to open up new fields.....

It's way PAST time for a change.

Originally Posted by George O Well

>>>One of my views is that I just don't know wtf happened. I don't think anybody else does either, but they are more willing than I am to accept what the government tells us.

I don't care about drones or controlled demolitions or any of that kind of shit. Doesn't interest me. The buildings probably DID come down when the planes crashed into them. All I know is that until the government comes up with an alibi, it is still a suspect.

Originally Posted by George O Well

Between SUVs, pick-ups, Cadillac DeVilles, Lincoln Towncars, etc., yes, I do think they drive up gas prices way up. There are millions of cars out there that consume 3 to 4 times more gas than is neecessary to get down the freeway in air-conditioned style.

Originally Posted by polarbear31

god I hate this type of debate that allows for 13 paragraphs of cut and paste
get to your point