America uses an estimated 10-million gallons of gasoline per day. Each 42-gallon barrel of crude oil, refines approximately half of each barrel into gasoline. The other half is converted into other products.
Green con artists promote a politically correct lie that Arctic National Wildlife Reserve holds a minuscule amount of oil and not worth drilling for. But until we actually start test drilling and find out what is there, that claim is a lie.
Estimated crude reserves in (ANWR) and surrounding areas (meaning drilling laterally into off shore, under native lands and federal lands) range from95% chance there is 5.7 to a 5% chance there are 16 billion barrels or a mien average of 10.4 billion barrels of crude (figures taken from Wikipedia so take them with a grain of salt although other sources make similar predictions). Given that half of a barrel of crude can be refined into gasoline, there could be as much as 20.8 billion barrels of gas in ANWR alone. The other fact is that there are other areas of Alaska that are still being explored. Russia is going full blast to find oil under the North Pole. What is America doing about ANWR...living in a total state of denial. Had President Bill (my zipper is permanently stuck in the down position) Clinton approved the drilling in ANWR during his administration, we’d be getting a million barrels a day in extra oil now, or about 5% of our needs or just under half what we currently get from Saudi Arabia.
Purdhoe Bay had known reserves of 13 billion and was producing 450,000 barrels per day in 2006. At 21 gallons of gas refined per barrel, that's 9.4 million gallons of gas per day. (Washington Post 6-7-2005). The cryptic comment at the end of the Wikipedia statement reads: "In total, the oil deposits in ANWR contain enough oil to solely support U.S. consumption for 7 months (4.3B estimate) to 2 years (16B estimate)".
Remember, the claim is that if ANWR were the ONLY source of supply for the entire United States of America it could supply America for up to 2 years. That is a huge realization. In 1980, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the [Alaska] Coastal Plain could contain up to 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
In 1951 the Bakken Oil Reserves were discovered. The Bakken find covers areas in Canada, Montana and North Dakota and is approximate 200,000 square miles. Up until recently the technology and the per-barrel recovery costs made it too expensive to recover, although one test well has produced 750,000 barrels per year with standard drilling techniques. The estimated amount of oil in the Bakken Reserves range for 2 to 5 billion, to as much as 450 billion...more than all of Saudia Arabia’s reserves. The real question is how much of it is recoverable. The other question is “WHAT THE HELL ARE WE WAITING FOR?”
American thinking is sick. We aren’t thinking any more, we’re feeling...we’ve been fiberalized or Oprahized. We must sound and look as though we care...reality is meaningless. Under the new thought processes, if we look right, sound right, and are green enough, we are right. American industry, including our auto companies are going bankrupt using this type of thinking.
Democrats put a moratorium on the effort to convert oil shale into fuel. Coal liquidization is being thwarted. Oprahized and Al Gore type thinking has made American’s believe it’s possible to convert away from carbon fuel in a matter of a few years. That’s not just pathetic, it’s patently insane. Obama want’s to raise gas prices, cut back on drilling, restrict exploration, tax promising innovation and eliminate carbon technology...so plan on $10 to $15 per gallon gas prices.
The sad truth is that America has enough carbon energy (coal and shale oil) to last us for 100 years without half trying, if we are allowed to get it. Maybe when Americans realize the GREEN Kool Aide they're wolfing down won’t give them the fuel they want in the time frame they expect, then they will say this isn’t working and we had better start drilling. By then it may be too late, and our economy will be so dead we won’t be able afford to get our own energy. Why don’t we develop better technology to clean coal and oil emissions and use the fuel God has given us (nuclear, hydrogen and potential fusion) instead of trying to develop impossible biofuels and starve ourselves to death in the process.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I can just see it years from now that they will be blaming Bush for not drilling anywhere else for oil.
Although Carter had the most intelligent solution to put on a sweater and drive 55. Not!
tos
Incredibly, O-bomb-a is blaming Bush for high gas prices when the fiberals are the ones stopping drilling. And don't get me started on the Peanut Farmer, he should have stayed in the peanut gallery. NG
Even with my middle of the road politics, I have no issue with drilling for oil in ANWR, so I'm not disagreeing with you on that principle. However, I don't see you mentioning anywhere that it will take a minimum of 10 years for any production from ANWR to take effect.
But perhaps more importantly, some of the economists I've talked to argue that oil supply is not the real problem. In fact, the largest issue is that the American dollar is now worthless, especially if you're living in another part of the world, like say, an oil-producing country. So if you're being paid US Dollars for your oil, you have to start charging more USD per barrel to keep making the same profits.
I have no real issue with drilling ANWR, mostly because several of the papers I've seen written on the subject suggest that with current technology there would be limited to none environmental risk. However, before blaming everything on Clinton (and it is extremely tacky to insult his ability because of sexual indiscretion. REPUBLICAN Fed Chairman Allan Greenspan said he was probably the smartest President he ever worked with), it might be more proper to go back even further and look at the consequences of Nixon taking the USD off of the gold standard, and examine how trends of inflation in the 80s and now might be the real root of the problem.
According to your blog, you're a 20-year-old law school student , which is a bit interesting, because I had a double major, pre-legal political science before moving into journalism and ended my career as a television news anchor.
You don't mention a wife or children. I read a lot of posts of people claiming to be unbiased centerists but defending Clinton cheating on Hillary and excusing it. When you marry, will you excuse your wife for cheating on you? Will you call it just "tacky?" I will agree that Clinton's White House actions were about as tacky as you get, especially at America's house. Yes, that's tacky.
You capitalized "Republican" as if Greenspan is the end all and be all claiming Clinton was the smartest President he ever worked with. Frankly, that is faint praise because as you go through life, especially in the legal profession if you pass the bar, you'll discover there are some very smart lawyers with lots brains which do not equate to wisdom. Then, you slam Nixon, which is a standard ploy of liberals. Just once, I'd like to read a post by someone like you who isn't afraid of saying what they are and not apologizing for it?
Regarding ANWR. Regardless, had Clinton started drilling when he was president, we'd have the oil being delivered today. But your "10 years delivery" scenario" is a specious argument to justify the claim that it's not worth drilling there. The fact is that, oil could be delivered in under 4 years. Do you know how long it took to build the Alaskan pipe line? Well, it was 2 years 2 months.
I don’t know what economists you're talking to, but I don't think the law of supply and demand have been eliminated yet. Saudi Arabia currently supplies about 11 per cent of all America's oil supply. If we were receiving ANWR oil, we could totally supplant Saudi Arabian oil for a total of 8.6 years if there were 4 billion barrels of oil from ANWR, and if the estimate is closer to the 16 billion barrels estimate, that's about 32-years without having to have Saudi Arabian oil.
Finally, you, like so many, ignore a major excellent source of energy along with the oil. The low estimate of natural gas in ANWR is 35-billion gallons, which is, as you know, a clean burning fuel.
One last comment. If the Republicans had not taken over the Congress and forced Clinton to accept conservative solutions, his would have been one of the worst presidencies in history….no matter how smart you think he might have been. In my opinion, for being one the "smartest" presidents as you say according to Greenspan, he sure was stupid. I think his brains got caught in his zipper.
Okay, first off, I never said anything about excusing Clinton's affair in terms off his marriage situation. You just inferred that. I think what Bill did to Hillary was absolutely horrible. And I might not be married, but I'm 25 (not 20) and I've been in serious relationships where a girlfriend has cheated on me behind my back. So I do agree, cheating is horrible and inexcusable.
What I don't agree with is the way that you seem to think failure in marriage is equal to failure in politics. I'm sure you've heard the analogy before, and I'm summarizing from memory here, if you had to choose between a guy who drank nearly a liter of gin a day and had numerous affairs on his wife, or a guy who drank a liter of gin and a liter of scotch everyday (and I don't remember if he cheated on his wife or not), or an abstinent guy that was faithful to his wife, to rule your country who would it be? Well the first is FDR, the second is Churchill and the third is Hitler. This is of course simplistic and if I'm assuming correctly, you've already come up with a list of reasons in your head why FDR was a horrible socialist and it doesn't matter that he led us through WW2. The point, simplistic as it is, is that sexual misconduct and other moral issues (obviously I would argue that Hitler's racism and anti-semitism would be the type of moral issue not to be disregarded) to not have a bearing over someone's ability to manage a country. Now, feel free to criticize Clinton's policies. I personally had the pleasure of taking a government course six years ago from a retired Dem Senator who actually voted Republican more during the last years of his tenure, and he talked often about how he led the charge against the Clinton health plan. I readily recognized some of the issues when explained by Senator Boren.
I think your criticism of Greenspan and the comparison of brains/wisdom is very valid. I hadn't considered that before, and is someone who has just recently started to dabble on the side in economics while working on a humanities masters, I generally trusted my professor's assessment of his brilliance and didn't bother (or wasn't capable) of independently evaluating his abilities. Regardless, I think your dismissal of Greenspan's comments on Clinton shows the same degree of biased uncritical thought I myself was using there.
In addition, I began my post by identifying myself as having a middle of the road political persuasion. I don't consider myself a liberal, I consider Obama too far left for my tastes. In fact, over the recent years, the libertarian arguments by my friends have given me a lot of sympathy and agreement with the intellectual (as opposed to the Christian Right/Neo-Con) factions of the right. I also structured my comment as not a criticism of you (except in regards to the Clinton comment), but as suggestions as other ways to look at the issue. So frankly I was responded by the harshness of your response.
My main point was to propose that immediate drilling in ANWR probably help us out for a long time (and I did say that I was fine with drilling in ANWR after all). My other point was to suggest that current oil prices are more connected with dollar inflation than supply and demand (and no, I I'm not saying that supply and demand is no longer valid as you seem to claim I did, but I said it was simplistic as being the only tool for analyzing the problem. If it was, then macroecon 101 would be the highest level of study needed for economists. (And as an aside, I didn't slam Nixon, I simply stated that he took USD off of the gold standard, and that has caused inflation. I probably would have voted for Nixon had I been alive then.)
Here's some reading for you about dollar inflation and how it is partially responsible for oil prices:
From former Republican Presidential nominee Ron Paul: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=543
Here's another:
http://echochambers.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/petrodollar-inflation-oil-prices-rise-when-the-dollar-falls/
I found several others from more leftist news sources but figured you would discount them so I decided not to post them. Just to a simple google search for something along the lines of dollar inflation and oil prices.
Oil, around the world, is sold and priced in US Dollars. No one denies that because of the current economic situation the dollar is inflated. When dollars are worth less in real money, then OPEC must raise the price of a barrel of oil to continue making the same profit margin. Thus, as the dollar continues to inflate, the price of oil will as well. There are of course other factors, supply is one of them, but it is not the only one. Market speculators are another. Investment groups have been bidding up the price of commodities since most corporate investments are no longer bringing in as high of returns.
Ok, enough of that. Depending on how you respond to this I may or may not ever bother to come to your site again (which may or may not make you happy). I am interested in rational, intellectual discussion. I have changed my stances on issues numerous times since I reached voting age 7 years ago (and months before that I was ardently supporting GW Bush). On the other hand, based on how you respond to my comments, how you respond to other comments (I've read other of your posts, found your site google searching something), and your posts in general, you're not all that interested in considering alternative possibilities or self-questioning. You tend to respond with emotion and not reason.
I believe I saw on a comment you left on a post quite a long time ago about the number of deaths under Clinton vs. Bush, that you said you were 43(?). Regardless, because of the way you criticize my evaluation of Clinton by suggesting I don't have a family, you are obviously older than me. I have tried to be objective and reasonable in this response, but since this is your site and your rules, allow me to give you a personal jab. I find it incredibly sad that someone of your age lacks the abilities to speak reasonably, to evaluate his own positions and to think with an open mind. I can only hope that in 20 years, when I am a lawyer (and I assure, despite your doubts, I will pass the bar, my school has a 91% pass right and I assure you I won't be anywhere near the bottom of my class), I have not turned into a stubborn man like you. I hope that I always maintain the ability to realize that at any time I might be wrong.
Your last post is an exercise in the unbounded arrogance of youth. You haven’t got a clue about real life. Bill Clinton is a pig, a smart pig according to you, who got his brains stuck in his zipper and left America vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Three thousand American died because he was preoccupied with Monica and every other skirt that caught his eye. If you don’t think his womanizing hurt America I suggest that you ask the families of those dead Americans who buried their husbands and wives and sons and daughters and moms and dads.
You applaud yourself over your self-perceived “rational, intellectual” discussion. I’ve heard it all before and 99% of that kind of thinking is what got us into WWI, WWII and Korea. Kennedy’s arrogance got us into Viet Nam and Johnson’s assumption that he and McNamera knew better than the generals made it the quagmire it became. I call that kind of thinking “Chamberlain’s folly.”
Bernake is too stupid to understand that he has to support the dollar. If America announced an all-out oil search with the willingness to use our own carbon fuels and then start drilling, oil prices would drop to half within a week. Of course the Humanists/Commie-Cons who lead the green movement would become apoplectic over doing that. By the way, your use of “(as opposed to the Christian Right/Neo-Con) factions of the right” defines your politics. Why are you so afraid to admit you’re a full-fledged liberal. It’s painfully obvious what your are.
You seem to obsess over my ultra-direct approach. I am old enough to have seen that 95% of your “reasoned and rational” and infinitely protracted “discussion” is pure crap, and all it does is distort reality and delay what has to be done. It’s extremely obvious in the debate over oil and global warming. The Al Gore “reasoned and rational” climate change thinking is political and is destroying our economy and your future job.
Your response is also a monument to self-indulgent moral relativism that I find abhorrent and self-destructive but pervasive in American youth. If you don’t have the guts to pound it out with me on my opinion blog, what are you going to do in the court room? With your approach your going to be mulched in court by attorneys who won’t give a hoot about your “reasoned and rational” thinking. The court room is war by another name. Which brings up another self-serving conclusion you draw that I didn’t provide support for my ANWR drilling post. IF YOU AIN’T GOT OIL SON, YOU AIN’T GOT A MARKET. PERIOD!!! Once again you display a lack of analytical thinking simply because you don’t agree. A very ominous lack the symmetrical analysis that will not serve you well in battles with other lawyers.
And your comment that I questioned whether you would pass the bar exposes another serious flaw in your analytical thinking. I didn’t question your ability to pass the bar. It was not a matter of whether, it was a matter yet to be undetermined. There’s a big difference. Perhaps you better take a little more English with emphasis on definition.
Please, if you can’t handle arguing with me, by all means don’t come back to my blog. If, on the other hand, you want to argue with someone who has the same approach many of the attorneys you’ll meet in court have you’re welcome to return. But, if you can’t stand the heat boy, stay out of the kitchen.
With thinking like your last sentence you assure yourself that you will be wrong much more than you’ll be right.
One additional comment. You'd better develop a much thicker skin if you want to be an attorney. If you allow personal attacks to distract you, as you have on my blog, Beni Hana lawyers who will cut you into chunks in a matter of seconds.
NG
I am arrogant? Have you ever read a single word you've written?
You have completely missed my point you egotistical moron. I was giving you the opportunity to convince me that your views were correct. If you had actually explained your argument in reasoned terms instead of insulting me and my points of view, then perhaps you would have convinced me that I should agree with you. Instead, you feel like the only way to accomplish things is to slam the opposition repeatedly. Will a scant 25% of the country who actually thinks things are going great convince the other 75% to change their minds by calling them idiots? Well since I'm apparently an immature idiot who knows nothing, then I suppose your insult tactics are the perfect way to get your policies accomplished.
Your desire to slam the youth of today is going to do nothing but convince even more of us to flock to Obama.
Yet again you make another assumption. The vast majority of attorneys in America will not step foot in a courtroom. And I also have no plans to do so. So please, stop assuming things.
And I am not a full fledged liberal. I am for responsible government, which means for Democrats since you're messiah George W. Bush has spent more money than every other president in US history combined. You aren't even a true conservative yourself if you idealize the man. His greatest achievement as President is going to be the restructure of the fundamental values of political parties. Intellectual conservatives are abandoning the flaming ship of the Republican party because it no longer stands for anything it did under Reagan. And once the party returns to sound economic policy, I will be happy to call myself a Republican again.
And Jesus Christ, do you not understand that I support ANWR drilling!!!!!!!!! How many times do I have to say that before it gets through your thick skull. Are you so unbelievably self-righteous that you find the very idea of someone critiquing a minor point to be an insult, and not a chance to offer a simple explanation? I support ANWR and I support the current discussion of opening up additional off shore oil rigs. I'm all for it. I want more oil. For Christ's sake, I live in a state (OK) who's entire economy is on a fragile balance of the energy industry. I want more energy. All, ALL, I was trying to suggest were two things: won't it take a while for this to go into effect (not saying I don't want it, just asking, perhaps inferring, can you think of any more short term solutions?) and we should also be considered about the role that dollar inflation is playing in the price of oil. I was not even disagreeing with your original post in any way. I am sorry if your economical mind is capable of understanding anything.
And yes, if by some awkward chance I do every step into a courtroom or have to face off over a negotiating table, then when I present my reasoned arguments and the other attorney responds with an attack like yours, then I'll I need to do is show how entirely irrelevant it is.
How is that? I'm playing on your level now. And you know let, it feels pretty great to call you out for the analytically-challenged prick that you are.
Respond if you want to that last comment. I let two friends with advanced degrees in economics read all of this to see if they agreed with my reasoning, and they did (both are former Republicans turned Libertarian because they are so aghast at the economic policies of GWBush).
But a friend reminded me of this wise saying:
"Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded."
Alas, I quickly look over the course of my life and remind myself that I'm far from retarded. I'm going back to face-to-face intellectual discussions where people can't hide behind faceless blogs. Where the discussion is at the real Olympic level and not on the wheel-chair race as it as been between us. As for my ability with English (which you suggest I should work on), should I have written these comments in Shakespearean blank verse, Chaucerian middle english, or perhaps Anglo-Saxon? Because I could do any of them. Perhaps I should have written this in Latin? Would that have made it easier for you to understand? So adieu my friend. Hopefully someday you will also realize that we are not all born with the answers and only through in-depth self-evaluation and constant questioning of everything around us can we refine our beliefs and tenets into gold. After-all, Socrates came up with that nearly three thousand years ago, you would think it would have caught on by now.
So, the real "lonely" has made his appearance. Let's go back to your first comment on my blog. In the first paragraph you claim it would take 10 years to get oil from ANWR. That is a false liberal/democrat talking point, so immediately you have established your liberal point of view, or more accurately perhaps your "Ron Paul" point of view? Not my cup of tea, so to speak.
One side comment:
"...not on the wheel-chair race as it as been between us" that's certainly an insensitive analogy.
You say economists claim supply is NOT THE REAL PROBLEM. It certainly is when the demand increases as per China, India and Brazil, which means supply definitively determines demand values and thus the price no matter what the dollar is. What if the Bakken Formation has the 500 billion barrels some estimate…will that not affect the price of oil? You came to a singularly inaccurate conclusion that to keep the same profits a supplier can only raise prices. That's a twisted half truth. There is a second way to maintain income, increase supply, as the Saudi's are suddenly wanting to do now. That's also a second liberal shibboleth. What's the new Demo mantra…drilling won't solve the problem…bull crap! The only way to defend that crock is to accept unquestionably that Global Warming is a fact, which is another crock.
Then you demand that I don't blame Clinton….WHY NOT? He's the one who dropped the ball in ANWR and then call me tacky for insulting him for a "sexual indiscretion"…make that a couple of hundred sexual indiscretions. Then you claim the zipper king is the smartest president since sliced bread then slam Nixon for dropping the gold standard and criticize the "80s" (read Ronald Reagan) claiming they are the root of today's alleged economic problems….in effect directly slamming Ronald Reagan and supply economics.
Get you head on straight LONELY because that's at least 5 or 6 direct attacks on conservative values, and you claim I'm closed minded and a moron? What did you expect me to do, accept that it will take 10 years in ANWR (that's a crock), agree that an increased oil supply would not reduce prices (another lie), that income can only be raised by increased prices (which is simple ignorance), that I say Clinton's sexual crap didn't hurt America (when he was responsible for 3000 American deaths on 911), that Nixon shouldn't have dropped the gold standard (which is arguable both ways) and Ronald Reagan's supply side economics are causing our current economic problems (when in fact he started the longest period of economic growth in history).
Give me a bucking frak, you're the one who started the immediate attacks. Everyone of your issues, with the exception of drilling in ANWR, is a Fiberal/commie-con talking point. Apparently you are so indoctrinated you don't even understand that the real meaning that what you wrote and that it comes directly from Demo talking points.
Finally, to quote you, "a girlfriend has cheated on me behind my back. So I do agree, cheating is horrible and inexcusable." Based on what you've said, her "sexual indiscretions" did not have any impact on you emotionally, didn't hurt your concentration, or compromise the quality of your work in any way shape or form. Do you really expect me to believe that? Did she feel anything about her indiscretions? If she has an ounce of principle, she did and I can guarantee it impacted her negatively. If they didn't she was probably a hooker.
NG
wow, dude. simply wow. I think if you try really, really hard, you could be a bigger moron. You accuse someone of spouting democrat talking points, and yet your responses are straight out of the Karl Rove playbook. you might be the biggest hypocrite i've seen in years.
Wow. That last paragraph is dirty. I'm sorry, but don't imagine that you can understand how I felt when someone I cared about deeply and had spent months of my live committed to left me. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear to a complete stranger. Would you like me to send you the 200 page novel or one of the 2 dozen short stories where I vent about it?
I did not praise Bill Clinton. I told you what Alan Greenspan said about him and I told you that I thought it was tacky to use someone's sexual misconduct as a barometer for there intellectual capacity. I even omitted that when a Senator explained the problems with the Clinton health care package, I agreed with the Senator who had opposed Clinton. All I asked was that evaluate someone on their record (which might very well be horrible) and not on the amount of sex they are having.
Secondly, I just said that Nixon took the currency off the gold standard. I never slammed him. I said this in my last post. Based on how I probably would have felt about Vietnam, I would have voted for Nixon.
I do think RR was atleast somewhat of an idiot, but only because he drove the country into debt through Star Wars (a program no one thought would work) and because contemporary biographers, see Frances Fitzgerald, have found strong evidence that he was suffering from alzheimers for most of his second term.
As far as ANWR taking 10 years, I only heard that on the news. I believed it after hearing it from two sources, but if you say it is not true, and if you offer evidence to the contrary, then I'll believe you. (How is that? Show me evidence and I'm willing to change my views.)
I do want to increase the oil supply. I've said that in a previous post. But for the love of all that is sacred, would you listen to me for one second, I am only saying that SUPPLY IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE. That there are other things at stake besides that. You're the one thats probably at least 20 years closer to retirement than me. You should be caring about inflation for than I am.
Finally, you just can't read. I spent the last two years teaching English Composition at a major state university, and I have seen few papers in that tenure that showed such a lack of ability to actually understand what their source material was arguing.
I await for you to skim this, copy a few things, take them out of context, and insult me personally again, all so my opinion of you can shrink even further.
Your last name wouldn't happen to be Ogle would it?
"wow, dude." How old are you, 15? This is what passes for an alleged intellectual equal to the self-proclaimed prophet of self-righteousness...LONLEY?
I'd to have climb a long way up to get to the top of the Moron heap on which you reside. So I'll let you be king of that hill. I do love how you and your self-righteous friend LONELY are so much better than the rest of us peons though, that only your opinions are valid. I pity you because it must be so hard to live in the real world with all us rabble. Of course, you don't really live in the real world now do you? You spend your time cloistered in our ivy towers looking down your noses because you've never really had to pay your own way and have been taking handouts from the government (meaning my taxes) which are subsidizing your academic arrogance. Go back to LONELY's blog of lies and distortions...you'll feel so much better immersed in your cocoon of fabrications, intellectual dishonesty, and fully self-absorbed bull crap congratulating yourselves on your own perceived brilliance. NG
"You applaud yourself over your self-perceived “rational, intellectual” discussion. I’ve heard it all before and 99% of that kind of thinking is what got us into WWI, WWII and Korea. Kennedy’s arrogance got us into Viet Nam and Johnson’s assumption that he and McNamera knew better than the generals made it the quagmire it became. I call that kind of thinking “Chamberlain’s folly.”"
I'm sorry, but I read Chamberlain's folly as meaning appeasing Hitler.
Forgive me if I am wrong.
Grow the balls to allow people to post comments without having to look at them and write responses first.
I'm happy that you've had a successful marriage and that you're career is going well. I'm also happy to see that your work involves you with artists. For some reason I thought you were a news anchor...sorry for that misconception, that's why I suggested you might be Rush.
I'm sorry if any of my comments upset you. I'm sorry if I did not adequately express myself in a way that would allow you to understand exactly what I meant. Perhaps that is my ignorance and not yours.
I'm sorry that you are upset that I misrepresented your comments when you have done the exact same thing to me.
Good luck with the rest of your life.
PPLLLEEEASSSSE ACCEPT MY HUMBLE PARDON FOR FAILING TO GET THIS ON 5 SECONDS AFTER YOU SENT IT...AS I WROTE ON YOUR BLOG, I HAVE A REAL LIFE, I DON'T SPEND MY WHOLE DAY STARING AT A COMPUTER SCREEN.
LONELY...I can sure understand why you call yourself that. Your girl dumps you, your friends sound like 15 year-old skaters dudes, and You're not in law school yet it appears. And quit with your ongoing pity-party crybaby stuff about being dumped...we all get dumped...it's horrible painful but you're not the only one, though you try to make it sound that way.
Since you've accused me of "taking out of context" I've include each and every specific point to our previous comment. Seems unnecessary but you demanded:
1- You said my ANWR post was not supported by facts! It was fully supported including links and fully researched information.
2- You defended Clinton's actions by way of surrogacy…same difference as you saying it yourself. Pro forma politics. But in your case it was an effort to hide your personal preferences.
3- I said Clinton's sexual distraction hurt America, I never address the level of his alleged intellectual capacity…although he is and always has been a consummate jerk, completely without common sense or wisdom and loaded with guile.
4- Whether you like it or not his sexual proclivities did killed Americas.
5- Forget Nixon. I don't give a crap about him. Nixon was just as smart as Clinton, and just as idiotic...different sin. But he was 3-times the foreign policy whiz Clinton ever thought about being. Unfortunately, Nixon was also one paranoid SOB. Sad! Like Clinton's sexual addition his paranoia destroyed him.
6- Reagan started the longest economic growth period in American History, and Clinton got lucky and was forced by a Republican Congress to reduce proposed spending allowing the continued Reagan economy, no thanks to Bush 41. Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall, destroyed the Soviet Union, took us out of the Carter economic disaster when short term credit was at 25% and long term housing credit at 16% to 20%, built SDI which today reveals itself to be visionary and brilliant considering the possibly of long range missiles from Iran, Syria and North Korea (Hey Lonely, SDI does work), and gave us a huge peace savings because he rebuilt the military, allowing us, I might add, to kick Saddam out of Kuwait (or were you against that too), and because the arms race was reduced, it allowed us to reduce military spending. Meanwhile, Clinton destroyed the military and caused untold deaths because of it in Iraq.
7- You make undefined statements, such as: There are other things at stake…such as what?…global warming…LOL.
8- You want to send me a book and then insult me by saying, "I can't read", that's a hoot…I say you can't think! No wonder colleges and universities are so left wing with teaching assistants like you interpreting what is and isn't relevant.
9- I'm not worrying about retiring. Did that years ago…long before the traditional 65. Now I just do whatever I take a mind to…like occasionally arguing with bloggers who think they can think! I will give you some critical advice…learn to save, be disciplined with your money, budget, put it in different venues and stay out of debt. Finally, more millionaires are made with real estate than any other single investment especially with today's tough market. If you save your money like mad in 2008 there are going to be some screamer real estate deals by the end of the year. OH, and keep our credit sterling.(that's free advice).
10- You're the one who should be worrying about inflation. Obama will Carterize the economy with his utter lack of experience and you'll be paying 10-dollar gas, 15-20% for home financing money, and you'll be looking for a job. I'm projecting 10 to 12 per cent unemployment if Obama is elected and he wins with a Democrat controlled Congress…Pelosi and Reid will roll him easier than the first drop on the Dark Knight.
11- Who's this "OGLE" he/she sounds like someone I might like?
12- Keep trying Lonely, but it would be more fun if you'd think for yourself rather than repeating Democrat talking points, they're way to easy to shoot down.
13- Here's my jab at you, your 25 and still in college. Planning to stay there long are ya?
14- Checked out the LonelyArtist blog…Lonely lies through his teeth on every other line and his latest post is interminably long.
NG
LONELY,One more comment about your getting cheated on and dumped. Been there done that! As painful as it was it doesn't even scratch the surface when it comes to losing a child. I hope you never have to face that...but since you don't seem to be trying to have a family, you may not have to. I certainly hope you don't.
NG
For someone who claims to spend his time arguing with other bloggers, you have an interesting definition of argue or debate. Any time an argument is laid against something you have to say, you respond one of several ways: either you insult the intelligence of the commenter, you claim to be older, you claim to be married, or you claim to be wealthy, as if any of those things absolves you of any responsibility for your arguments. I have laid claim that you are a hypocrite. You have not responded to that claim. So i ask you this: have you failed to respond because you were too busy salivating over the insult possibilites stemming from the word "dude", or was it because you can't respond to the charge without admitting it. Your tactics are juvenile and beneath the assumed maturity of the successful, married businessman you claim to be. From this point on, I won't be insulting your intelligence or your person unless it directly makes a point. You, sir, are the one who has made this personal, and frankly, I will happily stay up in my "ivory tower" and look down upon you slinging mud like, well, a 15 year old.
Furthermore, you, sir, are using the comment feature of your blog to edit the discussion in your favor. By only allowing comments to be posted after you've approved them and responded, you skew the conversation to however you want it to read. I sent you a prior post to the one you made fun of, one which responded to your arguments. You failed to post that, not because you are busy, but because you are either too lazy or you can't argue back. I challenge you to allow open commenting on your blog so that any reader gets a fair and balanced look at the discussion. So that any reader can judge the debate with all the posts, not just the ones you want them to see.
I no longer even care about your original argument about ANWAR. Frankly, i'm fine with drilling it and if it gets us out of the middle east long enough to develop real energy alternatives like viable fusion or hydrogen technology, that's fantastic. What i care about now is that you give intelligent people who like to argue a bad name. By using debating tactics that are nothing more than the grown up version of, "I know you are but what am I," you have reduced the quality of discussion and wasted the time of every one who has read your vitriol and mistaken it for valid conversation or argumentation.
That said, you might ask why I still stand and debate you. In framing the Marketplace of Ideas, John Stuart Mill instructed that the only remedy to the darkness of banal, stupid, and useless ideas is the light of reason, truth, and intelligence. So i will stand against your playground bullying and unmask you as the charlatan playing at intellectual. I don't care how much money you've made, how much you love your wife, how old you are, or what you might think of me. You are nothing more than a thug, and i will not let that go unchallenged.
Thus, i await your response. Good day, sir.
There's a point I'd like to raise which, very honestly, I've never seen discussed. The "no drilling" crowd uses the lame excuse that gas prices would not go down, therefor, we shouldn't drill anywhere. Maybe yes, maybe no, but there are other things equally or more important. If we buy our own resources, that money stays at home instead of going overseas to countries, many of whom don't like us anyway. Then, we sit back and watch them use our money to buy our businesses and real estate. What kind of sense does that make? I'd still pay $4+ to make sure more of the money stayed here.
This second point is for all the ignoramuses out there who would prefer that we just not use oil, period. I challenge you to make a list, including things you use every day, in which oil (in one form or another) is NOT used somewhere in the production process or during use of the product. Then, consider whether or not you could get by WITHOUT all of the things that are NOT on this short list.
Rob, Finally!!! you have posted a comment that has passion. You are defending your position with your gut, not idle banalities or juvenile jargon.
Unfortunately, I can't answer each item because Lonely has a long comment (why am I not surprised it's long) to which I think he is owed a response. But let me say something I'm sure you will find objectionable.
May I again remind you that LONELY came on to MY blog and posted a hidden-agenda piece which was obvious from the start and later confirmed in his "Consensus" post. That kind of fork-tongued approach didn't endear me to him or his comment.
I find that just plain sneaky and underhanded, and beneath his own self-professed "intellectual integrity."
Unlike he and you, I have never claimed to be an "intellectual" as you define the term. I live in a University town and live in an area surrounded by professors who are so full of themselves I could puke. LONELY sounds just like them with his holier-than-thou "intellectual" attitude that oozes from every word he writes. BA HUMBUG"
Am I a blogging "thug?" you're darn tootin I am.
You don't like my "debating tactics," so be it, but think of this. You are stirred up, and this post in which you attack me, is the best writing I've seen you do on any of the posts to LONELY or to me. I think it was good for you to get intellectually passionate and come out swinging. I say GOOD FOR ROB. Why do you think I bully as I do. It's to get lazy bloggers out of the "S... This" and "F... That" while thinking they've used their best intellect and mental capacity. NG
PS. Somewhere in one of your posts your mentioned a post on my blog about military Death's under Clinton and Bush. I will apologize for that one. I made the mistake of pasting something off the "pass-along-internet of forwards" and didn't verify the numbers myself. Some numbers were correct some were not but worse the implication was false. That was both sloppy and unprofessional of me. As a former anchor I should not have relied on unverified info ala Dan Rather. It doesn't change my opinion though of Bill Clinton as one of the worst presidents in American history.
PPS. My blog masthead reads NewsGnome "My opinion about the world in which we live." That's what it is…an OPINION blog with lots of attitude and passion not an exercise in banal inanities.
Terry, These are two of the better points I've read in a long time. I know they're good because I wish I'd made them. In support your first point: I don't believe most Americans comprehend the amount of oil and natural gas we need. One report I saw made an exceptionally graphic illustration. He wrote: "If we burned wood instead of coal to generate the energy coal is currently producing, we'd have to cut down a forest the size of Alaska every year." I can't confirm the figures, but if true it is an amazing point.
And your point on foreigners buying America with our own money is what infuriates me so much….why not buy from ourselves. Our technology is such that we should be able to do it with very minimal impact on the environment. When Katrina and Rita hit so close to each other, I read that about 130 derricks in the Gulf were damage and yet there wasn't one serious oil leak. That says something about today's oil technology.
Your second point reveals a deep misunderstanding about oil, namely that every barrel contains 42 gallon of crude. 20 gallons are made into gasoline. The other half is used for everything from asphalt to the cups we drink out of. Most American's simple don't comprehend what we get from oil. Even if we eliminated gas, we'd still need the oil for the other purposes….and as you say, people would be missing a lot of daily conveniences.
Terry, I just reread my post to you and discovered I left out a three of words in the second paragraph....sorry about that...I'm in a hurry. The second paragraph should have read, "your second point reveals a deep misunderstanding MOST AMERICANS HAVE, about oil....
Sorry....! NG
I posted recently that we should produce more domestic oil to ensure that more of our money remained in the U.S. rather than going overseas. A news story this morning is an example of what can and will happen. After the cold war, Russia agreed to mothball a large portion of their nuclear missle arsenal, but they couldn't afford it. So, the U.S. helped, financially. Now, with oil over $135/bbl, Russia has reinvested in upgrading and modernizing their nuclear missle program. Russia is not even on the list of the top 15 countries we import oil from, but we spend $1 Billion per week for their oil. $52B/yr is not much in the grand scheme of things, but I'm PO'd we helped them update. If we had more of our own oil, we may not have had to buy from them. Can't be good for us. There are all kinds of unforseen consequences that can and will result from our inaction. So, you see, there is a whole lot more to it than simply, will gas prices go down?
Seems to me that if we paid for the maintenance of the nuclear subs, we ought to get the nuclear fuel free to power more Nuclear fuel, and for go the oil they sell us, or at the very least have them deduct the billion per week we've paid them.
I sure wonder where the bureaucrats are that make these pathetic decisions. Why is it always America's responsibility to save the world?
Crude is an absolute necessity to maintain a healthy economy as least for the foreseeable future. I'm for finding new energy forms, but ethanol for corn and wind in particular should not be part of the equation. Drill, Drill, Drill….!....but keep researching.
Problem is, we have Democrats coming in who will put taxes on everything, and destroy our economy. NG
Post a Comment