| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michelle Malkin" |
| Date: |
09 May 2006 07:18:53 PM |
| Object: |
Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
With or without (religion) you would have good people
doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But
for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
- Steven Weinberg, Physicists and Nobel Laureate
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
14 May 2006 09:25:31 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, stoney in episode
<a6nf62teqlqsc77p796e2eitacgdufooaf@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:14:04 -0500,
wrote in alt.atheism
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is in
office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market no
President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking the
flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have pushed
for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a significant
gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He is responsible
for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help, but
has been obstructed by Democrats. The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Ordinarily, I might agree. I've had several economics classes. A good way
to bring down prices, in general, ceteris paribus(another eco. term), is
to either increase supply, or reduce demand.
Great, but in the case of a limited, non-renewable resource like oil,
increasing supply is, at best, a short sighted solution.Reducing demand
should've always taken precedence. It's why we have15mpg suv's dominating
the roads now. The supply has always been met...until a few years ago.We
would be in much better shape now had we started reducing demand
aggressively 20-30 years ago.
Yes, but that would have taken intelligence, backbone, and reduced the
profit$ of the oil industry.
Short term profit. Which is all that matters to the modern captain of
industry. If he can't pocket it by this weekend, he's not interested.
Long term, they could position themselves to be the energy suppliers in
the post-oil world and make profits for decades. But they can't see that
far. They can't see past the end of their noses anymore...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
14 May 2006 09:08:44 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
news:1bWdnQ6tD6MGe_rZRVn-gQ@megapath.net:
Previously, on alt.atheism, stoney in episode
<a6nf62teqlqsc77p796e2eitacgdufooaf@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:14:04 -0500,
wrote in alt.atheism
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is
in office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market
no President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking
the flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have
pushed for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a
significant gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He
is responsible for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help,
but has been obstructed by Democrats. The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Ordinarily, I might agree. I've had several economics classes. A good
way to bring down prices, in general, ceteris paribus(another eco.
term), is to either increase supply, or reduce demand.
Great, but in the case of a limited, non-renewable resource like oil,
increasing supply is, at best, a short sighted solution.Reducing
demand should've always taken precedence. It's why we have15mpg suv's
dominating the roads now. The supply has always been met...until a
few years ago.We would be in much better shape now had we started
reducing demand aggressively 20-30 years ago.
Yes, but that would have taken intelligence, backbone, and reduced
the profit$ of the oil industry.
Short term profit. Which is all that matters to the modern captain of
industry. If he can't pocket it by this weekend, he's not interested.
Long term, they could position themselves to be the energy suppliers
in the post-oil world and make profits for decades. But they can't see
that far. They can't see past the end of their noses anymore...
If there isn't any short-term profit there won't be any investment
capital to *get* to the long-term post-oil world. But leave it to a
socialist type to think that investment capital grows on trees.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
How can we connect the dots
if we cannot collect the dots?
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
15 May 2006 06:58:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:25:31 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
Previously, on alt.atheism, stoney in episode
<a6nf62teqlqsc77p796e2eitacgdufooaf@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:14:04 -0500,
wrote in alt.atheism
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is in
office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market no
President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking the
flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have pushed
for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a significant
gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He is responsible
for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help, but
has been obstructed by Democrats. The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Ordinarily, I might agree. I've had several economics classes. A good way
to bring down prices, in general, ceteris paribus(another eco. term), is
to either increase supply, or reduce demand.
Great, but in the case of a limited, non-renewable resource like oil,
increasing supply is, at best, a short sighted solution.Reducing demand
should've always taken precedence. It's why we have15mpg suv's dominating
the roads now. The supply has always been met...until a few years ago.We
would be in much better shape now had we started reducing demand
aggressively 20-30 years ago.
Yes, but that would have taken intelligence, backbone, and reduced the
profit$ of the oil industry.
Short term profit. Which is all that matters to the modern captain of
industry. If he can't pocket it by this weekend, he's not interested.
Yes.
Long term, they could position themselves to be the energy suppliers in
the post-oil world and make profits for decades. But they can't see that
far. They can't see past the end of their noses anymore...
It's getting towards where they can't see the end of their noses.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
12 May 2006 01:49:34 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:14:04 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com in
<v9j962tb8oekdmqccm8uvgg5mg5hs2baeq@4ax.com> wrote:
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is in
office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market no
President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking the
flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have pushed
for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a significant
gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He is responsible
for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help, but
has been obstructed by Democrats. The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Ordinarily, I might agree. I've had several economics classes. A good
way to bring down prices, in general, ceteris paribus(another eco.
term), is to either increase supply, or reduce demand.
Great, but in the case of a limited, non-renewable resource like oil,
increasing supply is, at best, a short sighted solution.Reducing
demand should've always taken precedence. It's why we have15mpg suv's
dominating the roads now. The supply has always been met...until a few
years ago.We would be in much better shape now had we started reducing
demand aggressively 20-30 years ago.
In addition there are other issues to consider, like national
security. I don't care if the price of Champagne goes up or down. I
don't care if the price of sneakers goes up or down. The market pretty
much covers those issues, including externalities. But we have a war
going on that has lots to do with the price and supply of oil. That
cost is not handled by the market. Now if we had a gas tax of $1 a
gallon for the last 30 years we could have put away enough money to
handle some of these other issues.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
12 May 2006 01:52:44 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:i0m962d7ibpbclubou2e1mbqsdi7m6ra0q@4ax.com:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:14:04 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com in
<v9j962tb8oekdmqccm8uvgg5mg5hs2baeq@4ax.com> wrote:
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is
in office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market
no President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking
the flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have
pushed for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a
significant gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He
is responsible for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help,
but has been obstructed by Democrats. The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Ordinarily, I might agree. I've had several economics classes. A good
way to bring down prices, in general, ceteris paribus(another eco.
term), is to either increase supply, or reduce demand.
Great, but in the case of a limited, non-renewable resource like oil,
increasing supply is, at best, a short sighted solution.Reducing
demand should've always taken precedence. It's why we have15mpg suv's
dominating the roads now. The supply has always been met...until a few
years ago.We would be in much better shape now had we started reducing
demand aggressively 20-30 years ago.
In addition there are other issues to consider, like national
security. I don't care if the price of Champagne goes up or down. I
don't care if the price of sneakers goes up or down. The market pretty
much covers those issues, including externalities. But we have a war
going on that has lots to do with the price and supply of oil. That
cost is not handled by the market. Now if we had a gas tax of $1 a
gallon for the last 30 years we could have put away enough money to
handle some of these other issues.
Matt, you know better than that. The government *never* puts money away
for the future.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
12 May 2006 06:15:57 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:14:04 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com in
<v9j962tb8oekdmqccm8uvgg5mg5hs2baeq@4ax.com> wrote:
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is in
office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market no
President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking the
flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have pushed
for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a significant
gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He is responsible
for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help, but
has been obstructed by Democrats. The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Ordinarily, I might agree. I've had several economics classes. A good
way to bring down prices, in general, ceteris paribus(another eco.
term), is to either increase supply, or reduce demand.
Great, but in the case of a limited, non-renewable resource like oil,
increasing supply is, at best, a short sighted solution.Reducing
demand should've always taken precedence. It's why we have15mpg suv's
dominating the roads now. The supply has always been met...until a few
years ago.We would be in much better shape now had we started reducing
demand aggressively 20-30 years ago.
In addition there are other issues to consider, like national
security. I don't care if the price of Champagne goes up or down. I
don't care if the price of sneakers goes up or down. The market pretty
much covers those issues, including externalities. But we have a war
going on that has lots to do with the price and supply of oil. That
cost is not handled by the market. Now if we had a gas tax of $1 a
gallon for the last 30 years we could have put away enough money to
handle some of these other issues.
It mostly has to do with demand.
We are demanding large amounts of oil for our wasteful SUVs, massive pickups
and large cars. Meanwhile, due to increased economic prosperity in China
and India, cars there are now far more common and they are competeing with
the Western world for scarce commodities, oil, that are not renewable.
Oil prices will not ever be coming down sharply to $1.00 a gallon prices
like we had a decade ago.
Oil here in the US is now found mainly in deep waters and is expensive to
drill and produce.
The only thing that can help immediately is buying smaller, or hybrid cars.
Long term, nuclear/hydrogen, or possible in medium time frame, opening
more drilling off shore of California and Florida.
Oil reserves by the way in Canada, dwarf the US's.
Be nice to Canadians.
http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/docs/oil/pdfs/pub_NAOR2003.pdf
--
"We won't have destroyed anything unless
we destroy the ruins too,"
- Alfred Jarry
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
13 May 2006 10:19:09 AM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, wbarwell in episode
<126a5jordoulc95@corp.supernews.com>...
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:14:04 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com in
<v9j962tb8oekdmqccm8uvgg5mg5hs2baeq@4ax.com> wrote:
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is in
office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market no
President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking the
flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have pushed
for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a
significant gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He is
responsible for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help, but
has been obstructed by Democrats. The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Ordinarily, I might agree. I've had several economics classes. A good
way to bring down prices, in general, ceteris paribus(another eco.
term), is to either increase supply, or reduce demand.
Great, but in the case of a limited, non-renewable resource like oil,
increasing supply is, at best, a short sighted solution.Reducing demand
should've always taken precedence. It's why we have15mpg suv's
dominating the roads now. The supply has always been met...until a few
years ago.We would be in much better shape now had we started reducing
demand aggressively 20-30 years ago.
In addition there are other issues to consider, like national security.
I don't care if the price of Champagne goes up or down. I don't care if
the price of sneakers goes up or down. The market pretty much covers
those issues, including externalities. But we have a war going on that
has lots to do with the price and supply of oil. That cost is not
handled by the market. Now if we had a gas tax of $1 a gallon for the
last 30 years we could have put away enough money to handle some of
these other issues.
It mostly has to do with demand.
We are demanding large amounts of oil for our wasteful SUVs, massive
pickups and large cars. Meanwhile, due to increased economic prosperity in
China and India, cars there are now far more common and they are
competeing with the Western world for scarce commodities, oil, that are
not renewable.
Oil prices will not ever be coming down sharply to $1.00 a gallon prices
like we had a decade ago.
Oil here in the US is now found mainly in deep waters and is expensive to
drill and produce.
The only thing that can help immediately is buying smaller, or hybrid
cars. Long term, nuclear/hydrogen, or possible in medium time frame,
opening more drilling off shore of California and Florida.
Oil reserves by the way in Canada, dwarf the US's. Be nice to Canadians.
http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/docs/oil/pdfs/pub_NAOR2003.pdf
Yeah but will they let us scrape Alberta off the face of the planet?
And how long is it before we have to liberate them from the tyranny of
Stephen Harper?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
14 May 2006 08:51:35 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 May 2006 10:19:09 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
Previously, on alt.atheism, wbarwell in episode
<126a5jordoulc95@corp.supernews.com>...
[]
Oil reserves by the way in Canada, dwarf the US's. Be nice to Canadians.
http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/docs/oil/pdfs/pub_NAOR2003.pdf
Yeah but will they let us scrape Alberta off the face of the planet?
And how long is it before we have to liberate them from the tyranny of
Stephen Harper?
After next January.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
12 May 2006 08:41:42 PM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:126a5jordoulc95@corp.supernews.com:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:14:04 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com in
<v9j962tb8oekdmqccm8uvgg5mg5hs2baeq@4ax.com> wrote:
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is
in office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market
no President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking
the flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have
pushed for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a
significant gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He
is responsible for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help,
but has been obstructed by Democrats. The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Ordinarily, I might agree. I've had several economics classes. A good
way to bring down prices, in general, ceteris paribus(another eco.
term), is to either increase supply, or reduce demand.
Great, but in the case of a limited, non-renewable resource like oil,
increasing supply is, at best, a short sighted solution.Reducing
demand should've always taken precedence. It's why we have15mpg suv's
dominating the roads now. The supply has always been met...until a
few years ago.We would be in much better shape now had we started
reducing demand aggressively 20-30 years ago.
In addition there are other issues to consider, like national
security. I don't care if the price of Champagne goes up or down. I
don't care if the price of sneakers goes up or down. The market
pretty much covers those issues, including externalities. But we have
a war going on that has lots to do with the price and supply of oil.
That cost is not handled by the market. Now if we had a gas tax of $1
a gallon for the last 30 years we could have put away enough money to
handle some of these other issues.
It mostly has to do with demand.
We are demanding large amounts of oil for our wasteful SUVs, massive
pickups and large cars. Meanwhile, due to increased economic
prosperity in China and India, cars there are now far more common and
they are competeing with the Western world for scarce commodities,
oil, that are not renewable.
Oil prices will not ever be coming down sharply to $1.00 a gallon
prices like we had a decade ago.
Oil here in the US is now found mainly in deep waters and is expensive
to drill and produce.
The only thing that can help immediately is buying smaller, or hybrid
cars. Long term, nuclear/hydrogen, or possible in medium time frame,
opening more drilling off shore of California and Florida.
Oil reserves by the way in Canada, dwarf the US's.
Be nice to Canadians.
http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/docs/oil/pdfs/pub_NAOR2003.pdf
That's not counting the US oil shale deposits, which are in the
trillions of barrels.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
13 May 2006 02:12:27 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:126a5jordoulc95@corp.supernews.com:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:14:04 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com in
<v9j962tb8oekdmqccm8uvgg5mg5hs2baeq@4ax.com> wrote:
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is
in office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market
no President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking
the flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have
pushed for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a
significant gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He
is responsible for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help,
but has been obstructed by Democrats. The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Ordinarily, I might agree. I've had several economics classes. A good
way to bring down prices, in general, ceteris paribus(another eco.
term), is to either increase supply, or reduce demand.
Great, but in the case of a limited, non-renewable resource like oil,
increasing supply is, at best, a short sighted solution.Reducing
demand should've always taken precedence. It's why we have15mpg suv's
dominating the roads now. The supply has always been met...until a
few years ago.We would be in much better shape now had we started
reducing demand aggressively 20-30 years ago.
In addition there are other issues to consider, like national
security. I don't care if the price of Champagne goes up or down. I
don't care if the price of sneakers goes up or down. The market
pretty much covers those issues, including externalities. But we have
a war going on that has lots to do with the price and supply of oil.
That cost is not handled by the market. Now if we had a gas tax of $1
a gallon for the last 30 years we could have put away enough money to
handle some of these other issues.
It mostly has to do with demand.
We are demanding large amounts of oil for our wasteful SUVs, massive
pickups and large cars. Meanwhile, due to increased economic
prosperity in China and India, cars there are now far more common and
they are competeing with the Western world for scarce commodities,
oil, that are not renewable.
Oil prices will not ever be coming down sharply to $1.00 a gallon
prices like we had a decade ago.
Oil here in the US is now found mainly in deep waters and is expensive
to drill and produce.
The only thing that can help immediately is buying smaller, or hybrid
cars. Long term, nuclear/hydrogen, or possible in medium time frame,
opening more drilling off shore of California and Florida.
Oil reserves by the way in Canada, dwarf the US's.
Be nice to Canadians.
http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/docs/oil/pdfs/pub_NAOR2003.pdf
That's not counting the US oil shale deposits, which are in the
trillions of barrels.
Which are not economically feasible to recover on large scale.
Else, we would be doing it.
--
"We won't have destroyed anything unless
we destroy the ruins too,"
- Alfred Jarry
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
13 May 2006 04:40:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 May 2006 14:12:27 -0500, in alt.atheism
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
<126cbm0mmncmf8b@corp.supernews.com>:
Fred Stone wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:126a5jordoulc95@corp.supernews.com:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:14:04 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com in
<v9j962tb8oekdmqccm8uvgg5mg5hs2baeq@4ax.com> wrote:
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is
in office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market
no President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking
the flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have
pushed for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a
significant gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He
is responsible for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help,
but has been obstructed by Democrats. The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Ordinarily, I might agree. I've had several economics classes. A good
way to bring down prices, in general, ceteris paribus(another eco.
term), is to either increase supply, or reduce demand.
Great, but in the case of a limited, non-renewable resource like oil,
increasing supply is, at best, a short sighted solution.Reducing
demand should've always taken precedence. It's why we have15mpg suv's
dominating the roads now. The supply has always been met...until a
few years ago.We would be in much better shape now had we started
reducing demand aggressively 20-30 years ago.
In addition there are other issues to consider, like national
security. I don't care if the price of Champagne goes up or down. I
don't care if the price of sneakers goes up or down. The market
pretty much covers those issues, including externalities. But we have
a war going on that has lots to do with the price and supply of oil.
That cost is not handled by the market. Now if we had a gas tax of $1
a gallon for the last 30 years we could have put away enough money to
handle some of these other issues.
It mostly has to do with demand.
We are demanding large amounts of oil for our wasteful SUVs, massive
pickups and large cars. Meanwhile, due to increased economic
prosperity in China and India, cars there are now far more common and
they are competeing with the Western world for scarce commodities,
oil, that are not renewable.
Oil prices will not ever be coming down sharply to $1.00 a gallon
prices like we had a decade ago.
Oil here in the US is now found mainly in deep waters and is expensive
to drill and produce.
The only thing that can help immediately is buying smaller, or hybrid
cars. Long term, nuclear/hydrogen, or possible in medium time frame,
opening more drilling off shore of California and Florida.
Oil reserves by the way in Canada, dwarf the US's.
Be nice to Canadians.
http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/docs/oil/pdfs/pub_NAOR2003.pdf
That's not counting the US oil shale deposits, which are in the
trillions of barrels.
Which are not economically feasible to recover on large scale.
Else, we would be doing it.
If the price goes up enough, they'll become economically feasible. The
question in the long run is whether we have a method of recovery that is
energy feasible.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
13 May 2006 05:50:06 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, wbarwell in episode
<126cbm0mmncmf8b@corp.supernews.com>...
Fred Stone wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:126a5jordoulc95@corp.supernews.com:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:14:04 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com in
<v9j962tb8oekdmqccm8uvgg5mg5hs2baeq@4ax.com> wrote:
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is
in office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market
no President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking
the flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have
pushed for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a
significant gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He
is responsible for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help,
but has been obstructed by Democrats. The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Ordinarily, I might agree. I've had several economics classes. A good
way to bring down prices, in general, ceteris paribus(another eco.
term), is to either increase supply, or reduce demand.
Great, but in the case of a limited, non-renewable resource like oil,
increasing supply is, at best, a short sighted solution.Reducing
demand should've always taken precedence. It's why we have15mpg suv's
dominating the roads now. The supply has always been met...until a
few years ago.We would be in much better shape now had we started
reducing demand aggressively 20-30 years ago.
In addition there are other issues to consider, like national
security. I don't care if the price of Champagne goes up or down. I
don't care if the price of sneakers goes up or down. The market
pretty much covers those issues, including externalities. But we have
a war going on that has lots to do with the price and supply of oil.
That cost is not handled by the market. Now if we had a gas tax of $1
a gallon for the last 30 years we could have put away enough money to
handle some of these other issues.
It mostly has to do with demand.
We are demanding large amounts of oil for our wasteful SUVs, massive
pickups and large cars. Meanwhile, due to increased economic
prosperity in China and India, cars there are now far more common and
they are competeing with the Western world for scarce commodities,
oil, that are not renewable.
Oil prices will not ever be coming down sharply to $1.00 a gallon
prices like we had a decade ago.
Oil here in the US is now found mainly in deep waters and is expensive
to drill and produce.
The only thing that can help immediately is buying smaller, or hybrid
cars. Long term, nuclear/hydrogen, or possible in medium time frame,
opening more drilling off shore of California and Florida.
Oil reserves by the way in Canada, dwarf the US's. Be nice to
Canadians.
http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/docs/oil/pdfs/pub_NAOR2003.pdf
That's not counting the US oil shale deposits, which are in the
trillions of barrels.
Which are not economically feasible to recover on large scale.
Else, we would be doing it.
And there's the rub.
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=OILSHALE-05-02-06&cat=AN
"But Walter Youngquist, a retired University of Oregon geology professor,
says he's considered ways of exploiting America's untapped oil shale
resources for 40 years and concludes that extracting commercial amounts is
like a mirage: every time it is approached, it just keeps retreating into
the distance."
It's more than economics. It's that we *don't *know *how to recover shale
oil. The extraction processes are all still experimental.
"The Congressional Research Service also is cautious. 'High prices may not
be enough of an incentive for risky developments in conventional oil, let
alone oil shale,' says CRS industry analyst Anthony Andrews.
"Andrews cited studies estimating extraction and refinery facilities could
cost up to $7 billion and require completion of about 800 government
permits. And the petroleum product that would result from oil shale would
more likely be used for diesel fuel rather than gasoline in cars."
If we have to spend billions on new plants that might not be all that
useful after all, why not a massive program to, oh, go solar, wind, wave,
and such?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
13 May 2006 05:24:01 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
news:Lq2dnc8cFNsD__vZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@megapath.net:
Previously, on alt.atheism, wbarwell in episode
<126cbm0mmncmf8b@corp.supernews.com>...
Fred Stone wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:126a5jordoulc95@corp.supernews.com:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:14:04 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com in
<v9j962tb8oekdmqccm8uvgg5mg5hs2baeq@4ax.com> wrote:
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever
is in office for gas prices even though we're talking a global
market no President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves
taking the flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have
pushed for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for
a significant gas tax, something we have needed since 1974.
Etc. He is responsible for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also
help, but has been obstructed by Democrats. The public isn't
stupid, Matt.
Ordinarily, I might agree. I've had several economics classes. A
good way to bring down prices, in general, ceteris paribus(another
eco. term), is to either increase supply, or reduce demand.
Great, but in the case of a limited, non-renewable resource like
oil, increasing supply is, at best, a short sighted
solution.Reducing demand should've always taken precedence. It's
why we have15mpg suv's dominating the roads now. The supply has
always been met...until a few years ago.We would be in much better
shape now had we started reducing demand aggressively 20-30 years
ago.
In addition there are other issues to consider, like national
security. I don't care if the price of Champagne goes up or down.
I don't care if the price of sneakers goes up or down. The market
pretty much covers those issues, including externalities. But we
have a war going on that has lots to do with the price and supply
of oil. That cost is not handled by the market. Now if we had a
gas tax of $1 a gallon for the last 30 years we could have put
away enough money to handle some of these other issues.
It mostly has to do with demand.
We are demanding large amounts of oil for our wasteful SUVs,
massive pickups and large cars. Meanwhile, due to increased
economic prosperity in China and India, cars there are now far more
common and they are competeing with the Western world for scarce
commodities, oil, that are not renewable.
Oil prices will not ever be coming down sharply to $1.00 a gallon
prices like we had a decade ago.
Oil here in the US is now found mainly in deep waters and is
expensive to drill and produce.
The only thing that can help immediately is buying smaller, or
hybrid cars. Long term, nuclear/hydrogen, or possible in medium
time frame, opening more drilling off shore of California and
Florida.
Oil reserves by the way in Canada, dwarf the US's. Be nice to
Canadians.
http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/docs/oil/pdfs/pub_NAOR2003.pdf
That's not counting the US oil shale deposits, which are in the
trillions of barrels.
Which are not economically feasible to recover on large scale.
Else, we would be doing it.
And there's the rub.
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=OILSHALE-05-02-06&cat=AN
"But Walter Youngquist, a retired University of Oregon geology
professor, says he's considered ways of exploiting America's untapped
oil shale resources for 40 years and concludes that extracting
commercial amounts is like a mirage: every time it is approached, it
just keeps retreating into the distance."
It's more than economics. It's that we *don't *know *how to recover
shale oil. The extraction processes are all still experimental.
Oh, we *don't *know *how, and we *can't *ever *learn, we must all be
Democrats.
"The Congressional Research Service also is cautious. 'High prices may
not be enough of an incentive for risky developments in conventional
oil, let alone oil shale,' says CRS industry analyst Anthony Andrews.
"Andrews cited studies estimating extraction and refinery facilities
could cost up to $7 billion and require completion of about 800
government permits. And the petroleum product that would result from
oil shale would more likely be used for diesel fuel rather than
gasoline in cars."
Oh right, like we don't burn any diesel fuel. Nope, none of that at all.
Better cancel the biodiesel projects too, since nobody burns diesel.
If we have to spend billions on new plants that might not be all that
useful after all, why not a massive program to, oh, go solar, wind,
wave, and such?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
How can we connect the dots
if we cannot collect the dots?
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
14 May 2006 08:49:37 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 May 2006 17:50:06 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
Previously, on alt.atheism, wbarwell in episode
<126cbm0mmncmf8b@corp.supernews.com>...
[]
"Andrews cited studies estimating extraction and refinery facilities could
cost up to $7 billion and require completion of about 800 government
permits. And the petroleum product that would result from oil shale would
more likely be used for diesel fuel rather than gasoline in cars."
If we have to spend billions on new plants that might not be all that
useful after all, why not a massive program to, oh, go solar, wind, wave,
and such?
Because the oil companies can't make the hefty profit on them.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
13 May 2006 03:51:46 PM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:126cbm0mmncmf8b@corp.supernews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:126a5jordoulc95@corp.supernews.com:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:14:04 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com in
<v9j962tb8oekdmqccm8uvgg5mg5hs2baeq@4ax.com> wrote:
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote
in news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever
is
in office for gas prices even though we're talking a global
market
no President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking
the flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have
pushed for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for
a
significant gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc.
He
is responsible for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help,
but has been obstructed by Democrats. The public isn't stupid,
Matt.
Ordinarily, I might agree. I've had several economics classes. A
good
way to bring down prices, in general, ceteris paribus(another eco.
term), is to either increase supply, or reduce demand.
Great, but in the case of a limited, non-renewable resource like
oil,
increasing supply is, at best, a short sighted solution.Reducing
demand should've always taken precedence. It's why we have15mpg
suv's
dominating the roads now. The supply has always been met...until a
few years ago.We would be in much better shape now had we started
reducing demand aggressively 20-30 years ago.
In addition there are other issues to consider, like national
security. I don't care if the price of Champagne goes up or down. I
don't care if the price of sneakers goes up or down. The market
pretty much covers those issues, including externalities. But we
have
a war going on that has lots to do with the price and supply of
oil.
That cost is not handled by the market. Now if we had a gas tax of
$1
a gallon for the last 30 years we could have put away enough money
to
handle some of these other issues.
It mostly has to do with demand.
We are demanding large amounts of oil for our wasteful SUVs, massive
pickups and large cars. Meanwhile, due to increased economic
prosperity in China and India, cars there are now far more common
and
they are competeing with the Western world for scarce commodities,
oil, that are not renewable.
Oil prices will not ever be coming down sharply to $1.00 a gallon
prices like we had a decade ago.
Oil here in the US is now found mainly in deep waters and is
expensive
to drill and produce.
The only thing that can help immediately is buying smaller, or
hybrid
cars. Long term, nuclear/hydrogen, or possible in medium time frame,
opening more drilling off shore of California and Florida.
Oil reserves by the way in Canada, dwarf the US's.
Be nice to Canadians.
http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/docs/oil/pdfs/pub_NAOR2003.pdf
That's not counting the US oil shale deposits, which are in the
trillions of barrels.
Which are not economically feasible to recover on large scale.
Else, we would be doing it.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3315.html
Oil prices prompt another look at shale
by Judith Crosson
RELATED NEWS:
The U.S. government said Tuesday it was ready to resurrect oil shale
drilling in the Rocky Mountains, a technology heralded 30 years ago to
boost America's energy output until it failed financially.
About half of the world's oil shale reserves are estimated to be located
in the United States, with other big reserves in Russia, China and
Australia, according to the Department of Interior and its agency, the
Bureau of Land Management, that oversees public lands.
With oil above $40 a barrel, even an expensive technology can add to the
bottom line...
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
How can we connect the dots
if we cannot collect the dots?
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
14 May 2006 08:45:10 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 May 2006 18:49:34 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:14:04 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com in
<v9j962tb8oekdmqccm8uvgg5mg5hs2baeq@4ax.com> wrote:
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is in
office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market no
President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking the
flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have pushed
for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a significant
gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He is responsible
for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help, but
has been obstructed by Democrats. The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Ordinarily, I might agree. I've had several economics classes. A good
way to bring down prices, in general, ceteris paribus(another eco.
term), is to either increase supply, or reduce demand.
Great, but in the case of a limited, non-renewable resource like oil,
increasing supply is, at best, a short sighted solution.Reducing
demand should've always taken precedence. It's why we have15mpg suv's
dominating the roads now. The supply has always been met...until a few
years ago.We would be in much better shape now had we started reducing
demand aggressively 20-30 years ago.
In addition there are other issues to consider, like national
security. I don't care if the price of Champagne goes up or down. I
don't care if the price of sneakers goes up or down. The market pretty
much covers those issues, including externalities. But we have a war
going on that has lots to do with the price and supply of oil. That
cost is not handled by the market. Now if we had a gas tax of $1 a
gallon for the last 30 years we could have put away enough money to
handle some of these other issues.
Not to mention the years long military actions have vastly increased the
burn rate of those dwindling supplies.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
10 May 2006 09:22:11 AM |
|
|
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97BF4A42199C3fstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is in
office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market no
President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking the
flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have pushed
for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a significant
gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He is responsible
for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help,
He pushed for a small increase in supply at the risk of some other
major problems.
but
has been obstructed by Democrats.
Has his brother pushed for drilling off the coast of Florida? Has he
or his brother pushed for a repeal of import duties on sugar and
ethanol?
The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Which part, the 31% that still support him or the rest?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
10 May 2006 09:14:13 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:0mt362t1e6qukagpaplmbcmvqgk97d35b6@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97BF4A42199C3fstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is
in office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market
no President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking the
flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have pushed
for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a
significant gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He is
responsible for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help,
He pushed for a small increase in supply at the risk of some other
major problems.
At least that would address the real problem. People could have chosen
to buy higher-milage cars any time in the last three or four decades,
but they don't. They buy SUV's because that's what they want. Heaven
forbid that we provide for what the people want.
Oh, and about that "significant gas tax", isn't high gas prices the
problem? Oh, that's *different* because the money would go to the the
government instead of those eeeeevil oil companies. The government
already gets the lion's share of the price of gasoline sales anyway.
but
has been obstructed by Democrats.
Has his brother pushed for drilling off the coast of Florida? Has he
or his brother pushed for a repeal of import duties on sugar and
ethanol?
There is more to oil exploration than drilling off the coast of Florida.
But since you mention it, why should we let Cuba have it while we wring
our hands about the environmental impact? Castro isn't going to let that
bother *him*.
The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Which part, the 31% that still support him or the rest?
You'll believe anything, Matt, even some obviously slanted MSM poll.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spliffard" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
10 May 2006 01:38:30 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Heaven forbid that we provide for what the people want.
So you are all for legalizing drugs then ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
10 May 2006 01:27:20 PM |
|
|
"Spliffard" <spliffard@dequoy.ca> wrote in news:1147286310.402469.239420
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Heaven forbid that we provide for what the people want.
So you are all for legalizing drugs then ?
Grass, sure. I'm not so sure about the white stuff. The white ***** is awful
destructive, not only of the user, and not only because it's illegal.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
10 May 2006 03:33:14 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:0mt362t1e6qukagpaplmbcmvqgk97d35b6@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97BF4A42199C3fstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is
in office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market
no President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking the
flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have pushed
for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a
significant gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He is
responsible for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help,
He pushed for a small increase in supply at the risk of some other
major problems.
At least that would address the real problem. People could have chosen
to buy higher-milage cars any time in the last three or four decades,
but they don't. They buy SUV's because that's what they want. Heaven
forbid that we provide for what the people want.
Oh, and about that "significant gas tax", isn't high gas prices the
problem? Oh, that's *different* because the money would go to the the
government instead of those eeeeevil oil companies. The government
already gets the lion's share of the price of gasoline sales anyway.
but
has been obstructed by Democrats.
Has his brother pushed for drilling off the coast of Florida? Has he
or his brother pushed for a repeal of import duties on sugar and
ethanol?
There is more to oil exploration than drilling off the coast of Florida.
But since you mention it, why should we let Cuba have it while we wring
our hands about the environmental impact? Castro isn't going to let that
bother *him*.
The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Which part, the 31% that still support him or the rest?
You'll believe anything, Matt, even some obviously slanted MSM poll.
Still blaming everything on Clinton's *****?
Moron, the GOP has controlled Congress since 1995.
Bush has has 6 years and done nothing at all, nothing.
Slobbering and drooling about ANWR is stupid, it has
so little oil in reality it solves nothing.
--
"Just because you don't take an interest in politics
doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."
- Pericles
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
10 May 2006 04:40:05 PM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1264j98otbb09b0@corp.supernews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:0mt362t1e6qukagpaplmbcmvqgk97d35b6@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97BF4A42199C3fstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is
in office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market
no President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking
the flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have
pushed for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a
significant gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He
is responsible for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help,
He pushed for a small increase in supply at the risk of some other
major problems.
At least that would address the real problem. People could have
chosen to buy higher-milage cars any time in the last three or four
decades, but they don't. They buy SUV's because that's what they
want. Heaven forbid that we provide for what the people want.
Oh, and about that "significant gas tax", isn't high gas prices the
problem? Oh, that's *different* because the money would go to the the
government instead of those eeeeevil oil companies. The government
already gets the lion's share of the price of gasoline sales anyway.
but
has been obstructed by Democrats.
Has his brother pushed for drilling off the coast of Florida? Has he
or his brother pushed for a repeal of import duties on sugar and
ethanol?
There is more to oil exploration than drilling off the coast of
Florida. But since you mention it, why should we let Cuba have it
while we wring our hands about the environmental impact? Castro isn't
going to let that bother *him*.
The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Which part, the 31% that still support him or the rest?
You'll believe anything, Matt, even some obviously slanted MSM poll.
Still blaming everything on Clinton's *****?
Moron, the GOP has controlled Congress since 1995.
Bush has has 6 years and done nothing at all, nothing.
Idiot, the Democrats have still been filibustering for all those years.
Democratic Energy Policy: Filibuster!
No New Exploration! No New Refineries! No New Nothing! Blame BUSH!
Slobbering and drooling about ANWR is stupid, it has
so little oil in reality it solves nothing.
That little bit is more than NOTHING, doofus.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
10 May 2006 02:24:49 PM |
|
|
On 10 May 2006 14:14:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97BF71FA8EBD4fstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:0mt362t1e6qukagpaplmbcmvqgk97d35b6@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97BF4A42199C3fstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is
in office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market
no President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking the
flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have pushed
for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a
significant gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He is
responsible for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help,
He pushed for a small increase in supply at the risk of some other
major problems.
At least that would address the real problem. People could have chosen
to buy higher-milage cars any time in the last three or four decades,
but they don't. They buy SUV's because that's what they want. Heaven
forbid that we provide for what the people want.
And if they were the only ones paying for their actions I would not
care. When the market does not account for the other costs, however,
we have a problem. When the country spends hundreds of billions of
dollars and loses thousands of soldiers because of our dependence of
foreign oil then it is not just the SUV owners that have a say.
Oh, and about that "significant gas tax", isn't high gas prices the
problem?
No, the problem is the power shift to the people who have the oil.
Oh, that's *different* because the money would go to the the
government instead of those eeeeevil oil companies.
Stop playing with those strawmen. It is the evil countries like Saudi
and Iran and such that I am concerned with.
The government
already gets the lion's share of the price of gasoline sales anyway.
For what notion of "lion's" share?
but
has been obstructed by Democrats.
Has his brother pushed for drilling off the coast of Florida? Has he
or his brother pushed for a repeal of import duties on sugar and
ethanol?
There is more to oil exploration than drilling off the coast of Florida.
But since you mention it, why should we let Cuba have it while we wring
our hands about the environmental impact? Castro isn't going to let that
bother *him*.
I notice that you did not answer the question.
The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Which part, the 31% that still support him or the rest?
You'll believe anything, Matt, even some obviously slanted MSM poll.
Fox says he has 33% approval. Are they controlled by the Democratic
party as well? What do you think his real approval rating is? 34%?
35%? What?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
10 May 2006 01:58:22 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:08f462tkgorulnlacghfejsk1s3enlmm8u@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 14:14:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97BF71FA8EBD4fstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:0mt362t1e6qukagpaplmbcmvqgk97d35b6@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 10:19:57 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97BF4A42199C3fstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is
in office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market
no President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking
the flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have
pushed for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a
significant gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He
is responsible for much of the current problem.
Instead he has pushed for increased supply, which would also help,
He pushed for a small increase in supply at the risk of some other
major problems.
At least that would address the real problem. People could have chosen
to buy higher-milage cars any time in the last three or four decades,
but they don't. They buy SUV's because that's what they want. Heaven
forbid that we provide for what the people want.
And if they were the only ones paying for their actions I would not
care. When the market does not account for the other costs, however,
we have a problem. When the country spends hundreds of billions of
dollars and loses thousands of soldiers because of our dependence of
foreign oil then it is not just the SUV owners that have a say.
All the more reason to find domestic supplies.
Oh, and about that "significant gas tax", isn't high gas prices the
problem?
No, the problem is the power shift to the people who have the oil.
All the more reason to find domestic supplies.
Oh, that's *different* because the money would go to the the
government instead of those eeeeevil oil companies.
Stop playing with those strawmen. It is the evil countries like Saudi
and Iran and such that I am concerned with.
Oh, sorry, Matt, strawmen are your gig, aren't they?
The government
already gets the lion's share of the price of gasoline sales anyway.
For what notion of "lion's" share?
The usual notion.
but has been obstructed by Democrats.
Has his brother pushed for drilling off the coast of Florida? Has he
or his brother pushed for a repeal of import duties on sugar and
ethanol?
There is more to oil exploration than drilling off the coast of
Florida. But since you mention it, why should we let Cuba have it
while we wring our hands about the environmental impact? Castro isn't
going to let that bother *him*.
I notice that you did not answer the question.
I don't answer non sequiturs unless I feel like it, Matt.
The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Which part, the 31% that still support him or the rest?
You'll believe anything, Matt, even some obviously slanted MSM poll.
Fox says he has 33% approval. Are they controlled by the Democratic
party as well? What do you think his real approval rating is? 34%?
35%? What?
Again, Matt, I don't answer non sequiturs.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
10 May 2006 03:16:56 PM |
|
|
On 10 May | | | | | |
