In article <Xns97BF6FC152420fstone69@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
news:GtSdnXwEvvt9bvzZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@megapath.net:

Previously, on alt.atheism, Adam H in episode
<rnk362tbm55d88skg3v4uu9j0lgqfh6vgl@4ax.com>...

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.

ANWAR is a public-relations excercise that wouldn't have helped.
Don't keep bringing it up like it means something.

ANWR isn't even that. ANWR's a scam. There's no point to drilling
ANWR. Not now. Not ever. The public would never benefit, a few people
would make a lot of money for a short period, we'd wreck one of our
few remaining wildernesses, and we'd crap all over the Gwich'in. Isn't
it about time the US stopped shitting on natives anyway? Haven't we
done enough of that already?

Mark is so full of it, it's not even funny. IF ANWR oil were available,
at least it would BE available, instead of being IN THE FUCKING GROUND
NOT DOING ANYBODY ANY FUCKING GOOD.

Funny. I feel the same way about bottles of Jack Daniels.

As for the "ruining one of our few remaining wildernesses". Give us all
a break. We're talking about a footprint of a few thousand acres, and
those poor natives *WANT* it.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=56&ItemID=7860
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2912
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/list.htm#Northern

Oh, and about Florida? ***CUBA*** is going to let China in to drill
offshore there. Why should US stand by while CUBA gets the benefit
while we wring our hands

And who would benefit from the drilling at ANWR? How about the US
government? Yes, that's right, the government would collect hundreds of
millions in royalties and taxes.

But BP would get the oil.

In article <Xns97BF6FC152420fstone69@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
news:GtSdnXwEvvt9bvzZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@megapath.net:

Previously, on alt.atheism, Adam H in episode
<rnk362tbm55d88skg3v4uu9j0lgqfh6vgl@4ax.com>...

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.

ANWAR is a public-relations excercise that wouldn't have helped.
Don't keep bringing it up like it means something.

ANWR isn't even that. ANWR's a scam. There's no point to drilling
ANWR. Not now. Not ever. The public would never benefit, a few
people would make a lot of money for a short period, we'd wreck one
of our few remaining wildernesses, and we'd crap all over the
Gwich'in. Isn't it about time the US stopped shitting on natives
anyway? Haven't we done enough of that already?

Mark is so full of it, it's not even funny. IF ANWR oil were
available, at least it would BE available, instead of being IN THE
FUCKING GROUND NOT DOING ANYBODY ANY FUCKING GOOD.

Funny. I feel the same way about bottles of Jack Daniels.

As for the "ruining one of our few remaining wildernesses". Give us
all a break. We're talking about a footprint of a few thousand acres,
and those poor natives *WANT* it.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=56&ItemID=7860

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2912

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/list.htm#Northern

Oh, and about Florida? ***CUBA*** is going to let China in to drill
offshore there. Why should US stand by while CUBA gets the benefit
while we wring our hands

And who would benefit from the drilling at ANWR? How about the US
government? Yes, that's right, the government would collect hundreds
of millions in royalties and taxes.

But BP would get the oil.

Previously, on alt.atheism, Kate in episode
<448cfc63.693435390@news-west.newscene.com>...

Obviously common sense and brains are annoying to the neo cons - such
qualities have always been very obstructionist to their fabulous
plans on how to milk this country for every cent.

The bad thing is, at this point, if you're a greedy ***** then the
logical thing to do is loot the country and get out. Which makes me
suspicious of a number of moves being made these days...

zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com wrote in
news:pkpa62pi86o0utp226628faev8vlfqt92u@4ax.com:

On 12 May 2006 18:51:37 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com wrote in
news:v9j962tb8oekdmqccm8uvgg5mg5hs2baeq@4ax.com:

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.

The problem with that is that the economy is growing faster than any
reduction in market demand. Energy consumption is up in spite of all
the improvements in efficiency over the last few decades. CAFE
standards are great, but some people still want to buy big vehicles
with lots of cargo capacity. There are plenty of smaller high-milage
cars on the road. People could have changed their habits any time, IF
THEY WANTED TO.

We could meet our domestic supply requirements easily, if we didn't
have an obstructionist lobby sitting on *trillions* of barrels of
reserves, playing the environmental fearmongering game.

The only way to reduce demand in real terms would be to stop
economic growth, which I saw one person on here actually seriously
recommend. I cannot imagine that anybody really wants to make the US
economy into another version of France's.

Fred, I don't necessary disagree with you. I love my country,
bordering on the jingoistic. But oil is a limited resources. I don't
want to my lite on my knees.When "oil" runs out, and it will..what
does America do? Seriously? What do we do next? We need to be ready
for the next step.

There are already plenty of projects going on for those "next steps",
but having the government shove them down our throats is the *worst
possible way* to go about it.

Oil isn't going to run out like switching off a light. Coal was going to
"run out" fifty years ago. And it did, but what happened was that the
industry found more efficient ways to make it possible to use stocks
that were considered unusable "back then". All the "peak oil" theorists
focus on the "easy oil" and ignore the "hard stuff" that will become
"easy" once the technology is worth developing. At $70 a barrel, a hell
of lot of that technology is worth developing. There are *trillions* of
barrels of shale oil under the Rockies. By the time that runs out we'll
have figured out how to burn it without putting more CO2 into the
atmosphere so the eco-doom freaks can stuff it too.