World welcomes Obama win

[A Wangari]

Jim Says wrote:

<quoted text>
Because I am tired of the nonsensical hoax being pulled on Americans. We have enough oil domestically to supply all our needs for over 100 years, in the mean time we can find something else.

so essentially you are saying,

lets explore and dig to satisfy our needs today and screw tomorrow?

[Tom D]

Two things here.

First, I think you have all been unreasonable harsh on, "Jim Says."

I have read everything, even a couple of times and he has not been arrogant or elitist, but from my perspective, caring and informative.

He did respond sorta politically in his first post, but not since then.
I realize many people think that when someone speaks negatively about liberlism - that equals speaking negatively about democrats.
He did write that he was not speaking of democrats or republicans, but of liberals.

Liberal is not a political party
Conservative is not a political party

They are concepts, mindsets, idealogies.
Sometimes the liberal sounds like Marx, and Lennin and the conservative sounds like someone __________ to the exteme opposite of the liberal.

Jim Says, was not writing about politics after his frist post.

There is an old proverb:

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Jim Says, has been writing about teaching a man to fish. At least that's how I have read everything he has written to be.

My opinion

[Jim Says]

Tom D wrote:

Two things here.
First, I think you have all been unreasonable harsh on, "Jim Says."
I have read everything, even a couple of times and he has not been arrogant or elitist, but from my perspective, caring and informative.
He did respond sorta politically in his first post, but not since then.
I realize many people think that when someone speaks negatively about liberlism - that equals speaking negatively about democrats.
He did write that he was not speaking of democrats or republicans, but of liberals.
Liberal is not a political party
Conservative is not a political party
They are concepts, mindsets, idealogies.
Sometimes the liberal sounds like Marx, and Lennin and the conservative sounds like someone __________ to the exteme opposite of the liberal.
Jim Says, was not writing about politics after his frist post.
There is an old proverb:
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Jim Says, has been writing about teaching a man to fish. At least that's how I have read everything he has written to be.
My opinion

Thank you.

[Jim Says]

A Wangari wrote:

<quoted text>
so essentially you are saying,
lets explore and dig to satisfy our needs today and screw tomorrow?

No, but have you ever flown on a commercial airline? If so, you were told by the stewardess "in case of a sudden loss of pressure the oxygen masks will descend, put yours on first before you try to help your child or anyone else put theirs on." This is due to if you pass out, you can't help anyone.
The same can be said of the energy needs, we need to take care of the most expedient way of meeting those needs first, then when we are past the emergency, and are not held hostage by foreign nations for our energy, we can then with a clear mind, and without a gun to our heads search out alternatives that will take several years at best to become viable.

[Jim Says]

Marie wrote:

<quoted text>
And you sir have no idea what I do. One thing I do not do is presume my opinion, or my politics, is The Truth.

Really? Then why argue so passionately if you don't presume that your opinion or politics are the truth? Me thinks she doth protests too much.

[earlpittsamurica n]

A Wangari wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah lets just pollute and destroy the little salinity left.
If a south American country can be completely independent of oil import and the majority of new vehicles purchased are flex fuel why can we not.
Instead of offering oil companies incentives, why don't you offer them to individuals so that they can afforded hybrid vehicles or improve public transportation systems, revisit the idea of rail roads for consumer goods transportation?
Do we really need to invest so much money and environment towards a source that we all know is within it's path of critical decline?
Even if we dig up Alaska ( and finish the few endagered species there or the gulf/pacific) we will only be placing a bandage of a much more significant wound.
We need to do a damage assessment... I don't think we can save this limb so maybe we need to start the amputation process as and work on a prosthetic until we have perfected new methods to operate the word upon.

First of all, the area they want to drill in is a 2000 acre tract, not all of Alaska. That's .05% of the 3.8 million acres in the Reserve. Second, that 2000 acre tract is so desolate, caribou don't even like it. Third, it's 10 years from fruition if it is drilled. It should have been drilled 15 years ago. The oil companies and the auto makers are in cahoots with this. The auto makers are only going to put out enough hybrids, flex fuels, etc. to make it look like they're doing something productive. All the while, they are guarding their buddies, the oil companies, backs. The oil companies don't want to drill up there because that would lower their profits. The only thing we can do is curtail substantially our oil consumption. That means riding bicycles, walking, using public transportation, etc. for EVERYBODY. The only thing oil companies understand is profit. If we take that away from them, they'll do something about it this so-called "crisis".

[A Wangari]

Jim Says wrote:

<quoted text>
No, but have you ever flown on a commercial airline? If so, you were told by the stewardess "in case of a sudden loss of pressure the oxygen masks will descend, put yours on first before you try to help your child or anyone else put theirs on." This is due to if you pass out, you can't help anyone.
The same can be said of the energy needs, we need to take care of the most expedient way of meeting those needs first, then when we are past the emergency, and are not held hostage by foreign nations for our energy, we can then with a clear mind, and without a gun to our heads search out alternatives that will take several years at best to become viable.

I can clearly see your points But i have to disagree, we are not in a state of emergency. we are in a bad situation because of our over indulgence and love of convenience at any cost. we can all do better in conserving energy which would have positive results in our consumption of foreign oil, the environment and our economy. The problem is that we all complain but none/few of us are willing to do anything.

I still believe that money invested in cleaner/cheaper fuels and better transportation infrastructure is better than that invested in drilling.

And if the situation is as you suggest, emergent, lifting the drilling ban would not alleviate the current economic and fuel situation at hand.

It will sometimes take years for the exploration and development of the infrastructure as well refineries in order for us to be able to reap the benefits.

So in reality, buy the time you go thru the bureaucracy of the our lovely senate and congress then whom ever will be president we could have invested a significant amount of resources and valuable time into other alternative.
WHICH is what we should already be doing, and not waiting on the Oil companies.

[A Wangari]

earlpittsamurican wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all, the area they want to drill in is a 2000 acre tract, not all of Alaska. That's .05% of the 3.8 million acres in the Reserve. Second, that 2000 acre tract is so desolate, caribou don't even like it. Third, it's 10 years from fruition if it is drilled. It should have been drilled 15 years ago. The oil companies and the auto makers are in cahoots with this. The auto makers are only going to put out enough hybrids, flex fuels, etc. to make it look like they're doing something productive. All the while, they are guarding their buddies, the oil companies, backs. The oil companies don't want to drill up there because that would lower their profits. The only thing we can do is curtail substantially our oil consumption. That means riding bicycles, walking, using public transportation, etc. for EVERYBODY. The only thing oil companies understand is profit. If we take that away from them, they'll do something about it this so-called "crisis".

yes it's only a 2000 acre tract but how do you suppose that oil is going to reach you and every other American?

Do you really think that they will only limit the exploration to that area should the need for more oil arise?

in the hybrid/flex fuel vehicles.. not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.

I do agree that to start the drill process now will not resolve any immediate problems... but im sure there will be plenty for the future to deal with.

maybe we should be on two from now on.. 60% of Americans are fat anyways.. taxing our health system.

I would be the first one to get on public transport, if we had one in Houston... it's a shame here the buses are overcrowded, dirty and it takes them about 5 miles. The gvts from federal to local need to be doing much more!

And you are right... if the oil CEO aren't raking in 50 million dollar salaries then I'm sure this crisis will be over in a hot min!

[earlpittsamurica n]

To clarify my statement, hybrids and flex fuels are a good alternative. But, the car companies are only going to manufacture enough of them to keep the demand high. Flex fuel is no big trick since all the stuff that's in a flex fuel is in a regular vehicle, just made from different material and there is no additional cost. The problem with the flex fuel is that E-85 is at least as expensive per mile driven. The one thing we're doing is not sending money to people who want to kill us. When they figure out how to use something like switch grass, then flex fuel will work out better. The hybrids are where they will rape us. A Prius is about 4 grand higher than comparable conventional car. I can guarantee you there ain't 4 grand in technology there. What they're using is a combination of motors that have been around for a hundred years. I ride a bike or walk wherever I can and consolidate trips as much as possible.

[Marie]

Tom D wrote:

Two things here.
First, I think you have all been unreasonable harsh on, "Jim Says."
I have read everything, even a couple of times and he has not been arrogant or elitist, but from my perspective, caring and informative.
He did respond sorta politically in his first post, but not since then.
I realize many people think that when someone speaks negatively about liberlism - that equals speaking negatively about democrats.
He did write that he was not speaking of democrats or republicans, but of liberals.
Liberal is not a political party
Conservative is not a political party
They are concepts, mindsets, idealogies.
Sometimes the liberal sounds like Marx, and Lennin and the conservative sounds like someone __________ to the exteme opposite of the liberal.
Jim Says, was not writing about politics after his frist post.
There is an old proverb:
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Jim Says, has been writing about teaching a man to fish. At least that's how I have read everything he has written to be.
My opinion

Go back to the beginning. Starting around post #138. Then there was the treatise we were all treated to from 145-151. And I don't think I've been harsh with Jim at all. He's a big boy. He can take it. If you are going to make such a big target of yourself, then you better expect some criticism. Besides, it's fun. And he said he wanted to reach people who were not like minded. And so he has.

[Tom D]

Watching C-Span the other day, the US Congressman from Alaska informed everyone that the area to be drilled is 74 miles from the tip of the existing pipeline (already laid)

He assured everyone, since they knew precisely where to drill and the limited time for an agressive approach to lay the 74 miles of new pipeline it would take no longer then 3 years, but more then likely two years for new oil to be flowing

I guarantee you if everyone in OPEC knew that we, America, was resolute in providing domestically for our own oil, the current price will fall.

If Congress would just do something (legislation) about the speculators and those who are dumping millions into the futures market the price could fall as much as $2.00 per gallon.

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! THIS IS AN EMERGENCY!
ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! THIS IS AN EMERGENCY!

Those of you who do not think this is an emergency
I can only hope you have your gas siphoned dry while you sleep, by someone who can't afford to buy the gas they need to get to work.

There is no other nation in the entire world who would not drill off-shore, or in ANWR.

There is not shortage of oil.

This seems so elementary to me.
Here I am starving. I have no food, nor do my neighbors. I need food to survive. The country needs food to survive.
I know where there are warhouses filled with bread and cheese but Congress says we can't open the door to that warehouse.

And then some ding-dong comes along and says the best approach is to come up with new sources of food, not even considering it will take longer then we can exist without food, to develope other sources.

Uh, am I missing something.

[Tom D]

FYI,

The area to be drilled is 2000 acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

The Arctic National Wildlife Reserve is the size of IRELAND!!!!!!!!!!

HELLO!!!!! THE ENTIRE COUNTRY OF IRELAND.

I do believe the Caribou and the little Alaskan squirrels will be ok.

Besides, a lot of you who don't want to drill in ANWR believe in evolution.
Your beliefs say any wildlife will adapt to the environment. That's what evolution is, survival of the fittest.

[Marie]

Jim Says wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? Then why argue so passionately if you don't presume that your opinion or politics are the truth? Me thinks she doth protests too much.

I do have a point of view but I recognize that I will never be able to see the whole picture because I am human and will always be subject to human limitation.

And besides, it's just fun to poke at big windbags like yourself and watch you get going. Come on Jim, stop whining about people criticizing and judging you. What do you care what I think anyway? You don't.

[Tom D]

marie, marie, marie,

You just like to duke it out.:)

I've come to appreciate you.

[Tom D]

marie, I posted the words to the song.

[Richard]

The world can have him if they like him so well.

[Jim Says]

A Wangari wrote:

<quoted text>
I can clearly see your points But i have to disagree, we are not in a state of emergency. we are in a bad situation because of our over indulgence and love of convenience at any cost. we can all do better in conserving energy which would have positive results in our consumption of foreign oil, the environment and our economy. The problem is that we all complain but none/few of us are willing to do anything.
I still believe that money invested in cleaner/cheaper fuels and better transportation infrastructure is better than that invested in drilling.
And if the situation is as you suggest, emergent, lifting the drilling ban would not alleviate the current economic and fuel situation at hand.
It will sometimes take years for the exploration and development of the infrastructure as well refineries in order for us to be able to reap the benefits.
So in reality, buy the time you go thru the bureaucracy of the our lovely senate and congress then whom ever will be president we could have invested a significant amount of resources and valuable time into other alternative.
WHICH is what we should already be doing, and not waiting on the Oil companies.

It is better to dig your well before you're dying of thirst. We need to gain some independence from foreign sources of oil.
I disagree on the length of time of a financial impact, a great deal of the price of oil is due to speculators betting on an oversupply to demand and are holding the oil futures high. If they learn that America was turning the oil companies loose to drill here now, they would start moving their money to other areas, and we would see an almost immediate significant price drop. Keep in mind oil is a commodity and the oil companies don't set the price the speculators in the stock market do, make them aware that a bigger supply is coming and they will not pay as much for the futures.

[bettieboop59]

earlpittsamurican wrote:

Can no one answer my question? I'll restate it. What change does Barack Hussein Obama intend to implement as president?

Change for the Worse!!

[Jim Says]

Marie wrote:

<quoted text>
I do have a point of view but I recognize that I will never be able to see the whole picture because I am human and will always be subject to human limitation.
And besides, it's just fun to poke at big windbags like yourself and watch you get going. Come on Jim, stop whining about people criticizing and judging you. What do you care what I think anyway? You don't.

Have I been whining? I thought I was disputing your assertions. I have a confession to make to you, I come on these threads to argue, because I won't allow myself to do so outside of cyberspace.
There is nothing that I love more than a good debate/argument, to me they are one of the great spices of life. For years I would debate anyone about anything at anytime, I would take the pro or con of an issue. I loved to beat pro-lifers in a debate on choice, even though I was probably more strongly pro-life than they may have been. I always found it fun to take the side I disagreed with and learn it well enough to win a debate against someone who believed as I do.
Then I read a wonderful book while in my early twenties, the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Ben Franklin was like me, he couldn't find anything not worth debating, just for debating sake. He then started to notice that people would actually cross the street to avoid him. He decided to never argue with anyone ever again, and became the greatest statesman this nation may have ever seen. He didn't change his desire, but his actions. As he said, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

I am not always successful at not arguing, but for the most part over these last 30 years have avoided them. Oh the joys of anonymity on the Internet though!!!!!

[Marie]

Jim Says wrote:

<quoted text>
Have I been whining? I thought I was disputing your assertions. I have a confession to make to you, I come on these threads to argue, because I won't allow myself to do so outside of cyberspace.
There is nothing that I love more than a good debate/argument, to me they are one of the great spices of life. For years I would debate anyone about anything at anytime, I would take the pro or con of an issue. I loved to beat pro-lifers in a debate on choice, even though I was probably more strongly pro-life than they may have been. I always found it fun to take the side I disagreed with and learn it well enough to win a debate against someone who believed as I do.
Then I read a wonderful book while in my early twenties, the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Ben Franklin was like me, he couldn't find anything not worth debating, just for debating sake. He then started to notice that people would actually cross the street to avoid him. He decided to never argue with anyone ever again, and became the greatest statesman this nation may have ever seen. He didn't change his desire, but his actions. As he said, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
I am not always successful at not arguing, but for the most part over these last 30 years have avoided them. Oh the joys of anonymity on the Internet though!!!!!

Hey - now you're talking!!!

I was prepared to say "Just be glad some saucy wench was ballsy enough to give you a bad time" but I see there's no need for that now!

If what you said was true, you should check out a book called "Forgotten Founders" - it's based on the writings of Ben Franklin and his interactions with the Iroquois, how they influenced his thinking.

I'm going to check out the T. Boone Pickens site. See you in cyberspace!