43 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Just read it and now again here.
However it won't bring back the Mars ice caps or abate Solar System Climate Change. Maybe the Vogons filed something away on this in a local City Hall.
Nice Douglas Adams reference Bob, much appreciated.
The problem is that we can't be bothered to go to Alpha Centauri to check the Planning Permits.
There you go again with your "facts"
Spoiling perfectly good hysteria as usual, Grim.
When it actually happens, tell me then.
This world has a lot of braggarts and most of it never comes true.
The IEA are "a lot of braggarts" now?
ROFL. You just can't stand it, can you.
The oil increase is because
of permits allowed by Bush prior to BO's term and on private lands that the Feds have no say so over....however, the LOST Treaty will probably come up during the lameduck session for a vote and that affects offshore rigs, giving a tremendous amount of the Treasury's revenue to the UN to determine what 'poor' countries will receive. Once this treaty is signed and in effect, there will no stopping the UN then from formulating another Treaty that will also affect oil produced on our lands and not just in the open waters.
As for passing Saudi Arabia within the next ten years, we Conservatives have been saying for years that the US had enough oil to do that if drilling was allowed. We could have easily surpassed SA if BO hadn't pulled permits on Fed land four years ago because it normally takes about five years for drilling and production, and we could be at that point next year instead of ten from now.
I am sick of having leaders who pay countries that hate us........and this is just another way to do that.
At least now you admit there's an increase
You'd been claiming production was down for ages.
I didn't, Josh
I've been complaining that production on Federal lands was down by half or more and we could have already been pretty close to oil independence if BO hadn't stopped it all.
I've been saying that DEMAND is down which gives the impression of a surplus but that demand is down because nobody is working and using the fuel to go to jobs and those out of work can't afford the high prices in order to even look or do much on a recreational basis.
The recession is/was only part of the reason
Another piece of it was the fact that prices were continuing to rise despite the poor economy, so even as demand decreased, prices kept rising. The opposite should have been happening.
The article wasn't talking about supply on-hand, so much as prospects for future production based on current laws and policies.
Forget it Josh, all the naysayers now want to take credit.
These are the people who have claimed all along that without deregulation NOW, then the US would always be behind.
NOW they want to say it was just a matter of time AND all attributable to their favorite son's efforts and those efforts alone.
Ain't it funny how they say it could NEVER happen under Obama's watch, and now they say it was always gonna happen whether Obama is in office or not? It's too bad we can't harness all that wasted energy from their hissy fits. That energy could have made the US energy independent YEARS ago.
Oh, and did you notice not one of them said good job?
Good news should be greeted with jubilation and relief that things are getting better.
All the usual suspects want to do is continue to complain.
When will these folks grow up?
My Magic Eight-ball is "Not Optimistic".
We would be five years closer under Bush policies
which BO dismantled handily, and since BO won't be around in ten years, and much is being made on assumptions of policies not already in place, it's hardly worthy of an 'atta boy'. I have absolutely no faith in this president living up to this article's forecast ten years into the future anymore than I have faith in deficit reductions over the next four years that do nothing toward the national debt that will increasingly go larger according to the CBO's own numbers.
This might be a good place for you to explain....
.....how everything good that's happening is due to Bush, but nothing bad is his fault and we should stop blaming a guy who isn't president anymore.
Maybe it's time to start
blaming the one who already had four years of garbage policies that he has to own and take responsibility for. After all, you had no problem with allowing him to blame Bush for everything HE inherited......so now he's inherited his OWN issues, right?.
OK, don't explain then
You know the drill
Don't answer the questions you're asked, answer the questions you want to be asked.
Which is exactly what BO ran on
He got 'soft interviews' where he never got asked hard questions.....and he ducked and dodged most of those that were asked by rambling nonsense and ticking down the interview clock. That's his modus operandi and he's still ducking news conferences and only making speeches that don't allow questions because those questions might conflict with the message he wants to put out there.
I was talking about you...but OK
And you're not even running for political office.
You and "BO" have a lot in common then
I remember all the "town hall" meetings that Bush had...
... where he had his staff hand pick the audience and in some cases had the spontaneous questions given to the audience before they even got up to the mike to ask them.
It's pretty bloody amusing to see someone complain about "soft" interviews considering.
Maybe its time to stop your constant harping on the
awfulness of the current President. Bush lost the popular vote in his first election, Obama gained substantial majorities in both of his elections.
You were one of those here who objected to criticism of Bush as a sitting President as disloyalty and un-American. Well, you're being disloyal, and you're being un-American since yours is a minority view even whithin the Republican Party. Welcome to the club.
Fortunately the NSA doesn't appear to be acting on its monitoring of internet activity, and you're allowed your ludicrous and unpleasant opinions. Oh, and the NSA's right to monitor domestic communications wasn't passed by Congress, it was an Executive Order by Georgie-boy. Sounds pretty anti-democratic and high-handed to me.
I'd like for you to explain
why you bashed Bush so much when he was president, but now that Obama is in there and doing much of the same, suddenly it's just wonderful with you.
so you admit that Obama has been...
... following republican policies for most of his first 4 years?
So explain to me again why republicans hate Obama despite the fact that he has been one of the best republican presidents since GW Bush?
I don't trust Liars, it's that simple
Yeah, that's it. "Liars." LOL
And Obama has NOT followed policies that I argued with, namely invading other countries for no good reason. Libya? We got Ghadafi ousted in a matter of weeks without one single American boot on the ground.
Maybe those boots
could have saved four American lives??? Instead, we got an administration that was so determined to convince the US people that Libya is 'normalized' that they were willing to sacrifice their lives.
Let's see -- 4,000+ killed in Iraq....
.....and 3,000 killed on 9/11/01, vs. 4 killed in Libya. I see why you're so outraged.
Josh, I was recently looking at a list...
... of all the attacks on US embassy staff over the last 10 years. There were something like 5 such attacks during the Bush administration, a couple of which resulted in more deaths than the one in Libya.
Where was the Republican outrage then?
Grim & Josh
The attacks on our embassies during Bush's term and others during BO's (since you went back ten years, I assume you included the four years of BO) did result in deaths; however, they were deaths of soldiers protecting the embassies.......there were NO deaths of Ambassadors and none of those attacks were involved in advance warnings like Benghazi.......they also involved immediate response from military support and put down pretty quickly.......not so with Benghazi. Calls for help were denied. Far different circumstances when you have total neglect involved and murders allowed to happen.
Josh...I'm glad to see that you see four American deaths who pleaded for help and were ignored or denied for months ahead of time and including the same day of their deaths is such a puny thing to you. Four, including an Ambassador for the first time in over 30 years.....vs soldiers dying in a war-torn country where we have been for ten years already. Four, in a country that THIS president obviously doesn't believe is a big deal when he is trying to make Libya appear to be 'normalized' because NATO 'saved' it.
And what did we get for that?
yeah, that really turned out well, didn't it?
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)