PETITION TO STOP AL GORE AND LEFT-WING ENVIRONMENTAL WACKOS !

Spike > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:40:31 -0400, Michael Johnson >
> wrote:
>
>>Joe wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Columbotrek wrote:
>>>>> Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.grassfire.org/106/petitio...16641789&NID=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> <SNIP>
>
> It is reported that the CHINESE are now drilling in the Gulf of MEXICO
> just off the LA coastal range. And our own government won't help it's
> own. Not that it does us much good if we don't have the refinery
> capacity to handle more.

That's the other side of the coin. Those bastids don't want to build
more refineries because they're making money hand over fist as it is
now.

As for the Chinese drilling in the Gulf, I have to doubt it. The Gulf
(at least the eastern part) is already locked up in a protective zone
that prohibits any drilling. Here's a recent article:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5a7oeg

You and Michael have basically got it right IMO. The reason we're in
this current mess is simply due to greed and politics. And the American
people are slowly but surely waking up to this fact.

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
> Spike > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:40:31 -0400, Michael Johnson >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Joe wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Columbotrek wrote:
>>>>>> Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.grassfire.org/106/petitio...16641789&NID=1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> It is reported that the CHINESE are now drilling in the Gulf of MEXICO
>> just off the LA coastal range. And our own government won't help it's
>> own. Not that it does us much good if we don't have the refinery
>> capacity to handle more.
>
> That's the other side of the coin. Those bastids don't want to build
> more refineries because they're making money hand over fist as it is
> now.

It pains me, knowing that WE have provided billions in subsidies for the oil
companies, to hear one of their spokesmen saying that they severely
underestimated the need for increased refining capabilities. No shortage of
oil, just a shortage of gas.

Can we get any of that money back?

dwight

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> dwight wrote:
>>> "Joe" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Spike > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:40:31 -0400, Michael Johnson >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Columbotrek wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.grassfire.org/106/petitio...16641789&NID=1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is reported that the CHINESE are now drilling in the Gulf of
>>>>> MEXICO just off the LA coastal range. And our own government won't
>>>>> help it's own. Not that it does us much good if we don't have the
>>>>> refinery capacity to handle more.
>>>> That's the other side of the coin. Those bastids don't want to
>>>> build more refineries because they're making money hand over fist as
>>>> it is now.
>>> It pains me, knowing that WE have provided billions in subsidies for
>>> the oil companies, to hear one of their spokesmen saying that they
>>> severely underestimated the need for increased refining
>>> capabilities. No shortage of oil, just a shortage of gas.
>> The environmentalists wouldn't let them build the refineries anyway.
>> Just like they won't let them drill in ANWAR, off-shore or anyplace
>> that might have a titmouse living within 500 miles of a drilling site.
>> The liberals love the fact oil prices have skyrocketed. Listen to
>> Obama's solutions and they contain no provisions for increasing oil
>> production.
>> He thinks we can all suffer the high prices while we wait on fuel
>> cell
>> powered cars that fart butterflies from their exhaust pipes.
>>
>> The government could solve much of this problem in a few days or weeks
>> of crafting good legislation. They could open up drilling sites,
>> mandate more refining capacity and require the oil companies to store
>> larger volumes of oil and/or refined products to buffer price
>> increases from OPEC. Then they could get serious about promoting
>> alternative fuels in a serious and intelligent way which would be the
>> end game for true energy independence.
>>
>>> Can we get any of that money back?
>> When the government makes far more money from a gallon of gas than the
>> oil companies and the government does NOTHING for it I can't see where
>> blaming the oil companies is all that realistic. They just play the
>> hand the government deals them for the most part. Even if the
>> Democrats collect the windfall profit taxes they have no plan to give
>> it back to the consumers. It will go the way the billions from the
>> cigarette companies paid which is into the government spending abyss.
>
> If there's any one worthwhile thing that Bush should do, he should start
> drilling in ANWR. Once that happens, oil futures will start to come
> down. The follow-up would be to start drilling in the Gulf, and then
> the price of gasoline would come down to $3 within months.

The trouble is he can't do it without Congress gong along with it. I
think the press to increase domestic production is going to be the
defining issue this election. Iraq is going very well so it is off the
table and that was the Democrats' main point of attack. Now domestic
issues are up front and of those issues the price of fuel is
overshadowing all the others combined. Even the majority of Democrats
want more domestic drilling. This issue transcends party lines.

> Hell, I just might end up voting for McCain just to get the drilling
> started.

McCain has come around to the idea but I think there is a good chance he
might waffle on it if he gets elected. I think he is by far the lesser
of the two evils we have to chose from this election. Obama is a VERY
extreme liberal. Make no mistake about it. To think that he and a
liberal controlled Congress can run a muck for at least four years
scares the hell out of me. Obama is promising things that can only be
delivered if the government taxes us like a socialist society. Expect
Obama to sound like he is for drilling domestically to get votes but he
has absolutely no intention of doing it. He, as a liberal, loves high
gas prices and has stated he only wished the prices had increased over a
longer period of time. In his soul, he wants gas prices higher not lower.

Also, the Supreme Court will like go very liberal if Obama is elected.
The latest ruling giving terrorists the legal rights of a US citizen was
one of the worst decisions I have ever seen. It will have horrible
effects on our ability to fight these guys. Now we can't interrogate
like we should and they can request an attorney and clam up. This
decision will definitely cost American lives in the future. With
decisions like these we can't afford a more liberal Supreme Court and,
for me, is all the reason I need to vote for McCain. I'll do it while
holding my nose though.

John C. wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
> <SNIP>
>> Also, the Supreme Court will like go very liberal if Obama is elected.
>> The latest ruling giving terrorists the legal rights of a US citizen was
>> one of the worst decisions I have ever seen. It will have horrible
>> effects on our ability to fight these guys. Now we can't interrogate
>> like we should and they can request an attorney and clam up. This
>> decision will definitely cost American lives in the future. With
>> decisions like these we can't afford a more liberal Supreme Court and,
>> for me, is all the reason I need to vote for McCain. I'll do it while
>> holding my nose though.
>
> I'm having a hard time remembering the last election where I voted _for_ a
> candidate. The SOP seems to have become voting _against_ a candidate. A sad
> state of affairs. <sigh>

The last president I voted for was Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Before that
I was too young to vote. What is even sadder is I can't think of ONE
politician I would wholeheartedly vote for to be president.

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> dwight wrote:
>> "Joe" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Spike > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:40:31 -0400, Michael Johnson >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Columbotrek wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.grassfire.org/106/petitio...16641789&NID=1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>> It is reported that the CHINESE are now drilling in the Gulf of
>>>> MEXICO just off the LA coastal range. And our own government won't
>>>> help it's own. Not that it does us much good if we don't have the
>>>> refinery capacity to handle more.
>>> That's the other side of the coin. Those bastids don't want to
>>> build more refineries because they're making money hand over fist as
>>> it is now.
>>
>> It pains me, knowing that WE have provided billions in subsidies for
>> the oil companies, to hear one of their spokesmen saying that they
>> severely underestimated the need for increased refining
>> capabilities. No shortage of oil, just a shortage of gas.
>
> The environmentalists wouldn't let them build the refineries anyway.
> Just like they won't let them drill in ANWAR, off-shore or anyplace
> that might have a titmouse living within 500 miles of a drilling site.
> The liberals love the fact oil prices have skyrocketed. Listen to
> Obama's solutions and they contain no provisions for increasing oil
> production.
> He thinks we can all suffer the high prices while we wait on fuel
> cell
> powered cars that fart butterflies from their exhaust pipes.
>
> The government could solve much of this problem in a few days or weeks
> of crafting good legislation. They could open up drilling sites,
> mandate more refining capacity and require the oil companies to store
> larger volumes of oil and/or refined products to buffer price
> increases from OPEC. Then they could get serious about promoting
> alternative fuels in a serious and intelligent way which would be the
> end game for true energy independence.
>
>> Can we get any of that money back?
>
> When the government makes far more money from a gallon of gas than the
> oil companies and the government does NOTHING for it I can't see where
> blaming the oil companies is all that realistic. They just play the
> hand the government deals them for the most part. Even if the
> Democrats collect the windfall profit taxes they have no plan to give
> it back to the consumers. It will go the way the billions from the
> cigarette companies paid which is into the government spending abyss.

If there's any one worthwhile thing that Bush should do, he should start
drilling in ANWR. Once that happens, oil futures will start to come
down. The follow-up would be to start drilling in the Gulf, and then
the price of gasoline would come down to $3 within months.

Hell, I just might end up voting for McCain just to get the drilling
started.

WindsorFox<SS> wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> John C. wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> <SNIP>
>>>> Also, the Supreme Court will like go very liberal if Obama is elected.
>>>> The latest ruling giving terrorists the legal rights of a US citizen
>>>> was
>>>> one of the worst decisions I have ever seen. It will have horrible
>>>> effects on our ability to fight these guys. Now we can't interrogate
>>>> like we should and they can request an attorney and clam up. This
>>>> decision will definitely cost American lives in the future. With
>>>> decisions like these we can't afford a more liberal Supreme Court and,
>>>> for me, is all the reason I need to vote for McCain. I'll do it while
>>>> holding my nose though.
>>>
>>> I'm having a hard time remembering the last election where I voted
>>> _for_ a
>>> candidate. The SOP seems to have become voting _against_ a candidate.
>>> A sad
>>> state of affairs. <sigh>
>>
>> The last president I voted for was Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Before
>> that I was too young to vote. What is even sadder is I can't think of
>> ONE politician I would wholeheartedly vote for to be president.
>
> Ralph Nader???

Only if I wanted a complete meltdown of Corporate America.

elaich wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> The trouble is he can't do it without Congress gong along with it.
>
> He also can't do it without the state itself allowing it. The Guvernator
> has already said "nein" to drilling off the coast of California. I don't
> know why the states have veto power over thism, but they do.

The states have no jurisdiction over territorial waters. The Federal
government could run it right up Arnold's ass if they chose to do it.

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
>
<SNIP>
> Also, the Supreme Court will like go very liberal if Obama is elected.
> The latest ruling giving terrorists the legal rights of a US citizen was
> one of the worst decisions I have ever seen. It will have horrible
> effects on our ability to fight these guys. Now we can't interrogate
> like we should and they can request an attorney and clam up. This
> decision will definitely cost American lives in the future. With
> decisions like these we can't afford a more liberal Supreme Court and,
> for me, is all the reason I need to vote for McCain. I'll do it while
> holding my nose though.

I'm having a hard time remembering the last election where I voted _for_ a
candidate. The SOP seems to have become voting _against_ a candidate. A sad
state of affairs. <sigh>
--
John C.
'03 Cobra Convt.

Spike wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:25:46 GMT, Joe > wrote:
>
>> Spike > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:40:31 -0400, Michael Johnson >
>>> wrote:
>>>
> <SNIP>
>> You and Michael have basically got it right IMO. The reason we're in
>> this current mess is simply due to greed and politics. And the American
>> people are slowly but surely waking up to this fact.
> Just about everything in the way the world works can be put down to
> greed. One must recall that, were it not for greed, Euros would still
> be afraid of falling over the edge of the world, and the Americas
> would be populated by American Indians from one end to the other. :0)
> (Ask them what they think of illegal immigration!:0)

If we want to carry it further the native Americans came here from Asia,
Europe and/or Africa so they aren't really "native" at all. They just
got here first. Then once they were here they fought over territory
between them. Had the native Americans been the ones with the superior
technology and had gone to Europe, they would have done the same thing
to the Europeans that the Europeans did to them. Just look at what the
Aztec, Mayans and Incas did to their neighbors in the Western Hemisphere
to know this is true. Nearly every race humans on the planet can lay
claim to some type of abuse at the hands of another race. One just
needs to go back in time far enough to find it.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:25:46 GMT, Joe > wrote:

>Spike > wrote in
:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:40:31 -0400, Michael Johnson >
>> wrote:
>>
<SNIP>
>You and Michael have basically got it right IMO. The reason we're in
>this current mess is simply due to greed and politics. And the American
>people are slowly but surely waking up to this fact.
Just about everything in the way the world works can be put down to
greed. One must recall that, were it not for greed, Euros would still
be afraid of falling over the edge of the world, and the Americas
would be populated by American Indians from one end to the other. :0)
(Ask them what they think of illegal immigration!:0)