Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Blame is on Obama for rising gas prices
breitbart.com — The blame is clearly on Democratic rival Barack Obama for rising gasoline prices. Who voted against oil drilling?? Obama Who voted against LNG transport?? Obama Who voted against nuclear power?? Obama
mathewsjw- 15 diggs
- digg it
- mathewsjw, on 07/21/2008, -5/+4Obama is a coward blowing in the wind.
- DonTheEngineer, on 07/21/2008, -6/+4 OK republicans, answer up:
• Your boy W, from the oil industry admits that drilling anywhere now will not get to your gas pump for nearly 3 years. No help to gas prices there.
• And as for LNG, our whole population has a problem with bringing shiploads (read: Megatons) worth of LNG to our ports, and this isn't even really necessary...we've got the gas reserves already here. The problem with LNG is we don't have enough of our fleet configured to use it as a transportation sector fuel. So again, no help with gas prices there.
• Third: Nuclear powered cars? Are you serious or have some of you been snorting the flubber? Unless our country gets serious about electrifying our interstate highways, state highways and then primary urban roadways (think of how slot car motors got their power), this isn't even a consideration! Again no help with gas pricing.
So, how is any of this present situation being blamed on the guys running now instead of the guy who was responsible for neglecting us for the last 7.5 years?
It is a fool's errand to even attempt to drill ourselves out of the present problem. See T. Boone Pickins web site. For a republican, he's not totally misguided. - SleepyMD949, on 07/21/2008, -3/+7Ok, donTheEngineer, clearly you don't know much about the oil market. This clearly is not Barack Obama's fault. However, the failed energy policies of the ENTIRE government has led us here. 2 questions:
Iran shoots a missile into the air, speculation about nuclear weapons capability what happened to the cost of oil? Thats right, oil went up 8$
George Bush tells congress to get off their lazy behinds and repeal a congressional ban on offshore drilling what happens? Thats right, oil went down 15 dollars in 2 days.
Therefore, what did either of these things have to do with the CURRENT supply of oil. Answer, nothing. The cost of oil is determined by a trade market that evaluates current supply, future supply, versus demand (once again current & future). THUS any factors that threaten future supply OR factors that make supply abundant affect the market. Iran controls the straight of hormuz through which a large supply of oil flows, threat of war = possible decreased supply. This is not rocket science, and you are intelligent enough to figure out that if congress repeals the ban, supply is up, demand relatively stable, cost will go down.
You are right about nuclear powered cars being ridiculous. However, nuclear energy plants providing electricity to electric vehicles is reasonable and reduces foreign oils' stranglehold on the people and the economy.
I think your biggest mistake is that you have been drinking leftwing elitist Kool-aid that loves to blame all of this on George Bush. We have been repeatedly warned for MANY years (at least since the reagan era) what would happen with our dependence on foreign oil. This has spanned multiple republican and democratic congress/senate/presidencies. Noone has done anything about this in leadership. The voters are not self-educating well enough to realize the utter failure of our energy policies for many years (including democrats who have blocked any new nuclear facilities, while the technology is much safer than the days of Chernoble and oil drilling in the name of the environment). So, stop laying the blame on 1 person, take responsibility for the problem (even though it is not YOUR fault, the perpetual blaming is what allows politicians to survive) and force candidates for ANY political leadership position to ANSWER difficult questions about energy policies and plans for our country. - robertinboston, on 07/21/2008, -3/+4Don, what are you designing? Have you ever heard of a nuclear powered car. Put down the Batman comics and read something real. Environmental zealots from both parties have gotten us into this mess. We should have been drilling for our own oil long before now so that our enemies would not have us over a barrel, as it were. LNG and nuclear are energy sources for the power grid. Where do you think the power is going to come from for the electric cars that many of us will probably use as an alternative to gas powered vehicles.
The "guys running now" are largely the ones whose policies have gotten us into this situation. It is their regulations and limits on exploration that make the present situation worse, but there is room for almost all politicians on the blame pie chart. It is unfortunate that the experience of the 1970s did not bring home the message that energy independence was the way to go. - marshill88, on 07/21/2008, -5/+4Obama is an idiot...and so are the mindless automotans that pledge their hearts to him like some kind of deity
- DonTheEngineer, on 07/21/2008, -3/+4A couple of issues I have with the replies.
1. If kibbutzing (sp?) by the president with no action by congress or drillers can affect the price of oil significantly, then I fear there in fact may be too many folks speculating. The price is only going one way, up. Doesn't take as rocket scientist to figure that one out.
We know that oil is a non-renewable resource. I want access to ours, but not for my truck, or your hummer or anyone elses rig. I want it to be there when no-one else has any. That way I can keep my jets in the air. Jets don't fly on coal dust.
And Robert, in Boston, no, there are no nuclear powered cars that I know of. Please re-read my original post. That was my point. And nuclear or coal fired road energizing powerplants is a direction and goal I feel we should pursue. How else will we power the roadway?- Golfhack911, on 07/21/2008, -2/+0I would like to suggest to those reading this that you ask yourself two questions as you ponder the whole energy debate. The first is "who is getting rich?" and the second "what do ordinary citizens (especially Americans) lose in the process?". These two questions can also be asked when considering the global warming debate as well. It is my humble opinion that the ultimate goal of the energy debate is to ultimately get people to buy the global warming hoax. Just an opinion but I think a well researched opinion. The reasons are pretty simple I think and it is that there are those in the world who would love to take away Americas sovereignty and what better way to do than to manufacturer two big issues that only the govt can solve. Before you dismiss my argument, do the research. There is growing evidence that oil is a renewable energy source and information can be found here: http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bainerman/bain ... or you can search on-line. Plenty of opinions both ways but the debate needs to be public. Also, there are many sources of crude oil other than drilling for it that are available today and could be made in viable quantities in as little as 6 to 12 months (shale oil) if we wanted to. Information can be found here: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/apr08/6175 and here: http://www.gasification.org/what_is_gasification/o ... In closing, you will find most persons will site environmental reasons (global warming, environmental impacts, etc) as the reason for not doing anything or will site solar or wind power as a better alternative (T Boone Pickens) but what they don't tell you is that they won't replace what energy we have and that the environmental impact is worse (ie wind energy). Yes switching to wind turbines for energy has a bigger carbon footprint than not (as does using ethanol) but don't take my word for it (or anything I have said) but look it up for yourself and decide. This process then starts another process that used to be known as "debate" which is what is sorely lacking in this country on many different subjects.
- Orwell007, on 07/22/2008, -3/+3Using the logic offered by the enviro-zealots, farmers might as well stop planting crops. As the population grows and world demand increases, they will only have to plant more. Why even try to keep pace with the demand?
Those who want to save our oil until the world runs out, where did you get that logic? If we are the only country who has oil and the world's population is in serious despair, we would be invaded from all four directions, for our oil.
The experts told us in the 70s, during the debacle of Jimmy Carter, that we had 10 years of oil reserves left. We have more proven oil reserves now than we have ever had in our history. Anytime an expert makes claims like that, there is enough evidence of past history to dismiss them out-of-hand.
If we wait another 3 years to start drillling for our own energy, it will be six years before it appears on the market. There is no Valid excuse not to start drilling now. Americans are not going to pay $6.00 per gallon for gas. Those political sluts who want to appease the yellow-bellied slime sucker worshipers, rather than the American voter will probably get to find another occupation. - MadKennyP, on 07/22/2008, -2/+2Red Cavaney, president of the industry trade group American Petroleum Institute--not left-leaning types--puts the blame for high gas prices squarely on the invasion of Iraq, where unrest and violence has reduced production to less than they were under Saddam in the world's second-largest supplier. Traders of oil futures fix the price per barrel based on their expectations of political stability, especially in the world's largest oil-producing nations. And they don't like what they see in Iraq. "As soon as you can stabilize the civil situation," says Cavaney, "[Iraq will] significantly be able to ramp up production. But it would take years."
- DuggDowner, on 07/22/2008, -3/+1I love how Barack Obama has no experience and is just an empty suit--but somehow he's responsible for the rise in gas prices? Something isn't adding up here.
- Equinox2012, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2Can't you see, lack of experience did not prevent high gas prices...
- JohnDBandit, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1The same people that say that we shouldn't drill in ANWAR and off-coast because of the time it would take to get the new oil to market (approx. 10 years) are the same people that fell head-over-knee in agreement with Al Gore's new plan to convert the entire U.S. electric grid to carbon-free sources of energy within ten years.
Ten years is a long time to insert a proven supply of oil into a system that already has infrastructure in place, but it isn't a long time to create a whole new infrastructure? WTF!
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by