Ted Poe R-Tx on the CFL

FloggingSully · 06-25-2008, 01:59 PM

Water is not an infinite resource, there is a certain amount of water on the earth, that amount isn't increasing, thus there is a finite supply.

Renewable does not equal infinite.

What's your suggestion for increasing the supply of oil and natural gas? Offshore drilling would take decades to have an effect (if oil companies even explore the opened up areas, and since they aren't exploring the areas that are already open I don't see why we should believe that they'd go looking in other areas), drilling in Alaska would decrease gas prices a couple of cents.

ban basketball · 06-25-2008, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

Says who? Many scientists readily admit they don't even know how oil is formed. New oil fields beneath 1-mile of water, 10,000 feet of rock, and 9,000 feet of pure salt are casting doubt that oil is formed from dinosaurs and decayed plant material.

Water is a natural resource, but the way it is cycled and re-cycled makes it infinite.

Don't be so sure that oil isn't constantly being made by the earth. The earth made it once, and it can surely make it again. If the earth is 5-billion years old or whatever figure you want to use, I don't think puny puny man will be able to use it up in 100-years especially since about 2/3 of the world lives in wretched poverty compared to the west and doesn't even use oil.

Now will you let us go get the oil and natural gas so we can live a little cheaper? Why are you opposed to letting the poor people have cheaper gas? All we want to do is increase the supply so that the price of oil can stabilize or go down. Surely --- not even you, wants $9 Euro-gas and $250 oil. Or, do you? I know Barbara Streisand and the pancake smelling Michael Moore does, but surely someone like you that cares about poor people wouldn't want that.

Again, I ask: why are the oil companies deliberately not drilling in 46 million acres of leased land? Point the finger at them, not those of us who say they should use the land already leased. Trust me: they aren't your friend, only a funding source of the GOP.

As for the thing about finite resources, I have access to all of the scholarly publications out there. You know something that no one else in science knows, and that is that natural resources, including oil and water

(big laugh), are infinite resources. So, write up a report telling the world about all of these infinite resources and I promise you that it will not only get instantly published for its novelty, but it will be so novel that you'll never have to work another day in your life. Let me know when it is completed and I'll set the wheels in motion.

washed up wrestler · 06-25-2008, 03:49 PM

Congratulations Cyclone! This is one of the greatest right wing rants I have ever read on the web! It takes a certain type of art/science to incorporate Streisand and Michael Moore together.

Now will you let us go get the oil and natural gas so we can live a little cheaper? Why are you opposed to letting the poor people have cheaper gas? All we want to do is increase the supply so that the price of oil can stabilize or go down. Surely --- not even you, wants $9 Euro-gas and $250 oil. Or, do you? I know Barbara Streisand and the pancake smelling Michael Moore does, but surely someone like you that cares about poor people wouldn't want that.

matclone · 06-25-2008, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by washed up wrestler

It takes a certain type of art/science to incorporate Streisand and Michael Moore together.

Or, you just have to listen to a little talk radio where such connections are routinely made. It's all about identifying villains and letting others know you know who the villains are.

Cyclone85 · 06-25-2008, 05:32 PM

I was hoping someone would like it! I knew I wanted pancake in there, but I couldn't decide who the female should be! Just a little humor to break up the day.

Originally Posted by washed up wrestler

Congratulations Cyclone! This is one of the greatest right wing rants I have ever read on the web! It takes a certain type of art/science to incorporate Streisand and Michael Moore together.

Now will you let us go get the oil and natural gas so we can live a little cheaper? Why are you opposed to letting the poor people have cheaper gas? All we want to do is increase the supply so that the price of oil can stabilize or go down. Surely --- not even you, wants $9 Euro-gas and $250 oil. Or, do you? I know Barbara Streisand and the pancake smelling Michael Moore does, but surely someone like you that cares about poor people wouldn't want that.

skipster · 06-25-2008, 05:42 PM

We're going to need to nix the long posts. This is getting a bit tedious

As I stated before, if they are going to play a role in the economy by giving business an advantage, then they have an obligation to do the same for consumers and ordinary tax payers in some way also. If we want to play lassiez faire capitalism, then let's do so, but if not (which we are not), then all should benefit from government intervention into the economy, not just some. That is all that my point was.

Again, you're showing us that you don't understand the inter-connectedness of enterprise and people. They are NOT separate thigns. This is not us vs. them. You also don't understand taxation. The government using taxation as a helper or hinderance. Taxes are not punishment, although it can feel like it. Fiscal policy is based on a lot of factors, from maximizing revenue to helping stimulate productivity. Taxation is not trying to give and advantage to anyone in particular -- it is trying to balance maximization of government revenue (which SLOWS productivity) with the preservation of private property (which INCREASES productivity). Government intervention should be a little as possible. You've already noted that too much governmetn involvement (trying to make everything "fair") result in more trouble.

All would be well if costs of goods and wages were not declining. I'm not necessarily for tax increses myself, but based on the old economic principle of taxation known as the ability to pay principle, taxation usually operates progressively. Again, sounds great if all else was equal, but the fact of the matter is that the bottom 40% of Americans for 30 years have seen declining wages, once inflation is figured in. So, obviously, somehow costs of goods continue to rise anyway, regardless of taxation. I would also directly answer your question by the mere fact that we all want government services, yet find it repulsive that taxes must provide those services. I'm all for ending taxes, but let's also be ready to give up important government services.

The cost of goods and wages is not relevant, because everyone pays those costs. When you tie those to ability to pay, you are making a value judgment that peple are entitled to have certain goods or have a certain wage, regardless of all other factors. That does not line up with the life, liberty, and property that our Constitution promises.

You also say that we all want government services, but that is not the case. Not everyone wants government services -- I can't stand governmetn services because they are inefficient, ineffective, and very expensive. Government services are not a panasea and I don't think that governmetn services should be the end-allbe-all that you are holding them up to be. I think FREEDOM should be the panasea that you say governmetn services are. Are we ready to give up some government services? YES!!!

Me thinks that you ain't gettin' it. Doesn't government "impose it's will" on us all of the time? How is asking and getting us to conserve energy invasive? Sure, I could say that I "have the right" to be an energy glutton, but what harm is done to anyone by simple conservation? Aren't we all responsible for the good stewardship of our country? I'm the first one to cry foul with freedom issues (I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU, for God's sake), but I ain't seein' how this invades freedom to conserve energy, even if government mandates it. Is freedom only defined by how much of a pig that we can all be with natural resources? If so, then strike me down Lord, for I have sinned: I like to conserve energy because I feel that I have an obligation to do so.

The government imposes that people's will on everyone, not its own. It doesn't have its own will. But, it does impose a will on everyone, so we should take steps to make that imposition happen only when necessary, so you hav ethe freedom to live as you see fit.

I am not arguing that conservation is bad or that it would not help. But, I don't think it is right to force that belief on others. I woudl rather let you make up your mind and act as you see fit with regards to conservation, as opposed to telling you what you should believe or do with respect to conservation. There IS NO responsibility to good stewardship of ANYTHING in our Constitution or founding documents. You are free to live as you choose.

BTW, what is good stewardship? Could it mean different things to different people? If it does, which definition should we use? What if the definition to governmetn mandates doesn't match your definition? Because this is a subjective area, each person must make a value judgment on how to conserve. You advocate that the government make everyone conserve the way YOU want to, and not in a way anyone else may want to conserve.

You may be a card-carrying member of the ACLU, but you certainly don't advocate freedom for those who don't think exactly like you.

I never spoke anything of my will.

As I pointed out earlier, you ARE speaking of your will when you insert subjective statements and ideas. You want the governmetn to mandate that people be allowed to do only certain things with THEIR own assets. You also want the govnerment to mandate that people conserve YOUR way, not any other way that they see fit. You are telling other people how to live. How is this not you trying to impose your will on others?

I will ask again:

How does it help an individual when you increase cost of operation (taxes) for his employer or for the business he buys things from?

Cyclone85 · 06-25-2008, 06:20 PM

I think that is a distinction without a difference....just my opinion.

The 'decade' argument is just incorrect. It just doesn't take decades to develop anything with today's technology. I maintain there should be precious few restrictions, but instead 85% of the U.S. continental shelf is off limits, not to mention impossible restrictions on interior drilling where there are known reserves.

The several cents reference to Alaska is also silly in my opinion. Today, we have pipelines that get bombed that only carry 50,000 barrels a day, and it increases the world-wide price by up to $5 a barrel. If we could increase supplies by 3 to 5 percent, prices would stabilize and probably down significantly.

By not drilling and increasing supply, you're writing the recipe for much higher prices in the very near future. I can't afford it and I know millions of American's can't afford it either. Food costs are also killing my family which is directly related to this crisis.

Maybe the libs want higher prices.

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

Water is not an infinite resource, there is a certain amount of water on the earth, that amount isn't increasing, thus there is a finite supply.

Renewable does not equal infinite.

What's your suggestion for increasing the supply of oil and natural gas? Offshore drilling would take decades to have an effect (if oil companies even explore the opened up areas, and since they aren't exploring the areas that are already open I don't see why we should believe that they'd go looking in other areas), drilling in Alaska would decrease gas prices a couple of cents.

Cyclone85 · 06-25-2008, 07:40 PM

If you tried to empty a thousand swimming pools with a teaspoon, it's infinite. That's what we're doing to the oil supply, so who gives a crap if we're drilling a 'finite' resource? The poor people just want cheaper prices; that's all. I'm becoming poor. Plus, there is a real possibility that it is being made constantly; remember -- some process made it and there's little chance that process has suddenly stopped.

lol @ scholarly. You mean people like talk about global warming and 9-11 conspiracy theories ... melting steel? That kind?

I already responded twice on the 46-million acres. Awfully big of Congress to lease out 46-million acres of questionable area. Wouldn't it have been a little better if they just opened up the entire continental shelf (especially the one over by Ted's Kennedy crib) and 10s of thousands of sq. miles inside the U.S.? That way, we wouldn't have to kiss the rings of Prince's over seas who spit on us. We just want cheaper prices and you people don't want that. You want us to live in a tent on the side of a hill, skate to work, gut fish, and use sheep for mowers. Sorry -- that's what my ancestors did and they died at 40.

You can't win this argument. I have poor people on my side.

Originally Posted by ban basketball

Again, I ask: why are the oil companies deliberately not drilling in 46 million acres of leased land? Point the finger at them, not those of us who say they should use the land already leased. Trust me: they aren't your friend, only a funding source of the GOP.

As for the thing about finite resources, I have access to all of the scholarly publications out there. You know something that no one else in science knows, and that is that natural resources, including oil and water (big laugh), are infinite resources. So, write up a report telling the world about all of these infinite resources and I promise you that it will not only get instantly published for its novelty, but it will be so novel that you'll never have to work another day in your life. Let me know when it is completed and I'll set the wheels in motion.

ban basketball · 06-25-2008, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

If you tried to empty a thousand swimming pools with a teaspoon, it's infinite. That's what we're doing to the oil supply, so who gives a crap if we're drilling a 'finite' resource? The poor people just want cheaper prices; that's all. I'm becoming poor. Plus, there is a real possibility that it is being made constantly; remember -- some process made it and there's little chance that process has suddenly stopped.

lol @ scholarly. You mean people like talk about global warming and 9-11 conspiracy theories ... melting steel? That kind?

I already responded twice on the 46-million acres. Awfully big of Congress to lease out 46-million acres of questionable area. Wouldn't it have been a little better if they just opened up the entire continental shelf (especially the one over by Ted's Kennedy crib) and 10s of thousands of sq. miles inside the U.S.? That way, we wouldn't have to kiss the rings of Prince's over seas who spit on us. We just want cheaper prices and you people don't want that. You want us to live in a tent on the side of a hill, skate to work, gut fish, and use sheep for mowers. Sorry -- that's what my ancestors did and they died at 40.

You can't win this argument. I have poor people on my side.

I'm sick of beating my head against a wall, so I'll just respond to one point that you make: I want higher prices for oil/gas. When did I say that? Aren't I the one who is calling for NO PRICE on it, via electric cars? Yes, electric cars will be a bit more spendy at first, but like anything else, their price will come down, and in the end, you save money anyway by not buying gas.

And, don't try to play "poor man" with me. I grew up so working class (and still advocate for them) that I've probably forgotten more about it than anyone on here will ever know. Four kids in a one floor home (no basement or upstairs), three bedrooms, one bathroom, and raised a lot of our own food. So, please, save that bullshit for someone else. I take offense to it from people who know nothing about it or use it as a political pawn or tool.

FloggingSully · 06-26-2008, 10:42 AM

"I think that is a distinction without a difference....just my opinion."
-No difference? infinite means there is an unlimited amount, your saying there is an unlimited amount of water on earth? I'm pretty sure there is a set amount.

"The 'decade' argument is just incorrect. It just doesn't take decades to develop anything with today's technology. I maintain there should be precious few restrictions, but instead 85% of the U.S. continental shelf is off limits, not to mention impossible restrictions on interior drilling where there are known reserves. "
-Do you have a source that it isn't correct? Again, I heard from a guy at Chevron (a big oil company) that said 10 years is the best case scenario. And why do you assume that anyone would drill offshore if we opened up the whole continental shelf if they aren't looking for oil on the currently opened areas.

"The several cents reference to Alaska is also silly in my opinion. Today, we have pipelines that get bombed that only carry 50,000 barrels a day, and it increases the world-wide price by up to $5 a barrel. If we could increase supplies by 3 to 5 percent, prices would stabilize and probably down significantly."
-How is it silly? the president (who wants to drill there) agrees with me. Oil has an inelastic demand, so the 1-2% increase in supply that drilling in ANWR would provide wouldn't even cause a 1-2% decrease in price.

"By not drilling and increasing supply, you're writing the recipe for much higher prices in the very near future."
-We can drill all we want, we'll still see the same prices in the very near future, all the extra drilling will do is put off development of alternatives.

"I can't afford it and I know millions of American's can't afford it either. Food costs are also killing my family which is directly related to this crisis."
-No one could afford it when it hit $1, then no one could afford it when it hit $2, same thing when it got to $3, and now $4, when prices go up people find a way to adapt.

"Maybe the libs want higher prices."
-Nobody wants higher prices, some people are reasonable enough to realize that there is nothing we can do to significantly reduce the price. It's time to figure out another option.

Ted Poe R-Tx on the CFL

Politics & Religion