General Question

hoosier_banana's avatar

Can Republicans prove their logic?

Asked by hoosier_banana (824points) September 10th, 2008

Experts agree that drilling will not provide energy relief, but McCain is screaming drill, drill, drill. What if we just kept asking them prove their theory until they pop?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

98 Answers

poofandmook's avatar

They’ll just stop letting the media ask them questions, like Sarah Palin. It seems to be working for her just fine.

hoosier_banana's avatar

If McCain or Palin stonewall a topic and refuse to answer, will republican voters score that as a victory as well?

Knotmyday's avatar

Cite expert references, please.

logical75's avatar

Agreed same ol same

Bri_L's avatar

I thought I read or heard in an interview that there were 4 or 5 leased areas for drilling right now, and that we were only using one of them. Why do we need to invade alaska.

hoosier_banana's avatar

Here you go Knot my day Wilderness.org has some references, good ones too.

critter1982's avatar

I’m just curious why you don’t believe drilling would help gas prices? It obviously wouldn’t eliminate our dependence on foreign oil because the US is only capable of producing 17% of what we actually need (not sure if that percentage is accurate), but if a hurricane that lands in the Gulf of Mexico can drastically increase our oil costs in all 50 states, I don’t see why drilling in Alaska wouldn’t supplement our oil output and reduce some of the high oil prices.

I am in no way advocating that we drill or not drill but logically it makes sense to me.

allengreen's avatar

Drilling offshore is like putting a bandaide on a gunshot wound==too little to late.

critter1982's avatar

@allen I certainly don’t disagree with you but until our country is able to fully function on some other type of “green” energy anything helps, especially if it could potentially stimulate our economy.

poofandmook's avatar

@critter: That’s like saying that until a child learns right from wrong, we should just let them keep doing wrong until they figure it out. It doesn’t work that way. All the time and money (your tax dollars are so very important to you, I gathered elsewhere) spent further destroying the environment could be better spent speeding up the process of greener energy.

critter1982's avatar

@poofandmook: The problem with greener energy is not capital investment, it’s the amount of engineering and research that is involved. I don’t believe drilling is wrong so your analogy doesn’t make any sense.

poofandmook's avatar

No? Then I’ll simplify it for you. “There is nothing better, so instead of finding something better, we’ll keep doing something bad until something better just falls in our laps because we were too busy doing something bad.” Pathetic.

critter1982's avatar

@poof: Like I said capital investment for alternative energy is not the problem, and why do you think drilling for oil is so bad?

poofandmook's avatar

@critter: Because. It. Destroys. The. Environment. Am I speaking a different language here?

Bri_L's avatar

@Critter1982— some of that engineering and research will create a new environment for jobs and new types of jobs.

@ poofandmook – Hasn’t Obama said that he is not against drilling just not going out and taking down alaska and going the alternative rout to ease the need and creating new jobs etc.

critter1982's avatar

Drilling oil specifically destroys the environment?
I’m simply asking the question to better understand your side. I’m not attempting to be combative…..

Bri_L's avatar

@ you are a bit more sarcastic than critter

poofandmook's avatar

Yes, I am. But I had already answered her question and, especially since this is written and not spoken, I don’t like repeating myself.

And there’s a big difference between “not being against drilling” and actually specifically pushing for drilling, as the Republicans are falling back on.

poofandmook's avatar

And I’m done here. I’m really sort of tired of arguing with brick-wall Republican logic. No offense.

critter1982's avatar

Other than tearing down trees and some homes from animals you didn’t mention how specifically drilling for oil destroys our environment. Isn’t it only the case that there are negative implications in the case of oil well malfunctions which hasn’t happened for 40 some years?

critter1982's avatar

FYI….critter is a him not a her :)

dalepetrie's avatar

I think these links carry with them a fair amount of expertise and gravity, and I believe they address critter’s comments as well:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/is_it_worth_drilling_for_more_domestic_oil/

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/23/arctic-drilling-wouldnt-cool-high-oil-prices.html

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/stories/Documents/truth_about_americas_energy.pdf

On the surface, I would like the “all of the above” approach McCain says he’d like to take, but I have a hard time believing that is anything more than a catch phrase when he also chants “drill baby drill”, and is a member of the party which for decades has talked about how we need to free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, but has then constantly turned around and done nothing to invest in alternate energy. One thing almost all scientists agree on though is that we need investment in alternative energies to make them cheap enough to be ready for market. If we were to give the tax credits to alternative energy sources that we’ve given to the oil companies (which are making larger and larger profits each quarter….one oil company just posted the largest profit of any company in HISTORY), that would bring down the prices and improve the technology to the point where it would be cheaper for people to convert than it would be for them to rely on the current sources of energy. Indeed, listen to this episode of NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” from July where an expert in the field explained how with just the technology we have NOW, we could replace 100% of the US’ energy needs with a solar farm 92 square miles.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92677182

But again, I just plain don’t trust that McCain will do an all of the above approach. I think he will drill, and should gas prices go down (as they have been for months now…oil prices have gone down by nearly a third, though you wouldn’t know it at the gas pumps where prices have gone down by maybe an eighth), I’m sure that all these lofty goals of investing in solar, wind, wave, etc. will be relegated to “some day” options as they have been for decades. Remember that Reagan promised to free us from dependence on foreign oil, but the moratorium on offshore drilling didn’t happen until George HW Bush, so why didn’t we pursue domestic drilling THEN if it was such a good idea? But we all know that Reagan was not a believer in alternate energy sources…on DAY ONE in office, he ordered that a solar powered water heating system that Carter had installed in the White House be ripped out and replaced with an electric powered system.

And W, who actually campaigned as an environmentalist has done everything he can to be exactly the opposite. So, forgive me if I don’t believe someone who has voted with him 90% of the time when he says he’ll take an all of the above approach. Republicans ALWAYS say they’ll free us from foreign oil dependence, but none has ever done it, and we have no reason to believe any ever will.

And the fact that they are attempting to discredit Obama’s position, which is very close to McCain’s should tell you plenty. Obama only wants to temper certain ways of getting energy with common sense. He sided with the Gang of 10 which wants to open up SOME off shore drilling, but he recognizes that not only are there millions of tax subsidized acres of land on which exploration could occur but is not occurring, and he recognizes that drilling offshore does present potential environmental hazards in the event of a hurricane (we only get a dozen of those every year). He also recognizes that our main goal should be to burn NO oil eventually because it does (in the concensus view of the vast majority of scientists) contribute to global warming. Same with nuclear, McCain wants to push forward with building new plants, Obama is not adverse to nuclear technology, but he wants to solve the storage problem before we end up creating more nuclear waste than we can process. Obama’s positions are tempered with reason, McCain’s positions are the EXACT positions (push forth, drill baby drill, build new nuclear plants NOW) taken by the oil and nuclear industries…that should tell you everything you need to know.

Bri_L's avatar

so its because you had to type it.

but.you.included.4.extra.characters.

So I guess it only bothered you so much.

Come on, he’s being civil

poofandmook's avatar

@Bri: You’re a nice guy, and so I’m going to be very nice about this. This is a debate between me and critter. I didn’t ask for a critique on my deliverance.

@critter: Sorry about that, everyone always thinks I’m a guy at first.

Trees and animal homes? That’s too much for me. Aside from the fact that the more we drill, the more we use. The more we use, the less we fight harder for alternates. The more we use, the more pollution goes into the air. Gas prices? Really bad. But are they anywhere near the biggest problem? No. Are you religious? Maybe the gas prices are God’s way of saying, “hey, slow down. You’re killing yourselves!” I bet no bible-thumping Republican has taken even 2 seconds to look at it that way. God is great, except when he gets in the way of big oil money.

Look, I’m sorry if I’m being harsh. But the thought of another Republican in the White House scares me to death. I’ve not, in my life, felt so strongly about politics. It’s a bit new to me.

Knotmyday's avatar

Who here drives a car that doesn’t burn a petroleum product? I suppose it’s all right to parrot a political view, but until somebody mass markets an affordable petroleum-free vehicle to the McWorld, what’s a reasonable alternative? I’m all for bicycling, but is that realistic for a two-hour commute?

We need an immediate solution. Mass-production of new, alternative-fuel vehicles will require construction of new factories, hardly an eco-friendly action.

What then? Photovoltaic solar farms in the desert? Hardly good for the desert ecosystem. Wave and tide-powered electrical generation? Bad for the shoreline. Wind power? Apparently it kills bats…

The cold truth is: Everything that is good for us is bad for the earth in some way. The focus of all thinking people should be on finding a happy medium, and an eventual solution to these problems. If it means adding “bat shooing” devices, research and apply.

Is there really a question as to whether we should free ourselves from foreign fuel dependence? Well then, let’s do it, one step at a time.

poofandmook's avatar

@Knot: You can’t seriously compare windmills killing bats to there being enough carbon footprints on the atmosphere to make an awfully fancy dance instruction…

Knotmyday's avatar

I’m afraid you have missed my point, dear poof.

poofandmook's avatar

@Knot: No, I got your point. I was trying to lighten things a bit, for my own sake. As it’s been pointed out, I’m getting a little heated here. ANYWAY… I don’t think, with the exception of the instant gratification fix, there is a single good thing about drilling. Jobs? I think there are probably plenty of ways to create jobs that don’t include oil drilling.

critter1982's avatar

@poof: Commercialization is a larger issue relative to destroying animal homes. If that is really what this was about then we would be talking about gentrification and demolishing old buildings to build new. The problem is not stealing homes from our animals but whether or not offshore drilling will be economically advantageous for the US. There are obvious issues with the use of oil and gasoline but until research develops “the next best thing” we need to live with what we have. I believe Americans understand the implications of not looking for alternative fuel sources so I don’t believe motivation is an issue. It’s what do we do in the moment so that Americans don’t spend their whole paycheck to fill their gas tank?

Bri_L's avatar

@poofandmook – And I will be nice about this: I don’t know where you come off saying I am a nice guy when you have cut on me, my answers in non-connected unyielding ways elsewhere. I will gather samples.

I am an outspoken democrat for the first time ever because of the republicans and your “delivery” is going to drive people away. I shall, as you seem to feel it is your right to do to me and others, comment as I see fit.

It was in print so it was a little ruder than I meant it and i am sorry

BTW Think of all the jobs that will be created converting for the new technologies created for cars etc. I totally agree with you on that.

Knotmyday's avatar

Jobs that don’t require oil drilling, in point.

dalepetrie's avatar

The simple solution is there’s far more than 92 square miles of land that our Federal government has subsidized for the benefit of the profitable oil companies which don’t in any way shape or form need these kinds of subsidies. Take that land away and give it to someone willing to put solar cells on it.

critter1982's avatar

@dale: I like your solution if it works. I haven’t heard the downside of doing this though….

poofandmook's avatar

@Bri: I say you’re a nice guy because of the PM you sent me. Is that not enough? You can gather whatever samples you wish. I say what I say, when I say it… I stand by it 99% of the time without regret, but that doesn’t mean what I felt right then carries on for good. It means I disagreed with you. It doesn’t mean I dislike you.

So far, the biggest issue with my delivery has been one single post. And, I do believe that I’ve already stated twice, once an apology, for getting heated… no?

Bri_L's avatar

@poofandmook – my response was to your attack on me, which was specific as was my post to you.

Your reply to my PM (along with your commenting history) led me to believe you were less that thrilled. While I was curious, I was actually trying to make friends with someone I was sure had a problem with me.

“I say what I say, when I say it… I stand by it 99% of the time without regret, but that doesn’t mean what I felt right then carries on for good. It means I disagreed with you. It doesn’t mean I dislike you.”

I will proceed with this knowledge and practice it as well.

Sorry for taking your time.

poofandmook's avatar

@Bri: you have a PM.

dalepetrie's avatar

The downside would be distribution. We need to invest in a comprehensive grid system that would allow us to collect the energy where it exists and deliver it where it’s needed. But that’s less of a downside than not being able to produce drop one of oil for 7 years, not being able to produce a steady stream of oil for 10 years, and having reserves estimated at 19 billion barrels which would at most replace 3% of our domestic oil needs, and which would result in more pollution, and which could possibly create an environmental disaster.

The problem is, we allow this (and every important issue) to be boiled down to a 45 second sound byte, when the problems are so deep and complex and multi faceted that you could talk about it for 45 days straight and still have a hard time understanding it all. And then we expect it to be a for/against proposition, and there’s no way anyone can understand it. So, yes, any way we can collect energy, we should, but I say that while seeking short term solutions to bring down energy costs and do whatever we can, our MAIN focus should NOT be propping up already profitable industries which even in the best case scenario would never create a permanent solution, and attempt to find permanent solutions. If we can get over the problems of distribution, collection, cost, etc. (issues which there’s no reason we can’t get over except that we haven’t invested enough to find the solutions), we have an energy source that will never run out (unless the sun explodes in which case we have bigger worries), and which will eventually cost next to nothing.

cheebdragon's avatar

so we only care about our section of the world being damaged?

hoosier_banana's avatar

Did I miss the part where the republicans proved their logic?

poofandmook's avatar

Absolutely not, cheebdragon… except we really have no say about what they do on their land. I’m only talking about what we do with ours. That is a whole separate ball of wax.

poofandmook's avatar

@hoosier: They tried valiantly, but no dice.

allengreen's avatar

One cannot discuss and debate with Republicans. Their ideas are ideological—that means they already have all the answers before the debate begins. They have all the answers from the beginning and they fit the current world around their outdated, twisted, non-reality based, 11th century world view. Republicans, put ideology above country, even above themselves and their families. Republicans will take food from their kids mouths to put $ in the offering plate at church, while the top 1% Republicans have too many millions to spend and steal from their employees. These are the same people that did not believe in gravity, thought the earth is the center of the universe, and they think that Americans are seen by God in an elevated way compared to people from other countries, and Repubs hate the Constitution too.

We cannot move forward in the USA until we treat Republicans for what they are enemies of the Constitutuion and of the USA. THAT IS RIGHT, REPUBLICANS ARE ENEMIES OF THE USA, CONSTITUTION AND EVERYTHING AMERICA STANDS FOR.

If you love America, you must treat Repbs as if they are Al Quaida—they are! They are destroying USA from within, and they are winning, and they will win this coming election.

Anyone that votes for McCain is an enemy of America, Constitution, and the vision our forefathers.

Knotmyday's avatar

Allen- I always enjoy satire, although it’s scary how closely that last post resembles many of Hitler’s diatribes against the Jews.
Letting zeal supplant good judgment is, historically, a fatal mistake.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.- (attributed to) George Santayana

then again;

What experience and history teach is this—that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles.- Georg William Hegel

hoosier_banana's avatar

@knot- I am still waiting for you to prove your logic. How exactly will drilling for oil help anything? Consider the enormous supply needed, the long time before any oil will be pumped, and the cost to Americans via large subsidies that will produce no rewards for anyone but oil CEOs and crooked politicians.

Prove it. Produce evidence, don’t change the subject or confuse the issue.

allengreen's avatar

@knot does not prove logic or even explain what he/she means. For Christ sake, I don’t expect any dinner invites, but Knot just compared me to Hitler for pointing out simple facts above….Now I’m Hitler…..Let me guess knot——you have a little® by your name, right?

winblowzxp's avatar

The question is which is most economically feasible for now. It may take a few years to get new drilling sites fully operational, but how long is it going to take for R&D to find a suitable alternative to petroleum? An alternative for now should replace gasoline and be combustible in a gasoline engine without damaging it (ethanol is harmful to engines).

If Congress were to open up drilling again, I think it would have an immediate impact on the price of oil. I’m not talking of only offshore, but offshore, ANWR, and under the shale. We have hundreds of rigs which are sitting in the Gulf of Mexico that were severly incapacitated from Hurricane Katrina. Due to EPA regulations, they can’t be repaired without having to go through the same hoops as would be required for a new facility. That said, Congress has banned new oil rigs in the gulf, so the incapacitated rigs could be looking for oil, but instead they sit idle and mostly vacant.

I’m all in favor of finding a way to get off of the oil standard, but in the time it’ll take for R&D and the amount of time necessary to make it affordable to folks like you and I, will take longer than the time to get oil from the aforementioned sources. I’d also like to see more nuclear power plants, at least until fusion becomes a viable option. Sometimes we forget that new technology isn’t cheap. I’d rather pay $5/gal. for gasoline than $25/gal. for ‘the next best thing’.

allengreen's avatar

winblow——you are spewing trash——When oil was 100 per barrel last time 8/07 we were paying 2.50 at the pump——now oil is 100 per barrell and I am paying 3.42.

We need to drill drill drill into people’s heads—there are 8 million natural gass cars in operation and only 150k of them are sold in the USA——GM makes them! The just don’t offer them here.

The R and D is done, the flex fuel cars exist (see Brazil) our Politicians are beholden to the Saudi Royal family and they don’t give a fuck about the American people.

I’d like to see a nuclear power plant in your back yard, and not in mine.

winblowzxp's avatar

I’d like to know where you were paying $2.50 when oil was at $100/bl. Flexfuel cars do exist here in the US. The problem with them is that they rely on ethanol, which in turn is driving up food prices worldwide.

You could have been a little more tactful in your reply.

galileogirl's avatar

critter: The reason why “drilling” will not lower the price of gas is because life just isn’t that simple. In 1968 the search for oil sites in Alaska began. It took two years before they found the appropriate drilling site and then with developing the site and the delivery infrastructure it was 1977 before the first drop of oil flowed.

Offshore drilling isn’t about sailing out to sea, sticking a pipe in the sand and turning on the spigot. If the oil companies were turned loose tommorrow, it is estimated that it would be 10 years before oil is produced, so any POOSIBLE decreases in cost of oil would not even appear until 2018.

What with the high cost of deep sea drilling, delivery and increasing the capacity for refining 2018 oil might very well be the equivilent of today’s price.

Beyond that there is every indication that the demand will continue to INCREASE adding additional cost. So where will we be in 2018. The same high cost for petroleum products, greater demands, fewer reserves and still no alternatives.

hoosier_banana's avatar

@winblowz: I found your miracle energy Bio-oil. It addresses all your concerns regarding a switch from fossil fuels to renewables. The R&D has been done, you may procede to champion the technology.

I am glad this issue has finally been resolved ; )

allengreen's avatar

sorry win, tact is an area in which I am wanting…..

winblowzxp's avatar

The bio-oil is still turned into ethanol, which wreaks havoc on non-ethanol burning engines. As much as I’d like to rid my lawn of the unsightly perennial grass, I don’t think it’s yet viable.

hoosier_banana's avatar

There are ways around ethanol.
Ethanol is a better fuel than gasoline, but it needs it’s own engine to shine, like they use in Indy Cars. But I think electric or compressed air cars are a better new vehicle option as they are incredibly efficient and clean.

cheebdragon's avatar

and which one of these cars do you drive?

hoosier_banana's avatar

They’re not on the market yet. What are you implying?

cheebdragon's avatar

@galileogirl- “Prudhoe Bay and its 800-mile pipeline to southern Alaska became the most studied, watched, regulated, and sued-against project in history. The U.S. Senate, in a tie vote broken by then-Vice President Spiro Agnew, finally legislated an end to further lawsuits, and authorized construction. Ten years after discovery, and after issuance of 515 federal permits and 832 state permits, oil flowed through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to the tidewater port in Valdez. More than 13 billion barrels of oil have been shipped from Alaska’s North Slope, greatly exceeding original estimates of the area’s capacity. For 2–1/2 decades, Alaska oil has supplied 20% of America’s domestic production, a $260 billion offset to the trade deficit. As production declines, the search continues for new supplies to keep the pipeline operating. ” -ANWR

Bri_L's avatar

@ galileogirl- that is great info. Thanks for the link

winblowzxp's avatar

There is no clear alternative as of yet that offers the efficiency of gas without having to change existing parts. That’s what we really need; something that burns like gas, but is as efficient, if not more than what we’re using.

Then there are those of us who have vintage cars that we sometimes like to drive on a bright and sunny day. Mine is still in my garage being rebuilt. I’d really like to take out that 1970 Mustang Mach 1, that I’m still rebuilding, without having to worry about ruining the motor in it.

allengreen's avatar

much of the Alaskan oil is sold by us to the Japanese and Israel—it does nothing for the lwer 48

cheebdragon's avatar

I don’t understand democrats logic on this….........you don’t want us to drill In the united states and you don’t want us to be dependent on the oil coming from anywhere else, but yet you all seem to drive cars that need the oil….?

poofandmook's avatar

@cheebdragon: Because nobody has made a car available to us yet that’s affordable enough. So right now we HAVE to depend on fuel from elsewhere. We don’t want to depend on fuel at all, but since we have to until things become more available and affordable, we do. And if we’re working hard to not depend on fuel from anywhere, why would we support the drilling?

allengreen's avatar

General Motors made 8 million natural gass and flex cars last year—less than 150k were sold in the USA.

Our Corporatist Exxon Sponsored government that you support will not allow the distribution of alternative fuel stations.

Now Chee—what part of this do you not get? or refuse to get?

hoosier_banana's avatar

@winblowz: You should buy a lifetime supply of gas now, while it’s cheap, maybe fill your swimming pool or something. E100 and a modified diesel engine gets 40% brake thermal efficiency, about 10% more than modern gasoline engines.link

@cheebdragon: Your ad hominem attack also involves a false dilemma, good job, 2 in one sentence is hard to do. fallacies

allengreen's avatar

Hoosier—don’t use such big words, like fallacies—what are you an elitest now?
(Joking)

hoosier_banana's avatar

Maybe i’m “unAmerican”, if it’s anthing like being unEnglish I feel honored.

galileogirl's avatar

cheeb: Expect every bit as much opposition and expense for offshore drilling and pipelines as Prudhoe Bay. Even with billions of bbls, gas today is 10 times 1975 cost. That may be roughly in line with inflation but certainly not a bonanza.

allen: I agree with everything but your pronoun. WE are not selling oil to Japan, unless we are multinational oil companies.

allengreen's avatar

@gail—I sometimes forget that Exxon is not the same as our Federal government….Even though our/their military are being used to protect pipelines and take oil from those dog-gon countries that allowed our oil to get under their soil.

Knotmyday's avatar

Hoosier Banana: @knot: I am still waiting for you to prove your logic. How exactly will drilling for oil help anything? Consider the enormous supply needed, the long time before any oil will be pumped, and the cost to Americans via large subsidies that will produce no rewards for anyone but oil CEOs and crooked politicians.

Prove it. Produce evidence, don’t change the subject or confuse the issue.

Well, H. Banana, since when have I become the champion of oil drilling? I believe all of my posts (with the exception of the Steve Jobs link, meant to be humorous) advocated common sense. By the way, thanks for the link. Good stuff in there.

allengreen: @knot does not prove logic or even explain what he/she means. For Christ sake, I don’t expect any dinner invites, but Knot just compared me to Hitler for pointing out simple facts above….Now I’m Hitler…..Let me guess knot——you have a little® by your name, right?

Pretty plain what I mean. Your invective against the evil Republicans was Hitler-esque. Not saying that you, yourself resemble the Fuhrer, but man. Take a deep breath, count to ten, and work on the problem. Like my grandmother used to tell me, “screaming about it won’t change anything.”

To be honest, maybe I was expecting better of you.

And no, I am not a Republican. Just a thinking voter.

allengreen's avatar

Knot,—so I’m a puppy kicker is what you are telling me?

You can’t just call me Hitler-esque, and walk away? What about that rant above had anything to do with Hitler?

I stand behind it, except to say that it was more directed at Winb & Cheeb—and you interject yourself and call me Hitler and leave?

Give a fellow Arizonan a little better than that…..

Knotmyday's avatar

Maybe if the puppy was a Republican. Then there would be a puppy field goal. (The preceding was a joke, meant to elicit laughter)

Not saying that you, yourself resemble the Fuhrer, unquote. (The preceding was a direct quote of myself, meant to clear up misunderstandings)

Take it easy. Go install some solar panels (I did). Vote for the right guy. Support alt energy. Hug a Republican. Tell ‘em you think they’re wrong, but it’s ok; we’ll fix it together.

You know what? I love all of you. Have a great night!

Catch you on Monday.

(My name is Knotmyday, and I approved this message.)

Maverick's avatar

“80% of Republicans are just Democrats that don’t know any better” -RFK

One of my favorite quotes. :)

poofandmook's avatar

Actually I have to say one thing… Knot just seemed like he was trying to understand and think on both sides. I don’t read his posts and thing, “damned Republicans…” So Knot is cool in my book. (Though I will say that maaaaaaybe the Hitler comparison, style or person, that probably wouldn’t have pleased many people.) But I like Knot… I enjoy what he has to say most of the time.

Maverick's avatar

btw, I was commenting on the OP… I’m not following this thread, so that wasn’t directed at anyone in particular, it’s just a good quote that seems to ring true from my experience.

hoosier_banana's avatar

@Knot, this is the post that consterned me:

Who here drives a car that doesn’t burn a petroleum product? I suppose it’s all right to parrot a political view, but until somebody mass markets an affordable petroleum-free vehicle to the McWorld, what’s a reasonable alternative? I’m all for bicycling, but is that realistic for a two-hour commute?(The only chance of a mass produced petroleum-free vehicle in the U.S. hinges on funding and government subsidies for alternatives that John McCain would give to the oil companies)

“We need an immediate solution. Mass-production of new, alternative-fuel vehicles will require construction of new factories, hardly an eco-friendly action.(If you are being impartial shouldn’t you acknowledge the fact that more oil refineries would be needed otherwise.)

“What then? Photovoltaic solar farms in the desert? Hardly good for the desert ecosystem. Wave and tide-powered electrical generation? Bad for the shoreline. Wind power? Apparently it kills bats…”(More shade in the desert will alter the ecosystem, but it sure isn’t going to destroy it, as far as I know shade is a hot commodity for desert animals, surprisingly the only faction concerned with this is the Bush administation ,who knew he had a soft spot for gila monsters and rattlesnakes?)

“The cold truth is: Everything that is good for us is bad for the earth in some way. The focus of all thinking people should be on finding a happy medium, and an eventual solution to these problems. If it means adding “bat shooing” devices, research and apply. (When you say ”bad for the earth” you mean bad for the systems that support our lives, therefore other life forms and the things they need to survive benefit both. ”A happy medium” as the best solution is a Middle Ground fallacy, there is no proof it will solve anything. As far as the Bat Question goes, a much better option is to support responsible action on the wind energy industries behalf, rather than have to hope for a fix in the future.)

Is there really a question as to whether we should free ourselves from foreign fuel dependence? Well then, let’s do it, one step at a time.(I would have agreed if you said “Fossil Fuel dependence”, there’s an important distinction there)

You may not be a Republican but you are supporting their ideas by confusing the issues.

If you want a Hitler analogy look here. Allen has a right to be angry.

allengreen's avatar

I am fair game. Attack me, call me names, insult me, but when I call you on it, please provide a logical explaination and arguement to back it up. Knotmyday did not do this.

He threw the Hitler Hail Mary and then ran away—like most Republicans do, and I know it is cowardly, but it is par and I am fine with it. I live in AZ, and this is what rational folks here deal with. I’m not angry, I just expect a higher level of discourse from Knot, that’s all.

Knot—I am like Hitler, how and why? After reading the above link from hoosier—whose apple falls closer to the Hitler-tree? This is why I think Republicans lack intestinal fortitude.

Knotmyday's avatar

(Back after a week of “bidness” trip)

Hoosier Banana- Apparently, you and I must agree to disagree. Good luck winning converts to your ideology.

Allen Green- You are not “like Hitler.” Write it on the board one-hundred times, take it to heart. I have already answered all your questions concerning the topic. You can review them if you like, or not; my assertion that I do not believe that you are like Hitler should suffice.

So, anyway, I’m back. If you want to continue this pointlessness, by all means…

hoosier_banana's avatar

I don’t think it’s pointless, I made some valid observations up there. Care to address any of our disagreements?

Would it kill you to apologize to Allen, there is a direct comparison here.

Allen- I always enjoy satire, although it’s scary how closely that last post resembles many of Hitler’s diatribes against the Jews.
Letting zeal supplant good judgment is, historically, a fatal mistake.

You owe him an apology, not a denial.

Bri_L's avatar

Rupublicans – rich help everyone make money and create jobs and do better supposedly right?

ABC News reported ( http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/last-years-big.html )

In 2007, Wall Street’s five biggest firms — Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley — paid a record $39 billion in bonuses to themselves.

That’s $10 billion more than the $29 billion loan taxpayers are making to J.P. Morgan to save Bear Stearns.

Those 2007 bonuses were paid even though the shareholders in those firms last year collectively lost about $74 billion in stock declines — their worst year since 2002.

( excerpt from http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/22/white-house-ceo-pay/ )

Explain the logic.

Knotmyday's avatar

Actually, Banana, as I review my quote (that you so thoughtfully included, thank you) I am more of the opinion that Allen should be thanking me for my excellent advice. And he’s absolutely welcome.

As to addressing our disagreements: We disagree. <addressed, and you’re welcome as well. Thanks for playing.

jvgr's avatar

Having spent the last few months touring and posting on republican blogs, I can only conclude that republicans use a “fuzzy” logic. Some might describe it as illogical.
It’s tough to have a logical argument when one party opts out of the logic part.

critter1982's avatar

ivgr: Can you further clarify your definition of “fuzzy” logic?

critter1982's avatar

ivgr: Based on what you stated it would seem as if your own argument is illogical. You in no way identified or demonstrated a valid inference. Your statement is hypocritcal at best.

cheebdragon's avatar

I think at this point, it would better for democrats to prove their logic on this issue…...

cheebdragon's avatar

Polar bears are not an excuse.

Bri_L's avatar

I think a lot of the disagreement is a matter of what one side is saying the other side is saying. Democrats make it sound like Republicans want to strip mine the state of alaska for oil. Republicans make it sound like Democrats want to stop drilling completely.

Neither is the case, in my opinion.

hoosier_banana's avatar

Polar bears are an excuse, and I defy you to prove otherwise. In addition to the original issue; How Can Drilling Provide Short Term Energy Price Relief? They just went down, was a rig erected overnight or something? You can use McCain’s answer from the third debate here, I would love to see it in print.

critter1982's avatar

@Hoosier – To answer the original question at hand: First off I preface my statements with the fact that Obama is now considering the benefits of offshore drilling… Link . Little will the addition of offshore drilling do to lower the quantity of gas we purchase from overseas suppliers in the short term. It will however provide some energy relief in the long term prior to the United States obtaining energy independence (Pretty sure this can’t be argued and is pretty logical). Secondly offshore drilling will send a message to world markets that the US is taking their energy independence seriously. What this could potentially do is to reduce the gas price increases directly related to oil speculation. Speculation can drive oil prices beyond typical rational limits, and we should send the oil futures market a message of reformation and regulation (I absolutely agree with regulation the futures market). Additionally some members of the republican party are advocating eliminating the federal $0.18 gas tax and the $0.24 cent deisel tax.

hoosier_banana's avatar

Just come out and say you believe oil companies deserve a government sponsored advantage over renewables. That is what we are talking about here, not just “allowing” them to drill like Obama said, the oil companies want to get paid extra by McCain/Palin to make money in their energy oligopoly.

Pumping an extra 3% of what we currently use starting in 10 years is a joke of an energy plan.

jvgr's avatar

@critter1982: “Based on what you stated it would seem as if your own argument is illogical”

Perhaps I was unclear. Republican and logic are mutually exclusive concepts, to wit:

McCain touts Palins achievements in Alaska a) getting big oil companies to get the oil, b) cutting state income tax.

In case McCain didn’t spend quite enough time studying this:
Palin raised the royalties that oil companies pay the state for the use of public land in order to make a profit (as it should be). By increasing the royalties, the “rent” receipts for public land went directly to the owner/taxpayers.

And McCains plan is, uh, right: the taxpayers will provide big oil with $4B to drill on public property in order to make a profit, with the theory that this gush of oil will flood the market and drive pump prices down (unless you calculate the $4B into the actual price of gas)

So Palin is going to be in charge of Energy so that she can do for you what she did for Alaska.

How will this actually work?

critter1982's avatar

Can I ask why we picked a specific part of McCain’s energy plan to pick apart. What about his commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 60% in 2050, his $2 billion to advance clean coal technology, his opposition to windfall taxes on oil companies, his willingness to let other states explore drilling possibilities, his plan to suspend the purchase of foreign oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during periods of high prices to reduce demand, his $300 million award for the development of a battery package with improve capacity, his call for the suspension of the federal gas tax, his call for new nuclear reactors, his plan to address and stimulate the advanced technologies to improve climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.

I can point out irrational solutions from Obama’s energy plan as well. His goal to cut carbon emissions to 20% of what it was in 1990. This requires us to be at the same level we were at in 1932 with our population quadrupled by that point. His requirement for all federal buildings to be zero carbon emitters by 2025 with little to no explanation of how this would be done. Maybe they won’t use air conditioning, or heating, and involve no cement, steel, aluminum, copper, glass, plastic, or paint in their construction? How about his proposal to put 1 million plug-in hybrids on the roads in 8 years? With about 200 million cars on the road everyday, logically 1/2 of 1% is likely to not even matter.

Obama has some good ideas in his energy plan, I won’t deny that, but anybody can pull pieces out of it and argue them to whether or not they are logical, illogical, relevant, irrelevant, or just plain not possible.

@jvgr: Drilling offshore will lower prices in the long term and could likely play a role in regulating world market speculation. I’m not saying this is a great solution, I am just trying to explain the logic (whether you believe it to be true or not) behind offshore drilling. Logic is simply reasonable judgment. It can be argued.

hoosier_banana's avatar

Just because you are astounded by Obama’s ambition doesn’t mean we can’t do it, it means you don’t want to.

Here’s the real reason Bush and McCain won’t support solar and wind; They don’t want you to be energy independent. Renewables are becoming cheaper everyday. You want low oil prices? Give fossil fuels some competition, not more advantage.

Oil is McCain’s plan, hence the need to “pick it apart”, it’s sort of important since he’s running for president in this day and age with a plan straight out of the 50’s.

Logic is never simple by the way, look up the definition before you go claiming something. sorry to steal your kill jvgr

I do agree that some people will always argue against the best evidence, they always fade away as the evidence builds though, just look at the polls.

critter1982's avatar

If your going to quote me, quote me correctly. I did not say that logic is simple. I said, and you can read my statement again, that logic is simply “reasonable judgment”.

Secondly, if you’ll do some quick research you’ll find it easy to understand that oil is not McCain’s only plan. I proved his logic and now you want to argue the logistics. But like I said Obama’s “astounding” plan is simply not obtainable. It can’t be done. I can make up some bullshit too, like in 2 weeks we need to be completely off of foreign oil. Logical? I think not!!

hoosier_banana's avatar

I was ”referencing”.

You can claim all the good sense you want but until you prove that stalling our energy development in renewables and more efficient electric vehicles is the best thing to do right now, you are not winning.

critter1982's avatar

Once again you are engaging in a totally different argument. The question was for republicans to prove their logic not for republicans to prove that their energy plan is the best for this countries energy situation. There are several other potential solutions that I would prefer to go after (of which McCain is) but I don’t see a problem with multi-tasking. If you want to compare energy plans fine but don’t tell me I’m not winning a discussion I wasn’t arguing.

What are you referencing?

critter1982's avatar

I hope I’m winning now. Am I winning?

jvgr's avatar

@critter1982: “his opposition to windfall taxes on oil companies” and his choice of Sara is just another example of the non logic in McCains decision making.

He and Sarah have mutually exclusive concepts about dealing with oil companies with respect to taxpayer support or taxpayer benefit. Sarah did it right in Alaska. If she is to be his point person on this, who’s point of view will prevail? There is no logical explanation for his selection of Sarah with respect to this issue; the issue he feels she is best suited to handle.

From a strictly free-market point of view, his belief that “drill baby drill” is illogical. What company, in their right mind would incur expenses in order to produce product to depress prices? The only way a company would do this would be for pay in advance. McCain’s plan to provide big oil with our money is just a way of covering their costs. It may reduce pump price, but when you factor in the taxpayers prepayment, it’s a masquerade at best.

Right now the price of oil has plummeted to $65/barrel – no offshore drilling has occurred. Oil companies are now cutting back on exploration in hope that prices will rise.

In 1983, the US consumed 15.2M bbl/day and produced 10.8M bbl/day (a shortfall of 41.2%).
As of the end of 2007, the US consumed 20.7M bbl/day and produced 8.5M bbl/day (a shortfall of 144%).
Extending the consumption trend by 5 years (assuming, additional US oil could be flowing by then) the US will be consuming 22.2M bbl/day.
This means that new production has to ramp up by 13.7M bbl/day almost 2x more than current production in 5 years.
This is wishful thinking.

It is the logic of the thinking in his entire energy concept that doesn’t work. The fact that it is oil is beside the point.l

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther