FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

OMG!

ci is clueless!

"Are you really a lawyer?"

Answer the question, McGentrix. The lower 48 have the resources for regasification of LNG.

"The U.S. gets a majority of its LNG from Trinidad and Tobago, Qatar, and Algeria, and also receives shipments from Nigeria, Oman, Australia, Indonesia, and the United Arab Emirates."

http://www.naturalgas.org/lng/lng.asp

The mantra is that we MUST end our dependence on foreign energy. So what's going on? We're importing LNG from foreign suppliers while we're exporting our national resources to Japan? Do you NOT see any logical disconnect there?

Our country has an extensive NG pipeline system.
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/transport.asp

Why are we EXPORTING LNG to Japan when our own country is facing shortages and skyrocketing prices?

"The Administration is trying to have it both ways " arguing that we need to drill everywhere because we don’t have adequate energy supplies, while finding that we have so much energy that big oil companies can export it overseas and keep prices here at home higher than they would otherwise be."

Answer the question McGentrix.

It's a free market - It's a world market.

Increase the world supply and the price for everyone goes down.
Decrease the world supply and the price goes up for everyone.

Got it?

okie wrote: "In case you haven't heard, Sarah Palin is building a natural gas pipeline from Alaska down here, this after her predecessors all failed."

In case YOU haven't heard, it doesn't matter if Palin builds a pipeline if the oil companies that hold the leases, (BP, ConocoPhillips, and Exxon), refuse to use her pipeline because, in addition to the State's royalties, she's demanding the payment of billions of dollars in state production taxes. While it's great that she wants to enrich the State of Alaska as a result of our energy crisis, what about the lower 48? Because Palin refuses to relent on the issue of state gas production taxes, she isn't going to get the necessary cooperation she needs to succeed.

I have houseplants that are smarter than you!

So you want to give special breaks to evil oil companies? LOL. I had the impression you voted for Democrats?

Debra Law is a hel- of a lot smarter than you or water man. Not that I agree with everything she says but she states it in a manner that isent insulting and backs up what she says with facts instead of BS.

If she is so smart, she wouldn't claim Palins pipleline will not be used. That is utterly ridiculous.

Really, I hadn't noticed.

You wouldent, it takes an awareness and a few brains which you lack.

okie wrote: "So you want to give special breaks to evil oil companies? LOL. I had the impression you voted for Democrats?"

I'm pointing out the realities of McCain's "drill, baby, drill" energy program. Who do you think REALLY benefits from the plan?



http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html

Drill Baby Drill--ALASKA FIRST platform.


more of the Article here:



Drill, Baby, Drill--ALASKA wants oil and gas money--Drill, Baby, Drill

How is McCain's plan working in reality?

Foxfyre wrote:

JM wrote:



Foxfyre replied:


Putin’s Russia is better than Stalin’s but on its way to Hitler’s Germany in the late 30’s. President, Prime Minister, or Czar"by any other name Putin’s is a regime and certainly not an administration approved by the mass of Russian citizens. He has reverted to Russia’s defensive paranoia and imperial overreach that history has seen many times in the past. American ambassador to Moscow, George Kennan, once said ‘Russia can have on its borders only vassals or enemies’. I would expand that to include any other state that it deals with. After all, what was Cuba but a vassal? It certainly was not a respected ally. The only exception that I might think might come up would be the short alliance the U.S. had with the USSR during WWII ( An interesting asside: Roosevelt called Stalin “Uncle Joe” and thought he could work with him, he saw a nice guy"sounds familiar doesn’t it? This is an age old mistake that U.S. and other statesman fall into via personality and hope of a deal with Russia"you know “Peace in Our time” type crap.) .To Coin a phrase: to Russia “Its all about Russia” It is in this context that I contend that we should deal with the former Soviet Union " this is “Russia’s game”. Our realpolitik should be “No, its really all about America, but we can talk and maybe come to an angreement.”

You are right in that the lefties approach to Europe is wrong. This is one of the left’s sub-ideologies that, frankly, makes me so mad I could spit. America didn’t get to be both economically, and militarily strong by sitting around conference tables pandering to France or Britain (not to mention the Soviet Union) or whoever. I just don’t see how Obama or Biden can push this” Hat in One’s Hand” foreign policy. Sure we should be good neighbors and try to get along with other states, but let’s face it, when we look back in history and the feces starts to hit the fan just who ends up pulling who’s chestnuts out of the fire? The list is long and the occasions are almost to numerous to count. I believe that America and Americans are exceptional. America is the only nation in the world that has the strength, economics, and compassion to right wrongs ignored by the rest of the world. The best thing about the United Nations, John Bolton, was forced down its throat ( and Congress’) by Bush. The UN couldn’t wait to get rid of him. The Wilsonian pig that is the UN has some lipstick left but certainly there is no other nation on earth that is capable of freshing that porker up, but I question whether we should. When military strength is called for and when relief efforts are necessary the U.S. is usually there. To give Biden his due; he was for intervention in the Balkans (Another instance of Russian mischief).

Oh, yeah! Do you remember shortly after 9/11 all those concerned about what America did that so offended the “Islamists”? They wondered how they could make it right with the terrorist. Are they kidding me? The Terrorist did explain:” America is Satan, it is corroupt, it is evil and we will do anything to kill as many Americans as we can and destroy their way of life.” And still the left’s self flagellation had many wondering how we might make nice with them, even when the terrorist had just told them what would please them the most. These lefties performed a classic case of problem mis-definition. The real problem was not soothing the hurt feelings of barbarians it was how we were going to get them first (Now there’s y’ur problem). John McCain has seen these people before. He feels islamic terrorism is an existential threat and takes it very seriously. He knows there are people who don’t wish the best for us and I think he will deal with them in the correct manner with “practical and material” methods. The “theoretical or ethical objectives” McCain will follow will be informed by this basic tenet: America First.

The European attitude towards socialism (Did the Marshal Plan have a socializing effect? I don’t know myself"just asking those more knowledgable) must be explained by others but I think its international policies are guided by at least two things: Europe‘s dependence on Russia’s energy pipelines and the fact that they have essentially no military (Certainly no Expeditionary force). A few years ago the EU passed laws, or whatever the EU does, to form a sort of Expeditionary force (not its official title) but little has come of it. Maybe the reason does lie in the European psyhcee. My wife says the answer is simple: they are just tired of war"it is rather elegant but I’m sure some would say too simple, but is it?"Occams razor , and all that, you know. It can be argued that Europe standing behind the U.S. on Saddam and Iran would have made an immense difference in succeeding events, but it was not meant to be.

Lastly in dealing with “problem” states a “big stick” policy is only half-good. The problem state must belief we will actually use the stick. I sincerely believe that had the Europeans stood behind us Saddam would have abandoned his “rope-a-dope” stratgey playing Europe against America. Our French Ally’s actions here were just shameful "- running around the world trying to form an anti-coalition coalition. France’s anti-Americanism was a very large contributor to the cause of the War"Not George Bush. Bush said he would invade, both Saddam and France should have took him at his word and backed off.

Respectfully,

JM

okie wrote: "If she is so smart, she wouldn't claim Palins pipleline will not be used. That is utterly ridiculous."

When the State of Alaska, through its collection of royalty payments and taxes, pockets 75 percent or more out of every dollar earned by the drilling company, reinvestment into exploration and development of new wells becomes cost prohibitive. That a simple economic reality.

See also Newsweek article:



http://www.newsweek.com/id/139335/page/2

Re Foxfyre's


Yeah! How about Social Security? I'm for gradually phasing it out in favor of an ownership plan and not Bush's ownership plan where the government allows you to invest part of what they consider their money! Remember what Congress gives Congress can take away! Simply, its my freaking money give me the option, after all, isn't that what America is all about: self dependency and choices? McCain mentioned this substantial change in his RNC speech, which kind of surprised me, you know, the third rail subject and all that.

JM

Look, the pipeline will not be built to sit idle. Some kind of deal will be struck to benefit both parties after all the talking and posturing is over with.

I find it humorous that on the one hand Democrats love to accuse Republicans of giving sweeheart deals to oil companies, but since that won't work here, you are taking the opposite argument, that Palin is bein too rigid. It won't end up that way, I can virtually guarantee that. Without knowing that much about the case, but reading your post, I can assure you that it will be highly unlikely that Palin will build a pipeline only to sit idle.

Now, are you going to continue to claim that all the natural gas will be shipped to some other foreign country? That was the original claim I thought? And regardless of the answer, it makes little difference anyway, whether we use that gas, or sell it and buy other gas with the money. The same argument applies to oil produced in Alaska. If we use the oil, great, if we sell it to a foreign country, we get the money equal in value to the oil, and we buy oil, or we buy something else.

If a farmer sells his grain, and uses the money to buy other grain, or if he uses his own grain, it comes out a wash.

The whole point of this discussion is that we here in this country need to produce stuff, produce energy, goods, and everything else, instead of buying everything. We can afford to buys some stuff, but not everything. Pretty simple concept, Debra.

Obama now quoting cartoons on the campaign trail. LOL. What next?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/10/obama-repeatedly-quotes-cartoonist-while-on-campaign-trail/

Why not? It's a good line. Palin lies her ass off on the campaign trail, and I don't see you criticizing that, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

Proof?

Now now, do you want somebody to start listing Obama lies on the campaign trail?

McGentrix started a thread. If you find proper documentations of Obama lies (quote of what he said, proof why it's a lie), by all means, post it. There cant be enough fact-checking.