Glen Contrarian
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 17,688
- Reaction score
- 8,046
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
What they should see is the only force in world history that has spent out treasure, and spilled our blood to give them the opportunity to be free, and govern themselves...yeah, you're right, we are evil....:roll:
Um, we already are. We're pumping out more oil than ever before, thanks to fracking (and the swarms of (relatively minor) earthquakes that come with it).
Thing is, the way the global oil markets are structured, NONE - repeat, NONE - of that oil we're pumping out is reserved for American use. ALL of it is considered 'fungible' - it's put on the global market, and so we bid on and buy what's cheapest on the market, without any concern of where it came from.
Which is why "drill baby drill" was so silly - it Does Not Matter how much we drill, because it's ALL on the global market, and because of this, we will never, ever (as long as the wealthiest industry in human history survives) be "energy independent" as long as we depend on oil.
Never. It's flatly impossible, because we have to buy from the global market, and not from the oil we're drilling on our own land...even though we're currently producing more oil than we're using.
Nonsense.
The Iraq resolution was bi-partisan and Democrats going back to 1998 agreed Saddam had WMD and something needed to be done about it.
Keep the Bush derangement syndrome in the Partisan section where it belongs.
And before we invaded, we searched and searched and searched for those WMD's...and found none. But we invaded anyway, which - according to the British - Bush was intent on doing ANYWAY. Sure, after the invasion we found a few chemical weapons...but we did NOT find ANY evidence of the NUKES which were Bush's biggest concern...
...and were apparently Bush's ONLY concern since he has since stated himself that we found NO weapons of mass destruction.
Guy, if you saw a bunch of foreign soldiers on your soil telling you what you oughta be doing, and what they're telling you to do is completely different from what you've done for literally thousands of years, what will you do? Meekly do what you're being told? Or will you instead take up arms and get those foreigners off your soil because they don't belong there?
i think this was just the tip of the iceberg. Some highlights:
And before we invaded, we searched and searched and searched for those WMD's...and found none. But we invaded anyway, which - according to the British - Bush was intent on doing ANYWAY. Sure, after the invasion we found a few chemical weapons...but we did NOT find ANY evidence of the NUKES which were Bush's biggest concern...
...and were apparently Bush's ONLY concern since he has since stated himself that we found NO weapons of mass destruction.
Guy, if you saw a bunch of foreign soldiers on your soil telling you what you oughta be doing, and what they're telling you to do is completely different from what you've done for literally thousands of years, what will you do? Meekly do what you're being told? Or will you instead take up arms and get those foreigners off your soil because they don't belong there?
The decision for war preceded the WMD issue, which was simply the lowest common denominator around which support for the war could be built. That does not mean, however, that the administration did not honestly believe there were WMD. The most that can be said is that they were predisposed to believe, and were therefore less rigorous than they should have been in testing the evidence.eace
Don't believe that statement is accurate....
The decision for war preceded the WMD issue, which was simply the lowest common denominator around which support for the war could be built. That does not mean, however, that the administration did not honestly believe there were WMD. The most that can be said is that they were predisposed to believe, and were therefore less rigorous than they should have been in testing the evidence.eace
Well "Guy", if you're willing to ignore centuries of radical Islamic marching toward caliphate, to ignore the Koran calling for the death of infidels, and the despotism of Islamic rule toward the oppression of their own people then your perception is misguided and your loyalty misplaced.
That link means nothing and it seems you never read it. No WMD were found post invaasion. What does that mean to you?
Foreign soldiers called Al Qaeda were already on Afghan soil and being harbored by the Taliban. The Taliban were given ample opportunity to release these terrorists into American custody but chose not to.
Actually, it IS accurate - we are currently a net oil exporter. And have our oil prices fallen as a result?
No.
I rest my case.
Any drilling we are doing is despite government interference.Um, we already are. We're pumping out more oil than ever before, thanks to fracking (and the swarms of (relatively minor) earthquakes that come with it).
We can disagree about the impact of significantly increasing our oil production. I believe our ability to use all of our resources could, and probably would, drive oil prices down. Your mileage (ahem) may vary.Thing is, the way the global oil markets are structured, NONE - repeat, NONE - of that oil we're pumping out is reserved for American use. ALL of it is considered 'fungible' - it's put on the global market, and so we bid on and buy what's cheapest on the market, without any concern of where it came from.
Then let's prepare to remain in those parts of the world that supply a large part of the world's oil.Which is why "drill baby drill" was so silly - it Does Not Matter how much we drill, because it's ALL on the global market, and because of this, we will never, ever (as long as the wealthiest industry in human history survives) be "energy independent" as long as we depend on oil.
That is not relevant. What is relevant is the ability to impact the price of oil with or without military forces.Never. It's flatly impossible, because we have to buy from the global market, and not from the oil we're drilling on our own land...even though we're currently producing more oil than we're using.
It may be a very weak case. From your link the net export was 450k barrels per day. Latin America alone uses about 6 million barrels a day. Our exports are a very small portion of the total world wide demand for oil. Let's see what happens when we account for 20% of the world's daily oil supply.Actually, it IS accurate - we are currently a net oil exporter. And have our oil prices fallen as a result?
No.
I rest my case.
I stand corrected...
Saddam Hussein did little to discourage the idea that he had WMD because it gave him more power and prestige within the Arab world and could also be used as a threat against any invading force. That anyone would want a genocidal madman like Saddam to remain in power says a great deal about how far leftists will go to demonstrate their deep-rooted feelings of anti Americanism.
Of course every world leader was 'predisposed to believe' he had WMD, as the record clearly indicates.
Any drilling we are doing is despite government interference.
We can disagree about the impact of significantly increasing our oil production. I believe our ability to use all of our resources could, and probably would, drive oil prices down. Your mileage (ahem) may vary.
Then let's prepare to remain in those parts of the world that supply a large part of the world's oil.
We can also agree to disagree on the government's massive interference wilt oil production along with the fascistic crony capitalism involved with the president's bundlers. Get the government out of the way. We will all be better off.
That is not relevant. What is relevant is the ability to impact the price of oil with or without military forces.
It may be a very weak case. From your link the net export was 450k barrels per day. Latin America alone uses about 6 million barrels a day. Our exports are a very small portion of the total world wide demand for oil. Let's see what happens when we account for 20% of the world's daily oil supply.
Isn't the reason why we were able to export oil is because of Obama's anti-industrial policies. Our demand for oil dropped by two million barrels per day because of Obama's meddling.
Riiiiiight. Yeah, the Obama administration really tried to put a screeching halt to drilling, huh?
NOT.
That, sir, is only an assumption on your part. Try actually going with the real numbers, instead of with your assumptions. Let the NUMBERS - and not partisan rhetoric - be your guide.
So...why is it, then, that we are now a net oil EXPORTER, but our prices have not dropped? Why is that? We haven't added any extra taxes on gas since we became an oil exporter, so you can't blame the government...so WHY is it that our prices haven't gone down?
Of course, we can't blame Big Oil...because they're very, very patriotic and would never ever squeeze the market for as much as it could get. They wouldn't close down or reduce production at refineries in order to decrease supply and thus keep prices high, would they?
Did we become energy independent when we became a net oil exporter? No. We could double our current oil production and we'd still be importing oil. Why? Because ALL oil production is fungible - it goes on the world market as soon as it's pumped. As long as there are other nations drilling oil more cheaply than we do (and they always will since much of ours is now done through more-expensive fracking), we will always import oil...no matter how much we drill.
Yeah, the government's SO terrible with those onerous regulations, huh? BTW, you did hear about the Gulf oil spill, right? You know, the one that happened because BP was too doggone cheap to buy a $500K part that would have prevented the spill...the same part that other major oil producers like Brazil and Norway require?
Here's a clue, guy - if you want to see how great it is when government doesn't regulate oil drilling, go look at what's happened again and again and again in third-world nations where the drilling faces little regulation or has no regulation at all.
AGAIN, guy - when we became a net oil exporter, WHY did our prices at the pump not fall? According to the we-love-Big-Oil Right, if only we'd get out of Big Oil's way and let them drill all they want to, our prices at the pump would fall, right?
Well, we're not only drilling more now than EVER before, but we're also a net oil EXPORTER...meaning that we can't use all the oil we're drilling.
And have our prices at the pump fallen? Have they? NO.
And you call that "not relevant". WHY HAVEN'T THE PRICES FALLEN? Big Oil is drilling more than ever before, we can't use all they're producing, and STILL our prices have not fallen.
Can you not see a problem there?
Well, okay. How many new holes have been drilled on public lands since 2010?Riiiiiight. Yeah, the Obama administration really tried to put a screeching halt to drilling, huh?
NOT.
That, sir, is only an assumption on your part. Try actually going with the real numbers, instead of with your assumptions. Let the NUMBERS - and not partisan rhetoric - be your guide.
Did you so easily pass right by my numbers?So...why is it, then, that we are now a net oil EXPORTER, but our prices have not dropped? Why is that? We haven't added any extra taxes on gas since we became an oil exporter, so you can't blame the government...so WHY is it that our prices haven't gone down?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?