• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nader unites us all in the fight against ‘federal fondlers’

Can you imagine what would happen to the world price of petroleum if Saudi Arabia quit pumping oil? Remember the late '70s? And I thought we were going to send missiles to all of the countries that harbor terrorists.

So we pay a bit higher prices, no big deal. People who can't afford gas, have no business owning a car...
 
The Supreme Court has reasoned that it is not, because when you go to an airport you expect to be searched. Why? Because people know that they will be searched at the airport.

I guess circular logic is okay if you're the Supreme Court. :shrug:

I think the question is, what is reasonable? Apparently more and more of the public consider the advancement of airport scanning technology and the alternative "enhanced" pat down to be unreasonable.
 
One more reason I won't fly....
 
So we pay a bit higher prices, no big deal. People who can't afford gas, have no business owning a car...

A bit higher prices?

Gas prices went up by about a factor of 6 in the late '70s. That would raise gas from around $3 currently, to about $18. The cost of everything that travels by truck, or is made or produced by machinery run on petroleum went up by about the same amount. That includes just about everything we buy. That would raise the cost of a loaf of bread, for example, to around $10 or $15.

And we think we're in a recession now!
 
A bit higher prices?

Gas prices went up by about a factor of 6 in the late '70s. That would raise gas from around $3 currently, to about $18. The cost of everything that travels by truck, or is made or produced by machinery run on petroleum went up by about the same amount. That includes just about everything we buy. That would raise the cost of a loaf of bread, for example, to around $10 or $15.

And we think we're in a recession now!
Wow, I didn't know Libertarians supported govt subsidies....
 
Wow, I didn't know Libertarians supported govt subsidies....

Government subsidies?

No, the price of petroleum is based on supply and demand. Reduce the supply by even 10%, and the price will skyrocket, just like it did in the '70s. Nothing I posted has a thing to do with government subsidies.
 
Great Quotes in American History

“I regret that I have but one life to give for my country” Patrick Henry before execution by British

“I regret that I have but one crotch to be groped by Czar Napolitano,” anonymous traveler November 13, 2010 just before the routine tsa sexual assault
 
Government subsidies?

No, the price of petroleum is based on supply and demand. Reduce the supply by even 10%, and the price will skyrocket, just like it did in the '70s. Nothing I posted has a thing to do with government subsidies.
Well if it is that simple, we should cut demand first....lower speed limits on freeways to 65, secondary highways to 55....
Then when we have demand reduced, make the Saudis the recipient of our lower demand.
Carter cut speed limits, why can't Obama?
 
Well if it is that simple, we should cut demand first....lower speed limits on freeways to 65, secondary highways to 55....
Then when we have demand reduced, make the Saudis the recipient of our lower demand.
Carter cut speed limits, why can't Obama?

Yes, Carter cut speed limits. What neither he nor any one else has been able to do, at least here in California, is cut the actual speed of traffic. Most people thing the speed limit is the minimum speed anyway.
 
Yes, Carter cut speed limits. What neither he nor any one else has been able to do, at least here in California, is cut the actual speed of traffic. Most people thing the speed limit is the minimum speed anyway.

Well, I got a ticket on the freeway doing 68 in a 55.....long time ago, of course.
 
Well if it is that simple, we should cut demand first....lower speed limits on freeways to 65, secondary highways to 55....
Then when we have demand reduced, make the Saudis the recipient of our lower demand.
Carter cut speed limits, why can't Obama?
Nice idea, but it doesn't work. When Carter reduced demand, it was the US oil rigs that shut down. At that time, it cost about $5 to lift a barrel of oil out of the ground in Saudi and an average of about $15 a barrel in the US, and the high cost production got cut first.

Like all government and ivory tower dreams of economic and social engineering, the plan foundered on the unforgiving rocks of reality.
 
Nice idea, but it doesn't work. When Carter reduced demand, it was the US oil rigs that shut down. At that time, it cost about $5 to lift a barrel of oil out of the ground in Saudi and an average of about $15 a barrel in the US, and the high cost production got cut first.

.

How does that work? especially since SA imports enough foreign workers such that a third of the population are "guest workers".
End result is that we are paying those guest workers by buying SA oil. IMO, SA should have taken out Saddam. But not only are they too good to do "menial work" for a living, they are also too cowardly to fight their enemies. The USA gets to go over and fight their battles. At least the Saudis should have paid mercenary wages to our troops...
 
How does that work? especially since SA imports enough foreign workers such that a third of the population are "guest workers".
End result is that we are paying those guest workers by buying SA oil.

Saudi oil is light sweet crude, as opposed to heavy stuff pumped in North Dakota (I was once told it sets up at +80 degrees F) or the sulfur-laden stuff we get from Prudhoe bay. It's also quite close to the surface, which means less drilling effort. It's high quality stuff, and so easy to get that we can even ship it across the world for less expense than a lot of our home-grown stuff. The closest we could come to meeting their production costs would be in the Santa Barbara channel, but the econazis prefer their oil spills to occur naturally.

IMO, SA should have taken out Saddam. But not only are they too good to do "menial work" for a living, they are also too cowardly to fight their enemies. The USA gets to go over and fight their battles. At least the Saudis should have paid mercenary wages to our troops...

Agreed with your assessment of Arabs. They haven't had a decent general since Saladin, and he was a Kurd. As I recall, though, the Saudis did pick up most of the tab for Gulf War I.
 
Saudi oil is light sweet crude, as opposed to heavy stuff pumped in North Dakota (I was once told it sets up at +80 degrees F) or the sulfur-laden stuff we get from Prudhoe bay. It's also quite close to the surface, which means less drilling effort. It's high quality stuff, and so easy to get that we can even ship it across the world for less expense than a lot of our home-grown stuff. The closest we could come to meeting their production costs would be in the Santa Barbara channel, but the econazis prefer their oil spills to occur naturally.



Agreed with your assessment of Arabs. They haven't had a decent general since Saladin, and he was a Kurd. As I recall, though, the Saudis did pick up most of the tab for Gulf War I.
Now that you mention it, I have read that before. So, what do we do, keep using Saudi oil til it is all gone and then use our own low grade stuff? I really don't think that is wise, not if it costs more American lives. But I hope to live long enough to see it.
When the Saudis run out of oil, there will be a lot of fertilizer hitting the ventilator.
 
Now that you mention it, I have read that before. So, what do we do, keep using Saudi oil til it is all gone and then use our own low grade stuff? I really don't think that is wise, not if it costs more American lives. But I hope to live long enough to see it.
When the Saudis run out of oil, there will be a lot of fertilizer hitting the ventilator.

Unless we begin to get serious about alternative energy, that fertilizer will be flying pretty fast and fairly soon.
 
Unless we begin to get serious about alternative energy, that fertilizer will be flying pretty fast and fairly soon.

THAT is a subject I know a lot about. Wind power, solar power are not alternatives, but supplements, and will remain so for a very long time. Plus, the really important issue is oil to make gasoline for transportation needs. We have plenty of really good ways to make electricity, but at best electricity can only help our transportation needs over very short distances.
We had a lot of success since the 70's on making our cars and trucks burn fuel more efficiently, and cleaner. Congress mandated it, but neglected to do the same for buildings. That is finally changing with Architecture 2030, which is new building codes.
That will save a lot of electricity and some natural gas, and gas can be used for transportation needs...
 
Now that you mention it, I have read that before. So, what do we do, keep using Saudi oil til it is all gone and then use our own low grade stuff? I really don't think that is wise, not if it costs more American lives. But I hope to live long enough to see it.
When the Saudis run out of oil, there will be a lot of fertilizer hitting the ventilator.

As long as that's the cheapest energy source available, yeah, we'll continue to use it and the Saudis will continue to get fat and fund terrorism around the world. IMO the fertilizer will quit flying when the Saudis run out of oil and go back to molesting camels for entertainment. And at that point, we would be well advised to have our own resources ready to go.

Unless we begin to get serious about alternative energy, that fertilizer will be flying pretty fast and fairly soon.

Alternative energy initiatives like ethanol, wind and solar **ARE** the fertilizer hitting the fan. There isn't a one of those ideas that can can compete with coal and/or oil on cost or reliability for commercial application.
 
As long as that's the cheapest energy source available, yeah, we'll continue to use it and the Saudis will continue to get fat and fund terrorism around the world. IMO the fertilizer will quit flying when the Saudis run out of oil and go back to molesting camels for entertainment. And at that point, we would be well advised to have our own resources ready to go.



Alternative energy initiatives like ethanol, wind and solar **ARE** the fertilizer hitting the fan. There isn't a one of those ideas that can can compete with coal and/or oil on cost or reliability for commercial application.

Brazil has the perfect climate, plenty of water, land, to make plenty of sugar cane to make alcohol based fuels. Possibly sugar cane can be grown economically in the swampier parts of the southeast, where snakes and alligators live.:2razz:
 
We need to add the right to refuse X-ray security checks to the Bill of Rights.

There's no law that says you have to submit to an x-ray security check. Just like there's nothing in the Constitution that says you have to be allowed to fly on that aircraft instead of driving you ass to where you need to go.

Don't like the security checks? Don't fly! There, problem solved.
 
As long as that's the cheapest energy source available, yeah, we'll continue to use it and the Saudis will continue to get fat and fund terrorism around the world. IMO the fertilizer will quit flying when the Saudis run out of oil and go back to molesting camels for entertainment. And at that point, we would be well advised to have our own resources ready to go.



Alternative energy initiatives like ethanol, wind and solar **ARE** the fertilizer hitting the fan. There isn't a one of those ideas that can can compete with coal and/or oil on cost or reliability for commercial application.

How about natural gas? We have plenty of that right here at home. All we need is the infrastructure to distribute and market it. Cars and trucks can already run on it.

Natural gas, nuclear energy, and very soon, solar will be able to meet a large part of our energy needs. All we need is the will to become energy independent.

Did anyone catch the 60 minutes episode Sunday about natural gas and how much we have available?
 
How about natural gas? We have plenty of that right here at home. All we need is the infrastructure to distribute and market it. Cars and trucks can already run on it.

Natural gas, nuclear energy, and very soon, solar will be able to meet a large part of our energy needs. All we need is the will to become energy independent.

Did anyone catch the 60 minutes episode Sunday about natural gas and how much we have available?
Arizona did an alt-fuel thing, converting cars to natural gas. You could even get a compressor to boost the pressure of the natural gas delivered to your home furnace, so that you can fill your own gas tank....
We have so much natural gas that we use to just burn it off at the wells. It took some time for the technology to be developed so that it can get collected,shipped, etc.
 
Arizona did an alt-fuel thing, converting cars to natural gas. You could even get a compressor to boost the pressure of the natural gas delivered to your home furnace, so that you can fill your own gas tank....
We have so much natural gas that we use to just burn it off at the wells. It took some time for the technology to be developed so that it can get collected,shipped, etc.

It seems to me that LNG is the best way to energy independence in the short term. I wonder why no one pushing for it?
 
It seems to me that LNG is the best way to energy independence in the short term. I wonder why no one pushing for it?

It is being pushed, but it takes time to modify infrastructure.
Personally, I don't like it for the added danger. Gasoline is bad enough, but LNG in the hands of our average drivers is a disaster in the making....
 
It is being pushed, but it takes time to modify infrastructure.
Personally, I don't like it for the added danger. Gasoline is bad enough, but LNG in the hands of our average drivers is a disaster in the making....

Yes, safety is a concern, no doubt.

Technology has been able to make modern automobiles safer than their predecessors, despite the insanity of the "average drivers." Maybe it can do the same to adding LNG tanks to cars.
 
Brazil has the perfect climate, plenty of water, land, to make plenty of sugar cane to make alcohol based fuels. Possibly sugar cane can be grown economically in the swampier parts of the southeast, where snakes and alligators live.:2razz:

Very true, at least about Brazil, and they are busily eliminating Amazon rain forest to plant sugar cane to meet world demand. They can produce it and ship it to New Orleans much cheaper than we can produce it here, so we have imposed prohibitive import taxes on it to subsidize our own ethanol producers. In fact, the price of sugar would drop dramatically if we allowed free trade in it from the Caribbean but our own producers have too strong a political lobby to allow it.

Ethanol, however, is a very low energy fuel. Also it has to be trucked wherever it goes because it is alcohol and absorbs water, so it can't go by pipeline. Here in the mountain west, it is still possible to buy gasoline that has no ethanol in it and that's what I buy whenever I can. The E10 gasoline is nominally a few points higher in octane and often a few percent cheaper than regular, but it costs me 10% of my mileage and is thus more expensive to use. Reports from folks who have paid several thousand dollars more for AFE vehicles are that E85 fuel costs them 25% of their mileage (e.g., 28 mpg on regular gas becomes 21 mpg on E85).

IMO ethanol is a scam, and all government subsidies for it should be dropped.
 
Back
Top Bottom