- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
So, you can't cite a single Obama policy that encouraged an increase in domestic oil production?
I haven't altered it, I explained it. The difference is that while tone/inflection may not come through on a forum, it doesn't change the original meaning. The entire point, as I said in a later post, is despite what has been alleged, Obama clearly hasn't killed the oil business and the price of gas is far too complex of an issue to simply point at the President and say, "He's to credit/blame".
From my perspective, that is foolish. I don't mean that to be an insult, but I just think it's foolish. For that to come to pass, you have to assume two things, neither of which are likely true. The first is that you know more about the economy and how it works than entire groups of economists who are some of the best in the field. The second thing you have to assume is that there is only one right way to do things, which is almost always incorrect, especially for something as large as "the economy".
I'm not pretending anything. I'm simply noting how the foolish the Republicans sound right now.
There's a difference between noting how evidence proves a foolish statement incorrect and assigning credit.
Why do so many people not understand the difference between blame and credit?
I always love how people mention Solyndra, when it's been well proven that most of the money that went to green energy companies was money well spent (not to mention Solyndra was chosen and supported by Bush before Obama took office). Have you ever stopped to consider why you ONLY use Solyndra? Why there's only ONE company you mention? It's because of the many green energy companies who received money, most of them made good use of the money.
But that aside, everything you said here (even if it was true, which it is not) doesn't change the fact that Obama clearly has not killed the oil industry.
It has nothing to do with me being smarter than you, and everything to do with you apparently not reading. Just because you chose not to read my post, don't push your faults onto me.
I do no such thing, but considering how incredibly blind you are to anything aside from partisan attacks, it doesn't surprise me you'd post this. It never ceases to amaze me how many times I prove you wrong and you simply try to change the subject or ignore the fact you are wrong. It's happened many times.
:lamo
Think about what you just posted. Then maybe you'll come to realize why I'm laughing at you.
Good morning MMC - at least until the economies of Europe, China, and India start to improve.
It's like people don't realize others fact check statements..."The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.
The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.
The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain."
President Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures
This was as of last year....So you're right, it's not just Solyndra, it's a lot more.....And the list of Obama cronies that got these grants, and then went belly up, reads like a donor list of campaign '08 insiders....Can you say corruption? But that doesn't matter to you right? As long as there is someone doing it that you can ideologically agree with.
Romney falsely claimed “about half” of the clean-energy companies that received U.S.-backed loans “have gone out of business.” But 26 companies received loan guarantees under a loan program cited by Romney, and three of those have filed for bankruptcy. The three firms were approved for about 6 percent of the loan guarantees.
We were surprised by the claim that “about half” of the companies went out of business. As we have written before, an independent review of the Department of Energy loan and loan guarantee programs found that the failure rate was lower than Congress had expected.
When we asked the Romney campaign for information on this claim, we were told that it refers only to companies that received so-called section 1705 loans — a program created by the stimulus. A second program — the so-called section 1703 loan program — was created under the Bush administration, but loans were approved by the current administration. Also, Romney counted only section 1705 loan guarantees approved in the Obama administration’s first two years — ignoring the past two years.
By limiting his scope to just the first two years of the program, Romney arrives at seven companies and three of them — including Solyndra — have filed for bankruptcy protection. The others were Beacon Power, which received a loan guarantee of $43 million, and Abound Solar, which was approved for a $400 million loan but borrowed only $70 million against that. So, combined the three companies were approved for a total of $978 million in U.S.-backed loans and borrowed $648 million of that.
But there were a total of 26 companies that received approval for $16 billion in loan guarantees under the section 1705 program. So, 11.5 percent of the companies — not half — have filed for bankruptcy. And those companies were approved for a little more than 6 percent of the $16 billion in total loan guarantees.
:lamoNo, he hasn't, but that is not for lack of trying
Yes, it's all you do.LOL. Partisan attacks uh?
I probably could, but I don't have to. My point was never that Obama spurred oil production, only to point out the ridiculous statement made by Republicans that he's trying to kill it.So, you can't cite a single Obama policy that encouraged an increase in domestic oil production?
It's like people don't realize others fact check statements...
Romney’s Clean Energy Whoppers
Oh, and just looking at your list, the very first company you mentioned, Evergreen Solar, did not receive federal stimulus funds. You really should be more discriminating when choosing sources, and not choosing ones which lie to you.
:lamo
I love the rationale of the anti-Obama crowd. When something bad happens, it's because Obama wields an enormous amount of power in turning this country into a failed socialist nation of Muslims. When something good happens, it happens completely despite Obama's attempt to turn this country into a failed socialist nation of Muslims.
The lack of objectivity just makes your opinion completely worthless to me.
Yes, it's all you do.
I probably could, but I don't have to. My point was never that Obama spurred oil production, only to point out the ridiculous statement made by Republicans that he's trying to kill it.
Once more, you don't seem to understand the difference between disproving blame and assigning credit.
It's like people don't realize others fact check statements...
Romney’s Clean Energy Whoppers
Oh, and just looking at your list, the very first company you mentioned, Evergreen Solar, did not receive federal stimulus funds. You really should be more discriminating when choosing sources, and not choosing ones which lie to you.
I love the rationale of the anti-Obama crowd. When something bad happens, it's because Obama wields an enormous amount of power in turning this country into a failed socialist nation of Muslims. When something good happens, it happens completely despite Obama's attempt to turn this country into a failed socialist nation of Muslims.
The lack of objectivity just makes your opinion completely worthless to me.
You obviously have not read a single thing I've said to you. You are so wrapped up in your anti-Obama rants, you do not pay any attention to what I'm saying. I've explained it to you at least two separate times. I'm tired of trying to hold your hand to make you understand. Do both of us a favor and actually read what I said and you'll realize why your last post to me was worthless.No, you can't. Just admit that Obama doesn't get any credit for the oil boom, much less 100% of the credit that you are assigning to him.
You obviously have not read a single thing I've said to you. You are so wrapped up in your anti-Obama rants, you do not pay any attention to what I'm saying. I've explained it to you at least two separate times. I'm tired of trying to hold your hand to make you understand. Do both of us a favor and actually read what I said and you'll realize why your last post to me was worthless.
Do you think the Saudis can tap out? Once that takes place.....then what? I think it would be fitting that they then will have to import that which they no longer have. Pay for it.....like they made others pay for it.
You consider posting of facts to be major lengths? I would argue desperately seeking out lies would be major lengths, not simply posting well-known and reported facts.Well, you are certainly showing that you will go to major lengths to defend your leader
From 2008 to 2012, wind energy almost doubled. Solar energy increased four times what it was in 2008 by 2012. I do not consider those things failures....Tell me, with some $80 billion of tax payer money given to Obama supporters for slapping up any green energy sounding business they could as fast as they could, how many have made a dent in our country's use of traditional energy sources?
That's your strawman....Show me where I said anything like this
You said:No, he hasn't, but that is not for lack of trying
I'm the person you chose to enter a debate with. Obviously my opinion means something to you.Yeah? who are you?
If I'm an "aging" liberal, then I have to wonder what you're doing on a debate forum during a school day.Other than some aging liberal
Says the person who attacked me because you didn't agree with my POV. :roll:angrily attacking people that don't agree with your POV.....That's just sad dude.
How am I covering for him? What lie has been told? Do you even understand what you're saying at this point? Like I said, go back and read what I ACTUALLY said, and then realize why you're wasting the time of both of us with your posts.And, you're so wrapped up in worshipping Dear Leader that you will say anything to cover for him, no matter how big the lie is.
I believe they've been diversifying their economy for some time - but tourism, gambling, and other "high end" pursuits aren't going to make for a booming economy. They have a highly educated population, so I'm sure tech and software industries interest them. As for tapping out, I doubt that will happen anytime soon and perhaps they're smart enough to retain what they need if/when reserves reach a certain point.
You consider posting of facts to be major lengths? I would argue desperately seeking out lies would be major lengths, not simply posting well-known and reported facts.
From 2008 to 2012, wind energy almost doubled. Solar energy increased four times what it was in 2008 by 2012. I do not consider those things failures.
EIA - Electricity Data
I'm the person you chose to enter a debate with. Obviously my opinion means something to you.
If I'm an "aging" liberal, then I have to wonder what you're doing on a debate forum during a school day.
Says the person who attacked me because you didn't agree with my POV. :roll:
How am I covering for him? What lie has been told? Do you even understand what you're saying at this point? Like I said, go back and read what I ACTUALLY said, and then realize why you're wasting the time of both of us with your posts.
Find ONE post I've made in this entire thread where I gave Obama 100% of the credit. Hell, find where I, in a serious manner, gave Obama even 10% of the credit.You gave Obama 100% of the credit. Not once did you leave any room for anyone, but Obama, to receive credit.
You consider posting of facts to be major lengths? I would argue desperately seeking out lies would be major lengths, not simply posting well-known and reported facts.
From 2008 to 2012, wind energy almost doubled. Solar energy increased four times what it was in 2008 by 2012. I do not consider those things failures.
That's your strawman....Show me where I said anything like this
Quote Originally Posted by You
No, he hasn't, but that is not for lack of trying
I'm the person you chose to enter a debate with. Obviously my opinion means something to you.
If I'm an "aging" liberal, then I have to wonder what you're doing on a debate forum during a school day.
Says the person who attacked me because you didn't agree with my POV.
Find ONE post I've made in this entire thread where I gave Obama 100% of the credit. Hell, find where I, in a serious manner, gave Obama even 10% of the credit.
Go ahead. I'll be waiting. And when you cannot find where I've given Obama credit for anything, because I haven't, I'll expect your apology for constantly misunderstanding what I have been saying over and over and over and over again.
Go look. And then apologize.
Wow, such twisting to avoid to avoid facts.No, I would consider facts to be just that, fact...But, you know the saying....None so great a lie as statistics....Many of these so called facts, are debatable as such in the mere way they are presented....Semantics mean much to this administration, and its supporters....You get a well placed "most likely", or ''probable'' and you have your side claiming fact, when it is really not such.
Irrelevant. You said:That's great! I certainly don't want you to think that I am against alternative energy, but rather I am for the smart development of such. Now, can you tell me with all of this 'doubling of this', and 'quadrupling of that', how much do these alternatives account for in total energy consumption today?
Which has now been proven false, as I have just shown. Once more, facts seem to be getting in your way.His administration flushed Billions down the drain through diverting money to cronies like Solyndra that failed to achieve his pipe dream of alternative energy
Fair enough, YOU didn't, at least not in this thread (and I have no idea if you ever have or not). But my point remains the same, of you and people like you.Ok so where did I call him a Muslim, or Kenyan, or anything like that?
I love the rationale of the anti-Obama crowd. When something bad happens, it's because Obama wields an enormous amount of power in turning this country into a failed socialist nation of Muslims. When something good happens, it happens completely despite Obama's attempt to turn this country into a failed socialist nation of Muslims.
No, what's rude and dishonest is the fact you're ignoring the point to focus on a rather irrelevant portion of what I said. You have spent this thread making false statements to justify your dislike of Obama, and despite the fact I've shown you multiple times where your multiple statements have been false, you continue to make false statements. And you have the audacity to act offended because I lumped you in with a group of people just like you, who DO use the Muslim tag? Oh, and I didn't say you called him a Kenyan...you added that yourself....and you're calling me dishonest. :roll:What you did was a rude, dishonest tactic
I'll be happy to apologize for not distinguishing the fact you have not said anything about a Muslim, even though you act the exact same way as so many who do use Muslim to criticize the President, the moment you apologize for the fact you have continuously made provably false statements.and I expect you to be a man and apologize for what you did there by lying about my words.
Which is absurd, because I don't parrot anyone, I simply use facts, as I've done multiple times in this thread. What does it say about a person when they ignore which you admit is the constant posting of facts and STILL cling to their false beliefs?Honestly? very few people on here do I consider them by who they actually are....Most, I see as the generic antagonistic progressive. They (you) all sound the same, write the same, and parrot the same bull **** they hear from each other like we were standing in some kind of lemming echo chamber.
I can only assume you are in school, if you consider me aging. Should we add this to the list of things for which you owe me an apology?Man, I wish I were still in school...Those days are long gone friend.
Have you not read this last post of yours? If you consider what I've done to you (correcting you) to be attacking, then surely calling me a "generic antagonistic progressive" who "sound(s) the same, write(s) the same and parrot the same bull**** they hear" is an attack.How did I attack you? By disagree with your postings?
No they didn't (I have explained multiple times what they meant), and since you obviously cannot find a single time where I gave Obama credit, I await your apology. You were wrong. Now apologize for being wrong.Those sarcastic posts said it all.
I don't know about it going below $3 bucks...but I wouldn't be upset if it did.
That's what I like about Conservatives. They have such VISION. No matter what we do , oil will run out eventually. It only makes sense to prepare for that day.
Wow, such twisting to avoid to avoid facts. It's really simple. You made false statements. I provided factual statements which have been researched and supported and proved your position wrong. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
Irrelevant.
You said:
Which has now been proven false, as I have just shown. Once more, facts seem to be getting in your way.
Fair enough, YOU didn't, at least not in this thread (and I have no idea if you ever have or not). But my point remains the same, of you and people like you. No, what's rude and dishonest is the fact you're ignoring the point to focus on a rather irrelevant portion of what I said. You have spent this thread making false statements to justify your dislike of Obama, and despite the fact I've shown you multiple times where your multiple statements have been false, you continue to make false statements. And you have the audacity to act offended because I lumped you in with a group of people just like you, who DO use the Muslim tag? Oh, and I didn't say you called him a Kenyan...you added that yourself....and you're calling me dishonest. :roll: I'll be happy to apologize for not distinguishing the fact you have not said anything about a Muslim, even though you act the exact same way as so many who do use Muslim to criticize the President, the moment you apologize for the fact you have continuously made provably false statements. You apologize first for making provably false statements (since you made your false statements first) and I'll apologize for not specifically setting you apart. Your move. Which is absurd, because I don't parrot anyone, I simply use facts, as I've done multiple times in this thread. What does it say about a person when they ignore which you admit is the constant posting of facts and STILL cling to their false beliefs? I can only assume you are in school, if you consider me aging. Should we add this to the list of things for which you owe me an apology? Have you not read this last post of yours? If you consider what I've done to you (correcting you) to be attacking, then surely calling me a "generic antagonistic progressive" who "sound(s) the same, write(s) the same and parrot the same bull**** they hear" is an attack.
Please explain how "oil will run out eventually". Geez, and you make a snide comment about "vision". LOL. it's plain to see you need a thick pair of glasses.
Hint to you because I recognize your vision impairment: Mother earth has always made oil and always will.
There is a finite amount of oil in the ground. When you take out more than half of the oil in the ground it is called peak oil because the output will generally be in decline after that time. The U.S. hit peak oil in the 70's but has had a resurgence in recent years because of new technology has allowed us to pull more oil out of the already drilled wells.
There is a finite amount of oil in the ground. When you take out more than half of the oil in the ground it is called peak oil because the output will generally be in decline after that time. The U.S. hit peak oil in the 70's but has had a resurgence in recent years because of new technology has allowed us to pull more oil out of the already drilled wells.
:laughat: 'Peak oil'......hahhahahahaha! Good grief....wake up....
"Peak Oil is the theoretical idea that the world will eventually reach a maximum rate of oil production, which will be followed by a terminal decline.
No doubt, that’s a scary theory should it come to pass. However, as Yogi Berra famously, said, “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”
And go figure. We have a career theorist (i.e. – a research geologist) to blame for Peak Oil. So we shouldn’t be surprised if reality doesn’t match his theory.
His name is Marion King Hubbert. In the mid 1950s, he developed a quantitative technique that could be used to predict the remaining supplies of any finite resource – and the time of ultimate depletion. And Hubbert used it to predict that oil production would peak by the early 1970s.
Nice try, Nostradamus.
After peaking briefly around 60 million barrels per day in the mid-1970s, global oil production resumed its upward march. And now it’s firmly above 90 million barrels per day, according to the latest data from Energy Intelligence Group.
Here are the two major reasons Hubbert’s Peak Oil theory breaks apart when put into practice…
First off, a peak in production doesn’t mean a peak in availability. In other words, even if production spikes and tapers off, it’s not an indication that oil’s running out.
Truth is, we’re nowhere close to running out of oil.
As oil giant, BP plc (NYSE: BP) said in its annual Statistical Energy Review, “The world is not structurally short of hydrocarbon resources – as our data on proved reserves confirms year after year.”
Second, Hubbert’s theory ignores “unconventional” fossil fuel sources like tar sands, heavy oils and shale oil. They weren’t easily accessible back in his day, hence they couldn’t be considered affordable and/or available. Fair enough.
Fast-forward to today, though, and Peak Oil adherents still hold onto Hubbert’s idea. They ignore, or grossly discount, the impact of unconventional sources on availability.
Yet five decades’ worth of technological advancement has made many of these sources very accessible – and much more affordable. And vast amounts of oil have been discovered in these unconventional sources.
The end result? As my colleague, Matthew Weinschenk, said back in June, “New developments have rendered Hubbert’s curve ineffective, or at least delayed it by decades.”
I’ll go a step further and declare it useless.
So what about America’s prospects for energy independence?
They’re improving.
Exhibit A: Fossil fuel production is in a confirmed uptrend, increasing about 12% since 2005.
Exhibit B: We’re now producing enough energy to meet almost 84% of our energy consumption. Again, the trend is moving in a decidedly positive direction.
Bottom line: Don’t believe the Chicken Littles of the world when they go around screaming, “We’re running out of oil! We’re running out of oil! We’re running out of oil!”
Energy Independence and the Myth of Peak OilWall Street Daily
Do you believe in little green men too?
I did address it. You even bolded it. Your question is irrelevant to the topic.There really is only one stat that you refuse to address that is the most important here...That is the answer from you that I bolded above, and my guess is that you will refuse to answer it....And that is simple,
What is the total percentage of 'green energy' tecnology in use today, and how much energy does it produce for the nation?
I won't, because I don't care to research it. I don't care to research it because it's irrelevant to our discussion. Just because you want to change the topic because you were wrong, it doesn't change the fact you were wrong.See, you won't answer that
Is it? I have no idea (though I seem to remember they have increased roughly 2% over the last few years, I believe). I really don't care either, because there are so many factors which go into percentages. We were discussing whether alternative energy initiatives were successful, and it's clear that they are.and actively try and hide the fact that it is in the single digits percentage wise
It tells everything, especially since our discussion was whether they were successful. They clearly have been. I think it's funny you accuse me of trying to hide things, when your question was borne of desperation to change the topic from your previously false statement.with stats of how much more we are doing today, v. a decade ago, which tells nothing.
And yet another attack from you. By the way, when are you going to apologize for repeatedly being wrong?All of the other crap is just that, crap, and arrogant blather out of you
I did. You even bolded it. And you apparently already know what the answer is, so why are you asking me if you already have your answer? Seems kind of shady to me.so either answer the direct question
Oh, I've learned plenty. I've learned you willingly ignore facts and truths to cling to false perceptions which play into your preconceived notions of someone. I've learned you willingly acknowledge many people have posted facts to you and you still make false claims. I've learned you seek out lies which have been disproven and post them anyways. And I've learned you ask questions whose answers are already known to you.or do us all a favor, and sit back a while and learn something
No problem. I'm always here to correct people when they are wrong.....Thanks
"finite"? LOL. What's changed with mother earth that prevents her from producing oil?
Please explain how "oil will run out eventually". Geez, and you make a snide comment about "vision". LOL. it's plain to see you need a thick pair of glasses.
Hint to you because I recognize your vision impairment: Mother earth has always made oil and always will.
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?