Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to NewsvineI think they need to remind the public that the policies proposed by Obama have failed under Carter. We need more ads like this that hit Obama on policy. Anybody with half a brain knows that if you raise taxes on a company they will just pass it on to consumers. Anyone who can't afford gas now, would be a fool to vote for someone who would tax their gas even more.
They also need to tie Obama to Carter as much as possible the same way that the DNC is tying McCain to Bush. Every Republican should be out there saying that Obama is four more years of Carter without the executive experience. That's a frightening thought!
(via)
Subscribe
Comments
"drilling? BRILLIANT! ha! we've drilled and drilled... it hasn't helped. that's the simpleton's answer. there's no vast reservoir of easy oil within our boarders. develop new and improve existing alternate energies to remove the demand on oil."
No, the simpleton's response is to pay close to $4.00 at the pump and continue to vote for the very people who have caused the problem.
Posted by: Michele McGinty | May 16, 2008 11:29 AM
No, the response is to /WORK FOR ALTERNATIVES/. And to realize that the people who have been in less than two years, and had most of their propositions vetoed might have less to do with this than the group who was in for the last 12.
Posted by: Karen Brown | May 16, 2008 12:04 PM
"No, the response is to /WORK FOR ALTERNATIVES/. And to realize that the people who have been in less than two years, and had most of their propositions vetoed might have less to do with this than the group who was in for the last 12."
What are you putting in your car right now? What are you heating your house with right now? You guys talk about drilling taking 10 years but what about the fact that the technology isn't even there for our cars to run on anything else. Nothing. And yet there isn't even a thought to drill even though the oil is there. Just saying we're drilling will drop the price of oil.
It's amazing to me that the people who say they care about the poor and a candidate who wants to provide transportation wouldn't even try to lessen the situation by opening up more land for drilling so that we can end our dependence. It's the only thing we can do now since the TECHNOLOGY ISN'T THERE!!!
Posted by: Michele McGinty | May 16, 2008 12:23 PM
I don't drive a car. I've been in houses that have used everything from fuel oil to natural gas to wood stoves and solar to heat them. We have two buses, one using cooking grease, the other uses hydrogen fuel cells to run them.
Much of the technology IS there. But I said 'WORK for alternatives'. Not 'use the alternatives that are already there waiting'. But using both 'it will take time' and 'it isn't there now' to not work on it doesn't make sense.
The 'oil that is there' is not only not very much, but will cost money to get to, and time. If you're wanting to help the poor now, this is hardly the way to do it. ANWR, alone, will take ten YEARS to get to. And as again noted, we don't have the refinery capacity anyway. (Nor have the oil companies sought it, as again noted.)
Saying 'If Clinton'.. If Clinton had, they'd be GONE now.
The fuel we have won't end our dependence because we can't refine 21 MILLION barrels a day. We can't pump 21 MILLION barrels a day. The people talking about opening those areas are talking like it will make us 'energy independent'. It won't. It can't. At best, even if those two issues change, it will make us able to supply at least some of our own needs for a decade or so. (And that is, as noted, based on an exceptionally generous estimate of the amount of oil available.)
The fact that they used such a useless and deceptive time frame shows that they likely know it too. Woo, we have enough oil to run 60 million cars for 60 years. Like we only use oil for cars, or that we only run 60 million cars a day, for that matter.
Again, I would agree on very stringent requirements. The oil IS only used for the US. (And oil, being interchangeable, that would require that the amount of oil pumped and refined from those locations is tallied, and that much oil reserved, no matter where it comes from. Once it gets in gas station tanks, you can't tell where its from.)
That the profits FROM that gas (note, allow for the expenses to be paid for) go DIRECTLY, and SOLELY for a real, legitimate, and monitored effort at developing alternative fuels.
Period.
And maybe, at the end of that decade (assuming our usage doesn't change. Whoops, went up a MILLION barrels a day just this year), or sooner, we will have something to work with.
Posted by: Karen Brown | May 16, 2008 1:54 PM
"No, the simpleton's response is to pay close to $4.00 at the pump and continue to vote for the very people who have caused the problem."
well then, i suggest that you find an alternate fuel, like some of us have, or drive a hybrid, or ride a bike, and stop voting for republicans who have caused the problem.
"what about the fact that the technology isn't even there for our cars to run on anything else. Nothing."
sorry, but you're wrong.
"And yet there isn't even a thought to drill even though the oil is there. Just saying we're drilling will drop the price of oil."
i doubt that. do you have any real evidence? if it works that way, why doesn't mccain try saying that?
Posted by: anonymous reincarnate | May 16, 2008 11:07 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?