<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Pump&#8221; Up the Vote</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/</link>
	<description>Where Defeat Is Not An Option</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:52:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tractatus</title>
		<link>http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68833</link>
		<dc:creator>Tractatus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:32:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68833</guid>
		<description>Fact Check says: &lt;a href="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_full_tank_of_nonsense.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;Your "strong statement" is a tank full of nonsense&lt;/a&gt;.

Better luck next time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fact Check says: <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_full_tank_of_nonsense.html" rel="nofollow">Your &#8220;strong statement&#8221; is a tank full of nonsense</a>.</p>
<p>Better luck next time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ViralNexus</title>
		<link>http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68687</link>
		<dc:creator>ViralNexus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:15:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68687</guid>
		<description>I don't get this... are you guys dense or just wilfully ignorant? "If America would drill in ANWR and the continental shelf we could wean ourselves off our dependence of foreign oil". Now repeat that to yourself and if you believe it, hit yourself in the head with something blunt. The US WILL pay for the exploration and drilling of those areas but we WILL NOT get that oil. Since we do not have a nationalized oil market the oil will go to... tada... oil companies. The oil is not the US'- it will belong to BP, ExxonMobile, Chevron, etc. When they have the oil they have the option to sell it to India, China, Africa, and however else will help that build a profit. This will in effect lower the worlwide price of oil because of the increase in supply but not dramatically and definitely not enough to benefit us. Use your freaking brains for a minute and STOP being stooges for a change. Here's a better option, take the billions of dollars that it will take to subsidize the oil companies for exploration and drilling and use it HERE. Use it to subsidize the price of gas, use it for research and development of alternative energy sources, use it to offer tax credits on the price of gas, use it as a tax credit for those that invest in alternative energy. Hell use it to replace all of these damn fuel powered power plants with nuclear power.

It doesn't really matter in the end because industry and consumers are going to make this drilling plan obsolete. Next year we will see a palethora of electric vehicles, cheaper more efficient hybrid vehicles, gas vapor add on systems for existing vehicles, and the list goes on and on. More than anything the US population will come to despise those who support this rediculous assertion that paying oil companies to drill for oil will somehow lower our price of gasoline.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t get this&#8230; are you guys dense or just wilfully ignorant? &#8220;If America would drill in ANWR and the continental shelf we could wean ourselves off our dependence of foreign oil&#8221;. Now repeat that to yourself and if you believe it, hit yourself in the head with something blunt. The US WILL pay for the exploration and drilling of those areas but we WILL NOT get that oil. Since we do not have a nationalized oil market the oil will go to&#8230; tada&#8230; oil companies. The oil is not the US&#8217;- it will belong to BP, ExxonMobile, Chevron, etc. When they have the oil they have the option to sell it to India, China, Africa, and however else will help that build a profit. This will in effect lower the worlwide price of oil because of the increase in supply but not dramatically and definitely not enough to benefit us. Use your freaking brains for a minute and STOP being stooges for a change. Here&#8217;s a better option, take the billions of dollars that it will take to subsidize the oil companies for exploration and drilling and use it HERE. Use it to subsidize the price of gas, use it for research and development of alternative energy sources, use it to offer tax credits on the price of gas, use it as a tax credit for those that invest in alternative energy. Hell use it to replace all of these damn fuel powered power plants with nuclear power.</p>
<p>It doesn&#8217;t really matter in the end because industry and consumers are going to make this drilling plan obsolete. Next year we will see a palethora of electric vehicles, cheaper more efficient hybrid vehicles, gas vapor add on systems for existing vehicles, and the list goes on and on. More than anything the US population will come to despise those who support this rediculous assertion that paying oil companies to drill for oil will somehow lower our price of gasoline.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Retired Spook</title>
		<link>http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68639</link>
		<dc:creator>Retired Spook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:46:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68639</guid>
		<description>Danish,

Have you also noticed that MS almost never responds to specific questions, even when asked to clarify previous statements.  On the rare occasions that he does, his responses often don't fit the posts to which he's responding.  #10 above is a good example.  I'm beginning to think that MS is not an actual human being.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Danish,</p>
<p>Have you also noticed that MS almost never responds to specific questions, even when asked to clarify previous statements.  On the rare occasions that he does, his responses often don&#8217;t fit the posts to which he&#8217;s responding.  #10 above is a good example.  I&#8217;m beginning to think that MS is not an actual human being.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ricorun</title>
		<link>http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68636</link>
		<dc:creator>Ricorun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:09:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68636</guid>
		<description>Everything you ever wanted to know about the official analysis on ANWR (via the EIA) can be found here: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html

In short (from the Intro section), they estimate that it would take about 10 years to start production, reaching a peak of 780,000 barrels per day (mid estimate) in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030.

The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.

OCS info is here: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Everything you ever wanted to know about the official analysis on ANWR (via the EIA) can be found here: </p>
<p><a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html</a></p>
<p>In short (from the Intro section), they estimate that it would take about 10 years to start production, reaching a peak of 780,000 barrels per day (mid estimate) in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030.</p>
<p>The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.</p>
<p>OCS info is here: </p>
<p><a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danish Artist</title>
		<link>http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68632</link>
		<dc:creator>Danish Artist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:00:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68632</guid>
		<description>Magnum Stupidity, still using the CSPAN sources??

The debunked sources that you still refuse to post!

The last time I asked for them you told me to go to CSPAN and look up the hearings.  Well, I did that. I searched "Congressional hearings", "Congressional Oil Hearings" and whatever combination I could think of and your illusive "proof" is still that illusive non-existent!!

What links you did provide were a joke - youtube  videos on "John McSame", and other such nonsense, questioning of "bonuses" or "separation packages for Exxon executive.  But, NONE OF THE PROOF YOU KEEP BABBLING ABOUT!!!

The oil on the "property they already own" has been shown to be economically cost prohibitive.  It would actually raise the price of oil.  Today's technology would not make it easy to get.  The areas that are easier to get at with today's technology is what they are looking for and the Democrats are once again blocking those leases to protect their special interests.

So, once again, Mr. Stupidity, why don't you post your proof or STFU.  Post the links to the Congressional Hearings that you claim exist if they are so easily found.  Why are you stalling?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Magnum Stupidity, still using the CSPAN sources??</p>
<p>The debunked sources that you still refuse to post!</p>
<p>The last time I asked for them you told me to go to CSPAN and look up the hearings.  Well, I did that. I searched &#8220;Congressional hearings&#8221;, &#8220;Congressional Oil Hearings&#8221; and whatever combination I could think of and your illusive &#8220;proof&#8221; is still that illusive non-existent!!</p>
<p>What links you did provide were a joke - youtube  videos on &#8220;John McSame&#8221;, and other such nonsense, questioning of &#8220;bonuses&#8221; or &#8220;separation packages for Exxon executive.  But, NONE OF THE PROOF YOU KEEP BABBLING ABOUT!!!</p>
<p>The oil on the &#8220;property they already own&#8221; has been shown to be economically cost prohibitive.  It would actually raise the price of oil.  Today&#8217;s technology would not make it easy to get.  The areas that are easier to get at with today&#8217;s technology is what they are looking for and the Democrats are once again blocking those leases to protect their special interests.</p>
<p>So, once again, Mr. Stupidity, why don&#8217;t you post your proof or STFU.  Post the links to the Congressional Hearings that you claim exist if they are so easily found.  Why are you stalling?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danish Artist</title>
		<link>http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68630</link>
		<dc:creator>Danish Artist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:51:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68630</guid>
		<description>Magnum Stupidity has regained his position as top liberal moron, a position briefly held by Craptor.

3 year supply in ANWR?  That Mr Stupidity is IF oil was extracted at the 100% demand rate.  If we replace ALL the oil we use on a daily basis then best ESTIMATES is that it will last only 3 years.

FYI, Prudoe Bay was supposed to have run out by now, but it is still pumping out oil with only minor reductions.

The king of liberal talking points is back!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Magnum Stupidity has regained his position as top liberal moron, a position briefly held by Craptor.</p>
<p>3 year supply in ANWR?  That Mr Stupidity is IF oil was extracted at the 100% demand rate.  If we replace ALL the oil we use on a daily basis then best ESTIMATES is that it will last only 3 years.</p>
<p>FYI, Prudoe Bay was supposed to have run out by now, but it is still pumping out oil with only minor reductions.</p>
<p>The king of liberal talking points is back!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Retired Spook</title>
		<link>http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68629</link>
		<dc:creator>Retired Spook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:49:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68629</guid>
		<description>Oops, that should have been "Thanks for your help".</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oops, that should have been &#8220;Thanks for your help&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Retired Spook</title>
		<link>http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68628</link>
		<dc:creator>Retired Spook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:48:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68628</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Next.&lt;/i&gt;

I didn't expect a logical or factually-based answer from you, MS, and, as usual, you didn't disappoint.

&lt;i&gt;You should instead be asking big oil why they do not drill on the billions of oil they are sitting on now.&lt;/i&gt;

I'm not sure what you mean by "billions of oil".  Is that billions of barrels of oil or billions of acres of oil leases?  Could you expand on that with some kind of link or oil industry report or some kind of credible document that shows that American oil companies are sitting on large quantities of oil on existing leases that they are refusing to drill for?

Thanks for you help.

RS</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Next.</i></p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t expect a logical or factually-based answer from you, MS, and, as usual, you didn&#8217;t disappoint.</p>
<p><i>You should instead be asking big oil why they do not drill on the billions of oil they are sitting on now.</i></p>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure what you mean by &#8220;billions of oil&#8221;.  Is that billions of barrels of oil or billions of acres of oil leases?  Could you expand on that with some kind of link or oil industry report or some kind of credible document that shows that American oil companies are sitting on large quantities of oil on existing leases that they are refusing to drill for?</p>
<p>Thanks for you help.</p>
<p>RS</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Magnum Serpentine</title>
		<link>http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68622</link>
		<dc:creator>Magnum Serpentine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:30:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68622</guid>
		<description>Even better,

There is only a 3 year supply of oil in the ANWR. will take 15 years to get out, And still prices will only go down 10 cents if that. You should instead be asking big oil why they do not drill on the billions of oil they are sitting on now.

Next.

A vote for McSame is a vote for a third term for george.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even better,</p>
<p>There is only a 3 year supply of oil in the ANWR. will take 15 years to get out, And still prices will only go down 10 cents if that. You should instead be asking big oil why they do not drill on the billions of oil they are sitting on now.</p>
<p>Next.</p>
<p>A vote for McSame is a vote for a third term for george.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bull</title>
		<link>http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68608</link>
		<dc:creator>bull</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/22/pump-up-the-vote/#comment-68608</guid>
		<description>meanwhile it's that same mentality of, "we won't be able to get the oil for 10 years, so why bother," is why we are in the situation we're in now.  i'm guessing in 95 when clinton could have opened anwar we'd be reaping a lot of that now.

but since our energy needs are in a bit of a crisis we'll keep listening to the left that oil is not the answer and we need to look for alternatives, yet provide no other alternatives that will help us out now or in the future.  oil is the life blood of this nation.  but let's cross our fingers and hope that wind will power our vehicles.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>meanwhile it&#8217;s that same mentality of, &#8220;we won&#8217;t be able to get the oil for 10 years, so why bother,&#8221; is why we are in the situation we&#8217;re in now.  i&#8217;m guessing in 95 when clinton could have opened anwar we&#8217;d be reaping a lot of that now.</p>
<p>but since our energy needs are in a bit of a crisis we&#8217;ll keep listening to the left that oil is not the answer and we need to look for alternatives, yet provide no other alternatives that will help us out now or in the future.  oil is the life blood of this nation.  but let&#8217;s cross our fingers and hope that wind will power our vehicles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
