18 Comments

• 1. The New Conservative  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 3:37 am

  I already saw the ad it’s great!
  http://thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/

• 2. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 4:06 am

  The Ad is lame, little substance to it. The oil he wants to drill will take 15 years to get to market and will only lower gas by 10 cents. Why is McSame so against releasing oil from the national reserves? That will have an instant impact on oil.

  the oil companies need to drill on land they already own.

  Iraq hacked off george by supporting Obama’s plan

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25786952/

  A vote for McSame is a vote for a third term for george.

• 3. Sumofabit  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 7:45 am

  From: edward johnson [mailto:smokedsalmoned@yahoo.com]
  Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 7:23 PM
  To: smokedsalmoned@yahoo.com
  Subject: Wrong On Iraq Wrong For America

  In these trying times we need someone with the experience to make the right decisions. 24 months ago Barack Obama swore that we needed to abandon Iraq, claimed it was unwinnable and derided the surge.

  His plan was to retreat and as of several months ago we would have been out of Iraq. Anyone who remembers Vietnam knows what would have happened. Add to that what it would have done to Oil prices.

  Barack Obama was wrong on Iraq and that it quite telling. He listened to the same committees, the same military men and came up with the wrong conclusion.

  Barack Obamas plan to withdraw would have left us with a humiliating defeat, allies that would never trust us again, a strident Iran, Israel planning to bomb Iran, Al Quada victorious, $300 a barrel oil and a

  guaranteed recession.

• 4. Sumofabit  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 7:46 am

  Wrong On Iraq Wrong For America

  In these trying times we need someone with the experience to make the right decisions. 24 months ago Barack Obama swore that we needed to abandon Iraq, claimed it was unwinnable and derided the surge.

  His plan was to retreat and as of several months ago we would have been out of Iraq. Anyone who remembers Vietnam knows what would have happened. Add to that what it would have done to Oil prices.

  Barack Obama was wrong on Iraq and that it quite telling. He listened to the same committees, the same military men and came up with the wrong conclusion.

  Barack Obamas plan to withdraw would have left us with a humiliating defeat, allies that would never trust us again, a strident Iran, Israel planning to bomb Iran, Al Quada victorious, $300 a barrel oil and a

  guaranteed recession.

• 5. Sumofabit  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 7:48 am

  Oil Supply And Demand
  Merely a week after George Bush publicly pushed Congress to open up off shore drilling Oil has curiously dropped dramatically. Hmnn, perhaps the Democrats are wrong and a future increase in oil supply does effect the futures market for oil thus decreasing the price of oil today.
  Ah, the law of supply and demand, isn’t it Interesting how economics 101 can be so humiliating a lesson to those who should know better.

• 6. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 9:20 am

  Whatever impact that george’s reckless actions had, it was very short lived. Oil is now back to 131. Maybe you should ask the big wig oil companies why they are not drilling on land that holds billions in oil? Oh yes, thats right you republics have fallen for them and believe the big wig oil companies little tale about no oil on the land. (See CSPAN for the various congressional hearings that discovered that there is in fact oil on the land that big oil is sitting there)

  What I would like to know is how can the republics live with themselves after all the obstructionism they have caused? demanding bills be read that take 5 hours to read, holding a vote every 30 seconds? blocking an energy bill? Blocking a bill to regulate the speculators. And the reason the speculators have gone wild? the republic party voted to allow Speculators to run wild.

  Next.

• 7. Retired Spook  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 11:26 am

  The oil he wants to drill will take 15 years to get to market and will only lower gas by 10 cents.

  MS, not sure where you got the 15 year figure since you don’t provide a link. Historical estimates for ANWR, since we first started discussing it in 1988 have been 7-9 years. Had Clinton not vetoed it in 1995 we would already have 3-6 years worth of oil from there. I’ve seen press releases from oil companies that indicate that oil platforms can be moved into shallower areas of the continental shelf and be in full production within a year or 2, 5-6 years for deeper areas. The shale formation in the Dakotas represents a huge potential that is only just now starting to be tapped.

  The bigger question, though, is, if we do nothing to solve the immediate supply issue, as well as achieving some degree of energy independence, how long will it be before vehicles that run on something besides gasoline are available in significant numbers and with the national distribution infrastructure in place to service them? The only alternative fuel at present with any sort of national infrastructure is grain-based ethanol, a choice that, at best, is likely to never be more than a minor player. Would you be in favor of Congress mandating that all vehicles produced in the U.S. run on ethanol by, say 2015? Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), the fuel that T. Boone Pickens is pushing, is, as he notes, a decade away from having a national infrastructure to support it, and probably represents the best short-term alternative at this point. CNG already has a long and successful track record in municipal vehicles like buses, utility vehicles and taxi cabs; it burns clean, and, until recently, was significantly cheaper than gasoline.

  Since you seem to be an expert on this issue, maybe you can answer that question. If, as most thinking people suspect, it’s going to be at least a decade or two, then what happens to the price of gas during that time if we continue to depend mostly on outside sources for oil, and what is the downside effect on our economy?

  My guess is, like most Liberals, your reaction has been more of the knee-jerk variety, and you just haven’t thought this issue through very thoroughly.

• 8. bull  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm

  MS is the o.j. simpson of this blog. say something enough and hopefully someone will start to be it. so please keep posting the same old, tired drivel about obstuctionist republicans. it’s not selling well, but i guess that’s a liberals version. sooner or later it may stick. doubt it though.

• 9. bull  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm

  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.

• 10. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 2:30 pm

  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.

• 11. Retired Spook  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 2:48 pm

  Next.

  I didn’t expect a logical or factually-based answer from you, MS, and, as usual, you didn’t disappoint.

  You should instead be asking big oil why they do not drill on the billions of oil they are sitting on now.

  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

• 12. Retired Spook  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 2:49 pm

  Oops, that should have been “Thanks for your help”.

• 13. Danish Artist  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm

  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!

• 14. Danish Artist  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 3:00 pm

  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?

• 15. Ricorun  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 3:09 pm

  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

• 16. Retired Spook  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 4:46 pm

  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.

• 17. ViralNexus  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 1:15 am

  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.

• 18. Tractatus  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 11:32 pm

  Fact Check says: Your “strong statement” is a tank full of nonsense.

  Better luck next time.