And so God made a liberal

[Uncle Ben]

Priceless!

 

[Uncle Ben]

Liberal tolerance at it's finest.

Ignorance is more like it.

 

[Uncle Ben]

He didn't give a shit about the issue until it personally affected him.

Right, and Obama didn't give a shit about all of his spying activities until Edward Snowden outed him. Now we find out Obama has been breaking into yours and my and European political biggies email accounts and phone conversations. You go head and support the corrupt people. I have a sense of integrity.

And speaking of gays, I have no use for them. They're promiscuous, selfish and a bad example for the wholesome and normal upbringing of children. (There....that's gonna get the queers riled up LOL)

 

[randybishop]

I am a ultra liberal, but none of these things are me.
So are you saying just because I am a liberal I am a bad person? Seems mean spirited. I thought we were a community.

P.S. Your topping technique is working great!!

 

[Uncle Ben]

I am a ultra liberal, but none of these things are me.
So are you saying just because I am a liberal I am a bad person? Seems mean spirited. I thought we were a community. ;(

I used to be a liberal too, until I grew up. I didn't leave the liberal party. They left me.

Krauthammer (another brilliant FOX news contributor) was also a liberal.

You really need to read his book "Things that Matter". There's a damn good reason he's a Pulitzer Prize winner.

 

[randybishop]

I used to be a liberal too, until I grew up. I didn't leave the liberal party. They left me. Krauthammer was also a liberal.

You really need to read his book "Things that Matter". There's a damn good reason he's a Pulitzer Prize winner.

I guess I have not grown up in that case (almost 50 yrs old).

 

[Doer]

Great job dumping petro-chemical products all over the rural farming community.

Another example of conservatives not giving a shit about the planet or others.

And you are supposes to be some kind of shinny example of goodness?

 

[canndo]

The bureaucrat loving left and their studies LOL

We can't burn coal because it's bad for the air quality
We can't build hydro electric dams because of indigenous fish spawns
We can't use fossil fuels because of global warming
We can't use wind turbines because it kills birds.
We can't construct new nuclear reactors because of radiation

And you blame everyone else because we can't find jobs.

Another rightist, false paradox, just so they can demonstrate how very smart they are and how confused liberals are. Do Republicans have such a problem with blanace and traidoff? From what I see of late, They do. I noticed you conveniently left out solar and bio.

 

[canndo]

You think the fact that construction workers will get very good paying jobs for a few years to build the pipeline is not a good thing, because the hundreds or thousands of construction workers will eventually go build something else? The same thing could have been said about the interstate highway system.

The leaks only serve to ensure continued employment for a few more people.

Unlike the Alaskan pipeline, I see no obstacle to putting this one underground. One certainly couldn't dig there, but if its pasture land, which the bulk of it is if it is being used at all, then it wont even have a lasting impact.

Take a look at a pipeline map of the United States sometime. They are everywhere.

Yes, they are everywhere, as are the leaks, in this case they are perfectly willing to ruin one of the largest aquifers in the country. The majority of the oil simply travels across our country and yields us little energy. I am sure that somewhere in W. Va someone was saying the same thing about a certain storage facility, even as people's individual wells were being polluted by other chemicals. then, all of a sudden, why, "Shit happens!" entire waterways get polluted to the point that people can't even bathe, and their pesonal wells are already long gone. But why not? It's 40,000 jobs for 6 months or a year (the highway system took far longer, didn't pollute as much and was, most of it anyway a boon to our own economy, not another country's.

All of the folks whow are in favor of individualty and personal domain have no problem forcing those land owners to put other country's leaky pipelines across their land. So which is it? who's land is it really? want to tell me?

 

[canndo]

I think the opposition to the pipeline is more about the hatred for fossil fuels and the thought is if we let the pipeline come here, it will retard our quest for alternative energy.

We are going to use oil in this country, whether we get it from our ground or from other countries. We gave Brazil 5Billion to drill offshore there so we could buy it from them instead of drilling here. Not sure how buying it from someone other than ourselves helps in global warming. We are at the mercy of OPEC and have our noses firmly in the middle east because we won't drill here.

We are going to use fossil fuels until something better is discovered or invented. Denying our country a chance at energy independence in the mean time is counter-intuitive. Whether that energy source comes from our own backyard or our neighbor's backyard is not what is going to depend on alternatives.

This is the same short sighted nonesense that the right spews constantly. The pipeline will NOT help our energy situation. There is no guarantee that oil pumped in the U.S. will stay there and it's prices will be about the same as the prices anywhere else on earth. We will indeed continue to burn oil until the wells start producing more salt water than oil and the prices rise. then we will begin to look in earnest for something else - in the mean time our econom collapses as we wait for an alternative and then for the insfrastructure to deliver that alternative.


We don't like oil because it is dying and we are enduring ever increasing fluctiuations depending upon some silver bullet at the last second that will come and save us. And finaly, wouln'dt it be prudent to burn other people's reserves before we burn our own, considering, as I have said that the price is fungible and will remain about the same anywhere in the world?

You seem to believe that their are abundant reserves in the continental U.S. - there are not, new recovery technology will take the cost of extraction ever closer to the price. Coal sands are NOT wells and we have not had what could be called a super find in decades, nor will we. What do you think? we send folks out to wonder the countryside looking for structures that have oil? In 150 years pretty much every square inche of the country has been examned and we havn't found much. What makes you think that we will all of a sudden, with satelites, sophisticated ground radar, sonar and every other method imaginable will find that super field that we just missed?

 

[ginwilly]

canndo, you act as though we don't already have pipelines here, you act as new pipelines wouldn't be a boon to the economy when the Dakotas would say you are clueless. You act as though we would use less oil if we are forced to use imported rather than domestic.

The only reasons you can state against using domestic oil is emotional and your opinion.

 

[canndo]

I think our reluctance to drill for oil might be strategic.

I tend to think that we might not ever run out of oil, I think the planet makes it. I'm not a big fan of the theory that all oil is liquefied plants and animals. But then again, geology and what other discipline might apply are ones I don't study too much. SO I'm no expert. (In other words, I do not wish to derail the thread to discuss the opinion I just gave. I provided a warning that I'm not an expert, I am well aware that most scientists think oil is plant and animal remains, so be it.)

Provided the theory that we get oil from plants and animals is true, one day we will run out. Some say that day is near. But most say that day will come. Yet the US and Canada (from what I heard on TV the other day) have more oil in the shale areas than all of the mid-east.

Might the United States be sandbagging production so that if we (the Earth) are going to run out of oil one day, that we (North America) will be the last place with a vast reserve in the ground?

Even if the ground manufactures it's own oil by some unknown process, our known reserves have shrunk dramaticly and the process of replenishment will never ben on par with our consumption. If the earth made it's own in that fashion we would have already been swimming in it(literaly). Again, a little thought it in order here. The day is near, there is every indication of that. The greatest fields in the world are in the Saudi Arabian penninsula. They are, as best anyone outside of the area can guess, giving up percentages of salt water. This is an evil sign, those large fields are running dry. They have always been the great buffers to global shortfalls. When they are no longer able, or no longer willing (it is a little known fact that a field can be ruined by pumping it out at too quick a rate - it is not how much our reserves are so much as what our production capacity is. It makes no difference if our reserves are 3 billion gallons if we can only produce 10,000 gallons and we need 30,000 gallons, we will still have a catestrophic short fall).

And if what you say is true, it may very well be. Who is to say that we will reserve that oil for our selves rather than sell it to Japan or China? What of our "energy independence" then? what does it say that the world's richest oil producing countries are investing heavily in alternative energy while we simply go on sucking on their teat and giving them the money with which to sustain themselves even as we run dry?

 

[beenthere]

Another rightist, false paradox, just so they can demonstrate how very smart they are and how confused liberals are. Do Republicans have such a problem with blanace and traidoff? From what I see of late, They do. I noticed you conveniently left out solar and bio.

False paradox, really!

So the left, generally speaking, are proponents of the five energy sources I listed?
Can we get you to back up that claim of yours with some supportive facts or should we just take your word for it.?

And no canndo, I didn't conveniently leave out solar and bio fuels, I only listed current viable energy sources, which solar and bio-energy fuels are NOT.

As far as bio-energy, I forgot about that one and should add it to my list as a liberal failure.

 

[canndo]

canndo, you act as though we don't already have pipelines here, you act as new pipelines wouldn't be a boon to the economy when the Dakotas would say you are clueless. You act as though we would use less oil if we are forced to use imported rather than domestic.

The only reasons you can state against using domestic oil is emotional and your opinion.

Of course there are pipelines in the U.S., the majority of which go from one place within the united states to another place, within the united states. This pipeline originates from outside of the U.s. and goes to a U.S. port, the morjority of the resulting oil leaves this country. It isn't our oil.

We will use less oil if the oil is imported but that isn't the point. The U.S. is long past peak oil, we will never ever produce easily recoverable reserves in this country again. Also it is a matter not of total reserves but of production capacity, which is decreasing over time. There is nothing emotional about my opinion at all, it is an assessment of facts. Show me one, just one, super large find of easily recovered sweet crude in the country of off of its coast and for a while at least, everything changes. The last one we found was on the north slope in Alaska - it is depleated, producing a fraction of what it once did.

Unless we find more under the poles (in disputed territory), or in politicaly unaproachable places, we will never find any again. One of the rightist taunts about methanol is it's net energy yield. Some say it is even a negative. Apply that to oil. There was a time when petroleum was virtually free for the pumping. Now, with shale and sands, a substantial amount of money AND energy is required for the same energy return we had 60 years ago. Now what do you think is going to happen to the price of oil when it costs 50 percent of the energy produced, to make it in the first place?

 

[canndo]

False paradox, really!

So the left, generally speaking, are proponents of the five energy sources I listed?
Can we get you to back up that claim of yours with some supportive facts or should we just take your word for it.?

And no canndo, I didn't conveniently leave out solar and bio fuels, I only listed current viable energy sources, which solar and bio-energy fuels are NOT.

As far as bio-energy, I forgot about that one and should add it to my list as a liberal failure.

The left are not "proponents" so much as willing to try all of them in concert as they phase them out. They will not be phased out so long as they are propped up by government and propagandized "clean coal" my ass, there is no such thing and never ever will be.

As for nuclear, you be the judge, there have been two level 7 events and a number of lesserr ones. We still have no idea where to place the waste and we really don't know what the total per kw cost really is if you include decommissioning of the plant and sequester of the byproducts. Nor, incidently, is uranium infinite and easy to mine.

There are places for windmills, not all of them kill birds and, at this late dates, unfortunately because the right didn't listen, the birds will have to take a hit - it is more than disingenuous of the right to be, all of a sudden, concerned about birds when they have been poisoning them for years anyway.

Again, you seem to have a lack of understanding and shortsightedness of biofuels, you problably think that it is jut ethanol and that it must surely be taking food out of poor babies mouths, right?

 

[Uncle Ben]

There was a time when petroleum was virtually free for the pumping. Now, with shale and sands, a substantial amount of money AND energy is required for the same energy return we had 60 years ago. Now what do you think is going to happen to the price of oil when it costs 50 percent of the energy produced, to make it in the first place?

How do you feel about the politically correct fed mandate adding ethanol to gas? It's another stupid liberal government solution, window dressing, feel good stuff. It harms certain engine parts, is very costly to produce, drives up the price of corn and commodities like feed, breakfast cereal, etc.

It takes a tremendous amount of OIL, fossil fuels, to produce ethanol - farm equipment, labor, fertilizers, fuel and lubes for the equipment, energy for the distillation process, etc. And everyone remembers other Obama follies or scandals like Solyndra that cost a half billion public dollars. The guy is wreckless and as worthless as tits on a bull. I don't know what's worse with this nutjob, his foreign policy or energy policies.

UB

 

[Wilksey]

 

[ginwilly]

Of course there are pipelines in the U.S., the majority of which go from one place within the united states to another place, within the united states. This pipeline originates from outside of the U.s. and goes to a U.S. port, the morjority of the resulting oil leaves this country. It isn't our oil.

We will use less oil if the oil is imported but that isn't the point. The U.S. is long past peak oil, we will never ever produce easily recoverable reserves in this country again. Also it is a matter not of total reserves but of production capacity, which is decreasing over time. There is nothing emotional about my opinion at all, it is an assessment of facts. Show me one, just one, super large find of easily recovered sweet crude in the country of off of its coast and for a while at least, everything changes. The last one we found was on the north slope in Alaska - it is depleated, producing a fraction of what it once did.

Unless we find more under the poles (in disputed territory), or in politicaly unaproachable places, we will never find any again. One of the rightist taunts about methanol is it's net energy yield. Some say it is even a negative. Apply that to oil. There was a time when petroleum was virtually free for the pumping. Now, with shale and sands, a substantial amount of money AND energy is required for the same energy return we had 60 years ago. Now what do you think is going to happen to the price of oil when it costs 50 percent of the energy produced, to make it in the first place?

We say we need to open domestic oil production and you say but the Keystone is Canadian. It's like I'm saying 3 + 3 = 6 and you are saying that's false because 2 + 2 = 4. Forget about the keystone for just a sec and realize we are talking about domestic oil production. The Keystone pipeline is a completely different topic, yet what the keystone does show is that oil production and transportation is a huge plus for our economy. Imagine how much more the boon would be if it were not a Canadian company using chinese steel.

I guess you have missed all of the new oil discoveries in the mainland if you think the Alaska find was the latest, or if they only count if they are super easily recoverable.

Tell me the downside of divorcing from OPEC, is it the dollar?

You've stated you want a 2 dollar tax to decrease oil consumption, you can't then say the reason you are against domestic oil is any other reason and convince us you are being sincere. That's the problem with emotional arguments, they leave you spinning when your "facts" are contradictory.

Studies say we have 200 years of oil on our soil with present technology. To assume technology doesn't advance in that time frame is pretty pessimistic. To think using our own productions instead of oil from the middle east means we are married to oil for life is even more so.

To say you are concerned about the generations 200 years from now not having oil use while supporting policies that have us 17 Trillion in debt means you are a hypocrite.

 

[Dr Kynes]

seriously, you lefties got your bloomers in a bunch over THAT shit?

fuck, grow a pair and learn to accept some criticism.

you clowns sure do love to dish it out but you simply cannot take it.

this is almost as retarded as the intense butthurt over Clint Eastwood's interview with an empty chair.

 

[Dr Kynes]

We say we need to open domestic oil production and you say but the Keystone is Canadian. It's like I'm saying 3 + 3 = 6 and you are saying that's false because 2 + 2 = 4. Forget about the keystone for just a sec and realize we are talking about domestic oil production. The Keystone pipeline is a completely different topic, yet what the keystone does show is that oil production and transportation is a huge plus for our economy. Imagine how much more the boon would be if it were not a Canadian company using chinese steel.

I guess you have missed all of the new oil discoveries in the mainland if you think the Alaska find was the latest, or if they only count if they are super easily recoverable.

Tell me the downside of divorcing from OPEC, is it the dollar?

You've stated you want a 2 dollar tax to decrease oil consumption, you can't then say the reason you are against domestic oil is any other reason and convince us you are being sincere. That's the problem with emotional arguments, they leave you spinning when your "facts" are contradictory.

Studies say we have 200 years of oil on our soil with present technology. To assume technology doesn't advance in that time frame is pretty pessimistic. To think using our own productions instead of oil from the middle east means we are married to oil for life is even more so.

To say you are concerned about the generations 200 years from now not having oil use while supporting policies that have us 17 Trillion in debt means you are a hypocrite.

dude, really.

chezus's thoughts on oil are as well grounded in reality, expertise and education on the subject as his suggestions on how to grow dope.

youre arguing the details of the Unix command line with a naked aborigine who thinks lightbulbs are magic