HoseHeads.com | HoseHeads Classifieds | Racer's Auction
Home | Register | Contact | Verify Email FAQ |
Blogs | Photo Gallery | Press Release | Results | RacersAuction.com | HoseheadsClassifieds.com

Welcome Guest. Already registered? Please Login

 

Forum: HoseHeads Sprint Car General Forum (go)
Moderators: hosehead


Records per page
 
Topic: the truth about reps and oil Email this topic to a friend | Subscribe to this TopicReport this Topic to Moderator
Page 1 of 1   of  5 replies
OKCFan12
MyWebsite
July 21, 2008 at 02:41:37 PM
Joined: 04/18/2005
Posts: 2605
Reply

hopefully our next president figures this out fast so that we will still have some oil left for things outside of passenger vehicle - like - i dont know - say ----- sprint cars wink
with McCain and offshore drilling - - - well at least he thinks it will put a smile on your face lol. guess like every other republican he's only thinking of the CEO's of oil companies ----- since I think they would be the only ones smiling......20 years? by then the rest of the world would be bout out if oil - so whatever we pull out then - wont just go to us. amazing what happens when you allow yourself to swindled with BS -------- like - electing the worst leader in the history of the world - and still not being smart enough to see where ya got it wrong.

What Bush Didn't Promise: Lower Gas Prices

Posted July 14, 2008 | 02:54 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
Buzz up!
Like this story? Get Alerts of big news events. Enter your email address

President Bush just announced a lifting of the executive branch ban on most coastal drilling. It does not actually open up the coasts to drilling, because Congress would need to follow suit. The political intent is simply to put pressure on Congress to cave on drilling.

Bush's Rose Garden statement was artfully crafted. He lamented the high price of gas. He called for drilling off the coasts to "expand oil production."

But if you read it closely, you'll notice Bush did not explicitly claim that coastal drilling would significantly lower the price of the gas.

Because it won't. There's simply not enough oil there to make an impact.

Don't believe me? Ask the White House yourself.

Reporters already did last month. And the White House spokeswoman conceded the point. When answering a question how coastal drilling isn't a short-term solution, she said, "...there's not a real good short-term answer. And we've been very explicit about that from the beginning...There's not going to be a short-term response, and it would be irresponsible for anybody to suggest there would be."

Sen. John McCain also admitted that he doesn't see "immediate relief" from coastal drilling, but only a "psychological impact."

That's because based on numbers from Bush's own Energy Department, drilling in the banned areas off the coasts and in ANWR would only produce enough oil to reduce the price of gas $0.06 a gallon from where the cost would otherwise be two decades from now.

And the Energy Department specifically that coastal drilling alone would have no impact on prices until the year 2030.

Bush does not challenge the numbers from his Energy Department. He just ignores them.

But while Bush will not explicitly claim that coastal drilling will lower prices, he is certainly trying to exploit the pain Americans are feeling at the pump and mislead voters into believing more drilling will lead to lower prices.

Exploit and mislead. That what Bush knows best. But it will do nothing to lower our energy costs.

We need short-term relief, with a more robust and targeted economic stimulus package to help us deal with rising costs.

And we need a long-term energy policy that increases the supply of renewable energy and reduces demand with energy-efficient technologies.

By investing $30 billion a year for 10 years in the Apollo Alliance plan, we can create 3 million green-collar jobs and rapidly transition to a clean energy economy.

That's a third of the annual cost of the Iraq occupation, and half the time it would take to reduce gas prices 6 cents with coastal drilling.

The Bush administration had eight years to implement such a long-term energy policy that he himself says we need. In his own words: "in the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies."

He did nothing. And today, he proposes nothing. Nothing that would actually help us with rising energy costs.


www.myspace.com/sfsfantasyleague 

OKCFan12@yahoo.com

Mr. Mac
July 21, 2008 at 08:12:13 PM
Joined: 12/01/2004
Posts: 186
Reply

YAWN YAWN YAWN...post that shit on iloveliberals.com



t-dub
MyWebsite
July 21, 2008 at 08:30:40 PM
Joined: 11/06/2005
Posts: 266
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: Mr. Mac on July 21 2008 at 08:12:13 PM

YAWN YAWN YAWN...post that shit on iloveliberals.com



NO DOUBT! What he said...........


"RED EYES, WHITE KNUCKLES, and DIRTY BRITCHES!" 

team wright-one
MyWebsite
July 21, 2008 at 09:03:36 PM
Joined: 11/29/2005
Posts: 1427
Reply
This message was edited on July 21, 2008 at 09:21:14 PM by team wright-one

if we need to do everything we can to cut foreign oil use, why do libs try to stop offshore drilling, wind power, nuculear power, ect? it is going to take much longer to get so called "green" fuel sources online than it would take to get more of our oil online. some say offshore oil could be online in 3 to 5 years. if we would have acted 15-20 years ago instead of listening to procrastinating libs we would be further along. i have not heard anyone say we should not to keep going foreward with development of other fuel sources. NOTHING is going to solve our problem immediatly, yet libs refuse to own up to the fact that the production of our own oil has the best chance of giving us relief in the short term. why not take short term AND long term plans and implement something that will show the middle east countries that we are going to do ALL we can to cut our dependence from them? no matter what anyone thinks, right now we have NO good alternitive to petrolium fuels that we could implement. the numbers that say 10-20 years before we can get oil on line from offshore have been debunked and debated time after time by economists that have reserched economic timelines and from folks that know about timelines for oil resource development. i just think that folks with alternate agendas on both side are wasting time.



releehwnepo
July 21, 2008 at 09:26:54 PM
Joined: 06/06/2008
Posts: 161
Reply

Well...I read the whole thing.

After reading it, all I can say is, "It gave me gas!" (no pun intended!)Frown


Calling an illegal immigrant an "undocumented worker" 
is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed 
pharmacist!"

dbamber
July 21, 2008 at 10:23:12 PM
Joined: 11/25/2004
Posts: 21
Reply
All that I can add to this drivel is that where I live (90 miles from anywhere) that the ICE * is the only mode of transportation around here! Any efforts towards more drilling off our coasts, ANWR, etc. can only help. The only mass transportation here other than your car, or truck is a horse. We have our only source of Mass Transit, a 15 passenger van that comes through town from Show Low on it's way to the airport in Phoenix around 10 am, and returns 5 hours later. Battery powered, hydrogen, or whatever technology, to free us from oil is only a pipe dream out here in the hinterlands. So saying that any efforts to develop more of our resources won't help is only FUBAR, IMO.* BTW: ICE is Internal Combustion Engine. We need to develop more of our resources to free us from our dependence of imported energy, not throwing up our arms in despair, saying it's too late to do anything. To me, this is the major difference between the doom, and gloom naysayers, and the American Spirit of Git Her Done!



Post Reply
You must be logged in to Post a Message.
Not a member register Here.
Already registered? Please Login



If you have a website and would like to set up a forum here at HoseHeadForums.com
please contact us by using the contact link at the top of the page.

© 2008 HoseHeadForums.com Privacy Policy