Dubya's quest for oil

[George Brown]

So... the Bush administration have been given the go-ahead by the US House of Representatives to drill for oil and gas in an Alaskan wildlife reserve.
Dubya says opening up 2000 of the reserve's 19 million acres to the fuel industry is vital to solve the US energy crisis and cut dependence on foreign supplies.
The plans were contained in a wide-ranging Energy Bill, and were passed 223 votes to 206 but still have to get the Senate's vote. Apparently the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could contain the equivalent of 16 million barrels of oil.
I thought that those of you that believe that all life is equal might have a view on what your elected leaders are planning.

[Anonymous]

may Dubya be eaten by polar bears.

[Peter Kristensson]

I think that if America concentrated their efforts on reducing energy usage, and developing and finding new more environment-friendly sources of energy, they wouldn't need new places to drill for oil.
They should not use up so many resources so that they endanger the energy needs of future generations.
I think that it's time for the US government to realise that the path they're walking isn't sustainable on the long run.

[Ronnie Johnson]

Amen Brother. It is amazing that a man that dumb was put (in my opinion he was not "elected") into office, it is actually quite scary.

[Anonymous]

Isn't Dubya from an oil family? or an ex oil executive or something?

[Thomas Paul]

This so-called wildlife reserve is an area of Tundra where no animals live because it is completely barren. This is not some pristine forest. They are talking about opening up a tiny portion of the overall area.
But if Ronnie is that concerned I guess we can strip mine is backyard for coal and use his frontyard to burn it.

[Ronnie Johnson]

First off Thomas, let me assume you are a republican. Seondly, I don't think there is coal in my back yard.

[This message has been edited by Ronnie Johnson (edited August 03, 2001).]

[Conrad Kirby]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
But if Ronnie is that concerned I guess we can strip mine is backyard for coal and use his frontyard to burn it.

What point were you trying to make here?

[Jake the Snake]

Ronnie, we are still waiting for you to post something intelligent or ...funny. You are kind of funny ( read that "stupid") but I still think you can do better than that.
J

[Ronnie Johnson]

Oh no, sounds like someone is a little mad. Boo-hoo, whats the matter, could it be, as you so often talk about, that "your head is stuck in your ass? " or is that fake name you are using because you're a wuss? I do not post here to try to please anyone, or fit any one's ideals of what they think is funny or intelligent. And I will have to say I have not seen anything intelligent or funny, or even remotely well thought out in the posts I have seen you give.

[This message has been edited by Ronnie Johnson (edited August 03, 2001).]

[Andy Ceponis]

Anyone seen those pictures of Bush next to a chimp?
Makes the chimps look bad imo.

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Peter Kristensson:
I think that if America concentrated their efforts on reducing energy usage, and developing and finding new more environment-friendly sources of energy, they wouldn't need new places to drill for oil.
They should not use up so many resources so that they endanger the energy needs of future generations.
I think that it's time for the US government to realise that the path they're walking isn't sustainable on the long run.

That sounds nice on paper, but California has been doing the conservation thing for years. They are the ones suffering the mosts. That leads me to believe that conservation is not the answer.
Finding alternatives is a great idea. Nuclear is a good alternative, but environmentalists nixed it already.
Matthew Phillips

[Andy Ceponis]

For the record i am not on either side.
But come on, to say that California has been conserving energy for years is a crock of crap-ola. Name me one person who has really put forth an effort at conservation. Noone i know says "Oh i dont need to turn on the lights tonite" or "I wont run the air for a few days bacause of the shortage". Conservation is a nice buzzword, nothing more.

[Anonymous]

Maybe we need to pull people from their homes and gun them down in the street if they leave their lights on. That'll learn 'em.

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Andy Ceponis:
For the record i am not on either side.
But come on, to say that California has been conserving energy for years is a crock of crap-ola. Name me one person who has really put forth an effort at conservation. Noone i know says "Oh i dont need to turn on the lights tonite" or "I wont run the air for a few days bacause of the shortage". Conservation is a nice buzzword, nothing more.

I am just regurgitating the crap that California politicians spewed for years. The truth of the matter is that for years the environmentalists have stopped California businesses from building new power plants. The result is the power crunch.
This is where I run into a big problem with some environmentalists. Their answer to this power crunch is to put price fixes on the power and then not generate more. They want to fix the national problem with the same band-aid that hurt California.
The real issue is that the environmentalist movement has become a home to anti-capitalists. I am certainly not saying that all environmentalists are such, but it seems that the most vocal ones are. It is truly a shame, because their rhetoric will not save the planet.
Matthew Phillips
P.S. That will be three-and-a-half cents please.

[David Weitzman]

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
The real issue is that the environmentalist movement has become a home to anti-capitalists

Sooooooo right. What ever happened to the ideas this country was founded on? Why are there people who spend their time yelling at the people who gave them a society where they have the time and leisure to spend time their time yelling at people? Why is it that what was once a country founded on classical liberalism, freedom, and a good life for all now view liberals as conservatives and communists as liberals?
God, don't get me started on how the anti-capitalists are taking over the world. Alright, I'll rant a little (wait...I already have).
English Class = where all kids are forced to go and banned from thinking = where you read the works of Communists (Arthur Miller), Romantics (pretty much anyone who qualifies as an 'American' author in English class), Anti-Capitalists (the romantics), Anarchists (Thorough, the Romantics), Racists (books written by indignant black people -- I still can't believe that Toni Morrison got a Pulitzer for that crap). Before I go crazy, I think I'm going to stop.

[Ronnie Johnson]

I dislike english class especially because we have to read stupid books over the summer, and you have to take english all 4 years. And if you are not retarted and make an A like I did they put you in AP english, in which the only difference is that all the books are in old english so every thing is impossible. All you need to know how to do is to read and write enough so other people can understand you, that is all language is. Grammar is unimportant if someone can understand you same with spelling. The only fun thing to do in english class is to assert on the first day that every word is actually an adjective (it's true, think about it).

[Kathy Lynch]

Thomas, I am often suprised by the rudeness of your replies. As a rep of the Java Forum you should probably watch that.

[George Brown]

What? you've never met rude bartenders before? Not even at closing time?

[Thomas Paul]

So saying that the president is dumb is not rude but saying that we could strip mine Ronnie's backyard is rude. Ummmm... interesting concept. So personal insults are acceptable. Just don't attack a man's home!

[Kathy Lynch]

I see your point but I'm assuming that George is too busy to be hanging at the JavaRanch and reading posts. Ronnie isn't though (me either!), and I read that as a personal attack for having an opinion you didn't agree with.

[Thomas Paul]

How can suggesting that strip mining is the result of failure to search for oil be considered a personal attack? I really don't get it. If I had said Ronnie was an idiot (which certainly isn't true) then you could say that I had made a personal attack. Or do you mean that disagreeing with you in itself represents a personal attack?

[David Weitzman]

I think we should just call the President 'President' and the government 'The Government' and shouldn't always talk about 'Bush' or 'The Clinton Administration.' Personal issues should not be mixed with issues of the state. When you refer to a judge as 'Your Honor' instead of 'Melvin' you keep an objective view of whatever it is that you are viewing. Does anyone else agree?

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by David Garland:
I think we should just call the President 'President' and the government 'The Government' and shouldn't always talk about 'Bush' or 'The Clinton Administration.' Personal issues should not be mixed with issues of the state. When you refer to a judge as 'Your Honor' instead of 'Melvin' you keep an objective view of whatever it is that you are viewing. Does anyone else agree?

I think it depends on the context. In a forum such as this, I think informal terms are acceptable. If I were at a dinner party with Bush, then it would be Mr. President all the way.
Matthew Phillips

[Kathy Lynch]

Your post implied that anyone who doesn't believe that opening a wildlife refuge for drilling oil is the solution to our energy problems should open up their back yard to whatever assault you feel necessary. So it is not the fact that you disagree with me that I find rude, but that if someone disagrees with you, you're ready to rip apart their back yard. No discussion of the facts, rebuttal of the points made, just a personal attack. I find that rude, especially as a representative of the JavaRanch.

[Andrew Shafer]

Maybe you thought this was the Politically Correct Ranch?

[Cindy Glass]

Kathy, this is Meaningless Drivel. Thomas is allowed to Drivel as much as the next guy, and I think most of the folks here can attest to the amount of Meaninglessness that goes on here.
Try to relax. Then plan your revenge. I personally wouldn't mind a REALLY good prank to play on Thomas . I just can't think of one .

[Kathy Lynch]

Common courtesy and politically correct are two different things. I'm against political correctness, not courtesy.
Anyway, my point was not just in response to this thread. I have seen Thomas reply in this manner to several political discussions and I wish that he wouldn't. Several times he has had great points that get muddled in terse or rude responses. In fact, he has had excellent points in gun control debates and similiarly contentious issues and has even proven persuasive in some of my viewpoints. Having said that, he doesn't always respect others views and meaningless drivel or not, I don't think that goes in the spirit of the forum.

[Andy Ceponis]

Originally posted by Kathy Lynch:
Common courtesy and politically correct are two different things. I'm against political correctness, not courtesy.
Anyway, my point was not just in response to this thread. I have seen Thomas reply in this manner to several political discussions and I wish that he wouldn't. Several times he has had great points that get muddled in terse or rude responses. In fact, he has had excellent points in gun control debates and similiarly contentious issues and has even proven persuasive in some of my viewpoints. Having said that, he doesn't always respect others views and meaningless drivel or not, I don't think that goes in the spirit of the forum.

Just because Thomas might be a mod here means that he can only post nice flowery posts? Come on. This is a place to relax, have some fun, some flames, and vent a little. And i find it rude that you are telling someone else how to post and not post. Especially in a forum about NOTHING. Relax a little, let your hair down, take a bath.......CALGON TAKE ME AWAY!!!

[Manku Thimma]

Yo Kathy, you thinkin Tom's rude,
But why don't you stop being a prude,
'Cause I'm in the mood to get you booed.
I don't want no feud,
But nobody wants to get screwed,
Being shrewd ain't no cause for being poohed.
Considah yourself cued,
Before you get fully chewed,
'Cause it ain't lewd to be thinkin skewed.


[This message has been edited by Manku Thimma (edited August 07, 2001).]

[Andrew Shafer]

Kathy,
I don't think you are being rude but perhaps slightly demanding.
I agree with most of your observations about Thomas, but "common courtesy" and "political correctness" are inextricably tangled and no one is in a position to demand either.
I've sparred a few rounds with Thomas, and though I seldom agree with his perspective or his manner of presentation, I find his willingness to disagree refreshing.
JavaRanch is JavaRanch and meaningless is meaningless. This ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

[Thomas Paul]

But if Ronnie is that concerned I guess we can strip mine is backyard for coal and use his frontyard to burn it.

OK, this, apparently, is the post that Kathy finds offensive. The point being that if you are opposed to drilling for oil then alternate sources of energy must be found. In the US, that means basically coal which is generally strip mined in someone's backyard. It is then burned in someone's backyard. It is a source of acid rain and other pollutants. The point of all this is that if you are opposed to drilling for oil then let's hear your ideas on where to get our energy.
If this is an example of a post that offends Kathy then she really needs to get out more. But I would be interested in hearing about my other offensive posts. Any examples?
Also note that MD is the wild west and we do expect a certain amount of kidding around. This is the "drivel" forum. If you want a serious conversation about oil drilling in Alaska then there are hundreds of political forums you can try.

[Anonymous]

As a former California resident and a current CA homeowner, conservation does happen. The local news agencies broadcast warnings to people that they should raise their thermostats a few degrees in the summer, turn off lights they aren't using, check and replace damaged window and door seals, etc. It may not sound like much, but when 25 million people each use 1 killowat hour less electricity in a month, the results are astounding.
And for the record, the problem in California is that the industry was only partially deregulated. Politicians wanted customers to be able to choose their utility, but not to pay prices determined by the market. The result is that power companies sell their power outisde the state. If you could get $2500 per Megawatt/hr by selling your power to Colorado, or $250 per Megawatt/hr by selling to California, what would you do? And would you be highly motivated to build more plants in CA?
As for the cleanliness of the power plants, they have nothing to do with the oil debate. We don't use our petrolium to generate electricity. In this country, less than 10% of our electricity is generated from oil. Most comes from coal (which was not strip mined from my yard, but it had to come from somewhere).
In 1990 the EPA introduced emission credits for SO2 and NOx emissions which are traded as commodities. This prompted some companies to build cleaner plants and sell their excess emission credits. The result has been the reversal of a trend. From 1989 to 1990 (and in previous years) the number of tons of sulfer and nitrogen oxides released into the air was on the rise. But since 1990 emissions have stopped increasing and have actually been reduced by 29%.
George Bush Sr. came up with that plan, so all of the tree-hugging Democrats can pipe down .
Also, have all of the people that are screaming about Dubya not ratifying the Kyoto Treaty actually looked at the facts? We would be accountable to somebody other than ourselves to meet an arbitrary emission standard, and the impact on our economy would be huge. Signing that treaty would have been stupid. We can accomplish the same thing on our own using market controls like emission credits without hurting our economy to please the social conciences of the country's tree-huggers.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Bodie Minster:
As a former California resident and a current CA homeowner, conservation does happen. The local news agencies broadcast warnings to people that they should raise their thermostats a few degrees in the summer, turn off lights they aren't using, check and replace damaged window and door seals, etc. It may not sound like much, but when 25 million people each use 1 killowat hour less electricity in a month, the results are astounding.

I thought this was funny... PSE&G the New Jersey electricity electric utility has been asking everyone to turn their thermostats to 80 degrees to save electricity used for air conditioning. One of the local radio stations went to their corporate office to see what the temp was. You guessed it... they were set to a nice comfy 75 degrees through their 1 million square foot facility.

[Andrew Shafer]

Thomas,
I don't think your posts are necessarily offensive, but sometimes a bit terse and/or condescending. I kinda like it.
Another thing to consider, the response was to a post by Ronnie, not that this makes anything right or wrong, but it wasn't exactly Ronnie's first post nor your first response in this forum. I think perhaps there is a certain facade of sensibility that fades with familiarity.
No Blood, No Foul, Play On

[Thomas Paul]

Ronnie wrote:

Amen Brother. It is amazing that a man that dumb was put (in my opinion he was not "elected") into office, it is actually quite scary.

So the supposition could be that anyone who agrees with the president must also be dumb. But I wasn't offended because this is MD and the only purpose of MD is to have fun. Give me an opportunity and I will zing you and I hope you will return the favor.