The Democrats and their stunning hypocrisy on oil.

Actually, the definition of "Sticking your fingers in your ears, squeezing your eyes closed and loudly yelling, 'LA LA LALA LA LA, LA LALA LA LA,' " would be saying that the solution is something that doesn't exist right now while ignoring the idea of getting more of what does exist right now.

 

Not gonna happen. The US government has inflicted a strictly-hands-off policy on the American intelligence community vis-a-vis Arabia since the 1950s.

 

Not to repeat myself, but the story o_t posted has nothing to do with the accusations o_t makes in the thread title or in his subsequent posts. Not that the truth is in any way important to a discussion of national resources. More important to keep the cost of gassing up that JetSki low, especially come Memorial Day weekend.

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.

The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow.

It's antitrust legislation.

 

Old Tony says he knows where there's some gasoline. A big tanker. They pumping gas all day they are. Ka chunka chunka chunka.

 

BTW, you can give a big assist to Shrub's brother and noted enviromentalist Mel Martinez for the hands-off policy in the Gulf.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=053002&ID=s1156519

Not just the Democrats are to blame here, OT.

And Grimace, the U.S. population isn't solely to blame for this. You've got China, India and Brazil (among others) who have burgeoning middle classes and burgeoning demand for oil that is becoming more ravenous by the day.

 

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

This list is a couple years old. Still, it tells an interesting tale.

 

Uhm, so what? I could just as easily post lists of house prices, car prices and insurance prices the globe over and it means what? And changes what?

And what happens, O_T, when we use up ALL the oil in the ANWR? Then we're left with a wildlife reserve that potentially could be devestated and no more oil.

One final question, though I feel silly asking it since I know what your response is going to be. If faced with the prospect of drilling for oil in the ANWR and causing devastating damage in the process, or taking a gamble in the hopes that it WON'T damage the ANWR, which would you choose? Do you really take that gamble for a short-term benefit?

 

This has the potential to be the real game-changer, not so much for the oil but for the natural gas reserves in the Gulf we've barely begun to tap. The technology already exists to convert vehicles to run on LPG, and we have the lion's share of world reserves.

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50100

You can change "NASA" to "Alley Allen" and "shuttle" to "man", and that headline and there's your answer.

A complete and total straw man. If drilling for oil with today's technology causes "devastating damage," then why isn't the entire middle east a wasteland? You already know the answer to that, but admitting it would take away your argument for being against America getting some of its own oil. Got news for you: The great majority of ANWR is already wasteland.

And the fact that 75% of Alaskans want us to get the oil in ANWR tells me they know a whole lot more about it than you.

 

Those crazy Alaskans know that people coming to drill means huge money for local businesses. Eating joints, hotels, the real estate market.
All those workers need a place to eat and sleep.
Never mind that Alaskans get mineral rights checks and oil being drilled there would bump up the money on that.

 

You mean Native Americans aren't in favor of casinos because they love slot machines and neon lights?