http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20060820-124109-2729r.htm

Unfortunately, the American consumer is reliant on these oil shipments. We need to move now to open up Alaska and the coast to oil exploration and end this crack in the system.

8/23/2006 2:46:18 PM

Chavez gets his power from this false pretense that America has a problem with him, and you all play right into it

8/23/2006 2:47:22 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately, the American consumer is reliant on these oil shipments. We need to move now to open up Alaska and the coast to oil exploration and end this crack in the system. "

that's just patching the crack..........why not strive to eliminate the dependence on oil, period?

8/23/2006 2:49:20 PM

Whenever possible, I try to buy my gas at a Citgo

Really though...

1) A socialist in South America
2) A theocracy in the Middle East

It's a simple choice.

8/23/2006 2:51:14 PM

This hemisphere should have a problem with him, his influence has spread to other parts of South America and could spread to Mexico if this fool gets his recount.

8/23/2006 2:51:49 PM

And I know that I, as a Republican, am simply terrified of socialist governments in this hemisphere.

The memory of how much trouble they've caused us in the past is fresh on my mind, no doubt. If Obrador wins, the collapse of American capitalist democracy will follow fast on its heels.



The Cold War is over, and even if it wasn't, Socialism wasn't the enemy.

8/23/2006 2:54:36 PM

I think we need to park a carrier task force along the Venezuelan coast and hold some "free" elections.

And/or assassinate Chavez.

That will save us from.... um... yeah.

8/23/2006 3:00:08 PM

Quote :

"why not strive to eliminate the dependence on oil, period?"

I agree 10000000%

8/23/2006 3:12:15 PM

i think it should be pretty clear why we still need oil at this point. there have been many threads on here that mention why.

and we all know a little leftism never hurt anybody, except for the millions of victims and repressed persons the world over.

8/23/2006 3:38:14 PM

The same could be said of any other political orientation.

Leftists kill people, rightists kill people, we're all just a bunch of assholes.

8/23/2006 3:44:34 PM

socialism looks to destroy the individual

8/23/2006 3:50:44 PM

^^

8/23/2006 3:52:01 PM

^^ I'd love to read your dissertation on that.

[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 3:52 PM. Reason : carrot]

8/23/2006 3:52:07 PM

why read what i've written about it? just look at history.

8/23/2006 3:59:47 PM

looking at history does not immediately suggest to me that socialism seeks to destroy the individual, nor does it immediately suggest to me that socialism is undesireable. Since this is your interpretation and I seek to understand why you interpret history as such, the burden of proof is on you.

8/23/2006 4:01:46 PM

lets just school of america chavez

8/23/2006 4:08:40 PM

Quote :

"and we all know a little leftism never hurt anybody, except for the millions of victims and repressed persons the world over"

Sure, it was radical leftists that attacked the WTC.

8/23/2006 4:25:15 PM

Quote :

"socialism looks to destroy the individual"

How's that? Because it takes away some economic liberty? Rightism takes away personal liberty. Libertarianism takes away order and with it your personal safety.

We're all a bunch of assholes. Get used to dealing with assholes who keep to an acceptable level of assholery.

8/23/2006 4:30:00 PM

Freedom is free of the need to be free

-George Clinton

8/23/2006 5:06:05 PM

chavez had help ready to be in new orleans only 3 days after katrina...

8/23/2006 10:55:15 PM

Quote :

" Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, one of the hemisphere's harshest critics of the United States, is receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies from Washington, thanks to an obscure 20-year-old oil pricing formula. "

http://washtimes.com/specialreport/20060820-124109-2729r.htm

8/23/2006 11:15:42 PM

I cant believe that more of you arent angry about OUR tax dollars going to this future dictator

8/24/2006 12:48:05 AM

Our tax dollars have funded a lot of people who were, at the time, present dictators.

8/24/2006 1:06:33 AM

Our tax dollars are going to assure that Citgo stays in business. I'd say thats better than supporting the eleventy billion past dictators we've propped up, who actually repressed their population.

8/24/2006 1:25:17 AM

Hey, Randy, you keep making statements that you aren't backing up with reasons-- and "just look at history" does not count as a reason.

Quote :

"This hemisphere should have a problem with him, his influence has spread to other parts of South America and could spread to Mexico if this fool gets his recount."

Why is this a concern? You give no indication as to why him having a lot of control in south/central america is worrisome.

Quote :

"socialism looks to destroy the individual"

You still have not indicated why you feel this way.

Quote :

"I cant believe that more of you arent angry about OUR tax dollars going to this future dictator"

You give no indication as to WHY we should be angry.

I'll be happy to see things your way if you can convince me, but as it stands, you're just making statements without any evidence presented. Get on the ball here and stop wasting our time.

8/24/2006 10:17:39 AM

Quote :

"We need to move now to open up Alaska"

I think I heard something on the radio this morning about opening 8 million acres of land up for oil exploration in Alaska. I'll try to find an actual link.

[Edited on August 24, 2006 at 10:34 AM. Reason : n]

8/24/2006 10:34:19 AM

as far as i'm concerned, citgo can pay whatever they want for the oil. if they can pay above market price and still compete at the pump, that's their deal.

furthermore, i don't really care if another country is socialist, or a theocracy, or whatever else, as long as they aren't oppressive to their own citizens or anyone else, and don't cause international strife.

8/24/2006 6:24:04 PM

Im sure a large chuck of our tax dollars go to things that suck ass.

such as blowing up countries i dont give a shit about and Id rather give money to Socialists than religious crazy people.

8/24/2006 6:29:01 PM

how about using that money at home for defense? or giving it back to the taxpayers!

8/25/2006 11:19:39 AM

the taxpayers are just going to spend it on drugs and booze.


or how about they put it into making a giant space shuttle to blast you to mars.

8/25/2006 11:37:22 AM

^troll

8/25/2006 5:49:30 PM

^troller

8/26/2006 10:45:05 AM

They came up with a good design for a Moon shuttle. It looks like a combination of the Hubble Telescope and an Apollo ship.

8/28/2006 7:22:56 PM

Randy, you are such an idiot.

8/29/2006 3:45:29 AM

Don't you understand that the oil in Alaska is complete and utter shit? It's a tarry oil. Good for making things like asphalt. Why not cut down on oil consumption rather than destroy the environment

and Chavez is far from dictator

also, Mexico has been socialist for its post revolutionary history until Fox came into power.

8/29/2006 5:12:55 AM

Quote :

"Why not cut down on oil consumption rather than destroy the environment"

How, exactly? Gasoline was already $3 a gallon for a year and yet oil consumption still managed to increase. It strikes me that by suggesting we "cut down on oil consumption" you are going to need to push for gasoline far above $3 a gallon, at least $4 and potentially $5 a gallon, before you begin reducing consumption enough to compensate for not producing Alaskan Crude.

If this is your solution for the "oil problem," then say that so that everyone knows what you are really talking about.

It is my opinion that we don't have a problem as long as we are not subsidizing consumption like so many other countries are.

8/29/2006 8:56:48 AM

or we could have stricter fuel efficiency standards for our vehicles, for one.

[Edited on August 29, 2006 at 8:58 AM. Reason : .]

8/29/2006 8:58:11 AM

Quote :

" How, exactly? Gasoline was already $3 a gallon for a year and yet oil consumption still managed to increase. It strikes me that by suggesting we "cut down on oil consumption" you are going to need to push for gasoline far above $3 a gallon, at least $4 and potentially $5 a gallon, before you begin reducing consumption enough to compensate for not producing Alaskan Crude."

Or we could develop, subsidize, and embrace new technologies that use a fuel other than oil or use oil much more efficiently.

8/29/2006 9:48:09 AM

^ and ^^, I guess I asked for that.

Quote :

"or we could have stricter fuel efficiency standards for our vehicles, for one."

Might work, might not, can't say. If people enjoy driving large gas guzzling cars, and the price of gasoline is low, then banning the sale of new gas guzzling cars is not going to deter them, they'll just repair/refurbish their old gas guzzlers. Ultimately, such a ban "could" actually decrease fuel efficiency as new gas guzzlers are more efficient than old gas guzzlers.

Quote :

"Or we could develop, subsidize, and embrace new technologies that use a fuel other than oil or use oil much more efficiently."

Such as? Merely subsidizing an alternative does not engender efficiency, it actually engenders waste. The segments of society still using oil will use more than they could because it is still cheap. Meanwhile, segments of society that switch to the new subsidized fuel use more of it than they economically should, draining the public treasury performing uneconomic tasks.

Ultimately, if you want to disuade the use of imported oil then you should tax the use of imported oil, unless you know something I don't know. For example, eliminating the tarriff on imported Ethanol would displace some oil imports while actually increasing economic efficiency. But I see nothing wrong with a $1+ tax on gasoline, but it is important to admit what we are actually talking about when we say "why not cut down on oil consumption".

8/29/2006 11:10:29 AM

Quote :

"Merely subsidizing an alternative does not engender efficiency"

I intended for the subsidizing to aid in the embracing of the new technology. If "technology X" is developed and it either runs on a more renewable resource and/or uses oil much more efficiently AND it's pricey to start up-- it would probably be adopted more easily by the population if the startup costs were subsidized. Sorry i didn't make that clear before, and I AM making a lot of assumptions in terms of the technology having to exist and be an equivalent alternative to oil.

Quote :

"Ultimately, if you want to disuade the use of imported oil"

I'd like to get off of oil all together, not just imported oil.

8/29/2006 1:54:25 PM

^ Then you will fail. Even if we came out with Fussion technology tomorrow oil as a power source would still never go away, it is just too god damned useful.

8/29/2006 2:06:57 PM

^ well not if you get the ball rolling.

but i will be old by that point.

8/29/2006 3:40:44 PM