No Wonder Liberals Won't Drill - Nothing To Gain, Everything To lose
The things liberals have been saying about our current oil price woes are so stupid that even stupid people should be embarrassed for them. But in case you aren't, I'm here to help you revel in the fact that you're now officially smarter than somebody - than an entire group. Yes, it's been speculation and innuendo up to now, but it's finally official - Liberals are morons!
They want to investigate the oil speculators, they want to tax "excess profits," they want to nationalize refineries, and above all, they don't want to drill in areas with proven reserves, and to compound that, they want oil companies to drill in areas where there are no proven reserves - "use it (oil leases) or lose it," one no-name idiot Dem Congressman says. "Thanks, we'll pass," the companies say back en masse.
Now look at the above paragraph and ask yourself how any of that will help lower oil prices?
And here's what the the Democrat Presidential nominee-in-serious-mental-decline had to say recently: “We can’t drill our way out of the problem because there's just a finite amount of oil out there and you have got increasing demand from countries like China and India."
Are you suddenly feeling better about yourself? I bet a serious number of special-ed students can see what's wrong with Obama's statement, but let's not leave it to chance. First, define "finite," because we know that he's right if he means "contained within the Earth." But apart from that, we have no idea what's there, and we're finding more all the time. So it could be a thousand years before the supply runs out, and by then, we should have that "cheaper and greener" energy solution the Enviro Don Quixotes think exists at the end of the rainbow, but more on that and them shortly.
Even more incredibly stupid than the first part of Obama's comment is the second part. He says that we shouldn't bother drilling because China and India will just use it all anyway. Did I just hear you smack yourself in the forehead? What does Obo think they'll use if we don't drill? Even worse, we can't stop THEM from drilling, and they may soon be drilling in waters near you. Oh the irony!
So lets set the record straight. ANY new oil will affect price. Depending on the amount found, it will either restrain future increases or, if the find is a bonanza, prices will stabilize and even decline. In fact, the mere mention that we're going to turn America into Swiss Cheese in an all-out effort to increase our domestic supply could very well drive short-term prices down and keep them down - because then speculators will have a harder time speculating.
I'm sure you get that, so why doesn't Obama? And his advisors? And Democrats in Congress? And liberals in general?
Well, the simple answer is, we don't know that they don't. In other words, such an idiotic comment may just be a diversion, because what liberals really want is higher energy prices and more misery. Without misery, liberals perish, and without high prices, they can't bring about Shangri-La in their lifetimes. No matter that even trying to do that will require they make a lot of people expendable.
But for liberals, there's a downside to those high prices: they make real people want real solutions - NOW! I don't know how high prices will need to go, but I'm actually with the enviro-wackos and warmalarmists... I want prices to march steadily upward. Because I'll bet the farm that if that happens, I'll win.
And what exactly will I win? Well, as people realize that you can't ride a polar bear to work, but you can get oil from a whale, with any luck, "environmentalism" will become a dirty word, and if I'm really fortunate, enviro-warmists will be afraid to leave home, and not because they don't have American Express cards - it'll be because their predictions were right - the climate will be too hot outside - but only for them.
Why am I so hostile to enviro-warmists, you ask? Is it simply because they are the dumbest people on the planet? Of course not. If that were the case, I'd actually have no compassion for the lowest among us, and as you know, I'm nothing if not compassionate when it comes to the less fortunate. Unfortunately though, the wackos are not less fortunate. Many are actually 'educated,' but I put that in quotes because if they were truly educated, they wouldn't think as they do. So either their educators failed them or they failed themselves, but in any case, we have to deal with the result.
And the result of their thinking is immoral. They would sacrifice real lives for their fantasy, and that's not mere speculation, they already have, and they are perfectly willing to continue doing so. In fact, they won't even notice the carnage.
The worst of it is that their fantasy isn't even attainable/ The idiot who thinks that we'll be finding "cheaper and greener" energy sources first has to manipulate the market so that oil prices go so high as to make their alternatives attractive by comparison. In other words, if Mohammad (you) won't go to the mountain, they'll bring the mountain to you. Sound good? Because if it does, let me make it still worse.
There are two important components to our energy supply - price and availability. enviro-warmists have succeeded in restricting availability. it took three decades or so, and many people saw the current situation coming long ago, but I confess that I hoped to escape this life before it affected me. Still, I didn't turn a blind eye. I took measures that would help insult me from the pain others are feeling.
But no one can escape the consequences completely, and here's an ugly fact - we saw the price of corn affecting the poor in Mexico a year and a half ago. And when the price of corn goes up, it affects the price of other food, from wheat to meat. But that's nothing compared to what happens when the price of oil goes up - it affects the price of... EVERYTHING! Just watch the daily news and see for yourself what went up in price today. I hope you'll think of me when you do, because with each new increase, I'm getting closer to getting my wish - a hunting season on enviro-warmists.
Right now, the Midwest is reeling, and the nation will be along with it since the flooding there is far more consequential than the New Orleans rain-out. The timing couldn't be worse, the corn crop is devastated - good news for those who are still able to grow it, but awful news for everyone else. And Congress has mandated that a huge portion of the corn crop go toward ethanol production - immoral.
And another thing about availability:"cheaper and greener," on top of everything else, requires a non-disruptable supply. So much for corn in your tank, huh? Not only must energy supplies be relatively unaffected by the whims of Mother Nature, but the enviro-warmists and the general liberal population which promotes alternative energy has stymied virtually every effort to establish new and sustainable sources in the real world, thus making sustainable energy unsustainable.
So not only can't we drill our way out of this energy crisis solely because they won't allow it, we also can't blow and grow our way out, nor can we build nuclear plants or refineries, and solar energy remains an inefficient niche. Well, here's another fine mess they've gotten us into.
But the day of reckoning may finally be at hand for these dangerous idiots. Average Americans (and even a liberal plurality) finally want to drill like there's no tomorrow. But nobody's frantic yet, so liberals can still hold press conferences and spout their stupidity without fear of being shot. But the longer they do, the worse it will be for them.
When China's first oil rig goes up off the Florida coast, everyone will take notice, and surprisingly, that will be good news. Not only will it be the wake-up call for which there is no snooze alarm, but it almost doesn't matter who gets the oil as long as someone does. The general supply goes up America just misses out on the profits and taxes.
And wouldn't it be the supreme irony if an eco-disaster happened because the Chinese aren't as skilled and careful as American companies would be, so greased manatees started washing up on Florida beaches, and there was no one we could hold accountable?
That's what I'd call Shangri-La, but I'm not normal. You can look at it another way of you'd like: do you think the imagined results of global warming will be worse than what we're about to experience in the here and now? If you do, cap and trade THIS, you moron.
Comments
This is your best post, ever. Great job outlining what is really going on.
Liberals look for villains, not for solutions. And when they point the finger, they have a zero percent success rate in actually pointing it in the right direction - back at themselves.
Investigating oil speculators isn't going to solve the supply problem. What are you going to do convince them that there is more oil than there actually is?
Taking more money from the oil companies isn't going to solve the problem. They already make less than 10% profit. How is that a windfall? Do you know how many other companies there are in the world that make more than 10%? I bet you could find all kinds of "green" product producers who are making more than 10%. What would you do with the extra tax money anyway?
Nationalizing the refineries... sure, that will work just as great at nationalized healthcare. Don't get me wrong on the healthcare. I understand the idea is to get coverage for everyone, and that certainly would be nice, but it doesn't make it cheaper. They actually think they can run refineries better?
Drill in the land you already leased, they say. Don't you think the oil companies would be doing that, if they found oil there? Alaskans are begging for us to drill in ANWR. Lets do it. Even saying that we are going to do it will probably lower oil prices. Try explaining that one to liberals... they don't understand how the market works.
Maybe higher gas prices will bring that one thing I've been searching for - a cure to this sickness called liberalism.
By the way, how long do you think it will take for us to hear a liberal suggest a bracketed system for gas prices - where the so-called rich pay more for gas than a low income person? Think about it... isn't that always their argument? The rich can afford it, so why not have them pay more?
This is brilliant; the left-liberals always over look the fact that oil extracted in the USA means that our balance of payments results in our favor. You would think that pumping oil from ANWAR or anywhere else in America would be the highest priority, but they are left-liberals DUH! Nationalizing the oil business, isn’t that what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela?
So, what's the answer to high gas prices? Dunno. I doubt the oil cartels would be listening to any of us. I guess we'll just have to put our faith in good old free enterprise. Uh, that's right, they are the cause of the problem. Never mind, McCain will sort it all out. Well, won't he?
Anyway, good to see you still holding forth, even if I disagree with most of it. Go well.
It would almost be worth Obama winning in November, because he'd likely butcher things so badly that he'd be one and done.
In anycase, how about holding out on tapping domestic oil until we have the largest proven reserves? Or how about Nationalizing oil in order to remove it from the global market? Yeah from an economic standpoint these ideas are about as simplistic as the blog post above.
We shall see, Ted. But I won't be holding my breath until your predictions come true.
Scho,
Thanks for the kinds words. I was going to answer everyone in one post, but then I came to Hen's, and since it deserved special attention, I didn't want those even more deserving to feel slighted So...
You know, it appears that liberals think the oil companies are content to sit on what they have and jack up prices as supply dwindles. You and I can see the folly in their belief, but since they believe things that are even greater folly , why should we expect them to be rational about this?
I don't know about you, but I was shocked to actually see those fools go public with their nationalization desires, but if they can feel comfortable doing that, your idea of having the rich pay more makes perfect sense. But then these people are so stupid and so dangerous that nothing they advocate should be a surprise anymore.
One last thing - Michael Savage regards them as diseased as you may know. I have avoided that because a disease requires sympathy, treatment, and the pursuit of a cure. But I can't have sympathy for anyone who seeks to damage America irreparably. I prefer to regard them as criminally insane. Lock 'em up in padded rooms. Give 'em all the drugs they want.
Zak,
YOU would think drilling makes sense, but you're at a disadvantage - you can't think like a liberal - or McCain. There's simply no rational argument for not drilling everywhere and anywhere now - as Hen has recently demonstrated.
Jeff,
Someone mentioned recently that a whole lot of Americans have no knowledge of, much less experience with, the Carter Administration. It was so bad that as a young adult, I was scared that we were in danger if imminent collapse, and I must say that despite what we've been through since, I have never again experienced the fear I felt under Carter. He literally did nothing right.
And wasn't Carter an engineer?
Re; Obama winning, I agree with you. If I felt I could insulate myself from the effects of his Presidency and just sit back and watch, it would be the greatest show on Earth!
The ticket price to the Obama show would be pretty steep though :)
Snowy,
Free enterprise is the cause of the problem? I'd actually love to hear you tell that story. As for you disagreeing with most of what i say, I believe that's only because we haven't debated our differences, so if you ever feel like trying to close the gap, you know where to find me.
McCain's not going to solve anything with a Dem controlled Congress, but the difference between him and Obama is - he'll try. I mean he's already demonstrated that he's willing to reconsider his positions as facts change.
Of course, Obama has too - he's decided to ignore his pledge about public financing now that he can raise more money on his own. That's change you can believe in!
Hen,
I admit I'd have been quite unhappy that you were critical without offering anything whatsoever as an alternative we're it not for the fact that you achieved a personal best for incoherence and you were kind enough to do it right here!
But I'm sure that when you think about it, you'll realize that Obama's comment was every bit as stupid as I thought it was, and I didn't even mention that even if I concede that his idea of "finite" is closer to reality than mine is, what exactly was he saying - that because supplies are limited, we shouldn't find them too quickly?
But here's something else that tempered my response to your thoughtlessness - Ralph Peters wrote a column today that is all about you and yours. I felt kinda bad for you after reading it...
And if nothing else, please reassure me that "anycase" was a typo?!?
Jeff,
I thin that lots of brilliant people self-destruct, so I don't believe we should put too much stock in "brilliance" by itself It's the common sense part that I consider brilliant. So many "average" people have excelled because of it. I don't know how one measures brilliance anyway? How someone performs on tests? But you can measure common sense by results
Snowy,
I'd appreciate it if when you make suppositions, they at least follow logically from either facts or from something I've said, since the two may not be one and the same.
Nevertheless, I'll deign to entertain your ramblings, since the alternative is to scream at Bob Melvin, and I've already done plenty of that today.
"you're already making excuses for your hero's presumed failure"
I neither made an excuse, not did I ever proclaim McCain my hero. My comment was rooted in fact... you must have some recollection of those, no?
And his failure is not presumed since future circumstances could easily force even a Dem Congress to capitulate. But then what with your recently being somewhere in the UK, you may have missed the fact that the Liberals idiots have not changed their tune one note, and have if anything, hardened their stance in the face of overwhelming public opinion to the contrary... so of course, something has to give there.
"Strange that a willingness to reconsider a position is a virtue for McCain but not for Obama."
Here again, I'm going to, for your sake, assume you're unfamiliar with the facts - that we have known reserves we aren't tapping because of idiotic restrictions imposed long ago by your favorite party. McCain DID subscribe to those idiotic positions. Now he's reconsidered a bit? So if one holds an idiotic position and subsequently sees the light, it may not be a virtue to change, but at least he ceases to be an idiot.
Obo's position changes, on the other hand, are far more frequent and personal, as in - do they benefit him personally? If so, that becomes his position du jour, and most often, he tries to blame attacks by McCain and Republicans for necessitating said changes. Nothing he's done, failed to do, or decided on his own is the problem, it's always about how he's been misunderstood.
"in a universe where all liberals are bad and all conservatives are good. Which is why you can make the outlandish statement that McCain will try but Obama won't."
Wow, have you decided to try to outdo Hen here tonight? Because all liberals ARE bad, and yes, that includes you as long as you identify with their insane ideas, but anyone who knows me even a little bit would never say that I think all conservatives are good. in fact, I detest most of them. The difference is that i don't detest them because of their horribly dangerous ideas.
As for McCain trying and Obo not, you've appeared to generalize as your sort is wont to do. I was referring specifically to the price of oil, and if it's my fault for not being clear, please accept my apology and consider this clarification:
McCain is already trying - Obo isn't. So who is likely to try harder, assuming Obo tries at all? but I concede that he may be forced to "try" as conditions deteriorate. However (and again you may not know this, but then one has to at some point, start to question what, in fact, you do know?), Barackie is firmly on record as favoring high prices and forcing Americans into alternative and far more expensive and inconvenient choices, so knowing what we know, one would suspect that he wouldn't be all that gung-ho to set out on a mad drilling spree.
"Really, Ted, you're going to have to do better than that if you're to have any credibility at all. Much, much better."
Well, hopefully I have just done so, God willing,and it's now up to you to demonstrate that you know anything at all and that you can subsequently string those facts together to form a logical conclusion. Take all the time you need, but please, don't attempt anything further until you've got something concrete and it's not between your ears.
Speaking of taking people seriously, you don't see me dropping in on your blog, do you?
But again, if ever you have something to debate... well, forget that, I know you won't bring it here because you can't risk me taking it seriously...
But that would be impossible, since it's never happened.
Is it as much a smashing success as the British and Canadian systems?
You know, the British one where anyone who needs an operation that isn't "life threatening" has upwards of a two year wait? And where several people I know flew themselves or loved ones elsewhere and paid for it themselves.
Or like Canada, where one in four people in the country can't get a doctor because the nationalized system has removed almost all the incentives anyone would have to become a doctor in the first place?
You can nitpick all you like about other Universal Health Care systems, but the fact remains that the US health system is a disgrace, and Americans deserve much better. The only way that is going to happen is if you remove your ideological blinkers regarding so-called "socialised medicine". Time to forget the liberal/conservative divide. We're people first and foremost, no matter what label we care to hang on ourselves.
That's why I wish Ted would get over this continual diatribe against liberals. I know it makes him feel better, but does it really achieve anything? Far better to be sticking it up all politicians and trying to get them to do something about what really matters, such a decent health care system. I'm really quite fond of him for some perverse reason, and it bugs me seeing him waste so much time on negative liberal bashing, when he could be doing something far more productive with his time. I know he won't appreciate that gratuitous advice, but I'm older than he is, so he'll just have to wear it.
Ok, settle down, Ted. Settle down! Oh well....
Jeff, when I saw your Snowy query, I knew exactly where we'd be headed, and frankly, I'm not capable of assessing the Aussie healthcare system. Unfortunately, neither is he, but I'm willing to concede that it's better than the British or Canadian system in that it incorporates -private- care which, NB, he's opted for. Unfortunately, I didn't note his concern, which I'm sure exists, for those who, for whatever reason, aren't able to avail themselves of the private option. May I presume their care is as "disgraceful" as the American system where everyone gets virtually any level of care needed and on a timely basis? I don't know.
Snowy,
In regard to my comment to Jeff just above, now it's your turn to settle down because I've long been a leading critic of our system, with the solution to it all being more, not less, private options. In fact, it's criminal that we restrict options based on where you work and that plans themselves vary based on what individual companies can afford.
But I don't want to debate healthcare here, which is why I so wish Jeff had stated his question thusly:
"Apart from healthcare, if Snowy could provide an example of one thing government has done better and cheaper than the private sector I might actually listen."
Then we could both, he and I, sit back and... well.. wait and wait and wait for your answer, and even more amazing, the waiting wouldn't be the hardest part. The hardest part would be you coming up with something that wouldn't get heaped in ridicule, immediately and unremittingly.
But let me say this... I mean everything I say about liberals. In fact there's a lot I can't say, and even more I would do given the opportunity, but note that I didn't get cheeky with you until you did with me. That's because unlike with Hen, I know you mean well, and more importantly, you're operating at the limit of your ability.
Which is why you like me, btw, - I'm the brain you never had.
Now I don't believe that made you angry because I think you see that I'm just funnin', but that's why we get along as well as we do. I think we could have heated discussions, live and in person, without blows being thrown, and there's even the possibility that, on my part, I wouldn't even want to.
But this comment wouldn't be complete without adding a few more points, the main one being that I am quite troubled that you (and not just you) hurl charges and fabricate my positions and then refuse to debate anything. I mean, I know why you do, and Billy found out the hard way, but my goal is to show YOU why you do - it's imply because no good can come of it with regard to your own belief system. And if you'd just admit that, I'd stop pestering you.
Finally, I must say that I was offended that you feel I can't bash liberals and stick it to all politicians at the same time because well, that's about all i do here.I submit that you're so overly sensitive that you've completely missed the unbridled hatred I feel for the right side of the aisle, but again, for different, thought no less significant, reasons.
And it is, in fact, you from what little I know of you, who only criticizes one side - and not very well, I might add. You should really just plagiarize my criticism of the right. You'll look even better to your liberal friends because then they;'ll say, "Hey, this guy is not just all froth, he actually knowns something!?!
Now got along little dingo...
Zak,
Coulda, shoulda, woulda? I'm sitting here trying to think of something I want that's as equally unlikely to happen... and it involves liberals having a rational thought - even a shared one.
My turn to go to bed. G'night.
Zak,
I agree.
Snowy,
I see.
Snowy,
No sooner had I posted my reply to Zak and you than your comment started to eat at me. So if I understand you (and thank God there's no accent involved), not only are your seasons backward, but your days are too?
Now about debating, we shouldn't do it because it wouldn't solve anything? That's your position? Reminds me of Chandler in Friends: "What if Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream... I... I don't wanna talk about it?'"
So OK, can we at least agree that the Obama quote I cited above is the stupidest utterance by a presidential candidate since presidential candidates started uttering stuff? (And feel free to reread the actual quote and even utter it yourself as necessary)
Jeff,
When you mentioned Carter's failed windfall profits tax, I momentarily thought about and then forgot to mention Clinton's veto of drilling in Alaska. It was important enough even then that Bush ran on drilling there - it was one of his main points as I recall. Then he got in and did nothing, aparently because of the lame excuse that Congress wouldn't go for it anyway.
So I blame Clinton and Bush more or less equally, but truth be told, Bush is more to blame since he wasn't hamstrung by ideology - which of course is another reason why I hate him so much.
And you never need to remind us of your utter hatred of W :)