On Jun 3, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Bruce Johnson wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2011, at 7:02 AM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > >> And adopt a realistic energy policy, too. One that relies on the Arabs >> running out of oil first doesnt' cut it any more. Eliminate all energy >> subsidies and tax breaks. Increase development of domestic fossil fuel >> sources (where risks are lower and tax breaks for development aren't >> justified). > > Your fantasy about vast reserves of 'domestic fossil fuel' just doesn't add > up.
Funny, I didn't mention anything about the quantity of reserves, and you're presuming to know what energy policy I support. You don't my energy policy and you should stop using strawmen to make your arguments. But we do have reserves that can be tapped to decrease our dependence on foreign oil: <http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/three-thousand-new-oil-wells-be-drilled-texas-within-year> Once you take your head out of your ass and leave the academic bubble for more than 3 minutes, you'll find there are many other examples of domestic oil supplies that will serve us for a long time while we develop other forms of energy that are vast, reliable and cheap. > <http://www.heatingoil.com/home/oil-reserves-worlds-largest-depending-view116/> > > I know you're in deliberate denial about anthropogenic global warming, > buttressed by your phalanx of well-paid deniers and their pseudoscientific > 'evidence', but guess what, the climate doesn't follow politics. Hah, hah, hah. That's funny, especially considering that you alarmists have lost all credibility. The alarmists suck up government funds in amounts several orders of magnitude greater funding of skeptics, then conspire to manipulate or hide data from review. But hey, that's changing the subject, which is that Obama and Democrats have f*cked everything up. Like the predictions of the AGW alarmists, the predictions of Obama and the Democrats have failed to be realized. Big surprise, there. > We need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels (they're vastly more valuable as > chemical feedstocks, anyway!) and since your vaunted private enterprises is > staggeringly risk-averse, the only way to bootstrap alternate energy sources > is to subsidize it...besides, what do you think the Mining Act of 1872 was > but a ginormous subsidy? > This 1872 Mining Act?: <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08tue4.html> Not that it justifies Obama and the Democrats f*cking everything up. How many bootstrapped green alternative companies must you see fail before acknowledging that those f*cking subsidies don't work? How long before you realize it's just more crony capitalism? They have no budget. They have no energy plan. They have no plan to save Medicare. They have no plan to put people back to work. They have only a plan to retain power for themselves and their cronies. It may work or it may not, but it sure as hell won't do anything to improve the lives of Americans. It's the governed vs. governing, which is a recipe for civil war or the undoing of our republic. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en.
