Now we're talking turkey. But the question at hand is whether the supply of oil (or lack thereof) accounts for the >5-fold price increase since the beginning of this decade. If you see my original post this is the question that I'm raising about Ken's assertion that increasing the availability of home-grown oil fields will translate into increased savings for the american people. I think it's indefensible, but I'm neither a sustainability expert nor an "oil man". I'm not fundamentally opposed to oil exploration, I just think our energy policy is way unbalanced. So if Ken or you or anybody can show me data that convincingly demonstrates his point, and accounts for my objection, I'm open. Of course all data is open to misinterpretation, but without it his whole argument is baseless.

by hazmat on 04/25/2008 03:39:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Now you see how a KenTX thread works.

1. I use a provocative title to get people to read it.
2. I offer a conservative position, along with data and links and references.
3. I challenge liberals to counter the argument.
4. It forces them to think about the issue, and put some effort into formulating a response.
5. I hang back for a day or so before responding to their posts.
6. At the end of the process, the liberals have educated themselves on the issue.
7. Everybody has fun.

by KenTX on 04/25/2008 05:18:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]

here's how a hazmat thread works. If you deploy logical fallacy in the exercise of your opinion, as you did when you pointed out to us liberals that communism lies at the far left of the political spectrum (wow you're smart), say, by offering photographs of Jimmy Carter standing next to Castro at the olympics, I'm going to call you an idiot.

Its a little patronizing to suggest that you're helping out us poor sonsabitches by giving us something to "think" about that will require "effort" to formulate a response to. My general complaint with you is that you put up conservative garbage that is "effort"-lessly debunked. This current post has the redeeming quality that it contains a few facts and a statement of interpretation. Despite this, it is (as I mentioned) easily debunked. So much so that one wonders why you didn't first address the obvious point I brought up in your original post. Don't compliment yourself for doing us a service.

My libertarian and republican friends make much smarter arguments than you on a regular basis. I usually come away from a discussion with them feeling "educated" in the sense that they have contributed a conservative interpretation to the world of facts we both agree on, that I can mull over and possibly incorporate in some way. With you I just hear parroted right-wing talking points most of the time, and a bunch of news-clippings and google-image results that I'm not going to read and don't impress me.

Anyway, I'm not interested in your take on blogging ettiquette. If you're a real conservative why don't you put some effort into posting something that isn't easily debunked? You're welcome to address my substantive comment too , because if you "hang back" for a day this thread will not be visible any longer. According to Rich you're incapable of adressing anybody's original point, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Am I not merciful? 

by hazmat on 04/25/2008 06:24:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
“I'm not interested in your take on blogging etiquette.”
I’ll give you my take anyway. Here’s the short version. Whenever you’re polite, I’ll meet you halfway with polite response. By contrast, whenever you post comments like those in this thread, I don’t feel the need to hold back as much.
  
 “US oil companies are not patriotic altruists and will not offer gas at a lower price just because of a moderate increase in local supply. They will continue to charge what consumers are able and willing to pay, all the while reaping record profits.”
US oil companies will continue to charge whatever the market will bear. If the market price for West Texas Intermediate is $117/bbl, they will charge $117.

“That being said...everything I've read suggests that the price of oil is currently high because of speculation, not because of a glut (shortage) in supply.”
You’re exactly right. Think tulips.

“Development of alternative technologies is critical and in the interests of the American people. Its time for oil to enter a competitive energy marketplace.”
Alternative technologies will spontaneously appear when oil reaches $500 per bbl or $1000 per bbl. Until then, we need to do everything possible to keep America competitive in the global industrial marketplace. The objective is for America to have plenty of energy, while the rest of the world scrounges around for bare subsistence, like some Mad-Max movie. Then our economy will be more competitive than their economy. We should be running every light bulb and outlet on electricity generated from clean nuclear energy, like they already do in Japan and France. We should be figuring out how to make liquefied coal work in our gas tanks, since the U.S. has 30% of the world’s coal.

“So I just don't accept the premise that drilling in ND saves us money from propping up regimes overseas. Why should halliburton and chevron limit themselves to ND or AK when they can have Iraq too? and have someone else (you and me) pay for the procurement expense (the Iraq war)? I don't see any evidence here that increased drilling at home will lower our prices significantly. The only reason the energy sector is pushing this is because .... its good for them.”
When GM sells cars made in America, it’s a good thing. When Microsoft sells software made in America, it’s a good thing. When Boeing sells airplanes made in America, it’s a good thing. When Chevron sells gasoline, refined in America, from oil that was produced in America, it’s a good thing.
  
“It doesn't save me or the government any money, as you claim in your post (certainly not on the order of 18 trillion dollars!). Its not good for america and it doesn't create jobs or stimulate the economy in any significant way.”
We have a massive trade deficit, and the primary cause is imported oil and gasoline. We are importing energy and exporting dollars. Think of oil and gasoline as “manufactured products”. We are trying to bring “manufacturing” back to America. We are creating good jobs for fellow Americans, like TYT’s very own juebawl.
How many American jobs are created by producing and refining $18 trillion worth of oil? A lot more than purchasing $36 trillion worth of imported refined gasoline.

 “Its a little patronizing to suggest that you're helping out us poor sonsabitches by giving us something to "think" about that will require "effort" to formulate a response to.”
I am helping you out, you poor son of a bitch. I’m trying to give you something to “think” about. Democrats want to prevent drilling by American oil producers anywhere near the United States. Their idea of an energy policy is to strong arm OPEC into lowering oil prices so we can send even more American dollars to regimes that support Islamic Jihadists.

“With you I just hear parroted right-wing talking points most of the time, and a bunch of news-clippings and google-image results that I'm not going to read and don't impress me.”
Why don’t you take another look at the news-clipping links, detailing the number of times that Democrats have worked to thwart and derail efforts of U.S. oil companies to drill in domestic tracts. See if that impresses you.
 
“My general complaint with you is that you put up conservative garbage that is "effort"-lessly debunked.”
Then let’s see you debunk something rather than post insults.
I’m waiting.
I’m still waiting.

"My libertarian and republican friends make much smarter arguments than you on a regular basis. I usually come away from a discussion with them feeling "educated"."
I don't know how "educated" you feel right now, but I'll bet you feel "schooled".

by KenTX on 04/26/2008 03:27:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]