Cal Thomas promotes bike commuting

Bill Sornson

SMS wrote:
> John Thompson wrote:
>> On 2008-05-14, r15757@aol.com <r15757@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 14, 9:24 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
>>>> Wildlife Refuge, etc.
>>> What are these people smoking?
>>>
>>> Drilling in previously off-limits areas will have no significant
>>> positive effect on America's energy dependence or the price of oil
>>> or the price of gasoline.
>>
>> But that's not the reason why they want to drill in the ANWR. There's
>> good money to be made pumping that oil and they want to get it before
>> somebody else does.
>
> Who else is going to get the oil on U.S. territory?

Bingo.

>> Do remember that the people telling us that drilling in the ANWR will
>> help solve our energy problems are the same people who told us that
>> we invaded Iraq because of the "virtual certainty" that Saddam had
>> weapons of mass destruction, and for the same reason.
>
> And they knew (and know) that neither of those was true.

Prove that and impeach Bush. Oh, wait, you can't. (But repeat something
often enough and eventually people will believe it.)

> They have their reasons for doing what they're doing though.

Oooh, mysterious...

BS (called)

SMS

Bill Sornson wrote:

> Prove that and impeach Bush. Oh, wait, you can't. (But repeat something
> often enough and eventually people will believe it.)

Wait, so you believe there _were_ WMDs, even though every investigator
said there were none, and the "proof" that they existed was fabricated.
So the newspapers were wrong--there still is someone that believes the
WMD story!

>> They have their reasons for doing what they're doing though.
>
> Oooh, mysterious...

Not mysterious at all. The reasons Bush & company wanted to invade Iraq
had been known for years. 9-11 gave them a chance to mislead a lot of
non-critical thinkers and uninformed citizens (i.e. you), into believing
their propaganda. The reason there is no exit strategy from Iraq is
because there is no plan to ever leave. Iraq was intended to be a
middle-eastern base for the U.S. military. You can actually read the
blueprint for the real plan on-line at
"http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf"

Similarly, their reasons for wanting to drill in ANWR are also well
known. It's not about the oil, everyone agrees that the amount of oil
the the ANWR is minimal, less than one year's supply at current usage
levels. They know that if they can succeed in getting big oil into the
ANWR, they can succeed in allowing the oil companies invade other wild
places, they can allow the timber companies to clear cut in wilderness
areas, etc.

You need to look at the big picture, and not just get your news from
Rush and Sean.

Bill Sornson

SMS wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> Prove that and impeach Bush. Oh, wait, you can't. (But repeat
>> something often enough and eventually people will believe it.)
>
> Wait, so you believe there _were_ WMDs, even though every investigator
> said there were none, and the "proof" that they existed was
> fabricated.

You conveniently delete that to which I responded. How typically dishonest.

Recap: you wrote that "they" knew there were no WMD -- ignoring that every
single reputable intelligence source (Britain, Russia, Israel, U.S., hell,
most Iraqis) said there were. All I said was PROVE that Bush knew and
impeach him. Simple. (With the vitriolic sentiment of the left over the
last 5-6 years, is there any doubt that if someone could prove the
administration faked the intel or even distorted it, then he'd have been
driven from office?)

I invite any fair-minded reader to scroll up and read what you wrote -- and
here have DELETED -- only to argue with what I wrote as if I claimed there
indeed WMD.

No, wait, you come right out and say it:

"So the newspapers were wrong--there still is someone that believes the
WMD story!"

You're just a liar. (Or have zero reading comprehension.) (Or both.)

No sense arguing further; you use weasel tactics and I've seen enough.

BS (up to knees)

r15757@aol.com

On May 14, 8:06 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> John Thompson wrote:
> > On 2008-05-14, r15...@aol.com <r15...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> On May 14, 9:24 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
> >>> Wildlife Refuge, etc.
> >> What are these people smoking?
>
> >> Drilling in previously off-limits areas will have no significant
> >> positive effect on America's energy dependence or the price of oil or
> >> the price of gasoline.
>
> > But that's not the reason why they want to drill in the ANWR. There's
> > good money to be made pumping that oil and they want to get it before
> > somebody else does.
>
> Who else is going to get the oil on U.S. territory?

A host of int'l oil companies will 'get' the oil on US territory, and
Americans will have the privilege of paying one hundred-whatever
dollars per barrell for it just like they would for any other oil. And
it won't have any signficant effect on our overall energy dilemma.
Idiots.

JCrowe

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Cal Thomas is a syndicated op-ed columnist, about as conservative as
> the Pope is Catholic.

Actually Cal Thomas is very inconsistent in his viewpoints
which is one illustration of why the terms "liberal" and
"conservative" have lost so much meaning. FWIW, almost none
of the Republican politicians on the scene nationally can
make a valid claim to being conservatives either, Ron Paul
being a notable exception.
>
> Today's column makes the following points:
>
> a) The oil companies are good guys. They should continue to get $17
> billion in tax breaks from our government.

You might want to research the issue....what the advocates of
windfall profits taxation want to do is tax the profits at a higher
rate so that making a profit becomes pointless.
>
> b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
> Wildlife Refuge, etc.

The U.S. does not drill anywhere. Companies drill. The U.S.
federal government simply sells leases to
various natural resources. The U.S. government has made some very
bad decisions in the past on such leases, mostly in the area of
timber and mineral leases. If the objection to the oil
companies profits is because the lease price is too low, that would
make sense, but it seems to me that some people just don't want
oil products to be utilized at all.
>
> c) "A slow transition [to non-oil energy sources] will also give us
> time to consider more fuel-efficient cars and greater use of public
> transportation, even bicycles for short trips. Bikes would help more
> of us lose weight and get in shape. A friend bikes to work every day,
> saving gas, car payments, insurance and repair costs."
>
> The first two points illustrate that he's not turned into a left-
> leaning softie overnight. The third point illustrates that it's not
> only left-leaning softies that see value in biking.

That's a real mistake many people make in assigning political
philosophy to issues which are not really political in nature.
Politics is force in a word. Use of bicycles as transportation or
for simple pleasure/exercise represents a potential decision for
individuals to freely make. The only way to make cycling a political
issue is to mandate bicycle use...then of course, we can no longer
even nominally claim to live in a free country.
>
> - Frank Krygowski


--
They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for
one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in
your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.
-- Ernest Hemingway

SMS

r15757@aol.com wrote:

> A host of int'l oil companies will 'get' the oil on US territory, and
> Americans will have the privilege of paying one hundred-whatever
> dollars per barrell for it just like they would for any other oil. And
> it won't have any signficant effect on our overall energy dilemma.
> Idiots.

It's not about the limited amount of oil under the ANWR, it's about
setting a precedent for drilling in delicate areas.

John Thompson

On 2008-05-15, Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:

>> On May 14, 3:30 pm, John Thompson <j...@vector.os2.dhs.org> wrote:
>>
>>> But that's not the reason why they want to drill in the ANWR. There's
>>> good money to be made pumping that oil and they want to get it before
>>> somebody else does.

> Exactly wrong, of course. It's U.S. territory, so no one else will "get
> it"

Except the fact that the companies waiting in line to drill there have
no concern over national boundaries. British Petroleum, Royal Dutch
Shell, etc. The fact that the ANWR is US territory doesn't make a whit
of difference, except in the task of selling notion to the American
public. Just wait, if it ever happens I'll bet that they even try to
convince the US government to pick up the tab for building the
infrastructure to support the project, notwithstanding the fact that
they're pulling in billions of dollars of windfall profits from the high
oil prices.


> BTW, Congress approved exploring/drilling in Alaska back in the '90s, but
> Bill Clinton vetoed it. The U.S. would be getting a /lot/ of oil from there
> today if not for that.

But there's not "a lot of oil" to pump out of there. Just a few years
worth. The issue we should be concentrating on is moving beyond a
fossil-fuel based energy economy, not wasting time and effort trying to
postpone the inevitable.

> Bill "more supply, more jobs, lower prices...can't have that!"

Yet somehow we managed to have both more jobs and lower prices while
Clinton was in office. And a balanced budget!

--

John (john@os2.dhs.org)