A Catch-22 proposition on oil dependence

[i]Or are we stuck with being blackmailed by despots (and terrorists)?[i]

Yes let?s try to leave political rhetoric out of it, Max.

As for oil, the world (not just the US) needs to be weaned off it as soon as a viable alternative is found. For once I agree with GWB (I feel sick) we are addicted to oil, it's like a drug.

destruction of the us economy.

"Another off-the-cuff thought. I'd like to call their bluff. I'd like to make a proclamation that beginning immediately, we will no longer purchase ANY oil from OPEC, especially the middle east member nations, and just let the chips fall where they may. Our economy and way of life would take a huge hit initially, but I believe we could adapt better and faster than one might initially be inclined to think. Necessity is the mother of all invention, and this would certainly put the effort in overdrive."

all automakers, shut down. [ they require oil industry products to have their products used ]

almost all oil jobs gone [ 20% or so left ]
no gas under $30 a gallon [ supply and demand increase, no supply so high demand ]

textiles industry almost completely shut down, due to lack of raw materials. [ nylon, rayon, polyester, plastic etcetera are based on the sludge from cleaning oil to make gasoline. ]

None middle east oil production would give the USA a maximum of 1 year before the above points happened, as non middle east production has not reached high enough levels to meet the US usage for longer than 3 months.

instead of just stopping the purchase, tell every automaker they have 2 years to have vehicles on the road that do not require petrolium based products at all. at the two year mark, then you outlaw pertolium fuels. and stop purchasing oil from anyone. the us produces enough oil to support the textiles industry.

as in 1973 was the first oil crisis. :?

Woo hoo, did we take that long to realize that "the west" is too dependent on oil.

The alternatives are there, sun, water, nuclear power (might it be ex- or implosion), wind, to mention a few. And yes there are some angles on some off these where we have to be very carefully to not destroy the earth.

But hopefully there will be taken some actions to change the dependency on oil. :)

Rob

@life is too short to not enjoy it
(Hopefully the world lasts longer)

http://tinyurl.com/drvq6

Ok, so businesses are there to make a profit. But this amount?

In the UK, the news discussions all morning have been about this not being profit from supplying petrol to the masses, but stating that 80% of this profit is amassed from R & D.

So that makes 20% of ?13bn profit from fuel supply.

No wonder they're keeping their R & D in oil processes and not environmentally friendly alternative solutions!

GG

Dammit Max, you made me break my rule on not posting to serious life issues!!

RE: "...we will no longer purchase ANY oil from OPEC."

Ready for $8 gas? Oh yeah, look around you -- darn near EVERYTHING is created using petroleum feedstocks. At a minimum, most everything you can see from where you're sitting was probably manufactured in a building heated with natural gas. Got any man-made fibers in the clothes you're wearing? And don't forget about food: farmers depend critically on petroleum to run their operations. And how did your food get to your local grocery? In a truck that burns diesel fuel. Our addiction to petroleum goes far deeper than any President can ever publicly admit....

start with the major consumption items and work out systems. Take on more and more but in stages.

The thing that has hurt the push for alternatives is everytime you find and alternative there is someone there to protest THAT power source for one reason or another.

electric cars would not be a viable option for the people that have to spend several hours a day driving (like me). So would I HAVE to either quit my job or move closer? Neither are good options. I like my job, but being close to friends and family is more important. Working to live, not living to work.

Max, are you going to start a different discussion where we can put the political rhetoric in? I DO have a theory on this but won't add it here because of your request.......

London has a bigger population than this entire "humungous big place"

just cause your land area is about the size of Vancouver island & the Queen charlottes combined doesn't mean you don't have the population to support the profits.

We can either do it now gradually, or catastrophically later.

Oil moves our goods. Oil grows our crops. Oil gets us to and from our homes & work. Oil provides materials for our plastics. Oil supplies many of us with heat and electricity.

Eliminate oil all at once and you can guarrantee the deaths of 50% of the people in America and Europe in the next year. Most 3rd world counties would get along just fine for the first year; with a gradual increase in mortality rates as medical supplies and oil-backed infrastructure evaporates.

We would have to switch to alternative sources and would probably be a coal-based economy for the next hundred years until we exhaust that too.

Hydrogen's costs are hidden. The energy needed to produce it is humongous; it's energy density is terrible; and by the time you get it dense enough to use, it's more dangerous than nuclear.

I suggest we don't subsidize any oil companies at all anymore. At least, not if they are using the money for oil purposes. (That does get a bit tricky...)

But let's take that money and move it to solar investments.

Coat the top of ALL federal buildings (where at all possible) with solar panels. Stick some wind turbines on the buildings while you're at it.

Short term money would not change - you're taking what you would have spent anyway, and spending it more wisely (on the purchase and installation of renewable energysources) AND you're saving long term by having lower energy bills.

This is the sort of investment the government SHOULD be doing.

Another benefit of the government doing this on a large scale is that they provide the demand for these technologies. Private businesses will then have the desire to find the cheap production methods and higher efficiencies that critics have been complaining about.

This meets the goals. This improves environments. This reduces dependencies. This is smart.

And MANY jobs will be created in the meantime.

since the "waste" is almost hot enough to make tea with [ 90 Centigrade ] I would say that heat isn't an issue.

Even on a thread like this where it should be a key topic, telecommuting has vanished from public discourse. Why?

I understand why corporate America abruptly discontinued its wildy successful telecommuting experiments shortly after the Clown Prince of the Energy Industry oozed into power. But that doesn't explain why the citizenry has utterly forgotten about it.

Do American workers really feel a visceral need for "social contact" that is more like laying hens crammed together in tiny cages? Do they really enjoy Howard Stern making them even angrier while they're trapped on the freeway? Are they really this desperate to escape from their homes and families? Would they really not know what to do with the extra time if they didn't have to "go to work"? Would they really not know what to do with the money they'd save on wardrobe, transportation, extra hours of child care, and a steady diet of convenience food? Do they really like having their choice of home location dictated by where their employer happens to be located? Do they really like urban sprawl and million-dollar condominiums?

In today's America the vast majority of the workforce could do their jobs at home. It's been years since I did anything here in my office that I couldn't have done just as well from home with the computer and telephone I happen to have there.

Gasoline represents a huge portion of our petroleum consumption. Telecommuting would not eliminate our dependence on imported oil but it would cause such a big reduction that the world would sit up and take notice.

So why has this thread gone this far without anyone thinking of it? It's easier to implement than any of the alternate-energy plans.

There's a separate thread debunking the objections to telecommuting. The bottom line is that a generation of Americans is about to enter the workforce who have conducted their entire lives in chat rooms and on cell phones and have no problem with meeting virtually. Get out of their way.

with the Shell remark

not that I'm a little tick!

Cowardly Lion in the Wizard of Oz: "put 'em up! put 'em uuup!" I shall draw myself to my full height and headbutt you in the kneecaps if you're not careful.....

Why is it my daughters' pet name for me is MiniMum???

:p

GG

We need our government, specificaly our federal, to stop taking money from the oil companies Lobiests and start encouraging alternate energy procution through tax rebates and to quit giving money to the oil companies. Also, it could set the example by slowly converting federal buildings to using solar power. We have a newer federal building in Tucson that has massive amounts of solar pannels on it. Luckly it was built before the oil administration came into power

I knew someone would point that out and suggest that it fits the definition of rhetoric. But to be perfectly honest, I thought it was (and still is) a legitimate question. If you think it's rhetoric, you must also think it's not a legitimate question. And if you think it IS a legitimate question, then how can it be rhetoric?

So you tell me. Which is it?

In my opinion, it's really not enough to just say you WANT to do something, if the HOW is missing or unclear.

No, I won't edit it out. I'll leave it alone.

(Let's have another tangent on defining rhetoric.)

...a politician who ignores the bait for that argument and simply pushes forward with a sound energy plan.

now if someone "buggers" someone, that is to .....

And you are saying they are BIG buggers of you little ones? oh my.....

got lube? :O

But we have to keep reminding ourselves -- and each other. It's too easy to fall prey to the alternative.

First...I have to ask:

[i][b]"I wonder how the political left in the United States will reconcile the obvious conflict in their various positions?"[/b][/i]

then you end with...

[i][b]"P.S. Let's try to leave political rhetoric out of the discussion."[/b][/i]

I take it you were making an attempt to be humourous?

[b]Second about one of your thoughts[/b]:

A proposition to immediately stop middle-east oil imports would do 3 things:

1) Kill business in most American cities- If people had to pay $8 a gallon for gas, cities would too. Both personal driving and mass transit would shut down within days. No one would drive to work. And if non-combustion transportation was not available to get them to work, they would never go to work again.

This would eventually, if not immediately, lead to the demise of all parts of our nation: rural and urban, technological and agricultural, rich and poor.

2) Fuel terrorists- terrorists would use that as fuel to tell Muslims that the "Satan" of the west was doing it as war against the oil-producing Muslim nations and their people. Of the 11 member nations of OPEC, 10 are majority Muslim and supply us about 39% of our oil (Venezuela being the only non-Muslim member nation).

This would, in all likelihood, lead to terrorists mobilizing more to attack us and our interests.

3) Starve people- How long do you think food supplies would last in grocery stores if companies could not get their food supplies shipped to their outlets? Or, they were going to have to pay several times the price for it? People would end up starving in our country, except for maybe on the mom and pop farms. And then, they would probably be assailed by their neighbors eventually.

This would lead to mass chaos, mass criminal activity, and other deplorable acts brought out by need to survive.

In short, that off-the-cuff thought is a bad idea and would throw our nation into anarchy. We would not have time to adapt before things fell apart. Evolution and adaptation take time.

Instead of putting innovation into overdrive, I think your thought would put innovation into a coma.

Just remember...it's hard to think about innovation when you're just managing to survive.

Really the only thing that would probably give that thought a chance to work...would for the government to take over the nation's oil import, supply and reserve system and use the military to protect it and distribute it.

But, you would oppose that. Government in business is bad, right? Business should be left to the individual? Government should butt-out?

just my 2 pennies :)

I never attempted, or considered attempting to.

The reason is that I chose not to enter into those particular types of debates, for the most part, particularly here.

I saw Max mention "left" with respect to political bent, and I skipped it. Yes, I selected it for qoutes, but I didn't read it closely enough to follow a complete sentence.

There was plenty else in your post available for comment.

Your goverment should simply take on the Kyoto Agreement. But you wont do that because it would be "someone else telling you what to do".

It would make a lot of people happy (including me) and, as its express purpose is to reduce your carbon emissions, it would allow you to reduce your oil imports with a less antagonistic reasoning than "getting back at the ragheads".

We, the UK, seem to be cutting back on carbon emissions without our economy going bad. The carbon emissions for 2003 are seven per cent lower than in 1990, the baseline year under Kyoto. In 1990, by the way, we were heading into a recession and oil was $15pb. We're supposed to make a 12 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2008-12 compared to a 1990 baseline and we'll probably do it by 2012. OK, it's not all oil but we're doing it without any problems.

Our two-party system actually DOES form coalitions, just like the systems in Canada and the UK, except ours are formed within the party instead of as individual parties.

The religious-right "coalition" of the Republican Party, the "environmental" coalitions of the Democrat Party, the "abortion" coalition of the Democrat Party, the "anti-abortion" coalition of the Republican Party, the National Black Caucus of the Democrat Party, and so on. Not all Republicans are anti-abortion, for example, just like not all Democrats are pro-abortion.

So they're there, but just structured differently. The only difference, I suppose, is that we always have a majority party, but with in-fighting, if you will, among the coalitions, instead of duking it out in an attempt to gain a majority.

little tick?
I meant lunartic ]:)

and you went and really put your foot in it now..mm

mini mum = mm = gg = gadget girl ]:) ]:)

.
If we were to implement my "off-the-cuff" wish, and cut-off ALL imports of oil from the middle east, the upsides would be:

- Put us back in the drivers seat negotiating with the oil-thugs of the middle east. They want our money more than we need their oil.

- Reduce (edited from eliminate) our trade deficit overnight. (Warren Buffet called our trade deficit the biggest threat to America.)

- Force the creation of new industries and new opportunities.
.
- Force conservation.

- Reduce (edited from eliminate) gridlock on city highways.

- Consider this: A new "partnership" between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico could produce some dynamic and lofty accomplishments.

In 1973-74, during the Arab oil embargo, the U.S. lost, literally over-night, the supply of all middle-east oil. We survived just fine. Inconvinient, to be sure (I remember it well), but not disaster.

During World War II, oil and oil products were very scarce for the average consumer. We survived all the better.

I simply can't believe the doom-and-gloom predictions made by the timid and weak among us (and those who want others to remain timid and weak).

You and I actually want the same thing, but you want Kyoto to force it. Screw Kyoto - it's crap.

Hell, I know that the middle-east thugs have us "by the balls", as you said, but Kyoto is not the ONLY way around it. In fact, it's bad -- just bad.

Sometimes you're just a pain in the ass. You haven't done one thing to "understand" my position or the intent of my position. Read and try to understand everything I've posted in this discussion, and then you might realize that Kyoto becomes immaterial.

....is only that for losers. You are a pitiful example for others.

I suspect you understand my point.

I'd rather see them less tightly wound with each other sch that a more fluid transition of coalitions can form on any given topic.

I don't like that true progress is hindered by strong arms in either party, just becuase they can promise to make political life hell elsewhere.

More parties, to me, is faster government. Environmental groups shouldn't be gagged by abortion groups, etc. Business groups should not be restricted by prayer groups, either. (feel free to mix and match as you feel appropriate, the ideas I put forth were just for illustration purposes)

I said in a message somewhere that we import 17 to 20 percent from the middle east, and I've been using the smaller of the two numbers.

Here's my sources:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm

http://ogm.utah.gov/oilgas/FACTS/facts_list.htm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/03/15/financial1000EST0051.DTL

Okay, so it's closer to 20 percent.

Where are YOUR sources for your 40 percent claim? Your a$$, no doubt.

From YOUR Source:

Persian Gulf Countries: 17.3%

We could break-up OPEC if we wanted to play hard-ball.

My comments apply to the middle-east countries, not OPEC as a whole. If you want me to edit my original post and change my comment from "OPEC" to the "middle-east", tough sh**.

Now go cower in fear someplace, you scared and pathetic little boy.

You're telling me I am?? That I didn't cope?

I made it through it, moron. I doubt you would.

I worked a job and went to college fulltime and held a scholarship while taking care of a mother with thyroid cancer.

If that's timid and weak, then I'm glad to be that in your estimation.

At least I'd make it through a tough time like that again.

You'd starve.

Nuff said about that.

As for being a fat ass...I lost over 200 lbs, jerky boy. How about you?

As for the alcohol, I used to drink very heavy. I beat my demon.

Now, when are you gonna get some morals and start caring for someone besides just the people around you that give you things?

I dare to say...you starving would improve the world quite a bit.

The original message has been edited to change "OPEC" to "the middle-east". In every other message that follows, I have been specifically saying "middle-east", but in the original message only, I said "OPEC". Whip me with a wet noodle, but the intention was to say "middle-east". And there is one loser among us who is looking for an excuse to prove he's an idiot; and now that he's done just that (again), I'll edit the post to reflect my intention. But only a loser idiot would have missed my intention, or made a big deal out of it, or both, either by choice or otherwise.

That a general discussion can't be held without nit-picking, taking thing out of the intended context, and so on. Jesus friggin' Christ, it's gotten to a point that a person has to verify every little comment he makes or else he'll be ripped to shreds. Even when I make the disclaimer that my comments are simply off-the-cuff, they blast away.

I think I am the idiot -- for even trying to converse with some people around here. Why else would I do it if I'm not an idiot? After all, only an idiot would continue down a pointless path that leads nowhere.

a) You are older than me, and I remember the oil embargo in the 70s when I was a kid.

b) If 40% of the nation's supply (that provided by OPEC) of oil was cut off, you surely don't think that there would not be an fuel or power shortage. In 1973 during the oil embargo, we went from importing 1.2M barrels per day from all Arab countries to 19k. Today, we import more than 1.3M barrels per day from Saudi Arabia alone and that is 10% of our imports alone.

c) Is 40% cutting back?? If I took 40% of your post tax income away could you survive? Perhaps. But if I take away 40% of the gasoline you use in your weekly life, it would be harder for you to go get thing 1 and 2, it would be probably impossible for your company to send you on those long drives you do for work etc. So, it is more than just cutting back. Plus, you'd also affect the power supply from generating plants in this country. And as he suggested how fast we'd adapt, you can't refit a power generation plant to go from steam-forced oil-burning generation turbines to coal-fired turbines overnight.

If you don't believe me, I'll send you to some former co-workers who worked in some of the biggest power generation plants in the state of Florida and know how long it takes to swap generation units.

d) it would do little...very little...to bring down the foreign trade deficit. In fact, would do more harm to us internally than helping us externally.

e) you said:

"There would just be a slow down of what is available at the pump for the every day user."

there would be a cut-down for everyone, including the military, if the total import was cut by 40%. What does that mean? The military will keep getting as much as it can deem "necessary", the price will go up and up...and, the everyday driver becomes the every day driver who can afford it.

The fact is that a 40% reduction in imports would:

1) radically affect the average person
2) radically affect the transportation industry who moves everything.
3) somewhat affect government and military
4) radically affect business and their ability to employ individuals and maintain facilities.

Plus, petrol prices in Europe are higher because almost 2/3 of their price is tax.

In addition, most countries in Europe do not fund the exploration for oil reserves for privately-held corporations.

Like I told Max in one of my messages...I don't have to worry much longer. So, his ascinine attitude matters not to me.

Thanks for not popping off with the nasty name calling. At least you show some class, jdclyde.

you bastard :^O hahahaha

OK, I went back and REread both your post and the linked article. I believe much of what I posted was in line with the end paragraphs of the article, and that I simply expanded upon that idea somewhat. (https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=188972&messageID=1940885)

My immediately previous post (https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=188972&messageID=1941218) also rephrases some of what was said in the linked article.

Now I must admit, I didn't think your concluding question was all that set in stone. You premised it on an "off-the-cuff" comment, so I figured it was more of an emotional- or idea-typed prompt for discussion.

But Neil (was it?) mentioned something fairly directly in line with the question - No, a nation can't just go seizing another's lands just o gain their resources. World Wars are fought for such activities. Well, fine, several large nations exist that CAN do such things, but they shouldn't, and the rest of the world should not stand for it (whether the invading nation be US or Russia or China or...).

Does that mean we're to settle for "being blackmailed by despots"? No, and I don't believe we are now. Again, it's a global market and OPEC (or the Persian Gulf oil producing nations) can't affect it compeltely.

But your reiterated point was "it sounds to me as though the middle-east oil thugs would attempt to blackmail, or otherwise coerce, the USA from implementing measures to become less oil dependent."

Why? It's a global market - they will sell oil either way. In fact, prices may go up (as I stated before) as a result. That makes their product last longer!

Maybe one guy got you worked up and you didn't put as much emphasis on what a few of us said in response to you, but I think we've been largely on point - in so many words or less.

If not, I tried, anyway.

My take on (what I think is) your take.

Firstly, we - The West - invested in the Middle East because they had something that we wanted - and subsequently needed. Had we not built and financed the oilfields, we would simply not have had the oil. Eventually, someone else would have developed it. Unless there are these mythical leases, we have no claim. It's their money. We bought their oil - and bloody cheaply for a number of years.

We Brits gave up the our Empire. Whether the withdrawal from Empire is regarded as a cessation of exploitation or just simply getting out because we had no right to be anywhere else is a matter of perspective. I don't think that we feel that we have any say in what they do in Canada or - for that matter - in the place just south of there that we helped to develop in its early years. We could say that we Brits were responsible for the railway infrastructure in India, for example, but we can hardly lay any claim to it now. India is a sovereign country.

I'm also intrigued in why you changed OPEC to "Middle East". You are making the assumption that you will split OPEC by waving your bakroll in their faces - that you will find it easy to deal with Nigeria and Venezuela but not the Saudis. The FT article suggested that OPEC would deal with customers in concert and, in fact, were disturbed by Bush's comments about cutting back specifically on Middle East supplies. You want to stop dealing completely with the Arabs. You'd really better make sure your right in your assessment. Lose ALL OPEC supplies and you're in too deep.

Oh, and thanks for your help in 1956 in the Suez Crisis. I suppose that the Suez Canal only really affected the economies of Britain and France so the US could happily f*ck us over. Eisenhower threatened to sell the US Sterling reserves and precipitate a collapse of the British currency. This after saying he wouldn't intervene. Pretty similar situation to the one you might find yourself in. Hope your friends will rally round...

"About 20 per cent of oil sold to the US comes from the Middle East".

The VERY last part of the article was about the only thing that sounded like they were even LISTENING to the SOU speech.

It wasn't about shifting WHO we buy oil from, it was about shifting FROM OIL.

But again, because it is "oil man" President Bush saying it, this will be fought tooth and nail by all the activists that are more ruled by there rabbid HATE for Bush than they commitment to their cause.

Econuts should have been doing a standing ovation followed by cartwheels in the isles.
Everyone that has ever complained about the gas guzzling SUV's should be joining them.
The people complaining about new drilling for oil should be next in line.
The people screaming to anyone that won't ignore them about how the push for alternative fuel sources needs to come from the government should be stepping up asking how they can support this plan.

the partisan silence is deafening.....

(You could have at least laughed -- or groaned.)

Yes but it's specifically aimed so that you will not buy this "saved" oil from the Middle East. If you really can't see it...

OPEC don't like it so if they've read the SOU wrong as well - tough for you.

I could retaliate but there seems to be so many people wittering on about flaming so I'll just agree with you.

I'm going home in about ten minutes. I'm tired and hungry. I'll kick three sorts of crap out of you tomorrow, if that's OK with you?

.
Just kick the friggin' cat. That's the only thing they're good for anyway. (Now I'm really asking for it!)

DE - Double Entendre. If in doubt, assume that there is at least one alternative meaning in everything that GG has to say. Everything of GG's can be taken two ways (DE)

"Bugger" is a little more difficult to get right. The obvious, literal meaning, sodomy, we all know but rarely - if ever - use. It's another one of those multi-purpose Brit words whose meaning is keyed by context and intonation.

Calling someone a bugger is a fairly inoffensive insult. As I said in another post, telling someone to bugger off is a friendlier alternative to the f-word or "piss off". It can also be used as a stand-alone expletive - "Oh, bugger!"

If you're still practising to be a Brit - and I've seen reports (and found) that a Brit accent is a serious babe-magnet in the US - then repeat after me...

Baggah

Buggah

Buggah

We'll have you speaking like Prince Charles in a week...

Now, bugger off and let me sleep.

de, she does this often, but the first time I saw her refer to it as that instead of spelling it out.

(got to remember, us yanks are a wee bit slow on the uptake at times!)

oh, and your typo didn't help with my pronuciation either! got around it and doing fine.

"I wish I were your tampon!"

See, I could be royalty! :D

The top one is the correct one to get ol' Jug-Ear's accent. The others were typos.

:D

Florida cut off Canada Drugs from doing business here. :^O

besides that, I avoid pills...

only one thing in life right now would make me happy, and no...it doesn't involve lead entering anyone's body.

[i]"Of course, that will be right after we determine how to get people to offices without transportation to design, manufacture, assemble, load, and ship the products of the "new industries".

Think it through:

No gas...
No alternative fuel cars and transports...
No go to work...
No ship product...
NO NEW ANYTHING (except boredom).
QED"

[/i]
at the base of this thread is where YOU said NO oil.

Liberal = giving? be giving with your OWN money. That ISN'T "giving" OR "caring" if all you are doing is taking SOMEONE ELSES MONEY to give away. That is what is known in the world of corrupt politics as "buying influince". The only difference is when a company or group does in they are at least honest enough to use their own money to buy this influince and access.

When the leaches of the "progressive" movement do it, it is entirely based on excessive money TAKEN by the government, NOT GIVEN to the government.

Sure is easy to be caring and giving when it doesn't cost you anything and buys you a peasent class that will vote for you because you will keep the gravy train rolling with someone elses money.

If it really is that some people care so much, why don't we put a place on your tax form like they do here in Michigan where you can make a direct donation to wild life.

Make another box for your own brand of wild life support and all you caring, giving people can give till your as broke as the people that won't work that you have chosen to support rather than MAKE them go out and earn their own keep in the world.

There are even groups here that protest that we have started a "workfare" program that MAKES people get off their asses and go to work like the rest of us.

Caring, my a$$! X:(

1: I just went back with IE6 and did an in-text search for "no oil" in any of my posts...and it never came up (except where I asked you where I'd said it)...and case sensitive was off.

Maybe my IE is broke or something?

2: I give money to a lot of things. A lot of money, compared to most people by percentage of disposable income. No campaigns got any of my money. And, I don't give away any of your money. Write your congressman about that.

And if it's such a wrong thing to give other peoples' money, then why not chastise the Republican-majority-controlled House and Senate for continuing such a horrible on-going cycle of giving big industry (who already is making a profit) the tens of billions of tax dollars of the hard-working American people?

I suppose it's alright for Republicans to give to already-wealthy corporations like BP and Exxon/Mobil and Duke Energy, but they can't dish out the money to build homes for the homeless who have nothing to give them a decent start?

In essence...are you saying that it's alright to give money to those who already have plenty...but...not to the poor who have nothing?

Nice...real nice. That's genuine caring.

Now...I suppose by your own estimation, the Republicans in Congress are..."progressive liberals" too? I mean, it fits your description of how you're describing that political classification.

So...please if you can clarify for me what makes you giving and caring vs wasteful, in regards to the difference between giving away working American's tax dollars to the poor vs giving it to already profiting corporations?

Seems to me, by your own words, you've labelled the Republican contingent as "progressive liberal" and practicing in "buying influence" according to what they've been doing with legislation and giving free money and tax breaks to corporations.

3: If you'll go back and read my previous posts about welfare, I have expressed a personal opinion before that no able-bodied individual should get a free ride on the welfare system. And, I advocate making them do *something* at a job to earn their living.

I will never say anyone who can should not be working to earn their way. I am an advocate of the Jamestown principle.

Nonetheless, nothing you say will convince me that the Democrats in Congress are any worse than the Republicans.

I just see Republican initiatives causing class separation...and therefore, causing derision and malice.

Victorian era, dark-age mentality.

Simply put.

Have a good weekend

Royal Dutch had problems that were often Political in nature. They drill many wells in Venezuela, and Hugo Chavez nationaized (stole) the oil industry. They were drilling in the Spratley Islands, The Chinese nationalized them.

For some reason, No one fought for Royal Dutch's oil wells agains the Chicoms...