Barack Obama is the Antichrist

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Status
Not open for further replies.

dragonfliet

I write stuffs
Apr 24, 2006
3,754
31
48
41
Yes, but even crack addicts need to be weened off of it. If you shut if off immediately you've got problems. Look at the countries infrastructure. Its built on oil. Even if they developed a fuel that can replace oil overnight it would still take years to convert the infrastructure over to something else.

other such stuff

The thing is, I'm not advocating shutting anything off, I'm advocating spending the money on alternative fuels that are more efficient, more sustainable and cleaner. What problem, exactly is solved by lower gas prices? Is it our inflation? Nope, because the Euro is freakishly strong despite absurdly high gas prices (that puts ours to shame). It is the convenience of driving for the thrill of it and it is also a bit of a burden on the lower classes. When would the money come in from drilling off-shore? Not for many years. How long do you think that the oil companies would need to keep the rates jacked up to pay off an oil rig? And the volume would be such a minute amount that it wouldn't have a very large impact. Hell, according to your article we produce 164k Barrels/mo already (and import another 264) and that doesn't seem to be helping the prices. Would our oil production triple (answer is no. It wouldn't even double, it would simply be increased).

I don't mean to imply (though I realize I did) with my rhetoric that making money is a bad thing, it's wonderful and good for them and all of that, but it's an industry that is bad for the earth, bad for our health and relies extensively on exploitative practices for its profit. It is absolutely necessary but instead of looking for temporary relief (for monetary reasons) and INCREASING the amount of oil we consume (because the reason gas prices go up is to cut back on the amount of gas people use by making it too cost prohibitive--since they don't have enough to keep up with our current expansion rate), we need to seek alternative methods and DECREASE our consumption. The only reason people have become so magnanimous in their gushing over green technology is because their wallets are hurting--just like the 1970's and if we inject a temporary fix with an influx of gas (I mean, it's not like we're freakishly low on reserves in a war or anything) then people will forget about it and continue increasing consumption and further screwing OUR health with pollutants and further pushing the earths demise--just like we did after the oil crises.

~Jason
 

Poker

Anus Retentus
Apr 17, 2006
310
0
0
You only cite one issue on which the Republicans are supposedly more in-line with the American public
Right now there is no other issue. Energy and the failing economy are the issues right now. I'm not saying that health care reform, immigration policy, and Iraq aren't important. Just that for now they aren't all that relevant to the elections.
The "one issue" was offshore drilling specifically, not energy in general.

Fwiw I agree that offshore areas should be explored further, but only as a temporary stopgap and only a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall picture of energy policy reform that needs to take place. I also think the sight of Republicans en masse trying to dissociate themselves from the problem of America's addiction to oil, foreign or otherwise, is positively laughable.
 

Luv_Studd

Member
Aug 17, 1999
822
6
18
57
VT
Visit site
Yes, but even crack addicts need to be weened off of it. If you shut if off immediately you've got problems. Look at the countries infrastructure. Its built on oil. Even if they developed a fuel that can replace oil overnight it would still take years to convert the infrastructure over to something else.

To me the idea of offshore drilling means a few things.

One it means less dependency on foreign oil. Right now I consider this to be the biggest issue we need to deal with. Once we absolve ourselves from the need for oil then this problem disappears along with it. But for now we can't immediately shut it off. Instead we can make small gains by finding oil somewhere else. More oil from somewhere else, preferably from our own country, means less oil from the middle east.

Drilling for our own oil means we have more control over it.

The problem with oil will not go away instantly like many would hope. We can shout until we're blue in the face about cutting our dependency on oil and using 'alternative' fuels, but it still will not instantly go away.

So what do we do? We find ways to alleviate the problem without depending on others, IE offshore drilling in our own waters.

I agree that we should not be depending on oil and we need to find other fuels. However the best we can do is slowly pull ourselves away while cutting our dependency on others.

In the end there is no quick fix. There never will be.

Lastly, concerning oil, gas prices, and 'padding the coffers of Exxon' I direct you to this blog post. Its very right wing, but it has facts that are cited that show that the oil companies are not making as much money, IE Gross profit, as many would believe especially compared to other industries such as banking.

http://arthurshall.com/x_2008_oil.shtml

When $1500.00 per second is being made by big oil like Exxon did in the last fiscal year, all while an entire nation coughs up $4.00+ per gallon to support the country's 97% dependency ratio of their transportation infrastructure is on oil, of which over 70% was foreign imports, it's time for a major change in direction from oil. Don't you think?

To say that offshore drilling will solve problems or alleviate the problems as Republicans have been saying, is terribly misleading. People are hit hard by gas prices, so naturally, anything to promote "more" oil will somehow resinate with rednecks who don't know otherwise. We do not have a supply problem!

You know what, all it (offshore drilling) does is give more money to the big oil companies. You will still be paying exorbitantly high prices for oil & gas 10 years from now, when those offshore rigs even start generating something. There is little more than 300,000 barrels of oil per day expected from the offshore drilling - compared to 28 million barrels per day the US uses..

Big oil already has non-federally protected locations it could drill for oil, but chooses not to.
 
Last edited:

hal

Dictator
Staff member
Nov 24, 1998
21,409
19
38
54
------->
www.beyondunreal.com
Poker, I object to the term "addiction" to oil as it smacks of agenda-driven rhetoric.
Definition:

the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

Oil is simply a source of energy on which the world's economy has been built. Using the word "addiction" somehow implies that consumers of the product are "addicts".

I can't recall seeing anyone "disassociate" themselves from the idea that relying on oil for energy is a dead-end policy. Perhaps you can link me so I can read?
 

Iron Archer

Holy ****ing King of Trolls
Mar 23, 2000
2,905
0
37
Obamaland
Asking other countries to increase production is insane as is the notion that we should just suffer in the meantime until "alternative" sources of energy and transportation are made available. So tell me, which evil, big corporations are going to make the money off the backs of all of us who will be forced to buy brand new cars? And how is that any different from the alternative, getting oil here, which will bring down the price?

Not doing anything about the current situation is like driving to the bad part of town to get something to eat, while in the meantime you have food in your fridge. Hello people! Wake the hell up, lets open the fridge (and drill our own oil).
 

Luv_Studd

Member
Aug 17, 1999
822
6
18
57
VT
Visit site
The thing is, I'm not advocating shutting anything off, I'm advocating spending the money on alternative fuels that are more efficient, more sustainable and cleaner. What problem, exactly is solved by lower gas prices? Is it our inflation? Nope, because the Euro is freakishly strong despite absurdly high gas prices (that puts ours to shame). It is the convenience of driving for the thrill of it and it is also a bit of a burden on the lower classes. When would the money come in from drilling off-shore? Not for many years. How long do you think that the oil companies would need to keep the rates jacked up to pay off an oil rig? And the volume would be such a minute amount that it wouldn't have a very large impact. Hell, according to your article we produce 164k Barrels/mo already (and import another 264) and that doesn't seem to be helping the prices. Would our oil production triple (answer is no. It wouldn't even double, it would simply be increased).

I don't mean to imply (though I realize I did) with my rhetoric that making money is a bad thing, it's wonderful and good for them and all of that, but it's an industry that is bad for the earth, bad for our health and relies extensively on exploitative practices for its profit. It is absolutely necessary but instead of looking for temporary relief (for monetary reasons) and INCREASING the amount of oil we consume (because the reason gas prices go up is to cut back on the amount of gas people use by making it too cost prohibitive--since they don't have enough to keep up with our current expansion rate), we need to seek alternative methods and DECREASE our consumption. The only reason people have become so magnanimous in their gushing over green technology is because their wallets are hurting--just like the 1970's and if we inject a temporary fix with an influx of gas (I mean, it's not like we're freakishly low on reserves in a war or anything) then people will forget about it and continue increasing consumption and further screwing OUR health with pollutants and further pushing the earths demise--just like we did after the oil crises.

~Jason

+1 for truth
 

Luv_Studd

Member
Aug 17, 1999
822
6
18
57
VT
Visit site
Oh, and to whomever said that Obama flip-flopped on supporting (limited) offshore oil drilling (as a compromise and part of a larger solution) and lambasted him for it:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91700993

But just a month ago, when McCain was asked about offshore drilling during a campaign stop in Wisconsin, the presumptive Republican nominee noted that such resources would take years to develop, and that the U.S. should instead focus on alternative energy sources.
 

Poker

Anus Retentus
Apr 17, 2006
310
0
0
Poker, I object to the term "addiction" to oil as it smacks of agenda-driven rhetoric.


Oil is simply a source of energy on which the world's economy has been built. Using the word "addiction" somehow implies that consumers of the product are "addicts".

Well it's not my word, fwiw; the most famous (though hardly the first) utterance of the phrase belongs to GWB ("America is addicted to oil," 2006 SOTU).

Individuals may currently have little choice as to how to facilitate their transportation needs, and it might be a bit silly to peg any one person as a petroleum "addict". It still stands, however, that America as a whole is indeed dependent upon oil to an unhealthy degree, such that our out-of-control demand for it has enslaved us to furthering the interests of parts of the world that are unstable or otherwise disagreeable. That is the point that Bush was making when he used the term "addicted" to describe the problem, and IMO it's a quite apt description, really.

I can't recall seeing anyone "disassociate" themselves from the idea that relying on oil for energy is a dead-end policy. Perhaps you can link me so I can read?
What I said was "dissociate themselves from the problem of America's addiction to oil", not "from the idea that relying on oil for energy is a dead-end policy." Those two statements are quite different; the former involves taking responsibility and action for the problem, while the latter involves merely recognizing the existence of the problem.

Not to state the obvious, but Republicans as a group have famously been favorable agents for Big Oil, and have done as much as they could to make the legislative climate favorable for the industry. That's not altogether a bad thing, however, that track record is partly to blame for the nation's vulnerabilities that have been exposed now that the price of oil has skyrocketed.
 

hal

Dictator
Staff member
Nov 24, 1998
21,409
19
38
54
------->
www.beyondunreal.com
Not to state the obvious, but Republicans as a group have famously been favorable agents for Big Oil, and have done as much as they could to make the legislative climate favorable for the industry. That's not altogether a bad thing, however, that track record is partly to blame for the nation's vulnerabilities that have been exposed now that the price of oil has skyrocketed.

What kind of legislation have they passed that you believe contributed to the nation's vulnerabilities?

What does the term "Big Oil" mean to you? Is it meant to imply something derogatory?

Just trying to understand where you're coming from.
 

Poker

Anus Retentus
Apr 17, 2006
310
0
0
What kind of legislation have they passed that you believe contributed to the nation's vulnerabilities?
I just believe, with the benefit of hindsight, that America would have been better served if Congresses and Presidents both current and former had passed stronger, more forward-thinking legislation to incentivize development of non-petroleum based fuels, the vehicles to utilize them, and the infrastructure to take it mainstream. That may sound platitudinous and cliché, but it's the truth: we knew the day was coming when prices would jump and the domestic and geopolitical effects of that would force us to explore alternatives, but had we exercised some discipline and taken steps to better prepare for this years ago, we would have those alternatives ready today, or at least that much closer to being available for general consumption. Less of our money would be getting funneled into the coffers of rogue nations, and the current oil crisis would have borne less of a shock on our economy compared to what we're feeling now.

I don't know if you were looking for an actual list of specific legislation passed, but I suppose I can get that crack research team working on that as soon as I can get them reassembled ... when you don't feed them for a few days, they tend to run off, you know.... :D

What does the term "Big Oil" mean to you? Is it meant to imply something derogatory?

Just trying to understand where you're coming from.
Um, lol well I don't know if I care to put that much thought into it, but ... I suppose "Big Oil" can be and sometimes is used as a pejorative, in that it's a gigantic industry with some of the most powerful lobbies ever to walk the halls of Congress. I don't see an insult inherent in that, but I guess I wouldn't be surprised if the industry itself views the term that way. To me though, it's really just a concise colloquialism for "the oil industry".

If there's an oil exec who's browsing through the BUF and looking for an apology, have him/her PM me or something and we can work something out. :lol:
 
Last edited:

ilkman

Active Member
Mar 1, 2001
3,559
1
38
East coast

What you say makes sense. I agree with it and I agree that we need to look into other types of fuel. However my current stance of off shore drilling is for help to the current situation because I'm quite certain that we would see a benefit from drilling off shore a lot quicker than we would trying to implement alternative fuels.

Now this isn't hard evidence but I remember a time frame mentioned in a news article stating that the benefits of more oil can be seen within 10 years whereas benefits from alternative fuels such as solar and wind might not be seen for as much as 30 years. 10 years is a whole lot quicker.

I think drilling locally would help. It certainly won't fix the whole problem, but it wouldn't hurt I don't think.

The way I think it should go is that we drill locally to help the current situation all the while continuing to develop alternative fuels.

We certainly can't leave things the way they are, so what else can be done?
 
Last edited:

hal

Dictator
Staff member
Nov 24, 1998
21,409
19
38
54
------->
www.beyondunreal.com
I just believe, with the benefit of hindsight, that America would have been better served if Congresses and Presidents both current and former had passed stronger, more forward-thinking legislation to incentivize development of non-petroleum based fuels, the vehicles to utilize them, and the infrastructure to take it mainstream.

I'm still struggling to see the legislation that has so greatly benefited the oil companies. If someone is aware of some, I'd love to check it out. It is very plain to me, however, that our elected officials have massively failed by compounding the problems over the years by constantly aborting nuclear efforts and restricting widespread oil recovery in the US.

Nuclear power has been around for quite some time, but bad legislation put a damper on that avenue. Solar has been prohibitively expensive until very recently and simply couldn't compete price-wise with oil.

I'll agree with you on this much: the gas crisis of the 1970's should have been a red flag to everyone. Unfortunately, when it ended, everyone just went back to what they were doing and seem to have forgotten about it until now. Given that the cheap price of oil was sure to prohibit market demand for alternative energy, it does seem that it might have been prudent - in the name of national security - to incentivize development of alternate resources... but also to get out of the way of everyone else.

At this point, I just can't see how the situation can be laid at the feet of one political party.
 

ilkman

Active Member
Mar 1, 2001
3,559
1
38
East coast
At this point, I just can't see how the situation can be laid at the feet of one political party.

Exactly. This is pretty much the truth no matter which party you associate yourself with.

So I say lets not bicker over whose fault it is and find a way to fix it.
 

Poker

Anus Retentus
Apr 17, 2006
310
0
0
I'm still struggling to see the legislation that has so greatly benefited the oil companies. If someone is aware of some, I'd love to check it out. It is very plain to me, however, that our elected officials have massively failed by compounding the problems over the years by constantly aborting nuclear efforts and restricting widespread oil recovery in the US.

Nuclear power has been around for quite some time, but bad legislation put a damper on that avenue. Solar has been prohibitively expensive until very recently and simply couldn't compete price-wise with oil.
Well the benefits are all manifested in the form of tax breaks and incentives. As an example, check out the summary of Senate bill 3044, entitled the "Consumer-First Energy Act", which sought to, among other things, repeal the domestic tax credits currently afforded the major oil companies, and impose an additional 25% "windfall profits" tax, which companies could avoid by electing to invest money they would have had to pay in taxes instead in clean technologies.

In the end, that bill was blocked by the Republicans' filibuster, since the Democrats could not amass the 60 votes required to force cloture and bring the bill to a simple-majority vote. (And sure as hell get vetoed by the President, of course.)

The Republicans did have some understandable reasons for opposing the bill IMO, but in times such as these, with oil companies making unprecedented profits, I think it is prudent to tax them much harder than usual, and offer huge tax breaks, even subsidies, to wind, solar, and other clean technologies. We've started doing that in recent years, but we should be doing it to an even greater extent now, and should have started doing it a long time ago.

I'll agree with you on this much: the gas crisis of the 1970's should have been a red flag to everyone. Unfortunately, when it ended, everyone just went back to what they were doing and seem to have forgotten about it until now. Given that the cheap price of oil was sure to prohibit market demand for alternative energy, it does seem that it might have been prudent - in the name of national security - to incentivize development of alternate resources... but also to get out of the way of everyone else.
By "everyone else" I assume you're referring to the oil industry, among others. Under normal circumstances I'd agree, but when we hit artificially inflated prices upwards of $140 a barrel, I have a hard time seeing all those additional profits being dropped into the lap of corporations, who are only going to look after their own interests, and into obscenely large retirement packages for their executives. Much of that money should be reinvested so as to do some greater good for the country.

At this point, I just can't see how the situation can be laid at the feet of one political party.
You're right, it can't. Both of them have their share of generalized blame: Democrats for pissing on nuclear because of the environmental fears, for example, and Republicans for catering to oil for so long.
 
Last edited:

hal

Dictator
Staff member
Nov 24, 1998
21,409
19
38
54
------->
www.beyondunreal.com
The Republicans did have some understandable reasons for opposing the bill IMO, but in times such as these, with oil companies making unprecedented profits, I think it is prudent to tax them much harder than usual, and offer huge tax breaks, even subsidies, to wind, solar, and other clean technologies. We've started doing that in recent years, but we should be doing it to an even greater extent now, and should have started doing it a long time ago.

I agree with you on the bolded portion of this statement. How can you justify arbitrarily taxing a (publicly held, mind you) corporation for making money in a fair and lawful manner? The industry has a profit margin that is right in line with most other corporations and significantly lower than others.

People get all bent out of shape when they start listening to large numbers being thrown around, without even realizing that the cost of business is equally high. Sure, Exxon made 45 billion after taxes over the last four years, but they also paid in excess of 64 billion in taxes. Along with unprecedented profits come unprecedented taxes.

Why do you think they had unprecedented profits? With a 10% margin, it sure wasn't because they artificially inflated prices.

By "everyone else" I assume you're referring to the oil industry, among others. Under normal circumstances I'd agree, but when we hit artificially inflated prices upwards of $140 a barrel, I have a hard time seeing all those additional profits being dropped into the lap of corporations, who are only going to look after their own interests, and into obscenely large retirement packages for their executives. Much of that money should be reinvested so as to do some greater good for the country.

Where's the proof that oil companies are artificially inflating prices? What we have here are polticians trying to place their own failings at the feet of someone else.

Here's an interesting opinion piece I found at the Boston Globe that echoes some of what I'm saying: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/04/no_profits_no_oil/
 

TWD

Cute and Cuddly
Aug 2, 2000
7,445
15
38
38
Salt Lake City UT
members.lycos.co.uk
At this point, I just can't see how the situation can be laid at the feet of one political party.

I disagree with you up to a point. It's true that both parties have played a part in getting us to where we are today. However, I don't think it does us much good to dwell in the past.

However, I think you can lay the blame almost completely on the shoulders of Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi for our current standoff. Nobody is arguing against alternative fuels. We would all love to have battery powered cars. Republicans are more than willing to pass legislation that would help encourage the search for alternative fuels, and it wouldn't require forcing oil companies to pay for it.

The only thing standing in the way is the two Democratic leaders in Congress. We have the votes to pass legislation. It would include provisions to allow us to tap into new sources of oil, as well as bolster alternative energy means, and reduce consumption. We even have the support of both presidential candidates. A bill could be constructed that almost everyone could live with. Yet, the speakers won't even allow the issue to come up for debate!
 

Iron Archer

Holy ****ing King of Trolls
Mar 23, 2000
2,905
0
37
Obamaland
There are several things that Obama won't tell you when he intends to increase taxes for oil companies.

1) For all the profits that oil companies have reaped, the government has made over twice the amount in profit from oil related taxation.

2) Increasing taxes on oil companies will undoubtedly have a negative effect on the U.S. economy and the people of the U.S. as a whole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.