>> ^quantumushroom:

"Here's my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?
Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge...."
http://tinyurl.com/3afklpq
--Charles Krauthammer


I tried to rape her from the front but she said no. It's her own fault I had to rape her from behind.

>> ^quantumushroom:
"Here's my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?
Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge...."
http://tinyurl.com/3afklpq
--Charles Krauthammer


QM just wants the most negative votes ever on the Video Sift site. That is an accomplishment I reckon.

Why are oil thiefs out 5000 feet? For greed.

"Here's my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?

Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge...."

http://tinyurl.com/3afklpq

--Charles Krauthammer

Here's what we do know.

* Obamarx is an enemy of capitalism, and Americanism
* His policies are failures, as were FDR's

We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work ... After eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot! --Henry Morgenthau, Treasury Secretary under FDR, after 2 terms of FDR's "New Deal".

* The environ-mental-cases hate oil
* Obamarx is conveniently off the hook for suggesting drilling
* His illegitimate regime now has an excuse--at least to themselves--to further regulate oil production, just like they've attempted to take over Wall Street, the auto industry and health care
* Whether the left admits it or not, we're at war with radical muslim vermin, iran and north korea
* Obamarx (wisely?) has sent stormtroopers to the oil rigs

The real sabotage is coming from the White House every day. Compared to the disasters foisted on the USA by taxocrats, a mere oil spill is a few drops from a leaking ballpoint pen.

I've never had a beverage as hot as the hot chocolate which used to come out of those machines at the hockey rink. Seriously there must have been some additive in the chocolate mix that raised the boiling point of water. The stuff is seriously tasty when it cools down though.

That white shit that comes out of a can is not whipped cream. I started to find it disgusting after the first time I ever had real whipped cream. Cool whip from a tub is a decent compromise to real whipped cream in a pinch, but it's still disgusting sugary oil product "whipped topping", not whipped cream.

Liberal Lies in National Health Care: Second in a Series
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, August 26, 2009

With the Democrats getting slaughtered -- or should I say, "receiving mandatory end-of-life counseling" -- in the debate over national health care, the Obama administration has decided to change the subject by indicting CIA interrogators for talking tough to three of the world's leading Muslim terrorists.

Had I been asked, I would have advised them against reinforcing the idea that Democrats are hysterical bed-wetters who can't be trusted with national defense while also reminding people of the one thing everyone still admires about President George W. Bush.

But I guess the Democrats really want to change the subject. Thus, here is Part 2 in our series of liberal lies about national health care.

(6) There will be no rationing under national health care.

Anyone who says that is a liar. And all Democrats are saying it. (Hey, look -- I have two-thirds of a syllogism!)

Apparently, promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short, "The Death Panel") deny medical treatment wasn't a popular idea with most Americans. So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs ... without ever denying a single medical treatment!

Also on the agenda is a delicious all-you-can-eat chocolate cake that will actually help you lose weight! But first, let's go over the specs for my perpetual motion machine -- and it uses no energy, so it's totally green!

For you newcomers to planet Earth, everything that does not exist in infinite supply is rationed. In a free society, people are allowed to make their own rationing choices.

Some people get new computers every year; some every five years. Some White House employees get new computers and then vandalize them on the way out the door when their candidate loses. (These are the same people who will be making decisions about your health care.)

Similarly, one person might say, "I want to live it up and spend freely now! No one lives forever." (That person is a Democrat.) And another might say, "I don't go to restaurants, I don't go to the theater, and I don't buy expensive designer clothes because I've decided to pour all my money into my health."

Under national health care, you'll have no choice about how to ration your own health care. If your neighbor isn't entitled to a hip replacement, then neither are you. At least that's how the plan was explained to me by our next surgeon general, Dr. Conrad Murray.

(7) National health care will reduce costs.

This claim comes from the same government that gave us the $500 hammer, the $1,200 toilet seat and postage stamps that increase in price every three weeks.

The last time liberals decided an industry was so important that the government needed to step in and contain costs was when they set their sights on the oil industry. Liberals in both the U.S. and Canada -- presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and Canadian P.M. Pierre Trudeau -- imposed price controls on oil.

As night leads to day, price controls led to reduced oil production, which led to oil shortages, skyrocketing prices for gasoline, rationing schemes and long angry lines at gas stations.

You may recall this era as "the Carter years."

Then, the white knight Ronald Reagan became president and immediately deregulated oil prices. The magic of the free market -- aka the "profit motive" -- produced surges in oil exploration and development, causing prices to plummet. Prices collapsed and remained low for the next 20 years, helping to fuel the greatest economic expansion in our nation's history.

You may recall this era as "the Reagan years."

Freedom not only allows you to make your own rationing choices, but also produces vastly more products and services at cheap prices, so less rationing is necessary.

(8) National health care won't cover abortions.

There are three certainties in life: (a) death, (b) taxes, and (C) no health care bill supported by Nita Lowey and Rosa DeLauro and signed by Barack Obama could possibly fail to cover abortions.

I don't think that requires elaboration, but here it is:

Despite being a thousand pages long, the health care bills passing through Congress are strikingly nonspecific. (Also, in a thousand pages, Democrats weren't able to squeeze in one paragraph on tort reform. Perhaps they were trying to save paper.)

These are Trojan Horse bills. Of course, they don't include the words "abortion," "death panels" or "three-year waits for hip-replacement surgery."

That proves nothing -- the bills set up unaccountable, unelected federal commissions to fill in the horrible details. Notably, the Democrats rejected an amendment to the bill that would specifically deny coverage for abortions.

After the bill is passed, the Federal Health Commission will find that abortion is covered, pro-lifers will sue, and a court will say it's within the regulatory authority of the health commission to require coverage for abortions.

Then we'll watch a parade of senators and congressmen indignantly announcing, "Well, I'm pro-life, and if I had had any idea this bill would cover abortions, I never would have voted for it!"

No wonder Democrats want to remind us that they can't be trusted with foreign policy. They want us to forget that they can't be trusted with domestic policy.

the white house keeping its distance is the best foreign policy move i have seen from the white house in?..god,feels like forever.Iran has many pro-american constituents,but not from the mullahs.right now islam is so incredibly fractured it is a powder keg.i know i am just stating the obvious,but something has to be done and it wont help if its from an outside source,it has to come from within.

thats why i was cheering the protesters when they bogus election blew up in the mullahs faces.they may have restored some order after many deaths (nede being the most prominent)and many imprisonments but the word is out.now its just a matter of time.my hope is that the west stays out of it.there is a time to offer the hand of assistance,now is NOT that time.it would be too easy for iranian leaders to pounce on that and propagandize it to their own machinations.

if i had to point to a group to blame it would be the neo-liberals,now known as neo-conservatives.mrFisk posted an amazing doc today concerning just that topic so its fresh in my mind.i started paying attention to these guys around 2002,did some research and found an almost hidden group of empirialists who were pretty upfront about their goals.PNAC is a document i have posted about ever since.these guys mean business.
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-New-American-Century

one more point.
while much is addressed in this documentary.it's prudent to know why Iran has a problem with the US.it was not just ONE thing,it was many.
but the two biggest,i feel anyways.
was the CIA/SAS backed coup of democratically elected(yes,iran used to be a democracy,until we showed up)mossadeq so that a much more "west-friendly" dictator in the form of the shah could be installed.(mossadeq kicked BP out of iran to nationalize the oil fields).
the second of course was the espionage game played with both iran and iraq to keep the region unstable and therefore unlikely to consolidate and take over oil production,THEIR oil production.that war lasted NINE years and the US played both sides.
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book called the grand chessboard.its an eye-opener on foreign policy,and explains many of the reasons why the US what they did.they were not exactly altruistic reasons.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard
the consequences of such actions?
chalmers johnson has the amswer:blowback
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson
interviews here:
http://www.videosift.com/search?q=chalmers+johnson
brzinzski here:
http://www.videosift.com/search?q=Zbigniew+Brzezinski

There's no reason that country should have to outsource the oil production to anybody in the first place.


Nope, none at all. I'm sure the remaining employees of Iraq's national oil company could handle everything all by themselves. I'm equally sure that all ties between them and Baath party are long gone and wouldn't cause the Iraqi government any problems. Of course, I don't believe there was anything stopping them from bidding alongside other global companies, was there...



Bet money that option was imposed on them by the US.


Oh, right. Because part of America's evil plan to steal Iraq's oil included guaranteeing over 90% of the profits went to the Iraqi government. Oh, and that the first contracts would go to China, America's closest ally...


And the Kurds? As soon as the fat cats get what they want out of the Kurds, they'll be brushed aside and forgotten all over again.


I think the Kurds are smarter and tougher than you give them credit for. Despite what you might like to think, the world consists of more people than just oil execs and their victims.

The Kurds managed to survive everything Saddam did do them. They've come out with the most stable region in the country and the only productive oil fields. Given they they hold all the power over those oil fields, I think they are in the drivers seat for anybody wanting oil out of those fields, and there will always be somebody interested in buying from a stable oil supply.

Shouldn't you be kicking a Palestinian child and stealing his father's land?

Yes, because it's all the Jew's fault again, isn't it?

>> ^bcglorf:
Yeah, except that 'those oil companies' ended up turning down the option to buy all but a single Iraqi oil field in the recent auction.

"The main stumbling block was the wide gap in the expectation of profits from Iraqi oil. The government was offering foreign investors a fixed fee of around $2 a barrel for extracted crude, while some bidders, such as the U.S. ConocoPhillips, were seeking nearly $27 per barrel!
(source)

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's no reason that country should have to outsource the oil production to anybody in the first place. Bet money that option was imposed on them by the US.

And the Kurds? As soon as the fat cats get what they want out of the Kurds, they'll be brushed aside and forgotten all over again.

Shouldn't you be kicking a Palestinian child and stealing his father's land?

FOX, we would like it if both our NEWS and text-books were an "accurate representation of what happened".

FOX does however make some great points. Like how we actually won the Vietnam war, increased rice production in Vietnam AND created ONLY 2,000,000 refugees. Just like in Iraq where we found WMDs, increased oil production and ended terrorism. FOX is right-on as always.

BTW. I can't believe that a text-book had a centerfold of Cindy Sheehan. Outrageous...

Baked with Olestra, a new type of non-fat oil product. Only results in minor anal leakage.

I kid you not.. I did see a potato chip product made with Olestra with the anal leakage notice. It wasn't pringles though.

Three things she failed to mention about drilling in ANWR:

1) While the footprint for drilling there may be as "small" as 2000 acres, you still need a pipeline to get it out of there. (BP, anyone?)

2) The "average" Alaskan is in support of this? Does that mean a majority? I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, and am not surprised since every Alaskan citizen (resident for at least 1 year) receives yearly royalty checks out of the oil rent trust fund. It's also beneficial to the state as a whole since royalties from oil production generate the bulk of Alaska's state revenue (no sales or income taxes).

3) "The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day (124,000 m³/d) in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day (113,000 m³/d) in 2030. ... In 2007, the United States consumed 20.68 m bbls of petroleum products per day." from a Wikipedia article.
Forgetting the fact that it will take at least 10 years to get production going, at its projected peak production in 2027, ANWR would be able to supply roughly 3.75% of current U.S. oil consumption. In other words, this is barely a drop in the bucket, and will have no significant impact on world oil prices.

Bzzzt, Brazil is free from OPEC due to heavy use of ethanol, and while they did need to increase oil production too, that wasn't the biggest factor.

Brazil has 2/3 the population of the U.S., but produces less than 1/4 the oil we do, and they're independent.

My guess is in addition to ethanol, they also do more conservation than we do. Wouldn't be hard, we hardly do any of that, even with $4/gal gas.

*lies

>> ^viewer_999:
It's already a big worry that we might, just might finally get a guy in office who might, just might be able to make a difference for the better, and that some half-cocked jackass will try to assassinate him, but now this is the second such public reference (that I know of) to exactly that? Makes me fucking sick. In this case, I'm for the law: throw her ass in jail (and any random Fox employee as well for good measure).


Well Obama is the better of three evil, but generally speaking, it's not gonna make a whole lot of difference. Still gonna hit a brick wall once oil production diminishes, still gonna have horrible health-care, still gonna have overcrowded prisons, still gonna fight an endless war against drugs, war against terror. The list goes on.

The Petrodollar conspiracy is a weak one, and is not backed by any serious economic argument. At roughly $6 trillion foreign exchange reserves are simply not that large a chunk of global assets (not to mention debts or transactions).

That said, control over oil production probably has a far larger economic and political value than the price of oil would suggest.