Some numbers.

The oil companies have 68 million acres in  undeveloped oil leases.

If off shore drilling is premitted it will take untill 2028 before the first drop of oil hits the market. (Virtually every drop will be sold overseas where prices are higher and where refineries still may have copacity.)

For each drilling platform added (think 2028) the price of gas will drop 2 cents.

Currently 30% of the entire corn crop produced in the US is being used for ethanol. Creating only 3% of our gasolene.

Other then batteries no further 'research' is need for full implimention. This is another distraction arguement.

The only energy source that is universally compatible is electric. ALL other forms can be converted to electric whereas none of the others are cross convertable..

Wind (by the millions) and hydro generators are the best way to go because they are  mechanical. Thus they can be maintained indefinitely.
Solar cells need expensive exotic materials and only have a life span of about 20 years.

After the steam powered car the next oldest and most popular tech was the electric car--- for the better part of a century. (pre gasoline)

There's much to say on this topic, as there's an absolutely astounding amount of complete misinformation and total gobbledygook being tossed around --

Perhaps a few outside links will help to at least begin to inform -- away from the Poser forum :

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/07/11/its_the_oil,_stupid

You Can't Drill There...There's Oil There!

Mythbusters

This time around, let's leave economic sense at the door and use common sense instead:
No matter how cheap or efficient or "economical" off-shore drilling or nuclear power are, they don't solve the problem - they just postpone it. Replacing one non-renewable source with another will not result in a permanent solution. Oil isn't infinite and neither is Uranium - period.

This time, let's invest in renewable energy sources as much as possible. Even if more expensive short-term, long-term payoffs will be that we won't run out of  them - ever.

Besides, when we did the calculations that told us that oil is cheap, we didn't see the full picture - we just calculated the costs of getting the oil from the ground in our cars, but we didn't see the follow-up costs caused by oil spills, toxic exhaust or political instabilities that came with it. Same goes unfortunately for most nuclear power calculations - sure, uranium is expensive but not that expensive and once built the plant it's cheap to operate. But who counts the consequences of toxic byproducts and CO2 exhaust from uranium mining, the burden of safely storing the nuclear waste for the next hundred thousand years and health hazards? (Yes, I trust that plant 20 miles from my home to be safe. But nonetheless, there have been nuclear accidents with catastrophic consequences and there will always be accidents. They just happen.)

This is my main concern with nuclear fission power also.  It isn't the catastrophes (which are rare and have been sufficiently compensated for over the past 20-30 years to reduce likelihoods even further).  It is the toxic nuclear waste that concerns me.  People are very short-sighted, never thinking of the future possibilities (to turn a Yoda phrase on its head).

Yeah, a mountain may be a 'good' storage place for nuclear waste when there are 30 plants but what happens if we just go, 'what the heck', and go completely nuclear for electric power generation.  Now we have 100 or 200 plants.  And maybe we'll just make a few hundred more in the future (see anything analogous with fossil fuel consumption).  Eventually, you may end up with a world containing thousands of nuclear power plants.  Where does all of that nuclear waste go?  Do we go the sci-fi route and shoot it off into space or into the sun?  Unfortunately, despite best guesses for long-term storage, the planet is unstable geologically and will remain so for a few hundred million or billion years.  We'd have a bunch of nighmarish environmental accidents just waiting for an opportune earthquake or volcano or, even as remote as is, asteriod/cometary impact.

Fission/fusion is the answer but the question is still in purely experimental development stages.  It could be decades if not longer before such a reactor could be developed so that the toxic waste could be cycled back and resolve the issue.

Wait you guys....the storage problem.......

We have a storage problem because we are blocked from doing what France does: Recycle IN ONE OF THE PLANTS. The one in Normandy.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

Now, is that solution "PERFECT". No. There is still some long term waste. But if we are to go for common sense  we have to face that we cannot get from where we are to a bright future with fusion in a few decades, without oil/nuclear. You just cannot get there from here on wind and solar. Remember, we cannot get there just in the underpopulated US. If you throw in China, India and the rest of the exploding world, we REALLY cannot get there.

So if the world does not resume fission on the France (or better) model, then it is going to be: oil, coal and natural gas. There is NO WAY the world can stop China and India from developing. In fact, in my opinion, an attempt to do so would be cruel and tantamount to destruction of lives.

The only way we could stop or greatly diminish fossil fuel without resuming fission, would be to FORCE the world to recind lifestlye massively.

::::: Opera :::::

Quote - The only way we could stop or greatly diminish fossil fuel without resuming fission, would be to FORCE the world to recind lifestlye massively.

There are some who'd like to see that very thing happen.  Exempting themselves, of course.  Al Gore will continue to jet about the world in private planes -- while telling all of us that we should be riding bicycles to work: and Al Gore will continue to live in a 'compound' which consumes 20X more power than the national average.

He'll also continue to get filthy rich off of this gig.

It's all in a day's work for your typical hypocritical global-warming-religion elitist -- of the kind who makes Pronouncements of Impending Doom -- and then flatly refuses to debate anyone on the issue.  To them: such dogmas are Revealed Truth, and anyone who questions their enviro-religious orthodoxy is a heretic, and needs to be burned at the stake.

But all in all: the High Priests of this new religion have one set of lifestyle rules which apply to them: and they have another (very different) set of lifestyle rules which they'd like to see FORCED onto the rest of us.

BTW - nuclear power was a good idea way back in the day.  The French figured that one out.  Too bad that Jane Fonda and some others made a completely fictional movie called The China Syndrome in order to panic a gullible public -- a public who's demonstrated time and again that they are prone to believing pretty much anything -- into thinking that it was all true.  More recent eco-scare movies like The Day After Tomorrow fall into the same vein.

The purpose here is to seek to get us to give up our modern lifestyles -- along with our independence: in exchange for a collectivist, semi-third-world mode of government-approved living, with the elitists in charge.  But of course: the rules about riding bicycles in the rain and keeping your house at 85° in the Summer and 55° in the Winter won't apply to the elites.  It never does.  Those rules will only apply to us.

"...the rules about riding bicycles in the rain and keeping your house at 85° in the Summer and 55° in the Winter  ..."

Here in California all new construction must include the type of heating/cooling thermostat that broadcasts its settings and takes signals from "the authorities". That way, they say, if they have an emergency, like a brown out, they can set min/max on your house from the street.

I am not making this up.

::::: Opera :::::

Yes, I'd heard about that.  But it also seems that it was supposed to be "voluntary", and that they'd give you a tax break or something if you agreed to it?  Or so I'd heard -- perhaps wrongly.

We're also heading towards a day when some guy sitting at a computer terminal in Washington, DC can sit and watch you as you drive down a busy road in California.  If you are speeding, or if roadside detectors indicate that your vehicle is putting out too much exhaust, then the guy watching you in DC can press a button on his console, and your vehicle's engine will stop.  You'll have to sit and wait until the authorities show up to charge you, or to take you away.  Probably confiscate your vehicle, too.

Welcome to the 'new world order'. ;)

Yes, anyone who thinks that by giving more power (and money) to the government and corporations is in their best interest is delusional.

As I said, nuclear power has changed much since Chernobyl and Three-mile Island.  But as XENOPHONZ said, people tug at peoples' fears with these 'back-to-nature' causes which usually have insubstantial bases.  Look at what happens any time people get wind that NASA is going to launch a small (practically insignificant) nuclear reactor as the power source for some satellite or probe.  I hate to burst their tiny-minded bubbles, but a large part of the US Naval fleet is run on nuclear reactors.  And that, of course, ignores the nuclear armaments some of them also carry.

I'm not up on how France reuses their nuclear waste material - but good for them!  Maybe we should find some people to understand this more thoroughly and have a petition to follow France's lead (haha).  And everyone will be like - but the French?  Yeah, well, the French and English actually succeeded in making the first super-sonic commercial jet (the Concorde) whereas the US and Russia both failed miserably.  They also have super-trains, something not even remotely in the planning here in the US.  I hate to say this, but many European engineering endeavors are far superior to those in the US.  Even if we have that in place, dump the red-tape and activists on top to prevent any of it from becoming reality.

This link really gives you the scoop on nuclear in France.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

I hate to admit it -- they are "France" after all -- but they went out and did exactly what we should have done. And they did it to achieve energy independence.

::::: Opera :::::

P.S. they can cook in France, too.

It is NOT voluntary to install those broadcasting thermos: you have to in new construction. But it is voluntary on a first level basis to change your settings. However, in a "real" emergency they can force a limit on you from the street.

::::: Opera :::::

*I hate to say this, but many European engineering endeavors are far superior to those in the US.  Even if we have that in place, dump the red-tape and activists on top to prevent any of it from becoming reality.

*When I moved to the US, from Europe, I was very surprized about how engineerng-ignorant US public is. Being an Engineer in Europe, and getting through European style engineering school, you get a small dose of respect, at least when it comesto talking about things in your own field.

Here in the US, everyone thinks they know better, but the people whom are actually doing it and have the know how, and general public seems to think "Engineers" are peple whom drive trains.

The biggest obstacle we always battle is this general population ignorance, because unfortunately when it comes to needing government support or backing to make certain things possible, the voting public most often 'does not get it'. The only technology they see as friendly are consumer electronics which aid instant gratification and entertainmennt.

So they have plasma TV's and Wii's and text messaging and snazzy cellphones, while things like levees and energy sources and major infrastructure like roads, bridges and utilities are rotting away and getting more and more archaic... And people like me, whom can work on making the solutions happen are sitting at home unemployed.. because unless we're buildng new homes, there's no money for other major engineering projects.

wait...I should have Googled before I gurgled....

CA may have backed off on those thermos because of public outcry....

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/state-backs-off-demand-to-run-home-thermostats/

Anyway, they wanted to control your thermostat and certainly would have proceeded, except for the outcry from "free" citizens.

::::: Opera :::::

and... OMG, our media is a major contributor to this technical ignorance.  I'm listening to the earthquake reports, and they can't get the basics correct. Milions people hear that, and of course, since CNN eported it, it must be true, while stuff they are saying about earthquakes is bass ackwards.
ARRRRGGGGHHHHH***

.....now if we ever try to pass any kind of safety or modernization relating to earthquakes we have to battle voting public that tells us... well CNN reported that's not how it happens...   Makes you wanna go postal!  

bang head brickwall 
repeat

I highly recommend reading The Multiplex Man by James Patrick Hogan.  It's a near-future scifi novel told from a libertarian point of view.  The book proposes a soon-to-be (and believable) future where radical environmentalists and standard-issue big-government bureaucrats have completely taken over society in the US -- with the results which follow: both economically and in society at large.....and in the protagonist's own life.  The book is especially timely, as US society under such a hidebound governmental system gets compared with a newly economically free-wheeling, up & coming Asian presence on the world scene.

Alternative energy sources.......?  Sure: develop them -- develop them all.  But develop oil, too.......because for now: it's the fuel that drives the modern world, and that makes our modern life possible.  Economically and realistically viable replacements for petroleum are years (decades) away from coming online in a serious way.  It'll happen eventually.  But nowhere near as soon as some want.  For now: we need to drill.  I won't mention who's standing squarely in the way of us doing so.........because that would involve discussing politics.............but reading The Multiplex Man might help to provide a clue.  I will mention that they have a 9% approval rating, and that they want us to be dependent on them -- and not to be free to live our own lives as we choose.  Controlling our lifestyles is a way to control us.

I don't intend to single anyone out, but here and there, throughout this thread have been some fairly short-sighted, and sometimes ignorant, comments.

There are more major scientific breakthroughs being made right now on a daily basis than at any other time in human history. Just a couple of examples: costs of solar materials, and the manufacture thereof, are coming down exponentially fast; there are now experimental, solar-powered cars that are capable of speeds in excess of 200 mph, etc.

Start visiting dvice.com and other fast-forward-thinking sites every day and maybe, just maybe, some of those here, who will remain unmentioned, will eventually get a sense of what and how much and how fast stuff is happening, tech-breakthrough-wise.

It is admittedly impossible to keep up with what is and is not possible, but anyone who says anything cannot be done, cannot be done in a reasonable time-frame, or that this or that is never going to be a practical potential solution ... probably isn't paying all that much attention.

Where and when there is the sufficient will coupled with sufficient investment, it will happen -- and  potentially much faster than some here seem to think possible.

Nevertheless, I have little doubt that some will want to argue the point, so that is all I plan to say on the subject.

Um...question.  I live near the BP refinery in Whiting, IN.  It's a 120 years old.  Back when it was first built the holding tanks were riveted plates.  A lot of oil leaked out before they rebuilt them using welded plates.  They estimate about 500,000 barrels leached into our soil.  My question... if I dig down deep enough in my backyard and find oil... do I have to sell it by the barrel or can I use 5 gallon containers?

Well, there's a serious danger that someone might want to argue the point -- but I've yet to see anything close to a realistic means of matching petroleum when it comes to driving fully-loaded tractor-trailer rigs, or even family minivans.  And certainly not running such vehicles day and night for 100's of miles at a clip, with only brief stops to refuel.  Not to mention an alternative matching the in-place infrastructure necessary to support such vehicles.  Right now, there's lots of stuff on paper, or drawn up in CAD.  There are even some prototypes built.  But none of them are anywhere near the practical consumer stage at this point.  Of course, it's the dirty oil companies that have provided their product to us for all of these long-haul years -- so it goes without saying that they should all be shot.  Bah -- they even made money doing it.  So double the reason why they should be shot.

BTW: to inform the ignorant: for every "alternative" that's out there at the moment, there are a load of balancing negatives for each and every one of them.  Until such time as those negatives are solved, it's back to the 'ol gas pump........

There's another issue that any would-be central planners need to -- or at least should -- consider (although they never do).  And that's the law of unintended consequences.  Such as corn being used for ethanol causing riots over rising food prices in areas of the world which need that corn as food, and not as fuel.  It's easy to jump around and say "Hey!  I've just had a great idea about how to replace oil!"  But the reality of the situation is that it's a lot more difficult, not to mention gambling with the lives of entire populations, to measure the unconsidered effects of any such centrally-controlled market planning schemes.  Like an old Soviet-era five-year plan: those schemes never work out as the brilliant central planners assure everyone that they will.  Instead, things are generally made a lot worse by the brilliant planners and their pie-in-the-sky ideas.  Social theory has a way of totally falling apart when it's forced onto people -- and the society that's unfortunate enough to be subjected to tinkering social theory tends to fall apart, too.

Sure, oil can be replaced.  Eventually.  But unlike a gasoline-powered car: the engine of a world economy cannot stop on a dime, and then turn and head off in a totally new direction on a centrally-planned whim.  Not without an awful lot of people getting hit solidly in their pocketbooks and in their lifestyles in the process.  shrug  But there is an element hanging about these days who would like to see that very thing happen........so..........we at least try to warn people.

Perhaps if we mount a wind sail onto a Peterbilt?  Sure: that'll take the place of diesel engines.  Hey -- just slap a few solar cells on the hood, and it'll go 200mph, too!!!!!  As it heads off with a cargo of (organically grown) food to deliver to your local grocery store.  Wind + solar power.  Of course, entire populations will starve waiting for such a vehicle to arrive -- but hey: that's a small price to pay for the sake of ideological purity.

"Alternatives" -- of whatever stripe -- are a long stretch of time away from coming close to replacing oil as the fuel which drives the modern world.  You'll hear some claim otherwise, for PC / ideological / political reasons.  But it's always nice to daydream, I suppose.  Meanwhile: others (like the evil oil company execs) will actually do the work of continuing to see to it that the fuel that we need to supply our modern lives as we now know them comes in......so long as the 9 percent crowd aren't allowed to stop the flow.

Patorak -- you'll need to erect a stripper well in your backyard.  But be forewarned: those things are noisy.  Might keep you up at night.  But you might need it in another year or two, if some have their way.

Quote - Well, there's a serious danger that someone might want to argue the point

Y'know, I know I would say no more, but I just had to add that the fact that you, or anyone else, can argue the point is hardly a badge of honor.

I read once that one of the most widely respected scientists of the age, near the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, said that automobiles would never be a viable source of transportation because the human body would never survive the stress.

When Koch and Pasteur were doing their ground-breaking research, nearly the entire scientific community said that the notion that microscopic organisms could be a significant cause of disease was risible, that the research was pointless, and would be fruitless.

The Wright brothers, and others like them, were initially and widely ridiculed as nuts. Of course man would never fly.

Some of Einstein's initial findings were considered laughable and various widely-respected scientists set quickly about the task of proving he was wrong.

Back in the mid 1960's, a study concluded that something like over 96% of working U.S. scientists believed mankind would never get to the moon.

According to IBM executives, Bill Gates was delusional when he insisted on retaining ownership of MS-DOS.

Back in the late 1980's, many of the supposedly wisest political heads in the mass media were deriding Gorbachev and Reagan, and saying that the Soviet Union -- as they knew it -- would likely stand for another 1000 years.

The world is and always has been full of naysayers, folks explaining why this or that is silly, impossible, or impractical. There is nothing revelatory or insightful or uncommon about being a naysayer. And naysayers, not too surprisingly, have rarely if ever been responsible for the breakthroughs that have revolutionized the world.

Naysayers rarely even publicly admit that they were ever wrong, even long after the fact. They, and their constant no-can-do attitudes, are merely forgotten.

Two years ago, deep drilling in the Gulf was the big political deal, and it was going to double our reserves and replace 11% of our imported consumption with US oil.
Well, they got it, and we're still waiting for the oil. Or maybe some of that output is getting close to hitting the market and groups are trying to gain some political capital from the effect, the effect being entirely predictable.
Let me ask you, did oil go up or down during the last two years? and- Why do the drilling advocates think things would be different this time?

Out my way, Boone Pickens has purchased nearly 900 1.5 megawatt wind turbines for his Mesa Energy company, and plans to have them on line during 2010 as Phase 1 of his plan.
If ol' T. Boone says we can't drill our way out of this problem, we might do well to listen.

BTW: if you run a car from a natural gas home fill system, it's the equivalent of about $1 per gallon gasoline. It's still fossil fuel, but a workable transition.

Quote - Where and when there is the sufficient will coupled with sufficient investment, it will happen -- and  potentially much faster than some here seem to think possible.

Untill there's sufficint will and interest from the masses, there won't be sufficient financing.
to get that, it will take some serious long term change in general population habits. Historically, changes like that take a generation or two.

Even in the examples that you showed us, things happened over a generation or two - which is pretty much in agreement with what xeno was talking about, things aren't going to happen overnight.

Yes, they laughed at Robert Fulton (the creator of "Fulton's Folly").......and they were wrong.  So naturally it automatically follows that anyone who questions the validity of demonstrable current-day folly is wrong, too.  So much for misplaced associative logic.

"They" also laughed at......a lot of others who shall remain nameless.........too.  And for good reasons.  Because the objects of the laughter in those (majority) cases deserved to be laughed at.

"They" have "laughed at" a lot of things throughout history.  And while one can always point to the handful of cases where "they" (whoever 'they' were) were wrong to laugh: those few cases were the exception, and not the rule.  As it turns out: the files of the patent office are filled with a gazillion more silly ideas that went absolutely nowhere than those same files are spiced with occasional ideas which have actually amounted to something in the end.  Sometimes -- in fact usually -- the laughter is appropriate.

But it's a good thing that the innovators keep trying: because otherwise we'd get nowhere.

Points that no one is making are being argued against here.  No one has said that we'd "never" find viable alternatives.  Although the reasoning behind precisely why we suddenly need to find alternatives right away is definitely questionable.  But some have -- quite logically -- stated that such alternatives aren't yet ready for prime time, and that they won't be ready for prime time anywhere in the near-term future.  Pointing this fact out does not constitute "naysaying".   A true "naysayer" is someone who constantly says "no" to everything.  "No" to the drilling that will clearly alleviate the problem for the present; "no" to unleashing the true productive potential of our own native industry; "no" to allowing our free markets to function & to correct themselves as they ought to, without interference from would-be central planners.  Save us from people who are determined to force us to do things "for our own good".

A lot longer than two years ago, exploratory drilling was prohibited in many areas where we know that oil can be found.  So it's little wonder that we've yet to see the fruits of the drilling that's not been allowed to happen.  This present situation obtains because -- among other underlying reasons -- those who are standing in the way of new oil exploration are doing so because if they were to allow drilling to happen now: then they'd be tacitly admitting to the fact that they've been flatly wrong through the past years of recent history.  And they know it.  They've been wrong about nuclear power, too.

T. Boone Pickens position is being deliberately mischaracterized, BTW.  Those who like to cite his "plan" usually conveniently leave out the fact that he's solidly in favor of developing all sources of energy.  Plus they leave out the fact that Mr. Pickens isn't exactly a disinterested party when it comes to his "plan"........his "plan", if successful, would definitely serve to line his own pockets.  I have no problems whatsoever with Mr. Pickens (or anyone else) lining his pockets -- because that's the basis of how innovation happens.  But one should still keep in mind the fact that Mr. Pickens isn't operating a charity.  Maybe his ideas will go somewhere down the road: but that remains to be seen.  I wouldn't declare utopia just yet.  And even Mr. Pickens readily admits that nuclear, coal, and his own beloved natural gas (thanks for helpfully pointing out that its also a fossil fuel) -- even (gasp) oil -- ALL of those resources need to be developed.  So he's not exactly recommending that we quit drilling.  In fact, he's more bullish on offshore drilling than John McCain is.  He says "get it all".  So I wouldn't be too hasty to use him as a front man for things that he doesn't actually favor.

BTW - there are problems with wind power.  Among other issues, the turbines kill rare bird species.  As I mentioned earlier: every alternative has issues attached to it.  None of the alternatives as currently structured constitute a panacea: and certainly none of them will be able to replace oil in the near future.  Long-term workable solutions might be a different story: but it's wise to keep in mind that it took oil a long time to grow into what it is today.  Even though certain parties might have laughed about it way back in the beginning.

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."  When your only source of history is Bill O'rielly and Russ Limbaugh, well.................

Naysayers like Xenos used the exact same verbatim arguements  in the mid 1800's when whale oil supplies began to run out.  Eventually it was replaced with  petroleum products. We found a way.
Todays challenges ARE a bit tougher. The 'whale oil change' was mostly a change in source.

Whereas todays change will be a change in type.

Virtually EVERY new advancement has had negative naybobs of negativeisms (translates as self invested conservatives). lol
Even the discovery of  anesthetics was declared for more then 20 years as evil by every preacher in the US. Why? Because it took away 'gods pain'.

Quote - demonstrable current-day folly

Demonstrable to whom? To professional, award-winning scientists with long-established reputations and accomplishments who believe otherwise? Or simply to you and those of your political and ideological persuasion?

Quote - Among other issues, the turbines kill rare bird species.

Oh yes, and I'm sure the numbers of rare dead birds are at least in the tens or even hundreds of thousands, and I'm sure that causes you great distress, but it sounds a lot like a talking point that's been stated many times before, and not that we should believe anything professional scientists say, but the significance of the claim has been widely debunked on various scientifically-oriented websites.

Who are you anyway?

How many advanced degrees do you have, and in what various scientific disciplines? How many decades have you devoted the majority of your waking and working life to the study of global warming, the environmental impacts of various technologies, and such?

In short -- when all it takes is a few minutes search on the net to find the comments of various professional scientists in various disciplines who firmly believe that they and the scientific community in general, have made, and are on the brink of, major innovations, revolutionary discoveries, and unprecedented, breakthough developments that will soon and profoundly change the world as we know it -- what makes you the expert about what should be laughed at?

And by the way, as for the drilling for oil within the United States, and the political football that is currently being played in regard to the subject, unless John McCain and the Republicans are prepared to nationalize our nation's oil supplies, the drilling will not "increase our domestic oil supplies", nor make us "less dependent" on "foreign" oil.

The fact is that the oil will be put on the world market, along with all the rest of it, and it will be sold to whoever wants it badly enough and is willing to pay the most for it, i.e., the same situation as now. The Unites States will still have to compete with every other nation on the planet that wants it, and will still have to pay a premium price for it.

So stop all the BS already.

Hell no, Pickens isn't a disinterested party. He's put over a billion of his own dollars where his mouth is. 
Is he a savior? No, but he definitely know what he's talking about. I've spent 20 years, over half my adult life, working for oil companies, and have nothing but respect for the man. (well, except for that bit where he bankrolled the Swiftboat Vets in '04)

Quote -
The fact is that the oil will be put on the world market, along with all the rest of it, and it will be sold to whoever wants it badly enough and is willing to pay the most for it, i.e., the same situation as now. The Unites States will still have to compete with every other nation on the planet that wants it, and will still have to pay a premium price for it.

This is a major point. The oil companies are mainly interested in developing wells bringing in product at $30 or less a barrel, which they WILL sell back to us at $120.
Even the refining shortfall is somewhat of a red herring, because the larger companies bought many of the smaller, competing refineries, and promptly closed them down. This gives them greater control of downstream quantities.

Quote -
Who are you anyway?

How many advanced degrees do you have, and in what various scientific disciplines? How many decades have you devoted the majority of your waking and working life to the study of global warming, the environmental impacts of various technologies, and such?

I can tell you in my case, I'm a civil engineer, and we do a lot of enviropnmental engineering work, like stormwater polution prevention, fuel modifications, sewer treatments, traffic impact, wetlands and various other habitat rehabilitations, green lifestyle land development studies and dozens of similar documents doing research and impact analisys, which get presented to public and various govermnet entities for approval. Have an Engineering degree and 20+ years of experience in it.

If I explained theese things to you in more technical terms, do you have any kind of a scientific background that would give you the ability to actually understand what is being said and presented? I mean other then armchair quarterbacking by parroting what you hear on TV and catch by five minute googling efforts?

Even as we speak, we have a LOT more energy efficent and less polluting solutions then the general public is interested in, because they either cost a little more, or require lifestyle modification. In other words, noone is willing to put their money where their mouths are.

Quote - So stop all the BS already.

snort  OK - now we're finally getting down to the rub.  We can't "win" the debate, so we first switch over to the tried-and-true "who are you, to dare to think that you are qualified to speak on this subject" ploy -- a standard tactic used by those who are in the process of losing a debate.  And then we go on to further compound the folly by using other, less intellectual-baiting, terms.

Totally aside from my personal qualifications, or lack thereof: as you've suggested, we can do a quick google on the web.  And we can find lots of individuals with high qualifications on both sides of the issue.  You can play your "expert" cards, and I can play mine.  Keeping in mind that the definition of an "expert" is: someone who agrees with me.  I can find plenty of 'em.  Most people can.  It's also interesting to note that you seem to be assuming -- without knowing me at all -- that I don't have any qualifications.  However, this is merely a variation on the old "if you don't like what someone is saying, then attempt to disqualify them from having a right to say it -- and thereby shut them up" maneuver.  Standard-issue tactic.  Unimaginative.

Yes, the "selling of new oil on the world market, so it wouldn't matter anyway" mantra is the latest argumentative excuse for not drilling.  That one has just started to make the rounds.  Having dispensed with earlier "reasons" to do nothing about the current situation -- we've now moved on to yet another one.

It's a simple matter of economics.  Greater supply overall = lower prices overall.  No matter where it's sold.  Like it or not, this world is an economically inter-dependent world.  What happens in India affects what happens in the US, and vice-versa.  So the key to drilling for more oil isn't how much of it specifically remains on our shores: the key to it is the increase of world supply.  Of course: I say all of this realizing that unless if someone holds several PhD's in economics, political science, physics, engineering, geology, etc. from Harvard, MIT, and Cal Tech -- they aren't qualified to speak on the subject.  But I'll speak on it anyway --

BTW - as an aside -- one of the richest men that I know (he's among the nation's top 100 -- perhaps the worlds) never made it past the 6th grade.  Nice guy, too.  Goes to a little Baptist church.  So obviously, he wouldn't be qualified to speak on subjects like this one, either.

@bevans -- I've worked for the oil industry, too.  Designing refineries, in fact.  Not here (not allowed), but in Singapore.  As far as Mr. Pickens is concerned, I don't know him as you claim to.  But I have every respect for what he's done in his lifetime.  Maybe he can make his current plan work -- I won't say that he can't.  But I will say that we don't know yet.

So he bankrolled the Swift Vets, did he?  My respect for him just went up several notches.

If every automobile were electric, it would take a lot of copper. Any kind of a generator requires copper. I'm considering how much copper is available and then how I'd replace all the petroleum vehicles with electric driven motor systems that will no doubt need lots of copper to make the windings in the electric motors or generators that I would be  replacing the current systems. From that standpoint I don't think electric is the way to go for transportation of the common folks. It would require to much copper. As far as I know there isn't anything better or more efficient than copper windings in electric motors or generators. Thus far we only use it for starting motors for gas or diesel engines which by themselves can cost 250-1500 dollars or more just for a starter motor for a small car engine or big truck. Now consider every vehicle running on electric motors that would need considerably more. Copper would become like gold. Already is expensive in fact.  Oil is here to stay at least until hydrogen can be used safely. Electric would be too costly. Might not even be enough material. The combustion engine is made out cheap and abundant metals.

On Modern Marvels it was estimated that only 1% of the worlds copper deposites are known about.

And FYI- silver is the best known conductor.

Quote - snort  OK - now we're finally getting down to the rub.  We can't "win" the debate, so we first switch over to the tried-and-true "who are you, to dare to think that you are qualified to speak on this subject" ploy -- a standard tactic used by those who are in the process of losing a debate.  And then we go on to further compound the folly by using other, less intellectual-baiting, terms.

What debate? How could I possibly be "in the process of losing a debate" that I am not even having? I don't have the time or energy or inclination to debate you. We both have been offering opinions here, but not much in the way of anything that would even remotely qualify as debate.

Further, I really don't understand what I said that you think you are disagreeing with anyway.

What I said was that where and when there is sufficient will coupled with sufficient investment ...

If you don't believe that, that's your business, but to believe otherwise is to be in defiance of much of history, especially post-industrial-age history. So maybe you should be talking to historians instead of your "experts."

Quote - Yes, the "selling of new oil on the world market, so it wouldn't matter anyway" mantra is the latest argumentative excuse for not drilling.  That one has just started to make the rounds.  Having dispensed with earlier "reasons" to do nothing about the current situation -- we've now moved on to yet another one.

It's a simple matter of economics.  Greater supply overall = lower prices overall.  No matter where it's sold.  Like it or not, this world is an economically inter-dependent world.  What happens in India affects what happens in the US, and vice-versa.  So the key to drilling for more oil isn't how much of it specifically remains on our shores: the key to it is the increase of world supply.

Fine. More domestic drilling, assuming it is productive, would have a minor impact on supplies and might have a similarly minor impact on the pricing. But that was not the point I was making and it is not what John McCain and his supporters have been arguing. I have heard McCain specifically say that such drilling activities will "increase our domestic oil supplies" and make us "less dependent on" "foreign" oil. Both highly misleading statements. Well, no. They are just bald-faced lies, aren't they?

Quote - BTW - as an aside -- one of the richest men that I know (he's among the nation's top 100 -- perhaps the worlds) never made it past the 6th grade.  Nice guy, too.  Goes to a little Baptist church.  So obviously, he wouldn't be qualified to speak on subjects like this one, either.

Obviously, he would be qualified to speak on subjects about which he knows something, and on the subject of making money, I would probably listen to him as someone who has done so. But on many other subjects, I would probably be more inclined to listen to those who have carefully studied those subjects and worked in those fields. You'd probably say I'm just "flaky" that way, I guess.

Quote - You can play your "expert" cards, and I can play mine.  Keeping in mind that the definition of an "expert" is: someone who agrees with me.  I can find plenty of 'em.  Most people can

Yes, but aside from your very cynical and self-serving definition of an expert, let us consider that there were also "experts" against outlawing child labor, against health and safety regulations in the work-place, against automation, against civil rights, against expanding world trade, etc., etc., virtually all of whom had vested interests in their respective positions, or were being paid by those who did.

And most of the "scientists" who said cigarettes were good for you, or were not bad for you, or did not cause cancer, etc., and that nicotine was not addictive, were bought and paid for.

And a great many of the "scientists" who have been trying to debunk climate change for the last several years were bought and paid for, too.

And most of the "scientists' who try to debunk evolution are not even biologists, much less biologists who have actually studied evolutionary biology. They are mostly "bought and paid for" by so-called conservative "religious" leaders, or else have bought into the same faith-based belief system.

What are sometimes called, and sometimes call themselves, "conservatives" in this country have been up to this tactic for quite a while now. They have demonstrated again and again and again, ad nauseum, that they really could care less about what is or is not true, what is or is not in the best interests of the nation, or humanity, or the world, etc.

These so-called "conservatives" are simply about protecting their own assets, their own vested interests, their own power, etc., and while the very human desire to protect your own is quite understandable, in the long view of history such people have almost always been on the wrong side of history, i.e., dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

Well ... some of us just wish there were an easier way ... but if that's the way it's got to be, then so be it.

Quote-" And FYI- silver is the best known conductor."

Thanks, I've heard that before someplace. You get the general idea what I'm saying though right? I mean people are already coming home from vacation to find the copper pipes and wire missing from their homes. The scrappers are stripping everything they can get their hands on now and this is before transportation is even seriously considering an all or even half electric solution.

I didn't even mention the side effects the batteries would have or how expensive and available those materials are or could become. Then vehicle safety comes to mind. I've never seen an electric transportation system as large that would have that many high voltage wrecks or the toxic leaks they might have. This creates another problem for rescue workers and mechanics. High voltage shock stopping your heart or frying you like one of those old electric hot dog cookers or getting splashed with chemicals. Certainly something to consider I would think.

Quote - What debate? How could I possibly be "in the process of losing a debate" that I am not even having? I don't have the time or energy or inclination to debate you. We both have been offering opinions here, but not much in the way of anything that would even remotely qualify as debate.

Hmmmmm........OK.  We're not having a debate.  I agree: because otherwise we might begin to debate our debate.  :biggrin:

mreee.....mreee....mreee....

Quote - Further, I really don't understand what I said that you think you are disagreeing with anyway.

What I said was that where and when there is sufficient will coupled with sufficient investment ...

If you don't believe that, that's your business, but to believe otherwise is to be in defiance of much of history, especially post-industrial-age history. So maybe you should be talking to historians instead of your "experts."

Where to start with something like this.......?  Let me see if I can decipher this one........'maybe I should be talking to historians instead of 'my' experts........

You see, one problem here is that you are the one who first appealed to "experts" as your source authority:

Quote - ...........professional, award-winning scientists with long-established reputations and accomplishments who believe otherwise...........

Another problem is that "sufficient will coupled with sufficient investment" can accomplish a great many things.........when it's coupled with sufficient time.  Such a deep and complete change to the world's economy as you and others are suggesting ain't gonna happen overnight.  Not without a whole lotta resulting pain and loss of lifestyle for a great many people in the process.  Perhaps you should consult with some historians on the subject............

Quote - Fine. More domestic drilling, assuming it is productive, would have a minor impact on supplies and might have a similarly minor impact on the pricing. But that was not the point I was making and it is not what John McCain and his supporters have been arguing. I have heard McCain specifically say that such drilling activities will "increase our domestic oil supplies" and make us "less dependent on" "foreign" oil. Both highly misleading statements. Well, no. They are just bald-faced lies, aren't they?

Lest you get the wrong impression -- by no means am I a huge McCain fan.  It's just that the alternative is unthinkable.  As to whether or not any statements that he or his supporters might or might not have made (and in what contexts) -- you'll have to make an appeal directly to them to find out whether or not their statements constituted "bald-faced lies".  I don't speak for them.  I speak for myself.

As for your pat assertion that more drilling would have a "minor impact" on supplies and possibly on prices.......that's where we disagree.  Strongly.

We (the US) were the ones who taught the rest of the world how to do the oil exploration & drilling thing back in the day.  And now we've decided, in our wisdom, to intentionally restrict our own development off of our shores -- in places where other countries are more than happy to fill the void by drilling there on their own.  So that they can then sell the oil thus gathered to us.  It would be better were we to be the ones selling it to them......but once again: this world's economy is an interactive organism.  Nobody can isolate themselves and prosper.

Quote - Obviously, he would be qualified to speak on subjects about which he knows something, and on the subject of making money, I would probably listen to him as someone who has done so. But on many other subjects, I would probably be more inclined to listen to those who have carefully studied those subjects and worked in those fields. You'd probably say I'm just "flaky" that way, I guess.

If you say that you are "flaky", then far be it from me to argue the point with you.  BTW - he's done a lot more than "make money".

You still don't want to let go of the "you're not qualified to speak" angle, do you?  Ho-hum.

Lest anyone else miss the point quite as effectively as you have: "those who have carefully studied those subjects and worked in those fields" (read: "experts") disagree among themselves.  So your constant appeals to "higher authority" as the basis of your own authority rests on a foundation of -- highly suspicious structural integrity, at best.

BTW - where did Al Gore obtain his PhD in Climatology?  Not that his not having such a degree really matters as to his offering opinions on the subject of "climate change".  But it's interesting to note that he refuses to debate any of the degreed experts who disagree with him on the subject...........instead preferring to treat them as being equivalent to heretics who should be stripped of their degrees and drummed out of the scientific community.  For the crime of disagreeing with him, of course.  Heretics are to be burned at the stake.

Quote - Yes, but aside from your very cynical and self-serving definition of an expert, let us consider that there were also "experts" against outlawing child labor, against health and safety regulations in the work-place, against automation, against civil rights, against expanding world trade, etc., etc., virtually all of whom had vested interests in their respective positions, or were being paid by those who did.

And most of the "scientists" who said cigarettes were good for you, or were not bad for you, or did not cause cancer, etc., and that nicotine was not addictive, were bought and paid for.

And a great many of the "scientists" who have been trying to debunk climate change for the last several years were bought and paid for, too.

And most of the "scientists' who try to debunk evolution are not even biologists, much less biologists who have actually studied evolutionary biology. They are mostly "bought and paid for" by so-called conservative "religious" leaders, or else have bought into the same faith-based belief system.

You love to offer long, totally & completely irrelevant lists of (often controversial) historical trivia -- once again trying to apply the same tactic of associative guilt that you attempted to before.  Hmmmm.........so based upon this list, I suppose that we can deduce that advocating increased drilling is equivalent to being in favor of working children to death; being opposed to workplace safety; being against civil rights; and being in favor of smoking cigarettes.

And....oh, yeah........the "experts" with whom you disagree are naturally all of them tainted -- damaged goods -- bought 'n paid for by the oil companies: while of course the "experts" with whom you are inclined to agree all work out of purely altruistic & totally non-self-serving motivations.  Nice.  Thus, with a rhetorical brush, you can consign all of your enemies to the Siberian gulag for their villainy, and at the same time you can present your own line-up as being composed entirely of harp-playing Angels of Sweetness & Light.

Frankly, I can't quite figure out precisely where biologists & other scientists who are "trying to debunk" the theory of evolution fit into this discussion.

:rolleyes:

You're right: we aren't having a debate.

Quote - > Quote - What are sometimes called, and sometimes call themselves, "conservatives" in this country have been up to this tactic for quite a while now. They have demonstrated again and again and again, ad nauseum, that they really could care less about what is or is not true, what is or is not in the best interests of the nation, or humanity, or the world, etc.

These so-called "conservatives" are simply about protecting their own assets, their own vested interests, their own power, etc., and while the very human desire to protect your own is quite understandable, in the long view of history such people have almost always been on the wrong side of history, i.e., dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

Well ... some of us just wish there were an easier way ... but if that's the way it's got to be, then so be it.

The conservatives are the forward-looking ones: and the ones who favor liberty.  It's the other side who are wanting to drag us all back into a semi-3rd-world lifestyle, and to seize power for themselves.  By force of governmental intervention in people's lives -- making people's choices for them: not permitting them to decide what type of car they want to drive for themselves, or how to spend their own money.

Forcing the latest Utopian social theory down people's throats.........that's not freedom.  It's the basis & the very essence of tyranny.

As for conservatives being on the "wrong side of history" -- I have no idea specifically to whom you refer.  Perhaps you are referring to "progressive forward-thinkers" with perfect plans for society like Stalin and Mao.  I agree with you: it's certainly true that they shared the characteristic of dragging people kicking and screaming into things.  So be it......and so it still is to this day.

Quote - US dollars:
$5.08 for super
$4.98 for middle grade
$4.88 for regular

It's just nukin futs!

I paid $4.20 today for reg.

Quote - I paid $4.20 today for reg.

It's been dropping lately -- driven by various market factors that no one person -- or group of people -- have any direct control over.

Heh -- things have hit a certain tipping point when we think that $3.50 a gallon is cheap.

It'll go down more because a barrel is now $118.

dogor :-))

I do get your point- and it is a valid point. It's just not insurmountable.
lol- My best bud here in real life 3 house up the road is a major scraper.

As for the new set of problems. They also will be delt with. Just like the red flag act in the mid 1800's (repealed in 1865) or the panicky arguement about that dangerious explosive liquid- gasoline.

[The red flag act made automobile drivers have a man walk in front waveing a red flag and blowing a horn warning others. A speed limit of 2 miles an hour in town and 4 miles in the country]

Xenophonz- I take it you agree with McCain's "drilling is the answer for everything".
As I mentioned in my first post, I'm curious as to why you think things will be different this time?
Deep drilling in the Gulf in 2006 was supposed to double US oil reserves, and offset 11% of our imports. Crude was at around $70/barrel.
The GOP controlled congress and the president rubber-stamped the oil companies proposal, and off they went.
Crude prices didn't go down, they went up at a faster rate than before. So, why should we expect different results this time?

Shonner- Investors are using oil futures as a hedge against the stock market, much like gold.
Stocks go up, crude goes down, and vice versa.

Quote - You love to offer long, totally & completely irrelevant

...

Yeah. I'm the one guilty of that.

Quote - Such a deep and complete change to the world's economy as you and others are suggesting ain't gonna happen overnight.

And speaking of irrelevance, nevermind that I never said it would. I said it could happen far faster than many here think. All it is likely to take is if the very wealthy start feeling very threatened. Anybody remember Sputnik?

And as far as conservatives being in favor of liberty, or liberals for that matter, it all depends on whose liberty and which ones you are talking about. Both sides have proven they are capable of despotism of the very worst kind.

The notion that conservatives, or liberals, have all the answers, or that one side should rule forever, or that one should simply and blindly follow and speak for some extremist ideology no matter what ... well, that appears to be your thing, not mine.

By the way, Xeno, I've looked over some of your various posts on various threads, and I noticed you frequently bring up your very political, ideological take on various subjects even when -- or especially when -- it has nothing to do with, and contributes nothing to, the subject(s) being discussed.

Is politics your profession?

Quote - Yeah. I'm the one guilty of that.

It's great to see that we've found a point of agreement.

Quote - And speaking of irrelevance, nevermind that I never said it would. I said it could happen far faster than many here think. All it is likely to take is if the very wealthy start feeling very threatened. Anybody remember Sputnik?

Yes, and I also recall JFK's "we'll put a man on the moon" response.  That was all well and good.......but it took time to actually accomplish it.  The goal wasn't achieved in 1962.  It took a little longer than that.......

........in addition to which, the space program -- with its oft-cited goal of placing a man on the moon -- was a far less ambitious project than the goal of converting the entire world economy over to some other energy basis than oil.

But not to worry -- private industry, with its knack for innovation & invention, will come in to supply whatever the needs and the demands of the moment specify.  That is to say: private industry will do their job, so long as the 9 percenters stay out of the way.

Quote - And as far as conservatives being in favor of liberty, or liberals for that matter, it all depends on whose liberty and which ones you are talking about. Both sides have proven they are capable of despotism of the very worst kind.

The worst killers in recent history have been those who based their tyranny upon Utopian visions of social philosophy.

Quote - The notion that conservatives, or liberals, have all the answers, or that one side should rule forever, or that one should simply and blindly follow and speak for some extremist ideology no matter what ... well, that appears to be your thing, not mine.

Societies and cultures change over time.  That's inevitable.  Societies also collapse from within when certain factors come into play -- such as the overarching demand for free bread & circuses (other parallels exist, too -- but I don't have the time to type out a novel at the moment).

I'd like our dear readers to note exactly who it was that used language lamenting over the fact that there wasn't an easier way to force people into a planned future -- the perfected "future" as defined by their own lights -- a stratified and hidebound future in which their choices would be taken away from them.  "Dragged kicking and screaming."  Forcing people to be free is ever the way of the left.......reserving the precise definition of enforced "freedom" to themselves.

Liberty.  It means allowing individuals to decide their own futures --- individually, and in their own way.  Without being dictated to by a Man With A Plan for how everyone else should be living.  If that's extremism, then give me more of it.

Quote - Xenophonz- I take it you agree with McCain's "drilling is the answer for everything".
As I mentioned in my first post, I'm curious as to why you think things will be different this time?
Deep drilling in the Gulf in 2006 was supposed to double US oil reserves, and offset 11% of our imports. Crude was at around $70/barrel.
The GOP controlled congress and the president rubber-stamped the oil companies proposal, and off they went.
Crude prices didn't go down, they went up at a faster rate than before. So, why should we expect different results this time?

Shonner- Investors are using oil futures as a hedge against the stock market, much like gold.
Stocks go up, crude goes down, and vice versa.

Sorry, bevans.  I'm not intentionally ignoring you -- it's just that I only have so much time to respond at the moment.  So I ask you to forgive me for not being able to go into any detail right now.

Quote - By the way, Xeno, I've looked over some of your various posts on various threads, and I noticed you frequently bring up your very political, ideological take on various subjects even when -- or especially when -- it has nothing to do with, and contributes nothing to, the subject(s) being discussed.

Is politics your profession?

Given the premises of your first paragraph, one would assume that you've read everything that I've ever posted.  I'm flattered.  As for your question -- I could as well ask you the same.  But I'll treat it as serious, for now.  No, it (politics) isn't my profession.  No more than any other interested individual who's concerned about the direction that their country is headed in.

Well -- I'll have to cede the floor (that is to say: the soapbox) to you for the time being.  I have dishes to wash, and all of that.  Take good care of the thread.  And try not to wax too ideological.

Quote - > Quote - US dollars:

$5.08 for super
$4.98 for middle grade
$4.88 for regular

It's just nukin futs!

I paid $4.20 today for reg.

It's down to $3.55 at one station here if you pay cash, $3.65 using a credit card.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - US dollars:

$5.08 for super
$4.98 for middle grade
$4.88 for regular

It's just nukin futs!

I paid $4.20 today for reg.

It's down to $3.55 at one station here if you pay cash, $3.65 using a credit card.

Yea, it's starting to go down a bit here too.

They seem to do that every year, shock you with gas prices at the begining of the summer, then they go down a little, but not as low as they were before the price shock.
News picks up on it, starts talking about people driving and traveling less for the summer... People get into heated discussions about energy crisis....

With knowing all that, it was disturbing to see it go over $5 per gallon - even if there's only 10 cents difference between $4.98 and $5.08

Quote - > Quote - You love to offer long, totally & completely irrelevant

...

Yeah. I'm the one guilty of that.

Quote - Such a deep and complete change to the world's economy as you and others are suggesting ain't gonna happen overnight.

And speaking of irrelevance, nevermind that I never said it would. I said it could happen far faster than many here think. All it is likely to take is if the very wealthy start feeling very threatened. Anybody remember Sputnik?

And as far as conservatives being in favor of liberty, or liberals for that matter, it all depends on whose liberty and which ones you are talking about. Both sides have proven they are capable of despotism of the very worst kind.

The notion that conservatives, or liberals, have all the answers, or that one side should rule forever, or that one should simply and blindly follow and speak for some extremist ideology no matter what ... well, that appears to be your thing, not mine.

"  Technocracy is the Answer  !!!1!!!!111!!!!  "

[Kitty exclaims..............  ducks and runs off.......................................--------------------------->

Quote - Xenophonz- I take it you agree with McCain's "drilling is the answer for everything".
As I mentioned in my first post, I'm curious as to why you think things will be different this time?
Deep drilling in the Gulf in 2006 was supposed to double US oil reserves, and offset 11% of our imports. Crude was at around $70/barrel.
The GOP controlled congress and the president rubber-stamped the oil companies proposal, and off they went.
Crude prices didn't go down, they went up at a faster rate than before. So, why should we expect different results this time?

Shonner- Investors are using oil futures as a hedge against the stock market, much like gold.
Stocks go up, crude goes down, and vice versa.

At least with that there would be enough domestic demand for pwtroleum engineers, and I could retrain and get a job there.

Her's food for thought - with the country going oh so green (or at least the media and politicians would have you think that), the demand for civil and environmental engineers and scientists across the country is at a 35 year low.    So, how exactly does that add up??????

But hey, what you hear on TV is all true. [INSERT MAJOR EYEROLL RIGHT HERE]

Quote - I'd like our dear readers to note exactly who it was that used language lamenting over the fact that there wasn't an easier way to force people into a planned future -- the perfected "future" as defined by their own lights -- a stratified and hidebound future in which their choices would be taken away from them.  "Dragged kicking and screaming."  Forcing people to be free is ever the way of the left.......reserving the precise definition of enforced "freedom" to themselves.

Wow. You just give any comment whatever meaning you want to, don't you? And especially if you think it gives you an opportunity for another insult or to impugn my character.

I never used the word "force" or anything similar. Nor have I suggested a "planned" future, but simply a future. Some of us would like there to be one, y'know?

Who or what do you think you are you talking about anyway?

Let's see ... who was running the roost when we decided to force "freedom" on Iraq?

Like only the left uses force to try to make others abide by their agenda. That's a laugh.

By the way, Xeno, I am not about being on the left or being liberal. I've voted for Republicans, and I've voted for Democrats, and I've voted for none of the above.

You talk about allowing individuals to make their own choices in life. Well, that's what I have tried to do. At different times, I have believed in different ideas, different styles of leadership, etc.

I don't know if you can understand this, but I do not believe one philosophy, or one ideology fits all times, nor all cultures, as you apparently do.

There are plenty of times and circumstances and issues when individuals, no matter how willfully ignorant they may be, making all their own choices makes sense, and there are times and circumstances when it can lead to social and cultural disaster. Conservatives believe that as much as liberals, or they would not even bother to vote or to school their own children.

Sometimes there is a disagreement about which times and which circumstances and which issues merit any sort of "interference,"  but to pretend one side is all about control and the other side isn't is just patently absurd.

I try to educate myself, and I try to use my best judgment. No doubt sometimes I am wrong, but whoever you have been arguing with, it isn't me. I am not that leftist you seem to fear and hate and blame so much.