KIT, What refineries do you refer to that would be ready within those teo years, and of course the necessary pipelines?
There you go with the polarization. Not only do you label anyone that even questions your position as a "socialist" but anti-American as well. Tell me, what makes a person that disagrees with your solution to energy independence a socialist or anti-American? And does not even disagree but would simply place a higher priority on alternatives to fossil fuels over new oil production. What your saying is my way or your a socialist anti-American. Oh EXCUUUUSE ME, I meant to say socialist-elitist anti-American On Jul 11, 8:20 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Richard and Holly, > > You are now advocating what the political action committee, "American > Solutions" has been advocating for a little over a year. American Solutions > has been pushing for a comprehensive energy plan, that would create a > "Nasa-Like" agency, the sole purpose of which, is to create viable > alternative energy sources, and "alternative energy power plants"; (e.g.; > motors and vehicles that can utilize other sources of energy other than coal > and petroleum) while at the same time pushing for more exploration and > drilling of hydrocarbons where our Nation might become self sufficient. > > Of course, the far left socialist-elitists in this Nation have blatantly > lied, and misled the American public into believing that it will take > something like 10 years to get new sources of oil on line and productive, > which is not true, it will take something like two years to get new oil well > platforms producing oil and to the refineries, but again, most > socialist-elitists have an Anti-American viewpoint on most all subject > matter, and I digress. > > American Solutions was created and is overseen by former Speaker of the > House Newt Gingrich, and I find it quite refreshing that you Holly, agree > with the most esteemed Mr. Gingrich. You actually are on track on this one > Holly!! Good for you!!! > > Here by the way, is the President's "energy plan": > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzZNP4tTfV0 > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Hollywood <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > Richard, > > > Very good post. It has always amazed me that we were first able to put > > a man in orbit in the summer of 1961 and only 8 years later sent men > > to the freakin' moon and safely returned them to home. And at a time > > when all of NASA had computer capabilities probably less than the one > > I'm using right now. > > We need to put that sort of priority on freeing us from dependence on > > fossile fuels to the point we can tell the middle east to just drink > > their damn oil and pound their sand up their asses for all we care. > > > We seem to simply lack the political will to do so. > > > On Jul 11, 7:05 pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Call it liberal, call it conservative or just call it crazy. Here is > > > what I think needs to be done. > > > > We are fixated on fossil fuels. Whether fossil fuels cause global > > > warming (personally I think the entire issue is based on silly > > > science) nobody can argue that it does damage to the ecology. More > > > importantly, fossil fuels are not renewable in any reasonable period > > > of time and the reserves will run out some day. In the short-term, > > > our dependence on fossil fuels creates a national security problem and > > > we actually funnel money to the middle east, thus financing much of > > > the terrorist activity we so fear. However, we have federal > > > legislation that limits our ability in the short-term to mitigate our > > > increasing foreign dependence and we have a tax system that makes it > > > unprofitable for the oil companies to explore alternative and > > > renewable energy sources at the pace that is needed. > > > > Therefore, I propose that a NASA-like program, focused on development > > > and deployment of alternative and renewable energy sources be > > > established. The primary source of funding would come from the > > > elimination of redundant and unnecessary existing government > > > programs. The life of the agency would be capped at ten years. The > > > purpose would be to advance those technologies that the free-market > > > cannot justify pursuing at this time. The added scientific research > > > might push the oil companies to re-evaluate their development models. > > > However, if that is not enough, increasing the taxes on the > > > distribution networks may provide added boost. However, this must be > > > offset by reduced taxes on the production of current oil reserves as > > > well as the simplifying of rules related to refining of oil products > > > and drilling. If we do all of these things, we will create a short- > > > term cushion against foreign dependence while simultaneously > > > eliminating in the long-term, a dependence that cannot continue for > > > many reasons.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
