Well Keith, that's your opinion. Funny that the GOP ran ads non-stop against clean coal during the campaign. I guess they were using reverse psychology? And you prove the point again when you tal about Dems' wanting to "block the exploration and drilling for oil". Doesn't sound like trying to find alternate energy sources to me - unless you consider oil an alternate energy source.
To Richard: I would re-position the issue, marketing-wise. Stop selling it to those chanting "Drill Baby Drill" as an ecological issue. It's obvious, they don't want to even admit that we have any effect on the planet. So fine. Market it to them as a National Security Issue. Change "Drill baby drill!" to "Stop Funding Muslim Terrorists!". Even your most redneck, car-on -the-lawn type would be open to that one. The overall goal would be the same but as long as rightwingnuts can say it's a liberal issue, they'd rather keep sending money to OPEC than admit anything Obama is behind, could have a positive, long-term outcome. On Jul 12, 8:57 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Fred, > > How ridiculous! If there was a partisan rift, it was caused by those far > left socialists that belong to the Democrat Party! There was nothing > partisan about this issue, until such time as the socialists did everything > that they could do, to The Democrats have blocked any type of comprehensive > energy plan that encompasses development of Hydrogen, clean coal, nuclear > power, and once again, the expanded drilling for more hydrocarbons! This is > flat out Un-American, and the purpose is sinister! First, the Democrats > attempted to make the former Presidential Administration look bad when the > cost of oil skyrocketed last year. Second, the socialists know that high > energy costs are beneficial to their cause, (e.g.; tax breaks, subsidized > heating, subsidized fuel, and the "class warfare card" that socialists play > so well!!) > > It is flat out ignorant and uninformed to blame the failure of our Congress > to come up with and implement a comprehensive energy plan! The partisanship > and the Anti-American position can all be laid at the feet of the Democrat > Party! The Republicans have come up with and wanted to implement a > comprehensive energy plan!! > > There is no getting around this fact!! Lay blame, where blame lies Fred!! > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Frederick The Moderate < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm for just about anything at this point. But the GOP / Conservatives > > seem to have turned this into a "right v. left" issue instead of a > > "Let's not be stupid and help ourselves" issue. Look at any time > > solar, wind or other power sources are so much as mentioned in a post > > and you will see that loyal follower of Rush, OhioMark commenting on > > what a waste of time it is to even try something new. To him and those > > like him, if it's not "Drill Baby Drill!", it's a piece of "liberal > > propaganda". > > As i've said in many posts, with me it's not so much about the planet > > as just being able to tell OPEC to piss off. You would think > > Conservatives could get behind that one. Maybe now that the Oil Man is > > out of office, this will transition into something less about petty > > party squabbles and more about our country (and our planet, if one > > believes that side of the issue). Even if we do happen to make some > > progress on it, under a non-Repuiblican president. > > > On Jul 11, 5:05 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
