Saturday, August 18, 2007

Obama in a weird energy policy statement

From NewsMax website:
Democrat Barack Obama said Saturday the country faces an "an urgent moral challenge" to reduce reliance on oil...
While I commend Obama for bringing up the fact that we need to talk about our reliance on oil, I don't think it rises to the level of moral decisions like whether to steal or not, whether to cheat on your wife or not, or whether to murder or not.

And, what is wrong with relying on oil to fuel our nation and our nation's economy?? Oil is cheap. Oil is easy to get. Oil is easy to send through production to make thousands of other products that we rely on... like plastics, metal refining, tires, and all kinds of fuel for cars, planes and rockets. If you want to eliminate our reliance on oil, then how is our military going to defend us from attacks when our entire armed forces is driven on oil (and to some extent on nuclear)? Is Obama suggesting that we walk toward our enemies as our tanks and planes will no longer have fuel?

A common sense approach would be to discuss whether we should be increasingly reliant on foreign sources of oil. When liberals, greenies, and socialists talk of reducing our reliance on oil they are only talking about stopping our ability to produce our own energy. They have no qualms with forcing our nation to purchase oil from countries that either are terroristic or support terrorism against us and our allies. Many of our top suppliers are very friendly towards our enemies. And one, Mexico, flaunts our national borders and threatens our national security every single day by shooting at our Border Guards.
...and needs a president willing to defy special interests in Washington that dictate energy policy.
hmmm.... he wouldn't be speaking of defying those "special interests" that dictate no drilling, no mining, and no nuclear power would he?? Somehow, I think he is talking about those people who want to free us from foreign oil sources. I am glad he is here to protect us from them.
"We've got to have a president in the White House who sets bold targets and sets broad goals and isn't intimidated by the barriers and the roadblocks and isn't driven by those who already have an investment in the status quo - somebody who can overcome the lobby-driven, divisive politics that characterizes this issue," Obama told about 300 people at Waverly Light and Power, the city utility.
WHAT??? I have no idea what he just said. How hard is it for people seeking national office to use proper english?? Who do you think he is talking about??
Words like "divisive" and "lobby-driven" are used by Obama supporters to describe Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York...
OOOhhhhhh. So, Sen. Clinton is the driving force behind our energy policy? It is her fault that we are so heavily reliant on foreign oil and are in favor of status-quo?

As a point of fact, no one is in favor of status quo. Status quo leads to dry wells and no expansions in our drilling plans. Some people are in favor of cutting back our drilling plans while others are in favor of expansions.
"We've got an energy policy that doesn't just seem like it's written by industry lobbyists," he said. "It was written by energy lobbyists."

Vice President Dick Cheney led the administration's energy task force, which Obama said met once with environmentalists, once with renewable energy experts and 40 times with oil industry leaders.

And, what is wrong with that? If you put Al Gore in the president's office, those numbers would be reversed. But, what form of energy would environmentalists and renewable energy experts suggest we expand upon? Solar? Solar is not very efficient and very expensive for the normal person. Water? How many environmentalists want to demolish hydroelectric dams around the nation? Wind? How many environmentalists want us to now ban the use of wind power because they supposedly kill too many birds. So, what other forms of energy could these wackos suggest we develop to replace oil? Nuclear? Ha!! Not from these crowds.
Environmentalists have their own special interest groups and lobbyists, but Obama did not decry them. Obama, Clinton and fellow Democratic candidate John Edwards have been arguing over their ties to lobbyists and special interests.
Hmmm.. no doubt.
In Waverly, Obama outlined his plans to require the use of more renewable energy, lower carbon in fuels and increase fuel efficiency of cars. Obama noted that his call to increase the number of miles an automobile can go on a gallon of gas upset politically important special interests in Detroit.
Lower carbon fuels? So, he would demand higher production costs on the oil and gas we use. This would raise the costs at the pump. He would also require the increase in renewable energy. I wish he would state where he would build these plants. One large solar plant that is projected to be built in California has been beset by protests and lawsuits to stop its construction. Not by Big Oil but by environmentalists.

And the reason why Detroit is against the requirement that cars get higher gas mileage is because they, like most Americans, hate it when the government gets involved in their business. If people wanted higher mileage vehicles they would be swamping the automakers when they are produced. But, the high mileage vehicles are a very small percentage of the total sales of autos and trucks. Take a look at how many Hummers are out on the streets. How many Toyota Prius' do you see?

But he said smart energy policies are needed to reduce global warming, lower gas prices and make the country less reliant on foreign oil.

"It's an urgent moral challenge that demands attention now," he said. "We can free ourselves from the tyranny of oil."

How can increasing our reliance on foreign sources of oil reduce global warming? How can using more "renewable" energies reduce global warming? Please, tell me how using solar power will reduce the heat from the sun and limit space radiation? And, please, tell me how forcing all of these government regulations on us and reducing the supply of cheap petroleum is going to reduce gas prices? If you limit the supply of something while the demand keeps going up, the price of that product will continue to climb drastically. These people are idiots.

Oooooo. I love that statement. The "tyranny of oil". As if oil is the ruler over people with an iron fist, cruelly punishing people for their very existence, and taxing us into poverty. Lest we forget, many nations that the environmentalists are ok with us buying oil from are lead by vicious tyrants. Nations like Nigeria, Venezuela, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

But yet, the environmentalists do not care where we get our oil from, only as long as it is not from within our borders. We need to increase our own production of oil, coal, gas and methane in order to be free from the whims of OPEC and our enemies. If Iran, Nigeria and Venezuela ever decide to stop shipping oil to us, prices for gas could top $10 a gallon due to our limited supply of oil currently.

If you have ever wanted to see again what our nation would look like without a car on any road, just let elect a Democrat.


Anonymous said...

I followed your argument, sort of... except the syntax in some of your sentences is bizarre at best. Also, you're a little bigoted.

The Captain said...

Also you are a little idiot.

How can saying that I would like for us to increase national production of petroleum products be considered bigoted? Can bigotry be applied to oil-favoritism??

Well, if I am a bigot for liking my own oil and not Saudi Arabia's oil, then so be it.

And you are still an idiot. But, to each their own.