Posted on 11/09/2005 7:10:25 PM PST by sonsofliberty2000
While you are at it, do a google on "horizontal drilling"
and "3D seismic surveys"
The eco-extremists make bogus claims about the impact of drilling by pretending that ANWR will be drilled in same fashion as was done 50 years ago. It's not so. A few thousand acres impacted, leaving the other millions and millions of acres untouched.
The environmental impact from drilling ANWR can and WILL be minimal.
Not really, not with the will and the commitment.
This is one of my pet peeves.Neither party is addressing the energy future in a realistic way.
In order to remain a high-energy consumption society, we need 1000-3000 nuclear power stations right away. People who plan on keeping their energy lifestyle should be clamoring for those plants to be built.
The alternative is not extending daylighht savings time by two weeks, which is what Congress seems to think is an energy policy. The alternative is to become a low-energy consumption society.
The Democrats, who favor this approach, should say that if they get elected, they will ban six and eight cylinder engines, not allow thermostats to work over 66F for heat or under 82F for cool, and all the other things which are needed to get us to where they want to take us.
"Those are good men and real conservatives. I just don't know if there are enough non-Marxist voters to elect them nationally. When Reagan left office, the role of teacher of conservatism went unfilled."
We need to be honest with our selves. There is not an active conservative majority in the electorate and for that reason we dont have a conservative majority in Congress. We have Senator Barack Obama instead of Senator Alan Keyes.
But there is enough conservative values in this country that we OUGHT NOT go the way of Canada or Europe.
What we need to do is (1) defeat real marxists and leftist whenever we can. (2) replace moderate/RINOs with conservative whenever we can with conservatives.
We need to accept 80% as a near-victory and not a defeat.
"The RINOs sat at home or voted Dem in NJ in 2001 to sink Bret Schundler. I wouldn't be suprised to see them do it again in Ohio, frankly."
And in 2005, Doug Forrester lost by a similar amount to a man known to give his union boss mistress a half mill.
"In order to remain a high-energy consumption society, we need 1000-3000 nuclear power stations right away. People who plan on keeping their energy lifestyle should be clamoring for those plants to be built."
I agree with the jist of what you say.
In another FR thread, I expressed the view that our energy deficit, energy independent, global warming issues, and the need to go to a post-fossil-fuel economy if and when oil gets scarce can ALL be solved quite simply: Build nuclear power plants to generate 85+% of our electricity (the rest can be done with wind, hydro, natgas, coal, solar, as peak demand sources)
I opined that we would need 500 nuclear power plants (with 100 power plants today we get about 20% of our needs met). Someone corrected me and noted we could build large amounts of capacity on existing sites, so even 500 might not be needed. This is a good point. It's not the number of plants, but the overall capacity that is the issue.
We could and we should try to get 85% of our electricity generation satisfied by nuclear power, and we should do it as soon as practicable. That would still take 20-30 years, as older plants are phased out.
A report says that "U.S. energy consumption is projected to reach 127 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2020"
Most of that is satisfied with fossil fuels, most of the energy issues have to do with the downsides of fossil fuels. So lets obviate them by going beyond fossil fuels.
If we simply commit to increasing the nuclear power generation levels by 20% per year, then over time we would reach the level of nuclear power capacity needed to meet the goal. 20% per year means building 20 nuke plants per year, or 400 in the next 20 years. This is doable with the will and commitment as you say.
We should not worry about low- or high-energy consumption per se. It eventually boils down to economics - can we afford to do it long term. We should worry about getting the maximum leverage out of the energy we use (efficiency), and finding a way to obtain energy from internal resources and not depend on imports.
Nuclear power generation + electric cars will be the way to go.
The Democrats don't need to be in power. They are getting their agenda done more quickly with the Republicans in charge.
I love that! So sad, so true
How do you know "they" read FR and who is "they"?
The caribou will probably snuggle up to the warm pipes and bear larger live litters.
The 'they' I refer to are the Republican minions who's job is to keep track of how the public preceives GW's image in reference to whatever subject. These people are reading FR, DU and any other web site that expresses the opinions of the populace. They read newspapers both here and abroad. They analyze this data and create reports expressing the concerns of the masses.
They also look for dirt to slam the enemies for their beliefs and I'm talking about both sides of the political spectrum here in the US. In the case of Clinton, the Dem's even had to create their 'bimbo squads' to protect Slick Willie.
Can I name names? Of course not. Do they exist? Of course they do. How many of them are there? I don't know...
Another senerio is that they don't exist... Perhaps that explains why Bush is so slow in responding to attacks by the Dem's. If this is the case (and I doubt it), big mistake. Huge mistake. Big, huge mistake...
We don't have the liars on our side that the dems have. If you know anything about politics you'll know that. During the Nixon years, yes, but not now. Now the cheats and liars and scammers are all dems. And they worked out of the White House under Clinton. The political operatives on that side believe the ends justify the means. They're no different from any other totalitarian group. They come up with some downtrodden group to use as an excuse to cheat and lie to secure power and then they find an example or someone on the other side not being perfect and that's all the justification they need. The write fake letters to the editor, they write fake letters to Republicans, they call conservative shows and lie about who they are ... they're no different from the Hitler brown shirts -- same techniques. And in time, same results. It's a known and well worn path. Each new generation of totalitarians think they've invented the lie. Each new generation of monsters think they invented the path to horror. What fools. And there are those who are in the process, but they've got a reason why it's OK. Still, they don't talk about it with pride. Wonder why? Yeah, Stalin did it for the "greater good" for the peasants. The ones he would later murder by the millions. And this is no different. I read your words, CommandoFrank and I feel you think it's a game. It's not.
Your overall message is basically correct but if you don't think the same thing happens on both sides of the political spectrum, you've got a lot to learn.
And yes it is a game. A game with serious consequences...
No to drilling in Alaska, but yes to building a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. This sucks!
grasshopper?
Yes, I've been waiting for your response with a grin. You must be too young to remember the TV program about Kung Foo philosphy. I think it was called 'Kung Foo' perhaps.
Anyway, the old Chineese teacher, master of all knowledge, called his students 'Grasshopper' in the realm of letting them know there is more to learn. Nothing insulting or personal; he just reffered to them as 'Grasshopper'.
Applying to our exchange of ideas, I referenced you as 'Grasshopper' because of your belief that the Rep's don't monitor FR and other like sites like the Dem's do. Nothing personal or insulting...
Have a nice day, I'm heading for the casino's (Vegas).
It felt like a term of affection and one of dismissal at one and the same time. Thanks, I think.... Have fun in Vegas. Remember what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas unless you're a conservative. (Ask Bill Bennett)
The base is right to be demoralized, and for good reason. The Administration's apologias and retreats on conservative issues implies that Bush thinks the Liberals are right, and he daren't defend the conservative view which he apparently does not seem motivated for. He is surrounded by rather recently converted democrats (Rice, Meiers, etc).
These kinds of lame treatments of the conservative issues as mere trial balloons for the Liberals and MSM to puncture on the very first go-around because the administration doesn't show any spine to psuh them, is perceived by some conservatives as an attempt to actually undermine and sabotage the conservative agenda by so dreadfully mismanaging the politics of their advocacy.
Conservatives will continue to work with the Administration, but the trust that was originally there is now gone. And it was burned up by the administration itself. Harriet Meyers was the last straw. She was the one who destroyed the conservative position in the Michigan law school reverse discrimination case. Sabotage from within. Ted Olson quit as Solicitor General not too long after.
What a bunch of worthless putz. Or putzes, I don't know if there is a plural of "putz." Many thanks to the RINOs for preventing more economic development up here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.