I'm saying drill Florida first. They drill all around Louisiana. The area is already developed and you don't have to ship the oil thousands of miles by pipeline or barge.
I've heard the "Drill the Gulf first" argument. Quite often from environmentalists. If drilling does in fact destroy the environment, I'm curious as to how they justify trading off the ocean for the tundra.
I'm saying drill Florida first. They drill all around Louisiana. The area is already developed and you don't have to ship the oil thousands of miles by pipeline or barge.
I'll agree with this to some extent. I read there's something like 8,000 unused leases to drill. Why not take advantage of those first? I'm sure someone has a reasonable explanation for me. :-)
The Gulf Coast has Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Seems to me, the first two have been explored and drilled. Short coastlines on two of them
Drill ANWR and save us from the Middle Eastern plunder.
Why drill at all? The technology exists for hydrogen powered cars (see this month's popular science) and prototypes have been successfully made using dozens of other fuel alternatives. The only thing standing in the way of a natural progression of this civilization is the neaderthal stupidity of the oil industry and its belligerant destruction of anything that may threaten its profits. Oh, and the thugs put into office by them to help protect them.
If we abandon the need for oil for just our automobiles alone we can bankrupt the arab oil state in a day. But that might leave Bush Crime Syndicate being solely in the drug smuggling and terror-for-profit business and who knows what kind of mayhem they would bring upon us then.
Getting rid of petroleum products all together would not be realistic. They still have many good uses, such as in the medical field. The point was to loosen the grip of Arab oil for our cars and motorized toys, which seem to be our principal use for oil. This alone would drastically alter the grip of which they have on our collective balls, don't you agree?
I see it as the exact opposite. I like to hear other people's opinions. News is supposedly unbiased and therefore is pretty much useless as far as coming to a conclusion on a matter.
I will agree that Townhall.com is one sided and that's why I asked about whether the liberals had a comparable site.
Limbaugh's following has a cult resemblance in some instances.
"Oh, Rush, I didn't think about anything until I listened to you, and you told me what to think.
"Thank you, thank you, thank you......"
And Limbaugh is not going to take a call that makes him look bad. And the only liberals he seems to let through are the ones who can't state their case very well, so he can easily outmaneuver them, or the ones who are so looney he lets them rant on and hang themselves.
And the only liberals he seems to let through are the ones who can't state their case very well, so he can easily outmaneuver them, or the ones who are so looney he lets them rant on and hang themselves.
And the only liberals he seems to let through are the ones who can't state their case very well, so he can easily outmaneuver them, or the ones who are so looney he lets them rant on and hang themselves.
jethro sez:
"That is typical for all liberals."
You usually show up under-armed in a battle of wits, jethro.
Lucky for you, you can always fall back on reactionary dogma. Just like a talk radio host.
And the only liberals he seems to let through are the ones who can't state their case very well, so he can easily outmaneuver them, or the ones who are so looney he lets them rant on and hang themselves.
True for ALL liberals. Just check Rick's last post.
I think it's funny that the libs get all upset about talk radio. I wonder why ? Hmmm the truth hurt a bit to much ? But the most laughable part is when the shoe is on the other foot from someone you are politically opposite of. Take Molly Ivins for instance. Fold, you said to me
No, Molly might be disliked by you conservs, but she is also quite humorous to those who can set aside their personal politics and just laugh.
So it's o.k apparently for you and Rick to rip on Rush and denegrate his callers but if we do it to someone who you might agree politically with, then the story is different. Then the person just can't put politics aside right ? Just to let you know I don't like Rush or Molly. It has nothing to do with politics I don't like either ones style. Rush is arrogant and Molly writes on a high school level and has never had an original idea in her life. There are other writers or media people etc. That although I might dilike thier politics respect their ability. So it has nothing to do with politics.
As far as talk radio goes. The difference is that they are talk shows who don't try to hide their bias by calling themselves a "NEWS paper or "NEWS" program Here's a wild solution, turn it off. Like it or not he has darn good ratings. But if you don't like it, flip the channel it works like a charm, the minute I see the waterboys for the left like Rather, Jennings, CNN etc. I flip the channel. as do others, hmmmm wonder hwy thier ratings are going down ? Personally as I said I don't care for Rush or his style and I rarely listen. And relax, don't worry you still control 95% of the rest of the media to do your work for you. Oh wait, I forgot, there is no bias in the media, right.
Interesting article about the farm subsidies. I agree with you. I believe the figure I saw was 100 billion will be spent in less than 10 years time on subsidies. That's alot of money to pay someone NOT to grow something or to ovrproduce.
Now I think farming is a noble profession and actually have realitives who are farmers. A small part of me would love to be a farmer. But I do think it's obvious we have too many farmers. I know it sounds callous but if we have to pay people not to grow or to overproduce in one area that's saying something is wrong.
The subsidies will fix nothing. The problem will only get worse. In this state especially farming is a sacred cow, no pun intended. But I don't know of another small business that gets subsidies the way farming does. It's sad to see farmers go under but I can tell you from speaking to my uncle's that the good farmers are doing just fine and without subsidies they don't want Uncle sam telling them what and were to grow things. The good farmers are the good business people and they are the ones who will stay. I hate to say it but we just have too many people producing crops etc. I own a small business I built from the ground up. I employ 5 people. I don't make alot of money yet due to overhead. hopefully some day I'll actually make more, for 2 years I barely broke even. I have risks and challenges just like farmers do and if I go belly up next week, nobody would lift a finger to help. Now that's fine with me because it's part of the risk I accepted when I chose to do this I don't want them more involved than they already are.
I don't understand why farming is so untouchable and that they continually pay to keep many who are just plain bad business people from going out of business. Time to put the money elsewhere and let the market correct itself. Want grain prices etc to go up for the farmers? Let the bad ones go and less will be producing therefore supply goes down and price goes up. Not the artificial price we've had for 25 years. some argue the price of food will go up, it would but we are paying it in subsidies anyway, probably more than the increase in a loaf of wonder bread.
I believe you both had brought up the massive farming bill that was passed. It's political payoff time I guess on both sides of the aisle. check this story out. I think I might take farming up afterall. WoW !
MCVILLE, N.D. — North Dakota's farming season is notoriously unreliable, with this year's May snowstorms pushing back planting in most of the state.
Luckily, farmers who know they can't count on the weather are sure they can count on the federal government.
"I'd be losing money every year without the government," said Terry Naas, a local farmer.
On Wednesday, the Senate approved 64-35 a 10-year farm bill that ups subsidies by 80 percent, returning them to pre-1996 levels, when the Freedom to Farm Act was passed by Congress in an effort to reduce subsidies on a variety of crops over the next six years.
This number floored me.
The flow of federal dollars was supposed to end this year, but the effort to wean farmers off subsidies has instead given way to $83 billion more over the next 10 years, most of it dispersed as payouts to farmers.
The House passed an identical version of the bill last week on a 280-141 vote. It now goes to the president's desk for his signature.
Three years ago, Fox News visited Naas when he was on the verge of leaving his family farm. He said had it not been for $300,000 he received from the federal government since then, he would have quit the business.
100,000 a year ?.
It's the same story for most North Dakota farmers. Government payments to grow crops — or not grow them — is the only thing that keeps farmers on the farm.
"How do I say it?" asked Eric Aasmundstad of the North Dakota Farm Bureau. "It's absolutely as critical as blood running through your veins."
The new farm bill has been described as "a little something for everyone." Almost the entire array of American agricultural products are now covered with some form of subsidy, and political analysts say that could be because of the tight election year in 2002.
"Both the Democrats and the Republicans are vying for votes, and one of the ways to vie for votes is to bring more money back home," said Andrew Swenson at North Dakota State University's extension service.
Swenson said that politically-motivated growth in federal subsidies will not be all bad. For one thing, food prices will stay low for consumers.
But already the new crop of subsidies has farmers doing their arithmetic.
"They lowered the loan rate on the soybeans and that was what I was going to plant the most of this year," Naas said.
Naas will then benefit from the late snow covering his farm. It bought him the time needed for Congress to pass the bill so he can calculate which crops will yield him the most government money come harvest time.
Looks like the farm bill is loaded with idiotic spending and a big load of manure.
Well I'd love to chat but I'm off to go by some overalls and shop for a tractor.
Medicial-Marijuana Advocates Dismiss Government Pot as 'Ditch Weed'
SAN JOSE, Calif. — In the world of high-grade marijuana, sticks, seeds and stems are not welcome ingredients.
Medical marijuana researchers said they found such cannabis chaff among pot from a government farm, and say their patients deserve kinder buds.
The government-grown marijuana is being provided to San Mateo County for the first publicly funded analysis of HIV patients smoking the drug at home.
But some of the patients and medical marijuana advocacy groups say the Mississippi-grown weed is weak.
"It's unconscionable that they would be giving this marijuana to patients," said Dale Gieringer, state coordinator for NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "It's stale, low-potency ditch weed."
Fewer than 10 people are taking part in the study originally planned for 60 participants. One man gave up smoking the joints altogether after he became fed up with the low quality.
The government defended its marijuana, saying it "does not contain sticks and seeds."
"The problem is re-humidifying. It makes it kind of harsh," said Steve Gust, special assistant to the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
In Southern California, they're having just the opposite problem.
Perhaps these two groups should get together and make a blend.
Two patients enrolled in a medical marijuana trial program in La Jolla have complained that the NIDA-provided pot is too potent.
"They've reported getting high shortly after the first few puffs," said Dr. Andrew Mattison, the center's co-director. "These are people with a chronic, debilitating illness who do not want to get high. They want to get pain relief."
I don't even know why anyone would make an issue out of medical marijuana. I mean if penecillian gave you a buzz would they not want that to be used either ? I don't really have a stand on wether we should legalize it for everyone but for medical use is abusrd that we don't allow it. One other thing though, I would venture to guess that people could find it if they wanted too legal or not.
i can think of a couple of reasons, rob. first, admitting that there is a legitimate medical use for it would go against what we've been fed for decades. someone would have to admit that they're wrong, and have been wrong all along. second, pharmaceutical companies. why would someone want to get raped by drug companies when they can grow their own and be in less pain?
They'll take more and more as the opportunity presents itself.
I hope they do get the opportunity because we need the oil.
Was it you who just a few minutes ago said:
"Are we to allow a natural resource to simply sit there?"
"It's ok to supposedly pollute the ocean but not the tundra"
Yep, that was me.
I'm not saying drilling will harm the environment, that's the bunny foo foo wacko's argument.
If it is true that it will destroy the environment, I'm curious as to why you believe it ok to pollute & destroy the Gulf but not ANWR?
They say they want just 2,000 acres in ANWR? Like hell. They'll take more and more as the opportunity presents itself.
So what? That's where the oil is. Of course they're going to want to drill for more.
We can however set very strick standards for the drilling of said oil. What's wrong with that?
Frankly, JT, I don't what the hell you're saying.
I'm saying drill Florida first. They drill all around Louisiana. The area is already developed and you don't have to ship the oil thousands of miles by pipeline or barge.
Frankly, JT, I don't what the hell you're saying.
I've heard the "Drill the Gulf first" argument. Quite often from environmentalists. If drilling does in fact destroy the environment, I'm curious as to how they justify trading off the ocean for the tundra.
I'm saying drill Florida first. They drill all around Louisiana. The area is already developed and you don't have to ship the oil thousands of miles by pipeline or barge.
I'll agree with this to some extent. I read there's something like 8,000 unused leases to drill. Why not take advantage of those first? I'm sure someone has a reasonable explanation for me. :-)
" Why not take advantage of those first? I'm sure someone has a reasonable explanation for me. :-) "
The president's brother is governor of Florida.
The president's brother is governor of Florida.
Possibly I'm ignorat but, is off Florida the only place left to drill in the Gulf?
The Gulf Coast has Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Seems to me, the first two have been explored and drilled. Short coastlines on two of them
Why drill at all? The technology exists for hydrogen powered cars (see this month's popular science) and prototypes have been successfully made using dozens of other fuel alternatives. The only thing standing in the way of a natural progression of this civilization is the neaderthal stupidity of the oil industry and its belligerant destruction of anything that may threaten its profits. Oh, and the thugs put into office by them to help protect them.
If we abandon the need for oil for just our automobiles alone we can bankrupt the arab oil state in a day. But that might leave Bush Crime Syndicate being solely in the drug smuggling and terror-for-profit business and who knows what kind of mayhem they would bring upon us then.
The technology exists for hydrogen powered cars.
I couldn't find anything on their website.
Anyway, go right ahead. While you're at it, let me know how of that car is made out of petroleum based products.
Getting rid of petroleum products all together would not be realistic. They still have many good uses, such as in the medical field.
The point was to loosen the grip of Arab oil for our cars and motorized toys, which seem to be our principal use for oil. This alone would drastically alter the grip of which they have on our collective balls, don't you agree?
The piece on cars was in the May 2002 printed edition of Pop Science. Check it out sometime, the car they've come up with is amazing.
I have no problem with these ideas, I dimply don't see them as realistic alternatives to gas powered vehicles.
From a superpower to a Third World country, the United States is in rapid decline. It is a change of which the population -- especially the "experts" -- is unaware. Because of past success, Americans live in a smug no-think world.
Mornin' Jethro!
From a superpower to a Third World country, the United States is in rapid decline. It is a change of which the population -- especially the "experts" -- is unaware. Because of past success, Americans live in a smug no-think world.
It ain't news, fold, as I have told you MANY times. It is opinion based on the news.
What do you mean by "the news?"
I wouldn't consider townhall.com a "news" site. It's strictly opinion.
Is there a comparable liberal opinion site that is devoted strictly to opinion?
I see it as the exact opposite. I like to hear other people's opinions. News is supposedly unbiased and therefore is pretty much useless as far as coming to a conclusion on a matter.
I will agree that Townhall.com is one sided and that's why I asked about whether the liberals had a comparable site.
I don't need Noonan, Salsbury or Joe Soucherey telling me what I need to think, wear, eat, etc., etc.
They don't. They tell you what THEY think.
No, fold, that is the desire of idiots like Paul Krugman, Ellen Goodman, Molly Ivins and other cretins like them.
Molly Ivins: funny in a stupid kind of way.
Molly Ivins, Pffft.
Or maybe it shoul be: Molly Ivins: stupid in funny kind of way.
How about it's funny that anyone that stupid could have a column. :)
I think Rush Limbaugh can be pretty funny, He reminds me of guys I knew in college.
Some of his callers are truly frightening.
Limbaugh's following has a cult resemblance in some instances.
"Oh, Rush, I didn't think about anything until I listened to you, and you told me what to think.
"Thank you, thank you, thank you......"
And Limbaugh is not going to take a call that makes him look bad. And the only liberals he seems to let through are the ones who can't state their case very well, so he can easily outmaneuver them, or the ones who are so looney he lets them rant on and hang themselves.
Mark Russel? Who talks about him? fold, I think, is the first person that has mentioned him.
And the only liberals he seems to let through are the ones who can't state their case very well, so he can easily outmaneuver them, or the ones who are so looney he lets them rant on and hang themselves.
That is typical for all liberals.
Abercrombie & Fitch tried to sell some silly T-shirts with Asian caricatures a few weeks ago. One showed a pair of slant-eyed Chinese men with the phrase, "Wong Brothers Laundry Service: Two Wongs Can Make It White." Some very loud, wired and whiny Asian-American kids didn't like them. So the company pulled the clothes line and apologized profusely. "We're very, very, very sorry," a company representative said. "It's never been our intention to offend anyone."
Today, the greatest threat to the freedom and independence of the nations of Europe comes not from Le Pen and that 17 percent of French men and women who voted for him. It comes from an intolerant European Establishment that will accept no rollback of its powers or privileges, nor any reversal of policies it deems "progressive."
Limbaugh seems to take a lot of calls from Florida, which tells me there's a whole lot of retirees who call in.
If anyone can get their hands on a New York Times magazine from April 21, Florida is featured on the cover in a story that's long overdue.
"What is it about Florida, anyway?" The Times asked. From shark attacks to Elian, the terrorist flight school the Times calls it the New California.
That is only two columns, fold, you better get over there and read the rest. There were quite a few this morning.
And the only liberals he seems to let through are the ones who can't state their case very well, so he can easily outmaneuver them, or the ones who are so looney he lets them rant on and hang themselves.
jethro sez:
"That is typical for all liberals."
You usually show up under-armed in a battle of wits, jethro.
Lucky for you, you can always fall back on reactionary dogma. Just like a talk radio host.
And the only liberals he seems to let through are the ones who can't state their case very well, so he can easily outmaneuver them, or the ones who are so looney he lets them rant on and hang themselves.
True for ALL liberals. Just check Rick's last post.
I bet you'd enjoy living in Florida, jethro.
The Sarasota area seems to be a center for fundamentalist religion and the anti-abortion movement. Always seems to be news out of there.
No I don't live in Florida but I think fold does.
I think it's funny that the libs get all upset about talk radio. I wonder why ? Hmmm the truth hurt a bit to much ? But the most laughable part is when the shoe is on the other foot from someone you are politically opposite of. Take Molly Ivins for instance. Fold, you said to me
So it's o.k apparently for you and Rick to rip on Rush and denegrate his callers but if we do it to someone who you might agree politically with, then the story is different. Then the person just can't put politics aside right ? Just to let you know I don't like Rush or Molly. It has nothing to do with politics I don't like either ones style. Rush is arrogant and Molly writes on a high school level and has never had an original idea in her life. There are other writers or media people etc. That although I might dilike thier politics respect their ability. So it has nothing to do with politics.
As far as talk radio goes.
The difference is that they are talk shows who don't try to hide their bias by calling themselves a "NEWS paper or "NEWS" program Here's a wild solution, turn it off. Like it or not he has darn good ratings. But if you don't like it, flip the channel it works like a charm, the minute I see the waterboys for the left like Rather, Jennings, CNN etc. I flip the channel. as do others, hmmmm wonder hwy thier ratings are going down ? Personally as I said I don't care for Rush or his style and I rarely listen. And relax, don't worry you still control 95% of the rest of the media to do your work for you. Oh wait, I forgot, there is no bias in the media, right.
fold says he saw the following bumper sticker in Florida: "Friends don't let friends vote Republican".
Is it any wonder why there is vote fraud there?
A prime example of just how dangerous liberals are.
Fold,
Interesting article about the farm subsidies.
I agree with you.
I believe the figure I saw was 100 billion will be spent in less than 10 years time on subsidies.
That's alot of money to pay someone NOT to grow something or to ovrproduce.
Now I think farming is a noble profession and actually have realitives who are farmers. A small part of me would love to be a farmer. But I do think it's obvious we have too many farmers. I know it sounds callous but if we have to pay people not to grow or to overproduce in one area that's saying something is wrong.
The subsidies will fix nothing. The problem will only get worse. In this state especially farming is a sacred cow, no pun intended. But I don't know of another small business that gets subsidies the way farming does. It's sad to see farmers go under but I can tell you from speaking to my uncle's that the good farmers are doing just fine and without subsidies they don't want Uncle sam telling them what and were to grow things. The good farmers are the good business people and they are the ones who will stay. I hate to say it but we just have too many people producing crops etc. I own a small business I built from the ground up. I employ 5 people. I don't make alot of money yet due to overhead. hopefully some day I'll actually make more, for 2 years I barely broke even. I have risks and challenges just like farmers do and if I go belly up next week, nobody would lift a finger to help. Now that's fine with me because it's part of the risk I accepted when I chose to do this I don't want them more involved than they already are.
I don't understand why farming is so untouchable and that they continually pay to keep many who are just plain bad business people from going out of business. Time to put the money elsewhere and let the market correct itself. Want grain prices etc to go up for the farmers? Let the bad ones go and less will be producing therefore supply goes down and price goes up. Not the artificial price we've had for 25 years. some argue the price of food will go up, it would but we are paying it in subsidies anyway, probably more than the increase in a loaf of wonder bread.
Do you always have to try to start something, fold.
I don't think so, fold.
That's Great!
Bill & Rick,
I believe you both had brought up the massive farming bill that was passed. It's political payoff time I guess on both sides of the aisle.
check this story out. I think I might take farming up afterall. WoW !
This number floored me.
100,000 a year ?.
Looks like the farm bill is loaded with idiotic spending and a big load of manure.
Well I'd love to chat but I'm off to go by some overalls and shop for a tractor.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52293,00.html
Thanks, I almost forgot, I knew I was missing something.
Sorry, but I've just about had my fill of the United Nations and the warped values it promotes. It is increasingly difficult to understand why the United States must continue to placate and support this misguided organization.
Perhaps these two groups should get together and make a blend.
I don't even know why anyone would make an issue out of medical marijuana. I mean if penecillian gave you a buzz would they not want that to be used either ? I don't really have a stand on wether we should legalize it for everyone but for medical use is abusrd that we don't allow it. One other thing though, I would venture to guess that people could find it if they wanted too legal or not.
i can think of a couple of reasons, rob. first, admitting that there is a legitimate medical use for it would go against what we've been fed for decades. someone would have to admit that they're wrong, and have been wrong all along. second, pharmaceutical companies. why would someone want to get raped by drug companies when they can grow their own and be in less pain?
someone would have to admit that they're wrong
Maybe they are right.