• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Newts Energy Plan

A

Anonymous

Guest
This makes too much sense- but it would take bipartisan action and some compromise by both parties (something that has seemed impossible since GW walked into Washington- and his advisors told him to rule by confrontation)....

Listen and be advised


http://youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
GINGRICH: Well, if you included with that selling off about a third of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at two million barrels a day, my guess is you could bring down prices in the summer, the beginning point, and if people thought you were serious, I think you would see prices continue to come down.

Prices at the pump are a pain for all of us, but Speaker Pelosi is accusing President Bush of policies that have driven up the prices, and says she has a solution to bring prices down immediately,
"Mr. President, do not fill the strategic petroleum reserve with oil at record highs. Instead, take out the oil that we brought at a lower price to bring down the price of oil, to reduce the price at the pump," says Speaker Pelosi.

Looks like Newt and Nancy Pelosi agree on what needs to be done with the strategic petroleum reserve... The news is reporting today that she has sent a letter to King George asking him to immediately begin releasing oil out of the SPR- just like Newt is calling for...

Its actually refreshing to see that Newt recognizes there is more oil, than just in ANWR, like all the other Repub talking head/politicians continue to babble on about....And he recognizes the importance that Coal can play- a fact even Hitler recognized in 1940 when much of Germany's fuel came from coal gasification/diselification...


GINGRICH: The Brazilians just went from 10 billion barrels of proven reserve to 900 billion barrels of proven reserve, a 900 percent increase, because they actually allow to look in the Atlantic, where they found two reservoirs that are huge.

The U.S. Geological Survey just increased their estimate of the amount of gas and oil in western North Dakota and Eastern Montana by 2500 percent. The Hungarians just increased their estimate of the amount of gas in one of their natural gas fields by 400 percent.

With modern technology and new opportunities, I believe that, in the short run — short run is 20 or 25 years. This is a transition problem. There are 240 million cars and trucks in the U.S. that use gasoline, diesel, may use ethanol and soy diesel.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Its actually refreshing to see that Newt recognizes there is more oil, than just in ANWR, like all the other Repub talking head/politicians continue to babble on about....And he recognizes the importance that Coal can play- a fact even Hitler recognized in 1940 when much of Germany's fuel came from coal gasification/diselification...[/b]

The thing about ANWR is that there is no reason not to drill there! It is as much about the battle of right vs wrong or Tree hugger vs Humans. When the Environment wacko's will not let us drill on such desolated place they will not ever allow all the other things that we need to do to get us off foreign oil. ANWR is the place both parties have chosen to take their last stand at. If the liberal loons will not let drilling in ANWR in this desperate energy crunch it pretty well shows they want and like this crunch.

Remember Democrats always fair best when things are bad, they live for and rely on hard times. That is why they do their best to block any thing that may change it. They are the Party of welfare and race, so as long as they can keep people poor and racial tension they maintain their base.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
Oldtimer said:
Its actually refreshing to see that Newt recognizes there is more oil, than just in ANWR, like all the other Repub talking head/politicians continue to babble on about....And he recognizes the importance that Coal can play- a fact even Hitler recognized in 1940 when much of Germany's fuel came from coal gasification/diselification...[/b]

The thing about ANWR is that there is no reason not to drill there! It is as much about the battle of right vs wrong or Tree hugger vs Humans. When the Environment wacko's will not let us drill on such desolated place they will not ever allow all the other things that we need to do to get us off foreign oil. ANWR is the place both parties have chosen to take their last stand at. If the liberal loons will not let drilling in ANWR in this desperate energy crunch it pretty well shows they want and like this crunch.

Remember Democrats always fair best when things are bad, they live for and rely on hard times. That is why they do their best to block any thing that may change it. They are the Party of welfare and race, so as long as they can keep people poor and racial tension they maintain their base.

And its letting the Dems walk right into D.C. and take over- lock, stock, and barrel- while the American public suffers...I heard them talking today where they actually believe now in Nov the Dems will get a majority of 60 in the Senate....

But Repubs forget- they got their arses trumped in 06- will more in 08- and are the MINORITY party now--and living or dying on one issue is not going to help them or the country....They refuse to bend on ANWR- or offshore-- but also refuse to compromise (what Congress has lived on for 200 years) and go along with opening the petroleum reserve- passing stricter laws closing the Enron Loophole- stricter oversight of speculators- allowing any taxes to fund alternative energy development (which the Blue Dogs won't allow to fly unless it meets PAY-GO--which should be what the Repubs did for 7 years instead of their drunken sailor spending and our economy wouldn't be in the sewer as far as it is :roll: :wink: )....

Both Parties need to work a compromise- including parts of both sides....

BUT- The Repubs have to remember- they ain't riding the high horse anymore- and their horse is sinking deeper in the mire as days go on...They might as well go home if they are going to keep pouting and just "filibuster" every bill that comes in front of them....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Lonecowboy said:
I just put some diesel in my pickup tonight at record fuel prices for me-
$4.28 a gallon :(


I love these "blasts from the past"


And its letting the Repubs walk right into D.C. and take over- lock, stock, and barrel- while the American public suffers...I heard them talking today where they actually believe now in Nov 2012 the Repubs will get a majority of 60 in the Senate....because the Dems. "refuse to bend on ANWR- or offshore"


:lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday that he strongly supports a federal mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance – a position that has been rejected by many Republicans, including several who likely will be running against him for the Republican presidential nomination.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Oldtimer said:
No- the quote in my post is exactly what FH had up--
"You are quoting BUSH in defending your position?"
While I was answering her question she apparently changed it...Ask her...

But no matter- makes no difference on the question of legality of Health Care .... Just your usual nitpicking because you have no idea on the issues or what the grown ups are talking about and would rather just attack the poster and call them names...


Oldtimer said:
I'm curious on what grounds? We have nationwide individual mandates from FDA- EPA-USDA-FAA-etc., etc because they intercourse with all the states...Because of that we even have a nationwide MANDATE the NCBA argued for and gave us thru the SCOTUS for the Checkoff Beef Board MANDATORY tax on the sale of all cattle..Soon we will have a nationwide MANDATORY cattle ID/tagging system (also supported by good old NCBA/Bush boys for the past 8 years)... All decided under the Commerce Clause..

What is the constitutional issue that says if all those are Constitutionally legal-- you can't mandate everyone under the same Commerce Clause to have a certain level of health care insurance? :???: ....
 

Larrry

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
Hypo Exp'er.....you got WAY WAY too much time on your hands. :roll:

I think you missed what this thread was about. You must have posted on the wrong thread. After all I know you want to keep the train of thought alive on these threads.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
TSR said:
Diesel here just went up to $3.75 from $3.69


Maybe a more local source for the raw ingredients might lower the World market price?

Did you add in the tax cost that you pay as a US taxpayer to secure the resources in those Countries that are not as friendly to the US, compared to others?
 
Top