Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE American Congress Thread pt 2 (merged)

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: Congress people, genetically modifed upon election?

Postby mefistofeles » Tue 24 Jun 2008, 21:25:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')oes being elected to congress actually mutate ones DNA and tunr one into a thieving bastard, or is that quality a prerequisite for the job itself?


No I think its the aliens, they probably kidnap and modify these people right before their inauguration in order to make them more pliable to their agenda. Or perhaps its the third lobe transplant but I don't know.

However in all seriousness I think the problem is the ignorance of the American people. If the American people were reasonably educated they would demand reasonable things of their leaders but since they are not they demand unreasonable things, ever increasing social security and medicare expenditures, increased use of petrochemicals.

No leader can govern society without the consent of his people. We elected these people in fair and open elections. As a society we have failed to create a dynamic and informed dialog on the key issues of our day in short we have failed.
User avatar
mefistofeles
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon 21 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

"Expert" to Congress: Oil speculators not solely

Postby TheDude » Wed 25 Jun 2008, 11:16:43

Kingcoal? Pstarr? Pup?

Oh. it's Yergin...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')EW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil expert Daniel Yergin told Congress on Wednesday that speculative oil traders have played a role in driving up prices but that the credit crisis and weaker dollar have also been factors.

"Financial markets are today playing an increasingly important role in price formation - responding to, accentuating, and exaggerating supply and demand, geopolitics and other trends," said Yergin, co-founder and chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

Yergin said that markets have helped fuel a "shortage psychology" that the world is "running out of oil."

"As prices go up, this psychology becomes self-reinforcing - at least until the market turns," said Yergin.


What could have prompted the notion that supply is tight in the first place, hmm?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ergin said that two years ago, he viewed a range of $120 to $150 a barrel as the "break point" for oil prices. Oil prices are currently trading within that range. Prices were flat in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange on Wednesday morning, falling 25 cents to $136.75 a barrel.

"As the committee knows, there is much talk about 'peak oil' supply these days," said Yergin. "However, we think something else is at hand - 'peak demand' - at least in terms of U.S. gasoline consumption," Yergin said. "In our view, 2007 may well have been the top, the peak, in terms of U.S. gasoline demand."

The average nationwide price for a gallon of unleaded gas was $4.067 on Wednesday, according to AAA. The highest recorded price of $4.080 occurred on June 16, according to AAA.

Yergin added that America must take aggressive measures to alleviate its oil problems. He said Americans should adopt a three-pronged approach: use of renewable energy sources and newly-discovered oil supplies - such as the discoveries in off-shore Brazil - as well as greater fuel efficiency.


So we need to fill up our tanks with wind turbines; and by increasing worldwide oil supply Americans will be motivated to use less of it for some reason; with decreasing prices automakers will be coerced into spending billions making more fuel-efficient vehicles to compensate for the reduced demand. Uh huh. Nice dispatch from Bizzaro World, Danny.

At least he's pointing out to them that this isn't all tulip mania. Chuck Schumer's on board I see.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: "Expert" to Congress: Oil speculators not sol

Postby mefistofeles » Wed 25 Jun 2008, 14:25:06

Wow when Yergin says we need to get off oil it means we have serious supply problems that are obvious to ALMOST everyone.
Last edited by mefistofeles on Wed 25 Jun 2008, 14:39:45, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mefistofeles
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon 21 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: "Expert" to Congress: Oil speculators not sol

Postby Plantagenet » Wed 25 Jun 2008, 14:25:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '
')
At least he's pointing out to them that this isn't all tulip mania.


Actually, Yergin said high oil prices are due to "a "shortage psychology" that the world is "running out of oil." Then Yergin said: "As prices go up, this psychology becomes self-reinforcing
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: "Expert" to Congress: Oil speculators not sol

Postby emersonbiggins » Wed 25 Jun 2008, 14:37:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '
')
At least he's pointing out to them that this isn't all tulip mania.


Actually, Yergin said high oil prices are due to "a "shortage psychology" that the world is "running out of oil." Then Yergin said: "As prices go up, this psychology becomes self-reinforcing


The world has always been running out of oil. I like pink elephants. Neither has anything to do with Peak Oil, though.

Why Yergin continues to conflate this concept with Peak Oil irks me.
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas
Top

Re: "Expert" to Congress: Oil speculators not sol

Postby cipi604 » Wed 25 Jun 2008, 15:24:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')EW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil expert Daniel Yergin told Congress on Wednesday that speculative oil traders have played a role in driving up prices but that the credit crisis and weaker dollar have also been factors.


Since when is Daniel Yergin an oil expert?! He can't guess even what day is tomorrow.
User avatar
cipi604
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Montreal Canada
Top

Proposal To Allow Congress Some Role In Going To War

Postby mattduke » Tue 08 Jul 2008, 22:23:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')This statute gives Congress a seat at the table in deciding whether or not to go to war — not just a seat at the table, but one with a permanent staff, a permanent professional staff, and access to all the available intelligence information,” Christopher said.


Should Congress be involved in the decision to go to war?

link
User avatar
mattduke
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3591
Joined: Fri 28 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Proposal To Allow Congress Some Role In Going To War

Postby Novus » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 03:06:53

Bush should be Impeached for walking all over the constitution the way he has. Bush acts like he is the damn King! He has made the Congressional act of declaring war nothing more than a meaningless formality. It is treason the way he has abolished the democratic process of checks and balances.
User avatar
Novus
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2450
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Proposal To Allow Congress Some Role In Going To War

Postby Plantagenet » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 03:17:19

Back in the real world, the U.S. Constitution already gives Congress the sole power to declare war.

In reality, it was the U.S. Congress who voted for war with Afghanistan in 2001 and then voted for war with Iraq in 2003-4.

Here in the real world, the U.S. Congress could stop the war at any time by (a) repealing the war powers act they passed to authorize the war, or (b) by not voting the supplemental funds for the war. However, the dems who control Congress continue to vote more and more billions for the war, while at the same time pretending they oppose the war.


COngress doesn't need a new proposal...the Congress needs a new spine.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Proposal To Allow Congress Some Role In Going To War

Postby Peleg » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 03:21:02

Imagine if he had gotten a line item veto (lusted after by both parties I would point out.) Then he could have crossed out everything in a bill that did not jive with his notion of reality and circumvented congress altogether.

Also executive orders and emergency powers are loopholes. However the Congress did approve Iraq after the fact. They should have taken a stand right then but opinion polls suggested it would be a bad move.

Treason, criminal offense involving the attempt, by overt acts, to overthrow the government to which the offender owes allegiance, or to betray the state to a foreign power. (Encarta)

If there ever has been attempts to alter our laws so as to defraud American's of their Constitutional Rights might we not fairly construe these as acts of treason? So that when it was the intent of the framers that the popular vote decide elections and we allow it to be decided by the Supreme Court, or when we defraud our fellow citizens of the right to know before invasion, or do an end around Congress (the only truly representative body in the federal government) could not such things be considered treasonous in some way? And yet somehow during these times when the dark powers try to distort and twist things, it is those who question who are looked at as less than patriotic. So, could we not charge ourselves then with treason for having elected someone who claimed to be Christian but has proven with almost every decision (other than pandering to our narrow sense of politics on specific issues) that he does not know the God of the Bible? I'm being ridiculous to prove that we have too few fingers to point with when we consider the failings of this nation since the 80's, or since WWII for that matter, or since Jekyll Island for that matter. Unless there is a pronounced awaking of the excluded middle in politics we are going to end our days a pathetic third rate power, making please for aid to the nations we once snubbed so we could burn corn in our SUVs.

There how's that for some barely disguised extreme moderate ideological rhetoric!
User avatar
Peleg
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue 20 May 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Proposal To Allow Congress Some Role In Going To War

Postby Peleg » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 03:22:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'B')ack in the real world, the U.S. Constitution already gives Congress the sole power to declare war.

In reality, it was the U.S. Congress who voted for war with Afghanistan in 2001 and then voted for war with Iraq in 2003-4.

Here in the real world, the U.S. Congress could stop the war at any time by (a) repealing the war powers act they passed to authorize the war, or (b) by not voting the supplemental funds for the war. However, the dems who control Congress continue to vote more and more billions for the war, while at the same time pretending they oppose the war.


COngress doesn't need a new proposal...the Congress needs a new spine.


That is one of the most concise and pointedly truthful posts I have ever seen. I know we do not agree on much, but on that you are splitting an arrow in the bullseye with another arrow, oh prince of thieves. So how long until you and your band of merry men start taking from the rich to give to the poor?
User avatar
Peleg
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue 20 May 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Proposal To Allow Congress Some Role In Going To War

Postby Plantagenet » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 12:07:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Peleg', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'B')ack in the real world, the U.S. Constitution already gives Congress the sole power to declare war.

In reality, it was the U.S. Congress who voted for war with Afghanistan in 2001 and then voted for war with Iraq in 2003-4.

Here in the real world, the U.S. Congress could stop the war at any time by (a) repealing the war powers act they passed to authorize the war, or (b) by not voting the supplemental funds for the war. However, the dems who control Congress continue to vote more and more billions for the war, while at the same time pretending they oppose the war.


COngress doesn't need a new proposal...the Congress needs a new spine.


That is one of the most concise and pointedly truthful posts I have ever seen. I know we do not agree on much, but on that you are splitting an arrow in the bullseye with another arrow, oh prince of thieves. So how long until you and your band of merry men start taking from the rich to give to the poor?


Thou speakest great truths, oh noble Peleg.

Pray thee, sir, join us and our merry band this day as we give evil Sir John and his henchmen a serving they shall not forget from our three feet of fine English yew!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: And the finger pointing continues

Postby Cashmere » Sun 13 Jul 2008, 08:39:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')ep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said in the Democrats' radio address.
"Democrats support more drilling," he said. "In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production.

Nice.
This dimwit is convincing his sheeple that we can "double" U.S. production.

Seriously, could the guy say anything that more clearly indicates that he is a complete and total moron with regard to the state of things?
Massive Human Dieoff <b>must</b> occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where <b>you</b> live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.
User avatar
Cashmere
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: Thu 27 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: And the finger pointing continues

Postby MyOldTDiIsStillGoing » Sun 13 Jul 2008, 08:47:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cashmere', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')ep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said in the Democrats' radio address.
"Democrats support more drilling," he said. "In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production.

Nice.
This dimwit is convincing his sheeple that we can "double" U.S. production.
Seriously, could the guy say anything that more clearly indicates that he is a complete and total moron with regard to the state of things?

If there was oil under those 68M acres, wouldn't they be pumping today? Maybe there is nothing there, just rocks. Maybe its time to go where there is KNOWN oil and leave the 68M acres for other uses.
THE SIMPLE LIFE: One frozen pond, a few sticks, a little round puck, and a bunch of rowdy kids.
User avatar
MyOldTDiIsStillGoing
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed 11 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Location: CMH, I-71 Exit 112
Top

Re: And the finger pointing continues

Postby Plantagenet » Sun 13 Jul 2008, 11:56:02

Matt Simmons refers to this "finger pointing" as "witch hunting."

Rather then taking action and doing something about the energy crisis, the dems have gone on a "witch hunt" to try to pin the blame for high oil prices on evil speculators, big oil, the strategic petroleum reserve, etc.

Twenty years ago Simmons wanted Congress to authorize a federal seismic survey of the continental shelf, so the government would at least know if there are geologic structures off Florida, Georgia, Viriginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Long Island, Maine, California, Oregon and Washington with oil potential.

Congress did nothing 20 years ago. They are still doing nothing.

Its time for the "witch hunt" to end and for Congress to act. :)
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Solar group slams Congress over failed tax credit bill

Postby joe1347 » Thu 31 Jul 2008, 23:14:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Solar group slams Congress over failed tax credit bill by Mark LaPedus EE Times (07/31/2008 12:29 PM EDT):
SAN JOSE, Calif. — The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) slammed the U.S. Senate for failing to pass a critical solar bill that would extend an investment tax credit.
SEIA President Rhone Resch blasted the Senate, as it failed to pass a cloture motion on S. 3335, the Jobs, Energy, Families and Disaster Relief Act. The act includes provisions to extend the solar investment tax credit for eight years.
The motion failed by a vote of 51 to 43, unable to gain the support of 60 senators needed for passage.

No surprise. Anybody have a link that spells out why the Republicans are opposing the bill?
Image
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." Homer Simpson
User avatar
joe1347
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Solar group slams Congress over failed tax credit bill

Postby ProudFossil » Thu 31 Jul 2008, 23:32:20

Four Republicans voted for it. Obama, McCain, Kennedy, and Stevens did not vote.

The reason generally given is the Democrats are saying you will do the energy stuff the way we want to or you can go to hell and the Republicans are saying you will do the energy stuff the way we want to or you can go to hell. Pure and simple, both sides are saying, damn the people, its my ball and you will play the way I want to.

Rotten politics on both sides. Drilling on the one side, alternative energy on the other. No compromise anywhere.

Throw all the incumbents out of office.
User avatar
ProudFossil
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon 26 May 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Solar group slams Congress over failed tax credit bill

Postby Gothor » Thu 31 Jul 2008, 23:57:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ProudFossil', 'F')our Republicans voted for it. Obama, McCain, Kennedy, and Stevens did not vote.
The reason generally given is the Democrats are saying you will do the energy stuff the way we want to or you can go to hell and the Republicans are saying you will do the energy stuff the way we want to or you can go to hell. Pure and simple, both sides are saying, damn the people, its my ball and you will play the way I want to. Rotten politics on both sides. Drilling on the one side, alternative energy on the other. No compromise anywhere. Throw all the incumbents out of office.

Your last sentence is the most important. Unfortunately, everyone I talk to doesn't get it. I honestly believe that Americans would lay on the ground, mortally wounded, reaching out to shake Kennedy's or Pelosie's hand as they tip-toe by.
User avatar
Gothor
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon 14 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest