The Mother Board

[Spark]

[thomas_w_bowman]

Now we're "$timulating" Brazil and China...

Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling 'our' money is being invested - in Brazil (for his Contributor George Soros) - and
Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil (USA just pays, no benefit) - all the USA gets is a chance to pay for part of it...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html
_________________
Better living thru technology...
"Open the Pod Bay Doors, HAL..."
Join Folding team #: 33258

[thomas_w_bowman]

_________________
Better living thru technology...
"Open the Pod Bay Doors, HAL..."
Join Folding team #: 33258

[bdub]

[thomas_w_bowman]

Perhaps The Washington Times is a satisfactory news source ?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/11/drilling-ban-revisited/

The point is to drive cost of oil up enough to make 'Green' Energy sources seem imperative.

Is it innacurate that Soros has invested in Petrobras - who are in business to do ffshore drilling ?

http://www.newsmax.com/hostetter/hostetter-Soros-Obama-economy/2010/02/11/id/349645

or more recently (also names moveon.org and Shadow party):

http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate?nodeid=71903

Of course, Ron Paul would not be a news source you may 'approve' of, nonetheless:

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/125068

What facts are 'opinion' in this Patriots for America article ?

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/obama-underwrites-offshore

Soros has been ''shopping' for candidates that will prohibit USA Offshore drilling for some time, this should not be a surprise:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/rank_hypocrisy_from_george_sor.html

This FOX news article also may not qualify as a 'Real' news link, but it is not opinion either:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/20/loan-brazilian-oil-company-riles-conservatives-favor-offshore-drilling/

And The Alaska Standard might also have some annoyance to express, they seem to be reporting news also:

http://www.thealaskastandard.com/content/obama-administration-blocks-offshore-drilling-alaska-while-promoting-it-brazil

Of course any opinions are allowed here, and we seem to be reasonably well-mannered about apparent disagreement. But my opinion is that the USA can drill offshore every bit as safely as Brazil - and $2 Billion towards that development would indeed stimulate the economy of the USA, but would likely annoy George Soros).

Of course, I'll be happy to see links from 'real' news sources (let's skip Oceana or Audubon as well)...
_________________
Better living thru technology...
"Open the Pod Bay Doors, HAL..."
Join Folding team #: 33258

[bdub]

i am not sure if this...
http://www.exim.gov/
is the backing of the US sources, and if it is, are they really using american citizens tax dollars???

personally i am glad to go green, and i believe we SHOULD be making it more difficult to stay on oil.
_________________
my main rig...
asrock 970 extreme3
AMD athlonII X3 440
zalman cpns5x performa hs/fan
crucial ballistix 2x4gb sport ddr3-1333
powercolor 3850 256bit/512meg vga
antec neo he 650r
kingston hyperx 3k ssd 120GB
seagate 500GB HDD 32M cache
seagate 750GB HDD 32M cache
hitachi 1TB HDD 32M cache
lg wh14ns40 bd burner
optiarc ad-7240s sata dvdrw (nec chipset)

[thomas_w_bowman]

Yes, that's the 'private' bank - now controlled by Obama's appointees and recently granted a subsidy from taxpayers (TARP funds, actually - that's the problem with gigantic bills that pass before they are read...).

I'm all for Energy conservation, renewable energy - I had CFLs in all of my house where they made sense (skipped some closets and dimmers, dimmable CFLs don't red-shift like incandesents) long before Congress decided to 'Outlaw' tungsten. I was buying unleaded gas in the 1960's, again - long before lead was banned from fuel. My Dad had seatbelts installed in our 1956 Plymouth Wagon (went to a 'custom shop') long before they were required by law. Although renewable energy is a great idea - I don't like the idea of us injuring our economy by making law that impairs or taxes without considering economic impact. I also do not believe that we should have to minimize our lifestyle and especailly not limit allowable numbers of children (watch China start paying for this folly, especially because males were favored so much that there is a serious lack of women to marry...). Pollution is not a good thing either, on that I am sure we agree.
I also feel that we can pursue energy alternatives simply because they are better economics - note that I've been ahead of mandated 'conservation' - largely because it just plain made sense.
We have technology to Retort Garbage Dumps to recover Hydrocarbons (Oil 'substitutes') even from Biohazard waste - but the Government tends to subsidize technologies that have a lot more to do with campaign funds than economics, so Retort technoligies must struggle with zoning and get investment from private sources.
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm

A problem is that this technology can be scaled down and done by individuals - and result in Fuel that may not get taxes paid on it...

http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub96.pdf

And tax credits have expired as well:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34660164/

I'm not even going to discuss the Ethanol scam on this thread, it's quick to contaminate fuel (according to my Motorcycle manual) and certainly cannot be transported by pipeline because it absorbs too much water. Mind you - I always think that options are good, but mandates are suspect at best. My car not only has less torque, but delivers 10-15% less MPG when run on 10% ethanol, my choice is to use Non-Ethanol.

Soros is proficient at profiting from distressed currencies, and seem to be focusing on the US$ next.
We (the USA) chose to ignore Thoruim for reactors because we wanted to 'breed' weapon-grade Plutonium, Thorium is incapable of breeding weapon-grade material and it's (U233) 'waste' is directly usable as fuel (just leave it in the reactor). http://www.energyfromthorium.com/

However proponents of Thorium (mostly in India) are not large contributors to Politicians... Also, since cost of operation for a Thorium plant is so low - it could vastly reduce profit for conventional energy sources. That's probably why it won't be subsidized.
The USA is capable of being a leader in World energy, if our laws would get out of our own way...
Also, CO2 is not really any kind of pollutant (it, like H2O vapor - does increase when it gets warm - but it is not a CAUSE, nor is it toxic.). I remember cars before catalytic reactors (my current car is designated an SLEV because it's exaust has only added CO2 and H2O - no other pollutants). So we may disagree about what pollutants are, because I cannot agree that CO2 is a pollutant:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

On the other hand - we likely agree that CO (Carbon Monoxide) is toxic and a pollutant - so why does the FDA allow meat to be packaged in CO ? (it does make meat 'redder' and kills bacteria that needs oxygen)
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Legislation/Carbon-monoxide-use-in-meat-to-be-investigated

I've had enough political hypocracy, if we're OK investing in Brazil drilling offshore, why can't we do so also ? Our economy will suffer enough from 'bailout' spending and 'stimulus' spending, not to mention Health Care if the bill to subsidize 50% of Americans (I'll bet that involves taxing 100% of Americans to pull off, done by taxing 'Corporations' - and assuming that the taxes won't be passed on to us consumers). We simply need to be ALLOWED to support ourselves - at no taxpayer cost at all. That's my put.

Term Limits would help immensely, but they won't ever pass either.
_________________
Better living thru technology...
"Open the Pod Bay Doors, HAL..."
Join Folding team #: 33258

[CivilDissent]

[fussnfeathers]

[BrevCampagnolo]

So long as one drop of crude oil remains, I can't sleep for the nightmares of Jurassic Park. Some day, that SciFi scenario will come true, then where will we be? It's imperative we find and burn it all (preferably in a V-8 Hemi).
_________________
-- Campy

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949