Great lip service from the great and powerful OZ...\n\nGW plans to look into the oil problem...\n\nFeb, 2001, invites Big Oil to the White House to form our nations "ENERGY POLICY", and even considers Ken Lay(of Enron) as top dog for this post...\n\nApologizes to President of China, while clamping down on freedom of speech(he's been either back to the white powder, beer, or forgotten which country HE represents). 21 gun salute, for this communist criminal?\n\nLet's see if we can get him in for a third term, please...he's on a roll to start WW III
217798
For most people, it would make sense to talk to people in the energy business when formulating an energy policy.\n\nThey are the ones that have all the data on energy capacity, future energy capacity, transpotration and distribution networks, state of the delivery infrastructure, future trends, and assessment of alternate sources of energy. It's only logical to talk to them.\n\nAnd Ken Lay's crimes all happened before 2001. Who was president before then? Hmmmm? He was prosecuted during Bush's presidency.\n\nA third term? That's against the law. And WWIII started with the 1st World Trade Center bombing. We just didn't know it yet (our president was too busy wanking into a sink).
329473
It's the 'hot button' issue of the day.  The media dictates what is talked about, and that is influenced by the government.  Right now, Bush needs something to take peoples' attention away from Iraq, Iran, and the rising cost of gas.  Enter the immigration issue.
366689
That's a good idea they can track the cows right to their stalls.But they wont,that's too smart isn't it?\n\nHere's a question that got deleted by the brave people here.I don't see the violation \n\nIf Democrats win the House and/or the Senate, will it be harder?\nQuestion Details: for the Bush administration to push through so-called free trade agreements and the free-trade-at-all-costs agenda? What do you think ? Do you favor this plan for free trade or not ?\n\nReason of Violation:Chatting & Personal Communications\n\nThats the entire question ,I had closed it and chosen the best answer before someone went back on my questions and reported it.Its very frustrating,but I am just amazed at people.
555754
Thankfully, we're veering right.\n\nStill with that tired, old "war for oil" hippie protest I see. Tell me, exactly where is all of this oil we've stolen in the war.\n\nWe became the world's police after WWII, way before you were born.\n\nWe could be spending our money on making our military even stronger is we weren't busy wasting it on failed liberal social programs.\n\nThe LAST THING libs need is a better drug program.\n\nWho's threatening your freedom of speech? Do you mean when those "evil conservatives" try to prevent you from urinating on the graves of soldiers?
452503
i love when ppl post quotes saying "yeah, well, your democrat buddies talked about the wmd's too!".\n\nthats right, they did. and then they found out that we were all lied to. so, when presented with new facts, they changed their minds about something, which is what reasonable ppl do. they dont just "stay the course" when they find out something they did/said was wrong. \n\ncheney is a giant douche, a walking pile of living garbage, a crooked business man, and a hypocrite. he's so old that he cant tell the difference between an 80 year old man and an oxygen deprived pigeon, and it causes him to shoot people in the face. for as long as i can remember, we've been made aware that Saddam is one of the bad guys.... then shouldnt any good american steer away from doing business with him? \n\nfunny, there are a lot of pictures of him shaking hands with saddam..... but, i guess oil can buy a nicer for you opinion any day.
230729
Not that I am for this--But dear it wouldn't matter and why you ask---well here is an article--this is starting to open up a new can of worms--please understand--Anyone in the world could have all the oil in the world..and it really wouldn't matter at this point...\n\n$3-a-gallon gas: Blame Washington, not Big Oil\nWhat's driving up gas prices? It's not just higher crude costs; it's new regulations.\nNelson D. Schwartz\nMay 3, 2006: 2:20 PM EDT\n\n\n(FORTUNE Magazine) - With gas prices roaring past $3 a gallon and consumer fury rising even faster, Congress and the White House are engaged in a Kabuki-like ritual: pointing fingers at each other over who's to blame, while furiously attacking Big Oil for reaping gargantuan profits - as drivers get hosed at the pump.\n\nIf the politicians really want to figure out who's responsible for the latest round of price increases, though, they'd be better off looking in the mirror. That's because the rise isn't only due to higher crude costs. It's also fallout from some little-noticed provisions in the energy bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush last summer.\n\nBuried in the 551-page energy bill - which was supposed to ease energy shortages, not worsen them - were new regulations governing what additives go into gasoline and how it's refined. Corn-based ethanol is replacing the petroleum-derived additive MTBE, but Congress timed this logistically tricky switchover to occur just as demand for gasoline peaked ahead of the summer driving season - right about now.\n\nThe end result is an extra strain on the refining and distribution system when it can least afford it.\n\n"It's too late now, but Congress has consistently failed to sequence regulatory requirements in a responsible fashion," says Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association.\n\nAdds Larry Goldstein of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation: "The gasoline crisis is made in the U.S.A., not in Iran or Venezuela or Nigeria. At least half the increase in gasoline prices is due to unintended consequences of the energy bill, but no one in Washington wants to admit that."\n\nIndeed, while crude prices have risen 21% since the end of 2005, gasoline is up 37% - a sign of just how stretched the system is. Congress's mistake, says Goldstein, was setting the new law to go into effect 270 days after it was signed - May 5 - rather than waiting until fall, when gas demand is typically on the downswing.\n\nNow the big question is, How high can gas go? Well, perhaps the only good thing that can be said about paying three bucks per gallon is that it seems to be slowing consumption - which should, in turn, reduce prices. Over a four-week period in April, says oil analyst Jamal Qureshi of consulting firm PFC Energy, U.S. gasoline demand dropped by half a percent, to just over nine million barrels a day. That may not sound like much, but it's a reversal from the 1.7% average annual increase in gas consumption the U.S. has experienced over the past decade. If $3 is indeed the tipping point at which consumers change their behavior and alter their driving habits, it's the one silver lining in an otherwise very dark cloud for drivers.\n\nThe wildcard in this scenario, of course, is the increasing risk of a military confrontation with Iran. If that happens, says Qureshi, "all bets are off." Given that crude oil accounts for 55% of the cost of each gallon of gas (refining accounts for 22%, taxes for 19%, and distribution and marketing for 4%), an upward spike in crude oil would push gas up even if the bottlenecks caused by the energy bill ease this summer.\n\nThat's why Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, says the answer in the short term is conservation. Washington is indeed being turned upside down when it's left to Cavaney, Big Oil's chief lobbyist, to talk conservat
611319
The realities of the oil crunch and energy-hungry nations have forced many countries into a potential global conflict. We can't back away from it but we could limit it by producing alternative sources of power. While the US sanctions the war in Iraq (as a source of black gold),it condemns China for seeking the same in African countries...by peaceful means! The American government has been led by wealth over many years,and the current administration is not an exception. Perhaps we should require a different document....not of independence but a curriculum vitae of elected officials as well as proof of their financial dealings.
212918
Yes I am quite aware of what happened, but I am not aware of what happened after; you wrote, "treatment and subsequent charges levied against".  What exactly happened to her after her display?\n\nAnyway I very much detest the current Chinese regime, but I am not sure that the way this woman went about sharing her views were exactly appropriate.  It is difficult to say that since the Chinese (and Bush administration) are the inappropriate ones. But she snuck into a press conference, posed as a reporter (she may actually have been a reporter), and stood up and started ranting about the atrocities against the Fallong Gong.  \n\nI think she did a great thing, but she must also assume the responsibility for "trespassing" during a delicate diplomatic conference.  There is more going on then just "public display of solidarity between the American and Chinese leaders" as you put it.\n\nCurrently there are many tensions between are two countries.  China's tying the Yuan to the dollar.  Chinese using American high-tech firms for clamping down and jailing dissidence. Etc.\n\nThe Chinese are a difficult bunch to communicate with, you have to tip toe a bit.\n\nI don't like Bush at all but he is all we got right now for dealing with China, and I hope some progress is made.  We don't want more tensions between the US and china .  We already have enough as it is.\n\nDo you know that we have spy planes that fly up down and all around china?  What if China went into Taiwan, would America stand up for Taiwan?\n\nIt goes on and on.\n\nBut I am curious as to what happened to the woman.\n\nHave you heard about the guy at the Bush rally during the last presidential election, that had a "no blood for oil" sign?  He was arrested and jailed for months, just for a sign!  He may still be in prison for all I know.\n\nGod I hate Bush.
139345
I've spent an entire semester in university listening to and researching over this issue ... and yes the "peak" has passed ... if you look at the bell curve, we're heading towards (or already are) on the decline side of the curve ... and soon it's going to be all over.  \n\nbasically we need to look into alternative source... and that's where this thing gets tricky.  oil is, for the most part, needed for transportation... and cars and transport means that do not require fossil fuels are either not fast enough or they're too expensive.  so what to do now?\n\nwell.... the answer lies in changing the minds of the human race... we live in an economy-driven world... they worry about making money, dont care where it comes from... \n\nbut the good news is that there's an abundant amount of awareness about all the environmental issues out there... i'm in my 20s and i don't remember this type of awareness happening 5 - 10 years ago... so we're headed in the right direction... question is are we alreadfy too late?  the answer is: only time will tell!\n\nand i can go on and on, but due to lack of time i have to end here ... if i have more time before u close this q i might add more in! \n\noh, but before i go... here's a recommendation (a documentary):\nEnd of suburbia dicrected by gregory greene\n\nit talks about the peak-oil crises!\n\ncheers!
455517
(Whining) "He lied.."  "He went to war for oil" or you'll get this one: "He's stupid"\n\nI would like to see, myself, if anyone actually has a valid proven reason.  I know there won't be.
215111
Damn right. I recieve emails all the time regarding how the Americans actually beleive what comes out fo their TV sets. Finally they are experiencing the cost of car fuel the rest of the world has experinced for years! It's amazing how such a large country, who really genuinely believes it is the 'keeper' of the world, can have such a weakened economy, despite make fuel cheaper for years.\nWhen Bush finally agrees to discuss this issue, it will be too late. Do you wanna be an American Idiot? - Even your own pop stars write lyrics about how stupid you are.\nI realise that the power of these issues is a little out of about 50% of the populations' hands, however, 50% of you (roughly) did vote for Bush, and therefore the BLOOD is on your hands!!
212001
I'm tired as well.\n\nI'm even more tired of hearing its Bush's fault for the high prices, and then hearing how he is only in Iraq for the Oil.\n\n------------------\n\nalford, (below) give me a break, you can't really be that naive, can you?  The average profit on each gallon of gas is 9 cents.  The average tax on each gallon of gas is 50 cents.\n\nSupply vs. demand is what controls the gas prices.  Can you supply any evidence to your conspiracy theory that Bush is at the head of a table in a board room with all the oil executives plotting a master plan to raise gas prices?  Is he behind the high price of bottled water also?\n\nYou claim people dint know what they are talking about, while you make accusations without anything to back them up.\n\nBush wants to increase our oil supply (which lowers prices) by drilling in our own country, but your liberal hero's wont let him.\n\nBush wants to increase our means of refining oil (which would increase our oil supply) but your liberal hero's wont let him.\n\nYour a typical liberal, who has been brainwashed by the likes of Michael Moore, and Bill Mahr.  You obviously can't think for yourself.  If you could, you would be smart enough to look into the baseless allegations you make and realize they are ludicrous.
333234
Have we not had enough wars?  What did we gain so far?  Disrepect from the rest of the world from what I can gather talking with people around the world.  \nOn what ground do we wage a war with China?  We'll be shooting ourselves in the foot again, and big time!
76538
how low can we go? Bush and Cheney are monsters. How much more can the national debt soar? How many lies can he tell?  Is there another oil-rich country that we can invade? Is Osama Bin Laden still virtually unscathed from his horrendous attack on our country? How many of our young people are going to Iraq? How many will come home? How much richer can the rich get? How much poorer can the poor get? It is a sad state of affairs when our people are out priced at the gas pumps, and it is only going to get worse. These are tip of the iceberg questions, but suffice it to say that there is not a number that goes low enough. He will spend his remaining tenure in office seeing just how much his constituency can stand before reaching point break. I am already there, but I can proudly say that I did not vote for this monster, or for his ass clown father.
616208
Well. look at his statements, and how they tend to change when light is shed on the unlikelihood of their veracity. It's almost like a con-man trying to tailor his answers to fit the new questions.\nSeriously though, you talk about at least four different issues: \n\n• WMDs and the case for the war with Iraq;\n\nEveryone but bush (to his discredit) has admitted that clearly, more information was needed to justify going to war. Moreover, it was the clear politicization of intelligence (and probably more than a bit of corporate interest) that led the White House to be concerned with the Mideast growing unstable and interrupting the flow of oil from the region. By taking the initiative of utilizing the troops already in place in the region, he made the critical error of not arranging to have larger, more powerful countries back his play. An argument has been made that he chose to make America the powerful lead partner in this war/venture so as to ensure that America had primary superpower access to Iraq's oil supplies (and not have to quibble with Russia or China). A fairly reasonable course of action, if you are practicing realpolitik (like Kissinger and Rumsfeld do)...and consider the lives spent protecting oil interests a bargain.\n\n• Regime Change;\n\nWell, let's face it: Saddam was a pretty icky man, and his two sons were strong candidates for Dick of the Week when they eventually assumed the reins of power from dear old Dad. That being said, it should be important to note that the bush Administration does not intend to allow either an Islamic fundamentalist or America-unfriendly government. Watch and see if I have not foretold the future here...\n\n• Democracy int he Mideast; and\n\nThere is no saying that our flavor of Democracy is something that should be instituted over there. we have spend some time fine-tuning it so it (debateably) works forus. The folk in that region - well, in that part of the world, I think - are used to having their fortunes dictated to them at the point of a gun. Not much freedome there, black or white. No shades of gray, as democracy is (and to my reckoning SHOULD be).\nAsking them to adopt a government like ours is like throwing a 6-year old into shark-infested waters and expecting them to not only learn to swim, but to eat the sharks as well. Democracy is truly brain-bending work..maybe a bit out of the reach for folks trying to find a way to keep the lights on and the bullets out of the guns. they need time, not someone looking over their shoulders all the time telling what they should be doing.\nWhat might work better for these sorts of places is a theocratic (meaning religious-based) republic set into place. A moderate government will almost always lead to eventual democracy, but it allows the government to control the rate at which these freedoms are introduced. so as to acclimate the citizenry to them gradually.\n\n• the viability of the democratic process in Palestine.\n\nIt is viable, but it's going to take a long time. Old wounds held for over 60 years (and not millenia, as some uneducated cretins would have you think) do not heal overnight, or even in a single generation.\nGrace is required on all four sides (the Palestinians, the Israelis, the Islamic support arising from nation-states and NGOs, and the capital-driven remainder), and patience as well.\nIf Hamas wants to be taken seriously, it cannot  - I repeat CANNOT - condone violence with the end product being the destruction of the Israeli state. Advocating the erasure of another people's society is not a good way to get that society of people to help mend fences and let go of old grudges. Countries - and people too - are a lot alike in that way. \n\nSo that was the long answer to your question. the short answer is as follows: Bush changes the purpose of why we have soldiers on the ground in Iraq because he's searching for a way to maintain/manipulate the American people's focus on HIS goals, w
309201
Well, our liberal politicians apparently want us dependant on foreign oil.\n\nWe have not been able to build or increase a refinery in the U.S. in 30 years, thanks to liberal legislation.  We lost a refinery recently in New Orleans.  That means we have less refining capabilities than we did 30 years ago.  Do you think we have less demad for oil?  Of course, the liberal socialists will try to tell you that supply vs. demand has no effect on the price of gas, and the liberal sheeple will believe anything they are told by them.\n\nWe also have  tons of oil that we could be drilling in our country, and on our shores.  China is drilling off the coast of Florida (or should I say Cuba), but we are not allowed to, because the liberals want you to believe the earth will look like the exxon valdez spill.  Of course its ok to drill elsewhere, apparently the earth isn't important in other countries.\n\nFact is, there are environmentally safe ways to drill for oil these days.  But the libs don't want anything good to happen to this country unless one of their socialist representatives are in office.  It's no wonder why they have so little support.\n\n----------------------\n\nThere is no doubt that we need other, cleaner sources for oil.  However, that will take a long time, and we need power sources now.  Take advantage of our resources now, while we are working on other methods.
107141
Thanks for the site!!\n\nFor all my Christian friends, I voted on the GW Bush job rating.  Somehow all those other people voted with me that our little Christian Prez doesn´t cut the mustard anymore.\n\nToday also blogged that Saddam had to tell his top generals that he didn´t have WMD so that he couldn´t destroy the Americans while they were still unloading.\n\nOnly he and Bush Jr. knew for sure that he wouldn´t be using non-existant WMD.  Maybe, Cheney and James Dobson.  His generals and Condi were expecting to see mushroom clouds.\n\nthanks again