Obama adopts a conservative approach!

[Unite Our Nation]

Well, since I project in the energy business, most of it to do with natural gas, I can see your reservations.

Conceptually without applying real numbers, it looks feasible--but mostly from a static viewpoint versus a dynamic one. That is to say that given the proposed deployment within the linear time required, feedbacks are going to keep us from realizing the major objective: maintaining the current scale of the economy to prevent catastrophic collapse.

You might find a little more current information here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/01/MNO512K43O.DTL&tsp=1

Please accept my apology for doubting you Pidgey.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

UON,


We do have lots of gas here, and Alaska is working hard on creating another pipeline that will tie into expanding natgas infastracture being built in the US and Canada. It apparently is going to be the largest private construction project in the history of the world.

WOW! That sounds like a job creator.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

DO everything while decreasing everyone's expectations as per capita energy consumption is scaled back.

I guess you haven't considered that all the blather about "Global Warming" is a ruse to get The Masses used to the idea of going back to The Dark Ages because that's what's going to happen whether we like it or not, huh?

No. I never took that seriously. Still don't. There are the few nuts that would want that, but not many. The single biggest reason is the population. Without modern equipment, most of the planet would starve to death.


TopG,
I'm an Ohio State person myself. I knew I liked you for some reason!

 

[Pidgey]

Please accept my apology for doubting you Pidgey.

Aw, shucks... you probably oughta' doubt everyone on here and check things out where possible.

The trouble with dynamic situations is that... they're dynamic! Which means you can get blindsided by the oft-counterintuitive nature of the beast. Or unforeseen circumstances. For example, we supplied natural gas processing equipment for a new pipeline down south for Kinder Morgan. Lo, and behold, when they went to perform QA on the actual pipe mill run for the pipeline itself, it failed and was rejected. Imagine setting up all the projecting and commercial work to install a ~150 mile pipeline (42", I think) including all the stations, land use contracts, delivery contracts... everything, and then the pipe supplier can't deliver! You don't just go down to the local hardware store and buy that stuff, you know. Add to that the original product supply was supposed to be an LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) terminal that now can't buy LNG due to a lack of supply and you've got a lot of money spent with no near-term return on investment.

The pursuit of more natural gas use is a very good one and I think we've got a lot more reserves than we show on paper but we also need to develop more distribution capacity (gotta' do better due diligence on checking out the pipe manufacturing mills, though, methinks!). I think natural gas cars aren't a bad idea but the critical path would be defined by natural gas supply surplus with regard to distribution availability and energy sector requirements (residential, industrial and electrical generation use) within the framework of our current economic evolution in process.

You'd need a really good crystal ball rather than the Magic 8-Ball that most of our leaders (regardless of party) seem to be employing.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

Aw, shucks... you probably oughta' doubt everyone on here and check things out where possible.

The trouble with dynamic situations is that... they're dynamic! Which means you can get blindsided by the oft-counterintuitive nature of the beast. Or unforeseen circumstances. For example, we supplied natural gas processing equipment for a new pipeline down south for Kinder Morgan. Lo, and behold, when they went to perform QA on the actual pipe mill run for the pipeline itself, it failed and was rejected. Imagine setting up all the projecting and commercial work to install a ~150 mile pipeline (42", I think) including all the stations, land use contracts, delivery contracts... everything, and then the pipe supplier can't deliver! You don't just go down to the local hardware store and buy that stuff, you know. Add to that the original product supply was supposed to be an LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) terminal that now can't buy LNG due to a lack of supply and you've got a lot of money spent with no near-term return on investment.

The pursuit of more natural gas use is a very good one and I think we've got a lot more reserves than we show on paper but we also need to develop more distribution capacity (gotta' do better due diligence on checking out the pipe manufacturing mills, though, methinks!). I think natural gas cars aren't a bad idea but the critical path would be defined by natural gas supply surplus with regard to distribution availability and energy sector requirements (residential, industrial and electrical generation use) within the framework of our current economic evolution in process.

You'd need a really good crystal ball rather than the Magic 8-Ball that most of our leaders (regardless of party) seem to be employing.

LOL about the Magic 8 Ball! It seems the legislators are too often bought off (regardless of party) or at least swayed by ever-active lobbyists.

I'd love to see term limits put on Congressmen. That would stop some of the corruption that we Americans are always having to deal with.

 

[Bunz]

WOW! That sounds like a job creator.

Well in theory, but the fact is that right now it is on shaky ground. It is a pretty complicated situation and actually one the several socialist programs that Palin has pushed through, known as AGIA(Alaska Gasline Inducement Act) That put public $$$(500million) towards a pipeline that would run from the north slope of Alaska where the majority of our oil is pumped from that would run into Canada.

The existing oil companies(who already have the gas leases) want to do it in a different manner and do it without public money, that would still meet most of the requirements but a few small differences, but Palin continued forward in this project. Just today TransCanada, the company that won the bid and hasnt layed a single inch of pipe to build the line is already saying they need more state dollars.

It always irked my badly when Saracudda ran around the country calling someone else a socialist when in fact she might be the most socialist governor in the entire country. But that is for another thread.

 

[Andy]

That's actually not the case. As President-elect Obama has always said those that attacked us on 9-11 were located in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region. Now it's true when we invaded Iraq some terrorist gravitated there... because we were there.

You seem to have ignored the evidence of Saddam's connections to terrorist organizations other than Al Qaeda, and the direct attempts to make connections with Al Qaeda. Both claims proven true by the Rockefeller report.

The truth is Saddam Hussein was in a box and could not attack anybody... Bush knew that... Bush knew the was no, zero connection to Iraq & the 9-11 attacks.

So yes things are always evolving... but President-elect Obama who spoke out against this invasion/occupation based on lies from the very beginning was correct.

Again you ignore that we were trying to prevent Saddam from becoming an direct threat, even if he wasn't at the moment in time that we invaded. His attempts at becoming a threat that wasn't "in a box" as you say, are well documented by the democrats in the Rockefeller report.

 

[Andy]

Well in theory, but the fact is that right now it is on shaky ground. It is a pretty complicated situation and actually one the several socialist programs that Palin has pushed through, known as AGIA(Alaska Gasline Inducement Act) That put public $$$(500million) towards a pipeline that would run from the north slope of Alaska where the majority of our oil is pumped from that would run into Canada.

The existing oil companies(who already have the gas leases) want to do it in a different manner and do it without public money, that would still meet most of the requirements but a few small differences, but Palin continued forward in this project. Just today TransCanada, the company that won the bid and hasnt layed a single inch of pipe to build the line is already saying they need more state dollars.

It always irked my badly when Saracudda ran around the country calling someone else a socialist when in fact she might be the most socialist governor in the entire country. But that is for another thread.

Of course, what this proves is that socialism doesn't work. Something I've said over and over and over again.

Your slurring of names, shows some immaturity. Grow up. I had thought better of you than Top Gun and Shaman. Perhaps I misjudged.

That said, offering state money is legal under the constitution of all rights reserved for the states. And this is hardly Bail-out Barack style socialism, where you take over corporations, while handing out billions with no real conditions.

Unfortunately, isn't this sort of required in Alaska since under your state constitution, the resources in your state are legally owned by the state?

Like, in Ohio, if they struck oil, the ownership of that oil would be the company that found it on their purchased land. Thus no Ohio funds would be wanted or required to develop that resource. Further there would be no politicalization of the resource either, since politics and government had nothing to do with it. It would all be on the company to develop their own thing.

However, in your state, where government owns the resources, automatically, there will be politicalization, and usually corruption of the development process. This is the natural result of that. A government program that will cost the tax payers tons of cash, and that most companies don't want to get involved with.

Ultimately, I wager the company that won the bid will have lobbied for it. Some politcos will have been paid off to give them the bid.

This is why you don't want socialized control. It rarely if ever works. The fact you have had such a hard time getting these resources developed in one of the most naturally well endowed states in our Union, shows how socializing resources hasn't helped you.

If your natural gas, oil, and other resources were in Texas, they would have been tapped already, and been suppling millions of consumers with cheaper energy, and at the same time, creating millions of Jobs. Instead your oil, which was discovered in the mid 80s, didn't even get the "go ahead" to be used till 2003 or 4. Your natural gas, has been at a stand still for ages, and even now looks questionable. Socialism... it never works.

 

[Andy]

So now you're saying you do understand.

I completely understand you are arrogant and prejudice.

My young man do you somehow pull out of your hat that I said anywhere that the leaders in Iran are good people? Because I never said that. The former "WE WILL BURY YOU" COMMUNIST LEADERS of the former USSR weren't fluffy little bunnies either.

Pull out your 7th grade history text book here and we'll do a little spot quiz. Did we "talk" with them. Did we "negotiate" with them? See this isn't really tough to follow.

Why yes of course.... when they were putting nuclear missiles in Cuba, we said "no". That was our amazing "negotiating" tactic. Seems to have worked too. Of course JFK should never have let it get that far, but hey. Democrats... you know.

So with Iran, when they are trying to get nuclear weapons.... we said "no". Now what "talking" would you suggest we do now? What do you think they are going to "negotiate" on the policy of "no" nukes in Iran? Maybe they'll offer to only have little nukes? Maybe some smallish "wipe out only part of Israel" nukes? What great compromise will the messiah find with Iran?

No Harvard no Yale... Otterbein and Ohio State were the colleges I attended. Graduated from State.

That explains a lot. I hope you mean Ohio State, and not OSU.

As far as leaving... then your proposal is we just never leave and that is most certainly unacceptable seeing how this whole Republican led endeavor was based on lies.

You just lied twice. First, again, the Rockefeller report proved conclusively there were no lies. The only lies on why we went in, have come from liberal liars like yourself.

Second, as anyone who doesn't have their head shoved up their politics knows, the plan is to pull out as the we see we are not required. If you knew anything about which you speak, you'd know this. For example, even now, the troops levels are below that of prior to the surge. Oh but I though you said Republicans planned to stay forever? No sorry. As more and more provinces in Iraq are turned over to Iraqi military and government control, our troop levels are declining.

Are you ever truthful or right about anything? Ever?

Your big strategy is to become a permanent main target in a war like the Israeli Palestinian conflict that's been going on for like 1000 years... I'm not feelin' it!

Red Herring and hearsay. Wrong as usual Top Gun. Still waiting for the first post where you say something right.

 

[Bunz]

Before I reply, if you could just a few seconds and answer me one question when you reply...Do you think Sarah Palin is a socialist?

Of course, what this proves is that socialism doesn't work.

In many cases it is necessary, especially in those cases where it is unprofitable/to expensive for a private business to undertake on thier own, but it is still critical for modern society. HUD being a good example. But even then it helps the private sector, so it all comes around in the end anyway.

Something I've said over and over and over again.

Saying something over and over doesnt make it necessarily true.

Your slurring of names, shows some immaturity. Grow up. I had thought better of you than Top Gun and Shaman. Perhaps I misjudged.

Wait a minute here, Saracudda is a nickname she has had since high school, she is certainly not offended by it, quite the opposite, it is a name she has embraced. I have seen her in person say something along the lines of, they dont call me Saracudda for nothing. Certainly I thought this whole caribou barbie stuff was bogus and childish, just the same as the whole messiah garbage that gets through out by the right.

That said, offering state money is legal under the constitution of all rights reserved for the states. And this is hardly Bail-out Barack style socialism, where you take over corporations, while handing out billions with no real conditions.

Barack style? Try Bush style, Obama isnt even voting in the Senate right now. The guy signing all the bills for the bailouts is the candidate we all wanted to have a beer with, remember?

Unfortunately, isn't this sort of required in Alaska since under your state constitution, the resources in your state are legally owned by the state?

Depends, subsurface rights lower than a certain level belong to the state when unless it is on federal land(%60 of AK) then it is something different.
But to keep this simple for discussion purposes, the oil and gas while it is in the ground, belongs to the state. The state will then have various leases for the development rights of certain resources.

Like, in Ohio, if they struck oil, the ownership of that oil would be the company that found it on their purchased land. Thus no Ohio funds would be wanted or required to develop that resource. Further there would be no politicalization of the resource either, since politics and government had nothing to do with it. It would all be on the company to develop their own thing.
However, in your state, where government owns the resources, automatically, there will be politicalization, and usually corruption of the development process. This is the natural result of that. A government program that will cost the tax payers tons of cash, and that most companies don't want to get involved with.

We dont really pay taxes in Alaska, well certainly not state income tax. Just various local taxes and user fees. Our revenue comes from our resources.

Ultimately, I wager the company that won the bid will have lobbied for it. Some politcos will have been paid off to give them the bid.

Not exactly, it has been the competing "denali" project that has spent millions in lobbying not only politicians, but the Alaska public.

This is why you don't want socialized control. It rarely if ever works. The fact you have had such a hard time getting these resources developed in one of the most naturally well endowed states in our Union, shows how socializing resources hasn't helped you.

Socializing the resources in Alaska has been the only thing that has kept us out of the stone age. It has been a resounding success for its residents.
Since 1982, I have recieved nearly $30,000 from oil revenue, in the meantime, I have never payed a cent towards state income tax. If you ask me, socialism works just fine in this sense.

If your natural gas, oil, and other resources were in Texas, they would have been tapped already, and been suppling millions of consumers with cheaper energy, and at the same time, creating millions of Jobs. Instead your oil, which was discovered in the mid 80s, didn't even get the "go ahead" to be used till 2003 or 4. Your natural gas, has been at a stand still for ages, and even now looks questionable. Socialism... it never works.

The comparison to Texas isnt quite fair, Alberta would be a more accurate comparison, but Texas is closer to the market and has been producing oil for 100 years, Alaska, only 30 years. Im not sure where you got the mid 80s figure, but it is incorrect, the Prudhoe Bay field was discovered in the late sixties with lease sales occurring in 69. TAPS was turned on in 76.

AGIA came about because the producers had been promising a gas line for decades, private industry failed on thier promises and still has in this regard. It was only until they were faced with having thier leases stripped did they move into action. In the meantime, Alaskans need that gas for our own use, to heat our homes and generate electricty. Since there is more there than we can use, we would like to bring the rest to market.

So, you cant praise Palin and knock socialism at the same time, it is an oxymoron.

 

[top gun]

You seem to have ignored the evidence of Saddam's connections to terrorist organizations other than Al Qaeda, and the direct attempts to make connections with Al Qaeda. Both claims proven true by the Rockefeller report.

Andy the excuses that the Bush administration used to invade Iraq were lies. I believe it was like 95 separate lies they told over the course of their actions. They had wanted to invade Iraq from the start. Iraq had NOTHING, ZERO to do with 9-11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zteunEcP5-U

I'm actually amazed you've drank so much Bush Kool-Aid that even you would continue to try and play this dog & pony show out. (Hint) Everybody knows now.

Again you ignore that we were trying to prevent Saddam from becoming an direct threat, even if he wasn't at the moment in time that we invaded. His attempts at becoming a threat that wasn't "in a box" as you say, are well documented by the democrats in the Rockefeller report.

Well I might think your posts are a direct threat to sanity and cause something terrible in the future to happen... but ya don't see me preemptively bombing your house our invading your Mom's basement do ya?

 

[top gun]

I completely understand you are arrogant and prejudice.

Well at some point I'd be glad if you showed you really understood anything.

Why yes of course.... when they were putting nuclear missiles in Cuba, we said "no". That was our amazing "negotiating" tactic. Seems to have worked too. Of course JFK should never have let it get that far, but hey. Democrats... you know.

And I have no doubt that in your one size fits all mind (as long as it's us) you can't fathom or don't care why Russia is against us now setting up missiles just 20 miles (not 90 like in Cuba) off of their border.

So with Iran, when they are trying to get nuclear weapons.... we said "no". Now what "talking" would you suggest we do now? What do you think they are going to "negotiate" on the policy of "no" nukes in Iran? Maybe they'll offer to only have little nukes? Maybe some smallish "wipe out only part of Israel" nukes? What great compromise will the messiah find with Iran?

You mean like what we just did with Communist North Korea? Oh that's right we did finally get them to break down their reactor by "talking" and negotiating aid packages.

That explains a lot. I hope you mean Ohio State, and not OSU.

Actually that's a bit of school history. Did you know that at one time Ohio State was called OSU. But way back in the day Oklahoma State was also called OSU and the Buckeyes changed their logo to THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY. Yes I'm a Buckeye grad.

You just lied twice. First, again, the Rockefeller report proved conclusively there were no lies. The only lies on why we went in, have come from liberal liars like yourself.

You're completely delusional, ya do know that? The fact that Hussein had not cooperated with inspectors and broken UN sanctions (of course he had no WMD's so that's a red herring in itself) in NO, ZERO, NOTTA 1, way means the Bush administration didn't repeatedly lie to get the American people and other politicians to give him the green light to move forward with his invasion plans.

I've post the 95 separate lies before (they are all in a Cafferty news report, and other official news report documentations and official inside sources that have come forward copied on Youtube).

And I think we all can remember Colin Powell speaking out about himself feeling set up to lie to the UN by the Bush administration.

So pleeeeeeeeeease... that dog won't hunt and hasn't for yeeeeeeeears.

Second, as anyone who doesn't have their head shoved up their politics knows, the plan is to pull out as the we see we are not required. If you knew anything about which you speak, you'd know this. For example, even now, the troops levels are below that of prior to the surge. Oh but I though you said Republicans planned to stay forever? No sorry. As more and more provinces in Iraq are turned over to Iraqi military and government control, our troop levels are declining.

Are you ever truthful or right about anything? Ever?

Obviously you fail to accept the now widespread consensus.

A) Big lie, no threat, should have never went in.

B) Over 30,000 brave American soldiers killed... 100's of thousands seriously maimed and wounded... $12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH OF TAXPAYER MONEY THROWN DOWN THE TOILET!

C) Will never be a stable American satellite country even if we stayed another 20 years. The calming feature that is happening now is because the people in Iraq both civilian and fighters see this as the "quickest route to get us out".

We've seen these same tactics used for hundreds of years in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Eventually no matter how far in the sand your head is you'll see the obvious happen. Iraq will be Iraq.

 

[BigRob]

And I have no doubt that in your one size fits all mind (as long as it's us) you can't fathom or don't care why Russia is against us now setting up missiles just 20 miles (not 90 like in Cuba) off of their border.

Russia has been against us since 1945. Can even make the case they were against us before, they just wanted Hitler gone first. Make no mistake, Russia wants to reassert themselves, and we are in their way.

You mean like what we just did with Communist North Korea? Oh that's right we did finally get them to break down their reactor by "talking" and negotiating aid packages.

Maybe you missed the fact that North Korea tested a bomb and restarted the reactor? The talks were a joke and failed.

]You're completely delusional, ya do know that? The fact that Hussein had not cooperated with inspectors and broken UN sanctions (of course he had no WMD's so that's a red herring in itself) in NO, ZERO, NOTTA 1, way means the Bush administration didn't repeatedly lie to get the American people and other politicians to give him the green light to move forward with his invasion plans.

It's not a lie to go based on the intel you have. If the intel is wrong, that is a problem, but that is a CIA problem, not Bush's fault. The whole argument that he "manipulated" intelligence has no bearing either. Bi-partisan Senate committee's already have confirmed this.

And I think we all can remember Colin Powell speaking out about himself feeling set up to lie to the UN by the Bush administration.

Trying to cover for himself after the war went South more like. He could have resigned at any time if he felt it was all unjustified.

A) Big lie, no threat, should have never went in.

No lie, just bad intel. We are there at this point regardless.

B) Over 30,000 brave American soldiers killed... 100's of thousands seriously maimed and wounded... $12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH OF TAXPAYER MONEY THROWN DOWN THE TOILET

30,000 soldiers dead? Where do you get your numbers? That is off by large amounts.

C) Will never be a stable American satellite country even if we stayed another 20 years. The calming feature that is happening now is because the people in Iraq both civilian and fighters see this as the "quickest route to get us out

I don't think what they are doing is the "quickest" way to get us out. I think the tribal strategy we are employing has been working so far, however if we are unable to get a central government with strong power, there will most likely be a major civil war along tribal lines once we leave.

We've seen these same tactics used for hundreds of years in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Eventually no matter how far in the sand your head is you'll see the obvious happen. Iraq will be Iraq.

A strong central government in Iraq can maintain stability, we need to ensure they get one.

 

[Andy]

Before I reply, if you could just a few seconds and answer me one question when you reply...Do you think Sarah Palin is a socialist?

Not yet. I haven't heard her plan to take over companies like Barack has. If she has, I must have missed it.

In many cases it is necessary, especially in those cases where it is unprofitable/to expensive for a private business to undertake on thier own, but it is still critical for modern society. HUD being a good example. But even then it helps the private sector, so it all comes around in the end anyway.

Good heavens... HUD is the worst example in our nation today. Their section 8 housing have become drug infested, crime ridden, publicly funded slums. And let's not forget it was HUD which originally pushed for sub-prime loans to begin with, which caused the whole mess we're currently in.

Private business obviously can do the things you claim are too expensive or unprofitable, because they have all offered their own plans to develop your natural gas, that forgo the public money. If they couldn't do so, they wouldn't have made the offer.

Wait a minute here, Saracudda is a nickname she has had since high school, she is certainly not offended by it, quite the opposite, it is a name she has embraced. I have seen her in person say something along the lines of, they dont call me Saracudda for nothing. Certainly I thought this whole caribou barbie stuff was bogus and childish, just the same as the whole messiah garbage that gets through out by the right.

Very well. I stand corrected and I apologize.

Barack style? Try Bush style, Obama isnt even voting in the Senate right now. The guy signing all the bills for the bailouts is the candidate we all wanted to have a beer with, remember?

Obama said the $700 billion bailout bill passed by the U.S. Congress had helped stem the financial crisis, even though the $300 billion already spent may not have had visibly positive effects.

"I think ... part of the way to think about it is things could be worse. I mean, we could have seen a lot more bank failures over the last several months," he said.

"We could have seen an even more rapid deterioration of the economy-- even a bigger drop in the stock market. So part of what we have to measure against is what didn't happen and not just what has happened."

btw, like all politicians who's plans always seem to fail, they always say 'oh well it would have been worse I bet'. It doesn't even phase stupid people that directly after the bailout was approved, the stock market tanked worse than ever before.
Moving on...

Depends, subsurface rights lower than a certain level belong to the state when unless it is on federal land(%60 of AK) then it is something different.
But to keep this simple for discussion purposes, the oil and gas while it is in the ground, belongs to the state. The state will then have various leases for the development rights of certain resources.

We dont really pay taxes in Alaska, well certainly not state income tax. Just various local taxes and user fees. Our revenue comes from our resources.

I understand all that. What I was getting at was that any time politicians are in charge of a resource, naturally corruption follows. It inevitable because as soon as someone in politics has something people want, there will be people looking to influence that.

If you have control over a natural gas resource, naturally there's going to be companies that will want to influence who gets rights, what the stipulations are on those rights, and the cost of those rights.

For example, the government assumed the power to confiscate property for the good of the people. Back when Tucker autos were bucking the big three, they lobbied the city mayor, to confiscate the run down property where the Tucker was being built, and convert it into publicly funded housing. This is what put Tucker out of business.

Not exactly, it has been the competing "denali" project that has spent millions in lobbying not only politicians, but the Alaska public.

Which is exactly my point. In a true free-market situation, it would be totally between the seller and the buyer. No lobbying, no politicians, no back room deals.

Socializing the resources in Alaska has been the only thing that has kept us out of the stone age. It has been a resounding success for its residents.
Since 1982, I have recieved nearly $30,000 from oil revenue, in the meantime, I have never payed a cent towards state income tax. If you ask me, socialism works just fine in this sense.

I understand your position. I have to wonder though, if you couldn't have completely privatized the entire affair, had state taxes on oil production, and been better off with more developing of your states resources, while reducing the corruption and political red tape that has held back most of the industry in your state.

See, it's pretty easy to see the good in your system when you don't know of any other system. Perhaps even the Chinese thought it was wonderful to have free health care (3rd world style), free food (as long as it's rice), free housing and shelter and the promise of a job for life (provided you are fine with $1/day). Maybe some thought it was great, even though they had a 66% poverty rate.

Now they are in a system that promises none of those things, yet can you claim they are worse off?

The comparison to Texas isnt quite fair, Alberta would be a more accurate comparison, but Texas is closer to the market and has been producing oil for 100 years, Alaska, only 30 years. Im not sure where you got the mid 80s figure, but it is incorrect, the Prudhoe Bay field was discovered in the late sixties with lease sales occurring in 69. TAPS was turned on in 76.

ANWR was signed into law in the early 70s, and was supposed provide for an assessment into it's oil and natural gas supplies.

"Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) signed into law by President Carter in 1980. ANILCA called for the scientific study of the wilderness, and also contained provisions for oil and gas assessments on 1.5 million acres of the coast plain."

Not until the 1987 was an assessment done (government is so fast), and those reports showed millions of barrels and millions of cubic feet of gas. Nevertheless, today, nearly 28 years later, you still haven't developed this natural resource. All of this from the ANWR web site.

AGIA came about because the producers had been promising a gas line for decades, private industry failed on thier promises and still has in this regard. It was only until they were faced with having thier leases stripped did they move into action. In the meantime, Alaskans need that gas for our own use, to heat our homes and generate electricty. Since there is more there than we can use, we would like to bring the rest to market.

So, you cant praise Palin and knock socialism at the same time, it is an oxymoron.

In looking at the Alaska Gas Pipeline page on Wiki, it's shocking how many times the plans have been thwarted by... politics. Over and over, plan after plan, was shot down by politics. When I read through what happened with Carter, it just proves my point above about how politicians in control result in corruption. Granted I'm taking this at face value, because there wasn't much cited support for the specific points I'm interested in.

That said I'll always knock socialism. It simply doesn't work. The fact you might... and I say that loosely, might have a functioning system were you are, would be amazingly rare. Nor does the fact that it functions currently, mean it will always work. Socialism always works when you first adopt it. It's after some time that the system consistently breaks down. Social Security worked when it was first introduced (even though it cause a major recession), but that didn't stop it from going broke twice, and it is going broke again.

I'll pitch Palin off before I ever stop bashing the universal failure of socialism. As for Palin, I only know of some of the things she stands for. If it turns out she really is for socializing, taking over companies, and making government in charge of all things, then I'm not for her anymore. This issue though, doesn't really support that.

 

[Andy]

Well at some point I'd be glad if you showed you really understood anything.

I understand that you lie constantly, and rarely have any facts to back your points.

And I have no doubt that in your one size fits all mind (as long as it's us) you can't fathom or don't care why Russia is against us now setting up missiles just 20 miles (not 90 like in Cuba) off of their border.

This didn't answer the point made.

You mean like what we just did with Communist North Korea? Oh that's right we did finally get them to break down their reactor by "talking" and negotiating aid packages.

Um... no. Talking didn't help. They still have their nuclear reactor. South Korea says they have not backed down. Talking doesn't work.

You're completely delusional, ya do know that? The fact that Hussein had not cooperated with inspectors and broken UN sanctions (of course he had no WMD's so that's a red herring in itself) in NO, ZERO, NOTTA 1, way means the Bush administration didn't repeatedly lie to get the American people and other politicians to give him the green light to move forward with his invasion plans.

I've post the 95 separate lies before (they are all in a Cafferty news report, and other official news report documentations and official inside sources that have come forward copied on Youtube).

The Rockefeller report was very convincing to me. The report can be found directly from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence which is publication S. Rpt. 110-76. Or here.

I should warn you, both are typical massive reports in PDF format, and given how little you must read, seeing as how little you know about nearly any topic, I wager I should just give you one section to make my point...

In most cases, the opinions of the community and individual agencies did not change following the publication of the NIE or following the 2002-2003 United Nations' inspection in Iraq. The community judgment did change pertaining to the intended use of Iraq's UAVs. Specifically, the NIE judgement that Iraq's attempts to procure U.S. mapping software for its UAVs that was useless outside the U.S., "strongly suggests that Iraq is investigating the use of these UAVs for missions targeting the United States".

Again, everything that was said, was the best information at the time. There were no lies, but liberal lies. You are the only one lying here.

Obviously you fail to accept the now widespread consensus.

Yeah, cause I'm not an idiot that believes truth is determined by "consensus". Just because 50 lying liberal get together and have a truth warping fest, doesn't change the truth. The truth is, the intel at the time all pointed to exactly what Bush said. Maybe if Clinton, who also supported going into Iraq, had perhaps done a better job supporting our intelligence agencies, then maybe the Iraq war, and 9/11 would not have happened. But that doesn't change the information Bush had at the time he had it.

A) Big lie, no threat, should have never went in.

Why did Clinton support going into Iraq in 1998?

B) Over 30,000 brave American soldiers killed... 100's of thousands seriously maimed and wounded... $12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH OF TAXPAYER MONEY THROWN DOWN THE TOILET!

We already covered this. Obama wants to shove a trillion dollars down the toilet. So maybe you should have a talk with your messiah before throwing stones in your glass house.

C) Will never be a stable American satellite country even if we stayed another 20 years. The calming feature that is happening now is because the people in Iraq both civilian and fighters see this as the "quickest route to get us out".

Germany, South Korea, Japan....

We've seen these same tactics used for hundreds of years in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Eventually no matter how far in the sand your head is you'll see the obvious happen. Iraq will be Iraq.

Finely you make a point that I actually understand. That said, I think we should do our best. We're in. We gotta do the best we can. Pulling out stupidly will guarantee failure.