WHO ARE THE RACIST IN AMERICA – A History Lesson

16 Responses to “WHO ARE THE RACIST IN AMERICA – A History Lesson”

  1. they have hidden so much,socialism,unionism and out and out theivery behind that 10 foot tall racist sheild,the  reprisals are going to be fun to watch,the future is going to be full of blacks,mexicans,muslims and a dozen other minority’s that are going to be slapped down so hard when they try to hide behind it they’ll wish they had never been so greedy.

  2. I think Rand Paul’s a little too busy attacking his fellow Americans with the Patriot Card to care if someone pulls the Race Card on him.

  3. Care to clarify that outrageous statement?

  4. What’s outrageous about it? You can pick up the quote from any site with the video link on Paul being interviewed on his thoughts about the Gulf Spill:In reference to a question regarding BP’s culpability and Obama’s policy of holding BP responsible: “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.
    I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think
    it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s
    always got to be someone’s fault.”In other words, if we buy into Obama’s theory that BP is accountable, and must be held accountable (see: boot-heel) as the majority of Americans seem to, we are unAmerican.That’s quoted, and it’s not taken out of context. This is Rand Paul criticizing Obama and not realizing that he’s criticizing the majority of America, including his own endorsements in the process. People will look at that and say “Oh, Obama, he deserves it” and not see the larger statement. That is that there is some way that BP can possibly NOT be held accountable for what happened on their drilling site, that the investigation might reveal that, which is clearly garbage.I’m not sure why you leap to “outrageous” when we’ve already got one idiot in the form of Scott Brown attacking Americans by suggesting their citizenship is a privilege and not a right, ala Hilary Clinton. These people aren’t perfect, they are not models of everything society should look up to, and sadly, both are displaying behaviors that make the current establishment look less negative.

  5. Obama, not once, not twice, but three times gave BP a waver to do what they were doing and did so more than once.  Conveniently, BP had donated over 1 million dollars to Obama’s Presidential campaign.  Obama, after 38 days of crap flowing into the Gulf is just now “telling” them to just plug the hole.Frankly, I see very little blame being thrown around by the parties involved, and I personally think that is on purpose for fear of exposing something else.Also, how does saying Obama’s constant blaming of business for problems government has caused “un-American”?  No, I think you, who say you’re more libertarian, do not understand what a real one is and how they think.Obama is at fault for giving BP all of those wavers of safety.  BP is at fault for asking for them and doing it.  Obama is at fault for not acting sooner to take care of the problem, and just acted like his “community organizer” incompetent self and asked people to think of something, instead of being a leader and getting it done.  It’s the government’s fault for forcing these companies to drill in such deep water instead of places safer and easier to stop such a spill.Obama’s playbook is to blame someone else for every problem, like a 13 year old.  He’s still blaming things on someone who hasn’t been in the Whitehouse for over a year.  No, I think Paul called it quite accurately, and no I do not think it was Un-American for doing so.Business runs the economy, not the government.  That’s how Paul thinks (and I as well).  Government just keeps screwing it up.  BP should never had to drill in such deep water.  They should have been drilling on land or at most shallow water where it’s easier to get, and stop.

  6. Going to deal with these point-by-point so that I cover everything. Addressing your points:1. That Obama may be to blame is irrelevant. This does not in ANY way diminish BP’s responsibility, their accountability or the blame they hold in this. Others may share in this blame. I’m not arguing against that, and Paul doesn’t mention it even in passing.2. You see very little blame thrown around? You’re probably not looking hard enough. You’re aware that it’s more than just BP and the feds that may be to blame, right? There’s Transocean, and Halliburton? That this is the blame-game he refers to? There’s plenty of fingerpointing.A taste of it, a. Transocean blaming BP:http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/05/06/still-too-many-questions-surrounding-transocean.aspxb. BP blaming Transoceanhttp://www.politicolnews.com/gulf-oil-spill-gets-bigger/c. And we already know about Obama putting his “boot-heel” on BP’s throat.3. Rand Paul was not being questioned about Obama blaming businesses nor was it a business-related question. It was specifically about BP’s accountability. He wasn’t making some overreaching statement, and you really have to stretch to excuse his statement by claiming it was a metaphor. Watch the clip yourself if you haven’t already:http://insidepassage.vox.com/library/video/6a00fae8df3308000b0137a585e546860d.html4. Nobody called Rand Paul unAmerican (they called him a racist instead)Rand Paul called Obama’s action (blaming BP/holding them accountable) unAmerican. Do you grasp it? If you blame BP, if you hold them accountable, then according to Rand Paul, you are unAmerican.Watch the video clip if you haven’t. You’re trying to represent the man when you don’t seem to have any idea what he actually said.

  7. I never said Ran Paul didn’t say what he said.  I just say your interpretation of his reasons for saying it is flawed.Consider this:BP (or any oil company for that matter) has been put in a ridiculous predicament, forced to drill for oil in extremely deep and dangerous conditions because of the government and environmentalists.  Had the government not done to these companies what it does, I seriously doubt such a thing would ever have happened, AND if any accidents occurred, it could have easily been contained.  Had oil companies been able to drill for the oil on land or in shallow water, this would never have been as bad as it is now.True, BP, Haliburton, TransOcean, and the Federal Government ALL share blame in this tragedy.  Some more than others.  Nevertheless, I agree with Ran Paul’s answer.  I personally think the biggest to blame is the Federal government that forced BP into a dangerous drilling method in the first place, and to blame any company, exclusively, for such an accident is irresponsible and Un-American.The key here, isn’t the parties involved, it’s how far back you move the camera to get a better picture.  Frankly, a lot of the environmental disasters that have occurred have been a direct result of an intrusive and naive government under the influence of environmental special interests.  They usually end up causing a bigger problem than they are trying to prevent.  To that, I agree with Paul’s frustration.Like Obi Wan once said, (paraphrasing) “it’s all about your point of view.”If you’re a Libertarian, the biggest thing you loath is government interference in anything.  Therefore, your point of view on any matter involving the government will have that in mind.  I believe Paul had that in mind.  Let me illustrate:

    *  Oil companies cannot drill on easily accessible land, or at worst, shallow water.  They are forced to go to dangerous deep water.  It’s the first cause of this accident.*  The Federal Government, instead of enforcing its safety and procedural regulations as a result of forcing the companies far off shore, gave them waver after waver.*  Due to the many wavers, TransOceanic slacked off and gave BP faulty equipment.*  BP, due to their political contributions, found that wavers were much easier.*  Like anyone receiving something free from the government, BP and TransOceanic slacked off and 11 men were killed.*  The Federal government, now realizing it’s laws on oil drilling go two ways, and it hasn’t been obeying its own laws (no equipment to contain such a spill, despite laws demanding it do so).

    So, who’s at fault?  All of them, but it started with the Federal government.Did you know there are places in Southern California that actually have oil oozing right out of the ground yet no oil company is allowed to come and extract it?  The place wreaks of crude oil, and it evaporates, is under so much pressure that it oozes out of the ground (all over the place), yet drilling for it is an “environmental hazard”.  Stupid, stupid, stupid!Oil can be contained on land much faster and easier than in water and especially the deep ocean, yet the Feds and the hippies have created a perfect storm, and now they blame those they created.  Simply Un-American.

  8. Blaming the federal government for this whole mess, saying that they started it is beyond baffling. To suggest that they FORCED BP to undertake offshore drilling, forced them to seek out those billion dollar profits, even more so. While that incident two summers ago did push the government to loosen up the leases, offshore drilling in the Gulf has been going on for a very long time now. It’s a desirable spot to drill, huge reservoirs that just ooze profits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_oil_and_gas_in_the_US_Gulf_of_MexicoI mean, c’mon, they LOBBIED for it.http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/19/news/economy/oil_money/index.htm?postversion=2008081917Ultimately, I agree that the government is part of the problem here. They clearly (at all levels) enjoy way too cozy a relationship with the oil industry. However, to suggest that mitigates BP’s own responsibility for their own NEGLIGENCE is taking it way too far. There are multiple parties to blame, going back several administrations. Let’s not pretend that they were forced to do anything. They wanted the leases, they slacked wherever they could get away with slacking, and now everyone’s going to pay for it. First and foremost, among those paying for it is BP. The government hasn’t been putting it’s bootheel down hard enough, and that finger needs to point, stay pointed, and ensure they live up to what they owe. We, the taxpayer, will be paying our unfair share no matter what happens. The politicians as usual, will end up more or less scot-free.This did not start with the government, and it is not on the government’s head, no matter what blame they may share in it. Yes, there is an element of accident in it, just as there is an element of accident in getting behind the wheel drunk and running someone over. Maybe someone could and should have stopped you, and they should answer for it, but if you’re the drunk behind that wheel, you are the one responsible.Rand Paul sits there and suggests that there is any way they might not be responsible, that simply some natural accident may have happened and investigation could reveal that. You and I both know that’s not the case. He’s giving them an out when no out should be available and in the process has the sand to suggest that any of the rest of us are unAmerican for it.The government has the right, and the responsibility to do that. They should have been doing it sooner. That failure is their fault, but it doesn’t mean that they should be letting BP off the hook now. As far as obtaining oil and land more easily, I’m not sure what your point is. They’re already taking that route – BP is one of the “Big Three” in Alaska, enjoying ridiculous amounts of influence and power in my previous state’s government. They want access to -all- reserves, and it doesn’t change anything that it’s offshore or on ANWR. Eventually, ANWR will open, because we have a dangerous level of dependence on oil. There are no alternatives. It’s all going to open up, and unless the government gets its backend in gear, we’re going to pay and keep on paying.One last note:I am not a Libertarian. The biggest thing I loathe is the government’s complete failure to behave like a responsible entity, not their interference. There are times when that dabbling is warranted, even necessary.I don’t know how many times I have to tell you this, but I do not subscribe to any particular party or philosophy. I have some ideas in common with pretty much every ideology, and as far as Libertarians go, I like their principle of getting government meddling out, but I reject most organized ideologies, simply because that “checklist” as you call it, forces people into a tunnel vision, and the cliquishness of the groups pushes people into supporting things they’d otherwise (rightly) reject.

  9. What part of “They were all at fault” did you not understand?  Seriously, ready my reply again.  What is it with you reading into something that isn’t there, and refusing to acknowledge the blatantly obvious?  This isn’t rocket science, it’s called “common sense”.ALL WERE AT FAULT, SOME MORE THAN OTHERS, BUT ALL.  Did you get the “ALL” part?My point, and only point was had the Federal government not put them in that position in the first place, then this would never ever have happened.  There would NEVER have been a need to deep water drill.  Is that settling in?  Is that hitting a brain cell?  I know your intelligent.  Is that concept so hard to grasp?It’s always big government and their environmentalist buddies that usually end up not considering the possible consequences in their actions against “evil oil”.Does that make the Feds solely responsible?  No, nobody told BP and TransOcean to get wavers.  Nobody told them to slack off on the rules and standards, etc.  All were at fault.  However, you cannot deny the so-called “butterfly effect” of placing them in the position to have jackasses make such a bunch of stupid decisions in the first place.All were at fault, ALL, but someone started the path to this perfect storm, and that was the Federal Government making restrictions so outrageous and stupid, that it was asking for such a disaster to eventually happen.  To deny that simple fact is to deny reality.  That was my point.  Geez…

  10. I get your point, and your point is wrong.”Federal government not put them in that position in the first place, then this would never ever have happened.”The federal government didn’t put them in that position. They actively sought it, lobbied for it, and eventually got it, thanks in part to an extreme rise in gas prices that made the government feel it was acceptable to cave it to their requests. There were no alternatives that would have “solved” the problem any more than deepwater drilling would have. Our allowance, as a country, to depend so heavily on oil helped create the problem. The feds didn’t do that.Yeah, we’re in agreement that the feds have behaved responsibly again and again. But it keeps coming back to you indicating that the feds are the root of the problem, that if they hadn’t started it, it never would have happened. That’s crap. It would have happened sooner, or later. Had we chosen ANWR, we’d be running into this problem 30 or 40 years later when another gas-friendly administration allowed a later incarnation of the same corporate entity to get away with the same crap.There is no simple and easy place to blame this on. You say terribly outrageous restrictions led to this, but it’s clearly the exact opposite – an extreme level of government irresponsibility in allowing  BP to slack off the expectations. It’s their JOB to make sure BP lives up to those standards. Clearly they weren’t doing it sufficiently.  I mean, you’ve acknowledged that. Where’s this nonsense about extreme restrictions coming from?I’d like to point out something you’ve said about BP, and implied about the government and their “environmentalist buddies”. It doesn’t work like that. You only have to look at Alaska, at the previous administration and the current one, and their cozy little relationship with big oil to see it.You see, BP does ask for special considerations like waivers. They ask for a minimum of restrictions and enforcement. And they get them, because they have the power and influence to do that. They have so much power and influence that they’ve alongside the other members of the Big Three demanded illegal tax considerations in order to advance a new pipeline, and when that failed despite the hard work of a terribly corrupt governor, causing Alaska to seek Trans-Canada, they tried to stonewall the process. They ask for it, they expect it, and they hardball when they don’t get it. Going up against them was one of the few things I respect Sarah Palin for. This isn’t evil, this is the corporate bottom line in action. Protect the profit margin. It doesn’t matter who else pays. This weird double-view you’ve got going, where Obama is cozy-tight with BP so much so that he hands out free waivers like candy for their massive donations to his campaign versus this perception of him and his environmentalists making life hard on the poor innocent BP folks…it doesn’t jibe at all. It doesn’t make sense.I mean, you seem to understand that they’re both equally responsible, but you keep pointing to the government as the sole -root- of the problem when that’s clearly not the case, not remotely reflective of reality. The feds didn’t create this problem alone. Their realationship with BP did it. BP and their kin asked and asked, and on the first excuse, they got it. Because by gosh, we just have to get those gas prices down, right?  And we can’t possibly restrict them in any way, because that would create an unnecessary hardship in saving us from those awful gas prices. Let’s toos them some waivers.

  11. On that note, I do realize that I’m harping on this mutual “root of the problem” thing overmuch, but I do think that it’s important to realize -exactly- where the problem stems from. It doesn’t happen without federal government offering the opportunity, but it also doesn’t happen without a corrupt business willing to exploit that opportunity.Soapbox for a moment, to make sure you get where I’m coming from.//My view of business in general – I think that a truly “evil” business is a rare thing, the kind of crap you read about in fiction. Criminal behavior? Bad, but not truly evil. Amorality, however, is a completely different matter. I believe (my personal opinion) that many, if not most, of the most successful (talking industry giants here) are fundamentally amoral, that any presentation of morals is merely a matter of PR, and that their first and foremost interest is the bottom line, the profit margin. Morals only figure into that so far as those morals help them achieve a greater profit, or at least do not hold them back.Amoral behavior isn’t evil, but it’s also not good, and it’s important to recognize that it is usually NOT to our benefit. When your interests compete against theirs, they will use whatever they have to ensure they win. That’s business. If it means ditching their country of origin to outsource for cheaper labor, squashing the competition that allows people to pay lower prices or get better paying jobs, political sway to strip people of their homes through eminent domain to erect a new link in their chain, gaining waivers or unreasonable perks… well, they’ll do that. It may be wrong and amoral, but it’s not evil. Too often, our government is party to that, and shouldn’t be.//

  12. So, what you’re saying is the Federal government will say “YES BABY!” to any request to drill for oil on land or shallow water right?  Let’s answer this question before the next one.If the answer to that question is “NO”, then your entire argument is invalid.The Federal government has FORCED all oil drilling to FAR off shore into deep water.  Why?  The environmentalist lobby.The Federal government’s denial of oil drilling permits/leases/etc. on land have forced oil drilling into deep dangerous waters.  It’s as simple as that.  No other cockamamy arguments you have about “they lobbied for this” hold any water simply because any lobbying for exclusions or drilling elsewhere were plan B.  In other words, choices were few because of government restrictions.This is called logic.  No oil company would EVER drill for oil in deep water if they could instead do so on land.  It costs Billions more to do so in deep water than on land.  Now, here’s a thought exercise, I know it will hurt:  Why can’t the oil companies save costs by drilling on land instead of out in dangerous deep water?  The answer, I know hurts, but it will help you.

  13. Honestly dude, the amount of arrogance you’re starting to drop, the insulting innuendo is turning Ken-like. If you can’t keep your argument above water without dropping all kinds of attacks on my intelligence and reasoning ability, maybe you need to reassess your argument. The government won’t say “yes” to -any- requests for drilling without a powerful argument as to why they should, because as you point out, there’s an environmental lobby nearly as strong as the oil lobby. Give them the ability to stomp all over that argument, and force a decision, then they’ll certainly do it. They made a decision between land and deep-water drilling, and clearly chose the easier path. The lobby against drilling on ANWR is far stronger than that on drilling offshore, and quite frankly, it’s an easy decision for a big oil company that doesn’t want to piss off one of its biggest clients.So yeah, given the choice, if they could drill on land or deep-water? They weren’t given that option. They were offered the ability to deep-water drill and with no other options available, leaped at the opportunity. They clearly chose to do so – had they believed the risk outweighed the reward, they simply would not have done it. After all, what reason would Bush have to force his good buddies in the oil industry to do that?  I already provided you a link that established the lobby for deep-water drilling existed BEFORE it was legalized. Why on earth would they lobby for something if they wanted nothing to do for it? Tell me, exactly what law was passed forcing them to go out, drop their equipment in the water, and pump those billions of dollars of gas into their cofffers? Given the way you are insisting they were forced and belittle my intelligence for disagreeing, in face of evidence provided, I demand that you source your claim with the text of the laws that forced BP and their fellow drilling agencies to go out and do that deep-water drilling. Where was the hue and outcry over this great travesty of injustice of a law that forced them to go drill that oil?The answer to your final question is blazingly obvious:They chose to do it because it became available. Before that summer incident, they had no extra options, none on land or deep-water. All sorts of press about the huge gas prices at the pump, about how there are no real solutions, that opening ANWR is a temporary band-aid, that opening deep-water drilling will last only slightly longer. But it will bring the gas prices down.So they opened the option to deep-water drill, and BP and others behind that oil lobby immediately lept at the fresh opportunity to drill deep-water.That’s the answer, you see. They take ALL options that are available to them. Why should they choose? 

  14. Oh my, you don’t get it.  Wow, this is amazing you don’t.  Shell “pioneered” offshore drilling because they had to.  It’s called survival.  If you are not allowed to drill on land, where the oil also is, then you have to pioneer the other places available.  You can’t drill for oil in the air as it’s kind of pointless.  You can’t do it on land because some hippie will whine about some rare and “endangered” gnat.  No, you have to drill in the only places left to you.  Therefore you have to develop technologies to do so.You make it look fantastic because you need stockholder money to do it, and you kiss the government’s butt because they can always make deep water drilling off limits too.You see, there’s ANWR, a veritable wasteland with no wildlife near by, not even tundra.  It is a frozen desert (the part they want to drill in), yet it sits over more oil than Saudi Arabia.  Nope, can’t drill there.  Some caribou that doesn’t exist anywhere near might be affected.  Then there’s the Rocky Mountains sitting over vast amounts of shale oil.  Nope, can’t drill there.  You might cause John Denver to roll over in his grave.  Of course, California is sitting over so much oil that is oozes out of the ground yet its hippie majority says you can’t drill as it might contaminate the ground (it already is).  Can’t drill in California’s shallow water either, Malibu residents won’t like the skyline.That has always been my point, nothing else beyond that has any bearing on that point as it is all SECONDARY to that.Now to follow up.  All of BP’s and TransOcean’s wavers were requested.  Since when does the Federal Government offer up such things?  Nevertheless, they were all given.Bush lifting the ban to offshore drilling.  Yeah, did you know this isn’t deep water drilling?  Deep water drilling never had a ban.  Off shore drilling is off the SHORE, shallow water.  Thank you for including something I touched upon above.We do agree that Obama is cozy with BP as BP was his largest campaign contributor.  Why the need to prove it to me? Showing me about the oil companies claims of safety and golly gee excitement of deep water drilling accomplishes what?  It shows a company trying to make a profit and blow sunshine up the backsides of those that can stop them.  In fact, it proves how ingenuity can overcome any obstacle, regardless if it’s natural or bureaucratic.If the Federal government did not remove all of the other means to extract oil, I would seriously doubt deep water drilling would be necessary.  Thus, that platform would never have had a need to be there in the first place.  It would have been more profitable to extract from ANWR, the Rocky’s California, etc. than a mile under the water.  That is the point.  Do you get it yet?  All of your links above have no merit here.  They come after the limitations.Now, having “said” that, despite the limitations, ALL parties contributed to this accident and all share responsibility and blame for it.  Some more than others.Now, back to the original reason for this thread.  Rand Paul’s statement takes into consideration the Federal Government’s restrictions that put the oil companies in a position to have to drill in deep water in the first place, and because of that consideration, his statement has merit.The Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government isn’t to limit or stifle commerce and business, it is to promote it.  There shouldn’t have to be a “good reason” to drill for oil.  That’s none of their business.  Have you even read the Constitution?  Much of what the Federal Government does is Unconstitutional now days.  The Constitution never gave them the authority, nor did the people amend it to give them the authority.  The Federal Government usurped their power.  It was never ever meant to be the power.  The States were the ones with the power.Funny how all of the crap in the USA always ends up being caused by Progressives, either directly or indirectly.

  15. There’s a thing in the U.S. Constitution called the restriction or law of “Ex Post Facto”.  It simply means no U.S. governing body can make a law that is retro-active (that’s never stopped some from trying).Therefore, U.S. land that is being drilled upon that had “drills in the ground” do not fall under the new restrictions since added by the Federal Government.  Texas, Alaska, and some portions of California are what you can call “grandfathered” into being allowed to drill.  However, their drilling can only be done based on the technology of the time.  Which means their extractive usefulness is pretty much over, except for the Alaskan Pipeline.  The Texas and California oil fields have far too old pumps that are neither deep enough, nor fast enough to make their contribution worth the real estate they are on.  The Alaskan Pipeline could actually be producing more, but they would require newer technology to do so, and Federal law restricts that.You also neglect to acknowledge the fact that the Federal Government has been seizing land at greatly accelerated rates claiming the new land to be “protected National Park land.”  It’s been done in areas conveniently directly over the rich shale oil fields.  How convenient.Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it give the Federal Government the legal right to seize State lands for any purpose than to place a military base on.  Your #8 argument shows an ignorance of the Constitution.  The phrase “Federally Protected Lands” is an oxymoron with the Constitution.  Therefore, #8 falls flat.Let’s back up to ANWR.  ANWR is HUGE, not all of it has wildlife on it.  Sure, there are large and vast portions of it with beautiful forests, tundra, and wildlife on it.  However, the portion that is interesting to oil is a frozen desert wasteland.  Also, ANWR is another Constitutional oxymoron.  Frankly, the Federal Government has no Constitutional right to restrict the State of Alaska nor to tell it how and if it extracts its natural resources.Imagine what would happen if the Federal Government turned the port of Los Angeles or the Port of New York or New Jersey into a “wildlife refuge”.  Yet, they do the same exact thing to Alaska.  Oil is Alaska’s means of success, and yet the Feds take it away from them.Your #3 is too assumptive and unqualified at that.  On the base it is agreed, but in reality it brings a far larger profit to get the oil where it is easier and cheaper to extract.  It costs billions more to drill in deep water than it does on land, especially with the technologies of today.  It’s why they drill on land in Saudi Arabia instead of off shore, where there is even more oil.  You’re grasping at false assumptions that go against common and business sense.Your #4 assumes deep water is the only place in the world to drill.  In fact, there’s far more oil under the US mainland then there is in the entire Gulf and Saudi Arabia combined.  Canada is already extracting OUR OIL via cross drilling near Alaska.  Makes you feel good right?  The simple facts are that oil is all over the world, and nature is still making it (surprise!  Look up the Baja California scientific discoveries on this.)  North America and Russia has more accessible oil than we have ever taken out of the Middle East in its entire history.#5, ah, I see you have been reading the Global Warming Koolaid about oil.  What all of these stories always leave out is how are the technologies of tomorrow going to be built?  Just about everything in our lives today come from oil, not just fuel.  Heck, even those hybrid cars have plastics made from oil.  Trains, trucks, windmills, solar panels, everything requires something made from oil.  You can’t just drop oil and expect the void to be taken up by something else.  History has shown it takes a previous technology to build the next technology.  The transistor could not have been made without the discoveries we learned from tubes (valves).  Integrated circuits (chips) could never have been made without the discoveries and equipment run by transistors, and so on.  New infrastructure must be build along side the old until the new takes over the load of the old.  The economy depends on oil.  To shut it off is to stop being able to build those so-called “green” designs.Diesel burning trains and semi’s need oil because nothing has been invented nor created with the efficiency and horsepower these machines give to transport goods over vast distances.  There has been no discovery that brings the sort of energy and efficiency that oil gives us per gallon.  There is no other resource so versatile to energy, manufacturing, medicine, machines, electronics, etc.  The computer you are using to read this could not be made without oil byproducts.So your assumptions on allowing drilling on land, ANWR, everywhere are misguided.  We need all of it.  We cannot survive without it, nor can we develop the means to replace it if we stop using it right now.#7, you were the one saying Paul’s statement was against the Federal Government and the population.  You used some sort of Freudian connection to accusing the Federal Government as accusing the people of the United States and somehow being “un-American”.  I showed that assumption to be mistaken.  Then there’s the Constitution again, that pesky document that so many in the government today really hate.  It states that everyone, individual or corporate entity, is innocent until proven guilty by due process.  Keep that into consideration, no matter how much you hate Paul, BP, or even Obama.#8 (again), it is not the Federal government’s job to “regulate” commerce between States.  It’s job is to promote commerce and to prevent regulation.  If you read the notes on why that clause was written, then you’d understand this.  The States, trying to unfairly compete, would impose ridiculous tariffs and restrictions on goods imported from other States, or just traveling through them.  The commerce provisions in the Constitution made it the Federal government’s job to prevent such limitations and allow free trade and commerce between the states.  Nowhere does it state it gives the Federal government the authority to regulate or limit commerce between the States at any time.The Federal Government has no authority to create “reserves” or “refuges” on land belonging to the States.  States like Alaska, Utah, Nevada, Arizona never gave that land to the Federal Government, it was stolen from them unconstitutionally.  It started with the Progressive Teddy Roosevelt and got worse with FDR.  The only land legally under the full authority of the Federal government is Washington D.C.  This is why it has no Congress representation, as it would put the Federal Government in a position to compete with the States in Congress, and that is not its Constitutional purpose.The lands acquired by the Federal Government ceased to be under their control when populations living on it declared a desire for Statehood.  Had the Feds wanted to keep it, then they shouldn’t have agreed upon the map we have today defining the States.  It ceased to be Federal land when Statehood was granted to the territories contained therein.  The Fed’s illegally stole it back since then.Nevertheless, even Federal or US territories are limited to the authority the Federal government has on them.  The local governments are given authority over the people not the Federal.  The only real difference between a territory and a State is one does not have Congressional representation.  The restrictions of the Federal government are the same where there already exists a local government with jurisdiction.Now to summarize.  Any company that deals with natural resource
    s is, of course, going to be interested in ALL resources in all areas of the world.  Nevertheless, it makes good business sense to extract those resources starting with the most profitable first and working your way to the more and more difficult.  That’s called being financially wise and fiscally responsible.For example, a gold mining company isn’t going to dig a mile under the Earth until it has extracted all of the gold above that first.  The same goes for an oil company.  Get it where it is easy and cheap, then work your way to the more difficult areas as need and demand permits.

  16.     Let us not forget who holds the leases to those subsea and ANWAR  properties. If you think it unwise to drill there why sell permits to do exactly that? The greens have forced big oil to the most extreme edges and still against those adversities they wring a profit. Let me know when EPA pays its own way.Nixons worst mistake wasn’t Watergate & plumbers.It was EPA!  Another gift that keeps on taking. (Soon you’ll be jailed/fined for flatulence.Methane is a greenhouse gas after all)” Smoke ’em if you got ’em. Hey Barack.Pull my finger!”

Come on, you know you want to say something.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: