Story Comments
Posted by: djrevelky 1 year, 6 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-

djrevelky1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think the problem is that both parties are firmly in the Oil Companies AND Middle Eastern oil tsars pockets.
All we can expect to see from Congress is the "Drag, Nag, and Bag." They drag oil company executives or foreign officials in front of them. They nag at them for a few hours to put on a good show for the tax payers. Then they bag their campaign donations.
Clinton has nearly $200,000 in big oil money this election, Obama around $170,000 and McCain $220,000 plus. If you think anyone of these 3 are going to fix the problem you are badly mistaken.
Reply-

Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think that's a symptom of the disease not the disease itself. We've known about peak oil for over fifty years now, but the American consumer hasn't had to really worry about it because energy was cheap due to many different economic factors. That is no longer the case.
We need to address the problem directly by finding a way to eliminate our dependence on oil. All fossil fuels should go that way eventually, but we need to focus on oil RIGHT NOW. Not tomorrow, not five years from now, RIGHT NOW.
Reply -
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-

mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem is that our ever-churning war machine burns through 60% of the world's oil and those who love to see us invade, bomb, shoot up, tear down and rebuild stuff over and over again are 100% to blame--and both parties AREN'T equally to blame for that.
Reply-
-

flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world."
http://www.energybulletin.net/13199.html
HMM Supply and Demand?
Combined with the SPR fill that just keeps going, it seems to explain why: better than the develoment in China and India.
I still would like to know where the 60% came from.
Reply -

mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Accck...Of course that's ridiculous. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to correct this. I meant to say that the military consumes 60% of *US* oil. The US is 5% of the population and we consume 25% of the world's oil. The war department is the world's single largest purchaser and consumer of oil. So, in short, the difference between my error and what we really spend is the difference between thoroughly revolting and merely sickening. ;-P
http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/top_5_facts...
http://nowarnowarming.org/article.php?id=94l
http://www.williambowles.info/venezuela/2006/02...
Reply-

flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
With respect sir:
If my B.S. meter had not red lined, I would not have learned that DOD is the largest consumer of oil in the world.
It leaves no doubt in my mind that when I cringe when the dashboard beeps and the low fuel lights up, that the war is reaching into my pocket.
This is real.
Reply-

Teech1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a stupid idea. Just what one would expect from pimps, panderers, and politicians. Create a worse problem from a bad one.
Try balancing the federal budget and watching the dollar increase in value.
Try not flushing a trillion or so down the Iraq toilet.
Naaahhhhh. No profit in that nonsense. Keep subsidizing the super rich and screwing the working stiffs.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
People Who Liked This Comment (14)
People Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Submit a Story
Advertisement

loading ...
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.