Throckmorton
Registered Senior Member
We probably will. There isn't enough oil there to make much of a difference though.
Questions For a Liberal From a conservative
- Thread starter David2
- Start date
We probably will. There isn't enough oil there to make much of a difference though.
Point taken.
What is this I hear that there are GIANT oil reserves under the midwest?
My science teacher(this takes about all credit of the theory away, but I shall continue) says that there is, most likely, huge reserves of oil under the midwest. And, someone knows about them(as in, more than a theory). Nobody is told, and it is left as conspiracy theory, so that the U.S. can consume everyone elses oil and then sell this back out to the world, as the sole owner of the last oil reserve(bringing war or riches). Sounds ridiculous, yet I post it anyways.
What is this I hear that there are GIANT oil reserves under the midwest?
My science teacher(this takes about all credit of the theory away, but I shall continue) says that there is, most likely, huge reserves of oil under the midwest. And, someone knows about them(as in, more than a theory). Nobody is told, and it is left as conspiracy theory, so that the U.S. can consume everyone elses oil and then sell this back out to the world, as the sole owner of the last oil reserve(bringing war or riches). Sounds ridiculous, yet I post it anyways.
Throckmorton
Registered Senior Member
I haven't heard that. I've read that we can produce 3% of the worlds oil. We use 24% of the worlds oil.
I'm not against more drilling but without conservation we're screwed......I think we're screwed no matter what but conservation is the best way to try to minimize it.
I'm always in favor of conspiracy theories which talk about massive oil reserves in the midwest, or secret patents for non-fossile fule engines which run just as efficiently being held by the oil companies to keep themselves in business. It gives me hope that I won't have to do battle with lord humongous after we reach peak oil production.
Last edited:
JohnGalt said:
I’ll explain it to ya. Protecting the environment is not about going back to caves. It’s about having a sustainable impact on the environment. The present first-world standard of living is unsustainable. Conservatives support using up the environment at a rate such that future generations will have a much diminished standard of living, and to let the lion's share of profits go to the Republican elite. New drilling for oil in the US is more harmful to the environment than buying oil from countries that have established wellheads on top of huge reserves. Why have thousands of taps blighting the environment when you need only a few? Conservatives want more US drilling because the Republican elite brainwashed them; the average American will be handed a net loss from new drilling in the US. It will just increase profit to Bush Oil.
Last edited:
Chairman_meow
Registered Senior Member
it's a question of degree, that's why it went to court. Such decisions should be made case by case. Why would you want to kill your granny?
David2 said:
Isn’t this pro-death in both cases? Where’s the implied contradiction?
The Schaivo case centered on what her wishes were on how to proceed in the event she became a vegetable, and who had the right to claim what her wishes were given that she didn’t document them. The court correctly gave her husband the nod, since he was her legal guardian. He claimed that she wished to die in such case. The court took him on his word. Your granny hypothetical doesn’t follow, because you didn’t say that she was a vegetable. And if she is, then the next questions are, did she document her wish in such case, and if no, are you her legal guardian, and if yes, what did she tell you about her wish in such case if anything?
The thing is though, regulating this stuff can lower standards faster than using it all up. You can't just ban it, and fight to restrict, because then companies won't have the money to develop better engines that do not run off oil.
The greenhouse effect is natural. We are merely adding to it little by little. Now, if we were to have something better than oil to efficiently run off of, I'd be all for it. Why does it hurt to drill for oil? As long as we keep disasters from happening because of it(spills, things of the sort), it should be fine. Then, eventually, people will have developed a better, cheaper engine.
An interesting thin relating to ozone depletion. I have not checked my source yet, although it has been credible as to everything else, but, it states that more chlorine(which is the component of CFC's that cause ozone depletion) is released naturally than we could ever hope to release. I shall look into it and post back.
The greenhouse effect is natural. We are merely adding to it little by little. Now, if we were to have something better than oil to efficiently run off of, I'd be all for it. Why does it hurt to drill for oil? As long as we keep disasters from happening because of it(spills, things of the sort), it should be fine. Then, eventually, people will have developed a better, cheaper engine.
An interesting thin relating to ozone depletion. I have not checked my source yet, although it has been credible as to everything else, but, it states that more chlorine(which is the component of CFC's that cause ozone depletion) is released naturally than we could ever hope to release. I shall look into it and post back.
Why does it hurt to drill for oil? Because it scares off wildlife, and introduces roads to roadless areas, which increases human activity in the area.
JohnGalt said:
There is no serious effort to replace the combustion engine. Environmentalists help to get clean engines on the drawing board now instead of fifty years from now, when it might be too late to retain a semblance of the current standard of living.
I already gave the reason. Because it blights the environment for no benefit for the common person. The world has enough wellheads already. We can suck from those wellheads for as long as needed to develop an alternative engine, if we were serious about building such engine. The only reason new wellheads are proposed is so a few people can add that gold-trimmed 8th bathroom.
We in the UK pay £0.86 per litre, approximately $6.13 per US gallon at the moment - a high price for us, though not surprisingly the govt. has avoided all the kerfuffle that happened when the price rose to lower than it is now.
If Terri Schiavo were to die, with a mind or not, it was unconscionable to do so by dehydration and starving. We wouldn't do it to a dog, why a human being?
Personally I don't think we have a way of knowing what her state of mind was, and medical opinion in cases like this is rather too complacent about their level of knowledge.
Can someone explain this cartoon to me? http://www.ucomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2005/04/02/ Is this to do with a conservative congress or a liberal one? What law did they pass? (Forgive my ignorance of the finer detail of the Schiavo case).
If Terri Schiavo were to die, with a mind or not, it was unconscionable to do so by dehydration and starving. We wouldn't do it to a dog, why a human being?
Personally I don't think we have a way of knowing what her state of mind was, and medical opinion in cases like this is rather too complacent about their level of knowledge.
Can someone explain this cartoon to me? http://www.ucomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2005/04/02/ Is this to do with a conservative congress or a liberal one? What law did they pass? (Forgive my ignorance of the finer detail of the Schiavo case).
It seems that Jeffy has trashed the house in his search for his baseball mitt, and when his mother asks, "Who did this?" he replies "Not me!" and...
No, wait, that's "Family Circus."
The "Tom the Dancing Bug" strip seems to be lampooning congress and its recent decision to intervene on behalf of Terry Schiavo (and, by extension, meddling in the personal affairs of a private citizen with legislation tailored to their circumstance). In this instance, both the "Palm Sunday Comprimise" and the "Incapacitated Persons' Legal Protection Act" bore direct relevance to Mrs. Schiavo's circumstance. I believe Mr. Bolling's point in the strip is to make light of Congress' apparent willingness to ride the coattails of a "hot" issue, particularly when said issue not only polarizes the constituency but generates huge amounts of press.
An excellent explanation of the various issues involved in the Schiavo case may be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo
No, wait, that's "Family Circus."
The "Tom the Dancing Bug" strip seems to be lampooning congress and its recent decision to intervene on behalf of Terry Schiavo (and, by extension, meddling in the personal affairs of a private citizen with legislation tailored to their circumstance). In this instance, both the "Palm Sunday Comprimise" and the "Incapacitated Persons' Legal Protection Act" bore direct relevance to Mrs. Schiavo's circumstance. I believe Mr. Bolling's point in the strip is to make light of Congress' apparent willingness to ride the coattails of a "hot" issue, particularly when said issue not only polarizes the constituency but generates huge amounts of press.
An excellent explanation of the various issues involved in the Schiavo case may be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo
It's the only legal way to let her die in Florida.Silas said:
