Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: TheWayWeAre

America's "B Team": The Grand Old Paupers (Updated)

172 Comments
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 9:39 AM Virginia Patriot writes:

GOP-RIP?



We have run out of time on the illegal alien inundation. We either stop it now or we lose our country. Rudy won't do it. He thinks it's impossible to enforce our laws. I want someone who doesn't.

The GOP cedes their best issues by running Rudy. He agrees with Hillary on abortion, gays, guns, and amnesty. I want someone who doesn't.

America is worth saving. Vote conservative.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 11:21 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat

It sure isn't looking good for the GOP even if Rudy wins.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 11:40 AM BrianR writes:

Heh heh, Phil

Well, they're still a Gaggle Of Prostitutes to me.

But to-may-to to-mah-to, if you know what I mean.

They certainly have brought themselves to this sorry state.

Don't forget McCain-Feingold, too, let alone amnesty.


Funny. What do those two bills have in common?

Why, the name of a GOP candidate! I'll be darned!



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 11:45 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

Notice how no one picked up on this at TH, Powerline or any other "conservative" blog? I was just trolling and stumbled into it. Easily correctable problem. Nominate a conservative Republican.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 1:11 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

Phil

I have sent back so many solicitations I've lost count, always with the message, Not one dime until the border is secure and the law enforced! That won't happen until we get a President who wants to and this one doesn't. The RNC is doing everything they can to ensure we won't have that opportunity. The bobbleheads don't think we're serious about not voting for a liberal amnesty candidate. I know I won't. It looks like the GOP will have to be crushed to make way for a party that will represent American citizens.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 1:13 PM ShiningCity writes:

You know...

politics ........now I think it disgusts me more than ever in the past. And it's frankly due to the party I've supported for years. I feel like I have ick on me for hanging out with liars, thieves and perverts. It's like walking through a New Jersey Alley.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 1:18 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat

On the other hand, we have formed an impenetrable wall and the elites, like Trent Lott, are simply giving up. Six GP senators so far. The funding is drying up because they failed to deliver the goods to their special interest masters. It doesn't look good for either Hillary OR Rudy all of a sudden either.

We are the only ones who have the stomach for the fight. You have to keep reminding yourself that we are winning. The border WILL be secured because we will have new leaders after 2008. No one will be able to lead effectively if the growing cynicism is not reversed. We do do not have command economy nor a command government. The elites are re-discovering why our constitution works.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 1:20 PM patriotdefender writes:

PPhil, Vpat

Ha. I almost came to blows with the hubby this weekend as he is of the mindset if Rudy is the GOP Nominee, he's voting for him. ARGH!!! After all the time I spend discussing this at TH, I was freaking. I treid to point out he is the bald Hilary,to no avail. He is convinced that it is a vote against the dem nominee...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 1:24 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

SC

Yeah, but as I've gotten older, I've come to realize that it's always been bad and the reason that we see it so prominently today isn't just because it has gotten much worse (and it has), it is because that it is so hard for politicians to hide. That's got to be good. I'm not going to sink into a deep depression no matter who becomes the next president. It'll just give me more material to fume about.

And besides, 'tis the season for egg nog! Everyone loves egg nog! And bacon!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 1:40 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

nee

Someone, somewhere is canceling my vote too. That's why I need to be appointed absolute (but benevolent, trust me) dictator. THIS time, it'll be different. I'm incorruptible.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 2:19 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

Egg Nog!

Absolutely! Although I'm not sure it goes with bacon.

You're right, we need to stay on offense and optimistic. It is our country and it's worth fighting for. Rush has said that the American people usually get what they want, even if it takes awhile. With all the Dems siding with the illegals, it should be relatively easy to elect a GOP President once we nominate Hunter, Thompson, Tancredo, or Romney (my order of preference). Doc Steech seems convinced Rudy is toast once the primary voting starts, I hope he's right.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 2:21 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat

Doc also seems to have a personal campaign to hang me with something once this is over.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 3:39 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

They ain't gettin

My money. Not now.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 8:13 PM ScarletPimpernel writes:

hey, Savage says

I was just listening to Michael Savage a minute ago and he summed up the last 6 years nicely:

"The GOP has spent time being 'compassionate' to America's enemies, liberals, and illegal aliens. We elected them to be conservative."

I think this says perfectly what we feel.

and SC, we're all sick of this shinola but we're going to fight back.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 9:03 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

ScarletP

There sure seems to be two parallel universes recently: the establishment GOP and its minions in the "faux-con" blogosphere that keeps pitching the GOP "let's keep losing" strategy and conservatives like us who can't make it clearer what we want and keep scoring victories. At some point, they will snap. They need us more than we need them.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 9:23 PM BrianR writes:

"growing sense of doom"?

Damn well should be. It's called the Piper showing up, looking for his pay.

These yahoos thought they could just ignore us -- "well, what are they gonna do? Vote for the Dems?"


Well, now they're finding out what we're gonna do: hold back our money and our votes.


Maybe that'll work on the other side of the aisle; they have entire blocs of supporters that are just bobble-heads, no matter how badly they're ignored. Look at the Black and Jewish blocs: why do these folks keep voting for Dems? I can't for the life of me figure that out!

But it's a whole nuther story when you're talking about pissed-off gunowners and border-securidad people, small-G people, and Constitutionalists.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 9:35 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

I'm sure the in the Dems like Pelosi and Reid will try to claim that voters are making a statement that America wants Democrats but I have a feeling the Rahm Emanuels and Chuck Schumers know better. They are the ones involved in the House strategies and understand that being on the right side of conservative issues win elections. If they ignore that, then 2008 will be just like 1992 which set up a conservative landslide two years later. The only hope for the GOP to turn this around is to have a conservative candidate for president who offers coattails. I'm seeing a lot of campaign literature from Republicans where they don't even state which party they are running for. Rudy will guarantee that conservatives running for Congress will have to do it on their own.

I read a couple of articles today saying the blacks are going to vote for Hillary, not Obama. I guess pandering with "free goodies" rather than appealing to pride is the only thing blacks respond to. I can understand not rallying around Jesse. I cannot understand why they don't like Obama. Of course, not a single vote has been cast. The trust might be very different.

I can't wait to see how candidates of both parties handle the SCOTUS gun case. I have a feeling you and I are going to be having a ball after Feb 5.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 9:40 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

VDaddy

How did I miss your comment? You need to write longer comments.

I'm with you. I have a couple of local candidates I may give money to but I'm thinking any money to a presidential candidate is wasted.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 9:44 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

typo AGAIN!

On my comment to BrianR:
The TRUTH (not trust) might be very different. I swear I typed it correctly. I at least distinctly remember fixing the first sentence but it went through in the original uncorrected form.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 10:02 PM ScarletPimpernel writes:

The "authentic" blacks

have been told that Obama is not "really" black and is not down for the struggle. So, ifso fatso, they're gonna vote for Bill's wife. They prefer myth over platitude, I guess.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 10:05 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

ScarletP

Good point. She's married to the America's first black president. I guess they aren't ready to support America's first woman president, John Edwards.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 10:12 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Hey PPhil...

...that is hysterical!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 10:21 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

JimmyC

You know, sometimes if you keep trying, you stumble into something.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 11:03 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

How?

How do the Dems get away with openly supporting illegal aliens when their constituents are the most vulnerable to the impact? Bobby Scott D(Black Caucus)-VA, gets re-elected every time, all the while voting against his constituents. Black people are not stupid, they know illegals are depressing wages and taking jobs, largely from them. I saw Juan Williams on Fox Sunday, addressing this question, his response was, "What are they going to do, vote Republican?" Maybe they would if given a clear choice on this issue.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 11:18 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat

Many black leaders out here, like Maxine Waters, are relentlessly fighting illegals but can't get any coverage. Blacks kept WalMart out out of several parts of LA because they take away shopkeepers' business and hire illegals. I'm not so sure that blacks are as homogeneous as the MSM would have us believe. It's just that they get their money from the same place as whites and the money likes illegals. There is a black neighborhood activist I posted about a few months ago who staged a permitted march against illegals and was confronted by an illegal counter protest. The police shut down the march and threatened to arrest the blacks instead of arresting the illegal counter protest to enforce the law. There just is no leadership the hire you go up the black political heirarchy. The MSM only recognizes Jesse and his ilk as spokespeople for blacks.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 27, 2007 11:31 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

I haven't had a chance to get into the details of that deal but it is very complicated. And it was Abu Dhabi, not Saudi Arabia. The convertible bonds they bought MUST be converted to stock by 2012 and Citi has to pay 11% interest on the money. Based on the way the stock price deteriorated throughout the day, I have a feeling it may be no better an investment than BofA's investment in Countrywide. It may be good money chasing bad. Don't assume foreign money is all that smart. The German, French and British banks were smirking too until they discovered that they held the most toxic tranches of CDO issues. And the Japanese are still working the losses they incurred when they were taking over our economy in the 1980s. So long as they avoid disclosure, investors will not trust them, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan and Wachovia. HSBC bit the bullet and disclosed their exposure and are putting the problem on their balance sheets. They are now on their way to recovery. We don't know what provisions were worked into the Citi deal and to say that it was another "globalist" sellout is very premature. The stock market is telling us plenty about the deal. There is "knowledge" in price and Citi's price today is suggesting that the the Arabs may be throwing their money away.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 28, 2007 12:22 AM Peppermint2 writes:

Phil

Good article. I have to concur with Shining City. I feel like I have to take a shower every time I hear one of the candidates (either party) utter a word.

It's all a dirty game, has been for years, nothing has changed as long as I've been alive.

As Goshawk says, a revolution is about the only way things are ever going to change.

The conservative party as we have known it in the form of Republican traitors is doomed. Now what?
We'll get the democrats. They are no better.

Something has got to give one way or another. No pols are listening to us. We will have more illegals, more taxes, and more crap put upon us. How much more are we going to stand for before something just erupts.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 28, 2007 9:24 AM ScarletPimpernel writes:

VaDaddy, PPhil

I know we joke about liberalism being a mental disorder but there is real truth to it. How else to explain the many paradoxes and hypocrisy of the Left?

Dem/libs root for illegals which will hurt a big part of their constituency.

Dem/libs love abortion which eliminates future voters.

Jewish Dem/libs root for the Palestinians.

Gay Dem/libs don't care about Islamofacists.

It goes on and on. A mental disorder seems to be the answer.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 28, 2007 9:47 AM Peppermint2 writes:

ScarletPimpernel

I absolutely agree with you. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Dems/libs root for murderers and the abolishing of capital punishment which helps kill more libs when murderers are back out on the street.

Dems/libs root for muzzies and the libs would be the first the muzzies would kill.

Mental disorder = insanity of the left
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 28, 2007 10:09 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

Pep

These problems for the GOP are not necessarily good for the Dems. They aren't exactly popular either. They are getting the corporate money because they don't have to lie and deceive about what they want will do in elected. I don't think voters are happy about their message either. If you keep Republicans separate from conservatives (I know, several of us keep repeating it but...), it is undeniable that conservatives are winning. If neither party will deliver a conservative candidate, they will have a very difficult time governing. We have the House by the "short and curlies" at the moment and they know it. The leadership of the GOP is retiring and it won't be long before the same thing happens with the Dems.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 28, 2007 10:12 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

ScarletP

Have to agree. A saying in Hollywood is that "I was screwed up enough to get a job in Hollywood but not screwed up enough to make a living." They are the face and voice of liberals. How can it be anything other than a mental disorder.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 28, 2007 10:44 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat

Getting back to a comment you posted last week about being nice to paulbots

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjFhMzg1MzM5 NjgwZmQ5NjBiMDJkMzE2ZTg5YzQyNGU=

Pointless. They will not be voting Republican.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 28, 2007 4:31 PM Georgetwin writes:

Pasadena Phil

EXCELLENT POST!

WE’VE GOT A LIVE LIBERAL spewing over My Torture Blog, stop by any check out the exchange and feel free to PILE ON :)!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 28, 2007 7:50 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

Not much there. Standard boilerplate. Team Rudy loves Rudy because Rudy is Rudy. I doubt too many people listened to the full five minutes.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 29, 2007 3:14 AM Peppermint2 writes:

PPhil

Did you catch the CNN Utube scenario tonight where the repub candidates ate each other? Pretty funny stuff.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 29, 2007 10:25 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

Pep

I don't have cable but I have been catching clips. Rudy denies that NYC was a sanctuary city? McCain on the amnesty bill: "First of all, it isn't amnesty..." These guys haven't moved an inch nor learned a thing. They are going to stay on the tracks until the train runs them over. Rudy had a very bad day yesterday even before his dismal debate performance. Sad bunch.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 29, 2007 4:46 PM Georgetwin writes:

PPhil

New Post Available!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 29, 2007 6:00 PM SquiddyPopPerkyJean writes:

Depressed

by the points you make here... sadly accurate. But at least you are also funny, so thanks for your sense of humor, too.

This morning I watched the CNN-YouTube GOP debate. Entertainment, right? Might as well let the snowman have the floor.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 29, 2007 6:33 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Squiddy

It's only depressing if you think we (conservatives) are losing. I see us as winning. And I don't see Rudy winning the nomination. Romney is on a roll lately and I think the MSM is beginning to see that. ABC News has picked up on Politico's report yesterday on Rudy's graft and have taken it further to reveal that his then mistress used the NYPD as her personal taxi service. Then there is the yet to be picked up story about his personal friend and confessor, a priest who was involved in the cover-up of pedophile priests. Rudy has too much dirt in his inner circle to win against Hillary and I expect his sponsors will give up on him. No matter what happens, the deck is being swept of these phonies and conservatives will strengthen their control of Congress after 2008. That's not so depressing to me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 29, 2007 8:30 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

Phil

Thanks for the link. I think much of what was said in that piece is true, particularly the anti-war Paul supporters. They will not vote GOP. Some of the secure borders types just might. We need all the allies we can muster, the cheap labor express has all the money and levers of power within both party structures to work with. We The People are pushing back mightily, and against all odds, we seem to be winning. I wish I had as much confidence as you seem to in Romney. My fear is he's saying what he needs to now and will backtrack to what he was saying a year ago if he gets elected. You know Hunter's my choice, but second would have to be Fred, he has an excellent policy statement on his website regarding immigration, check it out if you haven't.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 29, 2007 9:02 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

Like I said before, I DO see the inflation threat. It is inevitable because the global economy is so strong that it is putting a strain on the supply of most commodities, particularly oil which I believe is at peak production capacity. I just don't think interest rates matter anymore unless Bernanke declares that if the banking situation does not improve soon, the Fed will take back the recent rate cuts. The banks will have to get their auditors to sign off on their 2007 annual financial reports and I doubt they will agree to leave the SIVs off the balance sheets. There is no way the mortgage market can rebound far enough and fast enough to avoid the massive losses awaiting the big banks. It won't be a catastrophe. The key is for the dollar to rebound which it would if the Fed sent the above message. Our economy is in great shape and we are on the cusp of a major alternative energy technology industry exporting period. The world will be rushing back into the dollar. And we are still the ONLY superpower. China is a house of cards and they are making the classic mistake of trying to rig the markets. It will all implode soon enough when they are confronted with runaway inflation and a rising dollar. We were facing a similar challenge in the 70s and 80s with Japan and America was doomed. Things never seem to work out the way the doom and gloomers predict. We are still the greatest country in history and will continue to be regardless of who is president in 2009.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 29, 2007 9:15 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

The auditing firms are very fearful of becoming the next Arthur Anderson. This will be over by April of next year. It always seems like we are facing imminent disaster. Fascism is always descending on America but always seems to land elsewhere. Have a little faith. We conservatives are torturing this corrupt system back into shape and the markets will do most of the work.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 29, 2007 9:18 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat

I don't believe hardly any of the Paul supporters will switch over because I am convinced that Paul is already planning his independent campaign. He is not a Republican but is gaining enough momentum to break off later with a running start. And, as Sam pointed out to me, he gets financing from George Soros' business partner. Think about that. He is being funded by the Soros camp as a nuisance candidate to frustrate the GOP. He will probably find a big pile of money as an inducement to run independent. We'll see.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 29, 2007 9:44 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

I agree but on the other hand, crime is WAY down because America is much older. The difference that concerns me is that we were on the right track in the 80s but Bush '41 did his best to derail that train which is why we got Clinton who, I know this really irks Republicans, but he fulfilled several of Reagan's goals, particularly balancing the budget with low taxes and restrained spending. Bush '43 finished the job his dad started. Nevertheless, we stopped the amnesty dead in its tracks and those who were calling us bigots are now choosing not to run in 2008. That is a good thing. Just because Republicans lose doesn't mean it helps the Dems so long as conservatives continue to be so important in Congress. It was reported today that 50% of Texas immigrants are illegals and 30% in Florida. My guess is that California is somewhere in between and Nevada and Utah have to be pretty high too. It is not selling locally. We are starting a push in California to get Arnold to go after the sanctuary cities. That is how it starts. Those who have resisted have found their careers quickly torpedoed. The presidency just doesn't matter that much given our choices. We need to scare the money into respecting our wishes. I have confidence that this will happen. The Dems are about to blow about $400 million to lose with Hillary/Obama. If Rudy wins with only 38% of the vote or less, it will cost another $00 million or so to end up with a lame duck. That's a victory for US because they will have to start looking for a cheaper way to buy influence. The power is in Congress, not the presidency.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 29, 2007 9:53 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

The importance of Ron Paul in this race lies in his sparking an important discussion about sovereignty and the role of the Fed. He is a counter balance who makes obvious how their is no substantial difference between Hillary and Rudy. But his following is truly nutty as can be seen daily here at TH and he really has a lot of explaining to do. If he in fact became a serious challenge as a candidate, he would fold like a lawn chair because he is very loose with his "constitutional" references and unbelievably naive about engaging in global trade without the backup of a strong and active military. The world just doesn't work the way he thinks. I see little difference between his version of Libertarianism and anarchy. Freedom without order is anarchy. Dismantling the government and military is not "liberating" if all it does is unleash war, crime and general chaos. If we "steer" events, we can avoid all of the pitfalls you mention. The level of hysteria surrounding politics is really out of control.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 29, 2007 10:14 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

I am not going to defend Bush. If it weren't for 9/11, he never would have been re-elected. If this isn't the worst administration ever, it certainly is the worst two-term administration ever. Now he seems determined to negotiate a disastrous Middle East agreement that will probably trigger another intifada. The Bush trademark has been incoherency.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 30, 2007 10:19 AM xpressit writes:

Biz al usual

Phil, It sort of irritates me just 'coincidentally' as the smack down occurs, when people are fed up and demand fixing borders etc., they're heading for the exits - pensions in tow. Even Lott smells what the press is cooking. Wasn't he the one who made some remark about upity new'ens who came in, something about straightening them out on the finer details of politics DC style?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 30, 2007 12:13 PM BrianR writes:

The Bush trademark

has been arrogance.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 30, 2007 12:53 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

xpressit

Looks like Lott is leaving because of new scandals that include a homosexual affair and some investment scam involving his already infamous brother-in-law.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 30, 2007 12:55 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

Even his good amigo, former Mexican prez Fox called him a "windshield cowboy", the cockiest man he ever met. Condi has to be the biggest disappointment of all.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 12:47 AM BrianR writes:

Oy! Condi!

What a flash in the pan SHE was.

The novelty's long worn off there, my friend. She's pretty incompetent. Particularly as to Middle East affairs.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 12:51 AM BrianR writes:

Doc, I've gotta laugh, man

I hope you're right, but I gotta tell you, if Giuliani ends up getting the nomination, you'd better start finding some crow recipes, because he's going down in flames, and taking the GOP with him.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 10:10 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

Doc

What's with the personal crap? If I can believe your comments, we essentially agree on everything. What is it with eating crow? Spell it out! What IS the issue? Why is it so personal? Are you morphing into a troll? Make a constructive counter argument or drop it. If you don't like the evidence I present, make your case. The problem with the GOP is NOT rooted in my enormous ego. THEY ARE LOSING MEMBERS AND NOT ATTRACTING MONEY.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 11:52 AM BrianR writes:

Yeah, Phil (and Doc)

I had to laugh at some of Doc's comments.

FYI, Doc, here's a link to a news story today in the Washington Times right on topic:

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071 201/NATION/112010053/1001

I guess it's time you send them an email telling them how far up their arses they have THEIR heads, too.

It seems that Phil and I (to also pat my own back) have been ahead of the curve on this issue, while you're still thinking this is a campaign a la 2000 or 2004.

Just like the military's traditional problem: always prepared to fight the *last* war.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 12:07 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Thanks Brian

I was beginning to think that this was a case of "shrivelus dickus".
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 12:15 PM BrianR writes:

Moi?

"SD" Syndrome?

Not hardly.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 12:15 PM xpressit writes:

P-Phil

Yes, you are no doubt right the bro-in-law thing has something to do with it. Though it did not do Lott’s own reputation any good when he claimed ‘talk radio is running the country’ or when he said ‘at some point the Senate Republican leaders may try to rein in “younger guys who are huffing and puffing against the bill”’. -(CIRA) In retrospect it was insulting, even vengeful, maybe true in his view though.

Well, he’ll claim no involvement with bro-in-law but media will still associate him to it somehow in a “culture of corruption” abyss. (which in reality is all politics) Now he’ll get to deal with big “legacy”, like the rest, rather than “deal with that problem” of talk radio.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 12:23 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

xpressit

Right on the button. If you look at those who are not running for re-election, most, if not all, were on the wrong side and see the writing on the wall. That goes for the Dems too. I wonder if Reid will run. There are several more Repubs who might resign too. Problem is that they are Senators not up for 2008. Guys like Lindsay Graham. The tide has turned and we are seeing "Hail Mary" passes all over the place. Same is going on with Dems too. I know we don't like to talk about Dems objectively at TH but for Schumer and Emanuel to take over leadership of the party over the Kennedy machine is a good thing. Ted is on his last legs and they are very creaky. The only guys he seems to have any influence over are Bush, McCain, Kyl, Lott and other doomed Republicans.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 12:36 PM xpressit writes:

am musing

Phil, it makes one wonder if GOP optimists have noticed fundraising numbers. If it is any indication, not so good. Money, one thing they're fond of "banking on" -- That would be pie in the sky to count at this point. Seems money can move.

For one art on not ready for prime time: (from biased fox:)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313330,00.html


Stephen Farnsworth, an associate professor of politics at the University of Mary Washington in Virginia, said Democrats are benefiting from a surge in enthusiasm and promise, which has no doubt boosted their fundraising prospects in Virginia and beyond.

“I think the Republican defeats are invariably a very powerful sign for Republicans on the congressional level for 2008,” he said. “There really isn’t much of an advantage for Republicans there.”

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 12:38 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

My "SD" comment wasn't aimed at you but Doc. Usually when people start substituting personal taunting and penile insults for reasoned arguments, there is something else going on. My ego isn't invested in however this ends. Whatever happens happens. I just deal with what is going on at the moment. My trail will be here forever for anyone to look at later.

I don't have the traffic to be a player. I can only hope a real player or two reads this stuff (and they do) and some of it registers with them. There is no way of knowing but it's the only way most of us can make a difference. It might just be a subliminal influence but it's worth a shot. Anyone who is looking for credit or a career on the junior circuit is delusional. This is just fun for me. It's gone much further than I ever imagined. I never expected that I would be meeting the people I've met in the past way, especially the way we met.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 12:39 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Correction

...met in the past YEAR. I must be a retard.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 12:47 PM xpressit writes:

PasPhil

Good point: Mainstream Schumer and Emanuel leadership a good thing. If that don’t wake up someone then Rip might as well rest in piece.

After someone pulls a rabbit out of their hat, then they can make someone eat crow any way, I suppose. The clock is ticking.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 12:51 PM xpressit writes:

Pas Phil

Good point: "mainstream"-Schumer and Emanuel leadership a good thing.LOL If that don’t wake up someone then Rip might as well rest in peace.

After someone pulls a rabbit from their hat, then they can make someone eat crow any way, I suppose. The clock is ticking.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 12:52 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

xpressit

Once again, people are spinning the problem. The fact that Democrats may benefit from the Republican screw ups does not tell the story. The Dems who replaced the Reps in Congress last November are more conservative than those they replaced. Is that a Democrat victory? If you think like a conservative, we are winning. We are tantalizing the Dems with GOP weakness and getting conservatives elected. The GOP continues to attack us as if we are the problem and now they are competing at a disadvantage to attract the money the Dems are getting. They are just whores. The next election looks good for conservatives, especially if there is stampede of independent candidates. It could be a major political reallignment for both parties where the "old" leadership is finally deposed. Until the dust settles, it is important to remember that we are conservatives and not succumb to the "a vote for "x" is a vote for Hillary". We are conservatives, not Republicans. And we are winning.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 1:04 PM xpressit writes:

P-Phil

-The Dems who replaced the Reps in Congress last November are more conservative than those they replaced. Is that a Democrat victory?-

Hope. Except one thing: look who functionally runs Dems party, talking points, and interference. (shove us over dot ug)
Call me cynical but if there is a benefactor in a two party sys, then I have to give them an edge. And Sorry about the duplicate-- must be me. Its always interesing to see dems rein in members. Perhaps, as you imply, that doesn't work too well in the end. I do wonder where the tippin point is - is.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 1:11 PM BrianR writes:

Yeah. I think

we might be surprised at who reads our blogs, especially the more reasoned/less hyperbolic ones.

I know I've seen phrases I coined -- or were at least original for me when I thought of them -- turn up in other forums and discussions, such as Bald Hillary, GOP Enablers, GOP Bobble-heads, etc.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 1:13 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

xpressit

I'm not privy to the inside talk. Things happen fast in politics, especially when the tide is for real (the amnesty backlash e.g.). Our leaders are trying to sell us all out to global liberalism as the American population naturally ages into being more conservative. The concept of a sovereign and militarily strong America is still powerful here and our leaders are out of sync. I have a feeling things will be very different 3 months from now once the primaries are over. A Hillary/Rudy matchup will release a tidal wave of resentment from voters of both "major" parties. There will be no spinning it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 1:19 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

And your blog has been linked directly a couple of times on a senior circuit blog. Our blogs do get read. And it helps when we are consistent with our opinions and base them on facts. None of us really know, including the political operatives at TH. You've probably noticed but there are all kinds of sub-networks of commenters to tap into and recurring themes. I can still make comments about being tied in the polls with Ron Paul and attract the same people to comment. What starts out as a funny comment can turn into a mainstream theme. I doubt the paulbots are thrilled that 6-7 months after first making that comment, it is still true. I can't help but believe that it makes a difference.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 1:28 PM xpressit writes:

Sort of commonalities

Phil,You have alluded to money factors before. It may have an impact-- not one GOP elites would like. Much as I detest the big money aspect.


Possibly a common theme is neither party seems adept at giving its base what they really want in its performance.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 1:37 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

xpressig

Same thing. It's the money that has detracted both parties from the ground level politics. It is the very definition of corruption. The lesson learned this election should be that ignoring voters is very expensive. Better to negotiate than usurp. I am hoping that the next generation of politicians will be more aware of the futility and danger of backroom deals in this increasingly transparent and democratic media. I look at it as urban renewal. You have to tear down the decrepit neighborhood before you build something better.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 1:52 PM xpressit writes:

time tested

At least the GOP is outwardly showing it pains and naval gazing - extended party, maybe not GOP elites - [if] the leadership recognizes that tide. But what's it take to get through to the arrogant ones? Heiress Hill? - or is that what they want? I am tired of both sides telling me what "Joe Citizen" wants, and its time for wax Debridement among all elite politicos’ ears. Revolution and Revoke induce similar thoughts.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 2:09 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

xpressit

We ARE getting through to the arrogant leadership. That is why they are deciding to spend more time with their families. They will never come right out and talk about declining registrations and the money problems. It is already too late for any changes in the RNC to matter. It's panic time for the GOP establishment including Fox News and political operatives who bought into the Hillary v. Rudy paradigm.

Everyone is getting nasty right now because they don't believe their own BS. Huckabee is already fading and the McCain "surge" in NH depends on which poll you believe. Even so, McCain cannot win. Romney looks solid right now because he has no real dirt in his past. The flip flopping thing is really old and being a Mormon doesn't trump corrupt friends, womanizing, graft, amnesty and the rest of the mud being slung at his opponents. Romney/Hunter is looking better and better everyday.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 2:29 PM BrianR writes:

Navel gazing is right

They need to get the lint out of there.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 7:24 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

You're connecting events that haven't happened, are not as likely to happen as you think and have nothing to do with Romney. No one running has a broad base. America is in a "Throw the bums out" mood. There is little anyone can do that will lower the price of oil significantly and more and more people are figuring that out. Ron Paul will never get more than 4-6% as a Republican. He might get 15-20% if he runs independent but only as a protest vote. You are in denial about Ron Paul. His views are almost exactly like Lyndon LaRouche's and he keeps company with similar crowds. There is not point continuing to hit me with hysterical predictions of economic doom and gloom. I know better. I study economics for a living. We are having big problems but they will be solved. In 6-8 months, there is an excellent chance that the economy will be looking very good and the stock market will have soared before that. It doesn't matter how much money Ron Paul raises. His message will not sell.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 7:50 PM Frigglesnitz writes:

HILLARY, DILLARY DOCK, THE MOUSE...

That means nothing. It simply came to mind and I typed it.

I had been thinking about Hillary, and I'm hoping she will get the Democratic nod because I believe any Republican can beat her. No pollsters can poll the whole nation, and there is a nation full of people who simply can't stand her.

They can't stand looking at her; they can't stand listening to her; and the thinking ones know she will tax and spend and tax and spend just as badly as any have done in the last 20 years or so. Maybe worse.

What about Huckabee? Doesn't he have a lot more going for him than Romney? Than Paul? Than Tancredo? Than Fred? Than whoever? I've seen some interesting statistics about Arkansas' tax increases as opposed to the other states, and Arkansas did pretty well for itself. With Huckabee's guidance, of course.

I'm still undecided.

Reminds me of the name of an old song: "I'm undecided now, so what am I going to do?"

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 8:01 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

Cleveland and Michigan are very atypical. Michigan has been governed so badly for so long and Cleveland (Kucinich, come on). Listening to the Wall Street-
funded financial media for guidance on what is going on is like listening to Al Gore about the weather. Wall Street is holding Main Street hostage for a bail out and it doesn't look like it is coming. There is a solution coming but it is going to cost the banks plenty and they will be operating under much closer regulatory oversight when this is over. That is why the market rallied this week. Their may or may not be a rate cut on Dec. 11 but the banks have to close their books in the next 3-4 months and the accounting firms are not going to sign off on the SIVs being unresolved. The mortgage crisis will probably be sidestepped by forcing the banks to freeze the the mortgage rates to the introductory rate without a reset. That could be all that the commercial paper markets need to step and re-open a market fot the SIVs which will be available at bargain prices. This hits the banks two ways but they will have to comply. The mortgage market is already finding alternatives to the big banks (Countrywide with FHLA e.g.). This will bring about a stop to the slide of the dollar which will trigger the long delayed flood of trillions dollars of foreign money into America to buy dollar-denominated assets as the dollar rebounds. I realize that doesn't please the Ron Paul crowd but Pat Buchanan had a similar message in 1992 and was wrong. The world economy is much stronger today.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 8:07 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Friggles

Huckabee is a classic liberal. NumbersUSA places him dead last on the open borders issue, way behind McCain and Rudy. Don't believe the flip-flop stuff about Romney. Read what he said, when he said and why. What it amounts to is that Mass is a very liberal state that would only elect him if he promised to avoid doing certain things. He cut a deal and kept up his end. That is not flip flopping, It is an honorable man keeping his word. Hickabee is a charlatan with a shady history and his numbers are already fading. Keep an open mind and try to see through all of the propaganda and spin. It will soon become much clearer.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 8:24 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

The cowards fleeing Washington DC are not abandoning us, they are being kicked out. It is part of the solution. I realize that whatever I say, all you see is doom and gloom. Is there any way you Ron Paul people can argue for Ron Paul without his being a savior of biblical proportions? That is no different than Al Gore trying to scare us into surrendering to a world government based on the religion of global warming. We are living in the safest and most prosperous times in the history of man. The American people are just not dumb enough to buy the Ron Paul story. What you are predicting with illegal immigration WILL NOT HAPPEN. That is the key battle those cowards lost that caused them to flee. Both parties are in disarray and they don't know what to do. We conservatives are winning and will have a major influence on the shape of future events. It just doesn't get reported in the news. I hope you're not disappointed when we once again avert going over the cliff. Why can you paulists tell a more positive story? One that brims of confidence? "The end is near" is for people who walk the streets yelling at buildings.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 8:29 PM Frigglesnitz writes:

PASADENA PHIL & THE BREEZY MIND

Okay. I'll keep an open mind. Not breezy, I hope, just open.

It would be nice to see them all lined up together during a real debate run by people who don't have "R" or "D" stamped on their foreheads. Or, worse, "L" and "C." Except that "C" could stand for "centrist." There are some out there. Right-leaning and left-leaning, but they're out there.

It would also be nice to see them all debate while sitting down, perhaps in a semi-circle, except that that may remind people of "centrist" or, heaven forbid, a bunch of group therapy patients.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 11:54 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

BrianR

Thanks for that link. Interesting article. I have been thinking along similar lines, although my preferred candidate is Hunter, maybe Thompson could be that conservative consensus candidate. His immigration policy statement is the right prescription. Attrition through enforcement will work.

Evidence that attrition through enforcement will work, illegals are returning home from Arizona. The laws don't even take effect until January.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21872123/
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 12:07 AM BrianR writes:

VPat

I think Thompson would do really well and be a great Prez....

If he'd get off his duff and really campaign!


I don't know if anybody remembers, but back in May and June and into September I was writing a lot of stuff castigating him for his Hamlet act on officially declaring, and saying that he was letting his prime opportunity slip away.

Unfortunately, I think I called that one exactly right. He waited too long, the sizzle came off the steak, the enthusiasm died down, he became yesterday's news, and he can't get any momentum going.

I think I wasted 200 smackers in campaign donations to him. That's a lot of ammo I could have bought!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 12:14 AM Virginia Patriot writes:

Phil

I hope you are right about the banking and market situation. I thought about moving out of some of the stocks and mutual funds I'm in and into gold last year when it was much lower than it is now. Too late for that now.
The jump in oil is particularly making me nervous, it affects the price of everything else. Inflation seems inevitable. The housing boom here is being to flatten as well. There will be more unemployed illegals. It remains to be seen what that will bring.
I'm beginning to think that the RNC will fail to nominate Rudy. As much as they may want an amnesty candidate, GOP voters do not. McCain was done before he started. Huckabee is the backup plan, but I don't think people are buying it. I no longer think this will be decided by Feb. as it once looked. It will be a very interesting next couple of months.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 12:25 AM Virginia Patriot writes:

Brian

I've sent $100.00 to Hunter, so don't think you're the only one wasting money. It is kind of funny how I've started to think about the price of things in terms of how many boxes of ammo it is. (Had another great day at the range today, they got the lights at the deep end fixed)
As long as the amnesty 3 (McCain, Rudy, Huckster) don't get the nod, I'll be happy. With Hillary still singing the Comprehensive Immigration Reform tune, any of the others can beat her.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 10:09 AM BrianR writes:

Hahaha.

Campaign contributions measured in boxes of ammo... that's pretty funny, actually.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 10:40 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat

$100. That's a lot of ammo for my new Browning. And I wouldn't get out of gold. If you are afraid of inflation, the last thing you want to do is get out of stocks. Just invest in companies who can pass their costs on to their customers.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 10:47 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

Just saw McCain on Meet the Press

Talked extensively about immigration, not illegal immigration. Still believes most of the resistance is because of us bigots who traditionally oppose immigration, not illegal immigration. Pushed the guest worker program again. This guy is so dense.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 11:15 AM xpressit writes:

Phil

did he even mention the fence--or lack thereof?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 11:24 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

Karl Rove stated that the front runners, Hillary AND Rudy are in trouble. Rudy is down to 24% of the national vote and gaining nowhere. They both look similar in that they are not winning any early races, have high and growing negatives and dropping in the national polls. Supports my theory that they are tracking together as they are cut from the same cloth.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 11:27 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

xpressit

No. He mentioned border security in passing but was basically stuck on the same message he was pushing before the amnesty bill dust-up. When asked if he thought that his position of "immigration", (again, not illegal immigration) hurt his candidacy, he said no and went on to his rambling that amounted to calling those against him bigots. He apparently believes that we are stupid and lazy. Doesn't matter. He just won the stamp of "can't win" by being endorsed by the Manchester Union Leader.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 11:44 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

Willian Kristol

Just predicted that neither Hillary nor Rudy will win the nominations. GOP is wide open to anybody. Obama in Dem party. Dem challengers have the money. Only Romney has money, his own, for GOP. Otherwise, GOP has bigger problems than Dems. I say we take a look at the message. Maybe one-world liberalism doesn't sell.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 11:50 AM Virginia Patriot writes:

Phil

McCain is absolutely deaf. He said he had heard the message. What he thinks he heard was if they build a fence we'll go along with amnesty. Rudy and Huckabee are playing the same game. A fence is a good start but is no substitute for enforcement. Almost half the illegal aliens are visa overstays, a fence does nothing about them. They do think we are stupid and we will be mollified by the symbol of a fence. (Have you had the Browning out again?)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 12:10 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Doc

So long as McCain or Giuliani don't get the nomination, I don't think there will be an big opportunity for an independent candidate to go after. I just wonder what will happen if Mitt loses Iowa and/or NH with Rudy tanking. I don't think a stink bomb like Rudy can raise money. He's treating the taxpayer-funded "tootsie taxi" problem as an accounting issue which is making things even worse. I don't think anyone will be eating crow because I have been predicting that the GOP will win in 2008 no matter what, even if it were Rudy. I just want to make an election where a Hillary, Rudy or McCain wins a pyrhic victory. It won't happen. If Mitt fades here, the GOP has no money to finance any candidate and might have to turn to (gasp) run on conservative principles. It looks like Romney to me but Fred could sneak in here.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 12:14 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Recurring theme

Has anyone else noticed that every time the "conservative" punditry declare victory, like with amnesty, events seem to quickly prove them wrong? This is a sea change election. The establishment, even with their money and control of media, just can't seem to seal the deal. Corporations surrendered to the new reality and learned to listen to customers. Why can't our government? Some of us "knuckle-dragging, bigoted Neanderthals" are actually nice people. Why don't they like Americans?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 12:43 PM xpressit writes:

Phil

Maybe McCabal is in cohorts with the NYT’s. (Coulter) He has done enough damage to conservatives. You stated correctly that his ilk of Republican, dare I say leaders, attacks us. If New Hampshire goes for him it shows they're out of step.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 12:47 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

Doc

I hate to tell you this, but my nose holding days are over. If any of the amnesty 3 (McCain, Rudy, Huckabee) gets the nod, I will be voting third party or writing in Joe Oliva. The RNC needs a housecleaning and if they succeed in nominating a cheap labor importer, the only way to effect change is to crush them electorally.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 12:55 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Just wondering

I just posted this on the main blog

Rudy is cratering in a way that makes McCain's swoon last June look like floating. And it looks like Hillary is in trouble too. Let's say Romney loses in IA and/or NH (won't happen). With Rudy and McCain gone, none of the GOP candidates have any money except Romney so why shouldn't he still be the front runner? There is no way Huckabee or Paul step in. Thompson maybe. That is one of the biggest problems with primaries being so compressed. There is no room for healing if the campaign goes "off-script". I say the GOP would be better to cancel all primaries after NH and IA and go straight to a convention to re-establish the conservative platform around conservative positions.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 12:59 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

xpressit

The Manchester Union Leader has been out of step since at least 1992. They endorsed Buchanan in 1992 (lost the NH primary), again in 1996 (won the NH primary but nothing else) and Forbes in 2000 (won nothing). I'm surprised they didn't endorse Ron Paul. This is an excellent example why the NH primary should not be so important.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 3:19 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

Doc

Let's hope it turns out that way. The money players and the RNC are pretty determined to do the bidding of the cheap labor express. Have you noticed how many of the columnists here at TH have tried to convince us only a liberal New Yorker can beat a liberal New Yorker? It defies logic that so many supposed conservatives could believe that.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 3:23 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

Phil

I'm still hopeful that Doc is right and that conservative voters will nominate a conservative. I do wish the primaries had not gotten all bunched up so early. The calender could help Rudy. He could also be out after SC. I think when the primaries head south, so will Rudy's fortunes.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 3:53 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat

Yeah, but they are wrong and keep having their heads handed to them. I don't think that it is a coincidence that Hillary and Rudy go up and down in the polls together. I believe William Kristol is right. Hillary and Rudy are sinking fast and it is wide open. Once you take Hillary out of the picture, Rudy looks like the slime ball he is in contrast. It is a myth that he would beat Hillary in the first place and he would look terrible against Obama. I just don't know what it would mean if Mitt loses in IA and all of the Repubs are polling less than 20% in the national polls and we are close to that now. I think Mitt will pull it off and pick Hunter for VP. It's about conservative credentials and geography for VP, not poll numbers. I'm feeling pretty good these days. Conservatives are clearly winning over the money. Brit Hume looked perplexed this morning at Rudy's situation and he has been wrong about everything ever since he declared the amnesty bill the law of the land.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 4:11 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

I Missed Fox This Morning

I may catch the rerun this evening. Brit and all the panel are part of the problem. Barnes, Kondrake, of course, Mara and Juan are all in favor of surrender(amnesty). I really think any of the others, Romney, Thompson, Tancedo, Hunter, heck, even Paul could beat any of the Dems. They are all on the wrong side of the amnesty issue. Illegal aliens will be THE issue unless the RNC takes it off the table by getting an amnesty candidate nominated.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 4:13 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

Did you see this?

http://kevinmccullough.townhall.com/blog/g/baebf8ed-6437-4c 1c-bc52-0b979cfc4249
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 4:15 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat

Keep in mind that Fox is owned by Ruppert Murdoch who was raising funds for Hillary AND Rudy. Fox News has been hostile to Mitt and Fred. Maybe we would be better off without a Fox News.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 4:53 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat

Yup. And I saw it when it was first reported minutes after it happened. These people must be kept in complete isolation because they seem to be completely out of touch with voters. Her negatives are over 52% as of about 2 weeks ago. That means that 52% of voters have said that they will never ever vote for her. Rudy's are up to about 45-46%. I think the "Anybody buy Hillary" and "Rudy is the only one who can beat Hillary" narratives are dead. We are probably looking at Obama vs Mitt. McCullough is also baiting the paulbots on a daily basis lately.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 6:51 PM BrianR writes:

McCain on "immigration" -- Pfffttt!

The guy's super-glued on stupid.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 6:57 PM BrianR writes:

BTW, Phil

You know who's real good on talk radio on the politics?

John and Ken on KFI, PM drive time. Too bad they're not national.

They could be us, man.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 7:12 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Brian

I've heard of them and realize they have been relentless on illegals. I don't listen to much talk radio but my clock radio is set to KABC with Doug McEntyre who was also an early and relentless voice against illegal immigration. He substitutes for Bill O'Reilly and may end up going national IMHO. He once sent reporter Sandy Wells to interview the principal of that Aztec charter school where a goon tried to run him over. I live 5 minutes from my office so I don't get much drive time to listen either. I think a lot of these commenters from the whiter parts of America would be shocked to learn what really goes on in CA and how open-minded us "bigots" are. I saw a report last week that stated that violent crime has risen 73% in the last seven years or since it was declared a sanctuary city. Just a coincidence I'm sure.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 9:28 PM BrianR writes:

Yeah, it's a joke

I'm very glad to NOT live in LA City.

And that Mayor, Villareconquista, is a nutjob.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 11:12 PM Darvin Dowdy writes:

Rules are made to be....

...broken. There are "barely legal" ways around McCain/Feingold. I'm convinced. Problem is we have a bunch of good men w/intergrity vying for the GOP nomination but not one of the "good guy's" has any sort of winning strategy. I had high hopes for a Hunter or Tancredo but their idea of a winning strategy is standing behind some lecturn speaking great truthes that we already know. Thats not a winning or losing strategy. Its no strategy. Even Fred Thompson's campaign his sinking slowly into the sunset. I, personally, am a big believe of the 2 party system. I believe anything more would be fragmentation. So if a 3rd party is to form up then either the dem's or GOP must go down. I always thought it'd be the dem's but who knows anymore. DD
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, December, 02, 2007 11:29 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Darvin

It ain't over yet. If Rudy and McCain are kept off of the ticket, the GOP could come out of this stronger than they've been since 1988. Even William Kristol said today that anyone could win this thing now that Rudy is tanking. He isn't winning in any of the early primaries and his national support is down below 24%. Kristol even went so far as to predict that neither Rudy nor Hillary will win and for the same reasons.

Were Mitt to lose in IA and/or NH only takes him out of the race if Rudy wins in Florida and has strong national polling. He's cratering and flailing. Huckabee has no national appeal and Thompson can't seem to get going. Ron Paul is a nut.

I think Romney will pull it out and by taking the 58-year-old Hunter as his VP, this would present one of the cleanest and most conservative tickets in a very long time. And Hunter is young enough to run for president again in eight years. Things could change very fast the way things are going.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 10:24 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

Peak Oil

Don't hold your breath to hear anything from the candidates. This is a complicated story to tell and it is full of "evil" oil companies and wrong-headed politics. Keep in mind that one of the biggest reasons the GOP can't sell the Iraq war is because they don't have the courage to tell the truth about why we are there. Oil is the most important national (global too) interest and we have a duty to be there protecting it yet they keep talking about spreading democracy.

The problem at home is that neither party can work out an energy policy. The GOP wants to continue with oil and farm subsidies. The Dems will go for alternative energy subsidies so long as the oil companies are punished. The problem is that the oil companies are now energy companies are the only ones investing billions in alternative energy. Our brain dead politicians don't have the courage to tell the truth while we still have time to transition smoothly. We can't even do the easy things like upping the fuel efficiencies (9% of oil consumption goes into US autos) and eliminating the incandescent light bulbs (95% of the energy creates heat, not light and then we have to pay for the a/c to deal with the heat). It is just too political and people are too caught up with being liberal or conservative to think straight.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 10:44 AM BrianR writes:

We can still use oil

and don't need "alternatives" yet if we'd simply utilize the oil shale in this country and the oil sands in Canada. HUGE proven reserves. The oil shale's estimated at up to 3 TRILLION barrels.

But, of course, the enviro-Nazis have that effectively blocked.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 11:02 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

That's not completely true. We DO need ALL of the alternatives. We can't afford to run out of oil by burning it. Every other alternative is less efficient but can be plentiful for specific uses. We are not likely going to be importing oil from Mexico in 10-15 years and both Canada and Mexico are running out of natural gas. China went from an oil exporter to a major importer in a flash and took India with it. As prosperity spreads globally, everyone is using more oil just when oil reserves went over 50% depleted. Shale is VERY EXPENSIVE and dirty and is a major ecological disaster if we do it on the cheap. It is a very complicated and capital intensive problem that will take 30-50 years to work through.

There is a good critical path analysis available from The National Academy Press called: "The Hydrogen Economy". It's not about hydrogen. It's a careful analysis of all alternatives, the opportunities, costs, barriesr and capital needs. The government's main job is not to provide funding but to create a friendly and supportive environment for the private risk-takers to take those risks without fear of being punished by petty politics. Some of these projects have 50-year horizons most are 15-30. Without an energy policy and government protection from the environmentalists and lawyers, it won't happen. It is already very expensive and time-consuming enough without dealing with a constantly shifting political minefield.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 11:08 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

BTW

Those Canadian oil sands are close to post-peak and already account for about 33-34% of our oil imports from Canada. We have more oil, coal and shale oil reserves than maybe anyone else on earth and it won't be enough. We are in trouble if we don't do something soon. The energy companies are already investing billions in alternatives despite the hostile environment. No one else has the huge amount of money required which is why the Democratic plan to "punish" the oil companies for "excess profits" is such a disaster in the making. Who's going to make it up, the taxpayer? Hippies? Barbara Streisand?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 12:12 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Peak Oil

Agreed. There are no silver bullets but all of these alternatives combined are part of the near term solution. I'm more bullish on ethanol than you are because finding an enzyme that will break down biomass (essentially free waste) inputs is the top priority at the Dept of Ag. This country is nothing if not innovative and we have a lot of money funding some of the smartest people in the world to find solutions. Ethanol will be a big part, as will solar, coal, shale and nuclear, as we find our way to the long-term solution (I hold little hope for hydrogen, it is too wedded to oxygen in nature). In 50 years or so, we may be able to crack the nuclear fussion problem. We are heading into a very different world but that doesn't have to be a bad thing. Going from 12 mph to 50 mph is not a decline in living standard. Living closer to work is an improvement.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 12:41 PM Buck writes:

I Lived In The "Barrio"

Before it became the "Barrio" it was the "Ghetto". Before that, about 45 years ago, it was a real nice blue collar neighborhood. I sat on my porch and watched my neighborhood go down like the Titanic. I became a bigot, got rid of my home and moved to Western Oklahoma.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 12:45 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Hey Buck

Always nice to see someone new drop by. Was that barrio in LA? I hear there are lots of illegals in OK too.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 12:49 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Peak Oil

Thanks for the links. I will definitely check them out.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 1:10 PM Buck writes:

12 Million Man Army

Things I noticed while living among the illegals:

1. They have NO respect for American laws.
They entered the country illegally;
They obtain forged/stolen identification;
They do not insure their vehicles;
They ALWAYS run for the border after a DUI, wreck or both;
They discharge their firearms (see #2) at will and whenever they feel like it wherever they are.

2. The first thing purchased is a firearm.
The weapon of choice is a 9mm semi-auto Llama.
Again, law prohibits non citizens from purchasing handguns but every illegal I knew not only had one but would proudly show it to me.

An army invasion force armed only with handguns would not be too indimidating...except there are close to 12 Million of them. Zukov didn't have that large a force when he took Berlin. Mao didn't have 1/10th that when he chased the US/SoKos to the Southern Tip of Korea.
That added to the fact the Mexican Army has had incursions as far as 65 miles North of the Border.

Oh, PP, I lived in the DFW Metroplex
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 1:13 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Buck

DFW. That's as bad as SoCal. I read last week that 50% of immigrants in TX are illegal. You can thank the Rep. Cuellars for that.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 1:16 PM Buck writes:

PPhil

Oklahoma has just passed a law that prohibits you from hiring illegal, renting to illegal or aiding an illegal.

The ACLU is having an epileptic fit. The pols ain't saying much. They know which side of the butter their bread is on.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 1:31 PM BrianR writes:

I disagree

on several points you've raised. First of all, of course alternative sources of energy are going to be developed as the technology advances to make them feasible. If nothing else, the free market will assure that. So let's put that aside. It's a non-issue.

My main point is that we shouldn't be importing oil from the ME, and putting all that money in the hands of them and the IF terrorists, when we don't have to.

I understand the differences in grades of crude, but that's irrelevant. With oil at about $100/bbl, all kinds of things are possible and economically feasible. 3 trillion barrels of proven and untapped reserves in shale is a travesty. That product would carry us into the next century at our current rate of consumption. By then, a lot of alternatives will have come online.

Further, we don't even use all the oil in our tapped reserves, because the mechanism for full extraction is considered "environmentally unfriendly", so right now we're still leaving about half of the oil in the ground because we don't use available techniques to get it out of there.

This is simply unacceptable, and if the general populace was more aware of what was really going on, political heads would roll.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 1:46 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

The problem with your argument is that it matters WHERE we get our oil. It doesn't really. The price of oil is set on global supply and demand. It is a fungible commodity. From a strategic point of view, we are gaining geographic influence by preserving our reserves while developing future energy sources and technologies and depleting the rest of the world's petroleum supplies. Besides, the necessary infrastructure is not yet in place for a domestic energy industry based on the old carbon sources. But it will be. That is why the Warren Buffets and Bill Gates are buying into pipelines and railroads while no one wants to invest in offshore natural gas offloading facilities. It takes many years to put that much money and capital assets in place. While we are doing that, a big part of the strategy is to build infrastructure that will ease the way for the alternative energy sources. Ethanol doesn't transport well. Electricity cannot be stored nor transmitted efficiently. Hydrogen also cannot be stored. Like I said, it is very complicated because the future technologies we will be using in 30-50 years don't yet exist and you can't risk over-investing in one for fear that a competing technology might have a breakthrough. We cannot afford to sit on oil like you suggest. "The market" needs help. Just like the railroads and internet didn't just materialize within the markets. It takes government involvement and protection to make something this big, this capital intensive and so long term to happen. We are the only country that can do it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 2:38 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Peak Oil

Like you said, the political language is a killer in this discussion. I can just see people's eyes roll into the backs of their heads when I mention ethanol, wind power, solar etc... Anyone who knows me knows I am not a global warming tree hugger but you can't solve problems by ignoring the glaring facts. And the most glaring fact is that oil production is no longer a pumping operation so much as a mining operation. The new oil that the Saudis are shipping to us, driving the oil prices below $90, is high-sulphur content oil that costs much more to refine than light sweet crude. The reason the world doesn't pull the stool out from under us is because we are all so co-dependent. There will be no government help in this so long as our politicians can't get above the partisan politics that keeps us from dealing with this. It's ok to conserve. You can still get from A to B just as fast and comfortably and with style in a car that gets 50 mph as one that gets 12 mph.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 3:01 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Peak Oil

Exactly. Were our politicians more open and honest about why we are fighting in the ME, voters would understand. Same with this. We are already seeing what will happen with the first shock: "Those evil money-grubbing oil companies!". The Democrats are trying to push an energy bill featuring "excess profit" taxes that will cripple the ability of oil companies to invest in future technologies. Hillary has already said that "We will TAKE the money." The GOP is hardly better. These guys don't even read the bills they vote on. They just posture and harumph and then vote.

And you're welcome. I'm glad you dropped by. You ought to consider setting up your own blog. I would be a great site for people to go to and discuss energy.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 5:15 PM BrianR writes:

Sorry, guys

All I see is a lot of old hat from both of you, which I find particularly funny since both of you are criticizing me for using out of date info.

You can wrap yourself around the pole all you want and overintellectualize this to death, but I believe in Occam's Razor, and whether my assertions are old or not, they're valid. Probably why they've been around so long.

We are leaving oil in the ground in our current fields, and that's a fact. We have huge reserves of oil in shale and that's a fact. From the point we're at in technological and infrastructure development, we're going to be dependant on refined petroleum for a long time to come, and that's a fact, too.

Now, y'all can pie-in-the-sky it all you want, but the bottom line is that we're pumping obscene amounts of American dollars into the ME, supporting our sworn enemies with said bucks.

THAT is very bad public policy.

Yeah, Phil, we can develop our oil and sell it on the spot market, OR we can declare an embargo on ME oil after we've developed our own internal resources. We certainly can *constitutionally* embargo any product from an enemy country. Smoked any Cubans lately? Any of your food flavored with Cuban sugar?

We have huge reserves in our National Strategic Reserves which are undeveloped. Well.... it certainly seems to me we're in a *strategic* situation. What the hell are we saving it for? How much more "strategic" does the situation have to get? We need Osama and his fellow extremists standing on Pennsylvania Boulevard before it's "strategic" enough? We need the dollar having the value of the ruble? Gold at $2000/ounce? What?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 5:42 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

This isn't pie-in-the-sky. It is based on solid research and well-established facts. Believe me, I've spent a lot of time researching this for professional reasons for the past 10 years and facts are facts. You are over-simplifying the problem.

We wouldn't embargo ME oil because we get hurt more than they do. The global economy is so dependent on oil that were global daily shipments to be reduced from 92 million to 88 million barrels, it would send the global economy into a deep recession. There is a lot of saber rattling going on that amounts to bluffing. Hugo Chavez for example. Mexico for another. They can't threaten us because their economies and governments are so weak they would topple.

Our strategic reserves are crude oil in storage facilities so they are developed. The SPR is designed to keep the economy going for 6-months in the event of supply interruption but I'm not so sure that they aren't being used to manipulate market prices. We also "borrow" gasoline from the European Strategic Reserves.

No offense Brian, but I think you are misreading this entire discussion. The world economy has forced growth in demand to unexpectedly accelerate just when the industry was beginning to deal with the upcoming "post peak" oil problem. No one is investing in capacity and most of our sources will not have surplus production for export for much longer. It's a big, big problem. Reserve judgement Brian until you've had time to research this.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 7:13 PM BrianR writes:

No, Phil

No sale. I'm not oversimplifying one very important fact which you don't want to enter into your equation.

When we buy oil from the ME we are paying for the people and arms being used to kill our people and subsidizing the war against our own country.

We are paying our enemies to kill us. THAT, too, is a fact.

THAT is my oerarching concern in this whole discussion. It is the absolute epitomization of Stalin's observation that the West would sell the Soviets the rope they'd use to hang us; just different players.

Recall that in the 70s, OPEC used an embargo to inflate oil prices. Time for them to pay the piper, and we can certainly embargo them -- once we have our own sources utilized -- to force several things. One is that they stop funding terrorists. The other is that with the US off the market as a buyer, oil prices elsewhere will also fall; simple market pressures.

But we have to stop importing ME oil and stop the flow of our money to our terrorist enemies. THAT is imperative.

The other alternative is to widen the ME war to encompass our putative "allies", such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.

They are NOT our friends.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 7:15 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

Much happened today that will end up propping up the dollar. The walls are closing in on the banks over the subprime lending fiasco. The Treasury/bank deal announced by Secretary Paulson hinges on the banks doing something they have refused thus far to do: release the mortgage detail necessary to figure out what happened to the mortgages. Combine that with the upcoming closing of the books and getting the their accountants to sign off, we are going to learn plenty soon or the banks are going to eat a ton of losses.

Going back to the gold standard would be a catastrophe. China has the most gold of anybody. Everyone else would be forced to buy gold. Why would you want to do that? That's another Pat Buchanan ploy that will never happen.

And don't hold your breath for another refinery to be built. We are at or past peak oil. If we can't increase production capacity, why would anyone throw money away to invest in refineries?

We also have a few new industries that will be huge in the next 10-20 years and will provide plenty of manufacturing and exporting opportunities. This is not the twilight of America. We are just at another of those painful transition points. The world is going through growing pains. Economically, mankind has never been better off.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 7:15 PM BrianR writes:

PS, Phil

You need to look at what qualifies as our Strategic Reserves; it's NOT just stored oil in tanks. It's also unrecovered crude still in the ground. The shale deposits were only recently removed from that umbrella.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 7:28 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

You are taking this discussion into an entirely different direction. We are also financing China, a greater threat militarily, and Russia with massive investments and business dealings. Same with Mexico.

I'm glad you brought up the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s since that was the subject of my master's thesis. Prior to 1971, we were an oil exporting nation. Oil prices were controlled by the Texas Railroad Commission by dictating how much oil would be allowed to be transported from Texas, by far the largest oil producer in the world. This is significant because American's oil production peaked in 1971 and we lost control of price. That is when OPEC got it's teeth. The oil embargo was a very painful lesson for us AND OPEC but we eventually settled into a balanced and stable system. This time, it is the world that experiencing peak production and since there is nowhere else to turn to, the market is now setting the price based on strained supply and demand. That this creates opportunities for our enemies is neither here nor there. That is why we have militaries. International interests are always intertwined by definition and never more so than today. The fact of the matter is that the oil industry is huge and can no longer expand to meet global demand. The options you cite, embargoing the ME and depleting are very thin SPR, are meaningless. We are on our way to reducing our oil imports by 75% by 2025 which will make our oil reserves very valuable and we will be exporting our new technologies to the rest of the world. The terrorists will likely be killing each other over their dwindling supplies by then. They can't win if we keep doing what we do best. Of course, we can lose if we insist.

You have to look at the geology of the problem first before considering the economic and political problems. By far the biggest problem is geology.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 7:32 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

You've talked me into it. I'm going to write an essay on this problem. In the meantime, you should read Kenneth Deffeyes' 2001 book "Hubbert's Peak". There is nothing "old hat" about anything I am saying. It is common knowledge in the oil industry and top authorities like the US Geological Society, American Petroleum Institute and Switzerland's PetroGlobal. Don't let politics cloud your judgment.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 7:46 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR, on SPR

I believe we are confusing terms here. The amount of reserves "in ground" is a funny number and subject to interpretation. It isn't enough that there is oil in the ground. If it is uneconomical to bring up, it does not exist. That is the problem with the many "trillions" of barrels of shale oil. Plenty of it can be brought to market at a cost of about $70. Most of it is far more expensive. That is also why we will never "run out of oil". It will just get too expensive for many uses.

The SPR is actual crude in storage that can be released to the refineries in times of war or other events where our usual supplies are cut off. We are in the process of doubling the capacity to handle 6 months demand.

We have reached the point where our investment dollars are better spent on new technologies where we aren't confronted by depletion. The USGS estimates the world has about 1.8 trillion barrels (of an original 3 trillion) left. The API estimates about 1.1 trillion (of 2.3 trillion) and PetroGlobal about 0.9 trillion (of 2.1 trillion). We are in post peak and the economics of plowing new investment in post peak propositions is illogical.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 8:19 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Peak Oil

That sounds right. Bush also doubled the SPR target last year from 750 million barrels to 1.5 billion. I understand we were close to a billion last year when it went down. There are many illogical irregularities in the reported inventories of crude and various finished product that convince me that the government has tried to manipulate the prices. I'm not saying that is good or bad. Just that reported inventories often make no sense. For instance, crude deliveries down, crude inventories up, refinery production up, gasoline inventories and demand down. Saudi Arabia tried to demonstrate that they could still flood the market if they wanted in trying to gain traction but it turned out that the oil they shipped was the high sulfur content gunk. That is why the price of oil rebounded today. They have NOT increased production. They often announce that they will but never do.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 9:24 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Twilight in the Desert

I've had that on my Amazon "wish list" for months. That's interesting that Simmons is with Romney. There are lots of junk books out their about peak oil.

The one good thing about financial markets is that money talks. People can say and write whatever they want but when money changes hands at a given price, they usually know something.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 10:09 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Peak Oil

Three years ago, I e-mailed Dr. David Goodstein of CalTech ("Out of Gas", and "The Mechanical Universe") and he e-mailed back that he sees no solution. Politicians are hopeless and he is pessimistic that the free markets have enough time. I think he is wrong but that is not an informed opinion.

Most of the authors of these books have socialist leanings which is why I resist adopting their conclusions. Dr. Goodstein based much of his opinion on Jeremy Rivkin who wrote "The Hydrogen Economy" (not the study I mentioned earlier) which was very anti-capitalistic and demonized oil companies.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, December, 03, 2007 11:52 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

Which governments are you talking about specifically? Even OPEC cannot conspire effectively among themselves. They cheat and lie continuously around their agreed to quotas. There is no money to be made with oil if the price cannot be kept within an acceptable range of volatility. That takes a certain amount of cooperation but the OPEC countries envy each other's wealth and so they cheat and fight bitterly among themselves. That is why conspiracy theories never prove out. There is no honor among thieves.

There hasn't been a major oil discovery in more than forty years and it hasn't been for lack of trying. That latest Brazil "find" isn't new and it isn't cheap. Even finding another Saudi Arabia wouldn't make a dent on the problem. 92 million BARRELS each day is a lot of oil. Try visualizing it. The incremental annual growth alone is greater than what the world used fifty years ago. How big do you think the earth is? We are now proceeding on the economics of increasing scarcity as supplies are depleted.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 11:12 AM BrianR writes:

I understand the geology

and am also aware that, as I wrote, we leave about half the oil from producing wells in the ground because the extraction technology is considered too "environmentally unfriendly".

There's a point to my raising these issues, and you don't seem to want to factor it into your thinking, and that's the strategic aspect -- which you just dismissed as being a military issue and irrelevant.

It's not. My point is that we're in the fix we're in to a very large extent because we've knuckled under to the Greenies: no new refineries, can't extract all the oil, can't build nuclear plants, can't drill offshore, can't this, can't that, can't anything.

We as a society seem to have made a very bad decision that the concern of the Greenies is more important than the fact that we're sending untold billions of dollars right into the coffers of our enemies. We have our national priorities all screwed up, and that's an inseparable issue from this topic.

Again looking at shale, which you guys so blithely dismissed, when you go to the DOE's own site, they relate how the fields were released to public exploitation in the 70s when oil was about $40/bbl. But when oil prices fell to $15/bbl development ceased because it was economically unsound. Fine. Well, oil's approaching $100/bbl, so it seems to me that those fields are all of a sudden a VERY sound proposition economically.

I'm the first guy to admit I'm no expert on this, but I AM an engineer, I'm a very logical thinker, and I'm probably more informed than Joe Sixpack. I also tend to take a macro view on issues. I can see the forest, not just the trees.

We have subjugated the long-term strategic viability of our country to the concerns of enviro-Nazis; that is a very bad idea. We've put our country hostage to other countries that don't have our best interests in mind.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 1:33 PM BrianR writes:

Absolutely correct, PO

I agree fully. We've fallen victim to political sloganeering and the RELIGION of radical environmentalism. We're subjugating all our national self-interests to the Greenies. Kyoto Accords. LOST. AGW. Ideas like these are insane for our society.

There are undoubtedly still-undiscovered fields of oil, but we're not even looking because there's no way we'll be allowed to exploit them.

Technology will also improve that'll allow us to extract crude from places presently impossible, I would assume, like deeper sea beds. We don't yet know where every single drop of oil is on this planet.

But unless we're allowed to extract and refine it, we're not going to get out of this hole we've dug ourselves into.

My sister is a perfect example of a radical Greenie. The other day she made the statement that in her opinion the world would be a better place if there were no humans on it.

Well... what can you say to that? "Hey, why don't you lead the way by committing suicide?" I mean, that mindset is so bizarre it's impossible to respond to. But that's exactly what we're fighting.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 5:18 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR Part I

Once you can grasp the enormity of the world's demand for oil and try to place it in a context where you can actually "see" why we are running out of time, it neutralizes most of the politics. All of those arguing that we have to drill offshore, or in Alaska or the remaining "goop" that is expensive to get at, just don't understand how expensive it is and how the increase in demand will overtake the addition to supply before most of these projects can break even. You are completely mischaracterizing "oil left in the ground". It's not the greens but economics that force the companies to leave it there. The world wants light sweet crude at market prices. What is left behind depends on the market and companies do re-open wells when prices warrant and sell the goop to specialty companies like Apache, Murphy, Smith and others when it takes special technology. The geology is a much bigger problem than politics by far. What you are demonstrating is how difficult it is to have a discussion about this subject without introducing politics.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 5:21 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR Part II

While it is true that the "greenies" are a major nuisance, no one is clamoring to build another refinery or construct major drilling facilities. The reason that $5 billion natural gas offloading facility won't get built off of Malibu is not because of Rob Reiner but because most of the world's natural gas reserves are in Siberia and we certainly don't want to invest a pile in being dependent on Russia for energy. The greens are also obstructing solar, wind and every other alternative too but they are thriving nevertheless. What ever you are reading Brian, it must be from a political source because I analyze it from an investment angle and I'm very bullish on energy. The political problem is rooted in the lack of leadership for telling the American people the unpleasant truth. That is why we are very likely going to have to go through a "crisis" before behaviors change. We can avoid it be steering around the pothole but you can see how hard it is. This is harder to solve than the Social Security problem but we can't the politicians to suck it up and do either.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 6:32 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

Read Peak Oil's comment above. Government controlled or not, the business calculations still rule. If you really think that ANYONE controls the oil market these days, just watch the futures contracts. It is not in anyone's interests for oil prices to be this high AND volatile. The reason speculators and hedge funds are having a field day is because THEY CAN. If there was government collusion, the biggest producer would still be able to threaten to flood the market with cheap oil to regain the upper hand. Saudi Arabia tried to do it yesterday but with high sulfur gunk so it failed. Everyone knows that most of their remaining oil is low grade so it didn't work. If anyone has oil inventory, believe me, they are selling. The only reason oil supplies are keeping up with demand is because of the marginal producers who are back in business and, I believe, governments dipping into strategic reserves from time to time. There is no excess capacity in the system. If you think crooked governments are so effective when colluding on oil, why are we so afraid of socialism? Maybe we are underestimating the abilities of governments.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 6:36 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

On Russian oil

Good luck getting capital to build the pipelines, storage facilities, terminals, refineries and everything else to bring it to market. Take a look at where their pipelines are and the countries that they have to cross. As large as they are, they don't have a warm water port in winter. And ask Ukraine what it's like being a customer to Russian.

Just about all of the world's oil is controlled by hostile governments and always has been. Why is that suddenly such a big issue?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 7:02 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

It's not about "running out" of oil, it's about the economics of pricing a depleting resource. It will always be available to those who can afford it. As a source of cheap energy, those days are mostly behind us. No one alternative will replace oil so we better use the 20-30 years we have left to come up with a plan. I would like you to come up with even a scintilla of proof that governments are colluding to keep oil off of the market. It defies all logic. Governments can't drill oil or do anything without the cooperation of the oil companies. It doesn't matter that people think they are evil. If public opinion mattered, they would be spending whatever it takes to shore up their image. They don't because it isn't important. And so people like you assume there are boogie men conspiring to dominate the world. Don't be afraid to see the obvious.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 7:20 PM BrianR writes:

The supposition that we've discovered

all the oil in the world is, frankly, absurd.

I also see interesting qualifiers, and all kinds of statements made about "NASA level" technology, "blank boards", etc, blah blah.

All of this is predicated on the idea that where we're at RIGHT NOW is basically ultimate state of the art. That, quite frankly, is an absurd posit.

The time will come when we'll be able to drill at the bottom of the Mariannas Trench technologically, if there happens to be oil there. There may be; we don't know. No one's even looking in places we can't currently drill, as you wrote. New fields are discovered; new engineering technologies developed. Even new discovery methods are developed, making it possible for us to find deposits missed before.

What I'm hearing is you saying what's on the table now is all there is, and all there ever will be. Well, I've heard that before, and every single time it turned out to be wrong.

"Oh, wow, look at that huge new field! What a surprise!"

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

We have the national capability to make incredible advances in science and technology when we commit the resources. The Manhattan Project and putting men on the Moon are great examples.

Anybody who takes the position that where we are now is so advanced that no further advances are possible is, frankly, incredibly naive or isn't trained in the sciences.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 7:31 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR, Sam

One more time, you can make statements like "we haven't discovered all the oil in the world yet" and "we are not running out of oil" and despite being factually correct, you are using those stand alone facts to lead you to a catastropically wrong conclusion. Let me reduce it to donuts and donut shops where there were only so many donuts in the begining and they aren't making them no more. Because of the economics of building donut shops and the limitless demand in the beginning, the only thing stopping the expansion of the donut shop industry is the availability of capital to build the shops. It might take 200 years before you sold half of all of the donuts and in that time, the number of donut shops has grown so that without building any more, you will have sold the last donut in 30 years. Suddenly, the growth rate of demand ACCELERATES! What do you think happens? They stop building donut shops and the price of donuts sky rockets. Eventually, donuts become to valuable to eat and become collectors items. You never run out of donuts and I'm sure that if you really looked, you will find that there are supplies of donuts tucked away somewhere. Now I want YOU to come with $5 billion dollars to build the next donut shop. Feel free to superimpose your politics into the situation. It doesn't change the reality. You can argue all you want about when it will happen, but the donut industry is doomed.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 7:48 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

I hate to say it but you need to educate yourself about how oil forms in the first place. It can only be found at certain depths and under certain conditions. Nature has to "trap" it and "cook" it. Then there is the issue of porosity and permeability of the rock it is found in. If it can't be made to flow, it might as well not exist. We don't mine 10,000 feet down for coal and we certainly won't do it for oil-impregnated rock.

There are all kinds of ways to play with the facts and misrepresent them to suit your desired conclusions. The fact of the matter is that we to make a difference, we would need to find the biggest ocean of light sweet crude ever found. Do you know how well known the geology of the earth is these days? Two years ago, the president of Shell Oil and one of the Saudi ministers announced that they had underestimated Saudi reserves by half. It was such a desperately obvious lie that the price of oil spiked. That Brazil oil "discovered" last month didn't cause a ripple either. It is a trivial find, expensive to bring up and not very high grade. There will be a lot more of these kinds of "discoveries" as the price of oil goes up. But the price WILL go up.

It always amazes me how otherwise sensible people who express a deep belief in the wisdom of free markets refuse to believe the obvious. One of the reasons that us stock brokers study charts is because there is knowledge in price. The oil producers may be making a ton of money but it won't matter if the world economy is stifled. It is in no one's interests to be withholding supplies.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 7:59 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

It didn't start out that way. Usually we get derailed by guns. BTW Brian, I will be at the Angeles pistol range Friday at 2pm if you would like to join us.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 8:03 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

The economy will be fine if we take the proper steps. Getting the dollar to stabilize is the most important thing for now but having a sensible energy policy soon will take priority next year. We are in trouble but not nothing we can't manage if we can just drop the emotional politics and focus on reality. That is why recessions are a good thing. It is when reality re-introduces itself to the wrong-headed.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 8:15 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

It takes $5-10 billion to build a refinery once they get the go ahead but more important, it takes about 10 years to break even once built. From initiation to production could be as much as 15 years. We can't see out to 10 years any more. Refineries have to pay high prices for oil but can only sell the end product at market prices. The margins are not necessarily attractive and fluctuate widely for various reasons they cannot control.

Please read my donut shop example. Oil is a finite resource. Only a fool would invest in expanding production. Certainly, the Saudis would be doing it. They are desperate and they can afford it but...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 9:10 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

First of all, this where Brian has a good point, it takes forever to get through the environmental quagmire before you can even start building a refinery and that increases the cost significantly. Enough so that that it made more sense for the oil companies to expand the capacity of existing refineries. Critics always like to point out that the number of refineries has dropped precipitously but capacity has grown significantly. That no longer makes sense. Much of our refining is near sea ports along the Gulf coast when we need refineries closer to the domestic production. We will not be importing crude forever. The Bush administration last week proposed reducing our imports by 75% by 2025. That may not be a matter of choice. In the intermediate term, we can probably get by with current capacity if we can mandate more fuel efficient cars, build more nuclear power plants, produce more ethanol and make buildings more energy efficient. None of these things take sacrifice. Think about it, if you were going to design a plan for living, would you design it so that people would drive gas guzzlers 10-15 mph two hours each day? Here in LA, light rail is expanding very fast. I expect it will become just as acceptable here as in NY and Boston. We just have to do it. Conservation is critical in the next 5-10 years after which we could have a 30-year period of new intermediate technologies like solar, wind, hydrogen and distributed production of electricity. The hope is for fussion nuclear energy to become viable in 50 years or so but the only major project in place (France and Japan) calls for a prototype plant to be ready in 30 years. There are too many new and engineering breakthroughs and technologies required to hold any near-term hope for fussion if it is possible at all.

What you have to keep in mind is how much capital it will take that no one wants to invest billions in an alternative that might be rendered inferior by a competing alternative even if it works.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 9:22 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Peak Oil

I'm trying to get an angle on how to write an essay on this and I fear writing something that goes over everyone's heads. I have found it utterly fruitless to argue over proven reserves and capacity. People simple can't grasp how big the industry is and what 95 million barrels of daily demand would look like if you were standing in front of it. The idea that we can actually run out of oil is something many people refuse to even ponder. I'm inclined to focus on how Hubbert came to his predictions and why the real amount of oil existing doesn't matter as much as the capital risk for those who deploy big capital.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 11:11 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

Huh?

Did someone say guns?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, December, 05, 2007 1:05 AM BrianR writes:

Phil.....

Don't ever condescend to me again. You should know better than that. I know perfectly well how oil forms, all the geologic issues involved including the mechanics involved in the creation of crude oil from biomass.

Dude, I'm not an accountant; my degree's in engineering, an applied science.

If you're under the impression that oil forms under only certain conditions and at only certain depths, YOU are the one in need of further education. You're confusing depths under the currently existing oceans with geological depths in rock and surface crustal formation. Crude oil is absolutely possible under areas that are currently at very great oceanic depths. Do you think the only biomass that could have formed petroleum was land-based? Over the eons a lot of fish have died, bro, along with a lot of sea plant life. You think none of that could have formed oil? You kidding me?

You think all the land at the bottom of the oceans was always there? You ever heard of tectonic movement? At one time, most of what is currently our midwest was one big ocean. Wyoming was seabed.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, December, 05, 2007 1:16 AM BrianR writes:

Your turn, Peak Oil

Did I say I knew where the next big oil discovery would be, you doofus? If I did, I sure as hell wouldn't tell you, I'd stake the claim for myself.

But what I DID say is it's still out there, as are many more.

You've taken the Al Gore position that "the debate is over" because you've declared it so. That may play well at your dinner parties where people are awed by your "expertise", but it means nothing here, because you've basically staked out a position based on the nonsensical notion that we're at a technological standstill, an absolutely preposterous assertion.

As I just wrote to Phil, I'm an engineer and I'm constantly awed at the scientific advances taking place every day, at the rate they're taking place, and the applicability of Moore's Law in areas of applied scientific disciple much broader than just computer technology.

ANYBODY who says something's impossible in this day and age has their head... in the sand.

This all strikes me as the old adage personified, that if you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance, baffle 'em with you bulls**t.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, December, 05, 2007 10:32 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

I didn't mean to condescend to you but I've researched this issue by reading what the best petro-geologists have to say, the guys who have found most of the oil in the world. Guys like Kenneth Deffeyes, King Hubbert and others.
By the way, I don't appreciate your attitude on this either. I haven't belittled anything you have said. But you have a very big blindspot on this. Take out your calculator and do the math on what 95 million barrels a day means. Try to find a river that flows that fast or a lake that contains even one year's global demand for oil. Imagine that lake growing at an increasing annual rate but currently about 4%. I've been attended enough expert panel discussions to enough professional groups to know that although I'm not an expert, I know more about it than most people. The oil part is not a matter of technology, it's a matter of pure physical limitations. Most of the energy technology investment by the oil companies themselves is being directed to alternative energies. That's why they are selling their oil fields and why BP not stands for Beyond Petroleum. So before you get all puffed up and start getting offended, take a deep breath and take another look. Oil technology will not bail us out of the oil problem. The new techologies are improving at the speed of light and open up the opportunity for inexhaustible energy.

And I just can't see how Moore's law applies to oil. If it ain't there to be found, it ain't there.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, December, 05, 2007 10:57 AM BrianR writes:

Let me make it simple

Look at my earlier posts. Did I not say that new technologies are coming on line, several times? That includes alternate energy sources, obviously.

However, I also clearly hold that the Chicken Littling about "dwindling" oil resources is exactly that: Chicken Littling, along the lines of the AGW "crisis". The only reason we have a "crisis" at all is because of a lack of political will and clarity.


And the condescension I referred to was your use of a "donut shop" metaphor to explain the free market economy. I fully understand the free market mechanisms.

Perhaps next time we discuss guns, you'd like me to refer to Daisy BB guns to set the tone?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, December, 05, 2007 11:00 AM BrianR writes:

PS

Your posit, again, that there's no more oil to be found is one incredible statement.

Do you really hold that we have discovered every single oil deposit on this entire planet?

Get real.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, December, 05, 2007 12:43 PM BrianR writes:

LOL, Peak Oil!

I'm devastated!

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, December, 05, 2007 12:46 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

BrianR, you're taking this way too personally and I really think you are misreading what I am saying. That donut shop metaphor was directed at Sam who keeps positing that this is just a global government conspiracy.

If you look back at my comments, nowhere did I say we have discovered every drop of oil. Some of this is just playing around with numbers. You're thinking in human dimensions. Start thinking in planetary dimensions. We have already found all of the oceans of oil and are on the downslope of production. You are arguing that we can solve the problem by finding lakes. Lakes don't replace oceans. It took the earth about 200 million years to create all of the oil that ever existed. No one knows exactly how much that is. The USGS spent 1995-2000 researching this exhaustively. They concluded that there is a 95% probability that there were at least 2.1 trillion barrels in the beginning, 50% that there were 2.7 trillion. The number they chose to go with? 3 trillion. Go figure. The American Petroleum Institute uses 2.1 trillion. PetroGlobal uses 2.6 trillion. The difference between the extremes means maybe about 10 to 15 year seven before factoring in the ChIndia problem. We have already exhausted around 1.3 trillion barrels. So you can calculate your own mid-point. The margin of error is not re-assuring to anyone.

This is the best info available from the top authorities in the world. Even if we found another Saudi Arabia, it just wouldn't matter.

That is very different than your claim that I said that there is no oil left to be found. These are capital intensive, long-term projects and the time frame for the onset of crises is well before the calculated break-even points. You can't "diversify" the risk out of these multi-billion dollar investments. If there are oceans of oil still out there, those who know the most aren't willing to bet on it. That's good enough for me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, December, 05, 2007 12:55 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Peak Oil

I ordered Simmon's book and should get it today. I really have to think about this. I only have a limited amount of space to say something and I may be too immersed in it to know how to be persuasive in 2000 words or less. I run into the same problems whether I am talking to a lib or a con. There is just no talking about his issue without people getting their dander up. The oil companies just are not "evil" and the ecofascist are not that powerful other than with the Hollywood crowd and other failed communists. People just can't wrap their minds around the sheer scale of the oil industry.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, December, 05, 2007 12:56 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat

Looks like it's going to rain Friday. That means no shooting range.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, December, 05, 2007 1:02 PM BrianR writes:

Phil

We're essentially on the same page. We're in a stage of technological transition. Just as coal was once the dominant enegy source but is no longer, so shall petroleum ultimately be displaced... PROVIDED we remove the political and ideological barriers to that transition. Which is my point.

Petroleum will still have its applications, as does coal currently. But we'll move on to other technologies for other purposes.

But the political barriers imposed by the Greenies must be removed. Why haven't we built more new refineries and nuclear generation plants, current and valid technology? The Greenies. Why aren't we exploiting offshore oil fields we already know about? The Greenies. Why can't we build wind farms off Martha's Vineyard? It disrupts Drunkennedy's view.

It's the POLITICS that are problematic, more than anything else.

Hybrid technology's made great strides. There's some real potential in hydrogen power. Ethanol has potential. But there are transitory issues in any technological development, and the Greenies always find SOME issue to raise to block progress. That was the big issue that finally killed off the oil shale development, and I remember it quite clearly. The costs involved in fighting all the lawsuits just killed the economic feasibility of the whole project.

Meantime, again because of a lack of political will, we're pouring billions of dollars into the coffers of our war enemies, and that's just insane.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, December, 05, 2007 1:13 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

FINALLY! That is exactly right. The Greenies are not concerned about the environment. They are just new age iconoclasts and anarchists. The Dems won't agree to anything unless the "evil oil companies" are punished. The Republicans won't agree to anything period. The only option we have is to start making the transition now why we can do it without a major debilitizing economic crisis. I haven't run into one expert who thinks we will succeed. Look how many people scream bloody murder when Congress starts talking about mandating fuel efficiency standards. We keep building huge power plants to transmit electricity over long distances where most of the energy is lost in transition. Those aren't technological problems. We are suffering from stupidity. Many companies already generate their own electricity because they need "clean and stable" electrical supply. Much of the infrastructure for distributed generation is already in place. We would be well on our way to that solution had the corrupt CA politicians not caved in to SoCalEdison and created the Enron opportunity. Even when politicians are sending us in the right direction, they just can't stop themselves from lining their own pockets. We need to find grownups to lead us.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, December, 05, 2007 1:55 PM BrianR writes:

Man.... was I that unclear?

I thought that was the point I was making all along: lack of political will and/or courage. Committing national suicide because of the eco-freak nut jobs.

Well... I'm usually clearer than I evidently was this time.

There's almost nothing this country can't accomplish.... if we stop letting the little tail wag the whole big dog.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, December, 05, 2007 2:06 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR, Peak Oil

It was reported this morning on Bloomberg that demand is outstripping production capacity by 2 million barrels per day. I don't know if I believe that but we clearly don't have surplus capacity which means OPEC and Saudi Arabia has lost control. The market is now setting prices which is why the hedge funds and speculators are so active in the futures contracts market. No one can stop them.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, December, 06, 2007 7:33 AM Nee writes:

Wow!!

Now THAT was a discussion!! One I thoroughly enjoyed. I agree that in terms of energy, and oil we are stupid. We have wasted a lot of time moving forward on this and it is only going to get worse, more expensive.

As much as oil may be difficult to get to, what do you think of Iraq and its supply? They have minimal production at best, but alot of it. Do you suppose an economic partnership is osmething that is feasible? The US would be able to enhance production with some of our technology and in return, we can buy their oil and both countries benefit. I know it is a simpleton approach, as it is more complicated, but it is a thought...
(PS- New Blog up at the old place...just click my name!)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, December, 06, 2007 10:36 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

Nee

Glad you dropped by. I was beginning to think that the girls only drop by to talk about guns.

Actually, I'm not exactly an expert on how the existing oil supplies are distributed. But be careful reading the news. Iraq is a long-known reserve and oil fields aren't contained within a country. They can generate about 2mm barrels/day which they would probably need if they had any kind of economy (They don't even make buttons for their shirts.) The issue right now is to navigate our way to a complicated solution being careful not to get caught over-investing in an expensive solution that gets undermined by a major breakthrough somewhere else. The oil companies are piling tons of money in alternative energies and technologies. The government's job is to create a capital-friendly environment but all the politicians want to do is pick winners and offer subsidies. They don't need new subsidies or more subsidies. They need to know that it is safe to make long-term investments without having to fear political attacks. They did it for the westward expansion, particularly with the railroads, and after WWII when the heavy industry that was built up during the war changed over to peace-time production and for the internet rollout and now they need to help out with the 50-years it will take to innovate around the energy problem. I don't see that happening. Our politicians are only good for blaming someone else and lining their own pockets.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, December, 06, 2007 9:31 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

Amen, Phil

"Our politicians are only good for blaming someone else and lining their own pockets."

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, December, 06, 2007 11:23 PM xpressit writes:

P-Phil

Isn't one story that Iraq has not tapped a good part of their oil? What percentage, who knows. But developers seem interested. Whereas I don't know what part of Saudis ail is. (just from pices I picked up)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, December, 07, 2007 10:25 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

xpressit

There are always people interested in drilling. Very often, they need subsidies or special guarantees. If you believe that the best information is known to governments (the Saudi problem) and they don't want to subsidize or guarantee, maybe the reality is different from what they would have us believe. The Alaskan oil project requires subsidies. Not worth it. Same with most of the proposed US offshore oil projects. The big capital, the best informed, is telling us that we are in a peak oil environment. To waste time on these projects is like trying to save Africa by teaching Africans how to make bricks. The problem requires a bigger solution.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, December, 07, 2007 2:08 PM xpressit writes:

P-Phil

"Our politicians are only good for blaming someone else and lining their own pockets."

Phil well said. The parasite of oversight makes congress & politicos the go light, while shunning “responsibility” in the process when there are problems. And there will be problems, inevitably.

“The oil companies are piling tons of money in alternative energies and technologies. The government's job is to create a capital-friendly environment but all the politicians want to do is pick winners and offer subsidies. They don't need new subsidies or more subsidies. They need to know that it is safe to make long-term investments without having to fear political attacks.”

While granted there is much to that, Phil, this is where I start to have problems. The same oil (energy extorters) now in the drivers’ seat of any hew technology. Maybe that is a natural process of the beast. However, remember stories about Detroit scarfing up “radical” plans for new technology. I for one like to see a new breed of companies grow in the model to open markets.

And I remember Hill saying, I am for taking those profits and applying them to…(paraphrased). No one should have to force them, if that is what she had in mind. If they do it on their own, well that’s entrepreneurial. But we may be better served by newer, unaffiliated companies working out these lines.

Admittedly, I suspect at some point “big oil” profiteers may jump in or buy out the newer ones anyway, after initial development was done. That is where it may be helpful to have some congressional incentive. You are right, big oil shouldn’t need it. But look at the amount they (we the people) will be investing in getting new nuclear plants. Its sort of a kick in the pants; but though without it does it materialize?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive