The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
ignored him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
"No", AKA: "Up Yours".

Wonder if there is another approach?

Lew

On May 16, 1:39 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
ignored him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
"No", AKA: "Up Yours".

Wonder if there is another approach?

Lew

Ummm.... yes - it involves labeling someone a terrorist, the military
(shocking) and a contrived preemptive strike (why, I never heard of
such a thing, that would go against everything this country USED to
stand for)....

D'ohBoy

On May 16, 2:24 pm, "D'ohBoy" wrote:
On May 16, 1:39 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
ignored him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
"No", AKA: "Up Yours".

Wonder if there is another approach?

Lew

Ummm.... yes - it involves labeling someone a terrorist, the military
(shocking) and a contrived preemptive strike (why, I never heard of
such a thing, that would go against everything this country USED to
stand for)....

D'ohBoy

And a BIG 'kiss my ass' to the shrub from D'ohBoy.

D'ohBoy

D'ohBoy wrote:
On May 16, 1:39 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
ignored him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they
said "No", AKA: "Up Yours".

Wonder if there is another approach?

Lew

Ummm.... yes - it involves labeling someone a terrorist, the
military
(shocking) and a contrived preemptive strike (why, I never heard of
such a thing, that would go against everything this country USED to
stand for)....

And a "contrived preemptive strike" is going to increase oil
production how?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Lew Hodgett wrote:
The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
ignored him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
"No", AKA: "Up Yours".

Wonder if there is another approach?

Lew


"Well!" he harrumphed. "A couple big nukes will teach 'em." (or am I
sounding too neo-con?)
gronk! and thumpa thumpa,
j4

p.s. anybody know if radioactive oil is useable?

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
newsxkXj.43$%g.0@trnddc08...
The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they ignored
him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
"No", AKA: "Up Yours".

Wonder if there is another approach?

Lew



Take over.

"Leon" wrote:

Take over.

A take over is probably going to happen along about NOV.

Oh wait, think you've got something else in mind.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Leon" wrote:

Take over.

A take over is probably going to happen along about NOV.

Oh wait, think you've got something else in mind.

Lew



No, that will be a big *give back*, and the islamofacists will breathe
a big sigh of relief, being given another 4 years to cook up mayhem
and mischief with an impotent US president doing little or nothing
in the meantime.

You talk about nukes? Start building your shelter. It's the
1960s all over again, but this time the war isn't "cold".

I hope Obama kept his Koran warm after his Christian "conversion" ...
given his policy ideas, he's gonna need it.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On May 16, 5:18*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


I hope Obama kept his Koran warm after his Christian "conversion" ...
given his policy ideas, he's gonna need it.

Come on, Tim. Even you don't believe that. I'd put some bat-bait in
that belfry of yours.

On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:18:12 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


No, that will be a big *give back*, and the islamofacists SNIP



Is this "islamofacists" (sic) a reference to someone who has a face
like a muslim?

Or, are you talking about "islamofascists"?

You would agree, I suppose, that fascists are considered right wing.

You would further agree, one would think, that Republicans are
considered right wing.

Are these Islamofascists then - Republican Muslims?




Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...



Are these Islamofascists then - Republican Muslims?


Nope, they are Independents Muslims

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:cGmXj.523$%g.206@trnddc08...
"Leon" wrote:

Take over.

A take over is probably going to happen along about NOV.


---

and THAT scares the hell outt me.

K.

I wrote:

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
ignored him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they
said "No", AKA: "Up Yours".


Picture if you will, Shrub, groveling at the feet of his Arab camel
jockey host, begging for an increase in his allowance, only to be told
"No".


Gives you a lot of confidence? NOT!

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

I wrote:

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
ignored him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they
said "No", AKA: "Up Yours".


Picture if you will, Shrub, groveling at the feet of his Arab camel
jockey host, begging for an increase in his allowance, only to be told
"No".


Gives you a lot of confidence? NOT!

Lew

Should be a strong object lesson of what happens when you try to negotiate
with nothing to back it up. Does the idea of unilaterally disarming (ala
Barack Obama's pledge to suspend development of missile defense systems and
new weapon systems) not provide a diplomatic analog to the inability to
have anything from which to negotiate (i.e, the threat to increase our own
production) in this case?

The US has no position from which to negotiate in this case, the Saudis
know that our liberal environmental radicals will prevent any further
development in the US, so they pretty much hold all the cards.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...

The US has no position from which to negotiate in this case, the Saudis
know that our liberal environmental radicals will prevent any further
development in the US, so they pretty much hold all the cards.


It's the Carter years all over again.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Should be a strong object lesson of what happens when you try to negotiate
with nothing to back it up. Does the idea of unilaterally disarming (ala
Barack Obama's pledge to suspend development of missile defense systems and
new weapon systems) not provide a diplomatic analog to the inability to
have anything from which to negotiate (i.e, the threat to increase our own
production) in this case?

That last sentence gives me a headache trying to figure out what it
might possibly mean? Can you give any hints?

One of the problems might be the use of words in ways that their basic
meaning doesn't support. An example would be your equating
"unilaterally disarming" with "suspend development of missile defense
systems and new weapon systems". You must not have any idea of exactly
what unilateral disarmament means.

The US has no position from which to negotiate in this case, the Saudis
know that our liberal environmental radicals will prevent any further
development in the US, so they pretty much hold all the cards.

Patrick Karl wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Should be a strong object lesson of what happens when you try to
negotiate
with nothing to back it up. Does the idea of unilaterally disarming
(ala Barack Obama's pledge to suspend development of missile defense
systems and new weapon systems) not provide a diplomatic analog to the
inability to have anything from which to negotiate (i.e, the threat to
increase our own production) in this case?

That last sentence gives me a headache trying to figure out what it
might possibly mean? Can you give any hints?


Let me type this out more simply:

1. We have no position from which to negotiate with Saudi Arabia to get them
to produce more oil. i.e., if they say "no", we have no position of
strength from which to say, "OK, then we will do x, y, or z" such as
developing our own reserves because the Saudis know that the enviros here
would rather see people freeze to death than have a caribou have to skirt
an oil derrick in ANWR.

2. This forms a good analog for the same kinds of things the left wants to
do to our defense posture. For example, Obama talks a good game
about "tough diplomacy" (whatever the @#%$ that means) and talking to our
enemies with "tough negotiations". But, when the person on the other side
of the table says, "No, we still want to see you infidels killed and Israel
pushed into the sea, and by the way, we have xx nuclear missiles, so don't
you dare do anything to us", if we have nothing from which to respond --
for example, "your xx missiles are meaningless because they can be
destroyed before they leave your territories", we have no position from
which to bargain.

3. Obama has already stated his desire to place us in the same position
defensively as we currently stand regarding energy. He has pledged to stop
developing anti-missile defenses. Yes, this is unilateral disarmament on
our part -- your words below not withstanding. It is our country removing
a part of its ability to defend itself without any equivalent concessions
from other countries. It may not be the "unilateral disarmament" that you
equate only to the US destroying its own nuclear arsenal without others
doing the same, but the words are being used correctly. He has further
stated the desire to stop development of all new weapon systems. This is
not going to provide a position of strength from which to negotiate in the
future.


One of the problems might be the use of words in ways that their basic
meaning doesn't support. An example would be your equating
"unilaterally disarming" with "suspend development of missile defense
systems and new weapon systems". You must not have any idea of exactly
what unilateral disarmament means.

See above. What do *you* think unilateral disarmament means? Would
particularly like to see your definition in light of the idea that we
would, unilaterally, stop development of the ability to defend ourselves
from missile attack. Please explain how this is not unilateral disarmament


The US has no position from which to negotiate in this case, the Saudis
know that our liberal environmental radicals will prevent any further
development in the US, so they pretty much hold all the cards.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

Yes, this is unilateral disarmament on
our part -- your words below not withstanding. It is our country
removing a part of its ability to defend itself without any equivalent
concessions from other countries.

While agreeing with part of your position, this is not the whole truth
and therefore it is (in my opinion) totally and absolutely false. You
are advocating that we spend ourselves to death the same way we forced
the Soviet Union to its death - spend and spend on useless (in the end)
technology and weapons.

For instance, we may eventually be able to shoot down a few missiles
lobbed in our direction, but what would be needed is a guarantee that
none come through such a missile defense system. I think that history
has proven that offensive strategies always win over defensive ones
(castles, Maginot line, Atlantic Wall). If too many missiles would come
at the same time, or a single missile would come from the "wrong"
direction, we'd be cooked at the attacked site, and will have to resortto
retaliatory strikes. Are we ready for such sacrifices on our own soil
and on theirs?

Some kind of early warning system would be fine with me. Also, as far as
monitoring and manning such installation(s), that can be done in
cooperation with others (Russians, Chinese) so we let them know that they
should be concerned about terrorist attacks as well. But the operative
mentality has to be one of brutality, with disregard for civilian
casualties, just like they don't care about that in attacking us.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Lew Hodgett wrote:

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
ignored him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
"No", AKA: "Up Yours".

Wonder if there is another approach?

How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A few nuclear
reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not prohibited
drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years before
anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million barrels a day
from that field.




--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A few
nuclear
reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not prohibited
drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years before
anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million barrels a
day from that field.

But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in equilibrium.
You don't believe your friends grin?

Conservation should be first and renewable energy second. Developing coal
strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation of greenhouse
gases), nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of nuclear waste),
and developing new oil and gas fifth.

Just my opinion.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote

But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in equilibrium.
You don't believe your friends grin?

Supply and demand have NOTHING to do with the current price of oil, instead
put the blame squarely where it lies ... greed, by hedge funds and other
speculators, using manipulation made possible by regulatory differences
between global stock markets.

http://www.marke****ch.com/News/Stor...A42B8D50907%7D

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote:


Supply and demand have NOTHING to do with the current price of oil,
instead
put the blame squarely where it lies ... greed, by hedge funds and
other
speculators, using manipulation made possible by regulatory
differences
between global stock markets.

The real problem is the weakness of the USD.

The price of oil is tied to the USD.

Just another benefit of our adventures around the world.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:AuBXj.1265$dh.254@trnddc05...
"Swingman" wrote:


Supply and demand have NOTHING to do with the current price of oil,
instead
put the blame squarely where it lies ... greed, by hedge funds and
other
speculators, using manipulation made possible by regulatory
differences
between global stock markets.

The real problem is the weakness of the USD.

The price of oil is tied to the USD.

Just another benefit of our adventures around the world.

This guy called it on the nose almost two years ago:

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=17812

"detention centers instead of soup kitchens" Read it and weep!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On May 17, 9:56*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Swingman" wrote:
Supply and demand have NOTHING to do with the current price of oil,
instead
put the blame squarely where it lies ... greed, by hedge funds and
other
speculators, using manipulation made possible by regulatory
differences
between global stock markets.

The real problem is the weakness of the USD.

The price of oil is tied to the USD.



Some pundits speculate that it was the underlying cause for getting
rid of Sadam; he wanted to switch to the Euro.
The same bunch thinks that the sabre-rattling with Iran is all about
that too.

If oil no longer holds up the USD, the US economy collapses.

It's always the same: Follow the money!

The huge tax breaks for the rich is just another transfer of wealth
before the corps starts to rot.

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A
few
nuclear
reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not
prohibited
drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years before
anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million barrels
a
day from that field.

But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in
equilibrium. You don't believe your friends grin?

Conservation should be first and renewable energy second.
Developing
coal strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation of
greenhouse gases),

So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?

nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of
nuclear waste),

Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and the
volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that produce
the same amount of power and tell us which makes more sense.

and developing new oil and gas fifth.

Just my opinion.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?


Use it to insulate the nuclear waste dumps instead. The rest can be used to
fertilize the trees that hold the Spotted Owl.

On May 17, 9:34*am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?

Use it to insulate the nuclear waste dumps instead. *The rest can be used to
fertilize the trees that hold the Spotted Owl.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Spotted Owl has hardly any
meat on them.

"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
@news3.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A
few
nuclear
reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not
prohibited
drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years before
anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million barrels
a
day from that field.

But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in
equilibrium. You don't believe your friends grin?

Conservation should be first and renewable energy second.
Developing
coal strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation of
greenhouse gases),

So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?

Mother Gaia has done it, in clathrates, or whatever they call the
complexes in the cold nether regions of the oceans. It can be done other
ways as well.

nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of
nuclear waste),

Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and the
volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that produce
the same amount of power and tell us which makes more sense.

I'm all for nuclear energy, but the volume of waste is not the problem.
The problems with nuclear waste are the heat generated and the need to
contain it for a very, very long time. Definitely problems that can be
conquered, but there is a lot of NIMBY to contend with.

and developing new oil and gas fifth.

Just my opinion.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
@news3.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A
few
nuclear
reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not
prohibited
drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years
before
anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million
barrels
a
day from that field.

But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in
equilibrium. You don't believe your friends grin?

Conservation should be first and renewable energy second.
Developing
coal strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation
of
greenhouse gases),

So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
forever?

Mother Gaia has done it, in clathrates, or whatever they call the
complexes in the cold nether regions of the oceans. It can be done
other ways as well.

And where do we put these clathrates or "other ways"?

nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of
nuclear waste),

Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and
the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that
produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more
sense.

I'm all for nuclear energy, but the volume of waste is not the
problem. The problems with nuclear waste are the heat generated

How much heat do you believe to be generated by nuclear waste once the
short-half-life elements have decayed?

and
the need to contain it for a very, very long time.

Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's no
point in warehousing it.

Definitely
problems that can be conquered, but there is a lot of NIMBY to
contend with.

And you think there won't be a lot of NIMBY once people figure out
that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage volume?

and developing new oil and gas fifth.

Just my opinion.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?

Why not?......Is the capture and storage cost prohibitive?......Are not
rising levels of CO2 simply the release of naturally stored CO2?


Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and the
volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that produce
the same amount of power and tell us which makes more sense.

I'd agree with current technologies and costs nuclear is the only or the
largest viable energy crisis alternative.......Renewables are simply stop
gaps and niche products and often expensive....Conservation makes a good
sound bite but no one ever rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly
worthwhile for getting through hard times but never for solving hard times.
Rod

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:


Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
expensive....

Jeff Immelt, CEO, General Electric, obviously doesn't share your point
of view.

Seems he has made the decision to invest significant GE resources in
the renewable energy business.

Wonder where the assets from the sale of the GE major appliance
business will be invested?

Wind turbine anyone?

Lew

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in
acquisition:

J. Clarke wrote:
So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
forever?

Why not?......Is the capture and storage cost prohibitive?......Are
not rising levels of CO2 simply the release of naturally stored CO2?


Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and
the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that
produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more sense.

I'd agree with current technologies and costs nuclear is the only or
the largest viable energy crisis alternative.......

If it were not for the problems of waste control and control of plutonium
(apart from cheap nuclear weapon material, it is also very, very toxic),
nuclear would be ideal. Hence the '60's ideas of fusion energy, still a
great potential source.

Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
expensive....

Not so. I signed up for electricity delivery from renewable sources, and
I hope I am not hoodwinked. The info and bills say I am getting 100% of
my electricity from wind and water, all for ~$4/month more. OK, on a
$50/month electric bill it is by percentage a lot, perhaps, but not much
in impact on my pocketbook.

Conservation makes a good sound bite but no one ever
rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly worthwhile for getting
through hard times but never for solving hard times. Rod

Conservation can be as easy as walking to the post office 200 yards away,
instead of starting up the car from cold, just for getting a few stamps.
Or turning off the lights when not needed. Conservation need not be a
measure of last resort, but is just a showing of respect for natural
resources.

All in my opinion, of course! And I do leave my computers on too much
grin.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
forever?

Why not?......Is the capture and storage cost prohibitive?......Are
not rising levels of CO2 simply the release of naturally stored CO2?

So how much are you going to have warehoused after, say, a thousand
years? Remember, that warehouse has to be _absolutely_ secure--if it
ever gets busted open then we have 1000 years worth of CO2 emission
happening in an instant.

Rising levels of CO2 are not "simply the release of naturally stored
CO2". They are the result of burning carbon--one atom of carbon
burned with two atoms of oxygen gives one molecule of CO2 plus a
certain amount of energy. To store it "naturally" in the state it was
in before it was burned you have to unburn it, which means putting as
much energy _into_ it as you got out of it (more actually, considering
that the process is not 100% efficient), which defeats the purpose of
burning it in the firt place.

Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and
the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that
produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more
sense.

I'd agree with current technologies and costs nuclear is the only or
the largest viable energy crisis alternative.......Renewables are
simply stop gaps and niche products and often
expensive....Conservation makes a good sound bite but no one ever
rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly worthwhile for getting
through hard times but never for solving hard times. Rod

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On May 17, 7:45 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?

Why not?......Is the capture and storage cost prohibitive?......Are not
rising levels of CO2 simply the release of naturally stored CO2?



No, the rising levels are a consequence of the conversion
of fossil carbon and carbon compounds, mostly fossil fuels,
to carbon dioxide. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon
dioxide is about half of that produced by burning fossil fuels
If fossil fuel burning stopped today, the concentration in
the atmosphere would begin dropping tomorrow..

Aside from that balance, there is also the Seuss effect.

--

FF

Before I read the replies to this...

We could blow em up and take it from them.

K.

How about if you guys who start political threads make that
the standard subject line?

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:


How about if you guys who start political threads make that
the standard subject line?

Since starting this thread, have enjoyed the twists and turns it has
taken.

All that heat and no useful work.

Doesn't take much to be a real **** disturber around hereG.

Lew

On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:22:54 -0700 (PDT), Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:

How about if you guys who start political threads make that
the standard subject line?


A thread title of " O/T: Up Yours" isn't enough of a hint that you
might want to skip it? G

---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

B A R R Y wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:22:54 -0700 (PDT), Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:

How about if you guys who start political threads make that
the standard subject line?


A thread title of " O/T: Up Yours" isn't enough of a hint that you
might want to skip it? G

No! I mean, up my what?
WHAT is up there?
Was it removed afterwards or does it remain up there?
Was it sterilized?
Animal, vegetable, mineral?
Do Barak, Hillary, or John have one up theirs?
What about W., is this whole middle-east thing because he had one up his?
Will it hurt?

The subject alone raises so many questions! One MUST look!

On Sun, 18 May 2008 13:18:31 GMT, Woodie wrote:

The subject alone raises so many questions! One MUST look!


Obviously, I also looked. G

---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------