Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!

Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration
wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

What evidence do you have that the price at the pump WILL go down if we
open up ANWR?

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

If you look at figure 2 in the following link, you'll note that it's
the consumption side of the equation, not the production side, that is
causing most of our dependence on foreign oil.

The libfags' favorite country, France, gets 70% of its electricity from
nuclear. Know when the US built its last nuclear reactor? The 1970s.
Why? Because of whining from you libfags.

This is YOUR fault and there is NO way to deny it.

Moron. Your comments have nothing to do with the article in the message you
responded to.

Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:

You wrote:

Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!


Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.

This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!

So your definition of "sensible" is:

(a) claim opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration won't raise oil prices;

(b) oppose opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration;

(c) complain when shutting off 8% of US oil supply causes prices to rise.

Your definition of "sensible" does not pass the "reasonable man" test.

Care to explain why?

I will, as soon as you back up your case that the price at the pump
will definitely go down with some hard data.

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


Bert Robbins wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...ield_shutdown_
7

$4 gas just around the corner?!

Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.

Either you want the oil to flow and the prices to go down or you want
to
stem the flow of oil and have the prices go up. I want the former.

What evidence do you have that the price will go down if we drill in
ANWR?

Ummm... didn't today's REDUCTION in supply result in a price INCREASE?

Nevermind... You're really too ****ing stupid to even know the answer
that.

Since sealing my driveway on Saturday, I have seen no elephants in the
neighborhood.

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

If you look at figure 2 in the following link, you'll note that it's
the consumption side of the equation, not the production side, that
is causing most of our dependence on foreign oil.

The libfags' favorite country, France, gets 70% of its electricity
from nuclear. Know when the US built its last nuclear reactor? The
1970s. Why? Because of whining from you libfags.

This is YOUR fault and there is NO way to deny it.

Moron. Your comments have nothing to do with the article in the message
you responded to.

The morons are the folks at the NRDC.

Hey! Thanks for reminding me - their literature was hidden in my mail pile.
I just stuck a check for $100 in an envelope.

Bert Robbins wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

Don White wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:

You wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:


You wrote:


Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7


$4 gas just around the corner?!


Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.

This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!


So your definition of "sensible" is:

(a) claim opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration won't raise oil
prices;

(b) oppose opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration;

(c) complain when shutting off 8% of US oil supply causes prices to
rise.

Your definition of "sensible" does not pass the "reasonable man" test.

Care to explain why?


I say America has to cut it's consumption by at least 10%. Gasoline
rationing might help. Let's say...the first 40 or 50 gallons per
month at market price and anything over that should have a stiff
'luxury' tax added

Why should we cut our oil consumption by 10%? Is it so that India and
China and use the oil?

Rationing is not an economically sound practice.

Gas a luxury?



PatBert, wasn't it you who said reduced demand would send a message to
the oil companies? The free enterprise argument, remember?


No, I don't advocate reducing our oil consumption. I am an advocate for
building nuclear plants all over the US and storing the waste in the
facility built in Nevada. I also advocate poking holes in the earth any
where there may be oil and pumping every last bit out and using it.


Yeah...and screw our kids & grandkids who'll be shortshifted behind us.

Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:

You wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:


You wrote:


Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!



Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.




You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.


This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!



So your definition of "sensible" is:

(a) claim opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration won't raise oil prices;

(b) oppose opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration;

(c) complain when shutting off 8% of US oil supply causes prices to
rise.

Your definition of "sensible" does not pass the "reasonable man" test.

Care to explain why?



I say America has to cut it's consumption by at least 10%. Gasoline
rationing might help. Let's say...the first 40 or 50 gallons per
month at market price and anything over that should have a stiff
'luxury' tax added


Why should we cut our oil consumption by 10%? Is it so that India and
China and use the oil?

Rationing is not an economically sound practice.

Gas a luxury?


It will be if you don't stop swilling it.

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:04:55 +0000, Alotta Fagina wrote:


The libfags' favorite country, France, gets 70% of its electricity from
nuclear. Know when the US built its last nuclear reactor? The 1970s.
Why? Because of whining from you libfags.

This is YOUR fault and there is NO way to deny it.

Why deny it? Us "libfags" have better economic sense than drunken
nitwits. We know that coal produced electricity is cheaper than nuclear
produced electricity. We also know that this country still has an
abundant supply of coal. Something France doesn't have. But hey, if you
want to spend more for electricity, feel free, build yourself a nuke.

Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:


Bert Robbins wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...ield_shutdown_
7

$4 gas just around the corner?!

Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.

Either you want the oil to flow and the prices to go down or you want
to
stem the flow of oil and have the prices go up. I want the former.

What evidence do you have that the price will go down if we drill in
ANWR?

Ummm... didn't today's REDUCTION in supply result in a price INCREASE?

Nevermind... You're really too ****ing stupid to even know the answer that.

Hehe, you call me ****ing stupid, and you can't even realize that you
are talking apples and oranges. ANWR doesn't have a damned thing to do
with what is happening today. Your childish and petty name calling
proves to all that you don't have enough information to carry on a
debate. What about the costs associated with setting up, drilling,
building pipelines, staffing, roads, special drilling platforms for the
tundra, and on and on? Many many futures analysts are saying that
because of difficulties associated with getting the oil out of ANWR,
that it probably wouldn't affect price very much. Look back, how much
did the price per gallon at the pump go down when Prudoe Bay came
online?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

If you look at figure 2 in the following link, you'll note that it's
the consumption side of the equation, not the production side, that
is causing most of our dependence on foreign oil.

The libfags' favorite country, France, gets 70% of its electricity
from nuclear. Know when the US built its last nuclear reactor? The
1970s. Why? Because of whining from you libfags.

This is YOUR fault and there is NO way to deny it.

Moron. Your comments have nothing to do with the article in the message
you responded to.

The morons are the folks at the NRDC.

Hey! Thanks for reminding me - their literature was hidden in my mail pile.
I just stuck a check for $100 in an envelope.

Thanks for reminding me, also, I just donated via there website!