Senator Stevens (R - Alaska) Indicted by Rilke - Page 5 - TribalWar Forums
Click Here to find great hosting deals from Branzone.com


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page Senator Stevens (R - Alaska) Indicted
Page 5 of 8
Thread Tools
Bounty
Love
Old
81 - 07-29-2008, 15:30
Reply With Quote
Completely hopeless.

Given the choice between discussing drilling in Alaska, or drilling the hot-ass Governor from Alaska, you virgins choose the former.

le sigh

I'm especially disappointed in YOU, triple. She's a Republican, after all, and has had her named tossed about as a potential VP pick for McCain. You should want to stick your Elephant-loving dick in her five ways from Sunday.

Poor Sarah.
 
Bounty is offline
 
Sponsored Links
triple
VeteranXV
Old
82 - 07-29-2008, 15:31
Reply With Quote
shes not a vp pick, haven't you been keeping up with kos? Shes going to be in deep **** within a month.

if mccain picks pawlenty im going to ****ing RAGE
 
triple is offline
 
fartiusstinkius
VeteranXV
Old
83 - 07-29-2008, 15:32
Reply With Quote
It seems the average triber knows more about the oil markets than all the combined minds of Wall Street.
 
fartiusstinkius is offline
 
triple
VeteranXV
Old
84 - 07-29-2008, 15:33
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TseTse View Post


It remains just jaw dropping how you can insist on your bull**** being true.
ever hear of slant drilling? I drink your milkshake. From 50 miles off the coast.
 
triple is offline
 
McLovin
Veteran5
Old
85 - 07-29-2008, 15:34
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottTheWise13 View Post
I would ****ing love a rig in my backyard. Do you know how much money people make by allowing oil companies drill on their property? that would be awesome.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/us...nted=1&_r=2&hp
This happened to me this year in Texas, still waiting on the royalty checks though.
 
McLovin is offline
 
triple
VeteranXV
Old
86 - 07-29-2008, 15:34
Reply With Quote
Quote:
We have nuclear technology we can implement rather than sitting on our asses talking abotu drilling for oil over the next 10 years.

We have viable wind and water technology that we can implement NOW (and some places are doing just that - go pick up The Economist from 2 weeks ago). This cant obviously power our cars but it's a major step in terms of bringing energy prices down.
dude.. I am the first to be all for that.. and thats a viable plan to replace our current power infrastructure.

However.. until you build a ****ing viable electric car.. 400+ miles on a charge.. I don't know why the **** that would make a difference. Our cars will not be running on nuclear, h2o, or wind power anytime soon.
 
triple is offline
 
TseTse
VeteranX
Old
87 - 07-29-2008, 15:35
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottTheWise13 View Post
I'm not saying any of that is wrong, but it's not really a reason NOT to allow drilling or at lesat leave it up to states.

You act as though allowing drilling will make the govt/companies not be able to invest in wind power.

If companies can drill and make a profit, its not like it costs the government anything. In fact it will produce more tax revenue which can go towards supporting renewable energy in its infancy, as happens now.

If, as you say, it wont decrease oil prices, then its not like drilling here will make more demand and lessen our drive towards renewable energy. It wont lower prices and make it harder for renewables to compete.

So you have lots of arguments of why drilling wont help the price of gas/oil. But what are the arguments for why to not at least allow states to choose to drill?

Are you just concerned about environmental damage?
As i said, i could giev a **** about the alaska drilling. I just dont think we need to invest any government money into that. It's a waste of investment. I am definitely against expanding off-shore drilling in the gulf.

I just find it all entirely pointless and not worthy of our attention. At best, we toss in a small amount of oil into a quickly shrinking finite global supply.



We have the capability of dramatically improving our energy situation if we got serious about it.

One example.

The majority of our gasoline consumption is by industrial vehicles, and they are almost entirely running diesel. Switching from traditional trucks to hybrid trucks would save perhaps 30% a year in energy costs for these companies. 30% is no joke, albeit it's still relying on oil long-term.

Why not give them major tax breaks to switch?

Mack and others have the engines already. It's all there. I suspect it's a question of capital and perhaps some minor infrastructure hurdles. SMALL POTATOES for america if we got serious.

We could implement massive matching-fund programs for municipalities and states that want to experiment with large scale wind energy.

USA is the world's leading wind energy producer. Did you know?

We just knock Germany off their pedastal and we could go soooo much farther with what we've learned in recent years. Wind is only about 1.2% of our total power and we could try to invest at the federal level and aim for like 10-15% in the next 10 years. Small potatoes for such a large nation with so much strong wind available. Denmark is at 20%.

Solar energy is also maturing very quickly, and there's no reason for the USA not to be the leader in this technology.

We need to not only be in this in terms of our own national security, energy and stuff... but we need to be in this as a business sector, to lead it and export our technologies.

19% of our energy is from old nuclear plants. We need to update them and to build new ones. There's no reason we cant be looking at larger and larger amounts of non-fossil fuel energy in the USA within 15-20 years. Even worrying about offshore drilling and all that crap is a distraction.
 
TseTse is offline
 
Last edited by TseTse; 07-29-2008 at 15:39..
fartiusstinkius
VeteranXV
Old
88 - 07-29-2008, 15:37
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TseTse View Post
The majority of our gasoline consumption is by industrial vehicles, and they are almost entirely running diesel. Switching from traditional trucks to hybrid trucks would save perhaps 30% a year in energy costs for these companies.
I don't understand this...hybrids should only help get back energy from breaking. How would that take 30% off of trucks doing long-hauls

edit: Unless I'm misunderstanding "industrial vehicles"...
 
fartiusstinkius is offline
 
Code4
BP's Pimpx
Contributor
Old
89 - 07-29-2008, 15:37
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by triple View Post
Offshore drilling would be so far off the coast you wouldn't be able to see the rigs. I don't know what you're ****ing complaining about.

I don't drive an suv, I drive a 50mpg sportbike. It beats your prius hands down.
Here's a picture taken along the Alabama coast in Fort Morgan.

 
Code4 is offline
 
triple
VeteranXV
Old
90 - 07-29-2008, 15:39
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Switching from traditional trucks to hybrid trucks would save perhaps 30% a year in energy costs for these companies
.

You're living in fantasy land. There comes a point where the transition costs more than the actual savings.

For example, small hybrid cars aren't even more cost efficient than gas powered cars until 50,000 miles into their lifespan!

Trucks? You'd have to drive a LOT. Not to mention hybrid engines pushing that sort of tonnage costs 10x as much.

Saying bull**** like "oh just switch to hybrid trucks problem solved" is all well and good unless you're the one justifying the cost to your particular company. Will NOT happen.
 
triple is offline
 
TseTse
VeteranX
Old
91 - 07-29-2008, 15:40
Reply With Quote
triple, just stop making **** up and go ride your bike. thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fartiusstinkius View Post
I don't understand this...hybrids should only help get back energy from breaking. How would that take 30% off of trucks doing long-hauls

edit: Unless I'm misunderstanding "industrial vehicles"...
well, i guess they wouldnt help on longhauls but i read the 30% from some industrial analysis. dont ask me for the source cuz i read that a while ago. in other words, the INDUSTRY is claiming that these new hybrid trucks (from the top makers) are providing 30% savings. that's a lot of capital and i suspect many vehicles arent viable for those engines just yet.

im saying that instead of pouring money in to "research" tax breaks for exxon, we oughta be giving direct tax breaks to the industries that need to upgrade vehicles. THAT is worth-while investment for short-term savings.
 
TseTse is offline
 
Last edited by TseTse; 07-29-2008 at 15:43..
triple
VeteranXV
Old
92 - 07-29-2008, 15:41
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Code4 View Post
Here's a picture taken along the Alabama coast in Fort Morgan.
I don't see your point. New rigs will be built farther than the eye can see. That's what we're talking about, right? It's a little late to discuss the eyesores of rigs that were built 20 years ago.
 
triple is offline
 
ScottTheWise13
VeteranX
Old
93 - 07-29-2008, 15:43
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TseTse View Post
As i said, i could giev a **** about the alaska drilling. I just dont think we need to invest any government money into that. It's a waste of investment. I am definitely against expanding off-shore drilling in the gulf.

I just find it all entirely pointless and not worthy of our attention. At best, we toss in a small amount of oil into a quickly shrinking finite global supply.
Yeah, I dont think anyone thinks the government should pay for drilling. But I dont think thats an issue anywhere in the US. And I think you shoudl allow businesses to decide whether something is a good investment or not.

OK so you are fine w/ allowing more drilling on land.

Why are you against offshore drilling? And don't just say its pointless. It isn't your money that would be spent. I think there are lots of stupid stores and businesses around, but I dont ask to ban them because I think they're pointless.
 
ScottTheWise13 is offline
 
fartiusstinkius
VeteranXV
Old
94 - 07-29-2008, 15:43
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TseTse View Post
well, i guess they wouldnt help on longhauls but i read the 30% from some industrial analysis. dont ask me for the source cuz i read that a while ago. in other words, the INDUSTRY is claiming that these new hybrid trucks (from the top makers) are providing 30% savings.
Yeah I really doubt the validity of that claim. I think industry is going to be one of the hardest places to wean off of traditional fuels considering hybrids don't really help and batteries can't hold enough energy to make them worthwhile.
 
fartiusstinkius is offline
 
fartiusstinkius
VeteranXV
Old
95 - 07-29-2008, 15:45
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TseTse View Post
im saying that instead of pouring money in to "research" tax breaks for exxon, we oughta be giving direct tax breaks to the industries that need to upgrade vehicles. THAT is worth-while investment for short-term savings.
Well yeah I agree that Exxon shouldn't be getting tax breaks for their work regardless.
 
fartiusstinkius is offline
 
triple
VeteranXV
Old
96 - 07-29-2008, 15:45
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TseTse View Post
triple, just stop making **** up and go ride your bike. thanks.
No, I want you to stay here and justify to me - lets pretend im the CEO of ups, and you want me to switch to hybrid trucks.

You say: Ok CEO, I can save you 30% savings in energy.

And I say, OK tsetse, but switching to hybrids would cost 60% more to buy, with an additional 40% cost increase for our maintenance department to handle the new technology and train new employees, and our trucks wouldn't be able to go as far, meaning our delivery times would go up by 20%.

And you say: (this is where you explain to me why I should waste money)

If alternative energy was as easy as you claim it is, guess what - the free market would have already done it. You aint the first person to bring this up.
 
triple is offline
 
Fox
VeteranX
Old
97 - 07-29-2008, 15:46
Reply With Quote
So....how about them plug-in hybrids?
 
Fox is offline
 
TseTse
VeteranX
Old
98 - 07-29-2008, 15:49
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by triple View Post
.

You're living in fantasy land. There comes a point where the transition costs more than the actual savings.

For example, small hybrid cars aren't even more cost efficient than gas powered cars until 50,000 miles into their lifespan!

Trucks? You'd have to drive a LOT. Not to mention hybrid engines pushing that sort of tonnage costs 10x as much.

Saying bull**** like "oh just switch to hybrid trucks problem solved" is all well and good unless you're the one justifying the cost to your particular company. Will NOT happen.
I'm going by what industry analysis has said. I guess you know better.

However, if you had basic reading comprehension you'd realize that im absolutely not saying this would solve the problem. As a short-term meaningful plan, it's a better course of action than pretending drilling for more oil in alaska is going to help.

We need to push nuclear energy up to like 50-70% of our energy, and bring wind/solar up to like 25%...
 
TseTse is offline
 
TseTse
VeteranX
Old
99 - 07-29-2008, 15:50
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by triple View Post
No, I want you to stay here and justify to me - lets pretend im the CEO of ups, and you want me to switch to hybrid trucks.

You say: Ok CEO, I can save you 30% savings in energy.

And I say, OK tsetse, but switching to hybrids would cost 60% more to buy, with an additional 40% cost increase for our maintenance department to handle the new technology and train new employees, and our trucks wouldn't be able to go as far, meaning our delivery times would go up by 20%.

And you say: (this is where you explain to me why I should waste money)

If alternative energy was as easy as you claim it is, guess what - the free market would have already done it. You aint the first person to bring this up.
Again, all you can do is just talk out your ass.

I love your argument that the free market would have done it!

THe truth is... it is happening, and all i am saying (oh noes!) is that the federal government oughta take interest in supporting this rather than wasting money drilling for oil and making Exxon rich.
 
TseTse is offline
 
Rilke
VeteranX
Old
100 - 07-29-2008, 15:50
Reply With Quote
**** a lame-duck Bush handout to the oil men. Develop alternative or bust.
 
Rilke is offline
 
Page 5 of 8
Reply


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page Senator Stevens (R - Alaska) Indicted

Social Website Bullshit

Tags
.another jew , .bites the dust , corrupt asshole , series of tubes , stupid fucking republican


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


AGENT: CCBot/2.0 (https://commoncrawl.org/faq/) / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:20.