 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Destinations USA and CanadaEuropeAustralia and NZAsiaLatin AmericaCaribbean IslandsAfricaTravel Types Air TravelCruisesRV Travel |
Travel Forum / Travel Types / RV Travel / July 2008Poll: Drill? (I can hear Pelosi and Reid wringing their hands 8^)
There is an AOL News Online Poll tonight on their "Political Machine." The question is..... Should the Democratic Congress overturn the ban on domestic offshore drilling? Polling is still going on. But here's some results with National votes of 65,552 in. Below is national results and some key states. % % % YES NO MAYBE Nation 75% 23% 2% WA 68 30 2 OR 73 26 1 CA 68 30 2 TX 81 17 2 LA 85 13 2 MS 84 14 2 FL 72 26 2 GA 80 18 2 SC 81 17 2 VA 78 20 2 DC 49 46 5 NJ 72 25 3 NY 70 27 3 MA 72 25 3 AK 72 26 2 Not a NIMBY State in sight. However, the DC vote is just too funny! Here's a link to "Wonkette" http://wonkette.com/401125/george-bush-asks-congress-for-latest-capitulation-on- drilling Jan Eric Orme > There is an AOL News Online Poll tonight on > their "Political Machine." The question is..... [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Jan Eric Orme Naturally. The most liberal part of the country. JF >> There is an AOL News Online Poll tonight on >> their "Political Machine." The question is..... [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >Naturally. The most liberal part of the country. >JF DC voters are proven to have less than high intelligence. I really doubt 90% of them could name the capitals of 3 states, most have never been 100 miles away from DC (unless bussed to a march) and few have jobs paying more than min. They measure their addresses such as the "fifth pile of stuff" from the corner of Penna Ave and 3rd going west. --- $$$$$$$$$%% Yours truly, Johnny Dollar! > There is an AOL News Online Poll tonight on > their "Political Machine." The question is..... [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Jan Eric Orme Thank God we got us a Republican form of government so we don't need to worry about these polls. Otherwise it would be a democracy. And since it isn't a democracy, the fact that 3/4s of Americans are stupid enough to think off shore drilling will drop the price at the fuel pump is completely irrelevant. Our elected reps are supposed to be smarter than us. Do you think they will vote with their heads or with their political careers? Nate On Jul 17, 12:19�pm, "Nate" <nsaptaemcscpn...@nsvpbaemlslp.anmet> wrote: > Thank God we got us a Republican form of government so we don't need to > worry about these polls. �Otherwise it would be a democracy. �And since it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nate ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If they are like many people I know there vote is not one of thinking this alone will get us a lower price and be THE thing that gets us away from foreign oil. But it is a start, Nate. And we have already seen what just talking about it effects the market. The people of America are not stupid. They know that we have to do a lot of different things to stop the GIGANTIC flow of money out to pay for our current usage of 70% foreign oil. Some estimate that a 1% drop in foreign buying relates to a 10% drop in the price at the pump. When and if we make the turn and start buying less foreign oil for a period of time the market will react. My opinion. Others agree. Doing nothing sure as sh.t gets us nowhere. As for Congress, it goes without saying that they will vote to save their own a.s and career. If they perceive that 75% of the voters are pissed how will they react? Pathetic scum that they are we all know that answer. I wish Will Rogers was here to comment. Some entreprenuers are putting their money where their mouth is. One of those is T. Boone Pickens. He knows that we sure as sh.t cannot rely on Congrees for diddly sh.t unless it lines their pocket with no real committment on their part. Jan > Some entreprenuers are putting their money > where their mouth is. One of those is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jan What is your opinion regarding Al Gore's speach today? >> Some entreprenuers are putting their money >> where their mouth is. One of those is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What is your opinion regarding Al Gore's speach today? Who's Al Gore?  SignatureFrank Howell "Frank Howell" <fphowell@yahoo.com> wrote in news:487ff0a2$0$1810$c3e8da3 @news.astraweb.com: > Who's Al Gore? Obama's answer to Monica? SignatureI used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules. >> What is your opinion regarding Al Gore's speach today? >Who's Al Gore? What's a speach? GB in NC >>> What is your opinion regarding Al Gore's speach today? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > GB in NC That's the hack-written text that an idiot recites when he speeks to a crowd. <dg> SignatureI used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules. >>> What is your opinion regarding Al Gore's speach today? > >> Who's Al Gore? > > What's a speach? I didn't think it looked correct when I typed it. Just looked odd. >> Some entreprenuers are putting their money >> where their mouth is. One of those is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What is your opinion regarding Al Gore's speach today? Do you have a link? Preferably text - I can't stand to listen to him. Bruce > "Mark Jones" <noemail@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> What is your opinion regarding Al Gore's speach today? > > Do you have a link? Preferably text - I can't stand to listen to him. Keep your barf bag handy. LZ >>> Some entreprenuers are putting their money >>> where their mouth is. One of those is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Do you have a link? Preferably text - I can't stand to listen to him. No. He is calling for the nation to switch to all renewable energy sources for electricity within the next 10 years. My thought is that we should try to do as much as we can, simply for the national defense implications if we weren't needing to import so much oil. > Bruce S wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > simply for the national defense implications if we weren't > needing to import so much oil. I saw some comments about the speech (don't care enough to look for the speech itself), and noted that he DID NOT call for more nuclear, but that he did want more wind and solar - neither of which is feasible at this time. He is pushing pie in the sky and doesn't care if it will destroy the economy in the process. Bruce >> Bruce S wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Bruce I wouldn't take any energy sources off the table. Nuclear energy should be given the fast track and then we could reduce our consumption of coal and natural gas. It will take a long time to make the transition, but it will never happen if we don't start. His 10 year idea is more than likely too much money in too short a time period. I can just see some of his environmental friends fighting this idea too, because it will mean new energy sources and power transmission lines in places where there will be arguments about their route. It could very well pit one environmental group against another. >>>> Some entreprenuers are putting their money >>>> where their mouth is. One of those is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >No. He is calling for the nation to switch to all renewable energy >sources for electricity within the next 10 years. For once I can agree in general with the boob. But, to do so will require nukes, coal, solar, wind, etc. But he is against those technologies too. No more gas powered personal vehicles. Save that for diesel for RVs, SUVs and Trucking. >My thought is that we should try to do as much as we can, >simply for the national defense implications if we weren't >needing to import so much oil. --- $$$$$$$$$%% Yours truly, Johnny Dollar! > JanOrm...@aol.com wrote: > > Some entreprenuers are putting their money [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What is your opinion regarding Al Gore's speach today? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Did not see it. But let me guess before I look. Would I be correct in assuming he never once mentioned Nuclear Power Plants? Jan > On Jul 17, 12:19?pm, "Nate" <nsaptaemcscpn...@nsvpbaemlslp.anmet> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > And we have already seen what just talking > about it effects the market. That's the standard line from the Democratic Party and they're right, but of course they conveniently omit the fact, that the domestic oil we have now, came from drilling years ago. Since there is already offshore drilling off Calif. and in the Gulf why not expand our risk and open the rest? What does that buy us 5 years down the line? Maybe some more time to act as a buffer zone to allow society to adapt to whatever forms of energy that will replace oil. What ever it is; nuclear, solar, windpower, biomass, or a combination of all and others not mentioned, will need time to build the infrastructure that would be needed to do what oil does today. > The people of America are not stupid. They know > that we have to do a lot of different things to [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Jan Sooner or later the citizens will get that oil is the only immediate fuel that will give them what the alternative fuels won't; transportation! With 230 million internal combustion cars on the road, any new mode would take decades just to manufacture replacement vehicles and refueling capabilities. How will the Democrates solve this problem? SignatureFrank Howell |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.