Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (251052)	4/25/2002 4:42:53 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 769670

No, that's why we need to get OFF oil. Everyone knows ANWAR oil (if it is ever drilled) will take 10 years to get to market. In ten years we could get 50% off oil AND save the wilderness to boot. AND create many more jobs than some big drilling operation can. That is, with Bush-Cheney out of there. They are the only ones standing in the way, they and their oil cartel friends. If we drilled every wilderness area in the US it wouldn't come close to freeing us from the Saudis and Saddam. Only with new fuel technology can we do that. It's so obvious. Kerry is right when he notes that Thomas Edison was told he could never do it but saved us decades of coal pollution by inventing electricity. But now is the time to take another quantum leap ahead, not backward. We are smart and rich enough to succeed if we all fight for this together, Republicans too. Free your party from Big Oil and get involved. Remember also, oil supplies are projected to last only 40 years anyway. It's not a permanent fuel source it's just around for about 100 years during this phase of human industrial evolution. Bush is at the tail-end of this phase telling us we ought to go backward instead of forward. Doesn't make sense, especially post 9/11 with Saudi terrorists attacking us. And the damage done to the planet already is extremely costly and maybe irreversible. Global warning and erosion of the ozone layer alone could actually eventually wipe out life on earth. So why support old-fashioned poluting fuels at such a high cost to humanity and the earth? Why? Just because you think GW is a great guy? Well guess what? He's just a politician. And he's not fighting for you he's fighting for Big Oil. Before you wax romantically about him just remember where his bread is buttered, primarily Enron and all their cronies. Bush-Enron-Bush-Enron. Your new mantra. Repeat it until you get it. The GOP would be howling for CLinton's head if he'd ever done anything like that. But now they are busy covering up the Bush-Enron debacle. They won't succeed. Just like the Catholic Church, denying sin and responsibility doesn't work. What goes around comes around.

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (251052)	4/25/2002 5:35:40 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

<<I agree, that's why we need to develop as much domestic oil as possible and import what we can't produce from countries other than where fanatical Muslims rule. Conservation and alternative fuels are good too. Let's hit the problem from all directions. That's what I'd like to see us do.>> Not a bad way of putting it. The new energy alternatives need to be developed and proven. Some of the posters seem to think if they like, say wind power, the people of the US should close all coal, oil, gas and nuke plants and switch tomorrow. Look how tough it is to get people to accept 10% ethanol. It cuts pollution and oil imports. California went for MTBE instead and ruined a lot of their water. It's been a standard in my area since 1974.