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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (391990)	6/18/2008 10:01:54 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578148

Jim Warren the chicago newspaper guy was on msnbc saying more or less that mccain is right and the dems are wrong. To paraphrase here, he said that there is a short term situation developing with fuel and prices that could be catastrophic. Before we can rely on alternate energy to solve the long term problem we need shorter term solutions that require drilling, building refineries and nuclear energy. The dems are against everyone and although folks in Florida might not want to see an oil rig, many americans are waking up to see the problem as less green and more immediately critical. Why are the dems against drilling, refineries, and nuke energy? Yes its the economy stupid for the next election but the economy and energy are tied together as one at this point. Obama needs to take a fresh look. This is a very sensible analysis of the situation, and I cannot see why the Dems are so dogged in their position. McCain has done the right thing to get out front on the drilling issue, but it is utterly stupid to maintain this prohibition on ANWR drilling, and McCain still cannot get away from this position. As Geo Will pointed out last night, McCain's position that he would "no more drill in the Grand Canyon" is just stupid. a) It is hard to see what the opposition is about, since drilling would be limited to a very small area, and drilling doesn't "destroy" the land anyway. The ANWR area is the size of a sizable state and the proposed drilling involves an area the size of an airport. b) ANWR is pretty much a worthless piece of ground anyway, since few can get there and if they did they would find a frozen tundra that is dark 60 days out of the year. c) Even if the ground WERE harmed by the drilling, nobody would ever know it.

To: michael97123 who wrote (391990)	6/18/2008 10:07:01 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578148

To paraphrase here, he said that there is a short term situation developing with fuel and prices that could be catastrophic. Before we can rely on alternate energy to solve the long term problem we need shorter term solutions that require drilling, building refineries and nuclear energy. Those are anything but short term. And frankly alt energy isn't short term either... but at least you get incremental improvement while the technology advances. The greatest potential for "short term improvement" is to get inefficient SUVs off the road and replace them with current vehicles that get 3X to 5X more MPG. And no, I haven't heard that from any politician... I think they don't want to lose the "SUV vote" with the bad news.

To: michael97123 who wrote (391990)	6/18/2008 5:38:35 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578148

Jim Warren the chicago newspaper guy was on msnbc saying more or less that mccain is right and the dems are wrong. To paraphrase here, he said that there is a short term situation developing with fuel and prices that could be catastrophic. Before we can rely on alternate energy to solve the long term problem we need shorter term solutions that require drilling, building refineries and nuclear energy. What's wrong with conservation and nat. gas? Both are more short term than what you are suggesting up above.