How can this not be right? Left/Right be damned!

[fodderblade]

You know, a lot of those folks who rail about national security and fighting the terrorists should be %100 for alternative fuels from a purely national security standpoint. If we are energy independent, we are much stronger and safer as a nation - no question about it.

But many of those same folks are such stooges of big oil that they are not "allowed" to openly supportthe alternative fuel / national security connection.

By simply spouting "more drilling - more oil" will fix things they demonstrate that their party/corporationloyalty is stronger than their patriotism. They effectivelyclaim we can solve the current energy crisis by drilling our way out,when they know ultimately we can't. Even our own oil will run out.

The surest way to bolster national security is to radically reduce the use of fossil fuels and pursue alternative energy sources that are clean and create jobs here at home by building and installing and using and maitaining these newtechnologies.

There is simply no rational agrument from any direction against this security/energy strategy.

Anything else is simply propaganda from big oil who is scared to death that the status quo might change.

I am dead serious about this guys and my beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with partisanship. My belief in these principles is rooted in my love for America and the Constitution that gives her life and freedom and what I believe to be the best route to making her strong, safe, prosperous and RESPECTED again on the global scene.

[Griswold]

You obviously aren't familiar with the Republican platform on this issue. Go read McCain's proposals, then let's talk.

Never mind, we'll talk anyway, since from reading your posts here today I'm pretty confident you aren't going to bother with being informed before arguing. McCain favors nuclear energy, solar energy and other alternative energies in addition to more oil production here at home. In fact, I haven't heard one single Republican of note say that drilling alone is the solution to the problem.

Now let's turn your argument a bit: If YOU support making our nation safe from terrorism, you should be for McCain, since his plan would make us energy independent faster than Obama's plan (Okay, I'll be fairer in my argument than you were in yours by pointing out that Obama actually supports some off-shore drilling now as well). How long will it take us to develop alternative energies? 5 years? 10? 20? We don't really have a fixed timeline, nor any way to reasonably predict one. We do have studies that say if we were to open up the coasts to drilling, we could begin producing oil within 12-15 months. So it seems to me that if our goal is to become energy dependent as quickly as possible, we should open our domestic reserves to drilling WHILE we focus on alternative energies. That would make us energy dependent faster than focusing on alternative energies alone. No?

[fodderblade]

ORIGINAL: Griswold

You obviously aren't familiar with the Republican platform on this issue. Go read McCain's proposals, then let's talk.

Never mind, we'll talk anyway, since from reading your posts here today I'm pretty confident you aren't going to bother with being informed before arguing. McCain favors nuclear energy, solar energy and other alternative energies in addition to more oil production here at home. In fact, I haven't heard one single Republican of note say that drilling alone is the solution to the problem.

Now let's turn your argument a bit: If YOU support making our nation safe from terrorism, you should be for McCain, since his plan would make us energy independent faster than Obama's plan (Okay, I'll be fairer in my argument than you were in yours by pointing out that Obama actually supports some off-shore drilling now as well). How long will it take us to develop alternative energies? 5 years? 10? 20? We don't really have a fixed timeline, nor any way to reasonably predict one. We do have studies that say if we were to open up the coasts to drilling, we could begin producing oil within 12-15 months. So it seems to me that if our goal is to become energy dependent as quickly as possible, we should open our domestic reserves to drilling WHILE we focus on alternative energies. That would make us energy dependent faster than focusing on alternative energies alone. No?

I never mentioned either candidate pro or con, you're turing it partisan here for some reason.

If I took a shot at anything, it was big oil whom I will never align myself with politics be damned.

Your trying to make this out to be left vs. right again.

My principles are non partisan - to make America stronger. If both candidates support it great.

We shouldn't need a presidential election to be doing these things - we should have been doing them since Sept. 12th, 2001.

That begs the question - why haven't we? The answer? Big oil and it's corrupt stranglehold ($$$) on the government and the private sector.

You turning this thread into a John McCain campaign ad with the very first post only helps prove my point.

This is not a left vs. right problem, this is an American problem.

Whoever gets elected - these things MUST be done.

[Griswold]

You said that calling for more drilling allows someone's party affiliation to override their patriotism. I think it's pretty clear what your intent was.

You are sounding remarkably like someone else I used to see post here who hasn't posted in a while.

[fodderblade]

ORIGINAL: Griswold

You said that calling for more drilling allows someone's party affiliation to override their patriotism.

Lots of voters are more loyal to the party platform than they are to America and will sacrifice patriotism -often unknowingly -just so they can say, "My side WON. Victory! In your face" Happens on the left and the right.

I think we all know big oil carries a LOT of influence and followers ($$$) who put platform first and America second. That's the sad truth.

Is it most voters? No, but they are loud and wield lots of power.

[ipscshooter]

ORIGINAL: fodderblade

By simply spouting "more drilling - more oil" will fix things they demonstrate that their party/corporationloyalty is stronger than their patriotism. They effectivelyclaim we can solve the current energy crisis by drilling our way out,when they know ultimately we can't. Even our own oil will run out.

Funny, I haven't heard either part make this particular claim.

[fodderblade]

ORIGINAL: Griswold

You obviously aren't familiar with the Republican platform on this issue. Go read McCain's proposals, then let's talk.

I am familiar with the plans of both candidates and they are quite similar.

You have no idea what I am familiar with, and I have no idea what you are familiar with.

I have stated my heartfelt beliefs here independent of any party endorsement - on this thread I haveonly endorsed policies, not candidates.

If you are really an independent as your sig. claims, I'd expect you to do the same rather than merely turning the thread into a McCain ad - that's disingenuous to say the least - and certainly not "independent" thinking.

We can all read what McCain/Obama think.

What do YOU think?

[Alsatian]

Personally, I live in the real world, and alternative energy isn't ready for prime time. Tomorrow I'm going to get in my car and drive to do my business. My vehicle, a 1998 Toyota Corolla, is powered by gasoline. It has 168,000 miles on it, and I expect to drive it to well over 200,000 miles. I also have a 2002 Honda Civic with 84,000 miles on it. Hopefully, we can drive that car to well over 200,000 miles . . .powered using gasoline. So, gasoline and oil aren't going away tomorrow.

There are indeed a variety of alternative sources of energy, each with their specific price points. When alternative sources of energy are more economically feasible, they will be adopted. Before this economic advantage is realized, don't expect to see tried and true oil and gasoline to be turned away from.

I think, given the implications of my comments above, it makes sense to try to address our energy needs along all avenues -- drilling for more oil, building more nuclear plants, encouraging (if feasible, I'm not knowledgable about the issues involved) use of natural gas in vehicles, as well as wind power, geothermal power, tidal power. This has been the position advocated bhy McCain/Palin this very week. But it doesn't make sense for government to subsidize these things execessively. At some point these technologies need to be economically self-supporting to make sense.

[muley699]

ORIGINAL: fodderblade

I am familiar with the plans of both candidates and they are quite similar.

You have no idea what I am familiar with, and I have no idea what you are familiar with.

I have stated my heartfelt beliefs here independent of any party endorsement - on this thread I haveonly endorsed policies, not candidates.

If you are really an independent as your sig. claims, I'd expect you to do the same rather than merely turning the thread into a McCain ad - that's disingenuous to say the least - and certainly not "independent" thinking.

We can all read what McCain/Obama think.

What do YOU think?

I completely agree that finding alternative fuels is a national security issue. Where I take issue with your theory, is in the dicotomy of drilling v alternatives. I say do both. Drill, drill drill, and explore explore explore new alternative fuels. Dismissing the economics for the developement of alternative fuels is also foolish.

[CalHunter]

I agree that the U.S. should be drilling for local oil and expanding all alternative power sources (nuclear, wind, natural gas, solar, etc.). Griswold and Alsatian both make valid points about timelines and self sufficiency.