Obama's doing good

Status
Not open for further replies.
TXgolfer said:
You cited an enviromental site.....Of course that is what they are going to say.

Oil from a stone - Oct. 31, 2007
Click to expand...

Which site(s) do you utterly trust? I take the time to hear both sides and STILL do not make up my mind as to which is the absolute truth. Ain't that a shame?
I have the feeling our next Prez will be backed by the oil industry with their almost-unlimited campaign contributions.
 
Obama's doing as well as a figurehead could do, I suppose. Phooey.
 
Foxrac said:
You cited an article from a pro-business magazine. ;)

They aren't agree in around with others.
Click to expand...

that's where critical thinking and open mindedness come in. There are always 2 sides of the story. A person should listen to pro-environment and pro-industry and then come to a reasonable, practical agreement. That's how I roll.

For example - The tree-logging companies want to harvest this massive forest because of its profitable, high-demand trees. Obviously - there will be bunch of tree-hugging protesters. Conclusion? We do not need 1,000 square miles of beautiful forest especially if majority of people has never been there. It's ok to give up probably 300 square miles of forest. Use the profits to protect the remaining 700 square miles of pristine forest. Practical. Economical. and Smart. :)
 
TXgolfer said:
Mine was from CNN.......Your's was little more than a blog
Click to expand...

Sorry, none of sources are better than others.

Your source isn't better than mine does, even my source is no better than you.

I'm not only person who always is right, unlike you does.

Environmental sites does have information and citations so look hard at them.
 
Jiro said:
that's where critical thinking and open mindedness come in. There are always 2 sides of the story. A person should listen to pro-environment and pro-industry and then come to a reasonable, practical agreement. That's how I roll.

For example - The tree-logging companies want to harvest this massive forest because of its profitable, high-demand trees. Obviously - there will be bunch of tree-hugging protesters. Conclusion? We do not need 1,000 square miles of beautiful forest especially if majority of people has never been there. It's ok to give up probably 300 square miles of forest. Use the profits to protect the remaining 700 square miles of pristine forest. Practical. Economical. and Smart. :)
Click to expand...


I agree thats why I responded to you months ago when you asked what my source for news was. If you remember I watch and read a variety....

I
 
Jiro said:
that's where critical thinking and open mindedness come in. There are always 2 sides of the story. A person should listen to pro-environment and pro-industry and then come to a reasonable, practical agreement. That's how I roll.

For example - The tree-logging companies want to harvest this massive forest because of its profitable, high-demand trees. Obviously - there will be bunch of tree-hugging protesters. Conclusion? We do not need 1,000 square miles of beautiful forest especially if majority of people has never been there. It's ok to give up probably 300 square miles of forest. Use the profits to protect the remaining 700 square miles of pristine forest. Practical. Economical. and Smart. :)
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, interesting. I never thought of that. But how and where will the 300 square miles be? Smack in the middle of it, or what? And how will it affect the wildlife there? Surely the 300 square miles' peopled civilization will encroach on a large part of the remaining 700 miles.
I am no tree hugger but I do have a huge repect for nature and all its creatures. I agree that there is a huge number of trees everywhere now.
 
Beowulf said:
Hmmmm, interesting. I never thought of that. But how and where will the 300 square miles be? Smack in the middle of it, or what? And how will it affect the wildlife there? Surely the 300 square miles' peopled civilization will encroach on a large part of the remaining 700 miles.
I am no tree hugger but I do have a huge repect for nature and all its creatures. I agree that there is a huge number of trees everywhere now.
Click to expand...

this is especially very common in Northwest USA and Canada. every situation is different and it's strictly regulated. If they disturbed the environment - they get a hefty fines.
 
Jiro said:
this is especially very common in Northwest USA and Canada. every situation is different and it's strictly regulated. If they disturbed the environment - they get a hefty fines.
Click to expand...

My friends that hike have told me about horror stories in Montana and the App Trail.
 
Foxrac said:
Sorry, none of sources are better than others.

Your source isn't better than mine does, even my source is no better than you.

I'm not only person who always is right, unlike you does.

Environmental sites does have information and citations so look hard at them.
Click to expand...

we're not arguing about who is more right. We are all just presenting sources for our stances. Both sides have information and citations anyway. The best we can do is to be open-minded and come to agreement.

That's how it's done in politic and business. It ends with either a handshake or fist. :cool2:
 
Jiro said:
this is especially very common in Northwest USA and Canada. every situation is different and it's strictly regulated. If they disturbed the environment - they get a hefty fines.
Click to expand...

Fines or prison time, oh yeah. I had a job of cutting down trees with red X'es sprayed onto them at the Mark Twain National Forest and I swear I saw a jaguar, but no one believes me. :lol:
 
Oil shale IS NOT a good way to make money. Why do you think oil companies aren't interested? They will IF they have no other options but they won't sell it cheap. You cannot force them to extract oil from shale if they can make more money from other oil sources. I mean, seriously, which would be much cheaper - getting water from seawater through desalination OR getting water from rain/lakes/rivers?
 
Beowulf said:
Fines or prison time, oh yeah. I had a job of cutting down trees with red X'es sprayed onto them at the Mark Twain National Forest and I swear I saw a jaguar, but no one believes me. :lol:
Click to expand...

:lol:

this is how it works - the government contracted with them to cut down the trees. some specification can be - only 100 square miles of this specific area can be cut down. the river bank are not to be disturbed. etc.

they will inspect and issue fines if needed. this is important for them if they want to do business with them again.
 
netrox said:
Oil shale IS NOT a good way to make money. Why do you think oil companies aren't interested? They will IF they have no other options but they won't sell it cheap. You cannot force them to extract oil from shale if they can make more money from other oil sources. I mean, seriously, which would be much cheaper - getting water from seawater through desalination OR getting water from rain/lakes/rivers?
Click to expand...

Oil shale need higher oil price to make profitable so you are right about it.

It is up to oil companies to make business with oil shale projects but I wouldn't expect if they goes broke because of it so could be possible.
 
netrox said:
Oil shale IS NOT a good way to make money.
Click to expand...
still better than paying billions of dollars to our enemy countries which go down to terrorists attacking Americans

netrox said:
Why do you think oil companies aren't interested? They will IF they have no other options but they won't sell it cheap. You cannot force them to extract oil from shale if they can make more money from other oil sources. I mean, seriously, which would be much cheaper - getting water from seawater through desalination OR getting water from rain/lakes/rivers?
Click to expand...
they are. they have a serious boner over it but the government's blocking them. they are constantly pushing government to lift the ban. Once lifted and allowed - the whole process takes usually 6-10 years until it becomes extremely profitable. ka ching!
 
Foxrac said:
Oil shale need higher oil price to make profitable so you are right about it.

It is up to oil companies to make business with oil shale projects but I wouldn't expect if they goes broke because of it so could be possible.
Click to expand...

go broke???????? oil companies? I'll use that line for my next stand-up comedy :lol:
 
TXgolfer said:
Ok let me help

First.....The new figures just released say between 2 and 2.4 million jobs were created by the stimulus......What they fail to mention is that we lost millions of private sector jobs at the same time. It would be like buying 10 powerball tickets and winning $3 on one of them then saying hey I won $3.......Um no, you lost $7


There is another big problem with the numbers. Big big problem. All of the jobs added are Government funded jobs.......Paid for by the stimulus. "Infrastructure" jobs which are new roads and bridges and airport construction. What happens when the stimulus runs dry? Either we raise taxes to overpay people to build roads or the jobs end. Both are bad endings. We just saw the housing bubble burst. We are now watching a jobs bubble form.

Have you ever seen the guys holding the slow sign or flag for road crews?....Do you realize we pay them $15-20/hr to do that? Have ever noticed when you pass a road crew how one guy is working while 5 guys are watching. Well those people are paid with our tax dollars. And those are the jobs the stimulus is creating.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry to say but, you are wrong about the road construction crews. I do agree with you that the state and city workers may work like that (5 guys watching one)but, my husband has worked for private companies in road construction for 27 years and they don't work like that. It's a very dangerous job. People don't slow down, they drive into traffic set ups, they drive drunk, not to mention a lot of those guys work 50 to 70 hours a week in all weather and at all times of the day and night. Next time your on the highway, watch how people pay attention to the signs and the workers. Believe me, you wouldn't want that job and it doesn't pay like you think it does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top