Comments posted organically
U.S. expected to announce ban on Russian oil as soon as today, NBC News reports

By HatetheSwamp
March 8, 2022 6:03 am
Category: Politics

(0.0 from 0 votes)
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Share
Rules of the Post
Rate this article
(5=best, 0=poor)
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars

The U.S. is expected to announce as early as Tuesday that it will ban imports of Russian oil, NBC News reported, citing two sources familiar with the matter.

The White House and the Department of Energy did not immediately respond to CNBC’s requests for comment. But the White House on Tuesday morning updated President Joe Biden’s schedule for the day to include an announcement of new U.S. actions intended to “hold Russia accountable for its unprovoked and unjustified war on Ukraine.”


pb's sources hint that, over the weekend, the Flatulent Fool was effin BEGGING Nancy Pelosi not to support bipartisan and bicameral legislation to sanction Russia oil and she refused to back down.

So, apparently, Joe will take action, following, as always.

Thanks to Joe Manchin, who got this ball rolling, along with Lisa Murkowski.


Cited and related links:

  1. cnbc.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "U.S. expected to announce ban on Russian oil as soon as today, NBC News reports":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on March 8, 2022 8:08 am

    BTW, it's now after 11:00 EST. The Flatulent Fool's people promised the President would offer his remarks at 10:45.

    I immediately predicted to the people vacationing with us that he won't speak until after 11:00.

    My reasoning. It will take that much time to keep a clean diaper on the codger and get it adjusted.

    11:08. They're still cleaning Joe up.


  2. by Donna on March 8, 2022 8:19 am
    There's no need to worry about the impact that cutting Russian fuel imports would have on US energy resources. I heard that Joe has plenty of natural gas to offset it.


  3. by HatetheSwamp on March 8, 2022 8:27 am


    11:25.

    Joe's visible only from the chest up. Can't see any embarrassing poop spot on his pants.


  4. by HatetheSwamp on March 8, 2022 8:43 am

    Did you notice how defensive Joe was about his energy policy?

    You can research the lies on the government's own site.

    eia.gov


  5. by Donna on March 8, 2022 8:46 am
    No you can't. Did you try your link?


  6. by HatetheSwamp on March 8, 2022 9:14 am

    Hmm. You blind?

    Have you noticed how the US crude oil stocks have been declining since Trump’s term ended?

    It's right there.


  7. by Donna on March 8, 2022 9:35 am
    No, I'm not blind. The link didn't work before. It's working now.

    The stock decline started around 2017. Why do you care about that?


  8. by Donna on March 8, 2022 9:41 am
    What lies are we supposed to be looking for?


  9. by HatetheSwamp on March 8, 2022 10:03 am

    You didn't watch the stumbling, monotonic ejaculation of incompletely pronounced words?


  10. by Donna on March 8, 2022 11:28 am
    It's useless attempting to have a rational conversation with you. That's why I don't spend much time conversing with you.


  11. by HatetheSwamp on March 8, 2022 11:36 am

    In the speech, the Former 18 Wheeler Driver claimed that his energy policies are not responsible for increased fuel prices and that, in fact, his policies have resulted in increased oil production.

    That's not what that graph suggests as I read it.


  12. by Donna on March 8, 2022 12:08 pm
    Well theoretically, increasing supply will lower the price, but if demand also increases, then that'll raise the price. If the oil corporations engage in collusion and gouging, though, then all bets are off and we're at their mercy.


  13. by Curt_Anderson on March 8, 2022 12:13 pm
    "[Biden's]policies have resulted in increased oil production.
    That's not what that graph suggests as I read it." --HtS

    That's because you misread the graph...possibly because of your dementia. More likely it was because your mind is clouded by hate as your pseudonym implies. The graph on that page was of our strategic oil reserves not of domestic oil production.

    In a Washington Post op-ed critical of Biden, it makes the point that Biden's policies have increased US oil production...just as Joe Biden said.

    Biden outpaces Trump in issuing drilling permits on public lands
    Biden has outpaced Donald Trump in issuing drilling permits on public lands. After setting a record for the largest offshore lease sale last year in the Gulf of Mexico, the Interior Department plans to auction off oil and gas drilling rights on more than 200,000 acres across Western states by the end of March, followed by 1 million acres in the Cook Inlet, off the coast of Alaska.

    The administration’s actions reveal an uncomfortable truth: Although Biden supports a shift to cleaner sources of energy, he has failed to curb fossil fuel development in the United States. His push to suspend federal oil and gas auctions has run headlong into political and legal challenges, and his administration has offered no plan to address the climate impact of mining in Wyoming’s coal-rich Powder River Basin.

    washingtonpost.com


  14. by islander on March 8, 2022 2:17 pm

    I have serious doubts as to whether Hate could ever engage in an honest intellectual debate with the other posters here. As soon as he recognizes he’s in over his head he either leaves abruptly or responds with insults in foul mouthed language and braggadocio in an effort to bring the discussion down to his level. And to be honest, that seems to be his forte.

    In a number of ways, to me, he very much resembles Donald Trump. He is very needy in his demands for attention but I doubt anyone will ever be able to carry on a sincere discussion with him...and that’s actually a shame.


  15. by HatetheSwamp on March 8, 2022 3:35 pm

    Being a devoted viewer of Fox, as I am, I've seen numerous pols from red states complain ad nauseuam about Biden administration regulations that make it impossible to drill oil at a profit. In fact, since the spite in the price of gas at the pump, they seem to be push each other out of the way to plead their case.

    Fox has been playing that exchange between Peter Doocy and Jen Psaki and all the red staters, chompin at the bit to make a buck selling oil are unanimous in their judgment that Jen is a lyin a$$wipe.


  16. by Curt_Anderson on March 8, 2022 3:46 pm
    HtS,
    That's part of your problem. You are using Republican politicians and FOX News as your information sources. No wonder you are misinformed.


  17. by HatetheSwamp on March 8, 2022 4:30 pm

    Thing is, the Governor of Alaska probably knows why a state with all that oil isn't getting much out of the ground when every effin barrel makes a mint.


  18. by Curt_Anderson on March 8, 2022 5:16 pm
    As I said, HtS, Republican politicians, including oil state governors, are not reliable sources.

    Biden approving oil, gas drilling permits on public lands at faster rate than Trump: analysis --The Hill

    If you can find any non-FOX News, non-Republican, non-rightwing website source with data that contradicts reports from The Hill, NPR, et cetera, post it here.

    thehill.com
    npr.org
    theguardian.com
    accountable.us


  19. by Donna on March 8, 2022 5:18 pm
    "I've seen numerous pols from red states complain ad nauseuam about Biden administration regulations that make it impossible to drill oil at a profit."

    And you actually believe that?

    Exxon Mobil made over $23 billion in profits last year. All of the big oil companies made at least over $13 billion in profits last year.

    Your eagerness to hang Joe Biden has circumvented your common sense.



  20. by HatetheSwamp on March 9, 2022 6:33 am

    Mike Dunleavy, Governor of Alaska said yesterday, his state is currently pumping about one fourth of the oil it did at it's peak. That's true. Look it up.

    There was a time that Alaska produced a few drops short of 2,000,000 barrels a day. Now Alaska produces less than a half million barrels a day...

    ...and why doesn't Alaska increase oil production to make a fortune at $130 a barrel?

    According to Dunleavy, the feds won't provide permits, primarily for the building of roads.

    Donna, I don't know where you're getting your information. There are actually worse sources than Rachel. I'm beginning to wish po and you watched Rachel.

    The Biden administration is the reason that all of our greedy capitalists are not pumping more oil that these outrageous prices because you know how capitalists are. They would if they could.


  21. by islander on March 9, 2022 7:53 am

    Donna,

    Did you know that the reduced oil production in Alaska is Biden's fault? You can even ask any Trumpster.

    This chart proves it. Look how much it has dropped.

    The thing is, I can't quite figure out how he did it? Since Biden's first year in office was 2021.
    statista.com


  22. by HatetheSwamp on March 9, 2022 7:59 am

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh.

    Nice. Sarcasm. But, then, that's fairly common among the aged. Keeheeheeheeheehee.

    But, the fact that Alaska oil production won't be doubling any time soon.


  23. by Donna on March 10, 2022 3:12 am
    Alaska's oil production has been in decline for many years.

    Look at the graph at the link below. To imply that Biden is to blame is a lie. A simple Google search was all that was needed to debunk it.
    eia.gov


  24. by HatetheSwamp on March 10, 2022 3:25 am

    Of course it has. But, now, the price of crude is waaaaaaaaaay over $100/barrel.

    You know capitalists, Donna. At this price, those pricey wells could easily be making big money and the Alaska Governor is jumping up and down, screaming like a four year old boy loaded with sugar, that the feds are blocking them with over regulation. He should know.

    And, the question is why Joe is calling psychopathic dictators in the world, wanting them to pump more oil.

    The US could solve its own fuel problems...

    ...easily.


  25. by Donna on March 10, 2022 8:35 am
    A friend of mine posted on FB that 38% of oil pumped in the US is sold overseas because the oil companies are able to sell it at a higher price there. I'm going to research that, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.

    You keep crying about regulations. Which regulations are you referring to?


  26. by Donna on March 10, 2022 8:42 am
    Still investigating, but I found this:

    The US exported slightly more petroleum products than it imported in the first half of 2021.


    eia.gov


  27. by HatetheSwamp on March 10, 2022 8:45 am

    Donna,

    Oil is an international market. If the US would add, say, 2,000,000 barrels a day to the world supply, the price would go down for everyone, no matter who outbids whom for a particular barrel.

    As far as the over regulation, Dunleavy from Alaska says that the biggest, only biggest, problem there is that the feds are blocking permits to build what he called ice roads.

    But, c'mon. Gimme a break. Don't play dumb. I know you ain't. At $120 a barrel, you know dang well that our oil magnates would be pumping more oil if something didn't stand in the way.

    They loooooooove money!


  28. by Donna on March 10, 2022 9:40 am
    Of course they love money. From a corporate perspective, their job is to generate as much profits as possible, safety and environmental regulations be damned.

    See the link below about ice roads. An ice road, simply put, is a road made on a frozen body of water.

    So understandably there would be safety and environmental regulations regarding ice roads.

    So whenever you see a politician on TV complaining about regulations, they're doing the bidding of the oil corporations that bankroll their re-election campaigns.

    Left to their own devices, corporations would roll back any environmental or safety regulations that stood in the way of maximizing corporate profits.

    en.m.wikipedia.org


  29. by HatetheSwamp on March 10, 2022 10:08 am

    Clearly, you're going to do your conveniently naíve shtick. You have sold your reason to believe in the Green New Deal environmenism. That's, as Kierkegaard would say, your "leap of faith." Fine. I love when people give up everything for a belief...even when I disagree with the belief.

    The truth is that American oil field owners are not increasing production, though they'd be rolling in money if they did. And, curiously, Joe's having to beg despots to sell us more oil because we're not producing more at home.


  30. by Donna on March 10, 2022 3:17 pm
    Clearly you didn't address anything I said, and went one step further and changed the subject.


  31. by HatetheSwamp on March 11, 2022 4:23 am

    Donna,

    I'm trying my best not to be excessively strident because I know that offends you but you can be so incredibly frustrating at times.

    Joe pledged to end the use of fossil fuels. He's doing nuthin more, very simply, than tenaciously keeping his promise.

    Of course, his smoke filled room handlers will use the rationale that you're citing but, c'mon man, gimme a break! We all know what's going on.

    This has absolutely nuthin to do with dangerous ice road, et.al..

    The minion of the Blue MAGA mafia is following orders. Keeping promises.

    And, in 022, that means lower and middle class Americans, who were struggling, paying exorbitant prices to drive to their $15/hour jobs and to drive their kids to school and to go to church and little league.

    It also means that, when oil production increases, we'll buy it from OPEC tyrants.

    View Video


  32. by Donna on March 11, 2022 7:07 am
    All modern nations have pledged to reduce fossil fuel use. Gas prices remained low before COVID, and in an effort to punish Mad Dictator, prices are going through the roof. Americans sacrificed in WW2 too, which was also harder on the poor and middle class. Everything is harder if you don't have money.

    What do you think Biden should be doing to ease the economic strain on poor and middle class Americans?


  33. by HatetheSwamp on March 11, 2022 7:41 am

    I think he should announce, reasonable, temporary (10 years?) deregulation and offer incentives for oil production.


  34. by Donna on March 11, 2022 7:51 am
    So you'd allow oil companies to put profits before the safety of the workers and the environment? You'd risk contaminating waters where Alaskans fish and protected species like polar bears live?


  35. by HatetheSwamp on March 11, 2022 7:58 am

    No. I said REASONABLE deregulation.


  36. by Donna on March 11, 2022 8:02 am
    Well then you must have some in mind. I'd like to see your suggestions.


  37. by Curt_Anderson on March 11, 2022 8:55 am
    Let's say that Biden offered some unreasonable deregulation for oil. Perhaps allowing drilling in national parks for example. How many years do you think it takes to get the newly drilled oil processed into gasoline and into the gas tanks of automobiles and trucks?


  38. by HatetheSwamp on March 11, 2022 9:04 am

    C'mon Donna. You know how it goes with government by bureaucracy.

    Honestly, when Big Brother is in charge, he can just manage it that the necessary documents have to be redone because the Ts ain't crossed at the right place.

    All Big Brother Joe...or the smoke filled room handlers...have to do is choose to be reasonable about regulation.

    In the last 24 hours or so, Fox has been playing their montage of Joe, seeking the Dem nomination, promising to end drilling and fracking...fossil fuel energy in America. And, the bureaucracy is gittin it dun.

    I'm saying, fine but not now.

    BTW, as much as you enjoy single moms paying $100 to fill their gas tank to get their kids to school, you can be dang sure that GOPs will be playing that montage in purple districts and purple states in the fall.

    And, Dems will be screaming that it's Putin but GOPs have the truth.


  39. by HatetheSwamp on March 11, 2022 9:08 am

    Let's say that Biden offered some unreasonable deregulation for oil. Perhaps allowing drilling in national parks for example. How many years do you think it takes to get the newly drilled oil processed into gasoline and into the gas tanks of automobiles and trucks?

    So?

    You want to let Maduro supply our oil forever?

    I disagree. I'm think most of America is on my side.


  40. by Curt_Anderson on March 11, 2022 9:10 am
    "BTW, as much as you enjoy single moms paying $100 to fill their gas tank to get their kids to school, you can be dang sure that GOPs will be playing that montage in purple districts and purple states in the fall.". HtS

    Where in America is it not an option for kids to walk or to ride in a bus to get to school?


  41. by Donna on March 11, 2022 9:24 am
    That's a lot of keystrokes to say "I don't know", Hate. You didn't let me down, though. That's pretty much how I figured you'd answer.

    It's easy to criticize when you have no solutions yourself, isn't it?


  42. by HatetheSwamp on March 11, 2022 9:43 am

    Where in America is it not an option for kids to walk or to ride in a bus to get to school?

    Are you effin kidding me?

    Really!

    There are many parents who would NEVER allow their children walk to school. Tell me that you really are just joshin me. With parents laying awake at night wondering where the sexual predators are lurking!!!! C'mon man! How out of touch are you?

    And, bussing? Some moms will tolerate that. No doubt.

    But, drive by a nearby elementary school and middle school.

    I don't know what world you're living in but here the driveways to our schools are effin packed with parents dropping their kids at the school door...and watching till their children are safely inside.

    Tell me you be joshin, Curt.

    Or, can I take this as confirmation that your Blue MAGA mental illness has advanced to Stage 4?


  43. by Curt_Anderson on March 11, 2022 9:58 am
    If it's unsafe for kids to walk to school, that's a local problem. Not one the federal government needs to address by drilling for more and more oil. At a minimum, parents could arrange car pools to haul their kids to school.

    As I've said in another post EVERYBODY could reduce their fuel consumption.


  44. by Donna on March 11, 2022 10:12 am
    Well as Curt said, walking or taking a school bus is still an option for them.

    I walked to elementary and jr high, and I rideca school bus to high school. And there were predators back then, too.

    But for overprotective parents who insist on driving their kids to school...

    For a car that gets 20 mi/gal, the cost difference between $3/gal and $6/gal for a 5 mile round trip twice a day is $1.50. I think most if not all of those people could save that much every day by amending their driving and buying habits.

    As a semi-retired person, on the one day a week I work, I drive 40 miles. So if gas doubles in price, it'll cost me about $6 a week more, although I'm reimbursed whatever the federal rate is.

    I wonder if the federal rate is going to be raised. It should be. I'm thinking especially about people who drive for a living,




  45. by HatetheSwamp on March 11, 2022 10:22 am

    Curt,

    You have never been more insensitive nor offensive on this board.

    This is arrogant elitism!

    This is 100%, exactly, "Let them eat cake."

    I have difficulty believing that you can spew this stuff...

    ...except that it's endemic with elites.

    It's heartless and it's judgmental and...

    ...sanctimonious.

    Clearly you don't know anyone who's struggling to get by, for whom, however they produce income, don't produce enough. But, there are many people like that.

    But, it's not your ignorance that startles me. It's your cold-bloodedness that astounds.


  46. by Curt_Anderson on March 11, 2022 10:36 am
    HtS,
    You cannot come up with any ideas on how people can reduce their gasoline consumption. Yet you somehow presume you'd have better ideas than President Biden on military and domestic policy matters. Not that you've ever offered a any feasible suggestions in this forum.

    Don't cry me a river about the plight of impoverished single mothers. You are among the first to vote for Republican candidates who vote against offering any sort of compassionate financial break for struggling families and individuals.


  47. by HatetheSwamp on March 11, 2022 10:39 am

    You're doing it again, there, Donna.

    When I was criticizing "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" for his passive, defensive approach to Putin's threat to Ukraine you challenged me to be specific. So, I honored your challenge.

    Then three times after that, you told me it's easy to criticize but I'm never specific. So, twice, I repeated myself.

    The last time you did it, I told you to go to h-e-double hockey sticks bahahahahahahahahahaha.

    I'm on to your game.

    As Roberto Duran said to Sugar Ray Leonard, "No Mas. No mas."


  48. by HatetheSwamp on March 11, 2022 10:56 am

    You cannot come up with any ideas on how people can reduce their gasoline consumption.

    Nice try, bubba. What I'm saying is that it would be possible to increase oil production easily. It's your woke, green new deal spirituality that I reject. I don't think that paying more than necessary for a tank of gas is a spiritual act.

    But, sure.

    Here in the East. Families could not take vacations and travel to beach towns this summer. That's one way it will be done if your ilk has its way. Wanna calculate the impact of that on employment and the economy.

    Mom and dad are still going to drive to work. They're still going to get their kids to school.

    If they reduce their driving it will be in a way that impacts other people's jobs.


  49. by Curt_Anderson on March 11, 2022 11:12 am
    "Here in the East. Families could not take vacations and travel to beach towns this summer. That's one way it will be done if your ilk has its way. Wanna calculate the impact of that on employment and the economy." --HtS

    Sure, I can calculate that. The impact would be negligible. Tourism would not suffer if east coast families vacationed on eastern beaches, west coast families vacationed on western beaches, and everybody else vacationed closer to home rather than everybody travelling a thousand or more miles from home.

    Incidentally, in case you didn't notice, with the unemployment rate being just 3.8% the hospitality and restaurant industries are having a hard time retaining and attracting employees. The restaurant industry in particular lobbied that wait staff should be exempt from minimum wage laws. So now their traditional low wages are biting them in the butt. So you didn't need to worry about job losses in that economy.


  50. by HatetheSwamp on March 11, 2022 11:32 am

    What fascinates me when I come across you Blue MAGAs doing your full gospel Green New Deal evangelism is how impractical you can be.

    Before the Roaring Bear was immaculated, the US was a net producer of fossil fuels. It would take very little effort to achieve that place again.

    And, for spiritual reasons, you'll be happy to see families pay 50% more to heat their homes. It seems to please you, orgasmically, apparently, to imagine the Walmart trucks paying exorbitant fuel prices to deliver fresh veggies to local super stores, thus increasing the cost of living, and most draconianly, for the poor, struggling day by day to survive.

    So, yeah. Smile when I remind you that fuel prices have increased about 50% across the board since you foisted the Flatulent Fool on the world.

    I've been around Pentecostals when someone speaks in tongues in church for the first time.

    That's what you're like. And, the rest of us are as bemused by your celebration of needlessly high fuel prices as we are when those fundies celebration their own spiritual rite of passage.

    Go for it...proudly...please.

    But, understand. That sound you're hearing? It's sane people going bahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha hoohoohoohoohoohoohoo heeheeheeheeheeheehee hoohoohoohoohoohoohoo heeheeheeheeheeheehee hahahahahahahahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh...

    ...at your expense.


  51. by islander on March 11, 2022 12:23 pm

    American oil companies are not particularly in a mad rush to increase oil production “right now”. 



    They are making outstanding profits by selling gas at $4+ dollars a gallon, recording braking profits in fact. 



    When demand went down during the pandemic, they had to sell gasoline for $2+ per gallon to prevent having a glut of oil. It’s not “regulations” that are stopping them from ramping up production once again, and Hate’s suggesting that opening up our National Parks to drilling as a means of reducing our $4+ per gallon is childish at best. 


    Right now oil companies are making up some of their lost profits and they ARE beginning to work off their inventory of DUCs, shorthand for wells “drilled but not producing” and that figure now stands at around 4,400, according to EIA figures. 



    We CAN produce enough oil to meet our demands here in our own country without having to “reduce” present regulations. The most powerful weapon “we” ourselves have to lower gas prices is to reduce demand. That’s what we should be working at and doing right now. We already have the technology and will be (if we want to) developing even newer and more efficient means of producing clean renewable energy. It’s time to “seriously” start putting it to use otherwise we will just continue to be held hostage to the giant national and international oil companies.


  52. by HatetheSwamp on March 12, 2022 5:58 am

    The most powerful weapon “we” ourselves have to lower gas prices is to reduce demand. That’s what we should be working at and doing right now. We already have the technology and will be (if we want to) developing even newer and more efficient means of producing clean renewable energy. It’s time to “seriously” start putting it to use otherwise we will just continue to be held hostage to the giant national and international oil companies.

    I hope, isle, that your problem is that you simply don't UNDERSTAND. Bahahahahahahahahahaha.

    What I'm afraid of is that you are heartless, like Curt and Donna.

    Check out what's going on in Saudi Arabia these days. They know that the days of the world's reliance on their oil are extremely limited. They're thinking that they have a decade, maybe a little more.

    They know that our day is approaching rapidly.

    Compared to Curt and Donna, you seem to be fairly rational about this. For them, having people pay more than necessary for gas and heating oil appears to be a matter of woke spirituality.

    You, as far as I can tell, not so much.

    For the last two decades that I was involved in institutional Christianity, my wife an I chose to work among people below the poverty line, or just slightly above it.

    What Curt and Donna want would absolutely CRUSH those people.

    But, we're making tremendous strides. Technology is advancing. Remember how expensive an 8086 computer cost not so long ago? Remember what a "cellular phone" cost just a very few years ago.

    Ten years from now a Prius will be considered a gas guzzler.

    Don't be irrational. Think about how people who can't afford $35,000 for a bottom of the line Hyundai electric car.

    We're not so very far away.


  53. by islander on March 12, 2022 7:16 am

    Gasoline prices are up, but you seem to think that the reason the oil companies are charging so much is part of their plan to get us to drive less (decrease demand) so that they can sell less oil at a lower price and we will then switch to cleaner renewable alternative sources of energy.

    Such naive and simplistic thinking comes from your apparent premise that our government and the big national and international petroleum corporations are one and the same, so it is "our government" that has raised the price of gas. 

They are not the same. The only connection between our government and the Oil industry is through the oil industry’s lobbyists who are able to use their power and “money” to influence as many politicians as they can to do what is in the oil company’s and its stockholders (not our own) best interest.

 And yes, higher gas prices will discourage people struggling to get by from driving, and it will reduce to some extent the demand. !t won't affect those for whom the price of gas is just peanuts. If "they" limit their driving it will be because it’s something they want to do because it’s the right thing to do.

    When we progressives talk about our government's role in reducing the demand for fossil fuels we are talking about the government, our representatives, using the money we send them (our taxes) to help pay for research into renewable energy, and to help those who can’t afford the technology we already have by giving them rebates on things like solar panels, electric hybrid cars, high efficiency heat pumps, home insulation, etc. and maybe even reward companies that reduce their use of fossil fuels.



    A conservative estimate is that right now the government gives about $20,000,000,000 of our money (our taxes) annually to the petroleum industry in the form of subsidies.
 How about putting some of that to better use?


  54. by Donna on March 12, 2022 7:20 am
    I want to "crush" people who are struggling financially?

    Umm, Sheri and I are just squeaking by ourselves. Why would you think I want to crush my own kind? All I said is that an extra $1.50 a day isn't going to significantly impact anyone. Counting school days, that comes to about $30/month. As I said, though, the price increase WILL impact people who drive for a living unless the federal reimbursement rate is increased.

    As for supposedly addressing my questions, sometimes you do, put it usually has to be pulled out of you. On this topic thread, you were complaining that regulations in Alaska were preventing the US from drilling for more oil which would bring the price of gasoline down.

    After pointing out to you that those regulations preceded Biden and that Alaskan oil drilling has been at reduced levels for many years, even during the Trump years, I asked you which regulations you were talking about, and you answered that you keep hearing on Fox News about regulations concerning "ice roads".

    So I researched that and found that they're worker safety and environmental regulations for roadways built upon frozen bodies of water, and that when you hear lawmakers complain about regulations like those, they're doing what their donors from the oil industry are paying them to do. In response, you went off on me about the Green New Deal without addressing anything I posted.

    Maybe you should take a break.

    Btw, I don't expect you to remember this, but I've taken a neutral position on the Green New Deal.






  55. by HatetheSwamp on March 12, 2022 7:43 am

    Umm, Sheri and I are just squeaking by ourselves.

    This confuses me, too. I can only guess that you are not as wobegon as you imagine.

    As I was splaining to isle, our last 20 years in the institutional church, we were working with people living around the poverty line. Young families. Single moms. People living in old trailers. Tell them that they get to pay 50% more for heat. And, pay 50% more to put gas in their 1992 Buick. They won't be able to do it, even buying the kids' school clothes at the Good Will.

    On this topic thread, you were complaining that regulations in Alaska were preventing the US from drilling for more oil which would bring the price of gasoline down.

    No.

    I said that Mike Dunleavy, the Governor of Alaska, was complaining...

    The one example he gave was the unwillingness of the feds to give permits for ice roads.

    From a big picture perspective, I know capitalists. With the price of crude about doubled, you know dang well, that many of them would increase production if they could...

    ...and they are ALL blaming the Biden administration.


  56. by Donna on March 12, 2022 7:59 am
    Sounds to me like you disagree with them, Hate. The only regulations you mentioned that Dunleavy et al have complained about are worker safety and environmental regulations for ice roads. You said you would be opposed to weakening those regulations but would be in favor of eliminating unreasonable regulations which you didn't specify.



  57. by islander on March 12, 2022 8:02 am

    "I know capitalists. With the price of crude about doubled, you know dang well, that many of them would increase production if they could..."

    The price of oil will NOT remain high if they increase production.

    You don't seem to "understand" why the price of oil fluctuates.


  58. by HatetheSwamp on March 12, 2022 8:07 am

    Here's what's going on. Joe's doing what he promised to do.

    And, Americans will remember in 022 and 024.

    He'll beg Maduro to pump oil for us. But: "I would transition from the oil industry."

    Ask oil state Governors and businesses.

    0:55f
    View Video


  59. by HatetheSwamp on March 12, 2022 8:10 am

    isle,

    With the chaos and turmoil "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" has engendered, the price of crude's going to make increased American production profitable for a looooooooong time.

    I wish you could UNDERSTAND that.


  60. by islander on March 12, 2022 8:25 am

    Thanks for posting the video, Hate !

    Biden is explaining exactly what we have to do, and that is transition from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy.

    You don't seem to know what we should be doing except to blindly repeat that Biden is responsible for not doing what you are not sure we should be doing.


  61. by HatetheSwamp on March 12, 2022 9:24 am

    No, isle.

    I'm using the video to splain what's going on. US oil producers aren't filling the gap here or in Europe created by sanctions on Russian fossil fuels.

    Instead, we're all but begging despots around the world to help us out.

    Though you don't UNDERSTAND, to do what you want will strengthen tyrants and create suffering for many in the US and Europe.


  62. by islander on March 12, 2022 9:37 am

    Your thoughts are completely muddled now. It makes no sense to even try to communicate with you anymore.


  63. by Donna on March 12, 2022 11:51 am
    I understand what you're saying, Hate. The people who decide on these policies are never the ones who suffer. It's ALWAYS working class people who are forced to sacrifice. It's the same story in every war.


  64. by islander on March 13, 2022 5:04 am

    No. Switching from oil to clean renewable energy will not strengthen tyrants or create suffering for people in the US and Europe.



    Switching from fossil fuels to clean energy is the only way to get out from under the thumb of tyrants. 



    The video you posted of Biden, which is very good, shows that he wants to work toward that end. Biden knows that the extraction, refining, and burning fossil fuels is not only devastating to our environment but harmful to the people as well.



    Trump in his phony dramatic way says oooh Biden wants to destroy the oil industry! As if eliminating our dependence on fossil fuel is a bad thing !!!

    Watch your video again. 

    View Video


  65. by HatetheSwamp on March 13, 2022 5:22 am

    isle,

    I'm beginning to suspect that are, in fact, heartless.

    Today, in my town, at the gas station I normally use, gas is going for about $4.50/gallon. If you drive a 1992 Buick, it'll cost over $70.00 to fill your tank.

    And, you don't care about how people suffer today. Tell em that if they just wait 30 years they can buy an old Hyundai electric car and they'll never have to pump gas again.


  66. by islander on March 13, 2022 6:48 am

    ”Today, in my town, at the gas station I normally use, gas is going for about $4.50/gallon.

    And that is just one of the reasons why we have to transition from oil to clean renewable energy.

    

The video you posted, and I have to assume you didn’t realize that it was destroying your position that people will be harmed if we transition to clean energy or you wouldn’t have posted it, but at any rate, your thinking on this appears to be dyslexic if you truly believe that $4.50 per gallon shows that switching to clean energy will harm people, especially poor people...You have it completely backward.



    I have, for the most part, switched to solar energy for all my home energy needs. My electric bill sometimes runs as low as $12 a month in the summer. And yes, we have and use central air conditioning from a high efficiency heat pump which also provides our heat in the winter. 



    Like I said, we, you and I, not only pay $4.50 for gas but we also pay $20,000,000,000 annually in subsidies to the same entities that are charging us $4.50 for gas. 

Transitioning to clean, renewable energy will NOT hurt those who are being hurt and exploited by the petroleum industry.



  67. by HatetheSwamp on March 13, 2022 7:04 am

    The people who decide on these policies are never the ones who suffer. It's ALWAYS working class people who are forced to sacrifice. It's the same story in every war.

    Right.

    In our "Wonder Years," to be a progressive was, first and foremost, to care about and care for the poor and oppressed.

    You want a shocker? Watch the coverage of the crowd that attends a Trump rally.

    Political progressives are big on voting for increased welfare payments and an increased minimum wage. But, if you want to know who speaks to lower middle class and poor people, it's the community that has formed around the support for Trump. The people who once were firmly Democrats, now are antiSwamp...

    ...and, I think, it's for the reason you have identified.

    At a Trump rally, they boo SwampGOPs as much as they do swampDems.


  68. by HatetheSwamp on March 13, 2022 7:17 am

    isle,

    C'mon man, gimme a break.

    Everyone effin UNDERSTANDS that transitioning to clean energy is the answer.

    But, the Flatulent Fool's policy is not the policy of transition. It's to kill off fossil fuel production in the US at the expense of the welfare of the poor, any to beg despots around the world to lend us a hand, enriching themselves, enabling their oppression of the poor.

    Can a person with a heart think that's good policy?

    Uh uh!

    So, if you Blue MAGAs have your way, poor people who can only afford old gas guzzlers will pay $70 to fill their tanks...

    ...until your transition is complete.

    And evil thugs like Nicolás Maduro will roll in dough and abuse his people.

    You can't possibly think that's a good thing.


  69. by islander on March 13, 2022 7:46 am

    Two questions for you, Hate.

    1) What will happen to the petroleum industry if we transition to clean renewable energy?

    2) As our reliance on fossil fuels decreases, how do you think that will lead to us begging the despots around the world to lend us a hand, thereby enriching themselves, and enabling their oppression of the poor?


  70. by HatetheSwamp on March 14, 2022 4:15 am

    1) What will happen to the petroleum industry if we transition to clean renewable energy?

    If you merely own an oil well? You're probably toast.

    But, if you're a huge multinational energy corporation, you're already researching and investing in alternative sources of energy.

    2) As our reliance on fossil fuels decreases, how do you think that will lead to us begging the despots around the world to lend us a hand, thereby enriching themselves, and enabling their oppression of the poor?

    In the short term...as a potential World War approaches...unless the Flatulent Fool empowers the use of our own fossil fuel...despotic, rights denying dictators will be making hay.

    The last time I checked, military aircraft and naval vessels and army and marine vehicles from every country run on fossil fuel. Why not line the pockets of Nicholas Maduro for the next couple of decades eh?

    So do all of those impoverished Americans driving Buicks and Impalas manufactured in the 1990s.

    Maybe you know how close we are to flying electric powered F-16s and C 130s. You may know. I'm not hearing anything.

    My guess is that, as Curt sings (with Annie), "Tomorrow," even with Joe's Woke Spirituality energy policy, "as our reliance on fossil fuels decreases," less and less money will be pouring into the pockets of despots. But, please, buddy, don't hold your breath.


  71. by islander on March 14, 2022 7:41 am

    1) What will happen to the petroleum industry if we transition to clean renewable energy?


    "If you merely own an oil well? You're probably toast.


    But, if you're a huge multinational energy corporation, you're already researching and investing in alternative sources of energy."
    ...Hate

    Very good. That’s exactly what we progressives are striving for. However, here in our country, the petroleum giants are only investing 1% of their budget on green energy. In Europe they are ahead of us spending about 1.5%.

    2) As our reliance on fossil fuels decreases, how do you think that will lead to us begging the despots around the world to lend us a hand, thereby enriching themselves, and enabling their oppression of the poor?,/b>

    Unfortunately your answer to the second question was not very good. Your basic premise, the one you are basing your arguments on is false.

    Transitioning to clean, renewable energy, does not mean we must instantaneously stop using fossil fuels. Asfar as hurting the poor, as the demand for oil decreases, so too will the price of oil.

    

And your belief that transitioning to green energy will line the pockets of Nicholas Maduro is of course completely backward. As we use less and less oil we will be cutting the legs out from under Putin, Saudi Arabia, and the dictators of those other countries whose major, and in some countries only, source of income is from oil.





  72. by HatetheSwamp on March 14, 2022 8:10 am

    isle,

    The Flatulent Fool will only be able to suppress the free-ish market for so long. Either his smoke filled room handlers will lose their nerve, before or after the 022 election or GOPs will own everything in DC after 024. But, the thing is, the market will handle this. If the energy companies don't adapt, innovative entrepreneurs will lead the way.

    You seem to think that, because the rest of us are pragmatic about increasing US oil production in these crisis moments, we're opposed to clean energy.

    We ain't.

    Transitioning to clean, renewable energy, does not mean we must instantaneously stop using fossil fuels.


    It's your term. So, what does it mean?


  73. by islander on March 14, 2022 8:27 am

    My definition of transition is the generally accepted definition:

    

TRANSITION

    (trænzɪʃən)
    Word forms: transitions, transitioning, transitioned

    1. VARIABLE NOUN
    Transition is the process in which something changes from one state to another.
    The transition from a dictatorship to a multi-party democracy is proving to be difficult. 
    Synonyms: change, passing, development, shift   More Synonyms of transition

    2. INTRANSITIVE VERB
    If someone transitions from one state or activity to another, they move gradually from one to the other.

    [business]
    Most of the discussion was on what needed to be done now as we transitioned from the security issues to the challenging economic issues. 





  74. by HatetheSwamp on March 14, 2022 8:44 am

    It's the "one state to another."

    It's the "to another" part you're being imprecise about.

    Your very own Doddering Old Fart defines it as "shut down fossil fuel."

    Are you goose stepping to that?


  75. by islander on March 14, 2022 8:55 am

    Once we have transitioned to green energy...compared to what it is now...the fossil fuel industry will be basically shut down. The age of our dependence on burning dirty fossil fuels will be over.


  76. by HatetheSwamp on March 14, 2022 9:18 am

    That's still unclear. What, specifically, will "to another" look like?


  77. by islander on March 14, 2022 11:50 am

    You ask what another will look like:

    Like I said earlier

    "I have, in good part, switched to solar energy for all my home energy needs. My electric bill sometimes runs as low as $12 a month in the summer. And yes, we have central air conditioning from a high efficiency heat pump [powered by free electricity] which also provides our heat in the winter."

    If you want to see a picture of "another", I can use this photo of my own home as an example. Using today's technology we have free, non polluting and an unlimited supply of electricity. This can be done on a much grander scale and I think the people in our country want this to happen.

    What's in the way are the obstructionists spouting their misinformation...and you know exactly who I am talking about. 


    flickr.com


  78. by HatetheSwamp on March 14, 2022 12:11 pm

    Awesome homestead. And, that's a satisfactory micro vision. Congrats! Truly.

    But,...I have an acquaintance who owns a pretty substantial ice company. He goes bonkers at times like this because, because his ice is packaged in plastic bags, he has to raise his prices when oil goes bonkers.

    To move "from one place to another" is going to mean much more than using windmills, solar panels and driving a Tesla.

    Fossil fuels impact our lives in more ways than I, at least, know.



  79. by islander on March 15, 2022 5:18 am

    "To move "from one place to another" is going to mean much more than using windmills, solar panels and driving a Tesla."

    Gee. I think these discussions might just be good for you. That shows me that you might be starting to gain a better grasp of all this. At least that's what I'm hoping.

    "Fossil fuels impact our lives in more ways than I, at least, know."

    You are right again! And we haven't even talked about the damage to our environment that is the result of our dependence on the burning fossil fuels for our energy!


  80. by HatetheSwamp on March 15, 2022 5:44 am

    Here's what's tragic:

    Most of us have agreed for a long time about the problem of fossil fuels. Our side looks for pragmatic, real world strategies to achieve the goal while your side has chosen to make this a central doctrine of your woke spirituality.

    I've been struggling against your mindset within institutionalized Christianity for most of my adult life. It's cute. But, counterproductive.

    Your woke, spiritualized Greenism is what belief in the inerrant, infallible Bible is to a Christian fundamentalist.

    So, we have to argue about loosening federal restrictions on oil production in Alaska and Texas, because you are spiritual, rather than simply do what we can to ease the struggles of our NATO allies by making oil and gas available until clean energy meets their needs.


  81. by islander on March 15, 2022 6:35 am

    Hate,

    You are getting a little too ridiculous now, so I'll let you create and argue with your straw-men today.


  82. by HatetheSwamp on March 15, 2022 6:56 am

    isle,

    Let me just say this about that and let me make this perfectly clear.

    HtS is entirely sincere when he posts here. However, he is careful to represent the mainstream of all the people who think as he does.

    You may be right. There's some strawmanizing here, no doubt. But, don't be mistaken. Many millions of Americans believe what I've written about your side.

    I've said in the past that I'm not certain how profoundly you have spiritualized the US oil production thing compared to the other Blue MAGAs here. But, as we dialog, your position does seem to be profoundly unpragmatic. That leads to the conclusion that you're embracing the woke, spiritualized Greenism so common on your side.

    If it's true, I know you won't want to acknowledge it. You see yourself as a rational man. A freethinker...

    ...but, as Jane Austen wrote, in one of the most beloved first sentences in English language literature, "It is a truth universally acknowledged..."

    ...subjectivity is truth.


Comment on: "U.S. expected to announce ban on Russian oil as soon as today, NBC News reports"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:
SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page


From our contributors:
Display Order:

Trump: 'It’s not theirs, it’s mine'
Humor by Donna     August 16, 2022 7:14 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: islander (16 comments) [217 views]


Trump labeled "flight risk"; passports seized
Crime by Donna     August 15, 2022 2:58 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (6 comments) [75 views]


NPR interview from rural Afghanistan illustrates why our presence there was a fool's errand.
Military by Curt_Anderson     August 15, 2022 5:08 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (11 comments) [128 views]


What distinguishes a cult from a religion from a philosophy?
Philosophy by Curt_Anderson     August 14, 2022 5:08 pm (Rating: 5.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (15 comments) [327 views]


DOJ Seizes Trumps Passports Illegally, offers to return them
Government by oldedude     August 16, 2022 1:11 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (2 comments) [97 views]


President Biden Sad To Hear That Nice Blonde Nurse Who Always Follows Him Around Has COVID
Medical by HatetheSwamp     August 16, 2022 5:39 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (1 comments) [18 views]


There was nothing stolen (passports or anything else) during the legal search of Mar-a-Lago
Law by islander     August 16, 2022 2:28 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (1 comments) [70 views]


Tulsi Gabbard Fills In For Host Tucker Carlson On Fox News
Media by HatetheSwamp     August 14, 2022 2:46 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (17 comments) [223 views]


Let me ask... It this Republic run by a Union? or the Constitution?
Horror by oldedude     August 15, 2022 7:24 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (12 comments) [116 views]


DOJ opposes making public details in Mar-a-Lago search warrant's probable cause affidavit
Crime by Curt_Anderson     August 15, 2022 7:17 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (1 comments) [26 views]


Politics selectors, pages, etc.