Nope, you can blame the enviromentalists. Oh, and the pricks who wanted a pretty view from their oceanfront property. No drilling within 120 miles of shore. You can't even see 20 miles out to sea from shore anyways.Kmarion wrote:
The whole nation should have been looking at other ways to fuel this country after the Arab oil embargo. Reagan, Carter, Clinton, GW sr.. take your pick. This isn't a Dem exclusive.
It's more than just that though. Reagan and both Bushes had/have plenty of vested Saudi interests as well.imortal wrote:
Nope, you can blame the enviromentalists. Oh, and the pricks who wanted a pretty view from their oceanfront property. No drilling within 120 miles of shore. You can't even see 20 miles out to sea from shore anyways.Kmarion wrote:
The whole nation should have been looking at other ways to fuel this country after the Arab oil embargo. Reagan, Carter, Clinton, GW sr.. take your pick. This isn't a Dem exclusive.
I think that's more a function of the domestic politics of certain middle eastern countries. Norway has a state-owned petroleum company that isn't nearly as bad as Saudi Aramco.Turquoise wrote:
I think we can agree that oil companies are greedy as fuck, but socialization is NOT the answer. If you want evidence why... look at how corrupt the National Oil Companies are in the Middle East.IRONCHEF wrote:
I believe Congress (DEMS) are attempting to nationalize oil companies so as to govern them and put their greed in check. This is considered a very socialistic move by the right, and I agree...but I have no problem with it...since as the RIGHT would easily agree, fuel is a national interest to be protected. Such a national interest should supersede the capitalistic protections of greed and insane profits at the expense of a floundering public and economy.
I'm not DEM and I'm moreso not REP..i hate both the idea of governing everything (real socialism and big government) and the free reign of capitalism at the expense of our economy and the average Joe barely making ends meet. But in this case, I'll side with the socialists since we've seen 8 years of capitalistic greed run amok.
The solution is regulating oil speculation. Aside from more drilling and building more refineries, there's really no need to do anything drastic like socializing oil.
Anecdote: My mother knows a lady from Saudi Arabia whose brother owns a successful water importing firm based in Europe. The reason why it's based in Europe is that he couldn't prevent the Saudi gov't from basically "buying" his company at a fraction of what it was worth (millions). Everything in Saudi Arabia (including the Saudis themselves) is the "property" of the royal family. Instead of having his business taken he said "fuck it" and moved his business to Europe.
Even Saudi passports say in effect that "The holder of this passport belongs to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia".
Saudi Arabia sounds like an utter shithole.
Okay, granted. But it is a bit different when the cost of oil is an order of magnitude greater.Turquoise wrote:
It's more than just that though. Reagan and both Bushes had/have plenty of vested Saudi interests as well.imortal wrote:
Nope, you can blame the enviromentalists. Oh, and the pricks who wanted a pretty view from their oceanfront property. No drilling within 120 miles of shore. You can't even see 20 miles out to sea from shore anyways.Kmarion wrote:
The whole nation should have been looking at other ways to fuel this country after the Arab oil embargo. Reagan, Carter, Clinton, GW sr.. take your pick. This isn't a Dem exclusive.
Reagan would have bombed fuckers if they raised oil this high.
Nah, he would have just traded weapons for lower prices.usmarine2 wrote:
Reagan would have bombed fuckers if they raised oil this high.
...as long as they people he gave arms to would fight the Godless communists.Masques wrote:
Nah, he would have just traded weapons for lower prices.usmarine2 wrote:
Reagan would have bombed fuckers if they raised oil this high.