Well, to be fair. It was Bush senior that issued the first ban.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yea... Too bad the Congress has to vote on it now.Kmarion wrote:
I agree. It's about sending a message. The message that the United States is serious about getting off that Saudi Sauce will in turn affect the international investors attitude. It will force them today to rethink how much they invest into futures. Bush officially lifting the long standing ban is one way of conveying that message. Passing new fuel standards and offering other incentives for using various alternative fuels was another.Pug wrote:
I think "Both" is the answer Ken.
All the oil we have now was developed, and if you look around, we're not ready for oil alternatives. So oil development will help three years from now. Given what's happening now, I think most people are thinking about getting away from oil.
The problem is most people WANT to drill (there was a poll somewhere recently about this) rather than develop alternative fuel sources. Why do people think this way? Because right now we don't have the technology or infrastructure to be without oil. So there is no alternative until it's developed.
More oil in the short run will help us get to the long run.
Game over. Thank you for playing.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/13/ … index.html
how the hell are these clowns at 9%?
Xbone Stormsurgezz