Cal Thomas promotes bike commuting

Frank Krygowski said:

b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, etc.

What are these people smoking?

Drilling in previously off-limits areas will have no significant
positive effect on America's energy dependence or the price of oil or
the price of gasoline. People who believe otherwise, and clearly there
are a lot of them, completely misunderstand the nature of the
predicament, which has become coming down the tracks at us for about
40 years, ever since this country became an oil importer instead of an
exporter. Look: today the US produces about half the crude it did near
our production peak 35-40 years ago. We peaked out at about 10 million
barrels per day -- not for lack of drilling, quite the opposite. Today
we consume more than 20 million barrels per day and manage to produce
only about one quarter of that in the US. People need to put down the
crack pipe and realize there is no way we are going to drill our way
to energy independence or even make a serious dent in it.

Robert

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski said:

b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, etc.

What are these people smoking?

Nothing, they're Republicans.

Frank Krygowski said:

Cal Thomas is a syndicated op-ed columnist, about as conservative as
the Pope is Catholic.

Today's column makes the following points:

[yada, yada]

Quoted message said:

c) "A slow transition [to non-oil energy sources] will also give us
time to consider more fuel-efficient cars and greater use of public
transportation, even bicycles for short trips. Bikes would help more
of us lose weight and get in shape. A friend bikes to work every day,
saving gas, car payments, insurance and repair costs."

Quoted message said:

The first two points illustrate that he's not turned into a left-
leaning softie overnight. The third point illustrates that it's not
only left-leaning softies that see value in biking.

Sure, but do note that it is Cal's "friend" who bikes to work, not Cal
himself. Sacrifice is always easier when you don't have to do it
yourself.

N.B. Personally, I don't see commuting by bike to be a sacrifice; I do
it until the ice on the roads makes it unsafe. But for people like Cal
Thomas, giving up a motor vehicle is a major sacrifice.

--

John ([email hidden])

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski said:

b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, etc.

What are these people smoking?

Drilling in previously off-limits areas will have no significant
positive effect on America's energy dependence or the price of oil or
the price of gasoline.

But that's not the reason why they want to drill in the ANWR. There's
good money to be made pumping that oil and they want to get it before
somebody else does.

Do remember that the people telling us that drilling in the ANWR will
help solve our energy problems are the same people who told us that
we invaded Iraq because of the "virtual certainty" that Saddam had
weapons of mass destruction, and for the same reason.

--

John ([email hidden])

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Frank Krygowski said:

Cal Thomas is a syndicated op-ed columnist, about as conservative as
the Pope is Catholic.

Today's column makes the following points:

a) The oil companies are good guys. They should continue to get $17
billion in tax breaks from our government.

b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, etc.

c) "A slow transition [to non-oil energy sources] will also give us
time to consider more fuel-efficient cars and greater use of public
transportation, even bicycles for short trips. Bikes would help more
of us lose weight and get in shape. A friend bikes to work every day,
saving gas, car payments, insurance and repair costs."

The first two points illustrate that he's not turned into a left-
leaning softie overnight. The third point illustrates that it's not
only left-leaning softies that see value in biking.

- Frank Krygowski

Sheesh. An affirmation of the bicycle's value as a corollary of
ideology. Must everything be politicized?

SMS said:

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski said:

b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, etc.

What are these people smoking?

Nothing, they're Republicans.

Actually, in my experience they're just more surreptitious about where
they obtain their recreational pharmaceuticals. Well, and they're more
likely to have a prescription addiction if they're not using illegal
drugs.

--
Dane Buson - [email hidden]
"There is no underestimating the intelligence of the American
public." -H. L. Mencken

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski said:

Cal Thomas is a syndicated op-ed columnist, about as conservative as
the Pope is Catholic.

Today's column makes the following points:

[yada, yada]

Quoted message said:

c) "A slow transition [to non-oil energy sources] will also give us
time to consider more fuel-efficient cars and greater use of public
transportation, even bicycles for short trips. Bikes would help more
of us lose weight and get in shape. A friend bikes to work every day,
saving gas, car payments, insurance and repair costs."

Quoted message said:

The first two points illustrate that he's not turned into a left-
leaning softie overnight. The third point illustrates that it's not
only left-leaning softies that see value in biking.

John Thompson said:

Sure, but do note that it is Cal's "friend" who bikes to work, not Cal
himself. Sacrifice is always easier when you don't have to do it
yourself.

N.B. Personally, I don't see commuting by bike to be a sacrifice; I do
it until the ice on the roads makes it unsafe. But for people like Cal
Thomas, giving up a motor vehicle is a major sacrifice.

Maybe not. For all we know, he takes the train.
(I have no clue, personally)

\\paul

--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

Quoted message said:

b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, etc.

Why don't the "conservatives" get it? And by "get it" I mean recognize that
we're better off NOT drilling for oil up there now, but keeping it in the
ground as a strategic reserve, available in the event we REALLY need it, and
then basically stick it to the man.

Meanwhile, we work to hurt those that have the oil by reducing demand, and
freely share whatever technologies to save oil we can come up with. Again,
sticking it to the man.

"The man" being whomever has lots of oil that they sell for lots of money.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Frank Krygowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Cal Thomas is a syndicated op-ed columnist, about as conservative as
the Pope is Catholic.

Today's column makes the following points:

a) The oil companies are good guys. They should continue to get $17
billion in tax breaks from our government.

b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, etc.

c) "A slow transition [to non-oil energy sources] will also give us
time to consider more fuel-efficient cars and greater use of public
transportation, even bicycles for short trips. Bikes would help more
of us lose weight and get in shape. A friend bikes to work every day,
saving gas, car payments, insurance and repair costs."

The first two points illustrate that he's not turned into a left-
leaning softie overnight. The third point illustrates that it's not
only left-leaning softies that see value in biking.

- Frank Krygowski

John Thompson said:

But that's not the reason why they want to drill in the ANWR. There's
good money to be made pumping that oil and they want to get it before
somebody else does.

Exactly.

Quoted message said:

John Thompson said:

But that's not the reason why they want to drill in the ANWR. There's
good money to be made pumping that oil and they want to get it before
somebody else does.

Exactly.

Exactly wrong, of course. It's U.S. territory, so no one else will "get
it" -- unlike, say, international waters near the mainland, where other
countries are drilling today while the oh-so-cautious U.S. dares not even
try.

BTW, Congress approved exploring/drilling in Alaska back in the '90s, but
Bill Clinton vetoed it. The U.S. would be getting a /lot/ of oil from there
today if not for that.

Bill "more supply, more jobs, lower prices...can't have that!" S.

Bill Sornson said:

Exactly wrong, of course. It's U.S. territory, so no one else will "get
it" -- unlike, say, international waters near the mainland, where other
countries are drilling today while the oh-so-cautious U.S. dares not even
try.

He meant, no other companies will get it. Whichever companies that
develop that oil, any oil, are going to make a ton off it. Developing
that oil will not, however, have any significant effect on the big
picture of this country's dependence on foreign oil.

(Note also that many of the companies that would be involved with
developing and getting rich off said oil, from American soil, would
likely be foreign owned.)

Quoted message said:

BTW, Congress approved exploring/drilling in Alaska back in the '90s, but
Bill Clinton vetoed it. The U.S. would be getting a /lot/ of oil from there
today if not for that.

Bill "more supply, more jobs, lower prices...can't have that!" S.

You obviously have no clue what's going on.

Luke said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Frank Krygowski said:

Cal Thomas is a syndicated op-ed columnist, about as conservative as
the Pope is Catholic.

Quoted message said:

Today's column makes the following points:

Quoted message said:

a) The oil companies are good guys. They should continue to get $17
billion in tax breaks from our government.

Quoted message said:

b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, etc.

Quoted message said:

c) "A slow transition [to non-oil energy sources] will also give us
time to consider more fuel-efficient cars and greater use of public
transportation, even bicycles for short trips. Bikes would help more
of us lose weight and get in shape. A friend bikes to work every day,
saving gas, car payments, insurance and repair costs."

Quoted message said:

The first two points illustrate that he's not turned into a left-
leaning softie overnight. The third point illustrates that it's not
only left-leaning softies that see value in biking.

Quoted message said:

- Frank Krygowski

Sheesh. An affirmation of the bicycle's value as a corollary of
ideology. Must everything be politicized?

Well, he is a political columnist, you know.

- Frank Krygowski

John Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski said:

b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, etc.

What are these people smoking?

Drilling in previously off-limits areas will have no significant
positive effect on America's energy dependence or the price of oil or
the price of gasoline.

But that's not the reason why they want to drill in the ANWR. There's
good money to be made pumping that oil and they want to get it before
somebody else does.

Who else is going to get the oil on U.S. territory?

Quoted message said:

Do remember that the people telling us that drilling in the ANWR will
help solve our energy problems are the same people who told us that
we invaded Iraq because of the "virtual certainty" that Saddam had
weapons of mass destruction, and for the same reason.

And they knew (and know) that neither of those was true. They have their
reasons for doing what they're doing though.

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Exactly wrong, of course. It's U.S. territory, so no one else will
"get it" -- unlike, say, international waters near the mainland,
where other countries are drilling today while the oh-so-cautious
U.S. dares not even try.

He meant, no other companies will get it.

He /who/? Your compulsive over-snipping makes further discourse fruitless
and frustrating. (Any reader can scroll up a few posts and read the
/entire/ context of, first, your incorrect remark, and then my counter
point.)

Quoted message said:

You obviously have no clue what's going on.

Can't drill, can't refine, can't expand coal-to-oil, can't extract oil
shale, can't build clean green nukes, can't have wind mills blocking Ted
Kennedy's $$$ view. Yup, no idea what's going on...

BS (not)

SMS said:

John Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

On May 14, 9:24 am, Frank Krygowski <[email hidden]> wrote:
> b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
> Wildlife Refuge, etc.
What are these people smoking?

Drilling in previously off-limits areas will have no significant
positive effect on America's energy dependence or the price of oil
or the price of gasoline.

But that's not the reason why they want to drill in the ANWR. There's
good money to be made pumping that oil and they want to get it before
somebody else does.

Who else is going to get the oil on U.S. territory?

Bingo.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do remember that the people telling us that drilling in the ANWR will
help solve our energy problems are the same people who told us that
we invaded Iraq because of the "virtual certainty" that Saddam had
weapons of mass destruction, and for the same reason.

And they knew (and know) that neither of those was true.

Prove that and impeach Bush. Oh, wait, you can't. (But repeat something
often enough and eventually people will believe it.)

Quoted message said:

They have their reasons for doing what they're doing though.

Oooh, mysterious...

BS (called)

Bill Sornson said:

Prove that and impeach Bush. Oh, wait, you can't. (But repeat something
often enough and eventually people will believe it.)

Wait, so you believe there _were_ WMDs, even though every investigator
said there were none, and the "proof" that they existed was fabricated.
So the newspapers were wrong--there still is someone that believes the
WMD story!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They have their reasons for doing what they're doing though.

Oooh, mysterious...

Not mysterious at all. The reasons Bush & company wanted to invade Iraq
had been known for years. 9-11 gave them a chance to mislead a lot of
non-critical thinkers and uninformed citizens (i.e. you), into believing
their propaganda. The reason there is no exit strategy from Iraq is
because there is no plan to ever leave. Iraq was intended to be a
middle-eastern base for the U.S. military. You can actually read the
blueprint for the real plan on-line at
"http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf"

Similarly, their reasons for wanting to drill in ANWR are also well
known. It's not about the oil, everyone agrees that the amount of oil
the the ANWR is minimal, less than one year's supply at current usage
levels. They know that if they can succeed in getting big oil into the
ANWR, they can succeed in allowing the oil companies invade other wild
places, they can allow the timber companies to clear cut in wilderness
areas, etc.

You need to look at the big picture, and not just get your news from
Rush and Sean.

SMS said:

Bill Sornson said:

Prove that and impeach Bush. Oh, wait, you can't. (But repeat
something often enough and eventually people will believe it.)

Wait, so you believe there _were_ WMDs, even though every investigator
said there were none, and the "proof" that they existed was
fabricated.

You conveniently delete that to which I responded. How typically dishonest.

Recap: you wrote that "they" knew there were no WMD -- ignoring that every
single reputable intelligence source (Britain, Russia, Israel, U.S., hell,
most Iraqis) said there were. All I said was PROVE that Bush knew and
impeach him. Simple. (With the vitriolic sentiment of the left over the
last 5-6 years, is there any doubt that if someone could prove the
administration faked the intel or even distorted it, then he'd have been
driven from office?)

I invite any fair-minded reader to scroll up and read what you wrote -- and
here have DELETED -- only to argue with what I wrote as if I claimed there
indeed WMD.

No, wait, you come right out and say it:

"So the newspapers were wrong--there still is someone that believes the
WMD story!"

You're just a liar. (Or have zero reading comprehension.) (Or both.)

No sense arguing further; you use weasel tactics and I've seen enough.

BS (up to knees)

SMS said:

John Thompson said:

On 2008-05-14, [email hidden] <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On May 14, 9:24 am, Frank Krygowski <[email hidden]> wrote:
> b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
> Wildlife Refuge, etc.
What are these people smoking?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Drilling in previously off-limits areas will have no significant
positive effect on America's energy dependence or the price of oil or
the price of gasoline.

Quoted message said:

But that's not the reason why they want to drill in the ANWR. There's
good money to be made pumping that oil and they want to get it before
somebody else does.

Who else is going to get the oil on U.S. territory?

A host of int'l oil companies will 'get' the oil on US territory, and
Americans will have the privilege of paying one hundred-whatever
dollars per barrell for it just like they would for any other oil. And
it won't have any signficant effect on our overall energy dilemma.
Idiots.

Frank Krygowski said:

Cal Thomas is a syndicated op-ed columnist, about as conservative as
the Pope is Catholic.

Actually Cal Thomas is very inconsistent in his viewpoints
which is one illustration of why the terms "liberal" and
"conservative" have lost so much meaning. FWIW, almost none
of the Republican politicians on the scene nationally can
make a valid claim to being conservatives either, Ron Paul
being a notable exception.

Quoted message said:

Today's column makes the following points:

a) The oil companies are good guys. They should continue to get $17
billion in tax breaks from our government.

You might want to research the issue....what the advocates of
windfall profits taxation want to do is tax the profits at a higher
rate so that making a profit becomes pointless.

Quoted message said:

b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, etc.

The U.S. does not drill anywhere. Companies drill. The U.S.
federal government simply sells leases to
various natural resources. The U.S. government has made some very
bad decisions in the past on such leases, mostly in the area of
timber and mineral leases. If the objection to the oil
companies profits is because the lease price is too low, that would
make sense, but it seems to me that some people just don't want
oil products to be utilized at all.

Quoted message said:

c) "A slow transition [to non-oil energy sources] will also give us
time to consider more fuel-efficient cars and greater use of public
transportation, even bicycles for short trips. Bikes would help more
of us lose weight and get in shape. A friend bikes to work every day,
saving gas, car payments, insurance and repair costs."

The first two points illustrate that he's not turned into a left-
leaning softie overnight. The third point illustrates that it's not
only left-leaning softies that see value in biking.

That's a real mistake many people make in assigning political
philosophy to issues which are not really political in nature.
Politics is force in a word. Use of bicycles as transportation or
for simple pleasure/exercise represents a potential decision for
individuals to freely make. The only way to make cycling a political
issue is to mandate bicycle use...then of course, we can no longer
even nominally claim to live in a free country.

Quoted message said:

- Frank Krygowski

--
They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for
one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in
your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.
-- Ernest Hemingway