Proof Democrats are Stupid - again. Options

[Dogmeat]

Subject: In just one year

This email comes in three parts:

Part 1

In just one year. Remember congressional election of 2006?
Thought you might like to read the following:
A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.25 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5%.
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it

Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.



Part 2:

Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.


www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under B Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
S ingle making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250



Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates



It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever.

If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen.

This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.




PART 3:

You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:

I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.



1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77



2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html



3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html



4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ ldt.0.html



5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...01/ldt.01.html



6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...01/ldt.01.html



7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...01/ldt.01.html



8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html



9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are ca used by the illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...01/ldt.01.html



10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,
their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...12/ldt.01.html



11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.

Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht



12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average
cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period."
Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...eportation.pdf



13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm



14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ."
Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml



The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.

[impala454]

yeap. pretty sad.

[cmac]

have you seen some of the insane shit that Bush has put before congress that has been rejected???

[impala454]

such as?

[Spectatrix]

Part 1: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/votedforchange.asp
Part 2: http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/clinton-bush.asp

[impala454]

Forgive me if I don't take snopes as some real authority on politics. First they say that the Democrats don't currently control the senate.. that's not really true. Those two independents they speak of both participate with the democrat caucusses, and I'd guess vote with them as well.

The rest of their "commentary" is from a major anti-republican who's just speculating and not really stating any facts.

As for part 2: What they said was stupid. They're arguing semantics. The "email" or whatever you want to call it, clearly stated the circumstances for each of its numbers. Them trying to defend it like it's no big deal for you to hand over an extra 2-3% of your income to the government is sad.

Stick to debunking the "free $50 Olive Garden if you forward this to 10 friends" emails snopes. Putting a big "FALSE" on this one is stupid. As if the democrat controlled congress didn't contribute to any of the above .

[Dogmeat]

Part 1: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/votedforchange.asp
Part 2: http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/clinton-bush.asp

Mmm, no, snopes is wrong, the Democrats are stupid.

[chook]

yeah democrats suck, but how much was the war in iraq last year?

[schwab]

Gas prices have nothing to do with congress, you are an idiot if you think they control gas prices. It has to do with the dollar free-falling and more demand in other places. Fairly simple. If it had something to do with congress or the house, then why would gas prices all around the world be going up?

Please explain to me how the democrats in congress for two years has explained americans being in debt and not being able to pay back what they owe? Pretty much explains why the housing crisis has happened. Unemployment is also caused by this, our crappy economy (which doesnt miraculously change in two years, it takes years to change an economy to what it has become).

Taxes, well I dont mind higher taxes due to the debt we are in. Spending aimlessly is not solving anything nor does it help the value of the dollar. I dont know why you bring up illegal immigrants on your defense of war spending....since both democrats and republicans have problems with the way they are here and mooching off of us. I dont think we should pull out of Iraq, but it is a huge waste of money from the beginning that we did not need, nor has solved anything.

[impala454]

Gas prices have nothing to do with congress, you are an idiot if you think they control gas prices.

The democrats have voted down every attempt to drill Alaska. I think that had a pretty profound effect.

[Dogmeat]

Gas prices have nothing to do with congress, you are an idiot if you think they control gas prices. It has to do with the dollar free-falling and more demand in other places. Fairly simple. If it had something to do with congress or the house, then why would gas prices all around the world be going up?

Please explain to me how the democrats in congress for two years has explained americans being in debt and not being able to pay back what they owe? Pretty much explains why the housing crisis has happened. Unemployment is also caused by this, our crappy economy (which doesnt miraculously change in two years, it takes years to change an economy to what it has become).

Taxes, well I dont mind higher taxes due to the debt we are in. Spending aimlessly is not solving anything nor does it help the value of the dollar. I dont know why you bring up illegal immigrants on your defense of war spending....since both democrats and republicans have problems with the way they are here and mooching off of us. I dont think we should pull out of Iraq, but it is a huge waste of money from the beginning that we did not need, nor has solved anything.

Every domestic drilling proposal and virtually any other proposal to develop natural resources, with the exception of eastern US coal mining, has faced opposition on pure bullshit grounds from the Democratic party for nearly the last 40 years.

So yes, they do have something to do with gas prices.

[schwab]

The democrats have voted down every attempt to drill Alaska. I think that had a pretty profound effect.

honestly, how much do you think that would bring down prices? 20 cents a gallon? Not exactly going to factor in to make a difference, the issue is there needs to be more funding towards alternative modes.

On a side note, I have no issue with drilling up there.....but I dont see it really making a difference in the long run.

[schwab]

Every domestic drilling proposal and virtually any other proposal to develop natural resources, with the exception of eastern US coal mining, has faced opposition on pure bullshit grounds from the Democratic party for nearly the last 40 years.

So yes, they do have something to do with gas prices.

read the post above.

Now responses on other parts of my post?

[Dogmeat]

read the post above.

Now responses on other parts of my post?

How about you read the same post you just quoted from me, and when you can put 2 and 2 together, we'll talk.

[schwab]

How about you read the same post you just quoted from me, and when you can put 2 and 2 together, we'll talk.

strangely, I did answer. All that was in your post was the amount of money that we pay for illegals, which has nothing to do with democrats or republicans (we both agree on that, we should not be paying for them), and then you compare taxes....which I mention already, what part of your post did I miss exactly?

[chook]

The democrats have voted down every attempt to drill Alaska. I think that had a pretty profound effect.

That is true. How much could it yield?

[Dogmeat]

strangely, I did answer. All that was in your post was the amount of money that we pay for illegals, which has nothing to do with democrats or republicans (we both agree on that, we should not be paying for them), and then you compare taxes....which I mention already, what part of your post did I miss exactly?

No, you didn't, because you completley missed the entire point of the post I made and I don't know how to make it any more obvious:

The Democratic party has opposed and moved to hault virtually any new domestic drilling project in this country for nearly the last 40 years on pure bullshit grounds of environmental impact, spotted owls, whatever. ANWR is no difference. So when I say put 2 and 2 together, what I mean is, that this mentality over the course of the last four decades has left us in the pickle we're in today, and the left side of the aisle bears HUGE percentage of the blame for it. They've sold themselves out to the greenie fucks to get votes, and now we're all paying the price for it. Will drilling in ANWR cause gas to go down? No. Will it help to prevent it from going higher? Yes. The bottom line is, we need 15 more ANWR's domesically if we want to satiate our lust for oil and not see the prices shoot even higher, but every time a company wants to drill somehwere, regardless of how "environmentally sensitive" the area is, there 10 whacko greenie groups suiing the BLM to stop development. It's absolutley fucking mindless, and groups like these have done such a good job brainwashing the public about it they public buys into it. The Democrats wouldn't get elected into office without this. "The Environment" is roughly the equivelent of the "War on Terror" for the Republican party.

[impala454]

That is true. How much could it yield?

honestly i have no idea. i do think it's a really dumb move to keep blocking attempts to use what we have though.

[schwab]

No, you didn't, because you completley missed the entire point of the post I made and I don't know how to make it any more obvious:

The Democratic party has opposed and moved to hault virtually any new domestic drilling project in this country for nearly the last 40 years on pure bullshit grounds of environmental impact, spotted owls, whatever. ANWR is no difference. So when I say put 2 and 2 together, what I mean is, that this mentality over the course of the last four decades has left us in the pickle we're in today, and the left side of the aisle bears HUGE percentage of the blame for it. They've sold themselves out to the greenie fucks to get votes, and now we're all paying the price for it. Will drilling in ANWR cause gas to go down? No. Will it help to prevent it from going higher? Yes. The bottom line is, we need 15 more ANWR's domesically if we want to satiate our lust for oil and not see the prices shoot even higher, but every time a company wants to drill somehwere, regardless of how "environmentally sensitive" the area is, there 10 whacko greenie groups suiing the BLM to stop development. It's absolutley fucking mindless, and groups like these have done such a good job brainwashing the public about it they public buys into it. The Democrats wouldn't get elected into office without this. "The Environment" is roughly the equivelent of the "War on Terror" for the Republican party.

I bring up my point again, even if we did drill in ANWR, even if it was 10 years ago, chances are we would still be in the same shithole we are in now. How much more supply would it bring in? The demand for oil would be the same, the dollar would still be shitty, and gas prices all around the world would still be going up. You would be a fool to think that if it started pumping out oil 10 years ago to think that it would solve our skyrocketing oil costs. Demand everywhere is going up, regardless of if we drilled or not. Money would be a lot better spent on finding things were we dont need to rely on oil. Other technologies that oil/car companies have been putting off for years due to the profits that they make on the current technology.

I dont agree with the environmentalist to the extent that they go to stop things, but I also dont trust large oil companies and the greed that they have.

[Dogmeat]

I bring up my point again, even if we did drill in ANWR, even if it was 10 years ago, chances are we would still be in the same shithole we are in now. How much more supply would it bring in? The demand for oil would be the same, the dollar would still be shitty, and gas prices all around the world would still be going up. You would be a fool to think that if it started pumping out oil 10 years ago to think that it would solve our skyrocketing oil costs. Demand everywhere is going up, regardless of if we drilled or not. Money would be a lot better spent on finding things were we dont need to rely on oil. Other technologies that oil/car companies have been putting off for years due to the profits that they make on the current technology.

I dont agree with the environmentalist to the extent that they go to stop things, but I also dont trust large oil companies and the greed that they have.

There is no concrete estimate for how much oil is there. It's not a fixed thing. Technology changes, and enables you to produce more oil. It's a very very large field, and as you've stated, with demand rising, it's complete stupidity to not develop fields we know we can develop. One of the big reasons they've been wanting to develop that field is that even 10, 15 years ago it was economical to do so. The infastructure (read pipelines) already existed, and they knew they could do it. They weren't even talking about utilizing an area larger than %3 of the total acerage of the entire reserve. Demand is high yes, so why don't we fuck ourselves by not increasing the supply wherever we can?

You guys who are looking for a miracle are never going to find one. Gas prices, at least in the next 30 years, are never going to go down. At this point, the best we can do is what we can to keep them from going higher, and developing fields we know we can get oil out of is the only thing that's going to really have an effect on that.

And, explain to me how large oil companies are "Greedy" ...?

I've said this a million times: They are selling a product that EVERYONE in the world needs. That's the reason they're making so much money. You're complaining about corporate greed, it's that way in _EVERY_ industry, not just the oil and gas industry. In fact, I would go so far as to say even less so ... they want stable prices. The whole "record profits" thing rings empty with me for the sole reason ... look at the shitstorm it has caused. Now they're having to deal with 10x more bullshit than they already do .... the oil companies want stable prices, not what we have now ... they're going to make money, and a lot of it no matter what, so what good does it do for them to artifically jack the prices up? None, and that's been proven time and time again.

[schwab]

There is no concrete estimate for how much oil is there. It's not a fixed thing. Technology changes, and enables you to produce more oil. It's a very very large field, and as you've stated, with demand rising, it's complete stupidity to not develop fields we know we can develop. One of the big reasons they've been wanting to develop that field is that even 10, 15 years ago it was economical to do so. The infastructure (read pipelines) already existed, and they knew they could do it. They weren't even talking about utilizing an area larger than %3 of the total acerage of the entire reserve. Demand is high yes, so why don't we fuck ourselves by not increasing the supply wherever we can?

You guys who are looking for a miracle are never going to find one. Gas prices, at least in the next 30 years, are never going to go down. At this point, the best we can do is what we can to keep them from going higher, and developing fields we know we can get oil out of is the only thing that's going to really have an effect on that.

And, explain to me how large oil companies are "Greedy" ...?

I've said this a million times: They are selling a product that EVERYONE in the world needs. That's the reason they're making so much money. You're complaining about corporate greed, it's that way in _EVERY_ industry, not just the oil and gas industry. In fact, I would go so far as to say even less so ... they want stable prices. The whole "record profits" thing rings empty with me for the sole reason ... look at the shitstorm it has caused. Now they're having to deal with 10x more bullshit than they already do .... the oil companies want stable prices, not what we have now ... they're going to make money, and a lot of it no matter what, so what good does it do for them to artifically jack the prices up? None, and that's been proven time and time again.

As I said, I have no issue with the development of ANWR, granted I dont think it will change much. So you think there is no point researching other technologies other than gas powered vehicles? I am not looking for a miracle, I just know we need more fuel efficient ways than we have now. Granted...gas prices havent affected me yet, I just laugh at the people who bought these large trucks and are bitching now that they have to fill them up when they dont even need to drive them. We've been "lucky" for years to have as low of gas prices as we have had, just be glad we dont have european ones where they have been paying over double what we have for too long.

Democrats have been against it, I could care less what the normal democrat is against. I dont think they have screwed us by voting against it, we still do have the oil now, and we will when we do eventually start drilling. The prices would never have stayed as low as they were even if we drilled. They will continue to go up even if we do have ANWR pumping out gas. It wont stop the gas prices raising, because the demand continues to rise. I think within five years, it will have begun the drilling.....I have no problem with this.

Eh, you do have a point on the greedy part, everyone is....but doesnt mean I trust them.

[Dogmeat]

As I said, I have no issue with the development of ANWR, granted I dont think it will change much. So you think there is no point researching other technologies other than gas powered vehicles? I am not looking for a miracle, I just know we need more fuel efficient ways than we have now. Granted...gas prices havent affected me yet, I just laugh at the people who bought these large trucks and are bitching now that they have to fill them up when they dont even need to drive them. We've been "lucky" for years to have as low of gas prices as we have had, just be glad we dont have european ones where they have been paying over double what we have for too long.

Democrats have been against it, I could care less what the normal democrat is against. I dont think they have screwed us by voting against it, we still do have the oil now, and we will when we do eventually start drilling. The prices would never have stayed as low as they were even if we drilled. They will continue to go up even if we do have ANWR pumping out gas. It wont stop the gas prices raising, because the demand continues to rise. I think within five years, it will have begun the drilling.....I have no problem with this.

Eh, you do have a point on the greedy part, everyone is....but doesnt mean I trust them.

No, I absolutley think there is a point in researching alternative fuels, and I've never once said I thought it was pointless, in fact quite the opposite. But, yes, the Democrats have COMPLETLEY screwed us as far as domestic energy policy is concerned, no ifs ands or buts about it. Unless somone from the east coast wants to build a new coal-fired power plant or open up a new coal mine, they do everything humanly possible to get it shut down. Guess we should all turn union huh?

[schwab]

No, I absolutley think there is a point in researching alternative fuels, and I've never once said I thought it was pointless, in fact quite the opposite. But, yes, the Democrats have COMPLETLEY screwed us as far as domestic energy policy is concerned, no ifs ands or buts about it. Unless somone from the east coast wants to build a new coal-fired power plant or open up a new coal mine, they do everything humanly possible to get it shut down. Guess we should all turn union huh?

eh, I dont think dems screwed it up at all, I just dont really think it would have made a difference as far as ANWR.

[Spectatrix]

The Democrats and Republicans are both stupid. Can't we all just get along?

[Dogmeat]

eh, I dont think dems screwed it up at all, I just dont really think it would have made a difference as far as ANWR.

How is 40 years of doing everything they can to derail domestic energy development not screwing it up? That's the mother of all screwups.

[nickluto]

Go Dogmeat, go !

Two things:

I have heard people talking about oil in North Dakota, and the reserve there being larger than what they have in Saudi Arabia(?) Im not so sure about that, but there seems to be a shit load there, way bigger than in the ANWR. Surveyors claim to have somewhere in the range of 3 and 4.3 Billion barrels of recoverable oil making it the largest reservoir discovery in the United States. Can we drill there? Hell fucking no. Not yet because the Dems are blocking drilling.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

Also.

I love it when "environmentally conscious" democrats complain about soaring gas prices. It's like wanting to have your cake and eat it. Gas prices skyrocketing like they are does more for lowering consumption of gas (and thus, environmental "damage") than everyone in the U.S. driving a hybrid car. People are driving a lot less and consuming a lot less gas, but don't let that get in the way of environmental democrats and bitching about the government !

It's funny cause when you corner them, they have to pick between one or the other and they contradict each other. Do you want less "global warming?" or do you want a lower gas bill? You cant have both you fucking socialist genius. Bet you and your Al Gore loving hippie drum circle cohorts never talked about this over a pipe of hash and a raspy rendition of "Give Peace a Chance."

[impala454]

I was watching something on discovery last night about that the Russians have found an enormous amount of oil in siberia and if they can get at it, it will be the largest source on the planet. Yay, Cold War II here we come!

[nickluto]

Oh yeah. and I tend to agree with Schwab. Drilling into the ANWR 10, 20, 30 years ago wouldn't have made that big of a difference.

Why you ask?

Because the environmental democrats and the U.S. government haven't allowed the construction of a single oil refinery since 1973...

Look here... http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5254

99% of republicans supported this bill to allow more refineries to be built. 92% of democrats OPPOSED it. This bill was proposed two years ago.

The oceans could be filled with nothing but oil, but without more refineries and infrastructure to turn it into petroleum products, it pretty much doesn't fucking matter.

[Hartmann]

The U.S. has seen a production capacity increase equivalent to 12 new refineries over the past 10 years. No, it hasn't been new refineries, instead it has been units added to existing refineries.

[impala454]

everything I've read and seen says it's way cheaper to improve existing refineries than build new ones (i.e. all the red tape you have to go through to build a new one).

[Hartmann]

everything I've read and seen says it's way cheaper to improve existing refineries than build new ones (i.e. all the red tape you have to go through to build a new one).

Much cheaper.

Plus, you are getting rid of old, inefficient (by today's standards) units and replacing them with better units that are safer and produce at a more cost effective ratio. It takes a long time to build a new refinery and it takes a decent amount of time to add a new unit, but you can keep the plant up and running while the new unit goes in.

[Dogmeat]

Go Dogmeat, go !

Two things:

I have heard people talking about oil in North Dakota, and the reserve there being larger than what they have in Saudi Arabia(?) Im not so sure about that, but there seems to be a shit load there, way bigger than in the ANWR. Surveyors claim to have somewhere in the range of 3 and 4.3 Billion barrels of recoverable oil making it the largest reservoir discovery in the United States. Can we drill there? Hell fucking no. Not yet because the Dems are blocking drilling.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

Also.

I love it when "environmentally conscious" democrats complain about soaring gas prices. It's like wanting to have your cake and eat it. Gas prices skyrocketing like they are does more for lowering consumption of gas (and thus, environmental "damage") than everyone in the U.S. driving a hybrid car. People are driving a lot less and consuming a lot less gas, but don't let that get in the way of environmental democrats and bitching about the government !

It's funny cause when you corner them, they have to pick between one or the other and they contradict each other. Do you want less "global warming?" or do you want a lower gas bill? You cant have both you fucking socialist genius. Bet you and your Al Gore loving hippie drum circle cohorts never talked about this over a pipe of hash and a raspy rendition of "Give Peace a Chance."

They've known there was oil in the Bakken for awhile, there are other places they know and have known there are oil for awhile.

A lot of the doom and gloom about peak oil and whatnot doesn't factor in political and economic factors. It tries to factor in technological limitations if I remember right, but the main thing about the Bakken that's made it lucrative latley is that with oil as highly priced as it is, you can actually afford to develop those fields. Horizontal drilling techniques are based on effectivley being able to log the well as you drill it in order to pinpoint where you're at ... The Bakken formation is essentially a layer of dolomite about 10 feet thick if I remember right that's bounded by two layers of inelastic shale. You have to basically position your drill string so that you bend close to horizontal on the top layer of shale, go no less than 10 feet or whatever your net pay thickness is, then stay horizontal between those two layers for probably another mile if not longer

It's been technically doable for awhile just not economical ... It's really interesting the way oil is being produced out of that formation right now with horizontal drilling ... I mean that was pretty well the reason horizontal drilling was developed in the last 15 years was that formation.

[Billy]

The democrats aren't going to allow drilling of Alaska so gas stays high to collect taxes for the republican's wars.

[Testm0nkey]

i'm really glad that big companies are starting to move towards more renewable energy sources finally, although its a slow process. i think anyone with a brain would eventually have to concede that relying on oil as the backbone of this country is a bad idea. you can drill and drill and drill in wherever you want to drill in America but you will come to the same problem in the end - needing an alternative energy source. and to discover that "end" is 6 years or 120 years from now is still bad news.

[Dogmeat]

i'm really glad that big companies are starting to move towards more renewable energy sources finally, although its a slow process. i think anyone with a brain would eventually have to concede that relying on oil as the backbone of this country is a bad idea. you can drill and drill and drill in wherever you want to drill in America but you will come to the same problem in the end - needing an alternative energy source. and to discover that "end" is 6 years or 120 years from now is still bad news.

No one is saying that alternative energy is bad or not needed. What I'm saying is ... it's completley mindless to shoot ourselves in the foot right now because it's not widley practical yet.