tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.comments2023-09-01T04:33:52.237-04:00Troy LaPlante's BlogTroy LaPlantehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17574513920463694754noreply@blogger.comBlogger303125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-18024584066597556432012-03-08T10:00:46.457-05:002012-03-08T10:00:46.457-05:00The alleged business owner disputes the informatio...The alleged business owner disputes the information from how long ago now??? I was threatened with a libel suit. Yeah, right. I just passed along what the news reports said. Of course people like that wouldn't say things like that or cuss me to my face. Whatever. Yawn.Troy LaPlantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17574513920463694754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-68968923151811916682009-10-22T15:40:22.268-04:002009-10-22T15:40:22.268-04:00Troy, good work. I had added you to my blogroll a...Troy, good work. I had added you to my blogroll as a fellow North Carolinian, and thought you might find my recent work relevant to this essay. Please consider investigating the Flight 93 memorial mosque project, and perhaps adding your support to Alec Rawls' blogburst (Alec is the leading authority on the fiasco). See his blog at errortheory.blogspot.com and come by mine at sweetteaandlivermush.blogspot.com<br /><br />I hope you can help alert your readers, not to mention our elected representatives, to the scandal. I have a personal stake in the project, or I should say "had". I was asked to contribute my company's services to the job, and turned the contractor down.<br /><br />Jeffjeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18121788916709770717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-6611149160400934752009-09-17T21:41:47.144-04:002009-09-17T21:41:47.144-04:00It sounds like Paul Embler sandbagged these people...It sounds like Paul Embler sandbagged these people.Pinandpullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06046080722895035500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-84172794025401627652009-01-25T20:27:00.000-05:002009-01-25T20:27:00.000-05:00Well, Salamander, it was the minority of Americans...Well, Salamander, it was the minority of Americans that voted for the electors to select Obama. Actually, under our system of government, a candidate can actually lose the popular election total and yet win the majority of electors and win the Presidency.<BR/><BR/>There were a lot of factors that went into Obama's victory, primarily uneducated voters, racism, and years of socalistic inroads.<BR/><BR/>There is a process to follow. The system works a certain way for a reason. There were some who attempted to stop Obama's eligibility ahead of time, and personally I wish they had been able to do so.Troy LaPlantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17574513920463694754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-26965763463387115732009-01-25T17:04:00.000-05:002009-01-25T17:04:00.000-05:00wow, you americans take the cake! you elect obama,...wow, you americans take the cake! you elect obama, then decide if it is constiutional. crass, stupid, dumb. but oh so typicalJosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12377948120174531317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-52496920895747475052009-01-25T15:43:00.000-05:002009-01-25T15:43:00.000-05:00Thanks for the comments, Ted. You bring a valid p...Thanks for the comments, Ted. You bring a valid point about which most people would not be aware. The terms for President and Vice President under Amendment XX end at noon on January 20th. Since Joe Biden was sworn in prior to noon and the timing of the ceremony was off because of pompous grandstanding and needless celebration, Joe Biden was technically ACTING President until Obama was sworn in, which was approximately six minutes.<BR/><BR/>I agree that the proper oath of office was not administered at the ceremony because of some boneheaded mistakes. They should have stopped and began anew right then and there with the required verbiage as written. Failing that, they did do the right thing and have a re-swearing in.<BR/><BR/>However, I disagree that Biden was the 44th President. He was the VP with acting authority since the declared next President was standing right there and would be sworn in next. The 20th Amendment is designed to deal with succession because of death, not because of a delay in the ceremony. The fact is that Obama was chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, as required under Amendment XX. As soon as Obama took the proper oath, the argument of who was President was moot.<BR/><BR/>As to qualifying for office, he was duly elected by the electoral college and declared as the victor by the President of the Senate. I do not believe that a challenge to the legitimacy of his natural born status will be successful, and I do not believe that it is "clear he is NOT" at all. It is possible he is not, but unless it can be proven that he was born in Africa, as some such as Jerome Corsey allege, and not in Hawaii, then I doubt it will be a hanging point.<BR/><BR/>The purpose of my original post was regarding the call for impeachment. Unless the disqualification from holding office can be proven, from what I read, the issue of Obama being actual President is a moot point.<BR/><BR/>In answer to your second question, I don't buy the hypothesis that Hillary will be the 45th President. Hillary could end up being the next VP in the unlikely event that Obama is ruled ineligible as President if Congress should so appoint her such a la Gerald Ford.<BR/><BR/>What would have been interesting is if some natural disaster or enemy attack had happened and both Biden and Obama had been wiped out at the inauguration ceremony and Nancy Pelosi became President under the law passed for succession in accordance with Amendment XX.<BR/><BR/>In commentary on your second and third questions, I am not so much into conspiracy theories. I do not believe that 9/11 was an inside job and I find it possible that JFK was indeed killed by a lone gunman, based upon the numerous documentaries I have seen.Troy LaPlantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17574513920463694754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-15597732804064847622009-01-25T13:51:00.000-05:002009-01-25T13:51:00.000-05:00Take the test. FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual a...Take the test. <BR/><BR/>FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA? <BR/><BR/>ANSWER: Joe Biden <BR/><BR/>Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.) <BR/><BR/>This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the ‘oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy. <BR/><BR/>SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President? <BR/><BR/>ANSWER: Hillary Clinton <BR/><BR/>One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be. <BR/><BR/>THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant? <BR/><BR/>ANSWER: Yet undetermined.Tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04011502155494655727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-78174109451423325162008-12-04T04:40:00.000-05:002008-12-04T04:40:00.000-05:00It is my prayer that God will continue to bless yo...It is my prayer that God will continue to bless you!!!<BR/><BR/>You and your family are in my prayers.Bobby Cogginshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15392535989237328428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-26639161090451790742008-11-09T14:52:00.000-05:002008-11-09T14:52:00.000-05:00matt. 12;30--- JESUS SAID "He that is not with me ...matt. 12;30--- JESUS SAID "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathers not with me scatters abroad. We are living in a time when even the elect are being deceived Matt.24;24. There are many preachers and pastors in America that claim to love Jesus Christ, but they have compromised with satan, the world, and the selfesh desires of there own hearts, that they have become blind to the truith of Gods Word. As for myself I will stand on THE WORD OF GOD and place my FAITH AND FUTURE in THE FINISHED WORK OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.If you are one that did cast your vote for a person wether green or purple in color, that is for what God calls evil in His sight, such as Hands that shed inocent blood (Proverbs 6;17) Your hands will bare the blood of every inocent baby that is butchered because YOU said YES TO MURDER with YOUR VOTE. The same is true if the one you voted for thumbs his nose at God and His word by standing with and supporting sin sick men and women who God calls an abomination in His sight.(Leviticus 18;22)And also in the new testament (Romans 1;26-32)Your vote was recorded in Heaven and you are going to share in the sins of the depraved.You are responsible before God For your actions.Matt.12;36-37 By YOUR WORDS YOU SHALL BE JUSTIFIED and by YOUR WORDS YOU SHALL BE CONDEMNED.YOUR VOICE WAS HEARD BY YOUR VOTE.I pray that you REPENT and seek forgiveness through Jesus Christ. John 8;12 FOLLOW JESUS!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13160895938817841507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-75854193163429719262008-09-29T01:33:00.000-04:002008-09-29T01:33:00.000-04:00Amen!Amen!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-26221089510192419232008-09-15T23:12:00.000-04:002008-09-15T23:12:00.000-04:00LOL I always like Bob Hope.P.S. You've got a gre...LOL I always like Bob Hope.<BR/><BR/>P.S. You've got a great blog. I've been reading it for awhile, but hadn't left any comments yet.Carolina Conservativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02683317735570589267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-7118082106179921372008-09-03T08:11:00.000-04:002008-09-03T08:11:00.000-04:00Seeing that always makes me laugh!I hope things ar...Seeing that always makes me laugh!<BR/><BR/>I hope things are going well with you.Bobby Cogginshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15392535989237328428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-48951208001931499222008-09-01T06:34:00.000-04:002008-09-01T06:34:00.000-04:00ROTFLMAO!!!!ROTFLMAO!!!!Trader Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16079028073096259737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-56964619394246430082008-08-27T09:07:00.000-04:002008-08-27T09:07:00.000-04:00Eddie, those are the last comments you are going t...Eddie, those are the last comments you are going to be allowed to leave. You have shot your wad now.<BR/><BR/>Did you actually read the Jakes comments? I did. They are an endorsement. Period. Jakes went far beyond "exchanging pleasantries". He gave an endorsement.<BR/><BR/>Am I limited in my world view? You better believe I am. Is my stance on homosexuality a fundamentalist one? You better believe it is. This is not a bad thing, it is a positive thing. It is the same stance that has been taken since the beginning of time. It is the same stance that GOD HIMSELF takes. Ergo, I adopted it. If you are indeed a Christian and claim that title, as you have done here, then the belief system to which you just claimed to ascribe teaches the same thing. It has for two thousand years. Christianity is not the first values system to believe that very thing, either. If you do not have the same fundamentalist views on obvious sin, on which God says is an abomination, then you are the one with the problem, not me. Period.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly enough, you whined that I did not answer your second post. HELLO...I was answering the first one, and your second one was not even posted to the blog when I started on it, so relax and stop throwing stones.<BR/><BR/>You made one comment that shows the difference between someone who has convictions and one who does not. You said, "morality is a relative". No, Eddie, it is not. Like Jakes, you obviously abrogate your responsibility as a Christian and take upon yourself your own morality rather than those of the faith you claim to espouse.<BR/><BR/>Do you know what it means or is like to be "born again"? If you do, you would know exactly what I am talking about. However, being a natural man, I doubt you do. <BR/><BR/>YOU came to my blog and dumped on it. When I answered rationally and civilly, you started screaming, complaining, and hurling insults. That is typical of a liberal and a carnal individual.Troy LaPlantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17574513920463694754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-4959472452575867262008-08-27T08:55:00.000-04:002008-08-27T08:55:00.000-04:00"Au contraire, they are harming the fabric of soci..."Au contraire, they are harming the fabric of society, encouraging the rest of America and the world to accept their unnatural choice to be a civil right, and are actively working to destroy the morality of the majority of the nation with their moral corruption."<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>this comment you made shows that you are limited in your world view. morality is a relative. in iran for example christian are being killed for destroying tgh emoral fibre of society. and they are. they have different beliefs from the majority. so are these regimes right in persecuting them, denying them the right of congregation etc?<BR/><BR/>your views are as fundamentalist as those of many muslim dictatorships that deny christian minorities the right of worship because they say christianity goes against the moral fabric of their society, are they right. your assertions justify their argument.eddiekudzayihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09295488578970651217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-51954497611959331542008-08-27T08:49:00.000-04:002008-08-27T08:49:00.000-04:00you stil haven't anwered my second post. and you a...you stil haven't anwered my second post. and you are running away from tne fact of the matter TD JAKES DID NOT ENDORSE OR SAY HE SUPPORTS OBAMA!!!<BR/><BR/>he simply congradulated him and applauded his achievements. what part of that offends you.<BR/><BR/>if you thought he supported him then you guessed wrong. TD Jakes made it clear afterwards that this was not his intention.<BR/><BR/>so unless you are so desperate to believe this lie then you can take the explanation from the man himself. he is the one who wrote the piece so he can explain exactly what he meant.<BR/><BR/>your argument is based on a notion that td jakes himself has publicly disowned. he has said he did not mean to endorse any candidate.<BR/><BR/>you will notice that td jakes made no mention of supporting obama or supporting his policies. SO WHERTE DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT HE SUPPORTS HIM<BR/><BR/>exchanging pleasantries with a candidate or applauding his achievements does not equate to endorsement. DOES IT?eddiekudzayihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09295488578970651217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-13387728318396815392008-08-27T08:48:00.000-04:002008-08-27T08:48:00.000-04:00Eddie, you again dumped on my lawn, so here it goe...Eddie, you again dumped on my lawn, so here it goes again. You claim, "your argument that race is not an issue is flawed." No, it is not. Read again. Race is not nor has ever been an issue with me. It is principle. It is the issues that matter to me. I would vote for Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, and like thinking conservatives over liberal white guys every time.<BR/><BR/>You ask, "if hillary clinton had won the nomination and joyce meyer had applauded her or being the the first female nominee, would you have accused her of putting her gender before her faith." <B>You better believe I would in a second.</B> To me, that is an absolute no-brainer.<BR/><BR/>Your assertion that "obama has managed to bridge the racial divide" is specious at best, but certainly inaccurate. He has deepened the chasm, actually. Everything seems to be about race. If anyone discusses an issue publicly that is contrary to Obama's position, the race card is played. I find it amusing, since Obama is half white but claims to be Negro. He is only half Negro. Any criticism of his inexperience, his liberalism, his ignorance of economics or foreign policy has been met with accusations of racism. That has not crossed the racial divide, it has deepened it.<BR/><BR/>"if obama was hispanic do you think td jakes would not have congradulated him" That is exactly what I believe. You can make all the accusations of "Your comment is clearly inspired by racial undertones" you want, but it is unfounded and most inaccurate. By the way, my message would have been carrying undertones, not inspired by them, had your assertion been accurate, which it is not.<BR/><BR/>"obama is a great man" OH??? HOW???<BR/><BR/>"for you to persecute td jakes because he simply expressed his point of view is nothing less of being incerdibly naive or just plain simple stupid." Alas, the hypocrisy deepens with the passage of time and continuing in liberalistic twaddle. You were not intelligent enough to leave it alone, you had to come back for a second round before I even got a chance to respond to the first and decided to leave a flaming bag of dog poo on my lawn. Personally, I find the support of Barack Hussein Obama to be, in your words, "nothing less of being incerdibly naive or just plain simple stupid".<BR/><BR/>Try spell check some time. Get saved. Never show up with a knife to a gun fight.Troy LaPlantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17574513920463694754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-74702712791561976092008-08-27T08:35:00.000-04:002008-08-27T08:35:00.000-04:00Well, Eddie, I appreciate the feedback, but do dis...Well, Eddie, I appreciate the feedback, but do disagree. Gay rights is in no way "clearly mixing religion and politics". It is a matter of sound public policy. You claim, "Gay people pay taxes, they are not harming anyone." I vehemently disagree that they are not harming anyone. Au contraire, they are harming the fabric of society, encouraging the rest of America and the world to accept their unnatural choice to be a civil right, and are actively working to destroy the morality of the majority of the nation with their moral corruption.<BR/><BR/>You said, "christians are against but this election is not about religion, its about democracy". No, we do not live under a democracy. Actually, the writers of both of our constitutions for this nation detested democracy. That is why we have a republic rather than a democracy. We have never been a democracy...ever.<BR/><BR/>You said, "td jakes as a christian has a right to express his joy that obama has made such a historic advance." Yet Jakes made a political, public choice that is anathema to the very gospel he allegedly preaches. Knowing what Jakes claims to believe, I personally question his faith. Supporting Obama merely because he is Negro is putting that fact ahead of the foundation of the religious views he supposedly espouses. Period. It is blatant hypocrisy and quite honestly, it is heresy.<BR/><BR/>You made the false assertion of "what you are demanding of td jakes is that he not have a political opinion." Not at all. Actually, I believe quite the opposite. I believe that ministers should have strong political views and should have the right to express them. However, those views should be in line with their religious views. The views of Obama are contrary to Christianity, which Jakes supposedly peddles. THAT is the issue at hand. Ergo, SHAME ON T.D. JAKES for this stance.<BR/><BR/>You also added, "i support obama because of his tax policy- period. yes he is pro choice but thats not my business. the tax system needs to be addressed." While I agree that the tax system needs to be radically addressed (I am an ardent supporter of the Fair Tax plan), Obama has no real tax plan. What is Obama's plan other than to raise taxes on the rich and redistribute wealth? He has no real plan but rather has demonstrated an incredible ignorance of economics in his rantings about taxation.<BR/><BR/>And YES, a candidate being pro-choice <B>IS INDEED YOUR BUSINESS!</B> It is everyone's business in this nation. You claim to be a Christian. If the wanton slaughter of innocent life does not phase you in the least bit, does not give you concern, then I seriously question your faith in Christ. Abortion is murder. Period. I seem to remember something in a commandment about murder.....Troy LaPlantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17574513920463694754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-48183811200113493272008-08-27T08:20:00.000-04:002008-08-27T08:20:00.000-04:00your argument that race is not an issue is flawed....your argument that race is not an issue is flawed. its just as ignorant as saying gender is not an issue. yes, from a philosophical stand point these are of no consequence but we all know that race is an issue to many people. many white people have said they would never vote for a black man. thats a fact. so that obama has managed to bridge the racial divide is an accomplishment that is worthy of applause. even white people have commended obama for this extraodinary feat, are they putting their race before their faith by commending obama. Your comment is clearly inspired by racial undertones. jsut because td jakes is black does not mean he commended obama because he is black, if obama was hispanic do you think td jakes would not have congradulated him.<BR/><BR/>if hillary clinton had won the nomination and joyce meyer had applauded her or being the the first female nominee, would you have accused her of putting her gender before her faith.<BR/><BR/>even if person is not a christian it does not mean we should refuse to acknowledge them. obama is a great man, i don't subscribe to all his ideals but i respect his talent. he is eloquent and intelligent, even a christian can see that. for you to persecute td jakes because he simply expressed his point of view is nothing less of being incerdibly naive or just plain simple stupid.eddiekudzayihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09295488578970651217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-48976591864808490962008-08-27T08:08:00.000-04:002008-08-27T08:08:00.000-04:00troy i think your understanding is quite darkened....troy i think your understanding is quite darkened. Obama stands for many things that christians are against but this election is not about religion, its about democracy.<BR/><BR/>ideally obama should say no to gay rights but thats clearly mixing religion and politics. no on what grounds. thats no different to muslims who make bibles illegal. <BR/><BR/>we cannot have a president who persues a christian agenda. what if a president persued a hindu agenda? a bhuddist agenda. by denying gay people their right we are endorsing the chineese who deny christians their rights because they are a minority.<BR/><BR/>as a christian i marvel that so many christians are naive enough to belive a government will be pro- christian. <BR/><BR/>Gay people pay taxes, they are not harming anyone. If they want to have sex, thats their right. If they want to buy a house together, thats them. if they want to marry let them. what christians want to do is to create a state that favours their interests and neglects those of others.<BR/><BR/>td jakes as a christian has a right to express his joy that obama has made such a historic advance. being a christian does not mean you should be ignorant. anyway he did not endorse obama, he expresses his joy that obama had done well. what you are demanding of td jakes is that he not have a political opinion. i support obama because of his tax policy- period. yes he is pro choice but thats not my business. the tax system needs to be addressed.eddiekudzayihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09295488578970651217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-72846994901113751452008-08-10T15:05:00.000-04:002008-08-10T15:05:00.000-04:00I agree that most will not get it. A relative of ...I agree that most will not get it. A relative of mine did not figure it out and whined about it. But, if it was a bumper sticker, there would be enough people who would see it who would comprehend to make it viable. Not that I am going to do so, but it could work. Maybe even a t-shirt.Troy LaPlantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17574513920463694754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-37761675199834072052008-08-10T09:10:00.000-04:002008-08-10T09:10:00.000-04:00Yep! That is pretty simple alright. If we put it o...Yep! That is pretty simple alright. If we put it on bumper sticker I don't think most people would get it though.da patriothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05552386570943646059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-44533798939802666492008-08-04T19:50:00.000-04:002008-08-04T19:50:00.000-04:00It is a no brainer that drilling, whether off shor...It is a no brainer that drilling, whether off shore, in the lower 48, or in Alaska will not yield lower prices because of production. There are other factors. I have been told for years that there were many producing oil wells that were capped when gas prices fell to a low enough price that production was not economically feasible. At the current price and demand, it would seem appropriate to again begin use of any capped wells...if militant environmentalists and politicians will allow it.<BR/><BR/>Also, the mere fact that we are going to begin exploration of our own will cause sufficient shaking of the market to cause rethinking of the current pricing and policies that led to the higher pricing. As soon as OPEC realizes that we are serious about energy independence, I guarantee prices will start to fall.Troy LaPlantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17574513920463694754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-77558530744305543172008-08-04T18:58:00.000-04:002008-08-04T18:58:00.000-04:00thunder pig - the point about my BlueNC comment is...thunder pig - the point about my BlueNC comment is that the OCS drilling <B>debate</B> is just partisan rhetoric, and a distraction from our real goal... whcih should be greater sustainability.<BR/><BR/>What evidence do we have that lifting the OCS ban will result in an immediate orgy of exploration, when 90% of all drilling rigs are all happily in use elsewhere? The low hanging fruit are being picked, and exploiting these additional reserves will take time.<BR/><BR/>I'm in favor of lifting the federal exploration ban, but the GOP is being disingenuous claiming that lifting the ban will have a short-term impact on prices.<BR/><BR/>Just check out the "Drill Now" folks' talking points site at americansolutions.com:<BR/><BR/><I>Drilling more now will increase supplies in the future. And higher supplies lead to lower prices.</I><BR/><BR/>Sure, higher supplies lead to lower prices, <B>unless offset by higher demand</B>. <BR/><BR/>The demand is from 1.3 billion Chinese and 1.1 billion Indians deciding they want cars, as well.<BR/><BR/>We can't necessarily predict what prices are going to do -- but we need to start identifying and extracting our domestic oil because we're going to need the oil.<BR/><BR/>See <A HREF="http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/08/02/offshore-drilling-and-peak-oil/" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>BJBJ Lawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03966094700087926704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14722324.post-37542697511302262722008-08-04T10:11:00.000-04:002008-08-04T10:11:00.000-04:00Chapel HIll? Ugghh!Congrats on the notice from Cap...Chapel HIll? Ugghh!<BR/><BR/>Congrats on the notice from Capitol Hill.<BR/><BR/>Sorry about Bob being your Congress Critter...I have Shuler. Bummer.Bobby Cogginshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15392535989237328428noreply@blogger.com