The most effective way to get President Obama to drill in Alaska is


#1

to consider that the fashion and entertainment industries are an elective waste of carbon. They say that hundreds of thousands of people will die if the glaciers melt. What if recycling and driving a hybrid is not enough? Do we really want to gamble with hundreds of thousands of lives because of our unnecessary addiction to entertainment?


#2

ManOffire:its all about priorities.Everyone has an opinion on whether to drill or not to drill.We have to hope Obama is looking out for the good of the nation.What else can i say?


#3

If the poll numbers show that the majority people want to drill in Alaska and the biased media by some weird quirk of fate actually reported the poll results, that would be the most effective way, IMO. PLus if there was a really, really good photo op attached and another spectacular press conference......:rolleyes:


#4

[quote="valentino, post:2, topic:233377"]
ManOffire:its all about priorities.Everyone has an opinion on whether to drill or not to drill.We have to hope Obama is looking out for the good of the nation.What else can i say?

[/quote]

A lot of it has to do with Congress too, no? My Republican Representative thinks tapping the plentiful coal reserves in Southern Illinois (and clean coal technology, of course) should take the highest priority, especially in light of the Gulf oil spill last year and now the realizations of the nuclear energy fiasco in Japan. There are other ways of bringing down the price of gasoline than repeating the "drill baby drill" mantra.


#5

$4 gas is not good for the nation when our debt is skyrocketing.


#6

[quote="ManOnFire, post:5, topic:233377"]
$4 gas is not good for the nation when our debt is skyrocketing.

[/quote]

And with high unemployment (despite the absurd shady job reports that come out along with inflation indexes).


#7

I was under the impression that Alaska’s remaining oil supply really wasn’t anything to get excited over anyway.


#8

[quote="PatrickSebast, post:7, topic:233377"]
I was under the impression that Alaska's remaining oil supply really wasn't anything to get excited over anyway.

[/quote]

You've been listening to Robert Redford (one of those celebrities the OP mentioned) one too many times, it seems. :rolleyes::p

As always, my opinion.

Take of it what you will.


#9

Environmentalists claim that hundreds of thousands of people will die and millions more will become displaced refugees if the polar ice caps melt and sea levels rise. Our energy demands are rising not falling. One of the public decides that driving hybrids is not enough to save hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of her from becoming refugees? What if a few million people begin taking this claim more seriously to the point that the public and begins seriously cutting back on consumption of fashions and entertainment? Then, one of two things will happen. Either:

  1. "The powers that be" will reverse their opinion on rising sea levels to save the fashion and entertainment industries. This is a radical shift of opinion that is likely to be unpopular.
    Or:

  2. Alternative energy sources, which would lower the price of gas, are developed to meet the higher energy demands of running all of these electronic entertainment devices. Drilling in Alaska and the development of nuclear power plants away from fault lines would be possible solutions.

The progressives in the fashion and entertainment industries don't want to lose their grip of influence over the public. They know that if the fashion and entertainment industries lose their infant influence over Society, we might not be reduced by these shallow amusements. Society return to Romanticism without a distraction of these shallow amusements. The number of men lusting for scantily clad hotties will decrease. Men will return with their families to the outdoors for adventure. The number of women trying to act like scantily clad sluts will decrease when the current trends in fashion and entertainment cease from showing us how to act and dress. Without these distractions, men will be more likely to focus on their families. Families will have a better chance of staying together and loving each other. The Church's Romanticism will grow. **True love **will grow. There might even be a mini baby-boom in the US and Europe as people return true love and Romanticism. Progressives certainly don't want this if it means they will lose their influence. People will stop being dragged down and reduced into a perpetual addiction for shallow amusements by the current pop-culture.

It's easy to see that Progressives don't want to lose their grip of influence over the public. So, my guess is that alternative energy sources will be developed if enough people honestly believe that hundreds of thousands of people will die and millions more will be displaced due to elective carbon burning, because the progressives just can't stand to lose their grip of influence over the public. Which is your guess??


#10

Your impression is wrong. There is a LOT of oil up there, and in the Gulf. We just aren’t allowed to go and get it.


#11

[quote="TheRealJuliane, post:10, topic:233377"]
Your impression is wrong. There is a LOT of oil up there, and in the Gulf. We just aren't allowed to go and get it.

[/quote]

Ah, I understand why I was mistaken though. Apparently there have been studies done that stated Alaskan drilling wouldn't lower oil prices, but their conclusion was a result of the way oil markets work and the conclusion that OPEC would simply lower their production to compensate and keep the same price. So the reserves are valuable, just not directly to our price at the pump. It would mean a couple hundred billion dollars that didn't have to go towards imports though which would be nice.


#12

ManOnFire - with your latest post, I feel like you are just ranting about the entertainment industry now rather than talking about drilling.

[quote="ManOnFire, post:5, topic:233377"]
$4 gas is not good for the nation when our debt is skyrocketing.

[/quote]

$4/gallon of gas isn't going to help people, but in reality the only way we'll see a shift to more fuel efficient cars and transportation is to have gas prices become higher as they are in most other countries. If we subside gas to keep it at $2.50/gallon people will just continue to buy SUVs and the like and perpetuate the problem.

In my opinion, higher gas prices will cause consumer demand to shift (as we saw a few years back when gas prices were over $4/gallon) and as the consumer demand shifts, automakers need to respond with cars that get better gas mileage and/or hybrids.


#13

What's the rush? The oil isn't going anywhere, and as long as we can keep the risk and environmental impact in another country we should.


#14

Just curious… Why the Family Life Forum? :confused:


#15

Some families drill for oil.:smiley:


#16

[quote="Jay82, post:12, topic:233377"]
ManOnFire - with your latest post, I feel like you are just ranting about the entertainment industry now rather than talking about drilling..

[/quote]

Well, the entertainment industry is certainly not helping marriages and kids by selling lust to men and consumerism to women. It's breaking families apart. Society pays the price, emotionally, spiritually, physically, and financially. The entertainment industry makes a fortune at the expense of true love. Society picks up the tab.

[quote="Jay82, post:12, topic:233377"]
$4/gallon of gas isn't going to help people, but in reality the only way we'll see a shift to more fuel efficient cars and transportation is to have gas prices become higher as they are in most other countries. If we subside gas to keep it at $2.50/gallon people will just continue to buy SUVs and the like and perpetuate the problem..

[/quote]

"the only way we'll see a shift to more fuel efficient cars and transportation is to have gas prices become higher" WOW- so you WANT gas to become more expensive? Really? Think of what those transportation costs will do to the poor. That's quite presumptuous and selfish of you, don't you think? Why do "some" close minded people always expect the rest of the country to obey what the media says in order to conserve carbon? I guess some people have become lemmings to the unelected media. Not me. I'm think too independently to be a servant to their pernicious values. I can burn much less carbon by buying less elective fashions and entertainment.

[quote="Jay82, post:12, topic:233377"]
In my opinion, higher gas prices will cause consumer demand to shift (as we saw a few years back when gas prices were over $4/gallon) and as the consumer demand shifts, automakers need to respond with cars that get better gas mileage and/or hybrids.

[/quote]

Or, if millions of people buy less fashions and entertainment, then we individuals can choose to conserve cabon as we see fit, AND keep our families together. It's a win-win for us.


#17

[quote="ManOnFire, post:16, topic:233377"]
Well, the entertainment industry is certainly not helping marriages and kids by selling lust to men and consumerism to women. It's breaking families apart. Society pays the price, emotionally, spiritually, physically, and financially. The entertainment industry makes a fortune at the expense of true love. Society picks up the tab.

[/quote]

I personally don't think the entertainment industry has as much of an effect as you making it out to have on society. Were you directly affected by something negative that can be tied directly back to the entertainment industry?

[quote="ManOnFire, post:16, topic:233377"]

"the only way we'll see a shift to more fuel efficient cars and transportation is to have gas prices become higher" WOW- so you WANT gas to become more expensive? Really? Think of what those transportation costs will do to the poor. That's quite presumptuous and selfish of you, don't you think? Why do "some" close minded people always expect the rest of the country to obey what the media says in order to conserve carbon? I guess some people have become lemmings to the unelected media .

[/quote]

I think you misunderstood me. I don't want gas prices to sky rocket. It would be great if they will stay low forever, but that is just not realistic.

The result of high gas prices will cause the masses to change their behavior to save money. And that change will result in using public transportation or using more fuel efficient cars. There will always be a small subset of people conserving energy as much as they can, but for the masses to change, something significant needs to trigger that shift such as higher gas prices.

[quote="ManOnFire, post:16, topic:233377"]

Not me. I'm think too independently to be a servant to their pernicious values. I can burn much less carbon by buying less elective fashions and entertainment.
Or, if millions of people buy less fashions and entertainment, then we individuals can choose to conserve cabon as we see fit, AND keep our families together. It's a win-win for us.

[/quote]

Can you explain how exactly you go about conserving carbon by buying less elective fashions and entertainment?


#18

[quote="Jay82, post:17, topic:233377"]
I personally don't think the entertainment industry has as much of an effect as you making it out to have on society. Were you directly affected by something negative that can be tied directly back to the entertainment industry?

[/quote]

People emulate what is being broadcast. "Progressives" realized this a few decades ago. They have used it to wrestle influence away from the Church. Just look at how many of us choose pop culture's beliefs ahead of our own. It would be much easier to live holier lives full of true love (instead of the lust they are peddling) if we lived away from the sleazy messages in the media. If I had to pick one vice for men, it would be lust. I asked my wife what she thought for women. She said materialism and consumerism. All of these are being promoted in the leftist media. They profit at the moral, spiritual, and economic expense of the rest of us. Yes, it has a very profound influence. Here's the evidence :forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=7554969#post7554969

[quote="Jay82, post:17, topic:233377"]
I think you misunderstood me. I don't want gas prices to sky rocket. It would be great if they will stay low forever, but that is just not realistic.

[/quote]

No, I didn't misunderstand you. You said, "If we subside gas to keep it at $2.50/gallon people will just continue to buy SUVs and the like and perpetuate the problem.. " meaning, if the cost of gas doesn't rise, what you perceive to be the solution will never happen. Who says society needs to follow your solution? Why can't we save families and true love by cutting out the energy consumption needed to generate more entertainment and fashions? There's enough quality entertainment on the internet to last a lifetime without burning more carbon...

[quote="Jay82, post:17, topic:233377"]
The result of high gas prices will cause the masses to change their behavior to save money. And that change will result in using public transportation or using more fuel efficient cars. There will always be a small subset of people conserving energy as much as they can, but for the masses to change, something significant needs to trigger that shift such as higher gas prices.

[/quote]

Again, you are lobbying for higher gas prices. That will raise the costs of everything that is transported, which is practically everything, throwing us into Marxism or socialism. The popes are vehemently against socialism. You want people to conform to your solutions. No offense, but who are you to instruct the masses on how to conserve carbon? Your plan Fails to save true love and families.

[quote="Jay82, post:17, topic:233377"]
Can you explain how exactly you go about conserving carbon by buying less elective fashions and entertainment?

[/quote]

We Americans are generally not wearing out our clothes. Too many of us are conforming to an industry that judges us to be out of fashion. That's quite judgmental during an economic downturn. Elective, excessive clothing fabrication requires carbon burning in the form of energy consumption. Less consumption of fashions and entertainment by the masses would free up more green energy to be used in transportation instead of carbon-based energy consumption. Like I said, there's enough quality entertainment on the internet to last a lifetime without burning more carbon. The current lust, drugs, and consumerism that is being promoted by the leftist entertainment industry is toxic to families and true love. When families stay together, love grows. The public education system also benefits.


#19

I can’t go to any fewer movies than I do, which is -0-. I got talked into seeing “Avatar” a couple of years ago and it made me angry that I had spent my money on such an obviously anti-American, anti-military, anti-capitalism piece of propaganda. There is nothing Hollywood offers that agrees with my values. So, I don’t go. I like classic movies which were made when Hollywood was trying to promote American values and standards.


#20

Ditto. I refuse to waste my time and pollute my mind with the abominations that pass as so called entertainment.

Now, back to the original questions again, there is no effective way to convinvce Obama to do anything positive about our current situation with regard to the energy bind which will get worse due to the current and spreading upheaval in the Middle East. We have to pay close attention to what is going on in DC, call and email our legislators to express our opinions and ask for a return to sensible and consciencious government. Just when it seems things can’t get much worse, Obama does something else off the wall, like the latest scenario concerning Libya.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.