Environmentalists Caused Fuel Price Increases

This is from my friend Adam:

Our cunning president, leading a pack of morally sound Republicans, saw in advance the growing fuel problem and took the neccissary[sic] steps such as regulating fuel efficiency of vehicles in the latest energy bill. These steps alone will put America on the road to less dependence on Middle-East petroleum, help the environment, and at the same time save Americans hundreds of dollars at the pump each year.

It’s a win, win, win, and American voters will return the favor next year when they go to the polls to vote for their favorite Republican Congress person. Bush took these steps so that emergency actions would not need to be taken, such as waiving certain federal environmental regulations temporarily. These actions would cause fuels with higher sulfur content to be sold, which would be terrible on the environment.

The first steps toward less reliance on petroleum has already started to save Americans when they go to the pump. Without the quick actions of Republicans in Congress, Americans would be forced to pay record high prices for fuel, something no free nation should have to do.

Thank goodness that God has blessed this great country of America, our great President, George W. Bush, and the Republicans everywhere. May God continue to bless their party, and the United States of America.

Is it not odd that the left contends that Bush is an idiot and the puppet of the republican party but he is cunning enough to mastermind all these sinister things? I also find it interesting that someone would worry about the blends of fuel. The contention is that it will lead to higher sulfur emissions. Well, there are 49 or so formulas for fuel in this country depending on the part of the country. Perhaps if we just pick a less stringent one and used it for a while which is basically what the EPA did. They said that any blend can be used in any part of the country. This will make it possible for fuel from one part to be used in another. What is meant by no free nation should have to pay record prices. It is a matter of supply and demand. We have a lot of oil that we can not refine so there is less than people want. When the demand goes down so will the price.

We still pay about half as much as the British, who last time I checked live in a fairly free nation. The democrats always want us to conserve and higher prices will force that. They seem to forget that the environmentalists are the reason for the high prices. No new refineries in years, different formulations for different areas, and all kinds of rules that keep us from making it less expensive. Another thing to consider is that it costs us $65.00 a barrel but it only costs the Saudis and the Kuwaitis about $4.00 per barrel to produce. Seeing as how we saved Kuwait’s butt a few years back and how we have maintained relations with the Saudis it would seem to me that a good will gesture on their part would be in order. Maybe we can get Jesse Jackson to go over there and broker a deal.

Thank God we have environmentalist idiots who espouse any theory no matter how half baked and who complain that we use too much fossil fuel and that we should not use so much until their pocketbooks are hurting. After their rules and failed policies cause the problems they want to cry and blame someone else. May God bless them and their stupidity for causing the problems with fuel distribution in this country.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

9 Responses to “Environmentalists Caused Fuel Price Increases”

  1. Adam says:

    “Is it not odd that the left contends that Bush is an idiot and the puppet of the republican party but he is cunning enough to mastermind all these sinister things?”

    Let me clear it up for you, since you’ve made statements like that one several times. Bush is an idiot. He is a puppet. He is controlled by corporations and religious leaders. If I say Bush stole the 2000 election, I don’t mean Bush is smart enough to do this on his own. Puppets need a lot of help to get thier arms and head moving. You voted for a moron, twice…

    We have had chance after chance to make changes to the way we live that would stop things like high gas prices. Nothing has been done. Emission standards, fuel economy standards, you name it…Bush failed us on it. It’s the “environmentalist idiots” and not those corporate ties to oil companies that cause us so much pain at the pump. Just keep on saying it, parrot.

  2. Big Dog says:

    Bush won the election twice you are too stupid to know that. Every frickin president could do something about gas prices. The fact is it boils down to supply and demand. I get tired of idiots and their environmental agenda that interferes with out lives. ALL environmental controls on gas cause it to cost more.

    You can say it is parroting but if you actually learned anything in college you would know better than to spout off the mindless prattle.

    With dumb asses like you it is always some corporation that caused the problem. Maybe Haliburton caused Katrina and all the big corporations caused every ill.

    And for the last time jackass, Bush won. EVERY count showed him as the winner. Gore filed the first law suit and Bush won. He had the most votes and did not steal the election. One more thing. Bush was bright enough to get elected and I will bet he is smarter than you are, so who is the idiot?

  3. Adam says:

    Sorry, but Bush lost that election. Bush “won” by 500 votes, and thousands were unlawfully purged from the lists under the lie that they were felons. They weren’t felons, and their votes counted. These purges came from Democratic districts. Bush lost. He’s a puppet. You’re a moron.

  4. Jim says:

    Whether Bush won or stole the election is a dead issue at this point. The idea that environmentalists caused high fuel prices is only somewhat true. Yes, clean air regulations are partially to blame but the reason refineries are not built is not because of the Sierra club. The main reason that we do not have more refineries is that the oil companies don’t feel that they can make more return on their investment by building more capacity. Simple supply and demand! We as the world leader should be leading the world away from oil consumption to protect not only the environment but as a national security measure. As long as we can be held hostage by a commodity we have little control over, we are in slaves to the oil rich nations.

  5. Big Dog says:

    Well Adam, every conspiracy theory you have espoused has been debunked. In addition, it has been shown that the democrats have engaged in more of the nasty voter fraud. We know that the military had tens of thousands of votes not counted. They go about 80% for the republican. You always forget to mention the republican votes that were not allowed. But all that aside, the votes were counted and he won. We did not say Nixon was the real President in 1960 when he clearly won but voter fraud by the Kennedys and the Dalys made JFK the winner. It just happened and JFK was considered the President. George Bush is the elected President. And what is the excuse for 2004? We know the donks did most of the fraud, hell look at Washington State.

    What is oil for? Is there any other use for it? Perhaps God put it here for us to use. As far as the part about a resource we have no control over, we have plenty of control. We can drill on our own soil where there is lots and lots of oil. ANWR is a barren place and it would yield lots of oil. How about off the coast of CA? We have our own but the environmentalists won’t let us get it.

  6. Jim says:

    Oil has served us very well for the last century. However, even the most optimistic estimates of the oil in ANWR put the total we could extract at less than 3 percent of our needs. I believe that we have to evolve to a new energy source before we actually need to. Why do we need to run into a crisis before we really take this seriously. ANWR is not the answer, even if we start drilling today, no oil will flow for ten years. We need to get our heads out of the sand and come to terms with the facts.
    Oil is a world resource and if we could pump enough out of ANWR to make a big difference, China and the other emerging countries will still be competing with us for the remaining world supply. Thus we would be always playing a catch-up game. I say it again, we need to lead the way and move on to bigger and better things before someone else does. That is what will take our country forward and keep us THE world power.
    As I said before this is, in my opinion, a national security issue long term.

  7. Big Dog says:

    Jim, I certainly appreciate the opinion. I happen to think that there is plenty of oil. We certainly should be working on our future energy supply needs but until we have something better oil is it. We will not solve the issue in 10 years and we would actually get more oil than 3% of our needs from ANWR. Throw in the area off the coast of CA and we will have quite a bit.

    Perhaps Iraq can pay us in oil since we will be there for a while.

    We have a problem. Nuclear energy is available but it makes waste and people don’t want it around. We could put up windmills in windy areas to decrease the need for oil but rich guys who only believe in conservation for everyone else won’t let them be built. We could use solar energy but the batteries are too big and too expensive. I have no doubt we will invent the next generation of fuel for the world but right now oil is the one we have.

    Maybe we also need to make sure all of our oil from Alaska gets to us, not the rest of the world.

  8. Jim says:

    I must not be making my point here. Let me put it this way. ANWR is a red herring. The oil we would get from ANWR might stay in the USA but OPEC and the other oil rich countries would scale back production to keep the amount of cash we export at the same level. As far as I have been able to find out, only Royal Dutch Shell is the only company willing to take the risk of exploring ANWR. Since they are not an American company, we would still be exporting our dollars overseas to a European based company. I do not understand why the current administration keeps wanting to sell off our resources for quick buck today.
    I do believe that God gave us these resources to use. However, we should be good stewards of what we were given. This means leaving our planet in better shape, or at least no worse than we found it, future generations. Our children and grandchildren deserve no less.

  9. Big Dog says:

    You make very good points. I am not a big believer in global warming, which is a theory. There are many conflicting points of view in the scientific community.

    I have stated that we need to develop new fuels but it will not happen overnight. ANWR is not the only place we have considered. There are other places that we own. In addition, we must develop oil until we get a new fuel.

    I believe our dependence is a national security issue but short of taking over an oil rich country we need to do something to develop our own.