58pieface you are an unmitigated a**hole and an obvious drunk, totally and
probably deliberately missing the points of all my posts... how you turned
(in your mind) my observations about the true motivations, costs, and
benificiaries of the 2 iraq wars into some kind of criticism of our armed
forces is the same kind reverse spin that most gop spokespersons and ALL
lawyers use, obviously your skill is extremely lacking in this regard...
And, it takes no degree in psychology to see that the constant derogatory
against my person (especially when I reveal cover ups) stems from a deep
seated self hatred with side orders of guilt and inadequacy. Everytime you
post you expose yourself on this forum(like some kind of alcoholic exhibitionist)
and reinforce everyone's skeptism of your intellect and motivation....
So you must project on to others your personal failings, which further explains
your choice of insults and why they are so repetetive....Pitiful, really...
BACK TO TOPIC:: bog you are right, it IS the oil companies, HENCE THIS THREAD!!
Now, stop to consider, who are the major shareholders of these companies?
The saud royal family collectively is at the top, and now, thanks to a supreme
court ruling granting political access to corporations, well, duh....

Yeah thats a mess in Michigan. The problem with tar sands is its heavier and it sinks to the bottom of the river. Thats why theyre having such a problem cleaning it up.

But this isn't a drilling issue. Its a regulation issue. The company knew for sometime that they needed to fix the pipeline. But they didnt. Yhis is absolutely unacceptable. But with that being said its becoming an issue of national security not having a fully developed energy industry. And I'm for an all of the above strategy. Not just oil. It sounds like that. But I think if something produces energy we should be figuring out how to use it in a constructive way. Even hydrogen. Its volitile but it still produces energy.

Good answer. For a minute I thought you might be a distant cousin of the Saudi Royal Family with all that inside knowledge of their oil reserves. Respectfully, I think that someone that studies such things and is a recognized international expert on the subject knows just a little more about it than you.

the rub is, no recognized international expert on the subject is here to be challenged.

But Michael Moore does make documentaries lol.

That is not a documentary it is comedy. You can't tell the difference?

But don't they have some sort of responsibility though? Its not like theyre starring in a movie or a show. This is reality and people listen to them. They do help shape public opinion.

5d8pitlo, you've done it again! Never would I have even mentioned moore in the same
breath with legitimate documentary, but you did, now didn't you?

And you've done it yet again! Never claimed 100 plus mpg, just up TO 100, and so does
Ford motor company! GET A LIFE ALREADY BOZO...

these comments drive me nuts. no one who is commenting thinks that "we" actually as a country drill. we know oil companies drill. and i wouldnt be against nationalising part of the energy industry. if oil companies dont wanna drill we should.

There was no liquidity in the market. There wasmt any support in the market place. Reorganization would have been impossible in the climate. like i said i didnt like how it was done but nonetheless it would have been disastorous. I think the unemployment rate would be much higher because the industry affects so much.

The cost of saving GM union or not pales by comparison to the costs of these regrettable
wars WHICH ARE STILL MULTIPLYING (and big oil should get the bill for iraq)
The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (www.costsofwar.org)
In the 10 years since U.S. troops went into Afghanistan to root out the al Qaeda leaders behind the September 11, 2001, attacks, spending on the conflicts totaled $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion.
Those numbers will continue to soar when considering often overlooked costs such as long-term obligations to wounded veterans and projected war spending from 2012 through 2020. The estimates do not include at least $1 trillion more in interest payments coming due and many billions more in expenses that cannot be counted, according to the study.
The White House says the total amount appropriated for war-related activities of the Department of Defense, intelligence and State Department since 2001 is about $1.3 trillion, and that would rise to nearly $1.4 trillion in 2012.
Researchers with the Watson Institute say that type of accounting is common but too narrow to measure the real costs.
In human terms, 224,000 to 258,000 people have died directly from warfare, including 125,000 civilians in Iraq. Many more have died indirectly, from the loss of clean drinking water, healthcare, and nutrition. An additional 365,000 have been wounded and 7.8 million people -- equal to the combined population of Connecticut and Kentucky -- have been displaced.
"Costs of War" brought together more than 20 academics to uncover the expense of war in lives and dollars, a daunting task given the inconsistent recording of lives lost and what the report called opaque and sloppy accounting by the U.S. Congress and the Pentagon.
The report underlines the extent to which war will continue to stretch the U.S. federal budget, which is already on an unsustainable course due to an aging American population and skyrocketing healthcare costs.
It also raises the question of what the United States gained from its multitrillion-dollar investment.
"I hope that when we look back, whenever this ends, something very good has come out of it," Senator Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee, told Reuters in Washington.
OMG, a gop with some foreboding of "conscience"?