[DevilsWin]

Yes I admit, I watch FOX News the most watch news network in the World, along with the other networks. In my opinion it is ridiculous to believe Americas growing energy demands can be met by just wind, solar and geothermal anytine in the near future let alone within the next 10 years as Gore suggest.

By drilling in ANWR and off the coast the U.S. can add millions of barrels of oil daily, not counting the oil that can made from coal, and by doing this we would increase our surplus of oil lowering the price futher. While drilling for more oil and turning Coal to liquid we can also build nuclear power plants and still continue to better develop the wind and solar power systems.

Oil and Coal alone will not solve the long term energy problems, but it will give us time to develop new systems and expand on what we now know. The transition from oil and coal will not happen overnight, or over the next decade, it could take forty years or more if then even.

All we ever hear from you is, We can't do this, We can't do that!

If we keep listening to people like you we'll never fix anything.

[Old School]

All we ever hear from you is, We can't do this, We can't do that!

If we keep listening to people like you we'll never fix anything.

All I said was it can't be done in 10 years as Gore suggest. I didn't say it couldn't be done period, as a matter of fact it has to be done because some day there will be no oil and coal to use.

So I'm assuming by your comment that you agree with Gore and you also think within the next ten years we can be free of fossil fuels? I guess, I'm just to practical for some.

Below are just a few changes that would have to be made to meet Gores suggested time frame of 10 years, before we can be free of oil and coal.
1) All cars will have to be powered by other means than gas.
2) All trucks, heavy equipment, trains, planes, ships generators etc. would have to be converted from diesel to alternate power. If you remember it took at nearly 10 years to switch from leaded to unleaded fuel.
3) Everyone in the U.S. will have to buy new alternate powered cars in the next 10 years, sorry but I just don't see that happening.
4) All small engines such as lawnmowers, weedeaters, pumps etc. would have to be replaced by electrical ones.
5) New electrical plants would have to be built to replace the existing coal fired power plants.
6) New energy transmission systems would have to be installed from the wind farms and solar panels or what ever source of energy we would be using.
These are just a few of the changes needed, again I just don't see this happening in any 10 year period, do you.

As I said eventually this will happen, just not in the next 10 years as some suggest, even many envirinmentalist realize that it will take around 25 years, IMO it is going to be a slow process and will take alot longer than 25 years to achieve.

[Old School]

The government may care about our drinking water, but mining companies dont, just go visit Steer Fork, or Montgomery creek in knott county, the water in most peoples wells is horrible, full of chemicals, but no one cares about them, but thats another story, and another thread.

I think youre the crazy one for actually thinking that bush lifting the "executive ban" on offshore drilling affected anything. Congress has to lift the ban before any drilling can actually occur, so bush's little act meant nothing, which just shows you that that The oil market is manipulated, and this is just part of it, nothing more, nothing less.


And it's not me saying that this wont affect gas prices, all the studies say so, but people on the right often forget about facts, and just move on to rhetoric.

Here is an exerpt from a report by TIME

But there's a flaw in that logic: even if tomorrow we opened up every square mile of the outer continental shelf to offshore rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and pulled new refineries out of thin air, the impact on gas prices would be minimal and delayed at best. A 2004 study by the government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that drilling in ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027. (If oil prices continue to skyrocket, the savings would be greater, but not by much.) Opening up offshore areas to oil exploration — currently all coastal areas save a section of the Gulf of Mexico are off-limits, thanks to a congressional ban enacted in 1982 and supplemented by an executive order from the first President Bush — might cut the price of gas by 3 to 4 cents a gallon at most, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. And the relief at the pump, such as it is, wouldn't be immediate — it would take several years, at least, for the oil to begin to flow, which is time enough for increased demand from China, India and the rest of the world to outpace those relatively meager savings. "Right now the price of oil is set on the global market," says Kevin Lindemer, executive managing director of the energy markets group for the research firm Global Insight. President Bush's move "would not have an impact."

The reason is simple: the U.S. has an estimated 3% of global petroleum reserves but consumes 24% of the world's oil. Offshore territories and public lands like ANWR that don't allow drilling may contain up to 75 billion barrels of oil, according to the EIA. That may sound like a lot, but it's not enough to make a significant difference in a world where global oil demand is expected to rise 30% by 2030, to nearly 120 million barrels a day. At best, greatly expanding domestic drilling might eventually lower the proportion of oil the U.S. imports — currently about 60% of its total supply — but petroleum is a global commodity, and the world market would soak up any additional American production. "This is a drop in the bucket," says Gernot Wagner, an economist with the Environmental Defense Fund.


3-4 cent drop in the next 30 years, wow thank you bush for doing absolutely nothing besides helping your rich oil buddies. It's nice that I can save 3 cents a gallon in 2027 while the president of BP is pulling in 12 million a year, what a wonder president we have. And they dont need to open up our waters, oil companies already have around 30 million acres of land they havent started drilling on, why not use that first?

Instead of investing money into offshore drilling, we should invest in renewable energy like wind and solar, I know that they arent ready for mass use now, but a lot of the blame can go to this adminstration, they have wasted 8 years helping big oil, while they could have been helping America find an answer to our energy problem. Oil is not the answer, but who cares when your raking in record profits.

I found a flaw but it was in Bryan Walsh Times report when he said EIA report showed by drilling in ANWR would only reduce gas prices by 3.5 cents per gallon by 2027. (and if oil prices continue to skyrocket, the saving would be greater but not by much.)

Below is the Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR, and I could not find anywhere in this report that said anything about where it would only reduce gas prices by 3.5 cents per gallon or any comments about oil prices skyrocketing. However there was one comment made that said, "Coastal Plain Production might reduce World oil prices by as much as $0.30 cents to $0.50 cents per barrel, relative to a projected 2025 World oil price of $27 dollars per barrel." How can Walsh take that out of context, the report says nothing about his statements, I don't know about everyone else but I'm about to give up on believing anything I read in newspapers or see on TV, as we know most newspeople are biased toward their beliefs.

The report also states that currently TAPS (Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System) is believed to be uneconomical to operate once the oil throughput falls between 200,000 to 400,000 barrels per day, prevatling oil prices. The oil from ANWR would help keep TAPS in operation.

The reports also states that the opening of ANWR to Oil and Gas Development includes the following impacts,
1) Reduce the U.S. dependence of imported foreign oil.
2) Improve the U.S. balance of trade.
3) Extend the life of TAPS for oil,
4) Increase U.S. jobs
5) Reduce World oil prices


http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/o...004)04.pdf

[Coach_Owens87]

Yes I admit, I watch FOX News the most watch news network in the World, along with the other networks. In my opinion it is ridiculous to believe Americas growing energy demands can be met by just wind, solar and geothermal anytine in the near future let alone within the next 10 years as Gore suggest.

By drilling in ANWR and off the coast the U.S. can add millions of barrels of oil daily, not counting the oil that can made from coal, and by doing this we would increase our surplus of oil lowering the price futher. While drilling for more oil and turning Coal to liquid we can also build nuclear power plants and still continue to better develop the wind and solar power systems.

Oil and Coal alone will not solve the long term energy problems, but it will give us time to develop new systems and expand on what we now know. The transition from oil and coal will not happen overnight, or over the next decade, it could take forty years or more if then even.

And that makes it less bias, and less full of BS how? Everyone knows that controversy brings ratings, and fox lies and twists stories so much, thats it's comical to watch most of their programming. Anyone who watches fox and takes anything they seriously should be checked for a mental illness.

ANWR
What we will get from drilling in ANWR and off the coast, is just what I mentioned (With facts), absolutely nothing, thats just a drop in the bucket. just several days ago on , Neil Cavuto, fox's "Business guy" was onthe typical drill, drill, drill topic, and he said that there weren't any Oil Rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, I couldn't believe what I just saw, I just cant believe how they can stoop so low, and lie so much just to sell a point, but most of the people who watch fox dont know any better, so why care? The funny thing is that earlier in the day they had shown the path of hurricane Dolly and how it would affect the Oil rigs in the gulf. Fox is full of idiots, and is watched by idiots.

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/07/23/fox_...mexico.php
(Nice little site that is run solely to show the lies of fox, and almost always has video to prove their lies.)

You and Hal Rogers would be great friends (you may be), you both believe in the BS of clean coal, and are still trying to sell the coal to liquid crap. What we need is energy sources that are less harmful to our environment, not more harmful. The total well-to-wheels emission rate for conventional petroleum-derived fuel is about 27 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel. If we used the Coal to Liquid method that rate would almost double to 50 lbs of CO2 per gallon. Wow, thats definitely the direction we need to go, and thats not counting the damage that would be done by the increased MTR mining in the region.

Big coal guys want us to believe that coal to liquid could compete with, and lower oil prices, but thats total BS too. They want U.S. taxpayers to guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big purchases by the government for the next 25 years. Theres some problems though, no operating coal-to-liquid plants exist in the U.S., and researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimate it will cost $70 billion to build enough plants to replace 10 percent of American gasoline consumption. So they want Americans to put 70 billion into a system that is more harmful to our environment, and most likely wouldn't affect anything in the price of fuel. Scientist are telling us we need to cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 60% in 50 years, and we come up with a plan that would make things worse. IT would be stupid to invest 70 billion dollars into something worse than the current system we have. We need to be looking toward renewable fuels, not something that takes 1 ton of coal to make 2 barrels of fuel.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=worse-than-gasoline





And I never mentioned that this was an overnight fix, or that wind and solar can power the whole country at the moment. MY major gripe is that we have wasted 8 years by devoting way to much money into fossil fuels, while we could have used some of that money to research renewable energy. Thats 8 years that we can never get back.

[Coach_Owens87]

And that makes it less bias, and less full of BS how? Everyone knows that controversy brings ratings, and fox lies and twists stories so much, thats it's comical to watch most of their programming. Anyone who watches fox and takes anything they seriously should be checked for a mental illness.

ANWR
What we will get from drilling in ANWR and off the coast, is just what I mentioned (With facts), absolutely nothing. This solution proposed by Bush and company will do nothing to help solve our energy problem.

Since you like fox so much, you may have seen this little tirade. Just several days ago on " Your world with Neil Cavuto",, which is supposedly fox's "Business guy", he hit the typical drill, drill, drill topic, and said that there weren't any Oil Rigs in the Gulf of Mexico (Because democrats wouldnt let us drill), I couldn't believe what I just saw. how can any network stoop so low, and lie so much just to sell a point, even when their own network contradict the points they are making, but most of the people who watch fox dont know any better, so why care?

The funny thing is that earlier in the day they had shown the path of hurricane Dolly and how it would affect the Oil rigs in the gulf. Fox is full of idiots, and is watched by idiots.

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/07/23/fox_...mexico.php
(Nice little site that is run solely to show the lies of fox, and almost always has video to prove their lies.)

CTL
You and Hal Rogers would be great friends (you may already be), you both believe in the BS of clean coal, and are still trying to sell the coal to liquid crap. What we need is energy sources that are less harmful to our environment, not more harmful. The total well-to-wheels emission rate for conventional petroleum-derived fuel is about 27 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel. If we used the Coal to Liquid method that rate would almost double to 50 lbs of CO2 per gallon. Wow, thats definitely the direction we need to go, and thats not counting the damage that would be done by the increased MTR mining in the region.

Big coal guys want us to believe that coal to liquid could compete with, and lower oil prices, but thats total BS too. They want U.S. taxpayers to guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big purchases by the government for the next 25 years. Theres some problems though, no operating coal-to-liquid plants exist in the U.S., and researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimate it will cost $70 billion to build enough plants to replace 10 percent of American gasoline consumption. So they want Americans to put 70 billion into a system that is more harmful to our environment, and most likely wouldn't affect anything in the price of fuel. Scientist are telling us we need to cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 60% in 50 years, and we come up with a plan that would make things worse. IT would be stupid to invest 70 billion dollars into something worse than the current system we have. We need to be looking toward renewable fuels, not something that takes 1 ton of coal to make 2 barrels of fuel.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=worse-than-gasoline





And I never mentioned that this was an overnight fix, or that wind and solar can power the whole country at the moment. MY major gripe is that we have wasted 8 years by devoting way to much money into fossil fuels, while we could have used some of that money to research renewable energy. Thats 8 years that we can never get back.

lol, I just realized that I had about 400 errors in that post. If you can read, and make any sense of what I said, there are some good points, if you cant, I fixed the post in the quote above. (Hopefully)

[Old School]

CTL was developed in the 1920's and was used extensively during WWII, and in South Africa since the mid 50's. The CTL process has been improved significantly over the past decade and as I said earlier we will continue to enhance the refining process. Just last week Consol Energy and Synthesis Energy Systems introduced a plan to make gasoline for the Chemical Industry and capable of producing 100 million gallons of gasoline per year, and guess what Consol and Synthesis is footing the bill, no tax payer monies are being spent on this project. Pike County has also developed a plan to convert coal into liquid at a rate of 50,000 barrels per day. Federal and State money would be spent on the basic infrastructure, water and sewer but the operator would pay for the rest. Once the plant is in full operation it is expected to employ about 750 people with an average salery of $50,000 per year, coach if I remember correctly you have always complained about high unemployment rate, and the lack of good paying jobs in Eastern Ky.

Several companies, are currently in the process of obtaining the needed permits to open CTL plants, which will be able to convert coal into liquid for $45-$50 per barrel.



Where ANWR is concerned...I just don't see how pumping an additional 1-1.5 million barrels of oil into our system could not help our current situation, plus the millions of barrels of oil from the coast would have to have a positive impact on our energy and economic needs. Now don't give me it will take ten years to develop these areas, oil experts claim that we can be pumping oil from the coast in about 2 years, remember if Clinton had allowed drilling in ANWR in 1995 instead of placing it off limits we could be using that 1.5 million barrels today instead of later.

As you well know we are addicted to oil, nearly 70% of our oil is imported from other countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, the U.S. currently produces 5 million barrels of oil daily, we import about 5 million barrels daily from OPEC and another 5 million barrels from other countries, so basically we produce about one-third of the oil we use every day.

What would happen if just the OPEC countries decided to send their oil to Chinia or Russia instead of the U.S.? This is one reason why the U.S. military is experimenting with CTL fuel.

This is why I think we need to drill anywhere and everywhere we can, we need to use coal to liquid technologies, so we can decrease our oil dependency from foreign Countries and also bring more jobs into the U.S. thus helping the economy.

[team sport]

You got that right

[DevilsWin]

You got that right

No he doesn't!!!!!!

[Old School]

No he doesn't!!!!!!

Again, what would happen if OPEC stopped selling oil to us today, with our current energy problems? I understand that you are against oil and coal, but wind, solar and other alternatave soucres are still a long time off from being an effective replacement for coal and oil. I believe that in the best interest of our country we need to be energy independent and currently this is the best solution, now that could change down the road when other methods are better developed.

[DevilsWin]

Again, what would happen if OPEC stopped selling oil to us today, with our current energy problems? I understand that you are against oil and coal, but wind, solar and other alternatave soucres are still a long time off from being an effective replacement for coal and oil. I believe that in the best interest of our country we need to be energy independent and currently this is the best solution, now that could change down the road when other methods are better developed.

Most of the oil imported to the US comes from Canada not OPEC. I am not against Coal and Oil. I am against the backwards thinking mindset of Coal and Oil being our only hope of energy independence. If we put as much money into renewable alternative energies as we do Fossil Fuels I think we would be much better off than what you and your kind propose.

[Coach_Owens87]

CTL was developed in the 1920's and was used extensively during WWII, and in South Africa since the mid 50's. The CTL process has been improved significantly over the past decade and as I said earlier we will continue to enhance the refining process. Just last week Consol Energy and Synthesis Energy Systems introduced a plan to make gasoline for the Chemical Industry and capable of producing 100 million gallons of gasoline per year, and guess what Consol and Synthesis is footing the bill, no tax payer monies are being spent on this project. Pike County has also developed a plan to convert coal into liquid at a rate of 50,000 barrels per day. Federal and State money would be spent on the basic infrastructure, water and sewer but the operator would pay for the rest. Once the plant is in full operation it is expected to employ about 750 people with an average salery of $50,000 per year, coach if I remember correctly you have always complained about high unemployment rate, and the lack of good paying jobs in Eastern Ky.

Several companies, are currently in the process of obtaining the needed permits to open CTL plants, which will be able to convert coal into liquid for $45-$50 per barrel.



Where ANWR is concerned...I just don't see how pumping an additional 1-1.5 million barrels of oil into our system could not help our current situation, plus the millions of barrels of oil from the coast would have to have a positive impact on our energy and economic needs. Now don't give me it will take ten years to develop these areas, oil experts claim that we can be pumping oil from the coast in about 2 years, remember if Clinton had allowed drilling in ANWR in 1995 instead of placing it off limits we could be using that 1.5 million barrels today instead of later.



As you well know we are addicted to oil, nearly 70% of our oil is imported from other countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, the U.S. currently produces 5 million barrels of oil daily, we import about 5 million barrels daily from OPEC and another 5 million barrels from other countries, so basically we produce about one-third of the oil we use every day.

What would happen if just the OPEC countries decided to send their oil to Chinia or Russia instead of the U.S.? This is one reason why the U.S. military is experimenting with CTL fuel.

This is why I think we need to drill anywhere and everywhere we can, we need to use coal to liquid technologies, so we can decrease our oil dependency from foreign Countries and also bring more jobs into the U.S. thus helping the economy.

Actually that wasn't CTL that was was used in the early 1900's, It was coal GASIFICATION, and the product was piped to customers for heating, and cooking, but that was soon replaced by the safer option of natural gas.

What really hinders this CTL process is just how are we supposed to "capture" the CO2 released from producing gas from coal. The amount of CO2 produced in CTL is double what it is from conventional oil. The carbon capture and sequestration is a joke, if we implement this it would be the largest hazardous waste disposal project ever undertaken by humans.

Capturing carbon dioxide will consume 10% to 40% of the energy produced by a power plant. This means that, on average, CCS would require construction of a fifth power plant for every 4 new power plants that use CCS. This means that CCS requires, on average, 25% more coal mining, transportation, and waste disposal than non-CCS power plants. CCS would also increase the water requirements of power plants by 90%

CCS will also double the cost of a power plant and will increase the cost of electricity somewhere between 21% and 91%, according to U.S. government figures. So we will be given off more pollution, and raising electricity cost, all while big coal companies rake in more profit, and destroy more of eastern ky.

Also no one can guarantee that CCS will allow the carbon to stay underground forever. Even very small leakage rates would offset every things accomplished by burying it. The majority of the scientific community is saying the CO2 emissions must peak by 2015, and start to decline after that, but most people from the coal industry are saying that CCS will be at the level we need between 2030 and 2050. None of this matters to them, or people like you, it's all ok as long as you make a profit.

http://www.celsias.com/article/the-carbo...-rolls-on/

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/...-15-06.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

[Old School]

Most of the oil imported to the US comes from Canada not OPEC. I am not against Coal and Oil. I am against the backwards thinking mindset of Coal and Oil being our only hope of energy independence. If we put as much money into renewable alternative energies as we do Fossil Fuels I think we would be much better off than what you and your kind propose.

As far as imported oil from individual countries go Canada is the number 1 importer for crude oil, but OPEC which includes Saudi Arubia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Alegria among others accounts for nearly 45% of all oil imported by the U.S.

I've said it hundred times and I'll say it again, to meet this countries growing energy demands we need to use all forms of energy, we have to become energy independent soon, our nation and national security depend on it.

DW, I agree with you coal and oil cannot be our only hope, we have to develop wind and solar and nuclear power, but I don't think wind, solar and nuclear can be our only hope either.

[Old School]

Actually that wasn't CTL that was was used in the early 1900's, It was coal GASIFICATION, and the product was piped to customers for heating, and cooking, but that was soon replaced by the safer option of natural gas.

What really hinders this CTL process is just how are we supposed to "capture" the CO2 released from producing gas from coal. The amount of CO2 produced in CTL is double what it is from conventional oil. The carbon capture and sequestration is a joke, if we implement this it would be the largest hazardous waste disposal project ever undertaken by humans.

Capturing carbon dioxide will consume 10% to 40% of the energy produced by a power plant. This means that, on average, CCS would require construction of a fifth power plant for every 4 new power plants that use CCS. This means that CCS requires, on average, 25% more coal mining, transportation, and waste disposal than non-CCS power plants. CCS would also increase the water requirements of power plants by 90%

CCS will also double the cost of a power plant and will increase the cost of electricity somewhere between 21% and 91%, according to U.S. government figures. So we will be given off more pollution, and raising electricity cost, all while big coal companies rake in more profit, and destroy more of eastern ky.

Also no one can guarantee that CCS will allow the carbon to stay underground forever. Even very small leakage rates would offset every things accomplished by burying it. The majority of the scientific community is saying the CO2 emissions must peak by 2015, and start to decline after that, but most people from the coal industry are saying that CCS will be at the level we need between 2030 and 2050. None of this matters to them, or people like you, it's all ok as long as you make a profit.

http://www.celsias.com/article/the-carbo...-rolls-on/

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/...-15-06.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

Sorry coach, but I guess we disagree again, below is part of the article I read.

Since the invention of the original process by the German researchers Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, working at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in the 1920s, many refinements and adjustments have been made, and the term "Fischer-Tropsch" now applies to a wide variety of similar processes (Fischer-Tropsch synthesis or Fischer-Tropsch chemistry). Fischer and Tropsch filed a number of patents, e.g. US patent no. 1,746,464, applied 1926, published 1930 [2].


The process was invented in petroleum-poor but coal-rich Germany in the 1920s, to produce liquid fuels. It was used by Germany and Japan during World War II to produce ersatz fuels. Germany's annual synthetic fuel production reached more than 124,000 barrels per day (19,700 m³/d) from 25 plants ~ 6.5 million tons in 1944.[3]

[Coach_Owens87]

Sorry coach, but I guess we disagree again, below is part of the article I read.

Since the invention of the original process by the German researchers Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, working at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in the 1920s, many refinements and adjustments have been made, and the term "Fischer-Tropsch" now applies to a wide variety of similar processes (Fischer-Tropsch synthesis or Fischer-Tropsch chemistry). Fischer and Tropsch filed a number of patents, e.g. US patent no. 1,746,464, applied 1926, published 1930 [2].


The process was invented in petroleum-poor but coal-rich Germany in the 1920s, to produce liquid fuels. It was used by Germany and Japan during World War II to produce ersatz fuels. Germany's annual synthetic fuel production reached more than 124,000 barrels per day (19,700 m³/d) from 25 plants ~ 6.5 million tons in 1944.[3]

Coal gasification is the first step in CTL, and was the only info I had found in my article's. I hadnt heard of the Fischer-Tropsch process, and you didnt mention it either. You where very vague in the way you worded your post. I guess I little more research on my part was needed.

This still doesn't change the fact that CTL isnt the answer to our energy problems, or the fact that it wont work on this large of a scale.

(PS my parents haven't paid a dime for any of my college education, it's been paid in full by federal financial aid, and scholarships which where all earned by me.)

[EkyLb]

Coal gasification is the first step in CTL, and was the only info I had found in my article's. I hadnt heard of the Fischer-Tropsch process, and you didnt mention it either. You where very vague in the way you worded your post. I guess I little more research on my part was needed.

This still doesn't change the fact that CTL isnt the answer to our energy problems, or the fact that it wont work on this large of a scale.

(PS my parents haven't paid a dime for any of my college education, it's been paid in full by federal financial aid, and scholarships which where all earned by me.)

Judging by most of your posts, calling anyone who watches Fox news idiots for one. I'm gonna go ahead and chalk this one up as a loss for the tax payers. The fact that you even think any of these news channels are non-biased, and not spewing total BS 24-7 is astonishing. I personally try and watch a little bit of them all, even suffering through 10-20 minutes of Olberman's liberal bias. He makes Bill O-Reilly look like a genius and non-partisan. I hate O-Reilly too. It amazes me that these news channels get away with straight out lies 24-7. Your parents should adult-channel lock you out of MSNBC before you go even farther down the wrong path.

[DevilsWin]

[/b]


Judging by most of your posts, calling anyone who watches Fox news idiots for one. I'm gonna go ahead and chalk this one up as a loss for the tax payers. The fact that you even think any of these news channels are non-biased, and not spewing total BS 24-7 is astonishing. I personally try and watch a little bit of them all, even suffering through 10-20 minutes of Olberman's liberal bias. He makes Bill O-Reilly look like a genius and non-partisan. I hate O-Reilly too. It amazes me that these news channels get away with straight out lies 24-7. Your parents should adult-channel lock you out of MSNBC before you go even farther down the wrong path.

Now that's funny! I don't care who you are!:lmao:

[DevilsWin]

[/b]


Judging by most of your posts, calling anyone who watches Fox news idiots for one. I'm gonna go ahead and chalk this one up as a loss for the tax payers. The fact that you even think any of these news channels are non-biased, and not spewing total BS 24-7 is astonishing. I personally try and watch a little bit of them all, even suffering through 10-20 minutes of Olberman's liberal bias. He makes Bill O-Reilly look like a genius and non-partisan. I hate O-Reilly too. It amazes me that these news channels get away with straight out lies 24-7. Your parents should adult-channel lock you out of MSNBC before you go even farther down the wrong path.

FOX News has been caught up in dozens of lies. I'd like you to point out just 1 untruth, besides the Dan Rather CBS story that cost him his career BTW, that any of the networks besides Fox got caught up in during the last 8 years! Just 1!:eek:

[Coach_Owens87]

[/B]


Judging by most of your posts, calling anyone who watches Fox news idiots for one. I'm gonna go ahead and chalk this one up as a loss for the tax payers. The fact that you even think any of these news channels are non-biased, and not spewing total BS 24-7 is astonishing. I personally try and watch a little bit of them all, even suffering through 10-20 minutes of Olberman's liberal bias. He makes Bill O-Reilly look like a genius and non-partisan. I hate O-Reilly too. It amazes me that these news channels get away with straight out lies 24-7. Your parents should adult-channel lock you out of MSNBC before you go even farther down the wrong path.

You and Old school keep insisting that I watch MSNBC, and also keep bring my parents into every arguement, whats your deal? I keep telling you that I dont receive MSNBC, and I have never watched 1 single live broadcast from MSNBC, I have viewed a few clips on youtube though. I would bet that you're hatred for MSNBC must come from that bonehead o'rielly, he whines about them every night, and does his daily rounds of insulting everyone who isn't republican.

(I'll remember your little rant about my education being a waste when Im raking in 150,000+ with my MD License. Im very proud of my education, im now in my final year of my Bachelors degree in Biology. So you can keep on crying, it doesn't bother me at all. )

To be honest I rarely even watch any news channel, most of my news comes from articles and reports posted online. I do agree that most news channels do have some bais, it's human nature, but no news channel lies and distorts information the way fox does. It's actually an insult to their viewers to think they are stupid enough to believe anything they have to say.


I think DW had a great idea, please show us how these other news channels are as bad as fox. Show me a time when another channel has completly lied, and changed a story to fit their agenda?

Roger Ailes, who is the president of fox news is a life long republican, was the media consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, as well as Rudy Giuliani’s first mayoral campaign in 1989. He has experience in twisting stories for republicans. And I dont even want to get started on Rupert Murdoch.

[DevilsWin]

You and Old school keep insisting that I watch MSNBC, and also keep bring my parents into every arguement, whats your deal? I keep telling you that I dont receive MSNBC, and I have never watched 1 single live broadcast from MSNBC, I have viewed a few clips on youtube though. I would bet that you're hatred for MSNBC must come from that bonehead o'rielly, he whines about them every night, and does his daily rounds of insulting everyone who isn't republican.

(I'll remember your little rant about my education being a waste when Im raking in 150,000+ with my MD License. Im very proud of my education, im now in my final year of my Bachelors degree in Biology. So you can keep on crying, it doesn't bother me at all. )

To be honest I rarely even watch any news channel, most of my news comes from articles and reports posted online. I do agree that most news channels do have some bais, it's human nature, but no news channel lies and distorts information the way fox does. It's actually an insult to their viewers to think they are stupid enough to believe anything they have to say.


I think DW had a great idea, please show us how these other news channels are as bad as fox. Show me a time when another channel has completly lied, and changed a story to fit their agenda?

Roger Ailes, who is the president of fox news is a life long republican, was the media consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, as well as Rudy Giuliani’s first mayoral campaign in 1989. He has experience in twisting stories for republicans. And I dont even want to get started on Rupert Murdoch.

According to Scott McClellan the White House sent out Daily Talking Points to Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly, which they used like the little puppets they are.

[Coach_Owens87]

According to Scott McClellan the White House sent out Daily Talking Points to Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly, which they used like the little puppets they are.

They must have used these to coincide with the daily memos sent out by Ailes and company to make sure they done everything possible to smear democrats, and praise the right.

[EkyLb]

According to Scott McClellan the White House sent out Daily Talking Points to Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly, which they used like the little puppets they are.

LOL. McClellan has already retracted his statements. Admitting he was baited by Chris Mathews, who then wouldn't let him retract. He even apologized to O'Reilly on his show.

[EkyLb]

FOX News has been caught up in dozens of lies. I'd like you to point out just 1 untruth, besides the Dan Rather CBS story that cost him his career BTW, that any of the networks besides Fox got caught up in during the last 8 years! Just 1!:eek:

CNN recently with the protests in Serbia. They used videos from protests in Budapest to make Serbia look more violent and out of control. Look I'm not defending Fox News. Those people on there who call themselves conservatives, are an embarassment. I just find it disturbing that you all think any of these news channels are worth a S**T. They all constantly contort stories and are so one sided, be it liberal or conservative. None of them will just report the news as it is and let people make up their own mind. They try and do everything they can to influence people's political and world views. Since most of this country is full of morons, avg IQ 100 lol. People are constantly falling for these ploys.

BTW getting your news solely off the internet is not much better.
Also, you talk about how O'reilly bashes msnbc. I try and watch MSNBC, all they do is attack FOX news. Its why I always turn the channel, I don't wanna watch them attack Fox, I just wanna hear some news.

[EkyLb]

BTW with the drilling thing. If you have any idea how Oil prices are determined, you know that allwoing american companies to drill is the best immediate solution. Oil prices are based on the future's market. So even if not one drop of oil will become available from those new spots for 5 years, it still affects the futures market. So instantly people will begin putting money on that oil will be much much much cheaper in the future, and it will drive down prices now. Either way, if it doesn't drive down prices. I'd rather the money be going to american companies than to foriegn regime's. Not to mention if in a war situation these ME countries decided to cut us off. We'd be 100% screwed. Only enough oil in the National Reserve to give us 30-40 days, not counting military use. So having the ability to supply ourselves has its benefits. I'm sure though that you libs don't think that could ever happen.

People like Pelosi will be the reason our country fails and falls apart. Not to far off, Oklahoma is ready to leave the union now if things don't change soon. Many states will follow their lead.

[DevilsWin]

CNN recently with the protests in Serbia. They used videos from protests in Budapest to make Serbia look more violent and out of control. Look I'm not defending Fox News. Those people on there who call themselves conservatives, are an embarassment. I just find it disturbing that you all think any of these news channels are worth a S**T. They all constantly contort stories and are so one sided, be it liberal or conservative. None of them will just report the news as it is and let people make up their own mind. They try and do everything they can to influence people's political and world views. Since most of this country is full of morons, avg IQ 100 lol. People are constantly falling for these ploys.

BTW getting your news solely off the internet is not much better.
Also, you talk about how O'reilly bashes msnbc. I try and watch MSNBC, all they do is attack FOX news. Its why I always turn the channel, I don't wanna watch them attack Fox, I just wanna hear some news.

If you had ever worked in a news room you would know that sometimes a producer will make a call like that. I have worked in a news room and if you think for 1 second that they're not gonna make things look and sound more sensational than they really are you got a lot of learning yet to go.

[DevilsWin]

BTW with the drilling thing. If you have any idea how Oil prices are determined, you know that allwoing american companies to drill is the best immediate solution. Oil prices are based on the future's market. So even if not one drop of oil will become available from those new spots for 5 years, it still affects the futures market. So instantly people will begin putting money on that oil will be much much much cheaper in the future, and it will drive down prices now. Either way, if it doesn't drive down prices. I'd rather the money be going to american companies than to foriegn regime's. Not to mention if in a war situation these ME countries decided to cut us off. We'd be 100% screwed. Only enough oil in the National Reserve to give us 30-40 days, not counting military use. So having the ability to supply ourselves has its benefits. I'm sure though that you libs don't think that could ever happen.

People like Pelosi will be the reason our country fails and falls apart. Not to far off, Oklahoma is ready to leave the union now if things don't change soon. Many states will follow their lead.

No one speculates on the futures market any more than 6 months to a year down the road.
Now that Americans are driving less and oil cost is going down some on the right will attribute that to the possible new drilling. But it ain't gonna happen. The far right has had the court for 7 years, the presidency for 8 years and both houses for 6 years. What good have they done? Record gas prices, a war we cannot afford, record unemployment, A National Mortgage crisis, A Corrupt Partisan Justice Department, The outing of CIA Operatives, A Humanitarian Disaster in the Gulf Region, went from a record Gov't Surpluss to a Record Defecit and National Debt and so on and so on..... Get the point. You guys had your run and you sucked! In fact you couldn't have done a worse job. Least a nuclear (Not Nukeular) Holocost.hh:

[EkyLb]

No one speculates on the futures market any more than 6 months to a year down the road.
Now that Americans are driving less and oil cost is going down some on the right will attribute that to the possible new drilling. But it ain't gonna happen. The far right has had the court for 7 years, the presidency for 8 years and both houses for 6 years. What good have they done? Record gas prices, a war we cannot afford, record unemployment, A National Mortgage crisis, A Corrupt Partisan Justice Department, The outing of CIA Operatives, A Humanitarian Disaster in the Gulf Region, went from a record Gov't Surpluss to a Record Defecit and National Debt and so on and so on..... Get the point. You guys had your run and you sucked! In fact you couldn't have done a worse job. Least a nuclear (Not Nukeular) Holocost.hh:

Wrong, they speculate up to 10 years down the road. Gas was 2.35 when the Dems took office. The mortgage crisis is not the republicans fault. It is people buying more house than they can afford and making terrible financial decisions. LOL @ you blaming them for Katrina. How about in the midwest when there were massive floods this year? You didn't see some critical breakdown, or mass blame on the government. People took responsibilities for themselves and their neighbors and helped themselves. They left when they were told. They didn't gather in a place, everyone specifically told them not to. Also, there wasn't some moron Dem. governor trying to turn it into a politcal gain. Where is she now? Gone and hopefully not even in charge of a wal-mart.

I laugh at the fact people try to blame republicans, like democrats are any better. They are all shady, greedy, and out of touch. If you think Dems are gonna fix our problems your terribly mistaken. If everyone would elect the most moderate candidate for every position, this country might be able to get back on track. As long as people are pulled into partisan politics by the media, nothing is going change until it is too late for us. Everyone thinks we are invincible, don't think there aren't countries who won't jump on us the second they think we are weak and divided and can be broken. When that happens, don't think we even stand a chance of winning.

[DevilsWin]

Wrong, they speculate up to 10 years down the road. Gas was 2.35 when the Dems took office. The mortgage crisis is not the republicans fault. It is people buying more house than they can afford and making terrible financial decisions. LOL @ you blaming them for Katrina. How about in the midwest when there were massive floods this year? You didn't see some critical breakdown, or mass blame on the government. People took responsibilities for themselves and their neighbors and helped themselves. They left when they were told. They didn't gather in a place, everyone specifically told them not to. Also, there wasn't some moron Dem. governor trying to turn it into a politcal gain. Where is she now? Gone and hopefully not even in charge of a wal-mart.

I laugh at the fact people try to blame republicans, like democrats are any better. They are all shady, greedy, and out of touch. If you think Dems are gonna fix our problems your terribly mistaken. If everyone would elect the most moderate candidate for every position, this country might be able to get back on track. As long as people are pulled into partisan politics by the media, nothing is going change until it is too late for us. Everyone thinks we are invincible, don't think there aren't countries who won't jump on us the second they think we are weak and divided and can be broken. When that happens, don't think we even stand a chance of winning.

Not Katrina itself- The lack of effort on the part of the Federal Gov't to render aid after Katrina.

Who told you that the energy futures markets are projected 10 years ahead?:lmao:

Your buddies have had all the time they needed to fix America and all they did was pad their pockets. You can't debate your way outta that one.
Kennedy and Johnson went from just the idea of a man on the moon to making it happen in the appx the same amount of time. Trickle down economics doesn't work, your party is as outta touch with most Americans now as ever.:Thumbs:

[EkyLb]

Not Katrina itself- The lack of effort on the part of the Federal Gov't to render aid after Katrina.

Who told you that the energy futures markets are projected 10 years ahead?:lmao:

Your buddies have had all the time they needed to fix America and all they did was pad their pockets. You can't debate your way outta that one.
Kennedy and Johnson went from just the idea of a man on the moon to making it happen in the appx the same amount of time. Trickle down economics doesn't work, your party is as outta touch with most Americans now as ever.:Thumbs:

The effort after Katrina? LoL I guess everyone forgets the massive and terrific rescue effort that was the number 1 priority for the government. Its hard to get to people when the road is blocked and flooded for miles. All the small boats and choppers bringing in rescuers did a great job. hear people ask all the time why didn't they just drop some water in by the superdome? Could you imagine the result if a few thousand bottles of water are dropped to tens of thousands? The main problem with Katrina was the state government of Louisiana was terribly run

Kennedy and Johnson also started the Vietnam war, so I guess you've gotta take the good with the bad.

I am not a Repub btw. I think both parties are an embarassment to the people of this country

"The two-party system has given this country the war of Lyndon Johnson, the Watergate of Nixon and the incompetence of Carter. Saying we should keep the two-party system simply because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyage was a success because a few people survived on life rafts."
McCarthy 78

[More Cowbell]

I just find it disturbing that you all think any of these news channels are worth a S**T. They all constantly contort stories and are so one sided, be it liberal or conservative. None of them will just report the news as it is and let people make up their own mind. They try and do everything they can to influence people's political and world views.

I laugh at the fact people try to blame republicans, like democrats are any better. They are all shady, greedy, and out of touch. If you think Dems are gonna fix our problems your terribly mistaken. If everyone would elect the most moderate candidate for every position, this country might be able to get back on track. As long as people are pulled into partisan politics by the media, nothing is going change until it is too late for us.

I am not a Repub btw. I think both parties are an embarassment to the people of this country.

"The two-party system has given this country the war of Lyndon Johnson, the Watergate of Nixon and the incompetence of Carter. Saying we should keep the two-party system simply because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyage was a success because a few people survived on life rafts."
McCarthy 78

:Clap: :Clap: :Clap:

Man, I think you have become my new favorite poster on here. Finally, someone who agrees that all news channels are biased. And that neither party has all the right answers.

It's good to see when someone thinks for themselves, and doesn't just fall in lock-step with whatever the Democrat or Republican party tells them to think. I agree completely, most politicians are too blinded by partisan politics to even care about what really is best for this country. I wish there were more, viable third- (or even fourth or fifth) party candidates. But unfortunately, I just can't see the majority of the voters breaking ranks from the two big parties enough for it to ever happen.