Replies to This Discussion

landownerPermalink Reply by sesport on March 21, 2009 at 2:16

Suzie - Re. the last half dozen lines of your post ... would you mind citing valid, reliable studies and/or numbers, or would you just like to consider rewriting your post to include "IMHO?"

re. "very difficult to get off it" - please cite how many have tried and were unsuccessful

re. "Welfare takes the spirit of a person away. It makes you lazy." - please cite the study or numbers showing how many disspirited welfare recepients there are in this country who have responded to a reliable, valid study by stating they are now lazy.

re. "Welfare gives you more money if you are single with children, so it destroys marriage and the familly." - please cite the study or numbers correlating the destruction of the family with welfare. Divorce destroys the family as many single mothers are forced to seek assistance to feed their children. Lack of education, as well as the effects of divorce, can be correlated to a high teen pregnancy rate and thus the need for assistance. Welfare does not create the problem, the problem already exists before people seek the assistance.

Finally, what does this have to do with the discussion topic? How does this support or refute the contention that the Dems want to socialize the energy sector?

Have a good day - sesport :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susie Brown on March 21, 2009 at 3:49

This has as much to do with Dems wanting to socialize the energy sector as much as the rest of the comments here do----nothing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susie Brown on March 21, 2009 at 5:04

Out to Lunch: Tell me what you think the Dems want to do with the energy sector. Will they be positive or negative for the Haynesville Shale?

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by sesport on March 21, 2009 at 6:13

Susie - still looking at the info, digging for more. My preliminary opinion is that it looks like the powers that be intend a shift toward nuclear electric plants, ng powered plants will closely follow, but begin a downward trend. The renewables won't become a major source, kind of stays at a flatline.

I'm out digging around in the info about the nuclear powered plants, and am finding some interesting ties back to politics & politicians, especially in the Arizona area, which supplies S. CA & Nevada.

Still looking into what the Dems want, intend & how they're connected to the various industries related to HS.

But, of course, this is all just IMHO - sesport :0)

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by sesport on March 21, 2009 at 8:05

Susie - One aspect I forgot to mention re. HS ... the pipeline maps that I've looked at indicate that HS ng will be transported mostly northeast, some south. This indicates to me that it's intended use will be for the industrial & energy producing sectors, some for consumers in the form of home heating, fleet vehicles, etc. That is positive.

Now, as for what the Dems want/intend in terms of tax breaks for O&G ... the info I've looked at so far leads me to believe that the gov't. wants to close the loophole allowing O&G to NOT pay some royalties. As far as I can tell, this isn't about taxing, it's about royalty payments. Still digging into it, tho.

IMHO, sesport - :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susie Brown on March 21, 2009 at 11:01

Not paying somes royalties to owners of land?

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by sesport on March 21, 2009 at 15:59

Sorry, that was unclear. No, the gov't. wants their royalties. lol In a way, I guess, it would amount to paying the citizens their royalties. After all, the government's coffers are the citizens', too.

Best - sesport :0)

Permalink Reply by Susie Brown on March 21, 2009 at 18:55

Jay, I know what the song link says. Neither the song or Jim deserves a reply.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by Dorcheated A1 on March 20, 2009 at 4:48

Thanks for the read Bob, I'll suggest this book to Robert Byrd.

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 20, 2009 at 4:51

Al: LOL

You mean "Sheets" Byrd?

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by Dorcheated A1 on March 20, 2009 at 6:36

Notably also Bob, was that Duke was a democrat when he was in the Klan, and disavowed them when he bacame a republican.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob on March 20, 2009 at 12:21

Dorcheated Al: No one can convince me that Duke, whether an avowed or disavowed Klansman, was not and is not a Klansman, whether card carrying or not or simply one in belief and no matter his past or present party affiliation. He is hatred and bigotry personified. I think you missed the point which was racism still exists. The failed attempts of several posts to use non-facts to disavow party affiliations with or of Duke overlooked the salient fact that he was elected to public office in Louisiana courtesy of receiving 60% of the white vote in his district, which electorate likely included persons of all political affiliations; and this was not in the distant historical past. Racism still exists. We have to own it, face it, and deal with it like adults and not use racial subterfuge as yet still another divisive tool, unless of course we want to undermine all that our nation is about. Matter of choice for each to make.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• …
• 15
• Next ›
• Page