Keep avoiding the issue. That definitely makes your case.
I haven't avoided any issue. You asked if I had researched the issue, you quoted me saying the Colorado River has a flow-rate of 21,700 cubic feet per second, which is a F-A-C-T. I responded by telling you it was common knowledge, then you say I am "avoiding the issue." Does this make sense in your bizarro world? Because it's SO not making any in mine.
So why don't you tell us exactly what you ARE saying?
Jeesh... I really wish that I could! I have often tried! I use regular English grammar and words as often as possible, and try to say things in the clearest way possible, but for some unknown reason, when you people read it, the translation must come out completely different. I guess I assume you can read the actual things I write, and presume that's what I mean, but it seems you want to always attribute some other meaning, or distort what I say and try to apply it to other things, or confuse it with other things I've said at other times.... anything and everything, except actually reading and comprehending what I post as it's written. So... Nope, I don't think I can tell you exactly what I am saying, we seem to speak different languages. I've never learned liberal two-face-speak. Sorry!
You title your bullshit OP w/Obama's name. Then, you purposely redact key paragraphs from the actual GAO report, which basically state what we've been trying to tell you.
No, I posted a thread with a link to an online source, and the thread title is the title of the article linked. I am but the messenger.
I understand how this is confusing to you, because I don't normally link source materials, ask ZappedintheBrain. It is rare that I will find a source online, who can make a point as well as I can on my own, and I just thought this one fit the bill. I never mentioned Obama, the article mentions Obama. I put the blame solely on Liberals and the Democrats, who continue to block any legislation which might benefit "Big Oil" in any way.
Once you're exposed, you simply avoid the issue altogether, backpedaling as fast as you can.
I've not been exposed, and I have not backpedaled. Do you think someone died and made you the judge of when someone is "exposed" or "backpedals?" I don't think so, Skippy... so why don't you run along to dailykos, and play with your liberal friends, and leave this conversation for the grown ups in the room?
Bottom line...it takes too much energy, to create the energy from shale...at least for now.
No it doesn't, if it did, we wouldn't bother trying to do it. I would say we are on the verge of cost-effectiveness with gas at $5+ a gallon and rising. Presuming gas continues to rise as it has the past 20-30 years, it is safe to say, the benefits far outweigh the cost aspects, and we should develop the process. We can make electricity, in abundance. 21,700 cubic feet per second, that's the energy source we have readily available from mother nature.
It isn't the panacea you claim it is, and if you're going to lay this at Obama's feet, why don't you tell us what he's doing to block the energy companies from furthering this industry?
Again, I didn't lay anything at Obama's feet. I blamed liberals and Democrats, who, for the past 20 years (at least) have done everything but turn cartwheels in the streets to prevent Big Oil from making a profit, or expanding domestic exploration of oil in any meaningful way. If you now want to pretend that has not been the case, you are welcome to fantasize here.
And environmental issues are another real drawback. Of course, you redacted that part from the GAO report.
"Environmental Issues" are always the liberals sweet little trump card! It does not matter... whatever it is... we can
ALWAYS find some environmental impact in the
ACTIONS of man. Just our mere being here on the planet, has an impact on the environment, therefore.... Environmental Issues becomes the one trump card that can't be beaten! Liberals can forever and always rely on the old Environmental Issues card, when all else fails.
Here, we have an abundance of a natural resource to rival the world supply, we just need to develop the process and technology, to make it cost-effective. There is less risk to the environment than drilling in the ocean, deep or shallow. But because it involves Big Oil possibly making a profit, and since you are brainwashed, it simply can't be discussed with you in a reasonable way, you have to resort to the 'Environmental Issues' trump card.
Yea...brainwashed. That's exactly what I was thinking. Especially when I read the paragraph above.
Well it's good you realize you are brainwashed, that is the first step to recovery!!!
