http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

very interisting information. Everybody should know this, its sad that so few do.

We just turn our garbage into oil, That dude made the machine, I'm sure they will make sure they know how to make it on large scale.. get rid of our land fills. Now that is recycling X'D

Hydrogen still has about 20 years to go to be actually cost effective. Even then, when the 1st reaction is set off after a bad wreck thats going out the window.

in 2008 i will be 18......damn....that sucks.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/tp.gif...relying on corn for our future energy needs would http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/tp.gifdevastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/tp.gifgrow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/tp.gif10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/tp.gifthe amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/tp.gifsame period of time.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/tp.gifAnd if we decided to power all of our automobiles with http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/tp.gifethanol, we would need to cover 97 percent of our land with http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/tp.gifcorn, he adds.

damn. they even talk about africa turning into a giant biofuel farm. if it ever gets to that, africa could become the equivilant of opec.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/tp.gif2. The production of one gram of microchips consumes 630 grams of fossil fuels. According to the American Chemical Society, the construction of single 32 megabyte DRAM chip requires 3.5 pounds of fossil fuels (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-11/acs-ttp110502.php) in addition to 70.5 pounds of water.

thats insane! i don't know anything about the construction of something like a computer chip, but to use that many resources..

1. The construction of an average car consumes the energy equivalent of approximately 27-54 barrels (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Research.html), which equates to 1,100-2,200 gallons, of oil. Ultimately, the construction of a car will consume an amount of fossil fuels equivalent to twice t (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/322.html)he (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/322.html) car’s (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/322.html) fina (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/322.html)l weight. (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/322.html)

no wonder shit costs so much.

me n lady plan on buying a windmill to power our house. aside from getting permits for it, we'd love to get its initial cost covered by the mortgage. ^_^ with the wind we have here, we'd make money with our excess energy.

looking into town codes and govt incentives. I dont want solar power, its not efficient enough yet, but a windmill 'round here.... the electric company can send me a check every month suckas!

let's not rule out..if terrorists should blow up the oil field in saudis successfully..that'll collapse our economy in a day and make us suffer for year or so. i heard that it's easier effort to committ than executing 9/11.

ok i found the article here.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/07/news/international/saudi_oil/

wrong. we have enough in reserve to last 50 years, a couple months at most for the government to order the use of them and set it into work.

This is why we must drill in alaska and off the coast of cali.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
50 years? keep dreamin :meh:

Hot damn!! If only it could be held off for another 60-70 years.

i'll trust the experts on this one, dx :p

our dependency of foreign oil is still at large. remember the article says though, it doesnt have to be dropped large scale amount to crash our economy. just 10-15% would do it.

http://www.dsireusa.org/
The Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE) is a comprehensive source of information on state, local, utility, and selected federal incentives that promote renewable energy

We have over 727 million barrles in reserve and growing. right now It would last us at least a decade A terrorist attack on saudi oil would certianly not collapse our economy over night and certianly not within a year. These so called "experts" are bias as are most all of them, All independant studies are different.

The United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve keeps growing every year. Drilling in alaska AND off the coasts of cali it would last quite a bit more.

Further more, 10 years is enough time to crush the opposition. Opec would have to give in. If no one would sell Oil to the US do you realize how fast we would be over there? A destruction would not cause the US to crumble, it would cause full scale war. We'd probably even be bad enough to go crush guatemala.

Its not like there is some kind of over night alternative. Hydrogen cells are still in development, but if they were on the market today they would cost 100,000s if not a million dollars for your basic honda civic. Solar Power is unrealiable, battery power is impracticle.

Terrorists are not completely stupid, they arent going to trigger something that will bring upon them something 30x worse that iraq. The US wouldnt just be involved EVERYONE would be invovled. Opec's days would be numbered.

unless you provide these different independent source, your word isnt reliable much as i can easily call it biased as well after you do. so let's not cross that line. according to article, by 2010, 727 mil comparing to the demand of 50 mil additional barrels it would lucky enough to survive 10 days(even giving that i'm being generous). but not to mention, other nations we trade with depend on middle east oil as well. you are correct that there is no alternative energy source since everything we function either by boat or plane and car/truck, whatever transportation or facilities are. you cant possibly believe we are able to sustain that small 15% temperal economy collapse plus providing tens of nations(perhaps hundreds) to keep theirs for the sake of our economy going. gas price will go up ridiculously, small and big businesses in ruins..which means no job, no economy to go on meaning no money to spend on, it will cease everything. again, it doesnt have to be permanant or short time like few months. just one hit and that's it. US economy is vulnerable. our economy is still suffering from 9/11 attack. that was one day event. you know better than me that our US dollar is becoming worthless due to huge deficit. how then, can one nation prevent global economy collapse? "war" wont solve everything especially our economy. we dont have that "10 years". china and russia are in increase of population and technology demands much of oil too. more than ever. do you think they'll just "let us have it"?

terrorists are stupid. believing they'll blow up in buses and public places make them earn to go to heaven, especially killing jews and westners. because world dont have backbone to stand up, we only make them look smart. ppl will do anything to give up their right for peace and security. all out war for them? 30x worse? it's easier said than done when you fight those who dont have nation.

I dont think you understand what I just posted. If the Middle east put a cap on the oil lid. stopped selling it, or raised the prices to absurd amounts, you would see a russian, chinese, US, Europe, ran middle east. The middle east wouldnt be there anymore, they wouldnt be free. Its easy to fight a people with no nation when you whipe everyone out. You don't think china and russia would form a colilition with us? Think again.

End times anyone?

You ask me to provide my different independance sources? you provided one of them in this very post. and just stated another one in your reply. just watch each news channel when they have a report on such things, you will find them all to be different, each agency has a different report. Go look. Thats the way it is with everything.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501041025-725174,00.html
kind of interisting article, kinda old but Oct. 18, 2004 gives ya an idea how long shitz have been going on

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/15/unocal.china/index.html
a little more recent

Also just think of the implications of a terrorist attack on saudi oil and these events occur, the UN would be in chaos. the middle east representation would be bullied, the whole thing could be desolved by the 3 super powers. It would change the face of world politics as we know it.

I dont think you understand what I just posted. If the Middle east put a cap on the oil lid. stopped selling it, or raised the prices to absurd amounts, you would see a russian, chinese, US, Europe, ran middle east. The middle east wouldnt be there anymore, they wouldnt be free. Its easy to fight a people with no nation when you whipe everyone out. You don't think china and russia would form a colilition with us? Think again.

End times anyone?

You ask me to provide my different independance sources? you provided one of them in this very post. and just stated another one in your reply. just watch each news channel when they have a report on such things, you will find them all to be different, each agency has a different report. Go look. Thats the way it is with everything.

i'm sure i did. we were talking about full of what ifs and what nots based on articles and news. source i was talking about is statistics that you stated. so i asked those independent research is because i wanted to compare with lady's article that estimated the needy of oil for US and make better judgement of it. i also want to know the difference of those independant non-biased sources as you claim to compete with each other in their accuracy. some are full of bias, but some are not. you ought to discredit their sources with sources y'know?

i have every reason not to believe those nations will not join US to destroy middle east. for one, i still believe in US' military action for good no matter what. second, US goal isnt destroying US. that's what mostly china and russia wants to do. US is in there way for doing whatever they want to do, just like invading middle east for oil for example. who do you think is funding iran's nuclear plan though..along with syria's long ranged missiles that could reach new york, london and anywhere in israel?

for end time sake, why would damacus will be wiped out? why would God destroy russia's and chinese and (gog and mogog, 200 million marching soldiers) muslim armies for trying to invade Israel's "wealth and rich"?(some believe Israel will strike oil in future) hell, that isnt even near being armageddon yet. US isnt even in the picture except walking in thin ice trying to divide land of Israel which bible strictly warns not to. europe will gain economic and military power in the end time. US' future is unsure but will not remain as superpower. that's why US' economic collapse is one of possibility if not wiped out.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501041025-725174,00.html
kind of interisting article, kinda old but Oct. 18, 2004 gives ya an idea how long shitz have been going on

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/15/unocal.china/index.html
a little more recent

good finds lady :nod:

i'm sure i did. we were talking about full of what ifs and what nots based on articles and news. source i was talking about is statistics that you stated. so i asked those independent research is because i wanted to compare with lady's article that estimated the needy of oil for US and make better judgement of it. i also want to know the difference of those independant non-biased sources as you claim to compete with each other in their accuracy. some are full of bias, but some are not. you ought to discredit their sources with sources y'know?

i have every reason not to believe those nations will not join US to destroy middle east. for one, i still believe in US' military action for good no matter what. second, US goal isnt destroying US. that's what mostly china and russia wants to do. US is in there way for doing whatever they want to do, just like invading middle east for oil for example. who do you think is funding iran's nuclear plan though..along with syria's long ranged missiles that could reach new york, london and anywhere in israel?

for end time sake, why would damacus will be wiped out? why would God destroy russia's and chinese and (gog and mogog, 200 million marching soldiers) muslim armies for trying to invade Israel's "wealth and rich"?(some believe Israel will strike oil in future) hell, that isnt even near being armageddon yet. US isnt even in the picture except walking in thin ice trying to divide land of Israel which bible strictly warns not to. europe will gain economic and military power in the end time. US' future is unsure but will not remain as superpower. that's why US' economic collapse is one of possibility if not wiped out.


show me where I said there were un-bais independant studies? I said most all of them where. I didn't say all of them were because maybe there is a 1% of them that arent. But you will never know which one it is.

I didn't say "destroy" the middle east, take control yes. China doesnt want to destroy the US. Thats political propaganda bs. Going to war with the US would be the most stupid thing China could ever do, and vice versa. It should be avoided at all costs. Our economies rely on each other alot heavier than people take them too. The US does what is good for itself, not what is good for everyone else, Its what we always done. It just happens in a lot of cases it is acutally good for everyone else. If what was good for the US was forcing control over middle east oil.. then that is what the US would do. It's amazing what we would do to survive, you cannot invision it because we've never had to face such a delimma. Of course Russian and Chinese interest would be involved.

Why do we make it out that as soon as syria gains long range missiles they will just start lobing them everywhere? The syrians aren't complete dumbasses. To them they fear us and want defenses. Do I agree that they have them along with Iran's nukes... no. But its the way they feel. While they could take out a city we could devastate there landscape. Of course this would cause nukes to fly everywhere from all countries, But the fact is they wouldn't do it. Russia has the right to fund whatever just like we have the right to sell israel fighter planes. Hell we also opened relations to start selling our old fighters to Saudi Arabia. Do you think the other middle eastern countries like this? About as much as we like Russia funding Iran's nuclear power.

Why would God destroy russian and chinese army? I dunno. i dont recall saying that. If a 4 way colition invaded the middle east, the US would keep irael intact, and leave them be. But you never know. If they struck Oil that could be the trigger. If anything chinese brutality is what the middle east would have to fear. The US is the only one that follows the geneva convention rules.

Very interesting things could happen all because a few idoits blew up the saudi's oil. one would be a darastic change in our mission in Iraq.

Life as we know it has to end sooner or later *shrugs*

show me where I said there were un-bais independant studies? I said most all of them where. I didn't say all of them were because maybe there is a 1% of them that arent. But you will never know which one it is.



no. we are drifting off from what we were debating in the first place. you asnwer me. for the 3rd and last time, where did you get your sources from that we would last 10 years with 727 mil barrels? you must have gotten somewhere though, right? i mean come on, you are saying i'm wrong, all the articles here that are posted is biased(since i'm relying on those). isnt that implying that there are indeed unbiased studies? am i wrong on that too? fine, almost every news source is propoganda biased and untrustworthy exception of that 1% you manage to get, and you see through everything while others cant figure out or invision such dilemma. you got to admit though, it's almost 200,000 barrel per day. that is way too low. anyway, was japanese stupid enough to attack pearl harbor? something to think about.

google it and you will find it in more than once place. its been in the news paper, the news. history channel. its the most common. their are other figures ranging from what you say, to months to 15 years.

Why are you twisting my words around? Did i say I have the 1% unbiased report of the centry?


show me where I said there were un-bais independant studies? I said most all of them where. I didn't say all of them were because maybe there is a 1% of them that arent. But you will never know which one it is.

I could have said ALL of them are bias, but for the sake of accuracy I said most all of them. is that more clear? there may be some out there that arent, but you nor I know that.

You cannot compare the Japanes attack on perl harbor to this situation. World politics where no where near what they are today, the US was an isolationist nation... although thats not entirely accurate. At that time the US was no where near the superpower it is now. The Japanese were alot more mighty than they are today and infact the Japanese Zero was the best fighter in the air at the begining of the war. It was a pretty level fighting field, The japanese succefully hurt our naval fleet. It took 2 atomic bombs to force them into submission or else they would have fought to the death and countless more americans would have died if we did not have that new technology. We couldnt just storm into japan and take over, they were too strong for that same thing went for Nazi Germany, which is why we started in north africa and worked our way to Germany. The Middle East is far weaker, and weapons are for more advanced and more devastating than ever before. We can whipe small countries off the face of the earth. The comparison isn't even valid. The Japanese were people of a powerful empire, and they were well equipped.. the decision was not stupid in the mind set that they could defeat us... because they acutually had a chance against the US. If you want a source for that, I am my own source from years of college studies I am a history major after all and it has been my passion since 4th grade. :p

what is centry? dx..i'm not twisting your words. this is ridiculous..every defense you call it are biased or stupid. this is what i said since you called what lady's and my links as biased articles.

all the articles here that are posted is biased(since i'm relying on those). isnt that implying that there are indeed unbiased studies?

that was my reply to show me where I said there were un-bais independant studies? I said most all of them where. I didn't say all of them were because maybe there is a 1% of them that arent. But you will never know which one it is.

..because you have disproved ALL ARTICLE POSTED HERE with..

wrong. we have enough in reserve to last 50 years, a couple months at most for the government to order the use of them and set it into work.

These so called "experts" are bias as are most all of them, All independant studies are different.

China doesnt want to destroy the US. Thats political propaganda bs

do you really wanna be picky for every drop of letter? i know what you said. please dont dodge the one simple thing i asked of you. but i know now that you refuse to do so and making excuses. about year ago, i had arguement with someone in different forum. i must asked her million times about the source to back her claim. finally i acussed her of being lazy, she told me to look it up myself in spoon related products. funny thing about the discussion was that it was also about the oil. she however admitted that she was being lazy and didnt wanted to look it up, before that she claimed she could back it up anytime if she wanted to until i called on her bluff.

I could have said ALL of them are bias, but for the sake of accuracy I said most all of them. is that more clear? there may be some out there that arent, but you nor I know that.

i've been trying to use the same term as you to avoid these kind of accusations from you(i know you ought to do it sooner or later because what happend last time). you are the one who came up with ALL when i used the term SOME. the time i used that term ALL was explained above without MOST OF front of ALL, however you are the one fail to notice my point and busy pointing out my so called mistake(or should i say twisting your words around to be specific?--this is implying what you meant. not putting things in your mouth. there is difference.)

source i was talking about is statistics that you stated. so i asked those independent research is because i wanted to compare with lady's article that estimated the needy of oil for US and make better judgement of it. i also want to know the difference of those independant non-biased sources as you claim to compete with each other in their accuracy. some are full of bias, but some are not. you ought to discredit their sources with sources y'know?

wasnt this clear enough? yet you quickly changed the subject to "show me where I said there were un-bais independant studies?" instead, you avoided it, picked something out of context. i asked of you to give me ACCURATE source that which you didnt think was UNBIASED because "MOST OF ALL" are biased in your knowledge to back it up your 727 mil claim. was that too much to ask? now you telling me i can find it anywhere which totally contradict everything you said.

google it and you will find it in more than once place. its been in the news paper, the news. history channel. its the most common. their are other figures ranging from what you say, to months to 15 years.

now when i said anywhere, i meant anywhere that you mentioned. or do i have to be more specific? but seriously, i have no idea what centry mean is.

First off, this is turning into a flame war, and second, not only is the U.S. the single strongest nation on this planet, I'm pretty sure (I'm making assumptions, but meh) that if the US wanted to invade China, or Russia, they could bully more countries into going with them. The only problem with a full scale invasion, is that it might leave the US open to attacks from other countries.

I think slippers n Dx can post links w/o flaming :p
I don't think more war for oil is going to be any sort of a solution and after (this one) I doubt it will happen repeatedly in the future. If any country is all up for invading oil rich countries, it would be China. China is not a bunch of hicks in huts anymore :look: the rest of the world is/has been all over their preverbial ass about their growing industrialization. Their development hasn't come without a price http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/11/content_329593.htm

china refuses to back down on general's nuclear threat over taiwan

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050716/wl_asia_afp/chinaustaiwannuclear_050716030349

"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," Zhu.

"If the Americans are determined to interfere (then) we will be determined to respond," said Zhu.

"We ... will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds ... of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."

china military restructuring for combat efficiency

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-07/13/content_459875.htm

Citing the reform as one of the most wide-ranging and extensive ones the country has ever witnessed, the Headquarters of the PLA General Staff said the reform would serve to optimize the internalstructure, increase science and tech contents and intensify the joint combat command capability of Chinese troops.

i'm now looking for anything that comes near 200,000 barrel per day US is using to back dx's claim. i have no luck with google search though. anyone help me out i would appreciated it.

I couldnt quote it all for character limit sake.

now when i said anywhere, i meant anywhere that you mentioned. or do i have to be more specific? but seriously, i have no idea what centry mean is.

If you want to talk about contradiction, just look at your own post

which means no job, no economy to go on meaning no money to spend on, it will cease everything. again, it doesnt have to be permanant or short time like few months. just one hit and that's it. US economy is vulnerable. our economy is still suffering from 9/11 attack. that was one day event. you know better than me that our US dollar is becoming worthless due to huge deficit. how then, can one nation prevent global economy collapse? "war" wont solve everything especially our economy. we dont have that "10 years". china and russia are in increase of population and technology demands much of oil too. more than ever. do you think they'll just "let us have it"?

terrorists are stupid. believing they'll blow up in buses and public places make them earn to go to heaven, especially killing jews and westners. because world dont have backbone to stand up, we only make them look smart. ppl will do anything to give up their right for peace and security. all out war for them? 30x worse? it's easier said than done when you fight those who dont have nation.

It has 3 different views at the same time. I wasnt going to point this out, but seem to like to alter what i state to you're own liking I guess I will. I'm not going to sit here and pick it apart, but if you reread it you will see... unless you want me do prove it.

you keep saying I am not answering your question, in which I have on several occasions but you refuse to see it. I am sorry I cannot download news clips, history channel programs, documentaries, and scan news paper articles for you. There are more sources outside the internet you know? Are they bias? yes, probably so. If you are googling "727 million barrels over 10 years" you arent going to find it. I got the number from the US Petroilum Resevers official website, the decade part comes from various internet and non internet sources. If that isnt the answer to your question, then I have no idea what you are asking.

You say I keep changing the subject, I'm sorry but thats far from correct. I respond to what I see you type, You are leading this debate.. not me. I reply to the subjects you have posted in which in your view "drifts from the origin of the debate".

The original debate topic at least what i wished to debate was the effects of a terrorist attack on saudi oil. You have jumped from topic to topic in which I have responded to each without complaining of this "drifting".

I don't bluff, and comparing me to some other half-wit on another forum I really do not apperciate. You seem to be taking this disputation too personally. And if that is the case then we need to put and end to it. I have not been sitting her comparing you to some other debate I had, or accusing you of avoiding my questions, nor do I need to. The topic is the debate not me or you.

Wolflord: Fighting china would be stupid, It would seriously hurt our economy along with theirs. Just look at the tag on your shirt, your bic pen, and you pocket knife. China is our biggest trading partner. All the "china is going to nuke the US and the US is going to nuke china and they hate each other" Is political garbage. We both respectfully fear each other and the media likes to put a spin on it for good a good story to put up on primetime TV. Yes there is tension here and there, but money talks. China couldnt stand up to the US in a naval battle nor an air war, but we cannot possibly beat them on the ground in there own land. Their ground forces are the largest in the world and you could put together a US/Euro colition and it wouldnt get the job done. Russia maybe could take china... but no one could invade russia.. its too big. Hitler made that mistake.

btw Cloud, I ment to type Century, i was being sarcastic and made a typo. I never called anything you said stupid. and I just did a "find next" to double check, and when i used the actual word "stupid" it followed the word aren't, wasn't, or not. I don't call people stupid or what they say stupid in a formal debate, I have a bit more respect for you than that.

let me clarify. when i said we were drifting off, i meant we are drifting before checking the facts first. i felt that every answer **about the statstics** about the oil is ignored and focused on other topics which was also relevant to make that conclusions. you did try to change the subject by telling me how i misunderstood you. "yet you quickly changed the subject to -show me where i said there were unbiased independant studies" instead, you avoided it, picked something out of context." i never claimed that what we were discussing was irrelevant. "origin of debate" is your word. i clearly stated what "subject" was drifting off from.

this is the problem i see here dx. i didnt say you called my response stupid, that's why i put biased in it because you called most of all articles biased like i pointed earlier. "every defense you call it are biased or stupid." such as.."fighting china would be stupid." "terrorists arent stupid enough to blow up saudi oil." you also seems to be "altering what i state as your own liking." granted, you gave a reason after those comments but nations motive is based to current situations relating to what's going on in the world. however i soley rely on news and articles because i cant just walk up there and sort out the true and false. so i said "we were discussing what ifs and what nots".

from the first statistic which is 50 mil per day by 2010, which i responded with the possibility of saudi oil terrorism with source and was met with your response with "wrong" without any source that can be examined, and to the point that US and china and russia would join together, right? then i said, "china and russian wont just let us have it." why? because who needs our economy when they get their own oil and they can do whatever they want without US interfering every little detail about taiwan and so on. that's why i presented the articles and links but if that isnt good enough for you, i cant change your mind that those are some political garbage. i expected you to do the same not because i dont trust you, it just didnt added up for me and where you formed your opinions from. either that be statistics or current world events.

it's true, i'm not satisfied with your answers. i wanted to know where you got it because however i worded really didnt matter such as "like unbiased article you believe there is." what more complicated things was that you told me i could get my answers searching through googles, news papers, and history channel later on. if you thought i wanted to check most of all article was biased, that was far from what i wanted to know. i know some are biased and some are not. i didnt need to check something i already realize. i regards your opinion high and knows that you know a lot better than me. that's why i wanted to see it. theres no way i think you are bluffing, that wasnt my point of that story. she admitted she couldnt get it herself even though it was indirectly. she must read it somewhere too, she didnt just thought of it out of blue, she also made some good points but really didnt make sense to me due to observation of what motive of iraqi invasion was all about. so i wanted to look at that source you got it from, that's where i wanted to focus first. finally, you tell me where you got your source from which is called "US petroilum reservers official website." now you answered part of my answer and i thank you for that. however, "i cannot download news clips, history channel programs, documantaries, and scan news paper articles for you", "the decade part comes from various internet and non interet sources" will not. which means i'll never find it. right? i wasnt gonna rub it in, or win some arguement to make me feel better if you couldnt. let me say this again, main point we are argueing why nations would join or not, fight or not, blow up saudi oil and whatnot is based on how much oil US is using and depends on following economic collapse along with what world's state is right now, motive. i have every right to be suspicious that 727 mil over decade is wrongly informed because i dont know how you come up with or confidently reject the studies that make sense from recognition of oil price and depency of foreign oil US is struggling with. sorry if i demand proof. but that's the way i debate.

Well if that is the case, Then i cannot provide all of my sources. I debate on my current knowledge in which I have gained over the years. Ranging from News Paper article, The news (not the best source), The net, History professors, and stuff like that. I retain a lot of that stuff with me through out life. Some of the Political Science classes I have taken have turned me bitter towards many things which is why I am always skecptical of these "reports".

And Right Now i have to admit I have lost interest in this disputation along with a various other things because I had a really hot date last night and nothing much is carrying my interest except for that X'D I honestly didn't even feel like replying to this post when I got home late last night but I forced myself too. I didnt even pay attention in class today. I apologize

there is no need to apologize for anything if there is hot girl involved. X'D w00t! good luck :)

Its an interesting story i might post a rave on it later in R&R. Its not every day some attractive female wants me to hang out with her XD

tryin to get some tail before the world ends eh Dx X'D

tryin to get some tail before the world ends eh Dx X'D

what can i say? :p