That is an interesting question.  When the price of gas was too high, what did you do?

Many bitched and moaned and accused the greedy oil companies of price gouging.  Indeed, Congress wants (another) committee to look into it.  And some of the moaners were actually Republicans.  But alas, most were Green Friendly democrats.  So question number one is: Why?

When the price went through the ceiling, I cut back.  Many did, some could not.  But consumption did fall.  Which means that less bad gasses were getting into the atmosphere, and hence global warming was delayed by a day or two.  So what was the problem there?  For all the green friendly people, what is so bad about high energy prices?  Don't you even listen to your constituency?  Earth friendly, ELF, The Sierra Club, all want that, why don't you?  If you goal is to reduce the green house gasses, jack up the price!  Hell, those quick trips to the market will disappear as will many long vacation drives.

OK, so you are not a green.  But you are all for the poor and do not want them to suffer.  So prices have to stay low.  Now question number 2: How do you ensure low prices?

Answer: Increase supply!  The more available gas, then the producers cannot demand a price, they have to bid for your patronage!  And how do you increase the supply?  Drill for more!  So why are the liberals who pretend they want to help the poor, not for drilling in ANWR?  While that may not reduce the price of oil to 50 cents a gallon, it will do a couple of things.  First, it will moderate the price rise (that is called a cut in Washington-ease - just ask Gideon on his Food Stamp article).  Second, it will increase the supply, which will lead to actual reductions in price.  The poor will be helped!  A perfect solution to one of the poor's problems.  Actually many since oil is the basis for many of life's taken for granted pleasures!

So why are the "For the Poor" liberals not in favor of increasing the supply?

So here we have a nice little quiz.  I would love to hear how we can stop global warming, decrease the price of oil, help the poor, save the environment, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil so we don't have to have another war for oil.

But wait!  We have one more question.  OK, substitutes.  How many are for replacing oil as an energy source?  OK, how many have voted against new Nuclear power plants.  Since the first one built, only one has had a significant accident, and that was in the old USSR.  They are environmentally friendly, so there is no green house gasses.  But, there is that pesky spent uranium!  Yea, that is a mess, right?

OK, so their is solar power and wind power and water power!  But wait!  Strike water power.  That stops fish from fulfilling their manifest destiny.  So how about solar and Wind power? Oh, drat!  There are those ugly windmills and solar panels!  As we heard from  Bobby Jr, better to burn oil, than to despoil a view of a beach!  And those solar panels? Well, on a large scale they have not been commercially feasible yet.  But they are on an individual basis!

So the next question is - How many of the Greens now use solar or wind energy solely?  What? only a handful?  Why how could they be dangerous?  Is that not the be all and end all of their positions?  What?  They still burn fossil fuels? (a misnomer BTW).

OK, Final Question:  Who is bitching about no energy policy?  And how does their voting record stand with the above issues and questions?

And you still vote for them on this issue?

Sorry, one more question.  If you are a green, why are you not producing alternate sources of energy to oil?  Are you so lazy as to let someone else get rich off your ideas, and then blast them for getting rich because they are more ambitious than you?