"And you've still never answered the question: how would you bring prices down in the short term? So far, you've proposed an unproven technology in its infancy and more drilling, which by most estimates wouldn't produce oil, or affect crude prices for at least ten years.

What's your brilliant plan?"

And yet you STILL fail to let us in on your brilliant plan to lower gas prices in the interim. You propose the shale sham, which can't produce anything as of yet, and may not for decades, and more drilling, which would bring the cost of oil down by... ? Who knows, because you surely don't. You refuse to answer the question. Because you can't.

The fact is that if we doubled U.S. production overnight, not possible even with your faulty logic, that would be 12 million barrels, which would add 6 million barrels, and do almost NOTHING to the overall cost of crude. We're talking pennies off the price.

That's your grand plan. Instead of paying $4.50, we'd be paying $4.45. I'm sure millions and millions of jobs depend on that nickel... at least in your mind.

Bush's executive moratorium is not a red herring. It stands in the way of more offshore drilling. (Hence the word: moratorium) He's a coward for not lifting it. And it's cowardly to make excuses for him.

Not that I expect any more from someone who sees 10,000 approved permits for drilling as some sort of obstacle to drill. Only your warped mind would see that as a problem.

No one has said "No More Drilling." No one. It's your age-old straw man argument, and it's debunked and trite and meaningless. Kinda like you.

But please, enlighten us as to your grand plan to lower gas prices more than your mythical nickel. The fact is: you don't have one, and neither does flip-flopper McCain.

LOL, you really make me laugh some times, Nance.

Only you could hear "I like high gas prices" from Obama's response to that question.

Your mind is a comic goldmine. You are absolutely nuts. What else do the voices tell you?

Nance, why don't you enlighten us all with a direct quote from Obama where he says he likes high gas prices.

Yes, you still completely lack any short-term mitigation of oil prices. You cite fantasy timelines of 2 years for more drilling, even though I've sourced an oil company spokesperson saying it will take an additional 10 years to bring more offshore drilling into the picture.

You brazenly gloss over the FACTS of the U.S. shale oil sham, that it's an unproven technology that has yet to produce a single drop of commercially viable oil, and it further wreaks massive environmental catastrophe without other, unproven or fantasy technologies. That's a great plan.

Meanwhile, we have hybrid vehicles now that double most vehicles current fuel mileage, in addition to newer technologies by companies like Tesla, which do produce electric cars and the Volt from GM, which will be introduced shortly after Obama assumes the presidency and institutes his plans for increased hydroelectric, solar and geothermal energy, thus mitigating the environmental effects of energy production.

In addition, you have CARB and EPA mileage mandates which will futher wean us from oil. Both of those programs came from the Democrats, with heavy opposition from the Republicans.

Why hasn't Bush released his Executive Moratorium on offshore drilling? Congress could authorize the companies to drill wherever they saw fit, but Bush stands in the way.

Nance, Republicans opted not to use the nuclear option and remove filibusters in 2005. Now, they're taking advantage of filibusters as they're not in power. That's hypocritical to note.

And please stop with the shale oil sham. There has not been a single drop of commercially viable oil to come from the shale debacles in Utah and Colorado. Shale oil technology is in its infancy, and if it ever matures, will rely on carbon sequestration, another unproven technology, to mitigate its environmental impacts. The other risks, such as subsurface environmental problems, like arsenic and selenium draining into groundwater from in situ retorting, pose even greater risks with no proven solution.

Not to mention... in order to produce your 1.5 trillion barrels of oil would require 60,000,000 tons of shale. (1 ton of shale may produce 25 gallons of oil) That's a gargantuan amount of land to pillage for an unproven technology. RAND estimates the mining and excavation projects involved in shale production will dwarf the largest open-pit mines. Have you ever seen the Kennecott copper mine in Utah? Imagine several of them.

What about the electricity needs of shale production? "The RAND report estimates that turning out 100,000 bbl of oil per day would require 1.2 gigawatts of electricity. "A million barrels a day would demand at least 10 power plants, plus five new coal mines to feed them," says Randy Udall, a Colorado energy analyst." Where is the electricity going to come from?

And you've still never answered the question: how would you bring prices down in the short term? So far, you've proposed an unproven technology in its infancy and more drilling, which by most estimates wouldn't produce oil, or affect crude prices for at least ten years.

What's your brilliant plan?