I know what they are *not* going towards though...
Right, right. I mean, you've been wrong about everything else so you're obviously an expert.
I haven't been wrong about anything Joph. You were the one arguing that oil subsidies were sufficient to somehow increase domestic oil production. My argument has been that what little oil subsidies might possibly create some kind of incentive to increase domestic oil production are far more than offset by numerous government policies, regulations, and red tape which create a disincentive.
I'm frankly not sure at all how pointing out just how little of the subsidy money goes towards oil exploration helps your point at all. If anything, the fact that only an incredibly tiny portion of oil company subsidies goes towards exploration, which is the *only* thing subsidized which could remotely be argued to help actual oil production, makes your position weaker and mine stronger.
Yet you keep crowing about this fact as though you somehow "win" something by it. The irony of this is that you are so caught up on winning an irrelevant point about the distribution of subsidies in a vain attempt to argue I'm wrong about something, so I must be wrong about everything, that you failed to see that you're arguing against your own position.
Ever notice how, in every debate about oil, you fuck up the most basic facts? Do you think, perhaps, you're just not qualified to talk about the subject? Much less to whine about people not responding the way you demand?
Ever notice how, in almost every argument you engage in, you lose sight of the actual positions being argued and veer off onto some irrelevant tangent. Tell me Joph: What do you think you "win" by arguing how small the portion of subsidy money the oil companies get goes into exploration?
You've somehow argued yourself into a circle. As you usually do. Maybe you care about that distribution of subsidies, but I don't. My argument has never depended on that
. It certainly wasn't based on a need for subsidies for exploration to make up a large portion of the total. It's funny to watch you jump on a perceived error on my part while effectively destroying your own position in the process.
So we're agreed that US subsidies to oil companies essentially do nothing to help increase domestic oil production, right? So bringing them up as some kind of counter to someone saying that the US isn't doing enough to increase domestic oil production is... meaningless, right?