US News
Obama willing to compromise on offshore drilling
Aug 2, 2008, 5:55 GMT
On the Web
Similar articles
- Obama edges out McCain in scramble for the green vote (Feature)
- Energy independence: The great challenge for Obama, McCain (Feature)
- Obama calls for end to foreign oil dependence in 10 years (Roundup)
- Obama calls for end to foreign oil dependence in 10 years
- McCain scolds oil nations, touts US reserves; Obama cries flip-flop
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Romney lags behind a surging Santorum in US polls
- 2. Whitney Houston to be buried Saturday in small family funeral
- 3. Obama, Democrats get Republican raspberries for Valentine's Day
- 4. Obama calls for quick passage of payroll tax holiday extension
- 5. Report: Director Oliver Stone's son converts to Islam
Older Talkback
page: 1
His record is non existent and his words mean nothing.
He simply stands for absolutely nothing what so ever.
He lied about Campaign matching funds.
He lied about filibustering telecom immunity.
He flip-flopped on the DC gun ban.
He flip-flopped on Iraq troop withdrawals
He flip-flopped on the government's eavesdropping program.
He flip-flopped on late term abortion and then re flipped.
He flip-flopped on gay marriage.
He flip-flopped on NAFTA.
He flip-flopped on The Cuba embargo.
He flip-flopped on welfare reform.
He flip-flopped on Donations from Lobbyists.
He flip-flopped on serving his full term as senator.
He flip-flopped on Meeting with Foreign Leaders like Iran.
He flip-flopped on tossing Jeremiah Wright under the bus.
He flip-flopped on Jerusalem being undivided.
He flip-flopped on the PATRIOT Act.
He flip-flopped on Coal mining.
He flip-flopped on 'PAYGO'
He flip-flopped on legal Immigrants getting Driver's Licenses.
He flip-flopped on school Vouchers
SINCE HE HAS NO RECORD TO RUN ON (other then cultivating relationships with anyone who has said that they hate the USA.) AND YOU CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS WHAT ARE PEOPLE VOTING FOR?
.
I'd like not to respond to above ranting ,too paranoid for me .
It could be a good idea however to exploit off-shore resources given the right circumstances .Possibly that is what Obama thought.I don't really know,above poster certainly doesn't know and doesn't care .
What if oil reserves could be used to the advantage of the americans,that wouldn't be bad,nobody could oppose that .Just let's find out if those sources can really profit the american people,not the greed of the allready too influential oil tycoons .Nationalizing those fields would be the first step ?Now funny enough I expct to be covered with criticism from the very same neocons and republicans that want the exploitation too .At least in my scenarion all the profit would go to you all,badly in need for revnues to fill the gap in your budget without aving to raise taxes .All the revenue that spells,,wouldn't that be nice .what would above poster have to say about that ,so concerned with the flipflopping of Obama?
Barack Obama as next President of The United States of America
The die is cast and for reasons that only a privileged few know, you Sir, will be the next President of the United States of America. Your next 4 years will be a turning point in US history and planet earth. CHANGE, your advisors and high stake investors offer the nation will undoubtedly be the same rhetoric and empty promises that make up a political campaign, that campaigns for appointment for any public office in America.
The White House will be the Black House to some, the Aryan Brothers of America will not be so happy, but yet will blame you and your staff if you fail, which will reinforce their belief that the Aryan Nation is the true leader for America. The religious zealots will be busy bees making nests to survive the onslaught of lies, corruption and deceit. Business enterprises and other competing nations will capitalize off of your inexperience in the art of corruption and murder. The organized crime organizations from different nations including our own will benefit from the lack of control over national crime.
Military governments including our own will test your tolerance to pain and deception and trick you into needless and profitable domestic and international conflict. You will no doubt attempt to colorize your staff to soften the race conflict once in office.
As President you will be President. Nations will respect you only for your title of office. Americans will soon see after your appointment as President that your intentions were manipulated by those that make the rules. You will fill the spot in history as planned, and nothing more.
You will never while in office be able to pull the troops from conflict in any land we are engaged in. As a matter of fact we as a nation will be engaged in a new conflict of war, which will galvanize Americans to seek a different form of government and a different and honest Congress.
You will attempt to shore up Americas problems with false promise and lies, because you cannot directly affect the CHANGE you promised.
Your frustration will be your downfall while in office, and your co-dependence on those that you trust will also add to your demise.
Our Armed Forces in rank will respect you as good soldiers they are, but those under them will not, and for good reasons, that only a good soldier knows.
America will not be America until its government respects the People, and tells the truth. America is a Republic, not a Democracy or Fascist Government or is it?
Until you can walk thru the streets and neighborhoods of America unaided by Secret Service or any other law enforcement agency you will not be respected by the many, only by the fearful and selfish few. Americans can protect their leaders if they are honest and respectful of the people they were elected to serve. Our Government has forsaken us for many hundreds of years, and now we will wait until your 4 years are finished for us to come to fruition.
CHANGE FOR AMERICA FOR AMERICANS!
The American Republic
A Sovereign Republic
When someone has had time to study a program or receive more information and always refuses to change their original thinking on any matter, then those are the ones I am skeptical about - a little like our current 'Chief'.
is fishing for the republican vote.
Smart tactics!
He correctly realises he cannot win being on the wrong side of this issue, also realizing he means absolutely none of it.
'I'd like not to respond to above ranting ,too paranoid for me .'
It happens to be true. Why don't you fix your own miserable country instead of lecturing others about theirs?
Barack Obama kinda-sorta admits that his “I don’t look like those other presidents” line just might be referring to his race.
“I don’t think it’s accurate to say that my comments have nothing to do with race,” Obama said. “Here’s what I was saying and I think this should be undisputed: That I don’t come out of central casting, when it comes to presidential races. For a whole range of reasons. I’m young, I’m new to the national scene, my name is Barack Obama, I am African American, I was born in Hawaii, I spent time in Indonesia. I do not have the typical biography of a presidential candidate.”
Obama should have a word with his staff, then, so they don’t continue to reflexively deny things that are obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells.
An Obama spokesman denied that the line about “dollar bills” was related to the Democrat’s race...
mccain is a nut case so what to do now?
the country is in a pickle
Obama has to say this because he has done the polls knowing most Americans back domestic production despite the democratic position.
i bought a new pair of flip flops today at wallyworld
Did they have McCain's picture on them?
What Obama's people saw was over 70 percent approval for offshore drilling; and SHAME on the voters for seeing this fraudulent case as a solution. I realize that SP4 is a biased ignoramus; but is what he has catching?
At this point, Obama should just call McCain's entire platform a pack of lies, and make McCain prove his nonsensical claims via statements from scientists. While he's at it, put up a map of the Mideast without country names, and have McCain identify which is which; INCLUDING his stupid remark about the Iraq/Pakistan border.
We've had nothing but lies for the past 8 years from Bush et al; starting with Saddam's (non)-involvement with 9/11, and continuing with one flawed policy after another, until Petraeus figured out the answer - pay the Sunni to shoot at the bad guys, instead of us.
The GOP is running a 'medicine show', selling the public nostrums off the back of a wagon - 'we have a cure for everything'. What they HAVE done is neglect the entire energy situation for the past 8 years; aside from the hot air generated by Cheney personally.
Boone Pickems, ardent Republican, is out there publicizing the fact that we cannot drill our way out of this overall problem. The oil companies have PLENTY of offshore leases to drill on right now, and are not doing so.
www.kansascity.com/340/story/729151.html
(www.pickensplan.com/.)
Summed up, Pickens wants to:
• Boost wind production, an environmentally friendly way to provide more electricity for the county. It’s already proving to be a wise investment in parts of rural Kansas.
• Boost use of natural gas, which is cheaper than gasoline as a fuel for automobiles while less polluting.
• Slash oil consumption and America’s multibillion-dollar outlays for foreign crude.
===================
The essential problems with offshore drilling (aside from the safety factors brought to light by the government report of REAL problems with the rigs during recent hurricanes):
a). The oil is far below the surface of the ocean floor, and it's expensive to drill and not find anything.
b). Those offshore rigs are in very short supply, and expensive. Maintenance is expensive. Staffing the rig is expensive.
It would take YEARS from first ownership of a lease to get to the point of production; and the oil companies have PLENTY of leases they're not drilling on.
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=49&entry_id=28730
According to Paul Krugman, half of voters believe that allowing drilling will bring prices down within a year. Roughly the same percentage of Californians now support offshore drilling for the same reason.
Trouble is, offshore drilling won't affect prices at all for at least 8 years. That's how long it would take to begin pumping from new sites. And the Bush administration itself predicts that even after oil begins to flow into the market from offshore rigs, the effect on consumer prices would be 'insignificant.'
It's disturbing that voters can still be so easily misled into energy policies that only help the corporations that are bleeding them dry. Perhaps they're desperate and irrational as a result of high gas prices, but I wonder if part of the problem is lack of education about environmental issues. Then again, maybe this is just another case of Democrats failing to win the battle of rhetoric, even with the facts on their side.
Yes, it is a shame that an intelligent person cannot look at their stance, study the facts and change their minds. Something these Republican't cannot imaging---changing their mind? What a joke, if they knew how to change their minds we may have only lost a few hundred troops in Afghanistan instead of the 4000+ in Iraq where they cannot even define the objective.
It is nice to realize maybe this 'brain dead' evangelical stranglehold on this country may be almost over. Lets get back to reality and start making decisions on facts and stop making decisions on what the base thinks is good.
'Yes, it is a shame that an intelligent person cannot look at their stance, study the facts and change their minds. '
You see though, If you don't have a record to run on, which he does not, all people have to go on is your words. If you take every stand on everything and if you lie, people don't have anything to go on.
Obama doesn't have a record of accomplishment other then being the most liberal member of the senate during the 143 days he served before he decided to run for president.
'instead of the 4000+ in Iraq where they cannot even define the objective.'
The objective has been defined repeatedly for you. The fact is that Obama has been consistently wrong on Iraq and after his little commander and chief summer school he has adopted the policy of someone who was right about the surge, right about the tactics, right about the general, right about getting rid of Rummsfeld and right about how wrong Obamas deadlines were: John McCain.
'Lets get back to reality and start making decisions on facts'
Your idea of 'facts' is whatever you want to believe. Speaking of the base, how do you feel about Obamas flip flops to the center on Fisa, the Patriot act, Iraq, etc? Oh right, we already sorted that out. You don't care because you are a dewy eyed dupe.
McCain was in a unique position to counter Bush's arguments when made - and long after the fact, he agrees that 'errors' were made, and that he disagreed with Bush's policies.
How does that represent leadership? 'Follower-ship' is more like it, and a vote for McCain is a vote for no solution to the larger problems of terrorism; along with energy and our financial problems. THAT'S what people are concerned about.
The problem with the surge is that it has not produced the POLITICAL results that it was proposed for, and as the recent Rand report noted, a MILITARY-ONLY solution is now what's needed; but it's all McCain understands; while Obama understands DIPLOMACY. Read the Rand report:
www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29/
Current U.S. strategy against the terrorist group al Qaida has not been successful in significantly undermining the group's capabilities, according to a new RAND Corporation study issued today.
Al Qaida has been involved in more terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, than it was during its prior history and the group's attacks since then have spanned an increasingly broader range of targets in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, according to researchers.
In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended, the RAND study found that most terrorist groups end either because they join the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrest or kill key members. Police and intelligence agencies, rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against al Qaida in most of the world, and the United States should abandon the use of the phrase 'war on terrorism,' researchers concluded.
'The United States cannot conduct an effective long-term counterterrorism campaign against al Qaida or other terrorist groups without understanding how terrorist groups end,' said Seth Jones, the study's lead author and a political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. 'In most cases, military force isn't the best instrument.'
The comprehensive study analyzes 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, drawing from a terrorism database maintained by RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. The most common way that terrorist groups end -- 43 percent -- was via a transition to the political process. However, the possibility of a political solution is more likely if the group has narrow goals, rather than a broad, sweeping agenda like al Qaida possesses.
(It was NEVER about winning; but rather to allow the Iraqis to get into position to do the job. We have not reached that point. Every military action by the Iraqi army is backed up by U.S. forces, intel, and equipment. The government cannot agree on oil revenues, and the latest problem is the Kurds looking to become their own country, in effect)
www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3738
Q: Colonel, this is Courtney Kube from NBC News. You answered Will's question by saying that your mission right now is to drive down the level of violence to a manageable level for the Iraqi security forces to handle when you guys leave. So is it fair to say that your mission is then -- is not to actually win, not to beat the insurgency, but just to drive it down to a lower level?
COL MACFARLAND: Well, I think so. You know, an insurgency is a very difficult thing to defeat in a finite period of time. It takes a lot of persistence -- perseverance is the actual term that we like to use. And who knows how long this is going to actually last.
But if we get the level of violence down to a point where the Iraqi security forces are more than capable of dealing with it, the insurgency's days will eventually come to an end, and they'll come to an end at the hands of the Iraqis who, by definition, will always be perceived as more legitimate than an external force like our own. And there is no single military answer to an insurgency, it's a combination of multiple approaches, both kinetic, which is to say violent, or non-kinetic, which includes financial, governmental, and other types of approaches.
And the Iraqi police are really the most ideally suited to bringing that to closure.
What gave you the impression that anybody cares that you were impressed? What a lonely life you lead, EssPee.
'You see though, If you don't have a record to run on, which he does not, all people have to go on is your words. If you take every stand on everything and if you lie, people don't have anything to go on.'
Who said anything about his record. We all know he has limited experience and we are OK with that. I guess your little neo-con mind cannot grasp the fact that we have had it with experience---experience had not worked out real well. It is only a lie if it is Obama changing his mind? I guess it is Ok that McSame changed his mind on drilling? That must make him a liar?
'Obama doesn't have a record of accomplishment other then being the most liberal member of the senate during the 143 days he served before he decided to run for president.'
So what? See comments above same applies. And by the way he did not 'decide to run for president' he had to earn the right and he won fair and square (just like he is going to do in November).
'The objective has been defined repeatedly for you. The fact is that Obama has been consistently wrong on Iraq and after his little commander and chief summer school he has adopted the policy of someone who was right about the surge, right about the tactics, right about the general, right about getting rid of Rummsfeld and right about how wrong Obamas deadlines were: John McCain.'
Just because you have tried to define the objective and I do not agree does not make you right and me wrong. 4000 + dead troops along with over 20,000 wounded 5,000 seriously for a country that is going to become part of Iran as soon as we leave is not what the dead troops would consider a good definition.
'Your idea of 'facts' is whatever you want to believe. Speaking of the base, how do you feel about Obamas flip flops to the center on Fisa, the Patriot act, Iraq, etc? Oh right, we already sorted that out. You don't care because you are a dewy eyed dupe.'
Again says you! I think the same about your facts. I am happy with him being able to look at things and change his mind, I don't care what it is about. I don't mind McSame changing his mind, done in an intelligent manner is good leadership. Not admitting you made a mistake and continuing the mistake even though people are getting killed is not leadership that is stupidity.
Another cowardly flipflop:
WASHINGTON - Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall.
In May, when a McCain adviser proposed a series of pre-convention appearances at town hall meetings, Obama said, 'I think that's a great idea.' In summer stumping on the campaign trail, McCain has often noted that Obama had not followed through and joined him in any events.
Obama's reversal on town hall debates is part of a play-it-safe strategy he's adopted since claiming the nomination and grabbing a lead in national polls. Advisers to the Illinois senator, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss strategy, say Obama is reluctant to take chances or give McCain a high-profile stage now that Obama's the front-runner.
On Saturday, in a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the short period between the last political convention and the first proposed debate made it likely that the commission-sponsored debates would be the only ones.
'We've committed to the three debates on the table,' campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Saturday in an interview. 'It's likely they will be the three appearances by the candidates this fall.'
Obama is a coward who is afraid of an old man.
Today he is trying to explain that it is not a flip flop:
Obama Attempts to Explain Shift on Offshore Drilling
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., fought back against the perception that he’s shifted away from his opposition to off-shore oil drilling by suggesting he softened his position as a compromise toward a broader energy policy.
Obama first indicated Friday in an interview with the Palm Beach Post that he would be willing to compromise on his opposition to off-shore drilling, and would consider expanding the current drilling boundaries --
Today, at a press availability in Cape Canaveral, Fla., Obama said that his comments weren’t a shift.
“This wasn’t really a new position.' [!!!] [...]
On Friday, the bi-partisan “Gang of 10” group of senators unveiled a compromise energy plan that would include opening areas of the Gulf of Mexico and southeast Atlantic to drilling –- in addition to raising taxes on major oil companies. Part of the plan also includes oil exploration 50 miles off of Florida’s coastline –- a state that is an important battleground in the general election.
Obama said that while he hasn’t seen the Gang of 10’s final legislation, he understood it has some aggressive elements that could move America in the direction of energy independence.
“I think is a positive step, so there are a whole bunch of good things that have been proposed by this bi-partisan group,' Obama said. 'I remain skeptical of some of the drilling provisions, but I will give them credit that the way they crafted the drilling positions are about as careful and responsible as you might expect for a drilling agenda.”
Obama said while he is opening the door to a compromise, he will not support a plan that suggests drilling is the answer to the nation’s energy problems.
Obama’s softening of his position will likely play into the hands of the McCain campaign, which has been framing Obama as “Dr. No” on energy issues.
Today, the McCain campaign suggested Obama still has farther to move on the issue of offshore drilling.
“It’s clear that members of both parties are following John McCain's leadership toward an ‘all of the above’ approach on energy that includes nuclear, alternative energy and off shore drilling,' said Tucker Bounds, a McCain spokesman. 'We hope Barack Obama will realize that his ongoing opposition to John McCain’s realistic energy solutions and additional offshore drilling is wrong.”
Obama has simply taken every position on everything. You can;t believe a word he says because he just goes back on it the next day...
So a few days ago Obama says that McCain was being racist by scaring people about Obama being unqualified to be president. (People should be scared by someone who decided he was ready to be president after serving 143 days in the senate) then his campaign denied that they were playing the race card:
'An Obama spokesman denied that the line about “dollar bills” was related to the Democrat’s race...'
Now all of a sudden they admit it:
Sen. Barack Obama’s chief strategist conceded that the Democratic presidential candidate was referring to his race when he said Republicans were trying to scare voters by suggesting Obama “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”…
When pressed to explain the comment, Axelrod told “GMA” it meant, “He’s not from central casting when it comes to candidates for president of the United States. He’s new to Washington. Yes, he’s African-American.”
OK so it was about race, yesterday Obama kinda-sorta admits that his “I don’t look like those other presidents” line just might be referring to his race.
“I don’t think it’s accurate to say that my comments have nothing to do with race,” Obama said.
Obama has led a one-man crusade to keep the American people ignorant about what's at stake in the debate over off-shore drilling. This, it seems to me, is almost criminal. For it implies that there is no set of facts under which we should ever consider drilling off-shore. The absurdity of that position, always apparent, is confirmed by Obama's willingness to flip on the issue.
Here's the background. In 2005, Congress considered energy legislation that included an off-shore inventory. The inventory would provide an estimate of our off-shore reserves. Taking it wouldn't mean drilling; it would just tell us what's out there. Yet Obama voted to kill the off-shore inventory provision. So, unfortunately, did John McCain. However, the effort to kill the inventory failed, and the first inventory report was issued in February 2006.
Obama, though, did not give up in his efforts to keep the public ignorant. In January 2007, he proposed legislation to eliminate the authorization to conduct the inventory, as established in the 2005 law. Obama's bill is S. 115. The key provision is section 101(a)(5). It provides that 'Section 357 (42 U.S.C. 15912) (relating to comprehensive inventory of OCS oil and natural gas resources)' is 'repealed as of the date of enactment of this act.' It's my understanding that Obama is the only sponsor of this legislation.
Ironically, Obama called his legislation 'The Oil SENSE Act.' How audacious a label for an act that would deprive the public of key information relevant to deciding whether off-shore drilling makes sense. As far as I know, Obama's legislation is still pending.
It's wonderful that Obama now thinks it might be ok to drill off-shore, provided that such drilling is part of an 'overarching really thoughtful' energy package. Perhaps now, as part of the package, Obama will stop opposing an inventory of our off-shore energy assets. After all, if Obama is prepared to support drilling, he no longer needs to keep voters in the dark about what we are losing by not drilling.
how you people know everything about everyone...wow
What they are doing is merely putting their own ignorance, stupidity, biases and prejudices on display for the whole world to laugh at. The right wing, nut jobs are nothing but entertainment. This is better than a three ring circus. And it is going to get better once the conventions are over and the real show begins. Then watch for the verbal diarrhea from the out to lunch crowd. The pack of Republican rabid dogs is running around in circles, chasing their tails and baying at the moon.
You hit the nail on the head with that one - the comedy show with their descriptive comments is a hoot!
Of course B. HUSSEIN obama is not qualified to be president because he has no experience in waging perpetual war. He has not manipulated the people into being fooled about the 'war on terror.' He did not change our direction after 9/11, and lead the country to the wrong place, into a country to kill people who had nothing to do with 9/11. He did not let the real 9/11 terrorists escape into Pakistan and stay there for years in safe havens.
Because the man has not experience with these activities, he can not be qualified to become the president.
In addition, he has no experience being a white person, a necessary and historic prerequisite to becoming the president. We have always had white, male presidents, and the country has no experience with presidents of other ethnic backgrounds or who have been women. We can not afford to flip-flop on this all important qualification now. If this man really wanted to win he would take some tips from Michael Jackson concerning altering his skin tone.
More importantly, the candidate has no experience with name chages, and to be the president he should change his name to something more politically correct and acceptable to us WASPs. I suggest 'Barry HUMPHREY O'Brian', or a similar name. Something with a closer name recognition to a white American. This would make him much more qualified to hold office.
another nail hit squarely!
To: amazing
@ To: Amazing
Isn't it great to play pretend? Do you create imaginary persona's in 'real' life that agree with you as well?
This all means less than nothing.
Obama is a liberal. His strength is with them, no matter how many pull-overs he gets.
He is no more going to piss off the anti-energy lobby i.e. tree huggers, Birkenstalkers, Sierra Club fanatics and Global Warming Jihadders than he would give Jesse Helms a wet kiss.
This is all talk...'compromise'...how in the f--k does he do that???...drill here but not there?....now he's got a friggin map of the palces he's gonna lose so those are the spots he's gonna drill???
Nonsense.
Go start your own country somewhere else - you screwed this one up already. Perhaps you could then bring back the Salem witch trials, and make the religious right REALLY happy.I wonder if the GOP pays these fools by the word; or by the lie?What a disgraceful group. Thanks to your idiotic Iraq policy, Iran has been enabled as never before to become a major problem. Bush Sr. had the good sense to listen to the other nations in the region, and leave the Sunni in power.The latest from Iraq is that they are unable to bring the factions together to hold elections. Now, THERE'S a Democracy for you. Our military presence holds the place together, and the only way to get the drawdown we all want is for a U.S. President to lean hard on al-Maliki to get the damned job done! Bush is a kiss-ass.That's not McCain, either. The Sunni in 2006 were afraid that a Democratic majority would lead to an actual drawdown, and THAT'S when they really began to co-operate in going after al Qaeda, who had been making their lives miserable. Petraeus paid them $300 a head to stop shooting at US, and we bought off a former enemy. So began the 'surge'.The REAL threat of drawing down is what will make al-Maliki get his act together; because with those oil revenues, Iraq now actually has something to LOSE if they fall apart. The real reason that we needed the increase in Iraqi military was to control the !COUNTRY!; not Al Qaeda. THIS is why even Bush is now doing his own version of a 'time horizon'.That's how Saddam operated - the Republican Guard and other groups put down Shia dissent. That's what Iraq will look like in the future; but with the Shia majority in control - leaving the Sunni and Kurds to fend for themselves. The 'WIN' would be their battling those differences out in Parliament; rather than with bombs and bullets, and civilian deaths.Watch the problems in the Israeli Parliament when Olmert is gone.
Too bad that a neutral person can't check the IP's. It would prove that the posts came from two separate people, with no connection, in separate countries. But then you nut job would scream conspiracy anyway. As for your header: 'Imaginary friends are for lonely children' It is obvious that you are very lonely with no friends at all. Even your baby sitter has to tie a steak around your neck so your dog will play with you. In the mean time, crawl back under your rock and play with yourself, if you can find it. That is, if even That is a friend.
'It would prove that the posts came from two separate people, with no connection, in separate countries.'
How do you know that they are in separate countries? Could be 2 whiny canadians who resent being the worlds second banana. You wouldn't have any idea unless it was actually 1 whiny canadian.
'As for your header: 'Imaginary friends are for lonely children' It is obvious that you are very lonely with no friends at all.'
Looks like I ht another nerve. You go nuts at the suggestion that you are a loser who lives in your parents basement so are we really supposed top believe you are miss popularity as well?
So McCain changed his stand on drilling! Another flip flop for McCain - are they neck 'n neck? And it finally comes to light where the 'mother's basement' remark hatched from. McCain's campaign spokesman, Michael Goldfarb, in comparing NY Times editors to a blogger, stated 'sitting at home in his mother's basement and ranting'! Another 'cute' McCainism to go along with Paris and Britney.
RE: And it finally comes to light where the 'mother's basement' remark hatched from. McCain's campaign spokesman, Michael Goldfarb, in comparing NY Times editors to a blogger, stated 'sitting at home in his mother's basement and ranting'! Another 'cute' McCainism to go along with Paris and Britney.
==================
For those with short memories, this was Perot:
theknightshift.blogspot.com/2008/06/ross-perot-launches-perot-charts.ht ml
(1992) If you were around then, you'll no doubt remember those famous 'infomercials' that Perot ran simultaneously across most of the networks, where he'd look into the camera while showing charts that depicted the state of the economy, while using down-home lingo and cornpone humor to get his point across: 'This deficit's like the crazy aunt the family keeps in the basement. Everyone knows she's there but nobody wants to talk about her.'
Re the Britney/Paris nonsense - Obama would have been smarter saying:
'I've been compared to many people; but I've never before been accused of being blonde.'
The dollar-bill remarks got laughs, but become a setup for the GOP to accuse him of using 'race' as an issue. The GOP prefers to do this with robo-calls and innuendoes, and scaring the idiots down south. Remember Willie Horton? The GOP operates using the 'mushroom management' theory:
'Keep them in the dark; feed them shit; watch them grow'
Honestly, Karl Rove can finally take that vacation he's always wanted!
The dems are on the wrong side of the drilling issue! Pelosi is gagging the US House. Obama is mouthing 'compromoise'. Oil's going up kids, end of story. Bush and his oil buds WARNED us for 7 years and they were right! Instead of listeneing, they insulted him, so he sat back and waited. Now, he's shoving it up their asses.
The US House is mouthing 'slave reparations' a development so perfectly f--ked up in light of the fact that the dems just happen to be running a black candidate, you'd think Rove thought it up!
Obama now gets to court folks with an empty energy policy, and gets to defend payments to those who were never enslaved, then sell it to white America.
On top of that, he gets to sell higher taxes, more government and take over two wars.
Yep, it's all a neocon conspiricy: Just let them be who they are!
See ya on th beach Karl!
Re the stupid: The dems are on the wrong side of the drilling issue!
=================
The PUBLIC is on the wrong side of the drilling issue.
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=49&entry_id=28730
According to Paul Krugman, half of voters believe that allowing drilling will bring prices down within a year. Roughly the same percentage of Californians now support offshore drilling for the same reason.
Trouble is, offshore drilling won't affect prices at all for at least 8 years. That's how long it would take to begin pumping from new sites. And the Bush administration itself predicts that even after oil begins to flow into the market from offshore rigs, the effect on consumer prices would be 'insignificant.'
It's disturbing that voters can still be so easily misled into energy policies that only help the corporations that are bleeding them dry. Perhaps they're desperate and irrational as a result of high gas prices, but I wonder if part of the problem is lack of education about environmental issues. Then again, maybe this is just another case of Democrats failing to win the battle of rhetoric, even with the facts on their side.
(Read and reply, or just shut up, idiot)
www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/new_offshore_drilling_no t_a_quick_fix_analysts_say/
It would take at least a decade for oil companies to obtain permits, procure equipment, and do the exploration necessary to get the oil out of the ground, most industry analysts say. And even then, they add, the amount of new oil produced would probably be too small to significantly affect world oil prices.
In the short term, oil prices could go down slightly if Congress lifts its moratorium on new offshore drilling, which has been in place since 1981, because the market would factor in the prospect of additional oil supplies later on. But the actual oil would not be produced for 10 to 12 years.
And in any case, increased American production from offshore drilling would not necessarily mean lower prices for American consumers because oil is a global commodity whose price is set by global supply and demand.
'Suppose the US produced all its oil domestically,' said Robert Kaufmann, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University. 'Do you think oil companies would sell oil to US consumers for one cent less than they could get from French consumers? No. Where oil comes from has no effect on price.'
============================
Why are the oil companies not drilling on all current leases?
www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080709/OPINION07/80 7090315/1004/OPINION
First, the oil companies in this country now hold 7,000 leases to drill offshore, yet only 20 percent of those leases are producing oil. That is 68 million acres for which they already have the rights to drill. Nearly 80 percent of our offshore oil is ALREADY available for leasing -- approximately 54 billion barrels total. They could be drilling in these areas, but they are not.
Assuming oil companies drilled in new areas, it would take at least a decade for new production to begin. Just last week, the U.S. Energy Information Administration concluded new drilling would have no impact on oil prices before 2030.
Prices would still be determined by the world market, which will be adding billions of new consumers from growing economies in China, India and other countries.
OPEC countries control two- thirds of the world's oil reserves. If we add a bit more oil to the market, they can cut their own output to keep prices high. Moreover, the majority of the world's oil is in unstable regions. Prices surge when officials threaten to attack Iran or raids shut down production in Nigeria.
Here in Delaware, we are paying $10 more a day for gas -- around $3,600 a year -- than we were seven years ago. That is a bite out of a family's budget. During the same period, permits for new oil drilling leases increased by 361 percent. Put simply, allowing more drilling does not equal cheaper gas.
YOU need an enema Smiley D. It's backed up and plugging your brain pan.
Hurting the planet by trying to 'save' it
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
Abridged
HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi opposes lifting the moratorium on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on the Outer Continental Shelf. She won't even allow it to come to a vote.
With $4 gas having massively shifted public opinion in favor of domestic production, she wants to protect her Democratic members from having to cast an anti-drilling election-year vote. Moreover, given the public mood, she might even lose. This cannot be permitted. Why? Because as she explained to Politico: 'I'm trying to save the planet; I'm trying to save the planet.'
A lovely sentiment. But has Pelosi actually thought through the moratorium's actual effects on the planet? Consider: 25 years ago, nearly 60 percent of U.S. petroleum was produced domestically. Today it's 25 percent.
From its peak in 1970, U.S. production has declined a staggering 47 percent. The world consumes 86 million barrels a day; the United States, roughly 20 million. We need the stuff to run our cars and planes and economy. Where does it come from?
Places like Nigeria where chronic corruption, environmental neglect and resulting unrest and instability lead to pipeline explosions, oil spills and illegal siphoning by the poverty-stricken population -- which leads to more spills and explosions. Just last week, two Royal Dutch Shell pipelines had to be shut down because bombings by local militants were causing leaks into the ground.
Compare the Niger Delta to the Gulf of Mexico where deep-sea U.S. oil rigs withstood Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without a single undersea well suffering a significant spill.
The United States has the highest technology to ensure the safest drilling. Today, directional drilling -- essentially drilling down, then sideways -- allows access to oil that in 1970 would have required a surface footprint more than three times as large.
Additionally, the U.S. has one of the most extensive and least corrupt regulatory systems on the planet.
Does Pelosi imagine that with so much of America declared off-limits, the planet is less injured as drilling shifts to Kazakhstan and Venezuela and Equatorial Guinea? That Russia will be more environmentally scrupulous than we in drilling in its Arctic?
The net environmental effect of Pelosi's no-drilling willfulness is negative. Outsourcing U.S. oil production does nothing to lessen worldwide environmental despoliation. It simply exports it to more corrupt, less efficient, more unstable parts of the world -- thereby increasing net planetary damage.
Democrats want no oil from the American OCS or ANWR. But of course they do want more oil. From OPEC. From where Americans don't vote. From places Democratic legislators can't see. On May 13, Sen. Chuck Schumer -- deeply committed to saving just those pieces of the planet that might have huge reserves of American oil -- demanded that the Saudis increase production by a million barrels a day. It doesn't occur to him that by eschewing the slightest disturbance of the mating habits of the Arctic caribou, he is calling for the further exploitation of the pristine deserts of Arabia. In the name of the planet, mind you.[...]
This to prevent drilling on an area in the Arctic one-sixth the size of Dulles Airport that leaves untouched a refuge one-third the size of Britain.
There are a dizzying number of economic and national security arguments for drilling at home: a $700 billion oil balance-of-payment deficit, a gas tax (equivalent) levied on the paychecks of American workers and poured into the treasuries of enemy and terror-supporting regimes, growing dependence on unstable states of the Persian Gulf and Caspian basin. Pelosi and the Democrats stand athwart shouting: We don't care. We come to save the planet!
They seem blissfully unaware that the argument for their drill-there-not-here policy collapses on its own environmental terms.
The dem libnazi constituancy driving this kool-aid drinking energy policy has the dems by the short hairs and Pelosi knows it. Nonetheless, she realizes they are on the wrong side of the debate, and that she can no longer keep it under wraps.
This being the case, Obama MUST come out and mouth 'compromise' as if the science of oil exploration has any compromises in it.
If he does not, and they dig their heels in, it will screw him in November. So now, he has been touring the middle east, not for the reasons he says, but to get them to open up the spigot, so the oil prices will drop while he gets elected, gagging the debate.
This is the kind of leadership you can expect.
More crystal ball gazing!
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story