http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecr...n_out_out_the_light_but_GOP_keep_talking.html
I hate the summer break... But I do like this stunt.
Last edited by a moderator:
House Dems turn out the lights but GOP keeps talking
- Thread starter RAMSTORIA
- Start date
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecr...n_out_out_the_light_but_GOP_keep_talking.html
I hate the summer break... But I do like this stunt.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Reeks with symbolism in every direction.
JolietJake
Banned
I gotta agree, they are morons.:lol:
DarkSageRK
Banned
You have no idea how hard I laughed at this.
Thank you, sir. You made my day by posting this.
Ever so eager to hog the tv time but 
ing useless when it comes to having civilized debate and compromising with the other side in the important issues.
However, I give them due credit for wanting to stay, they deserve to keep their jobs, as long as they don't turn this into a drama.
~HotShotX
ing useless when it comes to having civilized debate and compromising with the other side in the important issues.However, I give them due credit for wanting to stay, they deserve to keep their jobs, as long as they don't turn this into a drama.
~HotShotX
[quote name='Msut77']Is there any particular reason they waited until congress was about to be not in session to suddenly become concerned about this?
Oh of course, to be attention whores and shill their do nothing solutions.
A stunt is right.[/QUOTE]
Pelosi has been blocking the vote for a while now. This stunt is a culmination of that.
Oh of course, to be attention whores and shill their do nothing solutions.
A stunt is right.[/QUOTE]
Pelosi has been blocking the vote for a while now. This stunt is a culmination of that.
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Pelosi has been blocking the vote for a while now. This stunt is a culmination of that.[/QUOTE]
From what I have read it seems that even the GOP is aware that offshore will do squat to help the American people, rather they cling to the issue like drowning rats to flotsam.
Now are you actually trying to tell me the Republicans could think of no other way to force the issue other than wait til the adults are away?
Here is a good money quote:
"I love this," Shadegg told reporters up in the press gallery afterward. "Congress can be so boring...This is a kick."
From what I have read it seems that even the GOP is aware that offshore will do squat to help the American people, rather they cling to the issue like drowning rats to flotsam.
Now are you actually trying to tell me the Republicans could think of no other way to force the issue other than wait til the adults are away?
Here is a good money quote:
"I love this," Shadegg told reporters up in the press gallery afterward. "Congress can be so boring...This is a kick."
[quote name='Msut77']From what I have read it seems that even the GOP is aware that offshore will do squat to help the American people, rather they cling to the issue like drowning rats to flotsam.
Now are you actually trying to tell me the Republicans could think of no other way to force the issue other than wait til the adults are away?
Here is a good money quote:
"I love this," Shadegg told reporters up in the press gallery afterward. "Congress can be so boring...This is a kick."[/QUOTE]
That quote from Shadegg seems like honesty, and nothing else.
And the Republicans have been trying to force the issue, everything from extending the session to having the President call an emergency session. The most absurd thing about it is even if Pelosi allowed the vote, there's a good chance that it would just get voted down anyway.
And yes, you're right, energy is the big issue the Republican's are pushing, it's one of the few cards they have in their hand right now.
Now are you actually trying to tell me the Republicans could think of no other way to force the issue other than wait til the adults are away?
Here is a good money quote:
"I love this," Shadegg told reporters up in the press gallery afterward. "Congress can be so boring...This is a kick."[/QUOTE]
That quote from Shadegg seems like honesty, and nothing else.
And the Republicans have been trying to force the issue, everything from extending the session to having the President call an emergency session. The most absurd thing about it is even if Pelosi allowed the vote, there's a good chance that it would just get voted down anyway.
And yes, you're right, energy is the big issue the Republican's are pushing, it's one of the few cards they have in their hand right now.
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']That quote from Shadegg seems like honesty, and nothing else.[/QUOTE]
That might be the only honest quote in the whole entire article, but you missed the point. Point being that this is not for the American people that is just a cover for what these guys hope to be future campaign commercials, which are now basically ruined because they ended up looking like a senior citizens rest home production of Lord of the Flies.
That would be their plan numbnuts.
That might be the only honest quote in the whole entire article, but you missed the point. Point being that this is not for the American people that is just a cover for what these guys hope to be future campaign commercials, which are now basically ruined because they ended up looking like a senior citizens rest home production of Lord of the Flies.
That would be their plan numbnuts.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']That might be the only honest quote in the whole entire article, but you missed the point. Point being that this is not for the American people that is just a cover for what these guys hope to be future campaign commercials, which are now basically ruined because they ended up looking up a production of Lord of the Flies only with more fatties.[/quote]
I might be missing something here but how is voting on drilling not for the American people? I understand that when the elections come around they'll use commercials saying "Congress man so-and-so supports drilling, blah blah blah", but so what, the Dems will do the same thing. You make it sound like a Congress looking at the issue and voting on it is a bad thing, I just don't see how looking at an issue that is at the forefront of the political world can be.
Nice of you to make what was up until now reasonable discussion a playground arguement. You seem to do that pretty well.
I might be missing something here but how is voting on drilling not for the American people? I understand that when the elections come around they'll use commercials saying "Congress man so-and-so supports drilling, blah blah blah", but so what, the Dems will do the same thing. You make it sound like a Congress looking at the issue and voting on it is a bad thing, I just don't see how looking at an issue that is at the forefront of the political world can be.
Nice of you to make what was up until now reasonable discussion a playground arguement. You seem to do that pretty well.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
"Do squat for the American people?" Who cares? It costs the American People squat to let them explore and drill. It's the oil company's that pay for it all out of their own pockets.
Seeing how gas and oil prices are almost entirely dictated by GUESSING and FUTURES markets and betting on where Oil will be down the road, they are high partially because it's still a safe bet to assume that we will force Oil Company's to rely on foreign oil. And it doesn't have to be that way.
As long as "Not in my backyard" > "Drill here drill now" = High prices guranteed
Seeing how gas and oil prices are almost entirely dictated by GUESSING and FUTURES markets and betting on where Oil will be down the road, they are high partially because it's still a safe bet to assume that we will force Oil Company's to rely on foreign oil. And it doesn't have to be that way.
As long as "Not in my backyard" > "Drill here drill now" = High prices guranteed
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']I might be missing something here but how is voting on drilling not for the American people? I understand that when the elections come around they'll use commercials saying "Congress man so-and-so supports drilling, blah blah blah", but so what, the Dems will do the same thing. You make it sound like a Congress looking at the issue and voting on it is a bad thing, I just don't see how looking at an issue that is at the forefront of the political world can be. [/quote]
Well that's the point they can't defend. It's the oil company's that have to take the risks, and gambles, to explore and drill and try to find oil. All congress would do is say "ok go ahead". And the evidence that doing so will cause some type of catastrophic environmental harm is weak at best.
The bottom line, and the reason they are so against it, is that they actually WANT the American people to suffer at the gas pump. They truly believe suffering is the answer. They want gas prices to go higher because they believe that's the only way a replacement will come quickly. They would much rather demonize Oil Company's for doing what every company does (try to turn a profit) and play Robin Hood with them.
They would much rather see us pay through the ass at the pumps as well as tax the shit out of us for energy research. That's the answer, to them.
You do realize you are one of the only people left that don't have him on ignore? Even the lefties around here have him blocked. 10% interesting point, 40% partisan kool-aid flag waving and 50% abrasively argumentative ass.
Well that's the point they can't defend. It's the oil company's that have to take the risks, and gambles, to explore and drill and try to find oil. All congress would do is say "ok go ahead". And the evidence that doing so will cause some type of catastrophic environmental harm is weak at best.
The bottom line, and the reason they are so against it, is that they actually WANT the American people to suffer at the gas pump. They truly believe suffering is the answer. They want gas prices to go higher because they believe that's the only way a replacement will come quickly. They would much rather demonize Oil Company's for doing what every company does (try to turn a profit) and play Robin Hood with them.
They would much rather see us pay through the ass at the pumps as well as tax the shit out of us for energy research. That's the answer, to them.
You do realize you are one of the only people left that don't have him on ignore? Even the lefties around here have him blocked. 10% interesting point, 40% partisan kool-aid flag waving and 50% abrasively argumentative ass.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']I might be missing something here but how is voting on drilling not for the American people?[/QUOTE]
You must be missing many things, its not for the American people because any benefits realized will be in small change and the costs will be several future multi billion dollar superfund projects. I know it, the Republicans know it and they just don't care.
That article is a perfect storm of posturing and desperation mixed with wanton hypocrisy.
Everything from a reference to the "5-week Democrat Vacation" (which requires astonishing brass because the previous Republican congress worked fewer days than almost any other in history and Republicans complained when the Democratic Congress forced them to work more than 3-4 days a week). Or how about the fact that James Sensenbrenner once pulled turned the lights off on a Democratic inquiry into Guantanamo (when Congress was in session thank you).
They would love for their vote to fail because then they might have something to seize upon as a foothold in their epic battle against reality.
You must be missing many things, its not for the American people because any benefits realized will be in small change and the costs will be several future multi billion dollar superfund projects. I know it, the Republicans know it and they just don't care.
That article is a perfect storm of posturing and desperation mixed with wanton hypocrisy.
Everything from a reference to the "5-week Democrat Vacation" (which requires astonishing brass because the previous Republican congress worked fewer days than almost any other in history and Republicans complained when the Democratic Congress forced them to work more than 3-4 days a week). Or how about the fact that James Sensenbrenner once pulled turned the lights off on a Democratic inquiry into Guantanamo (when Congress was in session thank you).
They would love for their vote to fail because then they might have something to seize upon as a foothold in their epic battle against reality.
Last edited by a moderator:
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']"Do squat for the American people?" Who cares? It costs the American People squat to let them explore and drill. It's the oil company's that pay for it all out of their own pockets.[/quote]
Get back to me when your coastline is dotted by abandoned rusting oil platforms or a tanker driven by drunk sailors capsizes and spills 10,000 gallons of crude on your front lawn.
I'm not saying that drilling for oil should be prohibited in the USA, but to say there isn't a cost to the American people is absolutely ludicrous. And that's before you even consider the enviornmental impact.
Get back to me when your coastline is dotted by abandoned rusting oil platforms or a tanker driven by drunk sailors capsizes and spills 10,000 gallons of crude on your front lawn.
I'm not saying that drilling for oil should be prohibited in the USA, but to say there isn't a cost to the American people is absolutely ludicrous. And that's before you even consider the enviornmental impact.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Get back to me when your coastline is dotted by abandoned rusting oil platforms or a tanker driven by drunk sailors capsizes and spills 10,000 gallons of crude on your front lawn.
I'm not saying that drilling for oil should be prohibited in the USA, but to say there isn't a cost to the American people is absolutely ludicrous. And that's before you even consider the enviornmental impact.[/QUOTE]
None of that matters with the appropriate regulations for accountability in place, as well as fat insurance policies.
Go to Alaska and visit the oil pipeline that's been operating without virtually an environmental sneeze, that was so dreaded and feared as an environmental apocalypse while being built in the 70's.
You make it so the Oil company's can't afford a disaster, and you won't have one. They clean it up, and then some, if there is.
Of course, you always risk frightening off domestic industries with heavy regulation/cost just like the government does with so many other industries, but if that's what it takes for political momentum to at least give them the OPTION, then do it. Maintaining an outright ban no longer makes any kind of economic or fiscal sense.
I'm not saying that drilling for oil should be prohibited in the USA, but to say there isn't a cost to the American people is absolutely ludicrous. And that's before you even consider the enviornmental impact.[/QUOTE]
None of that matters with the appropriate regulations for accountability in place, as well as fat insurance policies.
Go to Alaska and visit the oil pipeline that's been operating without virtually an environmental sneeze, that was so dreaded and feared as an environmental apocalypse while being built in the 70's.
You make it so the Oil company's can't afford a disaster, and you won't have one. They clean it up, and then some, if there is.
Of course, you always risk frightening off domestic industries with heavy regulation/cost just like the government does with so many other industries, but if that's what it takes for political momentum to at least give them the OPTION, then do it. Maintaining an outright ban no longer makes any kind of economic or fiscal sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']You must be missing many things, its not for the American people because any benefits realized will be in small change and the costs will be several future multi billion dollar superfund projects. I know it, the Republicans know it and they just don't care.
[/quote]
You do realize there are other reasons for drilling here other than cost right?
[/quote]
You do realize there are other reasons for drilling here other than cost right?
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
well they also just filibustered a Bill that increased funding for troops, so it looks like they are really getting stuff done. Before their month long vacation.
Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans have basically been filibustering every bill til the oil companies get what they want. But, surely, they wouldn't put the oil companies over America's defense needs when we're in the middle of two wars??? Wrong. They did. Seriously, they they filibustered a bill, S. 3001, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, which, among other things, provided pay raises for troops, health care and protection from IEDs. The bill needed 60 votes. Thirty-eight Republicans voted NO against moving forward.
Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans have basically been filibustering every bill til the oil companies get what they want. But, surely, they wouldn't put the oil companies over America's defense needs when we're in the middle of two wars??? Wrong. They did. Seriously, they they filibustered a bill, S. 3001, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, which, among other things, provided pay raises for troops, health care and protection from IEDs. The bill needed 60 votes. Thirty-eight Republicans voted NO against moving forward.
JolietJake
Banned
You have to admit thrust, rising fuel prices are good for alternative fuel research. Before when oil was cheap, no one was in a hurry to find any alternatives, now that it isn't cheap anymore, i'll bet research into alternatives has increased.
I don't like high fuel prices, but there is a good side to it.
I don't like high fuel prices, but there is a good side to it.
plasticbathmonki
CAGiversary!
Regardless if you agree with what the Republicans are doing, this is something that should have been handled prior to recess. I don't have any love for more drilling, but it will knock the price of oil down in the short term; however it's not a permanent solution. The Gang of 10 came up with a more than reasonable bipartisan proposal to this whole thing, whatever happened with that?
[quote name='JolietJake']You have to admit thrust, rising fuel prices are good for alternative fuel research. Before when oil was cheap, no one was in a hurry to find any alternatives, now that it isn't cheap anymore, i'll bet research into alternatives has increased.
I don't like high fuel prices, but there is a good side to it.[/QUOTE]
It is the silver lining of high prices, though I'm not sure that research has increased by a huge amount (I wouldn't know). But I just don't see why both can't be an option. Dems say that drilling is going to take years to get set up here, they are right. But alternative energy supplies are going to take at least that long, and likely a lot longer before they become widespread and the norm. I don't like that a lot of politicians, and people, take a one side or the other approach, there should be room for both options.
I don't like high fuel prices, but there is a good side to it.[/QUOTE]
It is the silver lining of high prices, though I'm not sure that research has increased by a huge amount (I wouldn't know). But I just don't see why both can't be an option. Dems say that drilling is going to take years to get set up here, they are right. But alternative energy supplies are going to take at least that long, and likely a lot longer before they become widespread and the norm. I don't like that a lot of politicians, and people, take a one side or the other approach, there should be room for both options.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']It is the silver lining of high prices, though I'm not sure that research has increased by a huge amount (I wouldn't know). But I just don't see why both can't be an option. Dems say that drilling is going to take years to get set up here, they are right. But alternative energy supplies are going to take at least that long, and likely a lot longer before they become widespread and the norm. I don't like that a lot of politicians, and people, take a one side or the other approach, there should be room for both options.[/QUOTE]
Well that's really the point. I am for an "all of the above" option. I don't understand anyone that isn't.
It makes absolutely no logical sense to defend policies that accept rising prices as a "great motivator" for alternative research while suffering all the way to the TBD "eureaka!" moment we all hope for.
Well that's really the point. I am for an "all of the above" option. I don't understand anyone that isn't.
It makes absolutely no logical sense to defend policies that accept rising prices as a "great motivator" for alternative research while suffering all the way to the TBD "eureaka!" moment we all hope for.
Dead of Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Hey House Republicans!
k[quote name='plasticbathmonki']Regardless if you agree with what the Republicans are doing, this is something that should have been handled prior to recess. I don't have any love for more drilling, but it will knock the price of oil down in the short term; however it's not a permanent solution. The Gang of 10 came up with a more than reasonable bipartisan proposal to this whole thing, whatever happened with that?[/QUOTE]
Bingo. Even coming up with a plan and passing it would have driven gas prices down because of the sheer perception that we will not sit here with our hands tied. Now we have 5 weeks of guaranteed continued failure of congress to help out with the domestic supply and our hands remaining tied despite sitting on plentiful natural resources. Thanks dems, hopefully the American people will repay your kind gestures at the voting booth.
Bingo. Even coming up with a plan and passing it would have driven gas prices down because of the sheer perception that we will not sit here with our hands tied. Now we have 5 weeks of guaranteed continued failure of congress to help out with the domestic supply and our hands remaining tied despite sitting on plentiful natural resources. Thanks dems, hopefully the American people will repay your kind gestures at the voting booth.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Ruined']Bingo. Even coming up with a plan and passing it would have driven gas prices down because of the sheer perception that we will not sit here with our hands tied. Now we have 5 weeks of guaranteed continued failure of congress to help out with the domestic supply and our hands remaining tied despite sitting on plentiful natural resources. Thanks dems, hopefully the American people will repay your kind gestures at the voting booth.[/QUOTE]
I wonder how much profit will made all-around by keeping prices the same by inaction for those 5 weeks.
Makes you wonder.
I wonder how much profit will made all-around by keeping prices the same by inaction for those 5 weeks.
Makes you wonder.
[quote name='plasticbathmonki']I don't have any love for more drilling, but it will knock the price of oil down in the short term; [/quote]
How will oil that, even if the work began instantly, wouldn't be coming out the ground for at least 5-10 years and even then would only have a minor, if any, impact on the global market, lower oil prices in the short term? Do the oil companies have a flux capacitor that we're all not aware of?
How will oil that, even if the work began instantly, wouldn't be coming out the ground for at least 5-10 years and even then would only have a minor, if any, impact on the global market, lower oil prices in the short term? Do the oil companies have a flux capacitor that we're all not aware of?
[quote name='evanft']How will oil that, even if the work began instantly, wouldn't be coming out the ground for at least 5-10 years and even then would only have a minor, if any, impact on the global market, lower oil prices in the short term? Do the oil companies have a flux capacitor that we're all not aware of?[/QUOTE]
In a market driven by speculators even a vote on oil can bring the price down in the short term.
In a market driven by speculators even a vote on oil can bring the price down in the short term.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
We don't need any more oil wells. We don't need to import oil.
Over the course of their lives, short range electric cars with ranges of 60-100 miles have the same cost of running as a 40mpg car.
Over the course of their lives, short range electric cars with ranges of 60-100 miles have the same cost of running as a 40mpg car.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']But alternative energy supplies are going to take at least that long ...[/quote]
False for wind power.
Mostly true for solar power.
False for wind power.
Mostly true for solar power.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']False for wind power.
Mostly true for solar power.[/QUOTE]
nuclear is a far better option.
i was talking about about travel than for infrastructure. meaning changing cars, big rigs, and planes. thats going to take years. even if we flipped a switch and all cars next year were made electric or hydrogen or some other clean running car (nevermind big rigs, boats, planes etc), wed still have a need for gasoline for at least a decade if not longer. i mean how many people could go out and buy one of these new cars, i know i couldnt afford it. hell i cant afford a used gas car at the moment, and there are a lot of people that cant.
so yes, i agree that those technologies need to be implemented, but that shouldnt be an argument against drilling, if we did both over the next 10 years we could increase the amount of clean burning cars by tons and and be oil independent as well.
Mostly true for solar power.[/QUOTE]
nuclear is a far better option.
i was talking about about travel than for infrastructure. meaning changing cars, big rigs, and planes. thats going to take years. even if we flipped a switch and all cars next year were made electric or hydrogen or some other clean running car (nevermind big rigs, boats, planes etc), wed still have a need for gasoline for at least a decade if not longer. i mean how many people could go out and buy one of these new cars, i know i couldnt afford it. hell i cant afford a used gas car at the moment, and there are a lot of people that cant.
so yes, i agree that those technologies need to be implemented, but that shouldnt be an argument against drilling, if we did both over the next 10 years we could increase the amount of clean burning cars by tons and and be oil independent as well.
DarkSageRK
Banned
[quote name='Msut77']I see Ruined graduated from the Tinkerbelle school of economics.[/quote]
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
I am actually going to say we need more oil wells so we can stop worrying about foreign oil markets. How can this help? Well, it helps stabilize costs in a few years when we seriously try to produce new forms of energy to run our cars, heat our homes, etc.
Right now the problem is a lack of real innovation in terms of energy. The hybrid cars won't solve our problems with fuel prices right away. And won't save us any money because they cost so much more. While oil prices are going up, we have nothing to counteract those rising costs. Ethanol costs more than oil, so Ethanol isn't helping the price of oil to come down.
I like the stunt because allows the Republicans an edge on the gas prices front this fall, and it will be a major issue. You're already seeing both candidates back off their 'no offshore drilling' stances, McCain did it first, now Obama is doing it (although I think both will go back to saying the cries of old).
Right now the problem is a lack of real innovation in terms of energy. The hybrid cars won't solve our problems with fuel prices right away. And won't save us any money because they cost so much more. While oil prices are going up, we have nothing to counteract those rising costs. Ethanol costs more than oil, so Ethanol isn't helping the price of oil to come down.
I like the stunt because allows the Republicans an edge on the gas prices front this fall, and it will be a major issue. You're already seeing both candidates back off their 'no offshore drilling' stances, McCain did it first, now Obama is doing it (although I think both will go back to saying the cries of old).
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']In a market driven by speculators even a vote on oil can bring the price down in the short term.[/quote]
The oil speculation market flutuates when anything happens. Using this fact as a foundation for policy or as a premise for an argument in favor of offshore drilling to intellectually dishonest.
The oil speculation market flutuates when anything happens. Using this fact as a foundation for policy or as a premise for an argument in favor of offshore drilling to intellectually dishonest.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Ruined']Bingo. Even coming up with a plan and passing it would have driven gas prices down because of the sheer perception that we will not sit here with our hands tied. Now we have 5 weeks of guaranteed continued failure of congress to help out with the domestic supply and our hands remaining tied despite sitting on plentiful natural resources. Thanks dems, hopefully the American people will repay your kind gestures at the voting booth.[/QUOTE]
A plan for the sake of a plan is not a plan. It's an open door that allows politicians to do incredibly stupid things. And the blame for gas prices lies squarely on each and every one of us. Take some responsibility for yourself and stop blaming Congress.
[quote name='plasticbathmonki']I don't have any love for more drilling, but it will knock the price of oil down in the short term; however it's not a permanent solution.[/QUOTE]
Prove it.
A plan for the sake of a plan is not a plan. It's an open door that allows politicians to do incredibly stupid things. And the blame for gas prices lies squarely on each and every one of us. Take some responsibility for yourself and stop blaming Congress.
[quote name='plasticbathmonki']I don't have any love for more drilling, but it will knock the price of oil down in the short term; however it's not a permanent solution.[/QUOTE]
Prove it.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='evanft']The oil speculation market flutuates when anything happens. Using this fact as a foundation for policy or as a premise for an argument in favor of offshore drilling to intellectually dishonest.[/QUOTE]
Lifting the bans for oil prices is just the tip of the iceberg. Long term, removing our foreign oil dependency has huge advantages for the future of our country that you and I can only begin to tabulate. That's the primary reason to do it. That's the reason energy independence should have been a goal decades ago. Price of oil in the short term is just a pleasant bonus that's now getting big enough to make people take notice. (The American people, and congress, only think short term)
[quote name='speedracer']
Prove it.[/QUOTE]
Prove that it won't. In fact, prove why it's such a much better idea to just do nothing and keep things the way they are out of fear drummed up by rabid environmentalists. Prove why letting Oil company's "try" is such a horrible idea. And don't throw out possible dangers, give me 100% certain horribly unacceptable outcomes.
Most importantly, list just one negative result from lifting the ban that would outweigh all the political, economic, and moral positives that come from eliminating our energy dependence on hostile nations.
On a side note, I'm happy to see that the messiah has finally come around to change his mind (read: flip flopped) on this issue as well. Was only a matter of time before he realized the far-left illogical environmentalists don't really give him that many votes.
Lifting the bans for oil prices is just the tip of the iceberg. Long term, removing our foreign oil dependency has huge advantages for the future of our country that you and I can only begin to tabulate. That's the primary reason to do it. That's the reason energy independence should have been a goal decades ago. Price of oil in the short term is just a pleasant bonus that's now getting big enough to make people take notice. (The American people, and congress, only think short term)
[quote name='speedracer']
Prove it.[/QUOTE]
Prove that it won't. In fact, prove why it's such a much better idea to just do nothing and keep things the way they are out of fear drummed up by rabid environmentalists. Prove why letting Oil company's "try" is such a horrible idea. And don't throw out possible dangers, give me 100% certain horribly unacceptable outcomes.
Most importantly, list just one negative result from lifting the ban that would outweigh all the political, economic, and moral positives that come from eliminating our energy dependence on hostile nations.
On a side note, I'm happy to see that the messiah has finally come around to change his mind (read: flip flopped) on this issue as well. Was only a matter of time before he realized the far-left illogical environmentalists don't really give him that many votes.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='evanft']The oil speculation market flutuates when anything happens. Using this fact as a foundation for policy or as a premise for an argument in favor of offshore drilling to intellectually dishonest.[/QUOTE]
It's not a foundation for policy. Reasons behind domestic drilling are more complex (obviously). I was simply answering your question when you asked how oil that wouldn't flow for awhile have an effect on prices in the short term. I gave you an answer.
It's not a foundation for policy. Reasons behind domestic drilling are more complex (obviously). I was simply answering your question when you asked how oil that wouldn't flow for awhile have an effect on prices in the short term. I gave you an answer.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']nuclear is a far better option.
i was talking about about travel than for infrastructure. meaning changing cars, big rigs, and planes. thats going to take years. even if we flipped a switch and all cars next year were made electric or hydrogen or some other clean running car (nevermind big rigs, boats, planes etc), wed still have a need for gasoline for at least a decade if not longer. i mean how many people could go out and buy one of these new cars, i know i couldnt afford it. hell i cant afford a used gas car at the moment, and there are a lot of people that cant.
so yes, i agree that those technologies need to be implemented, but that shouldnt be an argument against drilling, if we did both over the next 10 years we could increase the amount of clean burning cars by tons and and be oil independent as well.[/quote]
If you mean the "fast breeder" reactors that are used in a handful of countries outside the US, then yes. Since they require far less fuel, I would assume they produce far less waste. I believe dafoomie knows more about this than me.
However, the opposition to nuke plants is even greater than it is for offshore drilling.
Also, I think wind power has significant advantages over nuke.
1. The time to build a windmill is 6 months. The time to build a nuke plant is 5 to 10 years.
2. A wind power program is a wind power program. A nuke power program can be used to create nuclear weapons. That's why the war drums are beating for Iran.
3. A wind power plant costs hundreds of thousands to build while a nuke power plant costs billions. Even though the cost to produce per kWh is smaller for nuke, the cost per kWh to the consumer can be the same.
4. A wind power plant can be in the middle of the woods if the tower is built 100-150 above the trees.
5. While nuke and wind are both carbon neutral processes, nuke is exothermic while wind is endothermic. Assuming global warming (or climate change or whatever term environmental wackos are using) is real, wind draws power out of the environment. It can be used as a hand brake of sorts for global climate.
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/oandm.htm
http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/conference/HCE4/HCE4_PPTs/Wind.pdf
...
Regarding offshore drilling, it is still a bad idea. If we went in debt $300 billion a year to convert as many cars to electric instead of "surging" in Iraq or ceding control of Afghanistan back to the Taliban, we wouldn't import any more oil (for transportation) in 4 years and there'd no more oil imported for anything in 8 years. I can show you the math.
i was talking about about travel than for infrastructure. meaning changing cars, big rigs, and planes. thats going to take years. even if we flipped a switch and all cars next year were made electric or hydrogen or some other clean running car (nevermind big rigs, boats, planes etc), wed still have a need for gasoline for at least a decade if not longer. i mean how many people could go out and buy one of these new cars, i know i couldnt afford it. hell i cant afford a used gas car at the moment, and there are a lot of people that cant.
so yes, i agree that those technologies need to be implemented, but that shouldnt be an argument against drilling, if we did both over the next 10 years we could increase the amount of clean burning cars by tons and and be oil independent as well.[/quote]
If you mean the "fast breeder" reactors that are used in a handful of countries outside the US, then yes. Since they require far less fuel, I would assume they produce far less waste. I believe dafoomie knows more about this than me.
However, the opposition to nuke plants is even greater than it is for offshore drilling.
Also, I think wind power has significant advantages over nuke.
1. The time to build a windmill is 6 months. The time to build a nuke plant is 5 to 10 years.
2. A wind power program is a wind power program. A nuke power program can be used to create nuclear weapons. That's why the war drums are beating for Iran.
3. A wind power plant costs hundreds of thousands to build while a nuke power plant costs billions. Even though the cost to produce per kWh is smaller for nuke, the cost per kWh to the consumer can be the same.
4. A wind power plant can be in the middle of the woods if the tower is built 100-150 above the trees.
5. While nuke and wind are both carbon neutral processes, nuke is exothermic while wind is endothermic. Assuming global warming (or climate change or whatever term environmental wackos are using) is real, wind draws power out of the environment. It can be used as a hand brake of sorts for global climate.
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/oandm.htm
http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/conference/HCE4/HCE4_PPTs/Wind.pdf
...
Regarding offshore drilling, it is still a bad idea. If we went in debt $300 billion a year to convert as many cars to electric instead of "surging" in Iraq or ceding control of Afghanistan back to the Taliban, we wouldn't import any more oil (for transportation) in 4 years and there'd no more oil imported for anything in 8 years. I can show you the math.
Also, Republicans can thank Shadegg for turning on the microphones the first time. Apparently, the fiesty Arizona conservative started typing random codes into the chamber's public address system and accidentally typed the correct code, allowing Republicans brief access to the microphone before it was turned off again.
"I love this," Shadegg told reporters up in the press gallery afterward. "Congress can be so boring...This is a kick."
For some reason I lol'd. He's such an eager beaver.
"I love this," Shadegg told reporters up in the press gallery afterward. "Congress can be so boring...This is a kick."
For some reason I lol'd. He's such an eager beaver.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']
For some reason I lol'd. He's such an eager beaver.[/QUOTE]
Wish we had more people in congress that we could say that about.
For some reason I lol'd. He's such an eager beaver.[/QUOTE]
Wish we had more people in congress that we could say that about.
[quote name='speedracer']And the blame for gas prices lies squarely on each and every one of us. [/QUOTE]
You're right. The blame does lie squarely on each and every one of us for allowing a Democrat-majority Congress to be elected that would rather see the American people go broke at the pump than see Otto the Sea Otter get evicted. I take full responsibility by planning to vote for representatives that care about the American people more than environmental lobbyists, and hopefully everyone else will take on that responsibility as well. Its no coincidence that the biggest gas crisis in 30+ years happens right after the Democrats regain control of congress and have a shot at getting the presidency, too; they want us to go broke at the pump to satisfy their environmental lobbyists, so we are forced into electric cars and the like - which will take time to develop, of course, while the American people paying through the nose all the while.
You can continue with the self-flogging if you wish, though, if you like the taste of that type of kool-aid
You're right. The blame does lie squarely on each and every one of us for allowing a Democrat-majority Congress to be elected that would rather see the American people go broke at the pump than see Otto the Sea Otter get evicted. I take full responsibility by planning to vote for representatives that care about the American people more than environmental lobbyists, and hopefully everyone else will take on that responsibility as well. Its no coincidence that the biggest gas crisis in 30+ years happens right after the Democrats regain control of congress and have a shot at getting the presidency, too; they want us to go broke at the pump to satisfy their environmental lobbyists, so we are forced into electric cars and the like - which will take time to develop, of course, while the American people paying through the nose all the while.
You can continue with the self-flogging if you wish, though, if you like the taste of that type of kool-aid
Last edited by a moderator:
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
Overall, gas prices have been trending upward for the last 6 years.
I remember gas first hitting $3 during Katrina.
During three months in 2005 and six months in 2006 (before the midterms elections), why wasn't Bush lifting the executive "ban" on offshore drilling?
http://www.kentuckygasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx
At best, the Democrats can be blamed for the last doubling in the price of gas.
I remember gas first hitting $3 during Katrina.
During three months in 2005 and six months in 2006 (before the midterms elections), why wasn't Bush lifting the executive "ban" on offshore drilling?
http://www.kentuckygasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx
At best, the Democrats can be blamed for the last doubling in the price of gas.
[quote name='KingBroly']This Congress sucks far worse than the previous Congress. Period.[/QUOTE]
You must know absolutely nothing about the previous congress.
The previous congress had the Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley and Tom DeLay scandals and that is off the top of my head. As for this one the latest scandal to break has been Ted Stevens.
You are getting to be an even bigger fool than Ruined.
You must know absolutely nothing about the previous congress.
The previous congress had the Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley and Tom DeLay scandals and that is off the top of my head. As for this one the latest scandal to break has been Ted Stevens.
You are getting to be an even bigger fool than Ruined.
Last edited by a moderator:
bread's done