It's funny but gawd it can't be very good press for the Dems. Now if only McCain would show up on the floor.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0808/House_Dems_turn_out_out_the_light_but_GOP_keep_tal king.html?showall

One guy had it right...the Republicans are morons.

Obama said it best:

"When I hear McCain say that he is now in favor of the same oil drilling off the coast that he was opposed to just a week ago, what he doesn't tell you is that George Bush's own energy department has said that this would have no impact on consumers until 2030," he said, "no appreciable impact for the next 22 years. Something they're not telling consumers."

Experts say offshore oil drilling would not have an immediate impact on oil prices (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Oil_Prices) because oil exploration takes years.
"If we were to drill today, realistically speaking, we should not expect a barrel of oil coming out of this new resource for three years, maybe even five years, so let's not kid ourselves," said Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. Equity Capital Markets Division.

WE DON"T NEED MORE OIL, WE NEED LESS DEPENDENCY, GOD DAMMIT!!

...just another attempt by GOP to spin and lie there way to power. Of course, the idiot Dems let 'em every time, they haven't a clue how to really change public perceptions...they're always a step behind. Going to be an interesting election.

Viable alternative fuels are not around, let alone to handle bigger vehicles like trucks, boats, trains, planes. But by drilling for oil we can help consumers in the mean time cost wise, even if there is no impact for 5 years or so, until there is a viable means of switching to renewable resources.

The US does not have the infrastructure to handle electric cars and hybrids still use gas. It would take more than five years before we had an electrical infratructure to handle an all electric fleet and that is if Nuclear power comes into favor.

Hydrogen is not an option atm because the fuel cell technology is not efficient enough yet and it would take longer than five years to build an infrastructure.

So Dems would rather people go broke and not be able to support themselves because gas prices got too high for most to afford? Let alone the affect the gas prices soaring would have on the rest of the economy.

The US does not have the infrastructure to handle electric cars . . .

Huh?!? Last I checked, I had at least two outlets in my garage and outside my home. Not to mention the speed with which electric technology is evolving. By all accounts the new Li-Ion batteries will be in mass production by 2010.

Oh and it's not 5 years, the quote again:

what he doesn't tell you is that George Bush's own energy department has said that this would have no impact on consumers until 2030," he said, "no appreciable impact for the next 22 years. Something they're not telling consumers."

If we haven't figured something else out in 22 years, I shudder to think what predicament we'll be in.

Viable alternative fuels are not around, let alone to handle bigger vehicles like trucks, boats, trains, planes. But by drilling for oil we can help consumers in the mean time cost wise, even if there is no impact for 5 years or so, until there is a viable means of switching to renewable resources.

The US does not have the infrastructure to handle electric cars and hybrids still use gas. It would take more than five years before we had an electrical infratructure to handle an all electric fleet and that is if Nuclear power comes into favor.

What infrastructure? Extension cords at gas stations? These (http://www.teslamotors.com/) charge from a 110 outlet.

Hybrids may use gas, but they use less gas. Pop quiz: Which saves more money? Lowering gas prices to $3.00/gallon (won't happen anyway) or doubling your fuel economy? Even without hybrids, the people getting slammed the worst by the gas prices could just trade in their gas guzzlers for smaller, more efficient cars.

Any true Republican should be ashamed of this situation. Aren't we supposed to be the party that believes in the free market? Soaring gas prices are exactly the incentive to spur the innovation we so sorely need.

If we keep finding ways of staying on suburban welfare, these alternatives will always be a few years away from being viable. Just like they've been "five years away" for the last twenty.

For that matter, there was a viable, production electric a century ago: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/4215940.html

HAHAHA.

Let them enjoy their time on the floor. A great many of them are going home in Jan.

Ok infrastructure was a bad term to use. We do not have suffiecient power plants to support the change.
Hybrids are fine and yes they use less gas but if gas prices keep rising hybrids will not be very feasible either.

I am all for alternative fuels but the US is not ready for it and consumers cannot handle alot higher gas prices. hell I have to drive to work I have no other choice in my area but I cannot move either cause of house prices.

"I had gotten in my car to drive home and I realized I didn't have enough money to pay for the first tank of gas," said Rogers.

a comment seemingly meaningless that will get used by Dem's as fodder.

One guy had it right...the Republicans are morons.If I'm reading this right, the Dems refused to do the vote. Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of a representative government?

No.

Its the parliamentary system of government and why elections matter. The majority party controls what is heard and when.

Thems the rules.

Aren't we supposed to be the party that believes in the free market? Soaring gas prices are exactly the incentive to spur the innovation we so sorely need.There's nothing free market about our current energy problem.

And for you people addicted to hopium based electric cars ... that electricity has to come from some where. Right now, unless the enviros let us build more nuke, wind, solar, and/or coal plants to take up the slack, it isn't going to help matters a bit.

Explain how you think it will help our long-term situation to remove economic incentives currently stimulating unprecedented innovation in alternate energy fields.

The true fiscal conservatives that built our current wealth are rolling in their graves over this Neocon white-collar welfare. It's pathetic.

There's nothing free market about economic incentives.

There's nothing free market about economic incentives.


Theres nothing free market about oil and the companies that control it, they get a huge amount of tax breaks and "corporate welfare" to continue on their present road.

Money going to incentives to develop alternative energy solutions is not a bad thing, hell, your own industry is chock full of "economic incentives".

I'm certain you are more intelligent than an average person so for the life of me I can't understand why you are so against advancements in technology for fuel as our government funds the research in order for your company to research new technologies that are much less positive for all involved.

There's nothing free market about economic incentives.

As the price of oil continues to skyrocket, there is economic incentive for innovation. Those "incentives" are precisely free market.

This is exactly how the market is supposed to sort things out and encourage innovation. Sabotaging that with artificial support for a sinking ship just hurts us all in the long run.

If you want free markets, get rid of the government's regulations and laws and executive orders. Otherwise call it something else, but dolling out tax dollars to create a market that's not there otherwise is not free.

Reading comprehension ftw. I've only made one comment in this thread that you could possibly argue against and neither of you bothered to, because it straight up reality.

I guess you're hung up on the tax credits they used to give people for hybrid cars? The ones that expired last year? I haven't even considered them in this thread.

They're trivial, compared to the market itself shaking old oil technologies out in favor of alternate energy technologies. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that they've been expired for over 6 months, but the alternate energy field only continues at breakneck pace.

It should be very well apparent to anyone that oil is a sinking ship. All of the desperate measures in the world won't change that. All of this subsidizing of oil should be the purview of the Democrats. It's disgusting to see people who call themselves conservatives back this garbage.

San, I'm not arguing against those things. And Rover, for fucks sake, how often have I posted about new and promising energy technologies?

San, I'm not arguing against those things. And Rover, for fucks sake, how often have I posted about new and promising energy technologies?

There's nothing free market about our current energy problem.

There's nothing free market about economic incentives.

If you want free markets, get rid of the government's regulations and laws and executive orders. Otherwise call it something else, but dolling out tax dollars to create a market that's not there otherwise is not free.

Please explain then. I must be misunderstanding.

Did the Free Market build our highway system.

The free market is great, but it doesn't apply to every situation. If you don't understand that Energy Independence/Endurance is a national security priority, then you aren't paying attention. Oil is finite and running lower resource. Texas ran out a long time ago, Mexico's biggest field just went dry recently, Saudi Arabia knows they are running out and we know look to more and more remote and difficult places to maintain the status quo.

The first society to embrace alternative forms of renewable energy will own the future. But it wont just be finding more oil. It will be in infrastructure. It will be in remaking the way power is created and distributed. Yes, it will take loads of public funding combined with private incentives.

People keep talking about NASA. But they historically inaccurate. The kind of project we need is the kind that we saw in the 1800s with the laying of Railroad.

http://www.sdrm.org/history/timeline/pac_rr_act_1862.html

See that? Public funding. And it made all the difference. Without an extensive railway system, created with public and private funds, America never becomes an industrial giant and we stay true to Jefferson's vision of an Agricultural society.

Yes Nuclear, Yes to SOME offshore drilling (with an eye on phasing out fossil fuel usage altogether at some point), Yes to wind and Solar. All of it. Let them compete.

But enough with the damn oil.

Please explain then. I must be misunderstanding. You're redefining what a free market is. Getting a tax break to shop at Target instead of Wal Mart is not free marketing. Costco getting $$$,$$$,$$$ from the federal govt to develop a competing product is not free marketing. It's not free marketing to restrict each Wal Mart to 10 parking spaces and 5 of them are still required to be handicapped accessible. Oh but Obama will fix that, he'll just take Wal Mart's profits and give them to his flock.

I'm not saying those things are BAD entirely, but it's fucking with Econ 101's law of supply and demand. When you muck with that, don't act all concerned about the little people when it starts costing more to shop at Wal Mart.

Oooooh, let's get off of oil! I haven't seen an alternative that will fulfill the 4 TERRAWATTS this country uses in gasoline each day to drive around. And the paths to get there with the alternatives are blocked almost every step of the way. Can't build a solar panel array because you might endanger some fucking insect. Can't build a wind mill array because it'll obscure some fucking Kennedy's sunrise. Can't build a wind mill array because it'll kill the migrating birds. Can't build a nuke plant because johnny doesn't want to grow three thumbs. Can't build power lines because they cause brain tumors.

For fuck's sake get out of the way and it'll work itself out.

Wow holy crap I agree with L2...some. I agree we should do offshore drilling only to help us become more independent till nuclear, hydrogen, wind takes over. We should get rid of tax breaks for oil companies all I was saying is get some more oil flowing to help the US economy until electric, hydrogen something is more viable. And how it becomes viable I dont care whether through government backed research(which there already is) or incentives(which there already is) and so far neither of these has produced a currently feasible system.

Offshore drilling keeps being touted as the way to ease the oil shortage in the US, but nobody has explained how that will happen. Those oil companies that will be drilling already sell most of their oil OUTSIDE the US, so where is the guarantee that they will suddenly put US interests ahead of profits and keep new oil production flowing into the US pipeline?

If China and India are offering more for any new oil on the market does anyone really believe the folks running the oil companies and the share holders earning fat dividends from the oil companies are going to say no?

It is all about money, not patriotic duty.

Oil is sold on the global market. You don't drill for new US oil, you drill to expand the global supply of oil. And just adding the possibility of gaining new oil reserves will lower the built in speculation and inflated cost of each barrell of oil now and into the future.

But apparently lowering the price of oil isn't whats important.

and the partisan arrows fly, this is a good thread!!!

AM i mistaken or has Brazil already largely switch to ethonol? I thought i read that somewhere.

This is a red herring.

Global demand is increasing by 1.2% each year. If we think that waving the magic offshore drilling wand is going to lower prices we are stupid. Maybe in the very short term, but the reality of the situation will eventually set in.

Right now, the oil companies have 63 MILLION acres of offshore leases that they are clear to explore and drill on, and currently, arent touching. Additionally, even if we were to open up everywhere to exploration it wouldnt make a damn worth of actual difference. The reason is that these 700 million dollar oil rigs do not grow on trees, and most of these are being sent to Brazil, West Africa and Southeast Asia. Each one of these rigs takes a couple years to build and are only made in a handful of shipyards globally.

Besides, its not like we aren't opening new areas for use. Just last year the number of leases for offshore drilling increased 25% to 1,005. Additionally, of the available area with oil, currently only 20% is being utilized.[1] (http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080709/OPINION07/807090315/1004/OPINION)

Additionally, in a couple weeks at the Sonesta Hotel in New Orleans the US Government will be auctioning over 15 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for exploration to oil companies. This complements a auction of 30 million acres back in March.

What we are seeing here is nothing more than a "Land grab" by oil companies. And an attempt by the Republican party to gain power by capitalizing on the ignorance of the American people.

Not to mention the fact that becoming too dependent on offshore drilling puts in a pretty precarious position. Remember Katrina?
113 platforms totally destroyed, and - more importantly - 457 pipelines damaged, 101 of those major lines with 10" or larger diameter. At least 741,000 gallons were spilled from 124 reported sources (the Coast Guard calls anything over 100,000 gallons a "major" spill).[2] (http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0501.htm)

Right now, the oil companies have 63 MILLION acres of offshore leases that they are clear to explore and drill on, and currently, arent touching.Actually it's 68 million. But how much oil is under those selective plots? Is it viable to even get the oil from it even at the current market? If there's only 4.8 million barrells of oil under all that ocean, I suspect not. That's the red hering.

What we are seeing here is nothing more than a "Land grab" by oil companies. LMFAO. Land grab?

http://www.radicalcartography.net/federalland.gif

THAT's a land grab.

back to the original topic, doesnt the congress ban on off-shore drilling expire in September aka next month, and if so, couldnt this be just a media ploy by the GOP?

68 million acres to drill and they need more today? Do you see the insanity in what your posting?

You say we need to give up land to the likes of Exxon, Shell and others so we can get cheap oil and then you say they can't drill on the land they have rights to now because the "current market" doesn't make it profitable? Are you saying we need $10 a gallon gas to then make it profitable to drill on those lands?

back to the original topic, doesnt the congress ban on off-shore drilling expire in September aka next month, and if so, couldnt this be just a media ploy by the GOP?


OMG no...the GOP would never use the media for their own purposes.

Here is a good write up


Oil: Behind the Big Numbers


At first, the fact that Exxon Mobil scored the biggest quarterly profit (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJKt_Mt53erQ&refer=home) for any company in history may seem like the central (and maddening) point of Thursday's press release, but looking past the top number shows several more interesting items.
First off, that record $11.68 billion is less than expected, sending Exxon Mobil's shares down on Wall Street. Why did they underperform the analyst's expectations? Well, with rising oil prices come rising amounts of overseas strife.
Production tumbled 7.8 percent after assets were seized in Venezuela, Nigerian workers went on strike and record prices triggered contract clauses that give oil-rich governments a bigger share of output.
Countries that are selling oil -- from Russia to Iran -- are getting richer as the prices climb, and they see less and less reason to give any of their wealth to the big international companies. Exxon Mobil, like other companies, finds that their leverage is slipping.
But there's an even more interesting calculation at work. While Exxon Mobil was cranking out record profits on oil production, its refineries were actually bringing in less money (http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/companies/exxon_profits/index.htm) than last year. Why?
Profits from its refining business totaled $1.6 billion in the quarter, less than half of what they were last year. ... Oil prices in the quarter were nearly twice as high as the same time last year, while gasoline prices were an average of nearly 30% higher.
Oil prices doubled, but the price of the biggest product produced from oil didn't follow suit. Exxon was unable to maintain the same margins on their refining business that they have in the past. And there's a good reason (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25891664/) for that.
Americans drove 9.6 billion fewer miles in May 2008 than in May 2007, according to federal data released Monday. The 3.7 percent decline was the third-largest monthly drop in the 66 years the Department of Transportation has been collecting the data.
For decades, gasoline has been considered a commodity that lives by its own special rules. In a country that was designed around highways, gas was required to get Americans to work, school, and stores. It wasn't fungible, and demand wasn't tightly coupled to price. Whatever they asked for it, Americans would be forced to pay.
As it turns out, that's not entirely true. The sharp decline in miles driven and even sharper turn away from low mileage vehicles shows that gas is not a product untouched by pricing. $4 gas turned out to be enough to make Americans simply park it. Which, paired with increasingly bad signs in the economy, was enough to spur a retreat in the price of oil. If the increased price of oil had been directly reflected at the pump this year, we'd be looking at $6 gas -- and likely taking actions that would put Exxon's future in serious doubt. They took lower profits at the refineries because they had to.
Even more interesting is where Exxon spent its money.
On an earnings-per-share basis, Exxon made $2.22. That was still lower than analysts had expected, but 24% higher than last year, a gain Exxon attributed to its aggressive stock buyback plan.
And where it didn't.
"While oil companies are earning record profits and gas prices are soaring, the largest oil companies have invested more resources in stock buybacks than U.S. production," said Congressional Democrats in a press release shortly after Exxon announced its earnings.
Other critics charge the oil companies with deliberately restricting production in an attempt to keep prices high.
The industry says it's investing as much as it can in finding new oil, but is having a hard time given the shortage of workers and equipment in the sector.
Notice that Exxon's complaint is a lack of workers and equipment, not a shortage of places to drill as the GOP would have you believe. The fact is, they're producing all that they can, and aiming their platforms at the most likely locations. Neither tax breaks nor scads of new leases would have any significant effect.
But hey, let's declare GOP Magical Fairy Drilling Day and say that suddenly there's a drilling platform for every potential reserve out there. What could we get (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/news/0807/gallery.energy_solutions/index.html)?
It's hard to say just how much oil is there, but estimates compiled by CNNMoney.com from various government agencies indicate crude oil production could be increased between 1 and 3 million barrels per day.
Since it's GOP Magical Fairy Drilling Day, let's be generous and go with the top number. And lets assume, since those GOP magical fairies have plenty of magical powder on hand, that a mere ten years from now all that production comes on line all at once. Happy days, right?
Wrong. The US currently produces about 5 million barrels a day, which makes another 3 look like a big increase. But US production is in a sharp decline. Even if we held the 5 million/day level, adding in another 3 million would put us well below US production back in 1970, and far short of anything that would make a dent in our dependence on foreign oil. Imports increased 3.5 million barrels a day between 1990 and 2000 alone. If there were unlimited drill rigs, if there were unlimited resources for oil infrastructure, if every potential reserves performs at the high end of prediction, a strategy of "drill more" means we would still be importing more oil at the end of the decade, not less.
And that's all GOP magic fairy land. In reality, opening up every single area for drilling, and doing it today, won't even be enough to stop the steady decrease in US production. This production would come on line over a period of decades, during which other fields would fall off the radar. It won't even make a blip in the decline. You might as well try to save a sinking boat by drilling holes in the hull to let the water out.
Here's reality: between 1970 and 1980, oil prices increased far more sharply than they did between 2000 and today. During that period, the US got a vivid demonstration of how vulnerable we were to the availability of imported oil. In that decade, the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline was completed and the largest US oil field in history came on line. The executive order banning offshore exploration was still more than a decade in the future. So what happened to US production? It fell over a million barrels a day. Of course, some of the exploration in that decade didn't really make it to the pumps until the 1980s... when production fell another million barrels a day. Or maybe the 1990s, when it was down another million. Over all that time, US dependence on foreign oil increased.
We can repeat that pattern. If we make "drill more" the centerpiece of our strategy, we mimic the 1970s, handing over more control of our economy and national security to foreign powers. "Drill more" and "import more" are two sides of the same coin.(emphasis L2)
Or we can focus our efforts on getting away from oil, and turn the money that would go digging our current hole even deeper toward climbing out of the hole entirely. We can do that... if we don't get stupid. For 2008, it's the energy, stupid.
And thinking that opening up more areas for drilling will help really is stupid.

and the partisan arrows fly, this is a good thread!!!

AM i mistaken or has Brazil already largely switch to ethonol? I thought i read that somewhere.


No they havent switched totally to ethanol that is more propaganda. Most of thier fleet is still gas and I forget the explanation but my boss is from there and explained that they are more on gas than ethanol.

Good write up Brazil here.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/desousa1.html


I'm starting to think T-Boone has a good idea going. far better than Ethanol. what we really need to do is up the Cafe standards. should be easy for auto makers to reach a higher mark quickly as they are already re-tooling for smaller more efficient cars.

Off shore drilling is just the latest attempt by the GOP to pull the wool over Americans eyes. They are feeding the perception that off shore drilling will make us independent from foreign oil when in fact, it will only make us more dependent by making people think they can consume at previous levels. It's motivation is simple, money at the expense of the future of this country. Big oil is backing this push as they need to make sure the US consumer continues to gas guzzle so they can continue with their record profits...and feed the GOP with funds.

No infrastructure! No infrastructure! Hell, maybe if we hadn't spent a trillion dollars on a false war we could have built the infrastructure we need.

But by drilling for oil we can help consumers in the mean time cost wise, even if there is no impact for 5 years or so, until there is a viable means of switching to renewable resources.

You know damn well not a god damned thing will be done on renewable resources if the "Off Shore" myth is bought by Americans. It won't help one bit with the oil prices we suffering through...and the GOP knows that. But they would rather sacrifice the American people for quick corporate profit than actually make a hard decision to actually end this country's oil addiction. Their won't be any "viable" means to switch to renewable resources if don't focus all our efforts on them, and big oil and the GOP are trying their damnedest to make sure that doesn't happen.

Personally I don't give flying fuck about off-shore drilling...it's the perception that it solves our dependency problems that pisses me off. <doing my best Louis Black impression>...cause anyone with half a brain knows it won't have any damned effect on gas prices!!

Offshore drilling keeps being touted as the way to ease the oil shortage in the US, but nobody has explained how that will happen. Those oil companies that will be drilling already sell most of their oil OUTSIDE the US, so where is the guarantee that they will suddenly put US interests ahead of profits and keep new oil production flowing into the US pipeline? Do you have a convenient, non-partisanish source for this?

For reference, not that I'm doubting you.

You can't spin your stance according to a certain policy based on how a company is having to run their business when that company is having to run loops around the thousand-plus other regulations you have put in place over the past 3 decades.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the article pasted above written by some unknown are twisting themselves into knots trying to avoid the pickle they're in. You can't limit the supply of oil and lower gas prices at the same time, unless you decrease demand for it or come up with some new technology to replace it.

It's just not going to happen unless government gets out of the way.

Obama came out and admitted that he wants high gas prices to get us off of oil. That's fine, admit it. Don't blame "big oil" and preach to me that pumping a million extra barrels of oil a day isn't going to do any good for the price of gas, and then later say you're going to tap the reserves to offer "relief at the pump". Does he think we're stupid? Either adding supply helps or it doesn't.

Admit your end goal is to force us off of oil once and for all. Hell that's something I can get behind, but it's not realistic, especially if you don't follow-through and remove all the regulations the government has in place that restricts what we need to do.

And don't laugh at your competitor when he proposes an x-prize for the only viable alternative that's forseeable to me.

When you restrict supply, prices go up. And unles it's air, demand is going to fall (as the article correctly stated.) There goes our economy. Thanks for that.

I'm not against new technologies, but as I said before, we use up about 4 terawatts of energy moving our vehicles around each day in this country. If we replaced all of the gas using vehicles in this country with battery powered ones, we'd still have to get at least 4 terawatts of electricity from somewhere. And that's assuming an equal conversion rate. I suspect that's not reality.

Pickens plan and his wind mills... All of Scottland is covered in wind mills and it generates around 3 gigawatts maximum. That's about 0.075% (3 GW / 4000 GW) of what we will need on a daily basis. For future reference, a big nuke plant produces about 3 GW.

Some days the wind farms actually have a negative production (they cost more to maintain than they actually produce.) Ironically, this occurs during the winter months when we actually need the electrity generated the most. Businesses are still sucking juice and people are getting home turning on their heaters. It's possible to grid the farms, but look at the investment. 3 GW for something spanning an entire country. Build one nuke plant and you get a constant thump of juice that's probably cheaper to maintain.

I've looked at the Pickens plan..Other than the obvious lack of nuclear power, he's wanting to convert natural gas electricity generating plants into gas for cars. And then take up the slack of by producing electricity by wind. This will require a completely new type of fuel station to be built and the vehicles may have to be completely redesigned to handle a pressurized fuel system. A good first step is getting the metros to use them as he wants, but I just can't imagine having tens of thousands of pressurized refueling stations. All it takes is one idiot and there goes a city block.

Anyway Rover, re: the 68 million acres of leases. If the oil companies don't see a ROI on it versus the risk, they're not going to drill there. Not all oil wells are the same. Some places we know with 100% certainty that we'll get at least 1 million barrells a day (ANWR). I did see some Democrat say there was an estimated 4.8 million barrels under all that 68 million acres of sea floor. He later admitted that was even a guess of that much. Even at 4.8 million barrels on the high end, it seems quite puny if you think about it. So no, I don't see the insanity in oil companies not drilling there now. The opposite actually.

Do you have a convenient, non-partisanish source for this?

For reference, not that I'm doubting you.

Unfortunately, I have no reference to offer. My statement regarding the US oil companies selling outside the US comes from varied readings over the years, one of which was specifically about the percentage of US oil being sold in Asia as compared to the trifling amount going to the US itself. The articles I have read were primarily dealing with the financial side of the oil business, and offering a somewhat weak and jaded view of why these companies would be selling abroad; basically, shareholders demand more profits, and if that means Asian countries get the oil, so be it.

Drilling is beyond meaningless.

Any oil found doesn't contribute to solely our own oil supply.. it contributes to the global oil supply. People trying to lie to you will tell you "This is a 5 year supply of oil for the us" blah blah blah. Misleading and dishonest statistics.

The bottom line is even with drilling going full bore, we would add about 3% more the current outflow of oil. The problem is that the demand for oil is going up 1.1% per year and our 3% addition is static while the 1.1% growth is building on the previous year.

Its so fucking stupid. We have a real crisis here, and the centerpiece of one parties solution to this very threat of our nations continued prosperity is meaningless and blustery.

FFS. Do you people not realize we are sowing the seeds of our own demise.

Any oil found doesn't contribute to solely our own oil supply.. it contributes to the global oil supply. People trying to lie to you will tell you "This is a 5 year supply of oil for the us" blah blah blah. Misleading and dishonest statistics. Heh (http://ayonae.com/showpost.php?p=147448&postcount=24).

Oil is sold on the global market. You don't drill for new US oil, you drill to expand the global supply of oil.

We have a real crisis here, and the centerpiece of one parties solution to this very threat of our nations continued prosperity is meaningless and blustery. Which crisis is that ? Massive anthropological global warming dooming mankind to live in little boats or the high gas prices that will lead to a president McCain?

Both Mankind living in little boats and President McCain are catastrophes, this is just a crisis.

Like I said earlier, you're being had (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12304.html).

California Democrat Nancy Pelosi may be trying to save the planet — but the rank and file in her party increasingly are just trying to save their political hides when it comes to gas prices as Republicans apply more and more rhetorical muscle.

But what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes she’s encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill.

Yes, the Dems are weak...next point please.

The lying rhetoric is in full swing from the GOP and the Dems are buckling...where's the surprise? The fact that you buy the lying rhetoric is beyond explanation. Despite the FACT that off-shore drilling will do nothing but bolster a failed energy policy from the most corrupt administration in this county's history doesn't seem to faze some.

We have an opportunity. If we commit this country's resources to becoming the world leader in renewable and alternative energy sources we could, once again, recover a lot of the strength this nation has been losing for the last few decades. Unless you're a complete dee-dee-dee you have to realize that it is imperative that this country break it's oil crack habit. The off shore myth just gives us our next fix as we become more of a whore for China and the Middle East.

Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough said it very clearly today.

"A republican victory will be reality if McCain and his campaign can avoid the real issues, republicans have used that strategy to win for many decades and they are successfully pulling it off again."

This is so true, we now have a focus on something that will make little or no difference even in 7-10 years and the morons buy right into it, on topof the republican focus on Britney and Paris Hilton comparisons, DUDES...WHAT ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND THE WASTEFUL WAR IN IRAQ?

I've actually heard people say gas prices are dropping because the oil companies are anticipating that new areas will be opened to drilling, I can't for the life of me explain why people, who are supposed to be intelligent, believe that; especially those who taught a free market.

I didn't think it was possible to lace a post with so much paranoia, empty rhetoric, and hopium as that one .. then I remember you posted this gem back earlier in the thread.

WE DON"T NEED MORE OIL, WE NEED LESS DEPENDENCY, GOD DAMMIT!!A real beauty that one.

Drilling for oil is a good, very populist political issue and the drawbacks of fighting it far outweigh the benefits. Its just pointless.

It appeals to peoples emotions and requires them not to think deeply about the issue and just go on gut instinct. "Hey gas prices are high! GO DIG SOME UP"

Nah, they should cave completely on it right now. Get it over with and when gas prices arent down any in November, Dems can say "Hey look, the big GOP plan was a total flop". To fight this requires a great deal of explaining and getting people to see reasoning that goes beyond a 10 second analysis, something most Americans just aren't willing, or capable of doing.

I've actually heard people say gas prices are dropping because the oil companies are anticipating that new areas will be opened to drilling, I can't for the life of me explain why people, who are supposed to be intelligent, believe that; especially those who taught a free market.Oil companies aren't why the price per barrell has dropped $20 since Bush removed the offshore drilling executive order 2 weeks ago.

To fight this requires a great deal of explaining and getting people to see reasoning that goes beyond a 10 second analysis, something most Americans just aren't willing, or capable of doing.Yes, most Americans are stupid. That's the right attitude.

A real beauty that one.

It's amazing to me that some Americans are gullible enough to buy the GOP rhetoric and spin.

Yes, most Americans are stupid.

Damn straight...and the GOP prey on it.

I didn't think it was possible to lace a post with so much paranoia, empty rhetoric, and hopium as that one ..

Your position must be awfully weak if this is all you can muster.

Oil companies aren't why the price per barrell has dropped $20 since Bush removed the offshore drilling executive order 2 weeks ago.

That proves the point. No actual oil entered the market, yet the price dropped. They were artificially high because the price had been manipulated.

Didn't you ever learn how to boil a frog akipt? Just turn the heat up slowly. This is exactly what the oil producing nations are doing. They understand they have a finite quantity and are, by most reasonable estimates, on the 40 to 50% expended.

So they jack up the price 6 artifical notches, and lower it 2 and we are supposed to be glad and thankful to Dear Father Leader Bush? Are you fucking kidding me? We are still boiling. Its a game. As soon as we start to get away from oil, they lower the price.

Its a variation of the "Guns or Butter model". Except, for purposes of making a clear analogy, Its the "Hummer or Hybrid". The use of the vehicles is only for representational purposes, but it extends to all investment, wether we use our nations investments in drilling, refineries, and oil dependent lifestyle and industry facilities. Or we invest more heavily in Wind Farms, and Solar panels and renewable forms of energy. One is going to thrive the other is going to starve. The producers of oil see its in their best interest that we, their best customer, never start down that road where we need them less.

So being thankful that oil dropped while we are the edge of dramatic change feels disturbingly like a junkie trying to clean up thanking his dealer for a few extra pinches in the bag.

The republican position is exceptionally weak much as it has almost always been.That's why they keep the focus off of the issues.

No actual oil entered the market, yet the price dropped. They were artificially high because the price had been manipulated. No shit? I was being facetious with the Bush Executive Order thing, but that doesn't make it an untrue statement. He just shouldn't get much credit for it. There's millions of reasons the market was up on oil and there's just as many reasons the market is dropping now. Your refusal to admit that government regulations (especially restrictions) on a product's supply has detrimental effect on its market is noted. At least admit that your goal is to manipulate the situation for your own political goals. That seems pretty hipocritical to rail against "big oil" for doing the same. At least they pay about twice as much in taxes as they make in "landfall profits". Damn them!

So they jack up the price 6 artifical notches, and lower it 2 and we are supposed to be glad and thankful to Dear Father Leader Bush?Who's the they? And nobody I've read has seriously credited Bush with the latest drop.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/23/mccain-credits-bush-for-oil-price-drop/

loelz

Oil companies aren't why the price per barrell has dropped $20 since Bush removed the offshore drilling executive order 2 weeks ago.
Bush removing the offshore executive order 2 weeks ago aren't why the prices are down either. The prices are down because global demand is down because the prices reduced the demand.

...and of course, McCain is a real energy expert and takes great concern over the issue:

In 2007, McCain missed all 11 energy-related Senate votes considered key by the League of Conservation Voters, including votes related to automobile fuel economy, offshore Virginia drilling, refinery construction, renewable electricity mandates, energy efficiency, liquefied coal and support for biofuels. The absences prompted the League to give McCain a "zero" rating for the year.

Out of curiosity and fairness, how many of those same votes did Obama attend?

His scorecard from LCV, which appears to me to be very partisan:

'05 - 95/100
'06 - 100/100
'07 - 67/100

But what I can't figure out is if that score reflects just having voted or having voted and what the vote was. I also want to find out what specific votes they are talking about, or are they cherry picking to make a point.

A quick search didn't turn up which 11 votes the League of Conservation Voters considered "key".

Project Vote Smart might still be of some help, though.
Energy related votes in 2007:
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote.php?type=category&state_id=NA&search_1=29&search_2=2007&go2.x=16&go2.y=11

S Amdt 1538, 6/14 (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=13969): McCain=NV, Obama=Y. 95 voted.
S Amdt 1566, 6/14 (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=13967): McCain=NV, Obama=NV. 87 voted.
S Amdt 1519, 6/19 (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=14007): McCain=NV, Obama=Y. 93 voted.
HR 6, 6/21 (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=13971): McCain=NV, Obama=Y. 92 voted.
S Amdt 1704, cloture, 6/21 (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=14155): McCain=NV, Obama=Y. 93 voted.
HR 6, concurrence vote, 12/13 (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=16704): McCain=NV, Obama=NV. 94 voted.

Oh, when McCain had some balls... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Stewardship_Acts)

S.1151
Sponsor: Sen McCain, John (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d109&querybd=@FIELD%28FLD003+@4%28%28@1%28Sen+McCain++J ohn%29%29+00754%29%29) [AZ] (introduced 5/26/2005)
Title: A bill to provide for a program to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and reduce dependence upon foreign oil, to support the deployment of new climate change-related technologies, and ensure benefits to consumers.

I remember back then on one of his ten appearances (I think it was 2004), how much I liked him. He was very moderate in his views and personable in the the interview...I was thinking here's a guy I could feel good about voting for. What happened to that guy?

What happened to that guy?


He got too comfortable in planning his campaign against Hillary and the Clinton legacy, and is finding it difficult to appear in charge and leader-like when he is on his heels trying to keep his balance.

I remember back then on one of his ten appearances (I think it was 2004), how much I liked him. He was very moderate in his views and personable in the the interview...I was thinking here's a guy I could feel good about voting for. What happened to that guy?

Under a stronger spotlight, we've seen more of him. He's always been this way, if you look a bit closer at his history (or how he treats his women!).

Under a stronger spotlight, we've seen more of him. He's always been this way, if you look a bit closer at his history (or how he treats his women!).

But it's more than that. He was, or least seemed to be, much more moderate in his views. It seems like, or maybe it's my own bias, that once he started backing Bush on the Iraq war he began a slide to the right and started becoming less and less his own man.

But it's more than that. He was, or least seemed to be, much more moderate in his views. It seems like, or maybe it's my own bias, that once he started backing Bush on the Iraq war he began a slide to the right and started becoming less and less his own man.


He most likely came to the realization that he had no future beyond Senator in the GOP unless he followed the party line wholeheartedly. Cheney and Bush have cemented the role of big business money in GOP campaigns, and to flagrantly buck that system gets you the kind of response seen by Ron Paul.

McCain, sadly, wants the Presidency more than he wants to remain his own man.

he started backing Bush on the Iraq war

Well apparently at the Sturgis Rally he came out with a new plan for the war in Iraq.

He said that the best way to win in Iraq is to win.

And Paris Hilton Responds!

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d

Just as an aside.

Strategically... the race is over. McCain is not seriously threatening in any of the states that Kerry won. Right now, Obama has a slight lead in almost every single battleground state and is making serious inroads into formerly red territory.
The fact is that is not a close race, it wont be a close race, and all of this is just for show.

Case in point.
http://www.270towin.com/simulation/

Obama wins 97% of the time.

and paris hilton responds!

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d


roflroflrofl

Heh, Paris Hilton has a more viable energy plan than Obama.

Heh, Paris Hilton has a more viable energy plan than Obama.


ZING lol..for some reason I laughed. It appears to, at the least, be articulated better than both candidates.

He said that the best way to win in Iraq is to win.

He's out of the loop we won already on May 1st, 2003.:devil

Just as an aside.

Strategically... the race is over. McCain is not seriously threatening in any of the states that Kerry won. Right now, Obama has a slight lead in almost every single battleground state and is making serious inroads into formerly red territory.
The fact is that is not a close race, it wont be a close race, and all of this is just for show.

Case in point.
http://www.270towin.com/simulation/

Obama wins 97% of the time.

Whats scary is that its actually pretty close every time. I can't understand how thats possible.