from your friends at politico.com
"This is the people's House," said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.). "This is not Pelosi's politiburo."
Democrats suck, and they are screwing this nation intentionally; what a bunch of chickenshits.
As always, READ the article.
Comments ... #
HAHAHA!!!!!! I bet Pelosi's head is about to burst from all the pressure built up. This will definitely go down as a Republican victory today. Hopefully someone got video of the lights being turned off so they can play that over and over and over again this fall with "Democrats refuse to even leave the lights on for debating offshore drilling despite 70% of Americans supporting the measure."
Yea - cause Rosie O'Donnell controls the on/off switch. LMAO!
Lemmings.
Hahahaha!! I think this (from the article) says it best:
meaning Republicans were talking in the dark
And heyhey, your numbers are laughable. Americans want renewable energy, not oil drilling --it won't solve any problems. The oil companies won't drill anyway. They just want the land so they can control the supply. The US has 2% of the world's oil reserves, and we use 25% of the supply. Not only that, but even if we drill the oil goes to the oil companies who sell it on the global market. It's not like we'd get it. Unless you propose we nationalize our oil, like Chavez. Even then we'd only see savings of just pennies----and not for at least 20 years....
"talking in the dark"---indeed
pinky,
Nice talking points but they are ALL false. Geeze.
posted by Molsonator on Aug 02, 2008 at 07:12:50 am #
Lemmings indeed...
Can anyone reading this thread seriously contend that the Republicans actually care about the American people any more than the Democrats. A few years ago, the Republicans wanted to eliminate the fillibuster in order to stifle the will of the minority party. That's just one example - our elected "representatives" have long been more interested in retaining their salaries than helping the average citizen.
Does Obama truly represent change? Probably not. Then again, it seems fairly obvious that McCain will bring nothing but the same crap we have seen for 30+ years.
The blog you linked is nothing more than an election-year stunt. The Republicans don't care about helping lower fuel costs, they want to appear as if they care, all while making their major constituents (corporations) giddy at the potential for more profit. It would be no different if the majority/minority breakdown were tilted the other direction.
posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Aug 02, 2008 at 07:51:40 am #
Actually molsonator, all those points are true. Feel free to look them up
________ suck, and they are screwing this nation intentionally; what a bunch of chickenshits.
The blame game has tons of possibilities.
Terrorists
Immigrants
The Irish
Kmarts
The Detroit Tigers
Miley and Billy Ray
Gee Pinky, "US has 2% of the worlds oil reserves"....doesn't count all the areas we are NOT drilling in. And I am sure "The oil companys won't drill anyways" is a opinion and not something you can back with fact. But hey don't let the facts get in the way.
Next let's blame George Bush. He was in the war for oil....errrrr wait a minute prices have gone up and Iraq is selling to everyone BUT the USA.
posted by Molsonator on Aug 02, 2008 at 10:41:08 am #
^That's because Georgies war hasn't gone the way he planned.
"US has 2% of the worlds oil reserves"....doesn't count all the areas we are NOT drilling in
I'm sorry--make it 3%. According to the Department of Energy (Bush Administration): EIA said its projection is that ANWR oil production would amount to 0.4 percent to 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030.
And I am sure "The oil companys won't drill anyways" is a opinion and not something you can back with fact. But hey don't let the facts get in the way.
The oil companies "already have 68 million acres of land": http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/stories/Documents/truth_about_americas_energy.pdf that they're NOT drilling. "Also, even with the ever-increasing price of crude, it still is not cost-effective to drill for oil in some places. To complicate matters further, because of a lack of supply and a rapidly growing demand, there is not enough equipment available for all the potential drilling sites. Energy experts also acknowledge that some oil companies hold onto leases to prevent competitors from drilling on them."
Next let's blame George Bush. Yes, indeed. Because of our huge trade and budget deficits, brought on by Bush policies, we have a much weaker dollar than before 2001. Since 2001, the dollar has lost 45% of its value against the euro. In 2003 one gallon of gas in the U.S. cost $1.50 and 1.50 Euro. Today's $3.60 gallon of gas costs only 2.25 Euro. Not to mention the occupation in Iraq and Bush's war-mongering with Iran. Geopolitical risks always raise the cost of oil.
Pink O - Quoting reports by Democratatic committies means nothing. As for the dollars loss....why don't we say "just to make it fair"...under the Democratic House and Democratic Senate and under the Bush administration. That way blame goes to all involved, not a selective group to prove a point.
The deal is ALL of government has dropped the ball.posted by Molsonator on Aug 02, 2008 at 12:51:28 pm #
The only place where I quoted a Democratic committee was the "68 million acres of land" that the oil companies are currently leasing. That point is not disputed. But I will agree that the Democrats have not done nearly enough to push back against the Republicans destructive policies. Maybe denying them a chance at pushing ANWR down our throats is a good start.
"the Democrats have not done nearly enough"
Agreed. Now we are getting somewhere.
posted by Molsonator on Aug 02, 2008 at 02:35:34 pm #
Remember, between Jan. of 01 when Bush was inaugurated and Jan. of 06 when the Dems took control of congress the average retail price of gas had risen 90 cents.
Between Jan. of 06 and July 21, 2008 it went up an additional $1.73.Plenty of blame to go around, except the Dems never take responsibility. Folks seem to forget Congress makes and passes laws, not the president.
Just remember, all politicians=lying assholes.
It's gonna take more than a couple years to fix this clusterfuck of a country Bush made... you're head is up your ass if you think otherwise.
posted by jhostetler on Aug 02, 2008 at 03:12:15 pm #
And let's not forget--the Dems in the Senate can't get jack shit done with the constant filibusters. They hold the slimist of majorities, and that's only if you count Joe Lieberman. It's gonna take another election to get a true majority and get anything done.
I hear that Carty "gets things done".
posted by justareviewer on Aug 02, 2008 at 08:16:58 pm #
The facts here have clearly proven you wrong. QUIT LYING (because I know you knew the results of these polls).
And heyhey, your numbers are laughable.
So I guess this is laughable (67% support drilling): http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/67_support_offshore_drilling_64_expect_it_will_lower_prices
As well as this (69%):
http://www.pollingreport.com/energy.htmEven 51% of Californians support off-shore drilling: http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jul/31/poll-finds-support-for-drilling/
Heyhey, those polls are a joke. None of them ask about other alternatives to offshore drilling, and in the one poll they state 64% expect offshore drilling to lower oil prices, despite the fact that it WON'T lower prices for decades, and even then only pennies (our own administration admits this). It shows that when provided false talking points from the corporate media, the public can be swayed to change their opinion. The poll I referenced asked Americans what our priorities should be for energy policy. And it was clear---Americans preferred RENEWABLE ENERGY, not offshore drilling.
Americans do want alternative energy sources, but they also want to drill offshore whether or not it drops oil prices. Paying money to Americans producing oil is more palatable than paying people who hate us to produce oil.
No matter how you spin the results when these people were asked whether they wanted to drill offshore, 65-70% of then said YES. You can't argue with that statement.
"Despite a well-funded campaign to convince lawmakers to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and the offshore waters of the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling, and to allow new oil shale projects in the Rocky Mountain West, a majority (54%) of Americans do not see more drilling as a solution to high gas prices. Instead, the public overwhelmingly believes (76% to 19%) that policymakers should focus on investing in new energy technologies including renewable fuels and more efficient vehicles rather than expanding exploration and drilling for more oil. These findings were reported in a national poll conducted over the past week by Belden Russonello and Stewart, and released today.
A significant majority of Americans (63%) said that the Presidents proposal to open up public lands to oil and gas drilling is more likely to enrich oil companies than to lower gas prices for American consumers. A substantial majority (66%) said that the small percentage of public lands still protected from oil drilling should remain off limits because they are valuable natural resources that cannot be replaced." (source)
Pink O
The Wilderness Society? OMG! You can do better than that to fight your argument. That survey was poorly slanted. All they did was go survey shopping. I have to believe you are smarter than that.posted by Molsonator on Aug 04, 2008 at 09:08:56 am #
The Wilderness Society didn't conduct the poll. A Wash, DC-based research firm did. How does that make it any worse than a Rasmussen poll (Scott Rasmussen received thousands of dollars from the RNC and GW's campaign) or a CNN poll, knowing that CNN gets much of it's advertising dollars from energy companies? I wouldn't put much validity into a poll that claims 64% of Americans expect oil drilling to lower prices, when the facts prove otherwise.
Pink has lost this argument and he is desperately grasping for straws. Regardless of whether people think it will lower prices or enrich oil companies, the fact remains that 65-70% of people want to drill off-shore. Obama knows this, and that's why he now supports drilling off-shore: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080802/ts_alt_afp/usvote_080802210403
The great thing about democracy is that eventually the people get their way, and it looks more and more like we're going to get drilling offshore. If we don't Obama is going to loset this November.
Pink has lost this argument and he is desperately grasping for straws
Hahaha...if you reread my posts you'll see that I have consistently said Americans prefer renewable sources of energy over oil drilling. And that is true of any poll that offers those choices. We all know that in polling, it depends on how you ask the question.
Pink 0,
I realize that the Wilderness Society didn't conduct the poll. They paid for it though. Way to cloud the facts. I am thinking you went to the same school as Ben Konop. You both miss lead to prove your point.
posted by Molsonator on Aug 04, 2008 at 10:52:35 am #
If it'll make gas cheaper, I'd let em drill into the skulls of baby harp seals, or pandas, or spotted owls or.....
If drilling in the gulf doesn't make a difference in oil prices then explain why a hurricane in the Gulf that hits oil rigs will cause increased prices and a hurricane in the Gulf that misses oil rigs (like the current one) will cause price drops (prices dropped over $4 today). If the Gulf makes up such a small amount of US oil consumption then it shouldn't matter whether or not that source is interupted or not by a hurricane. If knocking a dozen oil rigs out of service increases costs then why wouldn't adding a dozen oil rigs decrease costs?
Can we all say "Oil speculators" on the stock marked??Does anyone know who pocketed the most when the prices were jumping up and down a couple of months ago??
posted by blacjac687 on Aug 04, 2008 at 12:39:51 pm #
AirTrainer, are you aware that recent study of 1,000,000 republicans had a "Extremely dangerous", if not fatal case of "cerebral rectal inversion, just check it out on "Jib Jab"
posted by blacjac687 on Aug 04, 2008 at 12:42:59 pm #
HeyHey - Don't use logic on Pink O, he won't understand.
posted by Molsonator on Aug 04, 2008 at 02:38:16 pm #
Molsonator, put down the stupid juice and try adding something to the conversation next time.
Heyhey, when a hurricane hits oil rigs you get an instantaneous drop in the supply. The act of drilling is a slow process. The machinery used for offshore drilling won't even be available for five years. Another five years to actually get any oil to the market, and another ten years to get to peak production.
Today's drop in oil had nothing to do with the actual supply. Speculators were hedging their bets that supplies would drop if the hurricane did indeed hit the rigs. This article also explains that "a US economic slowdown is sharply curbing US demand for fossil fuels."
But releasing some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, on the other hand, could lower prices in a matter of days--not years. It worked in the past. It's not a long-term solution, but it would lower prices in the short term
So, if we had no oil rigs in the oceans right now the price would be the same? It shouldn't lower the price any since they all came online over a matter of years, right? That's ridiculous, and its ridiculous to say that additional oil supply in the Gulf won't result in a lower price.
And I'm not saying that it would necessarily be a lower price compared to today, but it would be a lower price compared to if we didn't expand offshore. For example, if we drilled now we might produce oil in 2015. However, when 2015 comes around the price might be $150 a barrel because we did drill. If we hadn't drilled the price might have been $160.
If we had opened up this area to drilling in the 90s then we might be paying a few dollars less for a barrel of oil.
That's ridiculous, and its ridiculous to say that additional oil supply in the Gulf won't result in a lower price.
That is ridiculous, that's why I didn't say that. What I did say (and so did the Bush administration), is that since we have 2-3% of the world's oil and we use 25%, that the prices would only be lowered by pennies per gallon. And that wouldn't be until the oil is at peak production---which would be in approx 20 years.
Another thing---we could save more oil (800,000 barrels per day) by properly inflating our tires, than by the amount of oil we would get from offshore drilling in the outer continental shelf (200,000 barrels per day).
I was originally thinking that the 30+ comments presented here had gone way off topic. I'm not so sure that is the case. It seems that the majority of the comments here provide tacit support of Pelosi's obstructionist politically-motivated actions. To that I say, "You people suck, too". Yes, Virginia, environmental concerns have NOTHING to do with expanded domestic oil drilling. To wit:
posted by AirTrainer on Aug 05, 2008 at 10:33:11 am #
Pelosi is SCARED to have the American public see all of those NO votes that would appear if a vote were taken regarding offshore drilling. Why is that? Because she knows that the majority of Americans are sick of getting screwed at the gas pumps, and elections are only a couple of months away. Once again, democrat morons are taking action directly contrary to the well-being of the average American.
Current oil and gasoline prices are being driven by the speculation occurring within the futures market, not by supply and demand, and not by the specific price of oil.
President Bush lifted the executive order banning offshore oil drilling on July 14th, and isn't it amazing that Toledo gas prices have substantially declined? In fact, they have declined nationwide.
All it took was the THREAT of additional new supplies of DOMESTIC oil to cause this price decrease. Not a single new drop of oil was introduced to the market, and I can go buy gas at the Clark station on Alexis for $3.48 a gallon. That same gas cost $4.00 a gallon (or more) on July 12th.
Don't let the significance of the word 'domestic' elude' you. New oil sources in Canada, Russia, or Iraq don't carry the same impact of new domestic supplies. That is because of the nature of self-sufficiency, a characteristic this nation once embraced. If we depended less on foreign sources, your wallet wouldn't be impacted every time that moron Ahmadinejad spouted off about destroying Israel and/or the United States. Have you already forgotten the relationship between his rants and the price at the pump?
Come on, people, THINK.
posted by AirTrainer on Aug 05, 2008 at 11:23:03 am #
AirTrainer, first--the fact that Pelosi would play political games is a shocker to NO ONE. Unfortunately, as Speaker of the House that's what she does. Secondly, you're smarter than this:
President Bush lifted the executive order banning offshore oil drilling on July 14th, and isn't it amazing that Toledo gas prices have substantially declined?
Correlation is not causation, and no serious economist has supported the claims that Bush's announcement was the cause of falling oil prices. Dana Perino admitted as much.
By the same token, I could say that since Pelosi refused to allow a vote on oil drilling, prices have fallen and thus she deserves the credit for it. Shareholders are getting the message that oil futures are going to tank, and they're dumping stock.
On your last point about Americans preferring "domestic" supplies, I won't argue with the fact that we can be fooled to believe domestic supplies will lower prices any more than "foreign" supplies. However, the comment about Ahmadinejad works both ways. When Bush makes comments about using military action against Iran, oil prices can soar under the threat that such action will limit supplies further. (not to defend Ahmadinejad---he and Bush are both conservative hacks)
© 2003-2008 Toledo Talk
current date: 05-Dec-2008 10:32 A.M.
So the pubs like to talk about how they can get richer in the dark, big deal.
posted by Ryan on Aug 01, 2008 at 07:04:22 pm #