RE: Obama and new oil (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/15/2011 9:44:29 AM)

hahahahhah Ive never heard a truth from you
LMFAO omg thats priceless



flcouple2009 -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/15/2011 9:57:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim
We know you can't handle the truth.


Is today different form yesterday?  Do you actually have a truth to share?



SilverMark -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/15/2011 12:27:38 PM)

Prior to the oil spill he had actually moved toward more off shore wells and exploring more domestic sources. When the well exploded in the gulf re-thinking that position made a lot of sense and not just politically.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/15/2011 1:49:49 PM)

Well it seems to me that the new oil leases and opening areas to drill could be tied to more strict safety measures, and detriments for not following them.

I am just wondering why this is a better idea now than a few years ago. What are the differences? I have looked and can't tell. Heck this could be tied to the elimination of some of those tax cuts that big oil gets.

Thanks to those that have stayed on topic, rather than use this topic as just another sniping platform.



ladyneedshelp -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/15/2011 7:27:26 PM)

Obama has never been for drilling....opening lesses does not mean drilling useable oil. It says right in the quoted artical that it means exploration.....possibly test drill to check what's down there. Then they have to apply to drill and go to court cos some left enviormental group is going to sue to stop them. Obama is perfectyl safe being for leasing making him look like he's for drilling without commiting to it. In jan 08 he promised in an interview with the san frascio cronical that he would shut down coal with taxes and he feels the same about oil. According to him we americans are pigs and use more than our fair share and the american pigs are distroying our enviroment. And he is going to save the earth ...if that means americans suffer.... tuff..we have been pigs for too long!

But its ok to give billions to brazil for drilling.....add to that.... he promised them we would be their best coustomers.....let's see he shut down oil in the gulf...costing millions of jobs....(this surely can't help the price) ......and gives the jobs and money to another country.....sounds an afwal lot like shipping jobs over seas.....nawwwww



Sanity -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/15/2011 9:19:06 PM)


Good points

If Obama really wanted to significantly  increase the supply of oil to market there are several opportunities that have been begging for attention which wouldnt take nearly so long to develop

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3649494

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3645317



Sanity -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/19/2011 8:19:21 AM)


FR -

Apparently, the White House and the Dems in general are deeply conflicted about this "new oil" business

quote:

Senate rejects GOP bill to expand, speed up offshore drilling


The Senate on Wednesday rejected Republican-backed legislation intended to speed up and expand offshore oil and gas drilling.


In a 42-57 vote, the Senate failed to move forward with the bill, which was opposed by the White House and most Senate Democrats. Republicans needed 60 votes for the measure to proceed. Every Senate Democrat voted against the motion to proceed along with five Republicans: Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Mike Lee (Utah), Richard Shelby (Ala.), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and David Vitter (La.).


The legislation – which is similar to bills the House approved in recent weeks – would set deadlines for several upcoming Gulf of Mexico lease sales.


Full article at http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/161939-senate-rejects-gop-bill-to-expand-offshore-drilling



SilverMark -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/19/2011 8:21:06 AM)

Ok...so there must be some serious flaw...the Whitehouse and DeMint are both opposed?....



mnottertail -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/19/2011 8:22:38 AM)

I fail to see the deep conflict.   Perhaps you could point it out.

Every Senate Democrat voted against the motion to proceed along with five Republicans.

You mean the Republicans with the five against in the senate appear deeply conflicted?  Is this a typo?



Sanity -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/19/2011 8:25:51 AM)


I am sure the president will hold a press conference any minute now,  and we will learn how the presidents decisive and skilful leadership will enable the powers that be in Washington to plow through any obstacle



Sanity -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/19/2011 8:27:10 AM)


Read the OP, mnot. [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I fail to see the deep conflict.   Perhaps you could point it out.

Every Senate Democrat voted against the motion to proceed along with five Republicans.

You mean the Republicans with the five against in the senate appear deeply conflicted?  Is this a typo?



SilverMark -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/19/2011 8:27:36 AM)

But DeMint, Shelby, Vitter...Snow I can understand....but DeMint voted with the Whitehouse...you don't see that as unusual, to say the least?



Sanity -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/19/2011 8:30:44 AM)


I am sure the White House is on it and will submit its own proposal which will lead the way to bountiful new oil production very soon.

Any minute now...

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

But DeMint, Shelby, Vitter...Snow I can understand....but DeMint voted with the Whitehouse...you don't see that as unusual, to say the least?



mnottertail -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/19/2011 8:43:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Read the OP, mnot. [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I fail to see the deep conflict.   Perhaps you could point it out.

Every Senate Democrat voted against the motion to proceed along with five Republicans.

You mean the Republicans with the five against in the senate appear deeply conflicted?  Is this a typo?



Having read the OP, I still do not find the deep conflict.

Administration wants something, the congress wants something.  They may or may not want the same.  And this bill has profound flaws.  So, wanting to expand oil pumping does not translate to pass any fucking worthless unfair unamerican horseshit bill in pursuit of a prudent goal of expanding oil pumping.

Hell, all they have to do is pass the bill that says use it or lose it, (which I have referenced several times) since only about 1/4 of oil lease land is actually being drilled. 



Sanity -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/19/2011 10:02:32 AM)


Of course not, nor would I expect you to

quote:

Having read the OP, I still do not find the deep conflict.






mnottertail -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/19/2011 10:11:18 AM)

The vote followed Tuesday's Senate rejection of a Democratic plan to strip billions of dollars worth of tax breaks for major oil producers like Exxon and Shell.

The statement alleged that the plan would “hastily” open areas in the Gulf, Alaska and Atlantic to leasing without adequate environmental analysis. It also noted that the Interior Department plans to hold the Gulf lease sales referenced in the bill by mid-2012 anyway.

Nor would I expect you to understand why this is a deplorable bill on its face and has no sinister meaning beyond that.



Sanity -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/19/2011 1:53:56 PM)


It seems as though many leftisst would find any bill that would help the American economy "deplorable"

Unless it merely pays lip service during political season, of course



mnottertail -> RE: Obama and new oil (5/19/2011 1:57:56 PM)

It will not help the american economy but will further destroy it, and that is what rightists count on.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.015625