Discussion:
"DRILL-NOTHING DEMOCRATS" announce new party slogan: "NO WE CAN NOT".
(too old to reply)
SURRENDER = CHANGE
2008-06-22 14:19:42 UTC
Permalink
The Spanish language version, will be rolled out Monday:

"No. No podemos".
W Spilman
2008-06-22 14:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Will the Saudi increase in production lower oil prices? If not
then republicans are pandering liars.
WS
Chimp Ears OBumma
2008-06-22 16:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by W Spilman
Will the Saudi increase in production lower oil prices? If not
then Democraps like Senaturd Schumck Scumer are fucking pandering liars.
WS
===============
Senaturd Schmuck Scumer Rat NY:

If Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day
that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the world
price of crude oil, and crude oil prices could fall by more than $25 dollar
per barrel from its current level of $126 per barrel. In turn, that would
lower the price of gasoline between 13 percent and 17 percent, or by more
than 62 cents off the expected summer regular-grade price - offering much
needed relief to struggling families. "

Yet Schumer's daily magic number of 1 million barrels is the exact increase
experts believe we would today be pumping through the Alyeska pipeline had
Bill Clinton not vetoed ANWR drilling back in 1995. And even the most rabid
anti-domestic-drilling Democrats don't take issue with that figure.


So then, the increase he demands of "Bush's friends," the Saudis - which he
claims would reduce prices by up to 25 percent -- is the exact amount he
argued earlier this month would only "reduce the price of oil by a penny"
were it coming from ANWR - eco-sacred breeding ground of the Porcupine
Caribou.


It doesn't take a Ph.D in economics to know that both figures can't be
right.


Nor one in Poli-Sci to know why they're so starkly different nonetheless.
Posted at 01:41


http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/how_much_have_the_democrats_co.html
W Spilman
2008-06-22 16:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chimp Ears OBumma
Post by W Spilman
Will the Saudi increase in production lower oil prices? If not
then Democraps like Senaturd Schumck Scumer are fucking pandering liars.
WS
===============
If Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day
that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the world
price of crude oil, and crude oil prices could fall by more than $25 dollar
per barrel from its current level of $126 per barrel. In turn, that would
lower the price of gasoline between 13 percent and 17 percent, or by more
than 62 cents off the expected summer regular-grade price - offering much
needed relief to struggling families. "
Yet Schumer's daily magic number of 1 million barrels is the exact increase
experts believe we would today be pumping through the Alyeska pipeline had
Bill Clinton not vetoed ANWR drilling back in 1995. And even the most rabid
anti-domestic-drilling Democrats don't take issue with that figure.
So you're saying that the Saudi increase will in fact lower gas prices.
We shall see. Your worst nightmare if it does, as Bush/McCain will lose
their only hope for a devisive wedge issue.
WS
Babs Has Shit for Brains
2008-06-22 17:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chimp Ears OBumma
Post by W Spilman
Will the Saudi increase in production lower oil prices? If not
then Democraps like Senaturd Schumck Scumer are fucking pandering
liars. WS
===============
If Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels
per day that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in
the world price of crude oil, and crude oil prices could fall by more
than $25 dollar per barrel from its current level of $126 per barrel.
In turn, that would lower the price of gasoline between 13 percent and
17 percent, or by more than 62 cents off the expected summer
regular-grade price - offering much needed relief to struggling
families. "
Yet Schumer's daily magic number of 1 million barrels is the exact
increase experts believe we would today be pumping through the Alyeska
pipeline had Bill Clinton not vetoed ANWR drilling back in 1995. And
even the most rabid anti-domestic-drilling Democrats don't take issue
with that figure.
So then, the increase he demands of "Bush's friends," the Saudis -
which he claims would reduce prices by up to 25 percent -- is the
exact amount he argued earlier this month would only "reduce the price
of oil by a penny" were it coming from ANWR - eco-sacred breeding
ground of the Porcupine Caribou.
It doesn't take a Ph.D in economics to know that both figures can't be
right.
Nor one in Poli-Sci to know why they're so starkly different
nonetheless. Posted at 01:41
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/how_much_have_the_democrats
_co.html
You're an idiot, Babs.
By My Oil Pump
2008-06-22 22:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Babs Has Shit for Brains
Post by Chimp Ears OBumma
Post by W Spilman
Will the Saudi increase in production lower oil prices? If not
then Democraps like Senaturd Schumck Scumer are fucking pandering
liars. WS
===============
If Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels
per day that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in
the world price of crude oil, and crude oil prices could fall by more
than $25 dollar per barrel from its current level of $126 per barrel.
In turn, that would lower the price of gasoline between 13 percent and
17 percent, or by more than 62 cents off the expected summer
regular-grade price - offering much needed relief to struggling
families. "
Yet Schumer's daily magic number of 1 million barrels is the exact
increase experts believe we would today be pumping through the Alyeska
pipeline had Bill Clinton not vetoed ANWR drilling back in 1995. And
even the most rabid anti-domestic-drilling Democrats don't take issue
with that figure.
So then, the increase he demands of "Bush's friends," the Saudis -
which he claims would reduce prices by up to 25 percent -- is the
exact amount he argued earlier this month would only "reduce the price
of oil by a penny" were it coming from ANWR - eco-sacred breeding
ground of the Porcupine Caribou.
It doesn't take a Ph.D in economics to know that both figures can't be
right.
Nor one in Poli-Sci to know why they're so starkly different
nonetheless. Posted at 01:41
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/how_much_have_the_democrats
_co.html
You're an idiot, Babs.
Exactly. The Saudis told Bush last month that the p[rices have nothing to
do with them and all to to with gouging by Bush's CEO base.
Kevin Cunningham
2008-06-22 15:29:13 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 22, 10:19 am, "SURRENDER = CHANGE"
Post by SURRENDER = CHANGE
"No. No podemos".
How fast can you drill an oil well in the ocean? Right now it takes
at least 5 years. Guess again junior.
Berkeley Bolshevik
2008-06-22 16:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
On Jun 22, 10:19 am, "SURRENDER = CHANGE"
Post by SURRENDER = CHANGE
"No. No podemos".
How fast can you drill an oil well in the ocean? Right now it takes
at least 5 years. Guess again junior.
Typical Democrat. Thinks in the short term not in the long term. It's
always doom and gloom for you hacks.

Jimmy Carter gave Oil Companies a windfall tax and Bill Clinton
vetoed ANWR. Since the early 1980s, Congress has banned oil drilling
on most of the outer continental shelf, including regions of the Gulf
of Mexico close to Florida and regions off California, because of the
damage that oil spills could wreak on the environment and beaches that
serve as the engine for tourist-driven economies. And last year,
Congress added to a spending bill a ban on the leasing of federal
lands for oil-shale exploration -- a ban that Congress can just as
easily lift. Domestic oil production has decreased significantly since
1970's.

The four-point plan proposed by Bush would:

* Increase access to the outer continental shelf, which has been
off-limits since 1981. With the advent of technology that can make
drilling less risky to the environment, Bush says, the moratorium is
"outdated and counterproductive." If Congress lifts the moratorium, he
says, he will lift an executive prohibition.

* Encourage the extraction of oil from shale in the West -- which
holds as much potential for oil, 18 billion barrels, as the offshore
drilling proposal. This amounts to nearly three decades of oil imports
from Saudi Arabia, the White House says.

* Permit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which
President Clinton vetoed and Democratic leaders oppose. This could
offer 10 billion barrels of oil, equal to two decades of Saudi
imports, according to the White House.

* Expand oil refineries in the U.S., where a refinery has not been
built for three decades. Bush proposes regulatory reforms that could
remove barriers to refinery construction -- namely public opposition.
He proposes that any appeal of a federal permit for refinery expansion
must be filed in federal court within 60 days.

If the announcement that United States will drill for their own
resources, it will give speculators a different look at the oil
market.

Where's Nancy Pelosi's "commonsense" plan?

If worse comes to worse, China can always sell us the oil they drill
off the coast of Florida.
-

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who
supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with
Iran without preconditions.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
suds macheath
2008-06-22 16:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
Post by Kevin Cunningham
On Jun 22, 10:19 am, "SURRENDER = CHANGE"
Post by SURRENDER = CHANGE
"No. No podemos".
How fast can you drill an oil well in the ocean? Right now it takes
at least 5 years. Guess again junior.
Typical Democrat. Thinks in the short term not in the long term. It's
always doom and gloom for you hacks.
Jimmy Carter gave Oil Companies a windfall tax and Bill Clinton
vetoed ANWR.
So did Repubs when Bush proposed it....

Since the early 1980s, Congress has banned oil drilling
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
on most of the outer continental shelf, including regions of the Gulf
of Mexico close to Florida and regions off California, because of the
damage that oil spills could wreak on the environment and beaches that
serve as the engine for tourist-driven economies. And last year,
Congress added to a spending bill a ban on the leasing of federal
lands for oil-shale exploration -- a ban that Congress can just as
easily lift. Domestic oil production has decreased significantly since
1970's.
---When are the oil companies going to start drilling on the land they
are currently leasing?
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
* Increase access to the outer continental shelf, which has been
off-limits since 1981. With the advent of technology that can make
drilling less risky to the environment, Bush says, the moratorium is
"outdated and counterproductive." If Congress lifts the moratorium, he
says, he will lift an executive prohibition.
* Encourage the extraction of oil from shale in the West -- which
holds as much potential for oil, 18 billion barrels, as the offshore
drilling proposal. This amounts to nearly three decades of oil imports
from Saudi Arabia, the White House says.
* Permit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which
President Clinton vetoed and Democratic leaders oppose. This could
offer 10 billion barrels of oil, equal to two decades of Saudi
imports, according to the White House.
* Expand oil refineries in the U.S., where a refinery has not been
built for three decades. Bush proposes regulatory reforms that could
remove barriers to refinery construction -- namely public opposition.
He proposes that any appeal of a federal permit for refinery expansion
must be filed in federal court within 60 days.
---Why didn't he do this during the six years the Repubs ran the
government? Why didn't he lift his daddy's executive order during that
time as well?
Berkeley Bolshevik
2008-06-23 11:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by suds macheath
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
Post by Kevin Cunningham
On Jun 22, 10:19 am, "SURRENDER = CHANGE"
Post by SURRENDER = CHANGE
"No. No podemos".
How fast can you drill an oil well in the ocean? Right now it takes
at least 5 years. Guess again junior.
Typical Democrat. Thinks in the short term not in the long term. It's
always doom and gloom for you hacks.
Jimmy Carter gave Oil Companies a windfall tax and Bill Clinton
vetoed ANWR.
So did Repubs when Bush proposed it....
Since the early 1980s, Congress has banned oil drilling
That was a Democratic Congress. The problem is that Congress has
restricted access to key parts of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
since the early 1980s. Since then, advances in technology have made it
possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS that is out of sight,
protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills.
With these advances — and a dramatic increase in oil prices —
congressional restrictions on OCS exploration have become outdated and
counterproductive.

I thought Democrats wanted change. Why do they oppose it now?
As stated, the Democrats added to the drilling ban in a spending bill
last year.
Post by suds macheath
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
on most of the outer continental shelf, including regions of the Gulf
of Mexico close to Florida and regions off California, because of the
damage that oil spills could wreak on the environment and beaches that
serve as the engine for tourist-driven economies. And last year,
Congress added to a spending bill a ban on the leasing of federal
lands for oil-shale exploration -- a ban that Congress can just as
easily lift. Domestic oil production has decreased significantly since
1970's.
---When are the oil companies going to start drilling on the land they
are currently leasing?
Most of those leases are held by small and independent oil companies.
When they attempt to explore for oil, they are met with a lawsuit by
some environmental whack job. The lawsuit can get costly. An oil lease
does not guarantee it contains oil.
Post by suds macheath
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
* Increase access to the outer continental shelf, which has been
off-limits since 1981. With the advent of technology that can make
drilling less risky to the environment, Bush says, the moratorium is
"outdated and counterproductive." If Congress lifts the moratorium, he
says, he will lift an executive prohibition.
* Encourage the extraction of oil from shale in the West -- which
holds as much potential for oil, 18 billion barrels, as the offshore
drilling proposal. This amounts to nearly three decades of oil imports
from Saudi Arabia, the White House says.
* Permit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which
President Clinton vetoed and Democratic leaders oppose. This could
offer 10 billion barrels of oil, equal to two decades of Saudi
imports, according to the White House.
* Expand oil refineries in the U.S., where a refinery has not been
built for three decades. Bush proposes regulatory reforms that could
remove barriers to refinery construction -- namely public opposition.
He proposes that any appeal of a federal permit for refinery expansion
must be filed in federal court within 60 days.
---Why didn't he do this during the six years the Repubs ran the
government? Why didn't he lift his daddy's executive order during that
time as well?
You appear to disagree with Bush now? What was so different back then?
Has the Democrats ever come up with an oil plan?
-

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who
supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with
Iran without preconditions.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
Bugman
2008-06-23 12:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
Post by suds macheath
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
Post by Kevin Cunningham
On Jun 22, 10:19 am, "SURRENDER = CHANGE"
Post by SURRENDER = CHANGE
"No. No podemos".
How fast can you drill an oil well in the ocean? Right now it takes
at least 5 years. Guess again junior.
Typical Democrat. Thinks in the short term not in the long term. It's
always doom and gloom for you hacks.
Jimmy Carter gave Oil Companies a windfall tax and Bill Clinton
vetoed ANWR.
So did Repubs when Bush proposed it....
Since the early 1980s, Congress has banned oil drilling
That was a Democratic Congress. The problem is that Congress has
restricted access to key parts of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
since the early 1980s. Since then, advances in technology have made it
possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS that is out of sight,
protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills.
With these advances - and a dramatic increase in oil prices -
congressional restrictions on OCS exploration have become outdated and
counterproductive.
I thought Democrats wanted change. Why do they oppose it now?
As stated, the Democrats added to the drilling ban in a spending bill
last year.
Big oil holds over 68 million acres in leases. With those same advances you
were talking about they still can't find any oil or do they just not want
to?
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
Post by suds macheath
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
on most of the outer continental shelf, including regions of the Gulf
of Mexico close to Florida and regions off California, because of the
damage that oil spills could wreak on the environment and beaches that
serve as the engine for tourist-driven economies. And last year,
Congress added to a spending bill a ban on the leasing of federal
lands for oil-shale exploration -- a ban that Congress can just as
easily lift. Domestic oil production has decreased significantly since
1970's.
---When are the oil companies going to start drilling on the land they
are currently leasing?
Most of those leases are held by small and independent oil companies.
When they attempt to explore for oil, they are met with a lawsuit by
some environmental whack job. The lawsuit can get costly. An oil lease
does not guarantee it contains oil.
Post by suds macheath
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
* Increase access to the outer continental shelf, which has been
off-limits since 1981. With the advent of technology that can make
drilling less risky to the environment, Bush says, the moratorium is
"outdated and counterproductive." If Congress lifts the moratorium, he
says, he will lift an executive prohibition.
* Encourage the extraction of oil from shale in the West -- which
holds as much potential for oil, 18 billion barrels, as the offshore
drilling proposal. This amounts to nearly three decades of oil imports
from Saudi Arabia, the White House says.
* Permit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which
President Clinton vetoed and Democratic leaders oppose. This could
offer 10 billion barrels of oil, equal to two decades of Saudi
imports, according to the White House.
* Expand oil refineries in the U.S., where a refinery has not been
built for three decades. Bush proposes regulatory reforms that could
remove barriers to refinery construction -- namely public opposition.
He proposes that any appeal of a federal permit for refinery expansion
must be filed in federal court within 60 days.
---Why didn't he do this during the six years the Repubs ran the
government? Why didn't he lift his daddy's executive order during that
time as well?
You appear to disagree with Bush now? What was so different back then?
Has the Democrats ever come up with an oil plan?
-
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who
supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with
Iran without preconditions.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
suds macheath
2008-06-23 16:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
Post by suds macheath
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
* Expand oil refineries in the U.S., where a refinery has not been
built for three decades. Bush proposes regulatory reforms that could
remove barriers to refinery construction -- namely public opposition.
He proposes that any appeal of a federal permit for refinery expansion
must be filed in federal court within 60 days.
---Why didn't he do this during the six years the Repubs ran the
government? Why didn't he lift his daddy's executive order during that
time as well?
You appear to disagree with Bush now? What was so different back then?
---Why didn't he do this during the six years the Repubs ran the
government?
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
Has the Democrats ever come up with an oil plan?
Why didn't he lift his daddy's executive order during that
time as well?-

4095 Dead
2008-06-22 16:59:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:32:58 GMT, Berkeley Bolshevik
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
Post by Kevin Cunningham
On Jun 22, 10:19 am, "SURRENDER = CHANGE"
Post by SURRENDER = CHANGE
"No. No podemos".
How fast can you drill an oil well in the ocean? Right now it takes
at least 5 years. Guess again junior.
Typical Democrat. Thinks in the short term not in the long term. It's
always doom and gloom for you hacks.
Jimmy Carter gave Oil Companies a windfall tax and Bill Clinton
vetoed ANWR. Since the early 1980s, Congress has banned oil drilling
on most of the outer continental shelf, including regions of the Gulf
of Mexico close to Florida and regions off California, because of the
damage that oil spills could wreak on the environment and beaches that
serve as the engine for tourist-driven economies. And last year,
Congress added to a spending bill a ban on the leasing of federal
lands for oil-shale exploration -- a ban that Congress can just as
easily lift. Domestic oil production has decreased significantly since
1970's.
Actually, it's declined steadily since the peak year of 1970.
Something happened in 1969. Do you know what it was?

It's kinda funny. You're trying to blame Carter, babbling about the
toothless windfall profits tax (which didn't stop the oil companies
from getting $40 billion last quarter), but you had six years
(2001-2007) in which you could have done as you damn well pleased, and
mostly did. Why didn't you open up the Florida coasts for
exploration?
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
* Increase access to the outer continental shelf, which has been
off-limits since 1981. With the advent of technology that can make
drilling less risky to the environment, Bush says, the moratorium is
"outdated and counterproductive." If Congress lifts the moratorium, he
says, he will lift an executive prohibition.
He tried that before, with a Republican Congress. Do you remember
why?
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
* Encourage the extraction of oil from shale in the West -- which
holds as much potential for oil, 18 billion barrels, as the offshore
drilling proposal. This amounts to nearly three decades of oil imports
from Saudi Arabia, the White House says.
You might want to take a look at the Athabaska project in the province
of Alberta before you jump on board with that one. When it comes to
toxic waste on the landscape, Alberta is turning into Canada's answer
to the Ukraine.
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
* Permit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which
President Clinton vetoed and Democratic leaders oppose. This could
offer 10 billion barrels of oil, equal to two decades of Saudi
imports, according to the White House.
Even if there was a payoff for Americans from ANWR (because of it's
location, it would be sent to Japan to be refined--do you really think
these oil companies are American or something?--and wouldn't benefit
us at all.
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
* Expand oil refineries in the U.S., where a refinery has not been
built for three decades. Bush proposes regulatory reforms that could
remove barriers to refinery construction -- namely public opposition.
He proposes that any appeal of a federal permit for refinery expansion
must be filed in federal court within 60 days.
Regulation had nothing to do with it. Refineries aren't running at
capacity NOW. They never have.
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
If the announcement that United States will drill for their own
resources, it will give speculators a different look at the oil
market.
Where's Nancy Pelosi's "commonsense" plan?
If worse comes to worse, China can always sell us the oil they drill
off the coast of Florida.
-
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who
supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with
Iran without preconditions.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Steve
2008-06-22 20:23:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:59:04 -0700, 4095 Dead
Post by 4095 Dead
Something happened in 1969. Do you know what it was?
1969? Wasn't that the year that David (Zepp) Jamieson opted out of
the draft registration by virtue of his alien status, rendering him
permanently ineligible for US citizenship?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001426----000-.html

<LOL> ..and didn't he find out later that his number was over 300
and he wasn't going to get called anyway?
Kurt Nicklas
2008-06-23 15:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:59:04 -0700, 4095 Dead
Something happened in 1969.  Do you know what it was?
1969?    Wasn't that the year that David (Zepp) Jamieson opted out of
the draft registration by virtue of his alien status, rendering him
permanently ineligible for US citizenship?  
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001426--...
<LOL>   ..and didn't he find out later that his number was over 300
and he wasn't going to get called anyway?
He's a failure. Claims to care so much for the US but can never
actually
personally participate in the election process here. Can't even visit
Canada for fear of not being allowed back in. Stuck in a country
that's
more red than the state of Mississippi!

He's truly a man without a country.
Berkeley Bolshevik
2008-06-23 11:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by 4095 Dead
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:32:58 GMT, Berkeley Bolshevik
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
Post by Kevin Cunningham
On Jun 22, 10:19 am, "SURRENDER = CHANGE"
Post by SURRENDER = CHANGE
"No. No podemos".
How fast can you drill an oil well in the ocean? Right now it takes
at least 5 years. Guess again junior.
Typical Democrat. Thinks in the short term not in the long term. It's
always doom and gloom for you hacks.
Jimmy Carter gave Oil Companies a windfall tax and Bill Clinton
vetoed ANWR. Since the early 1980s, Congress has banned oil drilling
on most of the outer continental shelf, including regions of the Gulf
of Mexico close to Florida and regions off California, because of the
damage that oil spills could wreak on the environment and beaches that
serve as the engine for tourist-driven economies. And last year,
Congress added to a spending bill a ban on the leasing of federal
lands for oil-shale exploration -- a ban that Congress can just as
easily lift. Domestic oil production has decreased significantly since
1970's.
Actually, it's declined steadily since the peak year of 1970.
Something happened in 1969. Do you know what it was?
It's kinda funny. You're trying to blame Carter, babbling about the
toothless windfall profits tax (which didn't stop the oil companies
from getting $40 billion last quarter), but you had six years
(2001-2007) in which you could have done as you damn well pleased, and
mostly did. Why didn't you open up the Florida coasts for
exploration?
So you are saying the Democrats would not have opposed oil drilling in
2003-2007. Carter's windfall profits tax was a bust.
Post by 4095 Dead
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
* Increase access to the outer continental shelf, which has been
off-limits since 1981. With the advent of technology that can make
drilling less risky to the environment, Bush says, the moratorium is
"outdated and counterproductive." If Congress lifts the moratorium, he
says, he will lift an executive prohibition.
He tried that before, with a Republican Congress. Do you remember
why?
Link to that story.
Post by 4095 Dead
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
* Encourage the extraction of oil from shale in the West -- which
holds as much potential for oil, 18 billion barrels, as the offshore
drilling proposal. This amounts to nearly three decades of oil imports
from Saudi Arabia, the White House says.
You might want to take a look at the Athabaska project in the province
of Alberta before you jump on board with that one. When it comes to
toxic waste on the landscape, Alberta is turning into Canada's answer
to the Ukraine.
Oil shale is be part of the solution to get up off Middle Eastern and
Venezuelan oil.
Post by 4095 Dead
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
* Permit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which
President Clinton vetoed and Democratic leaders oppose. This could
offer 10 billion barrels of oil, equal to two decades of Saudi
imports, according to the White House.
Even if there was a payoff for Americans from ANWR (because of it's
location, it would be sent to Japan to be refined--do you really think
these oil companies are American or something?--and wouldn't benefit
us at all.
Wouldn't that make the argument for more oil refineries?
Post by 4095 Dead
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
* Expand oil refineries in the U.S., where a refinery has not been
built for three decades. Bush proposes regulatory reforms that could
remove barriers to refinery construction -- namely public opposition.
He proposes that any appeal of a federal permit for refinery expansion
must be filed in federal court within 60 days.
Regulation had nothing to do with it. Refineries aren't running at
capacity NOW. They never have.
Proof?
-

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who
supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with
Iran without preconditions.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
4095 Dead
2008-06-23 15:07:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:49:00 GMT, Berkeley Bolshevik
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
Post by 4095 Dead
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:32:58 GMT, Berkeley Bolshevik
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
Post by Kevin Cunningham
On Jun 22, 10:19 am, "SURRENDER = CHANGE"
Post by SURRENDER = CHANGE
"No. No podemos".
How fast can you drill an oil well in the ocean? Right now it takes
at least 5 years. Guess again junior.
Typical Democrat. Thinks in the short term not in the long term. It's
always doom and gloom for you hacks.
Jimmy Carter gave Oil Companies a windfall tax and Bill Clinton
vetoed ANWR. Since the early 1980s, Congress has banned oil drilling
on most of the outer continental shelf, including regions of the Gulf
of Mexico close to Florida and regions off California, because of the
damage that oil spills could wreak on the environment and beaches that
serve as the engine for tourist-driven economies. And last year,
Congress added to a spending bill a ban on the leasing of federal
lands for oil-shale exploration -- a ban that Congress can just as
easily lift. Domestic oil production has decreased significantly since
1970's.
Actually, it's declined steadily since the peak year of 1970.
Something happened in 1969. Do you know what it was?
It's kinda funny. You're trying to blame Carter, babbling about the
toothless windfall profits tax (which didn't stop the oil companies
from getting $40 billion last quarter), but you had six years
(2001-2007) in which you could have done as you damn well pleased, and
mostly did. Why didn't you open up the Florida coasts for
exploration?
So you are saying the Democrats would not have opposed oil drilling in
2003-2007. Carter's windfall profits tax was a bust.
Democrats wouldn't have gotten a say. The Pubs ran roughshod over
deliberation and debate, passing whatever they wanted.
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
Post by 4095 Dead
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
* Increase access to the outer continental shelf, which has been
off-limits since 1981. With the advent of technology that can make
drilling less risky to the environment, Bush says, the moratorium is
"outdated and counterproductive." If Congress lifts the moratorium, he
says, he will lift an executive prohibition.
He tried that before, with a Republican Congress. Do you remember
why?
Link to that story.
Post by 4095 Dead
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
* Encourage the extraction of oil from shale in the West -- which
holds as much potential for oil, 18 billion barrels, as the offshore
drilling proposal. This amounts to nearly three decades of oil imports
from Saudi Arabia, the White House says.
You might want to take a look at the Athabaska project in the province
of Alberta before you jump on board with that one. When it comes to
toxic waste on the landscape, Alberta is turning into Canada's answer
to the Ukraine.
Oil shale is be part of the solution to get up off Middle Eastern and
Venezuelan oil.
Post by 4095 Dead
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
* Permit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which
President Clinton vetoed and Democratic leaders oppose. This could
offer 10 billion barrels of oil, equal to two decades of Saudi
imports, according to the White House.
Even if there was a payoff for Americans from ANWR (because of it's
location, it would be sent to Japan to be refined--do you really think
these oil companies are American or something?--and wouldn't benefit
us at all.
Wouldn't that make the argument for more oil refineries?
Post by 4095 Dead
Post by Berkeley Bolshevik
* Expand oil refineries in the U.S., where a refinery has not been
built for three decades. Bush proposes regulatory reforms that could
remove barriers to refinery construction -- namely public opposition.
He proposes that any appeal of a federal permit for refinery expansion
must be filed in federal court within 60 days.
Regulation had nothing to do with it. Refineries aren't running at
capacity NOW. They never have.
Proof?
-
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who
supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with
Iran without preconditions.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
SURRENDER = CHANGE
2008-06-23 01:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
On Jun 22, 10:19 am, "SURRENDER = CHANGE"
"No.  No podemos".
How fast can you drill an oil well in the ocean?  Right now it takes
at least 5 years.  
Well then.

We had best get started.
Bugman
2008-06-23 02:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
On Jun 22, 10:19 am, "SURRENDER = CHANGE"
"No. No podemos".
How fast can you drill an oil well in the ocean? Right now it takes
at least 5 years.
Well then.
We had best get started.
Big oil has held leases on many millions of acres for years. What are they
waiting for?
z***@netscape.net
2008-06-23 07:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugman
Post by Kevin Cunningham
On Jun 22, 10:19 am, "SURRENDER = CHANGE"
"No. No podemos".
How fast can you drill an oil well in the ocean? Right now it takes
at least 5 years.
Well then.
We had best get started.
Big oil has held leases on many millions of acres for years. What are they
waiting for?
What the assholes in Oil have always done.
They're market timing and waiting for a real estate oppurtunity.
Which is why the more intelligent people only build robots,
computers, PV Cells.
Michael Ejercito
2008-06-23 15:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bugman
Post by Kevin Cunningham
On Jun 22, 10:19 am, "SURRENDER = CHANGE"
"No. No podemos".
How fast can you drill an oil well in the ocean? Right now it takes
at least 5 years.
Well then.
We had best get started.
Big oil has held leases on many millions of acres for years. What are they
waiting for?
For oil prices to rise high enough to make drilling profitable.

There is plenty of oil off the California coast; environmental
regulations make it very expensive to drill there.


Michael
j***@juno.com
2008-06-22 15:36:47 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 22, 7:19 am, "SURRENDER = CHANGE"
"No.  No podemos".
Just like a border fence will not work, right? Of course it will.
And of course having increased oil output in the US will drive down
costs and is a plus for our national security.
z***@netscape.net
2008-06-22 15:45:02 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 22, 10:19 am, "SURRENDER = CHANGE"
"No.  No podemos".
Well, that was always known to be the Spanish Version, though.
Which is why the logic languarge version has always
been more computers, more rockets, more satellites,
more PV Cells, more lasers, more biodiesel, more fiber optics,
more nanotech, more A.I, more robots, more blogs, and more DU.
Berkeley Bolshevik
2008-06-22 16:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by SURRENDER = CHANGE
"No. No podemos".
In Mexico, drilling for oil follows their slogan of "Si, se puede. We
can sell the Gringos oil on our terms"
-

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who
supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with
Iran without preconditions.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
Loading...