Democrats try to spur oil exploration »
Posted by: ybdogsct 1 month, 1 week ago330 Comments Report this Story
Republicans blocked a Democratic bill to spur exploration in areas where drilling has already been sanctioned. A supermajority was needed. Democrats were calling the bluff of Republicans on their persistent demands for more domestic production. "Drill on the leases you have or let somebody else do it," said Steny H. Hoyer (D-MA).
Read Full Story at usatoday.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 330
-
100%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/us/18cong.htm...
"Republicans blocked a Democratic bill to spur exploration in areas where drilling has already been sanctioned. A supermajority was needed. Democrats were calling the bluff of Republicans on their persistent demands for more domestic production. "Drill on the leases you have or let somebody else do it," said Steny H. Hoyer (D-MA).
Democrats offered the legislation to show that they favored increased domestic oil and gas production, but want it to take place where drilling is already allowed. They said oil could be produced more quickly from those areas rather than in new locales. Democrats say oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres they could be exploring.
Senator Harry Reid took steps to start debate on a measure intended to curb speculation in the oil markets, trading that members of both parties have said is the cause of at least some of the jump in oil prices."
Reply-
0%
Locky121 month, 1 week ago
Democrats are scrambling to appear pro-drilling â;; hence the "Drill Act" title for Thursday's bill â;; even as leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., are dead set against reversing the long-standing drilling bans along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
I guess you didn't read the whole article, did you, ybdogsct?
It was an empty bill.
The dems want to follow Al Gore and be "fossil fuel free" in 10 years.
How much pot do you have to smoke for that to sound convincing?
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 month, 1 week ago
When you go to the olympics your goal is to win a gold medal. When you come close to winning a bronze you go back and train for the next olympics. With your attitude no one would even try.
We set a lofty goal and if it doesn't occur, and likely won't
you reset it and remain on the path of improvement. That is how a winner thinks. Why do you prefer to think like a loser?
Reply-
-
0%
capecoralM1 month, 1 week ago
Democrats try to spur oil exploration LOL. U.S. Dem's are deliberately wanting to force "Big Oil" out of the U.S. as a production and distribution player to then (as Maxine Waters stuttered) socialize the production process. Yet it is estimated that 90% of oil & gas exploration companies are NOT "Big Oil" (Exxon-Mobil) but are small independent local companies. A independent company may lease property, but never have the funds to drill an exploratory well. After paying for further tests (such as seismic), they often decide the lease isn't worth the high costs of drilling. They may hold onto the lease for years until higher oil prices or new technology makes it feasible to drill. A company may lease property but drill on another tract (which drains a "pool" that covers multiple tracts). Are the Dem's counting it as "not used"? Some will drill and then be blocked from pumping by government or environmental lawsuits, etc.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 month, 1 week ago
So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democrat Party--aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans--deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, off Cuba but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enor mous oil-shale deposits in the Rocky
Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly
its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them....William "Bill" Phillips http://www.brokeruniverse.com/grapevine/thread/...
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 month, 1 week ago
With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign
governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a "small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it
refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e, mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge ExxonMobil and the other small American
companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway inflation once again as we did under the Carter
Democratic reign.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
CAPECORALM:
"China is now drilling in the Caribbean, off Cuba but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California."
Actually, this is FALSE.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/20...
"Vice President Dick Cheney's office has acknowledged that he erred when telling an audience this week that China is drilling off the coast of Cuba. Cheney Wednesday told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that 'oil is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida. We're not doing it. The Chinese are in cooperation with the Cuban government.'
Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, an independent congressional report, industry experts and other observers say there is zero evidence that China is drilling in Cuban waters, and doesn't even hold a lease to drill offshore."
LOL.
Keep spinning, NINGYO. Apparently, facts are not your strong suit.
Reply-
0%
Teech1 month, 1 week ago
Capecoral: Thank you for the recap of Rush Limbaugh's latest broadcasts. You have provided an excellent summary. Sounds like you either taped the programs or got a transcript from one of the FOX radio stations that carry his spew.
Now, why would I be listening to Rush. In order to get local fire news up her in the boonies of N. Cal., I have to tune in to a FOX affiliate (KPAY) that carries all those far-right Con wing-nuts with local news interspersed.
Thank you for your brilliant research and excellent commentary.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 month, 1 week ago
With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign
governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a "small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it
refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e, mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge ExxonMobil and the other small American
companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway inflation once again as we did under the Carter
Democratic reign.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 month, 1 week ago
hursday, July 17, 2008
WASHINGTON: Upon entering Congress in 1987, Representative Nancy Pelosi quickly became part of the solid California front against oil drilling along much of the nation's coast.
The 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the steady push to tap the potential reserves off the state's rugged coast had galvanized Californians and made opposition to offshore drilling part of the political DNA of up-and-coming figures like Pelosi.
She repeatedly resisted oil drilling in marine sanctuaries off the state's coast near her San Francisco district and, after joining the Appropriations Committee, was an advocate of reinstating the coastal drilling ban through spending restrictions each year.
Yet despite increasing pressure from President George W. Bush, a full-bore assault by congressional Republicans and some anxiety among her own rank-and-file Democrats, Pelosi is not budging.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OIL_PROF...
"As giant oil companies get set to report another round of eye-popping quarterly profits, just where is all that money going? The companies insist they're trying to find new oil that might help bring down gas prices, but the money they spend on exploration is nothing compared with what they spend on stock buybacks and dividends.
The five biggest oil companies plowed about 55% of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30% in 2000 and just 1% in 1993. The percentage they spend to find new deposits of fossil fuels has remained flat for years, in the mid-single digits.
Exxon Mobil Corp. shelled out $8.8 billion on stock buybacks alone, compared with $5.5 billion on exploration and other capital projects.
ConocoPhillips has told investors that its stock buybacks will come to about $2.5 billion - 9 times what it spent on exploration.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OIL_PROF...
"As giant oil companies get set to report eye-popping quarterly profits, where is all that money going?
The companies insist they're trying to find new oil that might help bring down gas prices, but the money they spend on exploration is nothing compared with what they spend on stock buybacks and dividends.
The five biggest oil companies plowed about 55% of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30% in 2000 and just 1% in 1993. The percentage they spend to find new deposits of fossil fuels has remained flat for years, in the mid-single digits.
Exxon Mobil Corp. shelled out $8.8 billion on stock buybacks alone, compared with $5.5 billion on exploration and other capital projects. ConocoPhillips' stock buybacks will come to about $2.5 billion - 9 times what it spent on exploration.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OIL_PROF...
"As giant oil companies get set to report eye-popping quarterly profits, where is all that money going?
The companies insist they're trying to find new oil that might help bring down gas prices, but the money they spend on exploration is nothing compared with what they spend on stock buybacks and dividends.
The five biggest oil companies plowed about 55% of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30% in 2000 and just 1% in 1993. The percentage they spend to find new deposits of fossil fuels has remained flat for years, in the mid-single digits.
Exxon Mobil Corp. shelled out $8.8 billion on stock buybacks alone, compared with $5.5 billion on exploration and other capital projects. ConocoPhillips' stock buybacks will come to about $2.5 billion - 9 times what it spent on exploration.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 month, 1 week ago
Spoken like a good little oiler.
Obviously you memorized their PR manual..
You're defending the bad guys.
They should be donating oil to our troops. Are they??
Reply
-
-
0%
saintetienne1 month, 1 week ago
Thank you, capecoral, for bringing up the egregious Maxine Waters. I live in Los Angeles and am well aware of this useless turd of a woman.
Aside from shady politics in Los Angeles, she has been voted for two years running as one of six most corrupt members of Congress. She stood by and called the Los Angeles riots of 1992 "acceptable behavior" on the part of the looters. She was for Hillary Clinton, then naturally switched her support to Urkel, once Hillary bowed out.
This woman continues - stupefyingly - to get elected by the idiot liberals in Los Angeles, despite her wacky, left of left views, her pilfering of monies to her family members and her ongoing uselessness. In true Liberal form, she claims to be for the "poor blacks", yet lives in Hancock Park, one of the toniest sections of Los Angeles.
This woman disgusts me, and she needs to be ousted from office NOW.
Reply-
0%
Teech1 month, 1 week ago
Saint, don't have a heart attack over this, but you are exactly correct in your appraisal of Maxine Waters. A very rare pos. for you on this one. As an ex resident of L.A., I'm familiar with her antics and agree with every word you have ranted above. You'd have to actually see and listen to this woman to believe her!
The only thing I can't explain is how she was not tapped for a cabinet post in the Bush Administration.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
LOCKY:
"Democrats are scrambling to appear pro-drilling. I guess you didn't read the whole article, did you, ybdogsct?"
Democrats ARE pro-drilling -- in the areas that are ALREADY APPROVED for drilling. Democrats are simply skeptical about expanding drilling into wildlife reserves when oil companies are already sitting on 68 MILLION ACRES of land they have yet to act on!
I guess you didn't read catch that little detail did, you LOCKY? Why am I not surprised? Clearly, literacy is NOT your forte.
LOL.
Pathetic.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment...
"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) said Wednesday he opposes lifting a ban on new oil drilling in coastal waters. Schwarzenegger said the federal offshore drilling ban was not to blame for soaring gas prices. 'We are in this situation because of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil,' Schwarzenegger said."
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 month, 1 week ago
Why didn't locky read the entire article, you ask????
Those people all suffer from A-D-D (as does Bush, by the way).
Bush was diagnosed in the 8th grade with anger issues and A-D-D. Mommy and daddy prevented him from staying back a year.
So, why wouldn't these mentally challenged folks idolize the king of A-D-D? They follow him like the Pied Piper!
"No spin Dave" is once again "NO COMMENT DAVE"..
Hmm, what a surprise.. I rest my case about sufferers of A-D-D..
Too much detail for ya??
Thanks for adding YOUR detailed suggestions for our American dilemma. Was it stressful for ya to reach over and hit that "neg" button? Do you need a vacation now??
They fear detail and abhor lengthy facts that force them to pay attention.. THAT is why we're in this mess..
The easily confused always oppose comprehensive logic.
Reply-
0%
jeffery11 month, 1 week ago
Locky and his ilk can't read what they don't understand. That the Democrats even offered a drill bill indicates just how (a) scared politicians are of an ignorant and selfish electorate and (b) how "in-the-box" their thinking is because of how stupid and selfish America is.
There is no way to drill us out of our energy crisis because (a) oil is a finite resource (the USGS estimates we have ~112 billion barrels of oil (bbo), which = 51 yrs supply at the current extraction rate of 6 mbo/day) (b) use of fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases thus increasing global warming and ocean acification.
The ONLY way to solve the energy crisis is to increase efficiency of everything and reduce human population to a sustainable level. You can count how many dancing American angels are willing to admit that and act on it on Locky's pinhead.
We had the chance to solve the problem by electing Carter but chose Reagan because Americans have no interest in responsibility.
Reply
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 month, 1 week ago
"Democrats ARE pro-drilling" LMFAO
April 19, 2002 Posted: 4:56 AM EDT (0856 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate defeated a measure Thursday to allow oil exploration in the Arctic Refuge, killing what Republicans call a central part of President Bush's plan to revamp America's energy policy. By a vote of 46 to 54, senators not only failed to overcome a Democratic-led filibuster, but also fell short of mustering the 51 votes needed to argue that the majority of the Senate supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
The amendment would have allowed no more than 2,000 acres within a 1.5 million-acre part of the refuge to be opened for exploration. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, Democrat-South Dakota, tried to make political point in a meeting with reporters.
"We are just not going to allow Republicans to destroy the environment.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 month, 1 week ago
In the House of Representatives, Congressman Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, introduced a bill requiring that the Chukchi lease sale be immediately delayed until a polar bear listing decision has been made.
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the Alaska Congressional Delegation, and local and state officials strongly oppose the listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, saying that use of this law to protect the species is unnecessary.
"The polar bear is already protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which in many cases is much more restrictive than the Endangered Species Act," said Alaska Congressman Don Young in January.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 month, 1 week ago
A House subcommittee on Wednesday rejected a Republican-led effort to open up more U.S. coastal waters to oil exploration.
Most offshore oil production and exploration has been banned since a federal law passed in 1981.
"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of these problems," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., said during the bill mark-up session.
For his part, Peterson said: "There is no valid reason for Congress to keep the country from energy resources it needs."
"But today was an absolute show of Pelosi power, it was dealt from the top down," Peterson said later, speaking with FOX News, adding he was open to other energy solutions, including wind and solar power.
According to Peterson's office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.
Reply-
0%
jeffery11 month, 1 week ago
That 86 bbo is part of the USGS estimated total of ~112 bbo. So, when we extract it we are taking a resource out of the ground that is not replaced. The acceptance of this idea is precisely what one would expect of those that need credit because they couldn't, or rather wouldn't, save a dime.
We currently extract about 6 mbo/day of domestic oil and import the balance of abut 14 mbo. Of course when Americans conserve, even by default because the can't afford gas, our use goes down thus decreasing demand and putting downward pressure on price and production. The Chinese and Indians will then be able to afford more gas and so they will demand more thus putting upward pressure on price and production. We will end up extracting domestic reserves for short-sighted immediate waste ultimately for nothing.
The lesson is to increase efficiency overall.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 month, 1 week ago
SPR in Louisiana only holds about 800 million barrels of emergency reserves, enough to get the country through about 90 days of regular oil usage. Less than 1% of the 86bbo mentioned above. Yet Pelosi wants to release 10% of those reserves to offset the Supply/Demand ratio. Now that is a real mind at work and long term plan. Jeez.
5/2008 The Senate Appropriations Committee today narrowly defeated Sen. Wayne Allard's attempt to end the Democrat(ic)s imposed moratorium related to oil shale development in Colorado.
America's oil shale reserves are enormous, totaling at least 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. That's five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia! And yet, no one is producing commercial quantities of oil from these vast deposits. All that oil is still sitting right where God left it.
If Shell and the DOE are right that you can recover a million barrels of oil per acre what is 2 Trillion divided by 20 mbo/d. That's a lot of days about 25 years worth I think.
Reply-
0%
jeffery11 month, 1 week ago
There's no need to release any oil from the reserve. That move is to placate a whining American public that chose to buy gas guzzling cars and now doesn't like paying for gas. Like I said the Dems in office now are spineless.
Developing oil shale requires enourmous amounts of energy to heat the rock up to pyrolyse the kerogen into something we can use. Also 3 to 5 barrels of water/barrel are required in the process. A lot in regions that have water problems now.
In fact there is limit as to how much energy, such as that derived from natural gas, will be wasted to heat rock to develop the non-conventional oil resource. Also, developing that source will only serve to produce more greenhouse gas that will serve only to increase global warming and oceanic acidification.
You really have to ask yourself whether another 75 years of oil is worth NOT mandating efficiency now. When the system breaks, we're done.
Reply-
0%
Teech1 month, 1 week ago
OKAY! OKAY! I'll bite!
So, let's say that we remove ALL restrictions, and allow UNLIMITED drilling ANYWHERE in America the oil companies want.
You rant and rave that this will lower prices!
Why in hell would some of the largest corporations on Earth, whose existence is to MAXIMIZE profits, ever want to LOWER prices and produce LOWER profits.
Explain that, please, Cape. Why would they want to make LESS money when they are making record profits practically every quarter??? Why? Why? Why?
Reply-
0%
svensun1 month, 1 week ago
Are you kidding, teech?
You don't have even a basic idea of how capitalism and the free market work, do you?
Have you ever heard of the 'law of supply and demand'?
Do you understand how WalMart became the largest retailer in the world?
Was it by selling Cartier diamonds and fur coats, at $10,000 a pop, to the few who can afford it?
NO!
It was by selling cheap stuff for a couple of bucks to MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of lower and middle class working people, that's how!
Let me ask you this, is it better to make 20% profit on $1 million in sales, or 10% profit on $1 billion in sales?
You don't think that if oil companies can sell oil at a lower cost, that they will sell MORE of it?
That's the rub, isn't it?
YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO SELL MORE OF IT, because YOU DON'T WANT US TO USE MORE OF IT, do you?
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
SVENSUN:
"You don't have even a basic idea of how capitalism and the free market work, do you?"
The oil industry is NEITHER a paragon of capitalism, NOR a free market.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200805/052108b.html
"The members of OPEC meet regularly to agree on limits on the amount of oil they will produce. That is wrong, and it hurts Americans. If such a meeting took place in almost any other context, the participants would likely be arrested for an illegal conspiracy in restraint of trade."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/24/gas.inve...
"Congressional GOP leaders on Monday formally called on President Bush to launch an investigation into possible price gouging by oil companies, after gas prices shot up nearly 25 cents a gallon in two weeks. Republicans Dennis Hastert and Bill Frist asked Bush to direct the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission to investigate the rising oil prices."
Reply-
0%
Teech1 month, 1 week ago
SVENSON: I am a confirmed capitalist and I do understand supply and demand.
But, as yb points out, supply and demand doesn't work in a "cornered" market or in a situation where the supply is so rigidly controlled by a relatively few individuals. What about that?
And as for "Let me ask you this, is it better to make 20% profit on $1 million in sales, or 10% profit on $1 billion in sales?" Simple, like Walmart, where there is ample supply and open and free competition, I'll take the latter and go for the volume and the cash flow and make my increased profit there. (Most supermarkets operate on a 1% to 2% margin, but get by on volume) But what I see OPEC and big oil doing is choosing 50% profit, or more if they can, on $1 trillion in sales.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy1 month, 1 week ago
Spoken like a true liberal. Lets only look at possible problems and make up some if needed. Lets not look at the positive parts.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-arno...
"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) made a veiled swipe at Republican presidential hopeful John McCain on Thursday when he said at a climate conference here that anyone suggesting offshore oil drilling could bring down gas prices was 'blowing smoke.'"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24943114/
"Vice President Dick Cheney rejected a suspension of the federal gasoline tax as proposed by Sen. John McCain. Cheney said it would offer little help to consumers coping with gas prices. 'I think it's a false notion, in the sense that you're not going to have much of an impact, given the size of the gasoline tax on the total cost of the gallon of gas,' Cheney said when asked about the matter during a luncheon appearance. 'You might buy a little bit of relief there, but it's minimal.'"
Reply-
-
0%
tiredofwhiners1 month, 1 week ago
I retired from a place in Burbank. Then I got out of there because of the high Calif. taxes and high real estate prices. I moved to Nevada where there is no income tax. Calif. tried to tax me in Nevada!! I refused and later Clinton of all people signed a law that makes it illegal. Thank you Bill and the Repub. Congress at the time.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
And here's conservative Fox News "pundit" Michelle Malkin.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/16/mccain-on-...
"McCain on offshore drilling - For it before he was against it before he was for it again. Update-McCain's astounding flip-flop on windfall profits tax:
Mr. McCain has a mixed record on the issue in the Senate. In 2001 and 2006, he voted in favor of offshore oil drilling in Florida, but in 2003 he voted against it in Florida and other states.
McCain was AWOL on the windfall profits tax debate in the Senate. He had nothing to say about Rep. John Peterson's effort to lift the offshore drilling ban when it was up for a vote last week. Now, he's announced he wants to lift the offshore drilling moratorium. He was for it before he was against it before he was for it again. Positively Kerryesque."
Reply-
0%
Locky121 month, 1 week ago
Not quite.
A gallon of gas wasn't $4.00 and climbing then. Now it is.
A good example of a flip flop is when you're all for public financing, but when you learn you can raise more money otherwise, you just say "it's broken".
Or when you vote against the war and funding of our troops, but now that you have to look like you have a backbone, admit the surge worked.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
LOCKY:
"A good example of a flip flop is when..."
Or when you were against McCain not more than a few months ago and then suddenly become McCain's biggest supporter. LOL.
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/04/23/...
LOCKY: "If John McCain gets into office, you libs will get everything you want anyway...You're right. John McCain is a tool. But dems will find McCain to be a useful idiot on many things they want."
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/01/10/...
LOCKY: "John McCain would guarantee himself the nomination and the White House if he ran on the platform that he'll retire after one term."
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2007/11/01/...
LOCKY: "I think Duncan Hunter is best candidate of the bunch but where is he?"
Reply-
0%
Locky121 month, 1 week ago
How is that a flip-flop? McCain is bad.
But Obama is just like a gangsta rapper.
You want a gansta rapper as president?
Did you hear how he spoke of ICE agents at La Raza?
They raid homes and leave children without parents!
They have illegal immigrants in this country like they're hunted down as if they were Jewish in the time of the holocaust.
McCain is bad, yes.
Obama should make some rap albums-- AND NOT RUIN MY COUNTRY!
Reply-
-
-
0%
Locky121 month, 1 week ago
Baddad, Could you be so kind enough as to inform your messiah- Barack Obama- that ICE Agents are there to enforce the laws that were passed by congress and signed by a president. In other words, THEY DO A JOB MANDATED BY THE GOV'T! And they risk their lives when they do so!
So when you want to be president and you have disdain for law enforcement-- how are we to take a candidate like that seriously?
I'm not being racist. I'm being realistic.
Somebody give MC Barry a microphone and let him rant about ICE Agents all he wants. He'll make TONS of money that way. More than I'll ever see. So how's that racist?
Reply-
baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
McCain flip-flopped on Hagee.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-h...
John McCain spent over a year working for Hagee's endorsement.
HAGEE: "It's true that McCain's campaign sought my endorsement."
MCCAIN: "I will say that Hagee said that his words were taken out of context, he defends his position."
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/11/mccain-hage...
"McCain then said he could look past Hagee's bigoted comments because 'when we were doing the No Surrender tour, he came and spoke on behalf of not surrendering in Iraq.'"
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/22/mccain.h...
"McCain told CNN's Brian Todd that he rejected the endorsement after Todd brought to his attention Hagee's comments that Adolf Hitler had been fulfilling God's will by hastening the desire of Jews to return to Israel in accordance with biblical prophecy."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
McCain flip flops on Iraq timelines.
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/05/15/...
"A crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years. 'Maybe 100,' McCain replied."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/politics/1...
"Senator John McCain declared on Thursday that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013. The remarks offered no proposals for how he would achieve that vision.
During his primary battle, Mr. McCain accused his rival Mitt Romney of setting a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq, even though Mr. Romney was merely speaking generally about timetables that might be set in private discussions among Iraqi and American leaders. Since then, Mr. McCain himself has come under repeated fire for offhand comments that he could envision a United States peacekeeping presence in Iraq for 100 years."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
McCain flip flops on the Confederate flag.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?AC...
"In 2000, McCain reversed himself on the confederate flag first calling it 'a symbol of racism and slavery' but then pandering the very next day by calling it a 'symbol of heritage.'"
McCain flip flops on climate change.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7b4c2270-3c99-11dd-b9...
"This morning, McCain launched an ad stating he believes climate change is real and requires urgent action. But this afternoon, McCain delivered a speech to the oil industry, pledging to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. McCain's flipflop on offshore drilling contrasts with his strong support for a moratorium in 2000."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
McCain Flip Flops on Talking to Hamas:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/05/wh...
"McCain was in favor of talking to Hamas before he was against it. Two years ago, John McCain was in favor of dealing with Hamas. 'They're the (Palestinian) government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them,' McCain told James Rubin."
McCain Flip Flops on Manipulating Fear for Political Gain:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hgoLiSMsxeI5...
"Charlie Black, who claimed that a terrorist attack would be a 'big advantage' for John McCain, has dropped off the campaign trail temporarily.
John McCain condemned Charlie Black, but he may have wanted to take a moment to consult the history books before he spoke. Shortly before the 2004 election, McCain was quoted saying that the latest Usama bin Laden video message would be 'very helpful' to President Bush."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
McCain Flip Flops on Ethics Reform:
http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20080403/03a...
"McCain's help for Keating came after he had donated $112,000 to McCain from 1982 to 1987, had taken McCain and his family on nine trips, including three to the Bahamas, and had gone in on a business deal with McCain's wife and father-in-law.
In 1982, during McCain's first run for the House, Keating held a fund-raiser for him, collecting more than $11,000 from 40 employees of American Continental Corp. In 1983, as McCain contemplated his House re-election, Keating hosted a $1,000-a-plate dinner for him, even though McCain had no serious competition. When McCain pushed for the Senate in 1986, Keating was there with more than $50,000. By 1987, McCain had received about $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.
The Arizona Republic revealed that McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
McCain flip flops on Bush tax cuts, offshore drilling, Guantanamo, and torture:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7b4c2270-3c99-11dd-b9...
"McCain was against Mr Bush's tax cuts before he was for them, and now he is in favor of offshore drilling after he was against it.
McCain has long called for Guantanamo to be closed and for torture to be banned. But last week he criticized the SCOTUS for 'one of the worst decisions in the history of this country' after it ruled that detainees should be allowed to challenge their detentions in US courts.
Until recently McCain was considered a moderate, as one of the 'Gang of 14' that secured a bipartisan compromise over judicial nominations 3 years ago. But recently he has stressed his commitment to nominate conservative judges and tilting SCOTUS decisively to the right.
If McCain continues to try to appeal to the base and to the centre simultaneously in this way, then his straight-talk brand is going to suffer."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142500/page/1
"McCain has spent the week focusing on energy policy, making some surprising, and inaccurate, statements.
McCain tried to paint Obama as an opponent of nuclear power, yet Obama has said he is open to nuclear energy and has supported bills that contained nuclear subsidies.
McCain has soft-pedaled the cap-and-trade proposal for greenhouse gases, even denying that it would be a mandate. The cap is a mandatory limit, however, and McCain even says so on his Web site.
McCain's new ad, running this week, rightly says that he bucked his party in supporting action on climate change years ago. But its images of windmills and solar panels are misleading in that he supports subsidies for nuclear power, which isn't pictured, and opposes them for wind and solar energy.
McCain continues to say that a suspension of the federal gas tax will lower prices for consumers, though hundreds of economists say he is wrong."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
McCain Flip Flops on Special Interests
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2...
"Sen. John McCain secured millions in federal funds for an Arizona developer whose executives were major campaign donors.
McCain, who has made fighting special-interest projects a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, inserted $14.3 million in a 2003 defense bill to buy land around Luke AFB in a provision sought by SunCor Development.
The Air Force later paid SunCor $3 million for 122 acres near the base. It was the highest single land transaction of the private lots purchased by the government - three times the county's assessed value and twice the military's estimated value.
McCain's campaigns have received $224,000 since 1998 from donors connected to Pinnacle West, including $104,100 for his current presidential run."
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
Locky121 month, 1 week ago
Ybdogsct. You seem to have a low-self esteem problem.
Why do you keep signing yourself off as "pathetic".
You can be a better person.
For starters, just look at the time of your post: 03:59 on a Friday night into Saturday morning.
You don't need to advertise to the whole world that you have no life.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
That time-stamp does NOT mean I was up at 4 A.M. posting. It means that was the time my post appeared according to Propeller's clock in the time-zone in which Propeller's headquarters are. The time-stamp is a reflection of Propeller's clock and time-zone, not mine.
LOL!
Facts were never your forte, were they? A more intelligent person would have known that, although the fact that you missed it doesn't surprise me in the least.
Don't you ever tire of being wrong all the time? LOL.
Pathetic.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 month, 1 week ago
Is that so?
Well, you certainly haven't presented any nonpartisan, primary-source EVIDENCE to support your unsubstantiated position.
Reply
-
-
0%
Endoscopy1 month, 1 week ago
ybdogsct
You are whistling in the wind. As bad as McCain is Obama is so much worse. It is a time of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 month, 1 week ago
It can take 10-15 years of training to get to the Olympics. Why would anybody start training for the Games if it takes 10 years to be one of a select few that might have a chance to win Gold?
Dems Talking point #1: If we drill now we will not see production for 10 years? (Dem's Keep Claiming 10 industry experts say 2-3 at most)
An officer of the company Transocean, the biggest driller in the world stated that depending on the location of the drilling, oil could be realized in as little as a year.
Ultra-deepwater fields might produce in 3-5 years. For the most remote locations, without any prior infrastructure support, that barrel may require a 4-6 year window. He added he could not envision a situation where it would require more than 6 years to bring a barrel out of the ocean floor.
Reply-
0%
tiredofwhiners1 month, 1 week ago
Some of the idle offshore rigs are ready to go now (off the Calif coast).
Reply -
0%
Endoscopy1 month, 1 week ago
Democrats are right about the 10 years. I heard an oil expert on this subject. Before allowed to drill they have to go through 6 to 8 years of garbage paperwork before they can start drilling. This brought to us by the treehugging Democrats. Congress has to cut through that garbage paperwork to allow immediate drilling. Does anybody here think this 9% approval congress will do that? Dream on.
Reply
-
-
0%
Locky121 month, 1 week ago
Coffeecake- get a clue.
Al Gore compared this task to the moon landing.
Very ironic.
How big was Neil Armstrong's carbon footprint with his first step on the moon??
How does Al Gore think they got to the moon? Solar power? Did they have little propellers on their heads?
NO! They used fossil fuels and tons and tons of 'em to get there!
YOU HAVE NO IDEA how they want to rob us of our liberty.
They'll end up dictating how we can heat/cool our homes, what kind of car we drive and how far we can drive them, what kind of lightbulbs and low-flow toilets we must own, where we live because if you don't live near mass transit it is you that's not "on board".
You ask why I think like a loser??
At least I think.
You're just a lemming.
Reply-
-
0%
tiredofwhiners1 month, 1 week ago
They made the perchlorates just down the road from me. Basic Industries used huge amounts of power to produce these chemicals. A lot of that power is generated by natural gas, oil and coal. Where do you get the notion that production of chemicals are power usage free? You probably think electric cars cause no CO2 too. They do except when the power they use is hydro or nuclear. More power is generated by fossil fuels than any other source.
Reply -
-
0%
Endoscopy1 month, 1 week ago
Ratskii
You are funny. The Saturn rockets that took us to the moon had NO boosters. The solid fuel boosters are on the Shuttle.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Locky121 month, 1 week ago
The same problem I have with Santa Claus, Easter bunny, tooth fairy and the sandman.
I hope I didn't spoil anything for you, apparently, you still believe in them.
Reply -
0%
Endoscopy1 month, 1 week ago
You must be a Pelosie announcer. She talks about a program of wind, solar, etc. We already have invested billions in developing those technologies. Wind turbines are only efficient in constant wind areas. We use solar energy on the space station. It is only efficient in almost constant sunny areas. We have been doing these things already. Nuclear power is a very good alternative but it gives Democrat treehuggers the hives and they scream and go running to lawyers to drag it out until they hope the plant is stopped.
Reply
-
-
0%
NoSpinDave1 month, 1 week ago
I think this pretty much says it all:
"Democrats brought forth their 'Use It or Lose It' bill without knowing it was already the law of the land," said GOP Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo. "Today we're reminded that the majority's efforts to 'unlock' NPR-A are about as necessary as passing a bill ordering the sun to rise."
This bill was nothing but smoke and mirrors, but I expect nothing less from a group of people who have NO REAL DESIRE in finding more oil.
Nice spin on the title of the article though....sighhhh.
Reply-
0%
jeffery11 month, 1 week ago
The U.S. would be better off if the Democrats had the spine to start off by mandating that no automobile can be sold in the U.S. that gets less than 50 mi/gal. Then increase the efficiency every year after that while reversing sprawl to increase the viability of mass transit while removing the tax incentives to overpopulate and sprawl.
Fossil fuels are a no win proposition from their being a finite resource, the environmental degradation required for their extraction, the greenhouse gas production from their use, the global warming and ocean acification that results from CO2 generation, etc.
Reply
-
-
-
