PDA

View Full Version : Elections Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling


Donger
08-01-2008, 06:35 PM
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.
ADVERTISEMENT

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

Asked about Obama's comment, McCain said, "We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage." The GOP candidate said Obama doesn't have a plan equal to the nation's energy challenges.

In Congress, both parties have fought bitterly over energy policy for weeks, with Republicans pressing for more domestic oil drilling and Democrats railing about oil company profits. Despite hundreds of hours of House and Senate floor debate, lawmakers will leave Washington for their five-week summer hiatus this week with an empty tank.

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

Later, Obama issued a written statement warmly welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators — five from each party. Their proposal seeks to break the impasse over offshore oil development and is expected to be examined more closely in September after Congress returns from its summer recess.

The so-called Gang of 10 plan would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 50 miles of Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development.

Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.

The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

Nevertheless, Obama said the plan, put forward by mostly moderates and conservatives led by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., "represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning."

Earlier in the day, Obama pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to McCain's call for more offshore drilling.

The pitch for putting some of the economic burden of $4-a-gallon gasoline on the oil industry served a dual purpose for Obama: It allowed him to talk up an economic issue, seen by many as a strength for Democrats and a weakness for Republicans, and at the same time respond to criticism from McCain that Obama's opposition to offshore drilling leads to higher prices at the pump.

In linking McCain to the unpopular President Bush, Obama struck a theme from Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign against President Jimmy Carter by asking a town-hall audience in St. Petersburg: "Do you think you are better off than you were four years ago or eight years ago? If you aren't better off, can you afford another four years?"

Obama primed the crowd by noting new government figures showing 51,000 jobs lost last month and citing 460,000 jobs lost over the last seven months. He tied other bad economic news from the Bush administration to McCain and offered his energy program as one route to relief.

"This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months," Obama said during a two-day campaign swing in Florida. "It will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills, or even to pay down your own debt."

Donger
08-01-2008, 06:41 PM
So, he "shifts" position on drilling on the same day he calls for windfall profit taxation on the people who would be doing the drilling?

Does that strike anyone else is being a little odd?

chiefforlife
08-01-2008, 06:42 PM
Good news. I am glad to see him come around.

Donger
08-01-2008, 06:44 PM
Good news. I am glad to see him come around.

I'm glad, too. I suppose that Barack Hussein took a peek at the polls today.

"Change YOU can believe in."

bigfoot
08-01-2008, 06:44 PM
It's tough trying to adopt positions on the latest poll results. He always seems to be playing catch up.

chiefforlife
08-01-2008, 06:48 PM
I'm glad, too. I suppose that Barack Hussein took a peak at the polls today.

"Change YOU can believe in."

Politicians work for the people, if the people have changed their minds, so to should the politician. No?
It is possible that he wants whats best for the country, you know.

Donger
08-01-2008, 06:57 PM
Politicians work for the people, if the people have changed their minds, so to should the politician. No?
It is possible that he wants whats best for the country, you know.

I would believe that more if he didn't "shift" on the same day he promotes windfall taxes on the stuff he wants to pump.

chiefforlife
08-01-2008, 07:30 PM
I would believe that more if he didn't "shift" on the same day he promotes windfall taxes on the stuff he wants to pump.

That is strange, I have to admit.

***SPRAYER
08-01-2008, 07:35 PM
So, he "shifts" position on drilling on the same day he calls for windfall profit taxation on the people who would be doing the drilling?

Does that strike anyone else is being a little odd?

Please report to the nearest train station. Bring warm clothes and a shovel.

***SPRAYER
08-01-2008, 07:37 PM
Politicians work for the people, if the people have changed their minds, so to should the politician. No?
It is possible that he wants whats best for the country, you know.

Very well said. Unlike Donger, your mind was cleansed during the 'be loyal and honest campaign.'

***SPRAYER
08-01-2008, 07:37 PM
That is strange, I have to admit.

Admit nothing! Or you'll find yourself on that train with Donger.

beer bacon
08-01-2008, 07:57 PM
It sounds to me like Obama is trying to find a bipartisan solution to our energy problems. If he has to compromise on offshore drilling, something he thinks won't be particularly effective in the long or short term, in order to get a renewable energy plan pushed through congress, then he will do it. I am not in favor of allowing more offshore drilling. It seems like we need to figure out how to increase our refining capacity and how to get the oil companies to drill on the land they do have before we lease them more land. I do understand why this could be a necessary compromise in order to get a bipartisan energy bill through congress.

ARGH I MEAN FLIP-FLOPPER MUST DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Donger
08-01-2008, 08:02 PM
It sounds to me like Obama is trying to find a bipartisan solution to our energy problems. If he has to compromise on offshore drilling, something he thinks won't be particularly effective in the long or short term, in order to get a renewable energy plan pushed through congress, then he will do it. I am not in favor of allowing more offshore drilling. It seems like we need to figure out how to increase our refining capacity and how to get the oil companies to drill on the land they do have before we lease them more land. I do understand why this could be a necessary compromise in order to get a bipartisan energy bill through congress.

ARGH I MEAN FLIP-FLOPPER MUST DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

(CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama stood his ground Wednesday in opposing what he calls the "scheme" of offshore drilling, during a campaign event in Springfield, Missouri.

"The oil companies are shoving this thing down the throats of Congress, because they know everybody wants to try to pretend they're doing something about the energy crisis,” Obama said. “This is not real. I know it's tempting. The polls say its one of the ways that a majority of Americans think we're going to solve this problem, but it's not real."

Barack Hussein said that on Wednesday. This Wednesday.

patteeu
08-01-2008, 08:05 PM
It seems like we need to figure out ... how to get the oil companies to drill on the land they do have before we lease them more land.

Why? What possible reason could you have for believing this? If the goal is finding and producing as much oil as possible, wouldn't it be better if the experts (i.e. the oil companies) had as much territory as possible in which to look for the sweet spots? It's not like oil is an evenly distributed mineral where one drill site is equal to every other possible drill site.

chiefforlife
08-01-2008, 08:08 PM
Maybe I misunderstand how this works but, the oil we import is refined into gasoline here in the U.S., right. If so, drilling our own oil and refining it here dramatically reduces the amount of foreign oil we import. How is that not helping?
Instead of our refineries being filled with import oil it would be filled with our own oil. Am I wrong?

Donger
08-01-2008, 08:16 PM
Maybe I misunderstand how this works but, the oil we import is refined into gasoline here in the U.S., right. If so, drilling our own oil and refining it here dramatically reduces the amount of foreign oil we import. How is that not helping?
Instead of our refineries being filled with import oil it would be filled with our own oil. Am I wrong?

We don't have the refining capacity to refine crude into the amount of gasoline we demand. So, in addition to crude, we also have to import refined gasoline.

Don't get me wrong. I'd rather we refine our own crude than someone else's.

beer bacon
08-01-2008, 08:18 PM
(CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama stood his ground Wednesday in opposing what he calls the "scheme" of offshore drilling, during a campaign event in Springfield, Missouri.

"The oil companies are shoving this thing down the throats of Congress, because they know everybody wants to try to pretend they're doing something about the energy crisis,” Obama said. “This is not real. I know it's tempting. The polls say its one of the ways that a majority of Americans think we're going to solve this problem, but it's not real."

Barack Hussein said that on Wednesday. This Wednesday.

I understand this. I also do not think offshore oil drilling is a real solution to our energy problems. This is from the article you posted:

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

I don't think Obama considers offshore oil a real solution either. He thinks it is necessary to make this concession in order to push through new initiatives on renewable energy.

I am not quite sure yet if I Obama is right that the democrats need to make these concessions, and I would have definitively rather get a new renewable energy bill through congress without making these compromises. Obama is pretty convinced that no new energy policy is going to get through this session without throwing the republicans an offshore oil drilling bone.

SBK
08-01-2008, 08:24 PM
Don't listen to the news, just fill your tires b!tches. LMAO

beer bacon
08-01-2008, 08:31 PM
Here are some other things Obama said today on this topic:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

"[H]e told the Post he would be open to expanding the current drilling boundaries if it meant winning approval for more fuel-efficient cars, developing alternative energy sources and making the country more 'energy independent.'"

"'I think it's important for the American people to understand we're not going to drill our way out of this problem,' he said. 'It's also important to recognize if you start drilling now you won't see a drop of oil for ten years, which means its not going to have a significant impact on short-term prices. Every expert agrees on that.'"

***SPRAYER
08-01-2008, 08:33 PM
Here are some other things Obama said today on this topic:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

"[H]e told the Post he would be open to expanding the current drilling boundaries if it meant winning approval for more fuel-efficient cars, developing alternative energy sources and making the country more 'energy independent.'"

"'I think it's important for the American people to understand we're not going to drill our way out of this problem,' he said. 'It's also important to recognize if you start drilling now you won't see a drop of oil for ten years, which means its not going to have a significant impact on short-term prices. Every expert agrees on that.'"


Why don't you just admit the guy is a hack, making shit up as he goes along?

Donger
08-01-2008, 08:34 PM
'It's also important to recognize if you start drilling now you won't see a drop of oil for ten years, which means its not going to have a significant impact on short-term prices. Every expert agrees on that.'"

Nonsense. If Congress ends the ban, crude will drop JUST on the news that we are going to do it. The price of crude right now is that delicate.

beer bacon
08-01-2008, 08:34 PM
Why don't you just admit the guy is a hack, making shit up as he goes along?

**** off, troll.

beer bacon
08-01-2008, 08:39 PM
Nonsense. If Congress ends the ban, crude will drop JUST on the news that we are going to do it. The price of crude right now is that delicate.

I am very skeptical that oil prices will drop and stay down for a significant period of time based on the knowledge that there potentially will be a very small increase in the amount of oil on the world market in 10+ years.

RJ
08-01-2008, 08:53 PM
I am very skeptical that oil prices will drop and stay down for a significant period of time based on the knowledge that there potentially will be a very small increase in the amount of oil on the world market in 10+ years.



That also strikes me as odd, I don't see how that could be. On the one hand I read that one of the reasons there are 68 million untapped acres is that it takes ten years or so to see any results from the exploration but then I read that if more areas are opened up we'll see an immediate drop in prices. I ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer so maybe I'm missing something, but I've yet to hear a good explanation for that.

Personally, I don't much care where they drill as long as it helps us to buy less ME and Venezualan oil. But my gut tells me that it will help the oil companies way more than it will help our nation.

SBK
08-01-2008, 08:57 PM
That also strikes me as odd, I don't see how that could be. On the one hand I read that one of the reasons there are 68 million untapped acres is that it takes ten years or so to see any results from the exploration but then I read that if more areas are opened up we'll see an immediate drop in prices. I ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer so maybe I'm missing something, but I've yet to hear a good explanation for that.

Personally, I don't much care where they drill as long as it helps us to buy less ME and Venezualan oil. But my gut tells me that it will help the oil companies way more than it will help our nation.

If the market learns that the US is no longer buying oil from the ME, by opening new wells, thus increasing global supply, do you think that no change in demand, but a huge increase in supply will push prices down?

Prices are driven today by the fear (misguided at best) that we're running out of oil. That there's not enough. Take that fear away and what happens?

beer bacon
08-01-2008, 08:59 PM
If the market learns that the US is no longer buying oil from the ME, by opening new wells, thus increasing global supply, do you think that no change in demand, but a huge increase in supply will push prices down?

Prices are driven today by the fear (misguided at best) that we're running out of oil. That there's not enough. Take that fear away and what happens?

Increasing offshore oil dwelling is not going to cause a huge increase in supply on the global market.

SBK
08-01-2008, 09:06 PM
Increasing offshore oil dwelling is not going to cause a huge increase in supply on the global market.

We don't get a huge % of our oil from overseas, if it was enough to take us out of the global market that change would be huge.

Of course we could drill in an unlivable barren wasteland, but why would we do that?

alanm
08-01-2008, 10:12 PM
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.
ADVERTISEMENT

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

Asked about Obama's comment, McCain said, "We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage." The GOP candidate said Obama doesn't have a plan equal to the nation's energy challenges.

In Congress, both parties have fought bitterly over energy policy for weeks, with Republicans pressing for more domestic oil drilling and Democrats railing about oil company profits. Despite hundreds of hours of House and Senate floor debate, lawmakers will leave Washington for their five-week summer hiatus this week with an empty tank.

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

Later, Obama issued a written statement warmly welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators — five from each party. Their proposal seeks to break the impasse over offshore oil development and is expected to be examined more closely in September after Congress returns from its summer recess.

The so-called Gang of 10 plan would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 50 miles of Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development.

Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.

The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

Nevertheless, Obama said the plan, put forward by mostly moderates and conservatives led by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., "represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning."

Earlier in the day, Obama pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to McCain's call for more offshore drilling.

The pitch for putting some of the economic burden of $4-a-gallon gasoline on the oil industry served a dual purpose for Obama: It allowed him to talk up an economic issue, seen by many as a strength for Democrats and a weakness for Republicans, and at the same time respond to criticism from McCain that Obama's opposition to offshore drilling leads to higher prices at the pump.

In linking McCain to the unpopular President Bush, Obama struck a theme from Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign against President Jimmy Carter by asking a town-hall audience in St. Petersburg: "Do you think you are better off than you were four years ago or eight years ago? If you aren't better off, can you afford another four years?"

Obama primed the crowd by noting new government figures showing 51,000 jobs lost last month and citing 460,000 jobs lost over the last seven months. He tied other bad economic news from the Bush administration to McCain and offered his energy program as one route to relief.

"This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months," Obama said during a two-day campaign swing in Florida. "It will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills, or even to pay down your own debt."
Not good enough. :shake:

alanm
08-01-2008, 10:17 PM
Politicians work for the people, if the people have changed their minds, so to should the politician. No?
It is possible that he wants whats best for the country, you know.
When was the last time you actually believed that politicians actually worked for their constituents? Every one of them is out to line their own thieving pockets. Or maybe that's just the 95% of them with law degrees. :spock:

RJ
08-01-2008, 10:25 PM
Hypothetically speaking.

If I were the head honcho in charge of the ME and Venezuelan oil industries, and if I saw that the US was going to increase it's domestic production and therefore would be less dependent on my product in 10 or so years - why would I lower my price today? In fact, if I could get away with it, I'd probably raise my prices. If I know my best customer is going to be spending less money tomorrow (and if I don't really like my best customer that much anyway) I'm sure as heck going to try to maximize my profits today.

The idea of prices going down today because we'll have more oil in 10 years just seems counterintuitive to me. My cynical side tells me that what's good for Exxon isn't necessarily what's good for the majority.

Feel free to set me straight.

alanm
08-01-2008, 10:26 PM
Here are some other things Obama said today on this topic:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

"[H]e told the Post he would be open to expanding the current drilling boundaries if it meant winning approval for more fuel-efficient cars, developing alternative energy sources and making the country more 'energy independent.'"

"'I think it's important for the American people to understand we're not going to drill our way out of this problem,' he said. 'It's also important to recognize if you start drilling now you won't see a drop of oil for ten years, which means its not going to have a significant impact on short-term prices. Every expert agrees on that.'"
That's is the best scenario I envision. I agree. But you keep hearing the 10 yrs bullshit. Every oilman out there that's been interviewed says it's bullshit. Only the dimwits in congress believe it's going to take 10 yrs. :shake:

RJ
08-01-2008, 10:27 PM
When was the last time you actually believed that politicians actually worked for their constituents? Every one of them is out to line their own thieving pockets. Or maybe that's just the 95% of them with law degrees. :spock:



I understand your point. My problem is that as little as I trust the politicians, I trust the corporations even less. They're both happy to screw us but the corporations have more to gain.

RJ
08-01-2008, 10:34 PM
That's is the best scenario I envision. I agree. But you keep hearing the 10 yrs bullshit. Every oilman out there that's been interviewed says it's bullshit. Only the dimwits in congress believe it's going to take 10 yrs. :shake:



This confuses me as well, since I've read the "10 years" thing as one of the reasons why there are 68 million untapped leased acres. How come the old acres take 10 years but the new acres will yield immediate results? Too many things that don't add up. I wonder if my boss would give me 6 months off to look into this further?

alanm
08-01-2008, 10:37 PM
I understand your point. My problem is that as little as I trust the politicians, I trust the corporations even less. They're both happy to screw us but the corporations have more to gain.
I agree were getting screwed by both. The thing that pisses me off the most is the 10 yrs crap. You're telling me that corporations like Mobil, Exxon ect. need 10 yrs to drill, pump and deliver to refinery's? Hell, it took less time than that to put a man on the moon. From the time it took to turn the first spade of dirt in Los Alamos to the detonation of the 1st atomic bomb on the platform was less than 5. Granted Fermi was working on it longer than that in Chicago. Why they keep spouting the 10 yrs bullshit is beyond me.

SBK
08-01-2008, 10:50 PM
Hypothetically speaking.

If I were the head honcho in charge of the ME and Venezuelan oil industries, and if I saw that the US was going to increase it's domestic production and therefore would be less dependent on my product in 10 or so years - why would I lower my price today? In fact, if I could get away with it, I'd probably raise my prices. If I know my best customer is going to be spending less money tomorrow (and if I don't really like my best customer that much anyway) I'm sure as heck going to try to maximize my profits today.

The idea of prices going down today because we'll have more oil in 10 years just seems counterintuitive to me. My cynical side tells me that what's good for Exxon isn't necessarily what's good for the majority.

Feel free to set me straight.

You don't set the prices, the market does.

Ultra Peanut
08-01-2008, 10:53 PM
He said he would accept it AS PART OF A COMPROMISE.

That's exactly why he'd make a great president. He's not going to dig in and refuse to make any progress on an issue just to boost his pride.

RJ
08-01-2008, 11:00 PM
I've read that a big reason some fields are untapped is that they are, for various reasons, too costly to get to. So I suppose it's maybe a Catch-22 situation - At $100+ a barrel they can afford to drill in the hard-to-get places but if they do then the increased production would drive down prices.

So if that's the case, why did the oil companies lease acreage that they most likely knew wouldn't be viable? They certainly knew how far out to sea these acres were and how deep the water was. Maybe they thought oil prices were going to go even higher than what they have.

All in all, it makes my brain hurt to think about it.......just what those scoundrels were counting on!

RJ
08-01-2008, 11:05 PM
You don't set the prices, the market does.



Sure, but I can manipulate prices all day long by adjusting my production.

And why would market prices drop because of something that will happen 10 years from now? Or even 5 years? Wouldn't speculators want to realize even greater profits today if the goose were going to be laying less eggs in the future?

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2008, 11:17 PM
It sounds to me like Obama is trying to find a bipartisan solution to our energy problems. If he has to compromise on offshore drilling, something he thinks won't be particularly effective in the long or short term, in order to get a renewable energy plan pushed through congress, then he will do it. I am not in favor of allowing more offshore drilling. It seems like we need to figure out how to increase our refining capacity and how to get the oil companies to drill on the land they do have before we lease them more land. I do understand why this could be a necessary compromise in order to get a bipartisan energy bill through congress.

ARGH I MEAN FLIP-FLOPPER MUST DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


Here's the deal for all you dummies buying the "it won't help us out for years argument" regarding drilling in the US.

Speculators have driven up the price of world wide oil to the point that it has become ridiculous. A coherent and well shaped plan by the congress would send an immediate message to the markets and would drive the speculators out which in turn would drop the price of oil immediately and then reduce the price at the pump in turn.

I'd say the American public is taking it in the arse at the pumps for roughly .50 to .75 cents/per gallon because of the lack of action by congress.

Hell, they just went on a five week vacation starting today.

wazu
08-01-2008, 11:53 PM
What I don't understand is why we wouldn't open up leasing land for drilling. What is the argument against it? That it's a hoax and there is no more oil out there? Fine! Let those greedy oil bastards lease land for no reason and give their money to us!

The best analogy I've seen on this is watching two kids fight over a toy. One kid really wants the toy, and the other kid just doesn't want him to have it. If there is no valid argument against drilling, then let them drill!

jAZ
08-02-2008, 12:02 AM
I've said the same thing for years now.

Depending upon the bill conditions, I'd be willing to trade opening up off-shore drilling to a state vote to get a true renewable energy revolution. Massively funded comprehensive clean energy plan that results in drastically improved electric grid, high fuel standards (50-100 MPG in less than 10 years), solar technology, wind technology, electric cars, battery technology, all ofit.

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 12:15 AM
I've said the same thing for years now.

Depending upon the bill conditions, I'd be willing to trade opening up off-shore drilling to a state vote to get a true renewable energy revolution. Massively funded comprehensive clean energy plan that results in drastically improved electric grid, high fuel standards (50-100 MPG in less than 10 years), solar technology, wind technology, electric cars, battery technology, all ofit.FLIP-FLOPPER

alanm
08-02-2008, 02:29 AM
I've said the same thing for years now.

Depending upon the bill conditions, I'd be willing to trade opening up off-shore drilling to a state vote to get a true renewable energy revolution. Massively funded comprehensive clean energy plan that results in drastically improved electric grid, high fuel standards (50-100 MPG in less than 10 years), solar technology, wind technology, electric cars, battery technology, all ofit.
:eek: Do my eyes deceive me. Have I gone insane :eek:
I agree. :eek:

tiptap
08-02-2008, 07:01 AM
Maybe I misunderstand how this works but, the oil we import is refined into gasoline here in the U.S., right. If so, drilling our own oil and refining it here dramatically reduces the amount of foreign oil we import. How is that not helping?
Instead of our refineries being filled with import oil it would be filled with our own oil. Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. The vast amount of Alaskan oil goes to (drum roll) Japan and such. We get ours from Venezuela and Nigeria mostly. It would be true that off shore oil in the 48 would go to US refineries.

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 07:12 AM
**** off, troll.

It must be hard keeping up with all the B.O. talking points; by the time you memorize your cue cards, he's changing his position.

:)

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 07:21 AM
Yes you are wrong. The vast amount of Alaskan oil goes to (drum roll) Japan and such. We get ours from Venezuela and Nigeria mostly. It would be true that off shore oil in the 48 would go to US refineries.


Oil is a global commodity. Global suppy increases, global prices go down.

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 08:15 AM
I've said the same thing for years now.




Yet B.O. has only been saying it for about 24 hours. Why would have support for a guy who disagreed with you up until yesterday on such an important issue?

StcChief
08-02-2008, 09:32 AM
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise :rolleyes: /Gomer Pyle

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 09:39 AM
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise :rolleyes: /Gomer PyleSurprising that he's advocating a pragmatic approach that will let Republicans have their golden calf if it means a net move forward?

Nah, not really. It's kind of why he'll make a great president.

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 09:40 AM
Let me be crystal clear.

banyon
08-02-2008, 09:41 AM
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" comes to mind.

So we finally may have a president who, rather than demanding ideologically rigid and intransigent positions, will try to actually fight through the partisan BS and get a solution.

God, that's terrible.

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 09:43 AM
Leadership is holding your breath until you get your way.

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 09:43 AM
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" comes to mind.

So we finally may have a president who, rather than demanding ideologically rigid and intransigent positions, will try to actually fight through the partisan BS and get a solution.

God, that's terrible.

Keep spinnin' Banyon!

ROFL

Merci beaucoup!

ROFL

jAZ
08-02-2008, 09:43 AM
Yet B.O. has only been saying it for about 24 hours. Why would have support for a guy who disagreed with you up until yesterday on such an important issue?

He never said a word about trading drilling as part of a larger package. He has talked about his willingness to discuss a wide range of options that Dems often oppose (including nuclear).

It was safe to suspect he agreed 100% with my position, oppose drilling, but if that's what it takes to get off oil entirely, don't be stupid.

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 09:44 AM
Leadership is holding your breath until you get your way.

Let me be crystal clear.

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Coin_ExactChange_160.gif

jAZ
08-02-2008, 09:45 AM
Leadership is holding your breath until you get your way.
ROFL

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 09:46 AM
Keep spinnin' Banyon!

ROFL

Merci beaucoup!

ROFLMy god! It's full of stupid!

banyon
08-02-2008, 09:46 AM
I guess the people in this thread bitching wanted him to say "I will oppose offshore drilling in any amount of any type at all costs, even if it means giving up a practical solution with other parts of my energy plan and condemning Americans to high gas prices for the next 8 years. The important thing is that I remain obstinate."

..well, I guess that's what we're used to anyway. :sulk:

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 09:51 AM
I guess the people in this thread bitching wanted him to say "I will oppose offshore drilling in any amount of any type at all costs, even if it means giving up a practical solution with other parts of my energy plan and condemning Americans to high gas prices for the next 8 years. The important thing is that I remain obstinate."

..well, I guess that's what we're used to anyway. :sulk:That's their gold standard.

AIN'T NO STOPPIN' THEM NURRRRRRRRRRRRRR

http://i34.tinypic.com/2ue03ko.gif

wazu
08-02-2008, 10:15 AM
It's interesting, the Republicans are gaining a lot of momentum in campaigning on this very simple issue. Why do the Democrats let them have it? If Pelosi and Reid really want to help Obama, they should lift the offshore ban and take away McCain's chief talking point.

HC_Chief
08-02-2008, 10:17 AM
It's interesting, the Republicans are gaining a lot of momentum in campaigning on this very simple issue. Why do the Democrats let them have it? If Pelosi and Reid really want to help Obama, they should lift the offshore ban and take away McCain's chief talking point.

Kinda hard to do when you shut off the lights and go on vacation.

The Rs could have a major PR coup if they continue their "power off" session in congress while the Ds dick about elsewhere.

wazu
08-02-2008, 10:20 AM
Kinda hard to do when you shut off the lights and go on vacation.

The Rs could have a major PR coup if they continue their "power off" session in congress while the Ds dick about elsewhere.

They ended it at 5:00 p.m. yesterday. It was just a 5 hour coup. It was brilliant, though.

Donger
08-02-2008, 10:21 AM
I guess the people in this thread bitching wanted him to say "I will oppose offshore drilling in any amount of any type at all costs, even if it means giving up a practical solution with other parts of my energy plan and condemning Americans to high gas prices for the next 8 years. The important thing is that I remain obstinate."

..well, I guess that's what we're used to anyway. :sulk:

I just find the timing odd. Look at what Barack Hussein said this Wednesday and what he said yesterday.

HonestChieffan
08-02-2008, 10:39 AM
I guess the people in this thread bitching wanted him to say "I will oppose offshore drilling in any amount of any type at all costs, even if it means giving up a practical solution with other parts of my energy plan and condemning Americans to high gas prices for the next 8 years. The important thing is that I remain obstinate."

..well, I guess that's what we're used to anyway. :sulk:

Well, thats what he said Wednesday.

jAZ
08-02-2008, 10:51 AM
Well, thats what he said Wednesday.
Really, that was stupid. Go ahead and post the link to that quote, I'm going to write a letter to the campaign.

Donger
08-02-2008, 11:02 AM
Really, that was stupid. Go ahead and post the link to that quote, I'm going to write a letter to the campaign.

(CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama stood his ground Wednesday in opposing what he calls the "scheme" of offshore drilling, during a campaign event in Springfield, Missouri.

"The oil companies are shoving this thing down the throats of Congress, because they know everybody wants to try to pretend they're doing something about the energy crisis,” Obama said. “This is not real. I know it's tempting. The polls say its one of the ways that a majority of Americans think we're going to solve this problem, but it's not real."

I suppose Barack Hussein is "pretending" to do something about the energy crisis now? It's become "real"?

HonestChieffan
08-02-2008, 11:02 AM
Its about a page or so back. His comments when he dropped into Springfield.

wazu
08-02-2008, 11:08 AM
Obama said. “The polls say its one of the ways that a majority of Americans think we're going to solve this problem, but it's not real."

Stupid Americans. They are just bitter about gas prices, which will result in clinging to religion, guns, bigotry, and a desire for an increase in the supply of key commodities.

Sully
08-02-2008, 11:09 AM
Another reason I'll be voting for Senator Obama in the fall. Thank you, Donger.

Donger
08-02-2008, 11:14 AM
Another reason I'll be voting for Senator Obama in the fall. Thank you, Donger.

Don't thank me. Thank Barack Hussein, I suppose, if you like a candidate that can go from:

"The oil companies are shoving this thing down the throats of Congress, because they know everybody wants to try to pretend they're doing something about the energy crisis,” Obama said. “This is not real. I know it's tempting. The polls say its one of the ways that a majority of Americans think we're going to solve this problem, but it's not real."

to

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

in three days.

HonestChieffan
08-02-2008, 11:16 AM
Combine this with the thousand dollar vote purchase march he proposed on Friday...hes a busy dude!

Direckshun
08-02-2008, 11:17 AM
This is like the third time this election cycle that Barack has compromised on an issue to pursue his own agenda, that compromise actually pushes something that Republicans and conservatives generally support, and he gets attacked by Republicans and conservatives for not sticking to his guns, even though they hated it when he did.

ELECTION MAGIC. CATCH THE FEVER.

Sully
08-02-2008, 11:18 AM
Absolutely.
An ability to compromise... to bring along some of the BS, in order for a greater victory (movement toward alternative fuels) is a pragmatic and intelligent move. Though I am a liberal, i'd be against any president who simply wanted to govern by himself, without realizing that 50% of the country disagreed with him or her. I'm glad that Sen. Obama has, once again, shown the ability to see past his party or ideology, and see that compromise is really the only way to get these wheels moving.

Well done, Senator Obama!!!

HonestChieffan
08-02-2008, 11:23 AM
Pass Sully a fresh kool aide

Donger
08-02-2008, 11:24 AM
This is like the third time this election cycle that Barack has compromised on an issue to pursue his own agenda, that compromise actually pushes something that Republicans and conservatives generally support, and he gets attacked by Republicans and conservatives for not sticking to his guns, even though they hated it when he did.

ELECTION MAGIC. CATCH THE FEVER.

Again, I'm glad he did change his mind. I just find the rapidity with which he did so surprising.

Sully
08-02-2008, 11:25 AM
I'm good, thanks.
I see plenty I disagree with Obama about, so I (like the vast majority of Obama supporters) am not the cartoon you want to make me out to be. However, this particular instance is one place where I feel my support is correctly placed.

chiefforlife
08-02-2008, 11:26 AM
It is strange that people want someone who can reach across the isle, someone who can unite the two partys. When one comes along, he is persecuted for it, in the name of partisan politics.

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 11:28 AM
This is like the third time this election cycle that Barack has compromised on an issue to pursue his own agenda, that compromise actually pushes something that Republicans and conservatives generally support, and he gets attacked by Republicans and conservatives for not sticking to his guns, even though they hated it when he did.

ELECTION MAGIC. CATCH THE FEVER.

Are moonbats still going to recite on cue "that oil won't help us for at least ten years"? Or will they get a new set of cue cards now that the hack, B.O., has done yet another about face on a key issue?

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 11:30 AM
It is strange that people want someone who can reach across the isle, someone who can unite the two partys. When one comes along, he is persecuted for it, in the name of partisan politics.



:LOL:

You guys are too much with the spin. Not one of you O-bots was saying "gee, I wish B.O. would reach across the aisle on offshore drilling" what you were all doing was reciting your cue cards provided to you by Pelosi, Reid, and B.O.'s campaign.

Direckshun
08-02-2008, 11:34 AM
:LOL:

You guys are too much with the spin. Not one of you O-bots was saying "gee, I wish B.O. would reach across the aisle on offshore drilling" what you were all doing was reciting your cue cards provided to you by Pelosi, Reid, and B.O.'s campaign.
Because a lot of us liberals are opposed to offshore drilling.

But we favor the compromise if it finally gets us adequate progress on alternative forms of energy.

RJ
08-02-2008, 11:35 AM
Again, I'm glad he did change his mind. I just find the rapidity with which he did so surprising.



What do you think would have been an appropriate number of days?

chiefforlife
08-02-2008, 11:38 AM
:LOL:

You guys are too much with the spin. Not one of you O-bots was saying "gee, I wish B.O. would reach across the aisle on offshore drilling" what you were all doing was reciting your cue cards provided to you by Pelosi, Reid, and B.O.'s campaign.

Thats BullSht, you havent been paying attention. Its funny how to you, anyone who supports Obama has no brain and just follows the standard mantra. If you will actually read some of the posts here, many people are saying they dont like a lot of things about Obama, yet still support him. I am on record as saying I dont like the fact that he was against drilling and many other forms of energy.
Thats exactly why I said earlier in this very thread that I was glad to see him come around.
Had he not compromised his position, you would be slamming him for that.

HonestChieffan
08-02-2008, 11:40 AM
The OboBots cannot keep up with the changes so the best thing to do is swoon and mouth the words of the annointed one. It requires no thought either.

Donger
08-02-2008, 11:42 AM
What do you think would have been an appropriate number of days?

Not during the same week?

chiefforlife
08-02-2008, 11:44 AM
What do you think would have been an appropriate number of days?

At least Obama gives it days of thought. He could be more like McCain and switch positions in hours or even minutes, without any thought at all, just checking with his staff to find out thats not his position.

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 11:44 AM
Don't thank me. Thank Barack Hussein, I suppose, if you like a candidate that can go from:

"The oil companies are shoving this thing down the throats of Congress, because they know everybody wants to try to pretend they're doing something about the energy crisis,” Obama said. “This is not real. I know it's tempting. The polls say its one of the ways that a majority of Americans think we're going to solve this problem, but it's not real."

to

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

in three days.Heavens, no! Two completely congruous statements! How awful!

Obama talked about how little offshore drilling would accomplish DURING THE VERY SAME PRESS CONFERENCE IN WHICH HE SAID HE'D CONSIDER A COMPROMISE, you wet, dishonest sacks of shit.

TEX
08-02-2008, 11:45 AM
So, he "shifts" position on drilling on the same day he calls for windfall profit taxation on the people who would be doing the drilling?

Does that strike anyone else is being a little odd?

Not at all. That's his way. The dude talks out his mouth and ass at the same time. He flips, err..."redefines his position," to make it appear he's for something in order to get votes, then he'll undermine that stance so he can stay true to his base. I can't believe that so many are willing to give thiat idiot a fee pass. The guy is nothing more than a "trophy candidate" without substance, who is nothing without prepared speeches and telepromptors.

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 11:46 AM
At least Obama gives it days of thought. He could be more like McCain and switch positions in hours or even minutes, without any thought at all, just checking with his staff to find out thats not his position.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fWf7w--TwyU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fWf7w--TwyU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Donger
08-02-2008, 11:46 AM
Heavens, no! Two completely congruous statements! How awful!

Obama talked about how little offshore drilling would accomplish DURING THE VERY SAME PRESS CONFERENCE IN WHICH HE SAID HE'D CONSIDER A COMPROMISE, you wet, dishonest sacks of shit.

Well, let's hope he is as wrong with that prediction as he was about the surge.

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 11:48 AM
Not at all. That's his way. The dude talks out his mouth and ass at the same time.It's almost like he doesn't know what he's talking about, but feels the need to talk about it anyways. It's almost like he only paid attention long enough to see what [insert radio host here] had to say about it, then espoused that position as his own. It's almost as if...

He's you.

Well, let's hope he is as wrong with that prediction as he was about the surge.BARRY WHY WON'T YOU CONCEDE THE SIMPLISTIC POINT YOUR OPPONENT HAS BEEN PUSHING REGARDING THIS VERY COMPLEX ISSUE?

MR. HANDSOME?

TEX
08-02-2008, 11:50 AM
The OboBots cannot keep up with the changes so the best thing to do is swoon and mouth the words of the annointed one. It requires no thought either.

Yep. He's for HOPE and CHANGE. He better HOPE that voters don't realize how often he CHANGES his mind. :shake:

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 11:51 AM
Yep. He's for HOPE and CHANGE. He better HOPE that voters don't realize how often he CHANGES his mind. :shake:Ha HA!

Who told that one, Rush? Or was it Hannity?

RJ
08-02-2008, 11:52 AM
Not during the same week?


Why?

Seriously, whether he'd waited two days or two weeks or two months and then said the same thing you guys would still have had the same reaction. No matter what he does, some folks will never like him and will never agree with his decisions. Same as it is for W now.

chiefforlife
08-02-2008, 11:53 AM
Yep. He's for HOPE and CHANGE. He better HOPE that voters don't realize how often he CHANGES his mind. :shake:

I think he still trails McCain quite a bit in the flip flopping category.:doh!:

markk
08-02-2008, 11:53 AM
Funny, when he flipped on FISA after saying he would never back immunity for telecoms, he called that a 'compromise' too.

His positions are little more than a trailing indicator of the last month's polling.

Calcountry
08-02-2008, 11:54 AM
So, he "shifts" position on drilling on the same day he calls for windfall profit taxation on the people who would be doing the drilling?

Does that strike anyone else is being a little odd?The investors, 401k's that are in Exxon should be real happy right now. They risked their capital, to make a 10% margin, only to have all that money attaxed away from them to be doled out to the public. Very likely "middle" income people.

Nice. How much more oil do you think that will generate. Any enthusiasm for the stock market?

There will be a bloodbath on Wall Street if this dude gets elected. You think we have a recession now? Just wait until those that still have money start pulling it in and quit investing it.

These sums a biotches really need to get a clue about economics, but then, I wouldn't expect anything less from a Marxist.

TEX
08-02-2008, 11:55 AM
It's almost like he doesn't know what he's talking about, but feels the need to talk about it anyways. It's almost like he only paid attention long enough to see what [insert radio host here] had to say about it, then espoused that position as his own. It's almost as if...

He's you.

BARRY WHY WON'T YOU CONCEDE THE SIMPLISTIC POINT YOUR OPPONENT HAS BEEN PUSHING REGARDING THIS VERY COMPLEX ISSUE?

MR. HANDSOME?

Then YOU CAN BELIEVE! Hope not based on reality is foolish...
Oh, I forgot- he is a "community organizer" so I guess he really does know what he's talking about. ROFL

Calcountry
08-02-2008, 11:57 AM
It's almost like he doesn't know what he's talking about, but feels the need to talk about it anyways. It's almost like he only paid attention long enough to see what [insert radio host here] had to say about it, then espoused that position as his own. It's almost as if...

He's you.

BARRY WHY WON'T YOU CONCEDE THE SIMPLISTIC POINT YOUR OPPONENT HAS BEEN PUSHING REGARDING THIS VERY COMPLEX ISSUE?

MR. HANDSOME?
Awww, what's the matter? You upset because you don't have a radio host that espouses your position?

TEX
08-02-2008, 11:58 AM
I think he still trails McCain quite a bit in the flip flopping category.:doh!:

You think that due to a lack of oxygen because you faint every time you see your man...

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 11:59 AM
Then YOU CAN BELIEVE!
Oh, I forgot- he is a "community organizer" so I guess he really does know what he's talking about. ROFLCommunity organizer, constitutional law scholar, president of the Harvard Law Review. You know, the usual piddling shit.

I mean, the dude hasn't ever been tortured by gooks (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml), but I think he's a pretty decent achiever.

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 11:59 AM
Awww, what's the matter? You upset because you don't have a radio host that espouses your position?Talk radio is the domain of retards, so it's only natural that the right would have such a foothold.

Donger
08-02-2008, 12:02 PM
Such emotion.

markk
08-02-2008, 12:03 PM
'community organizer'. ROFL

TEX
08-02-2008, 12:04 PM
Ha HA!

Who told that one, Rush? Or was it Hannity?

Don't worry - all is not lost friend. There still might be HOPE for you too if you wake TFU & CHANGE your position.

chiefforlife
08-02-2008, 12:04 PM
Funny, when he flipped on FISA after saying he would never back immunity for telecoms, he called that a 'compromise' to.

Why would anyone want a President who is willing to compromise, when "stay the course" has worked so well.

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 12:06 PM
'community organizer'. ROFLPresident of the Harvard Law Review ROFL

markk
08-02-2008, 12:07 PM
Why would anyone want a President who is willing to compromise, when "stay the course" has worked so well.

Who wants someone with any sort of guiding principles at all? Why actually believe in anything when you can simply shift to whatever you think is most popular at the moment? No, I say to all of you, a president should have no core beliefs at all.

TEX
08-02-2008, 12:08 PM
'community organizer'. ROFL

Hello, my name is Barack Obama. You can't talk about my middle name, but I am a community organizer (it even says so on my tax returns) and I want to be President...ROFL

That's basically it...

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 12:09 PM
Who wants someone with any sort of guiding principles at all? Why actually believe in anything when you can simply shift to whatever you think is most popular at the moment? No, I say to all of you, a president should have no core beliefs at all.Unless you flip off everyone who disagrees with you and mire yourself in unnecessary slap fights, you have no core beliefs.

Fascinating.

chiefforlife
08-02-2008, 12:10 PM
You think that due to a lack of oxygen because you faint every time you see your man...

Here is 10 flip flops in 2 weeks. Hard for anyone to keep up with that.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/16/mccain-sets-a-new-record-10-flip-flops-in-two-weeks/

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 12:10 PM
Hello, my name is Barack Obama. You can't talk about my middle name, but I am a community organizer (it even says so on my tax returns) and I want to be President...ROFL

That's basically it...TEX, buuuuddy?



Go away. You make SHTSPRAYER look constructive in comparison.

chiefforlife
08-02-2008, 12:12 PM
President of the Harvard Law Review ROFL

That hardly compares to McCain being in the bottom 1% of his class.:shake:

TEX
08-02-2008, 12:13 PM
President of the Harvard Law Review ROFL

"Book Smart" - ROFL

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 12:13 PM
That hardly compares to McCain being in the bottom 1% of his class.:shake:He's just like Paris Hilton!

She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard too, didn't she?

"Book Smart" - ROFLAh, yes. This is totally consistent with your earlier efforts to mock him for being a community organizer in the ivory tower that is the south side of Chicago.

Also, you don't even understand what a law review is, do you? That's adorable.

chiefforlife
08-02-2008, 12:14 PM
Who wants someone with any sort of guiding principles at all? Why actually believe in anything when you can simply shift to whatever you think is most popular at the moment? No, I say to all of you, a president should have no core beliefs at all.

Look at it more like, I work for the people of America and if the majority of my bosses want something, perhaps I should take another look. Maybe even compromise my own position for the greater good. Refreshing...

TEX
08-02-2008, 12:15 PM
TEX, buuuuddy?



Go away. You make SHTSPRAYER look constructive in comparison.

You mean the "BARACK BACKER"...

HonestChieffan
08-02-2008, 12:17 PM
Thump Thump....

another support group tossed under the bus....sorry envirowackjobs.

Imagine how reid and pelosi will hand Obama his gonads for turning on them just as they take the August recess.

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 12:20 PM
Look at it more like, I work for the people of America and if the majority of my bosses want something, perhaps I should take another look. Maybe even compromise my own position for the greater good. Refreshing...I know you support drilling, but this "shift" is actually much more along the lines of, "Here, have your toy and play with it while the grownups do something productive."

He's not saying it's a good thing, but he's acknowledging that letting the Republicans get their way on one relatively small issue may be worth it if it means getting more important things done.

Pragmatism in a leader? NO THANKS. We demand obstinate hissy-fits here in the good ol' US of A!

TEX
08-02-2008, 12:22 PM
Here is 10 flip flops in 2 weeks. Hard for anyone to keep up with that.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/16/mccain-sets-a-new-record-10-flip-flops-in-two-weeks/


LOL! Now - Just "learn to speak Spanish" and "inflate your tires" to the max and do the same for your guy...

chiefforlife
08-02-2008, 12:40 PM
LOL! Now - Just "learn to speak Spanish" and "inflate your tires" to the max and do the same for your guy...

Cuidado con me chorizo.

HonestChieffan
08-02-2008, 12:48 PM
Geuess his own website has not caught up with his latest change er no, modificat...no flip flop


http://www.barackobama.com/newsroom/

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 12:56 PM
http://i35.tinypic.com/2415wdx.jpg

Pierce
08-02-2008, 01:14 PM
The investors, 401k's that are in Exxon should be real happy right now. They risked their capital, to make a 10% margin, only to have all that money attaxed away from them to be doled out to the public. Very likely "middle" income people.

Nice. How much more oil do you think that will generate. Any enthusiasm for the stock market?

There will be a bloodbath on Wall Street if this dude gets elected. You think we have a recession now? Just wait until those that still have money start pulling it in and quit investing it.

These sums a biotches really need to get a clue about economics, but then, I wouldn't expect anything less from a Marxist.

You make an important point. Obama's policies do not bode well for investors and small businesses.

HonestChieffan
08-02-2008, 01:19 PM
You make an important point. Obama's policies do not bode well for investors and small businesses.

Or individuals who make a paycheck.
Or older people who depend on dividends from savings.
Or young people with investments in 401K's
Or workers in Savings programs.
Or people who work for large coroprations who could see layoffs and savings plans shrink.

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 01:28 PM
I mean, the dude hasn't ever been tortured by gooks

http://www.zombietime.com/mccain_in_sf/IMG_4471.JPG

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2008, 01:30 PM
http://www.zombietime.com/mccain_in_sf/IMG_4471.JPGThat is a family of nips, not gooks.

You racist ****.

chiefforlife
08-02-2008, 01:31 PM
Holy crap, 6 Asians for McSame. That doubles the # of Black guys heckling Obama...

jAZ
08-02-2008, 02:27 PM
(CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama stood his ground Wednesday in opposing what he calls the "scheme" of offshore drilling, during a campaign event in Springfield, Missouri.

"The oil companies are shoving this thing down the throats of Congress, because they know everybody wants to try to pretend they're doing something about the energy crisis,” Obama said. “This is not real. I know it's tempting. The polls say its one of the ways that a majority of Americans think we're going to solve this problem, but it's not real."

I suppose Barack Hussein is "pretending" to do something about the energy crisis now? It's become "real"?

Thanks, now if you could find his quote that reflects this paraphrase, I'd love to read it.

"I will oppose offshore drilling in any amount of any type at all costs, even if it means giving up a practical solution with other parts of my energy plan and condemning Americans to high gas prices for the next 8 years. The important thing is that I remain obstinate."

mlyonsd
08-04-2008, 09:25 AM
When McCain reaches across the aisle to compromise it's considered going back on his principles just to win an election.

When Obama does it it's just considered another reason he'd make a good president.

Too funny.

***SPRAYER
08-04-2008, 09:32 AM
I would believe that more if he didn't "shift" on the same day he promotes windfall taxes on the stuff he wants to pump.

What Is a 'Windfall' Profit?
August 4, 2008; Page A12
The "windfall profits" tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to apply it to a handful of big oil companies. Which raises a few questions: What is a "windfall" profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales -- or does it merely depend on who earns it?

Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama's "emergency" plan, announced on Friday, doesn't offer any clarity. To pay for "stimulus" checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take "a reasonable share" of oil company profits.


Mr. Obama didn't bother to define "reasonable," and neither did Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, when he recently declared that "The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy." Really? This extraordinary redefinition of free-market success could use some parsing.

Take Exxon Mobil, which on Thursday reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any "windfall" tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us, but perhaps we're missing some Obama-Durbin business subtlety.

Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon's profits don't seem so large. Exxon's profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).

If that's what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery -- both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau's industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.

In a tax bill on oil earlier this summer, no fewer than 51 Senators voted to impose a 25% windfall tax on a U.S.-based oil company whose profits grew by more than 10% in a single year and wasn't investing enough in "renewable" energy. This suggests that a windfall is defined by profits growing too fast. No one knows where that 10% came from, besides political convenience. But if 10% is the new standard, the tech industry is going to have to rethink its growth arc. So will LG, the electronics company, which saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories hit 110%.

If Senator Obama is as exercised about "outrageous" profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett's outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006. Its profit margin -- if that's the relevant figure -- was 11.47%, which beats out the American oil majors.

Or consider Google, which earned a mere $4.2 billion but at a whopping 25.3% margin. Google earns far more from each of its sales dollars than does Exxon, but why doesn't Mr. Obama consider its advertising-search windfall worthy of special taxation?

The fun part about this game is anyone can play. Jim Johnson, formerly of Fannie Mae and formerly a political fixer for Mr. Obama, reaped a windfall before Fannie's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal. Bill Clinton took down as much as $15 million working as a rainmaker for billionaire financier Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Companies. This may be the very definition of "windfall."

General Electric profits by investing in the alternative energy technology that Mr. Obama says Congress should subsidize even more heavily than it already does. GE's profit margin in 2007 was 10.3%, about the same as profiteering Exxon's. Private-equity shops like Khosla Ventures and Kleiner Perkins, which recently hired Al Gore, also invest in alternative energy start-ups, though they keep their margins to themselves. We can safely assume their profits are lofty, much like those of George Soros's investment funds.

The point isn't that these folks (other than Mr. Clinton) have something to apologize for, or that these firms are somehow more "deserving" of windfall tax extortion than Big Oil. The point is that what constitutes an abnormal profit is entirely arbitrary. It is in the eye of the political beholder, who is usually looking to soak some unpopular business. In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation.

It's what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121780636275808495.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks