More BS from Queen Pelosi.

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=c1c8bd41-4315-4c1f-8781-1ad3deca21d1

"This bill is a total fraud. It gives us access to only 12 percent of the estimated oil reserves we are currently not allowed to access. If Congress takes no action in the next two weeks, guess how much of that oil we could tap? One hundred percent.

The congressional ban on offshore drilling is not a permanent ban. It expires in two weeks! If Congress does nothing, all oil reserves currently closed to exploration will become accessible on Oct. 1. So this bill actually takes from 100 to 12 the percentage of blocked oil reserves we could begin reaching for two weeks from now.

Furthermore, the bill gives the appearance of opening drilling from 50 to 100 miles from shore, but it actually discourages this. The bill requires state approval for drilling within that range, but it does not allow states to share in revenues from oil leases granted there. So states such as California, which faces a huge budget shortfall, have less incentive to give that approval."

Who wants to bet that if this bill passes, the Dems will proclaim something to the effect of 'we care about the consumer and have thus allowed offshore drilling'. Further... how many Dems will call bullshit on such a distortion?

 

[CanadianKid]

http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=c1c8bd41-4315-4c1f-8781-1ad3deca21d1

"This bill is a total fraud. It gives us access to only 12 percent of the estimated oil reserves we are currently not allowed to access. If Congress takes no action in the next two weeks, guess how much of that oil we could tap? One hundred percent.

The congressional ban on offshore drilling is not a permanent ban. It expires in two weeks! If Congress does nothing, all oil reserves currently closed to exploration will become accessible on Oct. 1. So this bill actually takes from 100 to 12 the percentage of blocked oil reserves we could begin reaching for two weeks from now.

Furthermore, the bill gives the appearance of opening drilling from 50 to 100 miles from shore, but it actually discourages this. The bill requires state approval for drilling within that range, but it does not allow states to share in revenues from oil leases granted there. So states such as California, which faces a huge budget shortfall, have less incentive to give that approval."

Who wants to bet that if this bill passes, the Dems will proclaim something to the effect of 'we care about the consumer and have thus allowed offshore drilling'. Further... how many Dems will call bullshit on such a distortion?

I hear alot of whining from SuperBS over here.....

So what are YOU going to do about it?

CK

 

[uscitizen]

yeah right with 4% of the worlds reverves and 20% of the worlds consumption it will not make much difference. But blow the rebutliken horn dude.

 

[Cancel3]

I hear alot of whining from SuperBS over here.....

So what are YOU going to do about it?

CK

Oh methinks I hit a nerve with CK when I asked that question.

I'm sorry CK, did my sarcasm hurt your feelings?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Oh methinks I hit a nerve with CK when I asked that question.

I'm sorry CK, did my sarcasm hurt your feelings?

If you are attempting an intelligent conversation with CK... just know that you are one party short of the requirement.

 

[Cancel7]

http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=c1c8bd41-4315-4c1f-8781-1ad3deca21d1

"This bill is a total fraud. It gives us access to only 12 percent of the estimated oil reserves we are currently not allowed to access. If Congress takes no action in the next two weeks, guess how much of that oil we could tap? One hundred percent.

The congressional ban on offshore drilling is not a permanent ban. It expires in two weeks! If Congress does nothing, all oil reserves currently closed to exploration will become accessible on Oct. 1. So this bill actually takes from 100 to 12 the percentage of blocked oil reserves we could begin reaching for two weeks from now.

Furthermore, the bill gives the appearance of opening drilling from 50 to 100 miles from shore, but it actually discourages this. The bill requires state approval for drilling within that range, but it does not allow states to share in revenues from oil leases granted there. So states such as California, which faces a huge budget shortfall, have less incentive to give that approval."

Who wants to bet that if this bill passes, the Dems will proclaim something to the effect of 'we care about the consumer and have thus allowed offshore drilling'. Further... how many Dems will call bullshit on such a distortion?

LMAO - I can only hope this is all true! Boy talk about pulling a fast one huh SF?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

LMAO - I can only hope this is all true! Boy talk about pulling a fast one huh SF?

the sad part... is that people will likely fall for it. I would like to see how Obama votes on this should it make it to the Senate in this form. What a friggin joke. I hope they get called out on this BS.


Side question.... WHY would you want this to be true? Would Venezuela, China, Saudi, Iran etc.... drill and produce oil with greater environmental protections that we would? If not, it makes little sense to continue refusing to tap our own resources.

 

[leaningright]

Bush will veto this if it somehow passes. I don't blame him.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Bush will veto this if it somehow passes. I don't blame him.

As he should....

 

[CanadianKid]

Solitary.... Just because your too poor and cheap to make a donation to help out fellow citizens....You have to change the subject..... Nice...what a classy dude....

CK

 

[Cancel3]

Solitary.... Just because your too poor and cheap to make a donation to help out fellow citizens....You have to change the subject..... Nice...what a classy dude....

CK

I am indeed a classy guy. But thanks for noticing.

 

[Bonestorm]

I think it's a good bill.

 

[uscitizen]

A lot better than what we have now. A step is a step.

butt with rebutlikens it is they did not fix it all right now!

Unless it is a rebutliken bill of course.

 

[Cancel7]

the sad part... is that people will likely fall for it. I would like to see how Obama votes on this should it make it to the Senate in this form. What a friggin joke. I hope they get called out on this BS.


Side question.... WHY would you want this to be true? Would Venezuela, China, Saudi, Iran etc.... drill and produce oil with greater environmental protections that we would? If not, it makes little sense to continue refusing to tap our own resources.

I guess cause, you know, I’m aware that drilling doesn’t do anything for us. I mean, ten years off? Damn, surely the greatest country in the world can come up with an alternative that could already be in place, by then? Oil is not the answer. So I don’t want to pursue it. I’m just not the drill baby drill kind, and not just because I consider that chant to be almost animalistic, and the leering faces of the greasy Neanderthals who enjoy screaming it look as if they would feel very at home screaming the same chant at the site of a violent gang rape…

 

[CanadianKid]

I am indeed a classy guy. But thanks for noticing.

As Topspin would say....Go find a real job basement boy!

CK

 

[Bonestorm]

A lot better than what we have now. A step is a step.

butt with rebutlikens it is they did not fix it all right now!

Unless it is a rebutliken bill of course.

Yeah, and my understanding is that 15 Republicans voted for this bill. When 15 Democrats vote for a Republican bill it is branded "bi-partisan." Why aren't we calling this one "bi-partisan?"

 

[Cancel3]

As Topspin would say....Go find a real job basement boy!

CK

lol

Quoting Top? I guess everyone needs someone to idolize. Top can be your hero.

 

[uscitizen]

As Topspin would say....Go find a real job basement boy!

CK

Now that is desperation, Quoting toppy.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I guess cause, you know, I’m aware that drilling doesn’t do anything for us. I mean, ten years off? Damn, surely the greatest country in the world can come up with an alternative that could already be in place, by then? Oil is not the answer. So I don’t want to pursue it. I’m just not the drill baby drill kind, and not just because I consider that chant to be almost animalistic, and the leering faces of the greasy Neanderthals who enjoy screaming it look as if they would feel very at home screaming the same chant at the site of a violent gang rape…

LMAO....

1) Drilling is not limited to oil... we can also get nat gas, which burns cleaner and could be used in autos

2) Ten years is the long end of the curve... eliminate all the BS red tape and it could be done in 4-7 years.

3) No matter what we do, we will still be using oil. It may as well be our own.

4) Those opposed to domestic drilling continually use the excuse of.... surely we can come up with other alternatives. Had we allowed drilling ten years ago, we would not be shipping $700 billion overseas every friggin year.

5) Just like those who proclaim we cannot replace oil solely by alt energy (toppy) within ten years, your proclamation that 'oil drilling is not the answer' is ridiculous. Of course it isn't going to solve the problem on its own. We must have a combination of alt energy expansion AND using our own resources.

It is pure stupidity that prevents us from using all available resources.

But I know... THOSE jobs, THAT money... it can all go overseas because we know it is just a huge problem to see that drill site 30 miles off shore...

Lets let the other countries that lack the environmental watchdogs the US has do all the drilling. We can continue shipping the jobs and money overseas and further indebting ourselves.... all in the name of stupidity.

 

[Cancel7]

Well, you know, since it is also destroying our planet, I thought it might be cool if we created THOSE jobs, and THAT money, via solar, wind and bio...but that's just me. You are more than free to make yourself up a "DrILL, BABY DRILL' sign and jump around with it the next time Sarah is in Colorado...I hear she loves that.