Are honest energy policies a liability?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date

Should the government promise cheap gas?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 1 100.0%
  • Total voters
    1
  • Poll closed .
\\(())// said:
So your position is that if Congress allowed unlimited domestic oil drilling (onshore and offshore), the price of gas would come down, as Newt and Michelle Bachmann promised? Are they the "leaders of vision" you pine for?
Click to expand...

My first position is pretty much any moment when you begin a sentence with "so your positions is" you are constructing a straw man argument.

Secondly, my position is, as I have previously stated:

Had we been truly working towards energy independence we would be independent now, even if we had only started after 9/11 instead of when it first became an issue in the 70s. That we should have began a "moon landing" sort of program to get off the foreign energy after 9/11 (if not in the 70s) to ensure our security. And lastly, that this President's ideological insistence to not allow new drilling on Federal lands only hurts that effort and shows he is shortsighted and incapable of being other than an ideologue. Because of this we are yet more dependent on foreign energy than before he took office, and in consequence less secure.
 
Damocles said:
My first position is pretty much any moment when you begin a sentence with "so your positions is" you are constructing a straw man argument. Secondly, my position is, as I have previously stated: Had we been truly working towards energy independence we would be independent now, even if we had only started after 9/11 instead of when it first became an issue in the 70s. That we should have began a "moon landing" sort of program to get off the foreign energy after 9/11 (if not in the 70s) to ensure our security. And lastly, that this President's ideological insistence to not allow new drilling on Federal lands only hurts that effort and shows he is shortsighted and incapable of being other than an ideologue. Because of this we are yet more dependent on foreign energy than before he took office, and in consequence less secure.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the idea that no drilling is allowed on federal land?

The Bureau of Land Management issued 4,090 drilling permits in fiscal 2010.

http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/01/13/2
 
Annie said:
I'm unsure where one gets 'no drilling', but it's been obvious that was the plan since Obama took office:

http://www.chron.com/business/energ...-rejects-Obama-drilling-rules-for-2079193.php

That he's not been allowed to fully implement does NOT give him points.
Click to expand...

Did you not notice that the story you link to shows that they had to sue to even get their permits renewed?

How did you not notice that the story also fully underlines and supports the earlier assertion that these are specifically under a Bush program that he wanted to end?

The ruling reinstates Bush-era expedited oil and gas drilling under provisions called categorical exclusions on federal lands nationwide, Freudenthal said. The government argued that oil and gas..
Click to expand...

It still isn't enough, because Bush failed to have the vision to put US security above his own ideological interest, that this President makes the same mistake in the other direction isn't helping your cause.

Your own link shows we are right.
 
The temporary halt to permitting in the aftermath of the BP spill hardly qualifies Obama as an ideologue.

That the blowout and disaster were the result of lax regulation and oversight by an industry incapable of policing itself seem like obvious arguments against the kind of deregulation you prefer.

Please explain what you keep referring to as "security"....
 
\\(())// said:
The temporary halt to permitting in the aftermath of the BP spill hardly qualifies Obama as an ideologue.

That the blowout and disaster were the result of lax regulation and oversight by an industry incapable of policing itself seem like obvious arguments against the kind of deregulation you prefer.

Please explain what you keep referring to as "security"....
Click to expand...

Nonsense, what shows he's an ideologue is the consistent decisions that he makes against increasing Domestic energy production by any means other than his pet projects (like the frickin' Volt, Solyndra, et al.)

As for security. Do you believe that our reliance on an energy product from the most war torn portion of the world with people who have directly shown a willingness to kill Americans makes us safe? Do you believe that getting us off that foreign energy teat might allow us to ignore that portion of the planet?
 
Damocles said:
Nonsense, what shows he's an ideologue is the consistent decisions that he makes against increasing Domestic energy production by any means other than his pet projects (like the frickin' Volt, Solyndra, et al.)
Click to expand...

You mean the Volt that was designed and first touted when Bush was in office?

Damocles said:
As for security. Do you believe that our reliance on an energy product from the most war torn portion of the world with people who have directly shown a willingness to kill Americans makes us safe? Do you believe that getting us off that foreign energy teat might allow us to ignore that portion of the planet?
Click to expand...

Since the majority of our oil imports come from Canada and Mexico, which of those two is planning to attack us? Both?

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html
 
\\(())// said:
You mean the Volt that was designed and first touted when Bush was in office?
Click to expand...

I mean the Volt that Obama claimed a great victory on when it rolled off the line before it was ready.

Since the majority of our oil imports come from Canada and Mexico, which of those two is planning to attack us? Both?

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Click to expand...

If oil wasn't fungible, and we carefully ensured that all energy was from domestic sources (and yes, we definitely could do this if we threw everything at it) do you think it would make a difference to the US if we were in the gulf or not?

The reality is we are there messing around because oil ensures a national interest in the region. Oil is fungible, production and sales from that region make a difference in our prices, and money that we spend goes to those governments and it is because we have an addiction to foreign sources of energy.
 
Damocles said:
I mean the Volt that Obama claimed a great victory on when it rolled off the line before it was ready.



If oil wasn't fungible, and we carefully ensured that all energy was from domestic sources (and yes, we definitely could do this if we threw everything at it) do you think it would make a difference to the US if we were in the gulf or not?

The reality is we are there messing around because oil ensures a national interest in the region. Oil is fungible, production and sales from that region make a difference in our prices, and money that we spend goes to those governments and it is because we have an addiction to foreign sources of energy.
Click to expand...

Oh my God, dude, step away from the koolaide jug! Are you sober right now? What a crock of BS. Your guys brought us there for their own personal financial gain.
You are in rare form this week.
 
Last edited:
Rune said:
Oh my God, dude, step away from the koolaide jug! Are you sober right now? What a crock of BS. Your guys brought us there for their own personal financial gain.
You are in rare form this week.
Click to expand...

This actually has little to do with the point I'm making, or my personal opinion, other than to underline the short-sightedness of the previous President and to bold the fact that the current guy has done nothing to resolve it except to try to force the square peg "solution" into a round hole.

The last two Presidents have been short-sighted and largely fools on this subject. I think it is likely due to the fact that they operate in a coin-operated government and are paid to look somewhere other than any place they might find our best interest.
 
Damocles said:
Did you not notice that the story you link to shows that they had to sue to even get their permits renewed?

How did you not notice that the story also fully underlines and supports the earlier assertion that these are specifically under a Bush program that he wanted to end?



It still isn't enough, because Bush failed to have the vision to put US security above his own ideological interest, that this President makes the same mistake in the other direction isn't helping your cause.

Your own link shows we are right.
Click to expand...

Something about my wording came off wrong. I agree with you! Sorry for the poor communication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top