Drill Baby Drill -- yeah, right

You dont have to, it's far easier to imply..... notice you cannily work around this.. that the oil companies are MAKING OBSCENE PROFITS.

I can only surmise you understand me and it's easier to just keep ripping corporate america and the pols that are in their pockets, than actually EXAMINE the issues.
Why is that? Could it be because EVERYONE is 'dirty' to some extent?
We actually agree on the sweetheart corporate welfare stuff. Could we actually get down to looking at what it is, where that money is going and naming names?

Could it be your answer would be to actually NATIONALIZE those Oil companies? I dont know, that's why I'm asking.

 

Excuse me?!? You quoted me, but based on the ongoing sparring that took place after, was this meant for me or Don? Doesn't really matter b/c mod or no, you're out of line. But before I waste my time replying, I'd like that cleared up.

 

Offshore drilling up to Senate after House passage

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gB6bi0EyTozdEPy0KGisTQNaS2PQD938ASM00

 

Wamu and Citigroup are next. Doesn't matter who you vote for, they want to nationalize everything, Comrade.

 

Sounds more like a political bargaining chip than anything, but it's an initial step in the right direction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/science/earth/01energy.html

 

He has a climate bill he's trying to pass and needed to curry some favor with senators "close" to oil interests. As the article states, this doesn't necessarily deliver that, but it could.

Conversely, he left off areas where the local senators were opposed to drilling off of their shores. So he didn't (hypothetically) unnecessarily upset anyone that he'll need. The diehards that are going to be upset by this are going to support climate and environmental legislation anyway.

He probably won't get much credit though b/c it doesn't go far enough to provide much potential impact. Which is why Dubya "didn't get anywhere with this". He went the opposite direction, took on enough areas to have an impact but couldn't garner the support as a result.

Your commie remark is ignorant and petty. Save that crap for Fog.

 

Aw, c'mon!

Let's back up here and set some grounding.

This IS a political ploy, pure and simple and here's why. It's a local {state} wedge issue and all you have to do is see what the responses are:

Virginia ?!!! Why.. that seems a no-brainer. Sort of a stick for the last vote. How many drilling rigs you think are gonna set course?

California - a different response. By different people.

Guess where the position is going to be re Florida after November?

No matter what the Dem PR public consumption line is on the Tea Party, Axelrod and Rahm know who the Tea Party is... They're mostly Economic Conservative, Quality of Life Centrists. And a WHOLE lot of them voted FOR Obama, purely on principle.

So, in the end, aint hardly any drillin' gonna get done. Not unless the crude prices go WAY the hell up. And it's a neat little wedge in the state vote and, sure's hell, the Tea Party groups.

But it's one more nail in the promotion platform for a carbon tax. AGW is a fail, 'science-wise', but there needs be a whole lotta money coming in to moderate the huge debt being accrued. What's easier to tax than energy?
- - - -- - - -- - - --

Alinsky? Aint it funny how some get all bent when they find out Alinsky Rules work both ways!
- One thing.. Alinsky said NEVER waste time on demonizing groups or corporations. Brings in too many on the fringe and often backfires.
Palin's one thing. Tea Party, a whole 'nother thing.

Spencer...any time you're tempted to say something the Dems do is 'centrist' or 'right of center' how about pointing out for us all the Conservative influences on our President's life?
- might wanna re-read his books.

Whatever .. WE elected him, he's our Pres. That doesnt mean everyone has to 'Just Shut Up'.

 

Not sure what's more surprising, that Larry King is still with us or that he's not an Obama supporter. I hope his show isn't in hd.

Back to the point, of course it's ignorant. If you don't like it when people go over the top and throw around cheap, baseless accusations like commie and terrorist to distract from the issue at hand (which is what they're doing), then why would you do the same in reverse by interjecting that into this conversation. Unless it is your goal to open this up into a debate over whether or not he's a communist, then it's an ignorant move. At the very least, it's hypocritical.