Offshore Drilling and ANWR

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:

Bman wrote:Read an article today that Bush is requesting Congress to lift the ban when in fact there is an Executive Order prohibiting drilling signed by his father, all he would have to do was revoke the Executive order and drilling could commence but he wants congress to take the fall in the coastal states popularity ... coward. Have some balls George ... if you want to drill revoke your dad's executive order.

So you propose he bypasses congress completely and puts his own agenda ahead of what the nation might want? Seems that's what you're railing against him for Iraq on.. or at least that's what the Dem's like to play.. they always ignore that congress voted to go to war...

That man-crush Bman has on Obama has made him lose just about all rational thought. I'm hoping that after November, the Bman that at least follows a bit of logic will return.

What rational thought have I lost? I am just quoting an msnbc article that Bush could end this by reversing the executive order signed by his father, but he does not want to ruin his 22% chance at a legacy.
How does this remotely involve my man-crush on Obama, I have not brought him in a long time.

Cardinal asked a legitimate question about why you say he bypasses Congress to put forth his own agenda on one issue but then say he's a coward who wants Congress to take the fall instead of doing it himself on another issue. And you didn't answer it but instead went on about Bush's approval rating. I was just trying to explain to Card that there is no point trying to get a logical response from you until this election is over.

Bman wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:

Bman wrote:Read an article today that Bush is requesting Congress to lift the ban when in fact there is an Executive Order prohibiting drilling signed by his father, all he would have to do was revoke the Executive order and drilling could commence but he wants congress to take the fall in the coastal states popularity ... coward. Have some balls George ... if you want to drill revoke your dad's executive order.

So you propose he bypasses congress completely and puts his own agenda ahead of what the nation might want? Seems that's what you're railing against him for Iraq on.. or at least that's what the Dem's like to play.. they always ignore that congress voted to go to war...

Bush lost his balls now that his approval rating is lower than Nixon, Hoover and Carter ... lowest approval rating of any modern President. Not sure what constitutes modern but that is how the press is reporting his approval rating. Bush just wants Congress to take the wrath for this move when this ban was created by an executive order, end it with an executive order. Poor George ... he's lost his balls.

since you brought up approval ratings... http://www.gallup.com/poll/108142/Confidence-Congress-Lowest-Ever-Any-US-Institution.aspx

So the Democrat controlled Congress has a 12% approval rating and the President has a 26% approval.... would you care to point out any other stat's that make your party look worse than the President?

The offshore drilling ban went into effect in 1981 and was passed by congress. The 1st president Bush did something else.

"The Congressional moratorium was first enacted in 1982, and has been renewed every year since. It prohibits oil and gas leasing on most of the outer continental shelf, 3 miles to 200 miles offshore. Since 1990, it has been supplemented by the first President Bush’s executive order, which directed the Interior Department not to conduct offshore leasing or preleasing activity in areas covered by the legislative ban until 2000. In 1998, President Bill Clinton extended the offshore leasing prohibition until 2012. One person familiar with the deliberations inside the White House said that Mr. Bush was briefed on Tuesday by his top aides, including Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, and that the aides recommended lifting the executive order."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/washington/18drill.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Gotta get your liberal sources correct Bman....

Lift the leasing ban ... do something George.

Scooby01_98 wrote:The offshore drilling ban went into effect in 1981 and was passed by congress. The 1st president Bush did something else.

"The Congressional moratorium was first enacted in 1982, and has been renewed every year since. It prohibits oil and gas leasing on most of the outer continental shelf, 3 miles to 200 miles offshore. Since 1990, it has been supplemented by the first President Bush’s executive order, which directed the Interior Department not to conduct offshore leasing or preleasing activity in areas covered by the legislative ban until 2000. In 1998, President Bill Clinton extended the offshore leasing prohibition until 2012. One person familiar with the deliberations inside the White House said that Mr. Bush was briefed on Tuesday by his top aides, including Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, and that the aides recommended lifting the executive order."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/washington/18drill.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Gotta get your liberal sources correct Bman....

This is very bad doo doo. If he does this, and congress cannot overturn. I believe it will further the chances that Obama is elected. I get the impression that there is a wave of interest in alternative energy swelling that will wash that doo doo out of the white house over this decision. Unless this is a sign that gas prices are going to drop significantly until November.

[quote="cardinal5150]
So you don't feel it would be prudent for us to at least investigate what is up in ANWR and the NPRA ares in Alaska to see if perhaps the high estimates (equal to 30 years of imports) are accurate?[/quote]

Tough call... I think I would rather see that money spent to eliminate the inefficiencies in our current infrastructure. I was away a week, so a lot of folks have made the points I wanted to make (Vis). At the core, I dont see that we should try to solve this issue with more oil.

pez wrote:[quote="cardinal5150]
So you don't feel it would be prudent for us to at least investigate what is up in ANWR and the NPRA ares in Alaska to see if perhaps the high estimates (equal to 30 years of imports) are accurate?

Tough call... I think I would rather see that money spent to eliminate the inefficiencies in our current infrastructure. I was away a week, so a lot of folks have made the points I wanted to make (Vis). At the core, I dont see that we should try to solve this issue with more oil.[/quote]

So assuming we somehow manage to figure out a way to solve our energy need without oil, we shouldn't then use that oil we have to sell to other nations to make money to help lower our taxes, or fund the research for those other answers?

That's one of my biggest issues with the drilling. yes.. it will help us, no matter what is there, but it can also be used to benefit u$ down the road if/when we get off oil.

cardinal5150 wrote:
So assuming we somehow manage to figure out a way to solve our energy need without oil, we shouldn't then use that oil we have to sell to other nations to make money to help lower our taxes, or fund the research for those other answers?

That's one of my biggest issues with the drilling. yes.. it will help us, no matter what is there, but it can also be used to benefit u$ down the road if/when we get off oil.

Might be great in theory, but how does that money get from the oil companies to the pockets of taxpayers? Also, If there is a new (albeit finite) abundance of oil, then it the incentive to develop alternatives is back-burnered and the money will go elsewhere. Nationalization of oil production may be a way to direct it as you speak....

pez wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:
So assuming we somehow manage to figure out a way to solve our energy need without oil, we shouldn't then use that oil we have to sell to other nations to make money to help lower our taxes, or fund the research for those other answers?

That's one of my biggest issues with the drilling. yes.. it will help us, no matter what is there, but it can also be used to benefit u$ down the road if/when we get off oil.

Might be great in theory, but how does that money get from the oil companies to the pockets of taxpayers? Also, If there is a new (albeit finite) abundance of oil, then it the incentive to develop alternatives is back-burnered and the money will go elsewhere. Nationalization of oil production may be a way to direct it as you speak....

Actually.. the government makes more money on gas than the oil companies do.. According to the Dept of Energy 10% of the price of gas goes to refiners (to cover costs outside of the crude oil and profits) and 11% goes the US Gov't (who have no costs).

I don't think the need to develop alternatives will ever go away.. if we find an abundance of oil anywhere (ANWR, Florida, my yard, your yard) I doubt we'll see gas ever go below $2.. hell.. $3. again. But, if we can keep it below $5-6 by using our own resources... I see that as a good thing.

I did get a kick out of the Florida Elected Official (sorry, I can't remember her name or what she was) but I believe she was the comptroller or something to that effect. She was on CNBC friday and basically said she doesn't want drilling off Florida because we can drill in Colorado and the Rockies, and as long as we can go somewhere else we shouldn't bother her. Basically she was all for drilling, just not in her state.

[quote="cardinal5150]I did get a kick out of the Florida Elected Official (sorry, I can't remember her name or what she was) but I believe she was the comptroller or something to that effect. She was on CNBC friday and basically said she doesn't want drilling off Florida because we can drill in Colorado and the Rockies, and as long as we can go somewhere else we shouldn't bother her. Basically she was all for drilling, just not in her state.[/quote]

Aaahhh the NIMBY syndrome. I would rather see it the other way. Colorado is beautiful around the rockies, while I think FL is a *hit hole.