Obama "shifts" on off-shore drilling...

So is this a "shift"? A "flip-flop"? A "reconsideration"?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_el_pr/obama

I'd love to see how gung-ho Obama supporters would classify this! If McCain did this, oh my oh my, he'd be called a flip-flopper on here faster than you can "that chit is weak."

I think they have already called McCain a flip flopper on this issue since he has previously voted against off shore drilling. Now we will have to see if they call BHO the same thing.

Does that mean we don't have to keep our tires inflated now?

Hey, if Obama votes that you don't have to keep them inflated, there you go...

obamas reply on the question..i wont post the whole thing or card wont read it

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/campaign.wrap/index.html

i was disappointed when he mentioned a potential compromise altho he has always said getting a good but imperfect bill to pass (COMPROMISE) is better than refusing to pass anything that isnt everything you want--regardless of which side of the fence your on. i knew the antiobamas would have a field day with it..

so I'm confused ....do I put more air in the tires or let some out.....is that hot air?

yeah... that's not a flip flop or anything... that goes along with the ocean front property everyone's got for sale as well...

I like that they have the quote from late June in there contradicting his new stance.

Mort wrote:so I'm confused ....do I put more air in the tires or let some out.....is that hot air?

Mort, just watch Fox News... they'll report, you decide.

I'm glad Obama's willing to consider opening up drilling offshore. I like the fact he's saying as a piece of a larger more comprehensive energy policy that WORKS towards sustainable energy not saying sure you just go ahead and screw up all of the shoreline looking or drilling for oil.

Quote from an article I just read this morning ... link at the bottom, I would post more of the article but it was pretty critical on McCain and I don't want to piss those off in here who have their heads buried in the sand.

We should all take the time to read the article though, the writer makes some very valuable points ... honestly.

Quote:

The Department of Energy estimates that there are eighteen billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in offshore areas of the continental United States that are now closed to drilling. This sounds like a lot, until you consider that oil is a globally traded commodity and that, at current rates of consumption, eighteen billion barrels would satisfy less than seven months of global demand. A D.O.E. report issued last year predicted that it would take two decades for drilling in restricted areas to have a noticeable effect on domestic production, and that, even then, “because oil prices are determined on the international market,” the impact on fuel costs would be “insignificant.” Just a few months ago, McCain himself noted that offshore resources “would take years to develop.” As the oilman turned wind farmer T. Boone Pickens has observed, “This is one emergency we can’t drill our way out of.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26001750/

meta4 wrote:...sure you just go ahead and screw up all of the shoreline looking or drilling for oil.

Hey, why are you so upset, were you looking to build and live up in ANWR?

LTRT wrote:

meta4 wrote:...sure you just go ahead and screw up all of the shoreline looking or drilling for oil.

Hey, why are you so upset, were you looking to build and live up in ANWR?

LT, if you want to get elected as President, you'll have to look at a map. ANWR is on land, off-shore means just that.

**added with an edit**
Take a look at the CNN link that FF posted, it has a great map that shows the north coast of Alaska is open to, and currently being drilled. My suspicion is that Big Oil just wants to get their hands on ANWR to increase the number of pumps, edge out competition, and get to the oil faster than Canadian oil companies which are close to ANWR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anwrmap.jpg

*** end edit ***

I have relatives that live in Alaska. My mother just returned from spending about 10 months living up there. It's a great place to live and maybe one day after I win the lottery, I just might build a little shack, buy me a git'tar and record an album of cover songs. My first one would be an obvious "communist" song...

I'd like to buy the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees
And snow white turtle doves.

Chorus:
I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I'd like to buy the world a Coke
And keep it company
That's the real thing.

Interesting how a complete shift in policy is viewed as being open to new ideas by the messiah but if McCain would have done it it's viewed as a senile old man who can't make up his mind....

cardinal5150 wrote:Interesting how a complete shift in policy is viewed as being open to new ideas by the messiah but if McCain would have done it it's viewed as a senile old man who can't make up his mind....

Yep. That's what touting one's political "experience" as qualification on a "McSame as Bush" platform appears like... most definitely. You've just described more or less what many analysts believe is a major push for the Obama campaign.

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:Interesting how a complete shift in policy is viewed as being open to new ideas by the messiah but if McCain would have done it it's viewed as a senile old man who can't make up his mind....

Yep. That's what touting one's political "experience" as qualification on a "McSame as Bush" platform appears like... most definitely. You've just described more or less what many analysts believe is a major push for the Obama campaign.

That people are ignorant and will believe however the media spins things?

cardinal5150 wrote:

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:Interesting how a complete shift in policy is viewed as being open to new ideas by the messiah but if McCain would have done it it's viewed as a senile old man who can't make up his mind....

Yep. That's what touting one's political "experience" as qualification on a "McSame as Bush" platform appears like... most definitely. You've just described more or less what many analysts believe is a major push for the Obama campaign.

That people are ignorant and will believe however the media spins things?

Close. I think it suggests that one candidate is more sensitive to Cognitive Dissonance than another. We report, you decide.

New off-shore drilling is an absolute joke. By the time we actually get oil, we could have established alternatives. People bitch about "middle-eastern" oil, and we barely get any oil from there.

It's mostly psychological.. people want to see the gov't is trying to get us off foreign oil... it'll do a lot to calm fears of shortages.... look at us right now.. we don't have an oil shortage, refining.. maybe... but not oil. However, the oil prices are shooting everything else up. To say we'll drill anywhere we can will get into people's heads that we're going to beat this.. meanwhile.. we can do more in wind, solar and nuclear to get us truly off foreign energy.

Something McCain has been pushing from the start of his campaign.

cardinal5150 wrote:It's mostly psychological.. people want to see the gov't is trying to get us off foreign oil... it'll do a lot to calm fears of shortages.... look at us right now.. we don't have an oil shortage, refining.. maybe... but not oil. However, the oil prices are shooting everything else up. To say we'll drill anywhere we can will get into people's heads that we're going to beat this.. meanwhile.. we can do more in wind, solar and nuclear to get us truly off foreign energy.

Something McCain has been pushing from the start of his campaign.

I think there's a little more than psychology going on, unless you were describing how you, yourself, have adopted a willing suspension of disbelief in the above statements. Check out what the US produces and compare it to how much it imports, and consumes on a daily basis. Then tell me we don't have an oil shortage.

I used these sources so you can look for yourself decide if I'm reading the numbers correctly.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

We produce almost as much crude per day as what we import from OPEC, plus we import TWICE that amount per day from other (non-OPEC) sources. That's why were DEPENDENT on FOREIGN oil. Our net dependence on foreign sources of petroleum is over 58%. Anyone who says we're not dependent on foreign oil is either lying, ignorant, or completely deceived by some sort of "fuzzy" math.

I'm not looking for the candidates to DO what's need to be done, I'm looking to investors, the public, etc. to change the dependence. WTF is McCain or Obama going to do?

[quote="meta4]
I think there's a little more than psychology going on, unless you were describing how you, yourself, have adopted a willing suspension of disbelief in the above statements. Check out what the US produces and compare it to how much it imports, and consumes on a daily basis. Then tell me we don't have an oil shortage.

I used these sources so you can look for yourself decide if I'm reading the numbers correctly.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

We produce almost as much crude per day as what we import from OPEC, plus we import TWICE that amount per day from other (non-OPEC) sources. That's why were DEPENDENT on FOREIGN oil. Our net dependence on foreign sources of petroleum is over 58%. Anyone who says we're not dependent on foreign oil is either lying, ignorant, or completely deceived by some sort of "fuzzy" math.

I'm not looking for the candidates to DO what's need to be done, I'm looking to investors, the public, etc. to change the dependence. WTF is McCain or Obama going to do?[/quote]

Well we don't have an oil shortage as there is plenty of oil on the world market to buy. This is nothing like in the 70's when OPEC was refusing to pump oil and oil was scarce on the world market.

We do have a dependancy problem as to we use too much oil. Refuse to use our own oil by drilling for more. Or switch to alternative forms of energy. We learned nothing from the 70's, we sat on our butts in the 80's & 90's not caring because oil was running anywhere from $12 to $30 a barrel. Now with oil at $100+ it's what is the government going to do. Unfortunately there is no quick solution, we need to pay for our abuse of oil.

Taking oil from the strategic reserve isn't going to do anything. We stopped putting in 70,000 barrels a day 2 or 3 months ago and oil still went from $100 to $140. Drilling off shore really isn't a real option because every off shore drilling rig is rented so until they build more nothing will happen except for a psychological boost, even that will not help if something else blows up in the middle east. However, opening up these areas will help keep our dependancy lower in the future as the world oil supply dries up and new alterative fuels come on line and become more affordable to use.

I know, it's sick, but I think you realize more than 99% of America. It's not going to make a difference if we open oil drilling, seriously its a tiny band aid. The campaigns are "hogging" the media spotlight and even though there have been many warning messages, and warning signs, people are just going to sit back until it smacks them so hard in the face they are forced to get up off their butts and affect change.

One thing that's been perplexing is that maybe the media is not reminding the public on the progress of the shift in balance off petroleum and onto alternative energies (wind, nuclear, solar, hydro, etc.) The eerie thing is that perhaps there is very little change in that regard or absolutely none at all, in which case we need to depend on our elected officials to begin to use their power to force the hand of the energy providers in that direction.

I think the next sector of change will be a very quick and easy method to transfer energy into something usable. Like a $1000 conversion kit to turn street lamps into vending machine style charge stations for electric cars. The kind that will allow me to drive an electric car 40 miles and then recharge for a couple bucks while It's parked. I think a 220 volt power source for 2 to 3 hours could do one to three vehicles. I just look at the vending machine that costs $1000 and sells 6 dollars worth of snacks in a day to be a very marketable channel. It's not like street lamps are being used during the day.

There just isn't enough incentive from the people to curtail demand enough for Big Oil to listen and move. The two are joined like Siamese twins.

meta4 wrote:

Mort wrote:so I'm confused ....do I put more air in the tires or let some out.....is that hot air?

Mort, just watch Fox News... they'll report, you decide.

Thanks Meta4 that made it easier

We need to quit oil altogether use synthetic oil to lube with and go to another source fossil fuel is old school

Its time to give it up...its done nothing but harm to the planet and its people and resources

Now in this life time please.........

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:It's mostly psychological.. people want to see the gov't is trying to get us off foreign oil... it'll do a lot to calm fears of shortages.... look at us right now.. we don't have an oil shortage, refining.. maybe... but not oil. However, the oil prices are shooting everything else up. To say we'll drill anywhere we can will get into people's heads that we're going to beat this.. meanwhile.. we can do more in wind, solar and nuclear to get us truly off foreign energy.

Something McCain has been pushing from the start of his campaign.

I think there's a little more than psychology going on, unless you were describing how you, yourself, have adopted a willing suspension of disbelief in the above statements. Check out what the US produces and compare it to how much it imports, and consumes on a daily basis. Then tell me we don't have an oil shortage.

I used these sources so you can look for yourself decide if I'm reading the numbers correctly.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

We produce almost as much crude per day as what we import from OPEC, plus we import TWICE that amount per day from other (non-OPEC) sources. That's why were DEPENDENT on FOREIGN oil. Our net dependence on foreign sources of petroleum is over 58%. Anyone who says we're not dependent on foreign oil is either lying, ignorant, or completely deceived by some sort of "fuzzy" math.

I'm not looking for the candidates to DO what's need to be done, I'm looking to investors, the public, etc. to change the dependence. WTF is McCain or Obama going to do?

I was referring to the price of oil being psychological... not dependency on foreign oil.

meta4 wrote:I'm not looking for the candidates to DO what's need to be done, I'm looking to investors, the public, etc. to change the dependence. WTF is McCain or Obama going to do?

So you're basically saying we should do nothing then right? Unless you have a plan to change people's dependence, that is.

Markwes wrote:

meta4 wrote:I'm not looking for the candidates to DO what's need to be done, I'm looking to investors, the public, etc. to change the dependence. WTF is McCain or Obama going to do?

So you're basically saying we should do nothing then right? Unless you have a plan to change people's dependence, that is.

My point, which I thought was very clear, was that I'm not so worried about this particular issue being as some would say a 'Messiah' issue. The problem lies equally on the shoulders of all petroleum users in the US.

I haven't said anything beyond this, go figure, a punctuation mark generally denotes the end of a sentence.