What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- jabberwolf, on 08/02/2008, -56/+155Wait for it. Now he will say he was ALWAYS for offshore drilling because he knew it would world - just wait.
- spookyttws, on 08/02/2008, -29/+20No, I'd think not. He needed to take that position. It's impossible to say you're open to all options to help the energy crisis including renewable fuels and not have offshore drilling as an option. John McCain recently changed his position from being against it, and now Obama followed suit. It's not a 'flip flop' or whatever *****. They both simply looked more closely at the issue and decided that it had to be on the table.
- michl2077, on 08/03/2008, -5/+17I just feel bad for those who went out and voted in the primaries. Barack beat Hillary based on a list of ideas that were different than hers. Now, as it gets closer to the election he has switched his opinion to be in line with hers. He played the game really well, but the voters end up with someone never knowing what he stands for.
- p51d007, on 08/03/2008, -3/+16what to you expect. He's a POLITICIAN
- tkstock, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1It's another example of how John McCain leads where it counts. He takes the right positions without having to be politically expedient. He doesn't lead on the whim of the polling data.
- QuadZeroRoute, on 08/03/2008, -23/+48OBAMA FLIP FLOPS
- Awspire, on 08/03/2008, -5/+28And there's your "change".
- Kanten, on 08/03/2008, -22/+12A complete contrast to McCain, who flipflops more than John Kerry at the IHOP.
- paulmer2003, on 08/03/2008, -9/+14Welcome to the real world. Show me a polition who has never changed their opinion.
Anyway, better than someone like Bush, who keeps the opnion even if the situation changes! - arvvvs, on 08/03/2008, -3/+9i don't think he'll say he was always for this. Quoting Time:
The Illinois Senator says he might be willing to OK some drilling off Florida’s west coast if included in a comprehensive energy bill.
Tells Florida reporters: “If… we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.” - Daniel591992, on 08/03/2008, -2/+6It's a compromise (hence the "if it is in a broader package of energy measures that would free the logjam on energy bills in Congress" part).
- bjornski, on 08/03/2008, -4/+4I'd be open to more drilling with one provision.
NOT ONE drop gets sold outside the U.S.
Without that provision, more oil on the global market isn't going to do crap for prices. - FerricOxide, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2@paulmer2003
I think Ron Paul never changes his position on free trade. In fact, he even voted against more stringent screening of lead in toys. However, in his defense, there were a bunch of other things hidden in that bill that you'd probably not want regulated. - siszam, on 08/03/2008, -3/+2Obama makes informed decisions based on a multitude of things. Compromising or changing your mind when things change or you know more is something a president should be able to do.
Flip flopping is randomly changing your mind for a self serving purpose. Huge difference.
We've had a president who dug in and refused to change even as our troops died, the economy started to fail and everything went to hell. Wouldn't it be nice if he changed his mind and his course now and then?
That said, I disagree with Obama on this. - JoshReflek, on 08/03/2008, -5/+1"he needed to take that position"
oh really?
why not just drill for oil in alaska, where its already permitted, authorized and abundant?
instead of further destroying our environment where it's not needed...
this is another example of:
Democrat = Republican = meaningless
They are all the same candidate.
None are dealing with real issues like
Abortion
Budget
millitary spending
national debt
illegal firing and hiring of DOJ and other branches
diebold tampering
FISA
patriot act
use of tasers
value of the dollar
IRS corruption
propaganda talking points forcefed through mass media
Abuse of 'executive privilige'
.....the list of real things to talk about goes on for miles
the only "Change" oSAMEa represents, is changing his side to fit the current audience.
***** this ***** election.
"as long as we only sell ourselves the oil"
why would that be good? we're the ones getting raped at the pump
how about
"as long as we dont steal oil from foreign nations"
- Awspire, on 08/03/2008, -5/+28And there's your "change".
- mikemx7f, on 08/03/2008, -15/+21Somehow I doubt it. If flip-flopping means actually leaving all options on the table and not being extremely closed-minded about everything I'm all for it. Didn't people used to criticize Bush for the whole "I'm going to run us into a brick wall, but not flinch while doing it" attitude?
Besides, if you read the article, Obama does not say he wants offshore drilling, he's just acknowledging the fact that "not giving an inch" utterly fails in a democracy. Honestly, if political leader didn't compromise with other powerful people in politics, he (or she) would seem far more like a dictator.- tkstock, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1So, he's learning what John McCain has known for a long time - you get things done by reaching compromises. Too bad he didn't join the Gang of 14. What limited experience Obama has ill prepares him to lead this country.
- chourobin, on 08/03/2008, -11/+19He is personally AGAINST offshore drilling. I would like to point out McCain also changed his position on this issue in June.
What is sad is 76% of americans are too stupid to do simple math. Demand is 86 million barrels of oil per day, and supply is at 85 million barrels, yet the latest figures ive heard on Fox News is that in as LITTLE as 5-7 years, offshore drilling can bring up 2 WHOPPING MILLION BARRELS per day. So let's say world demand of oil stays at 86 million, is adding 2 million barrels in 5-7 years REALLY going to bring prices down? Don't be NAIVE.. oil prices are here to stay, no matter what we do.
The only way is to gradually consume less and convert to electric/alternatives. Put money in people's pockets to cope with the expenses as we transition. It is possible, just look at Brazil, a country that imports NO oil and produces its ethanol from its sugarcane crop. If we follow their model, a model Obama supports, we will be fine.- scragg0x, on 08/03/2008, -9/+10simple math: +2 million > +0
- p51d007, on 08/03/2008, -4/+7But, the THREAT of alternatives to the middle east, will force the speculators to reign back their prices.
- Awspire, on 08/03/2008, -7/+10Ya, so lets show the world that the U.S. is TOTALLY dependent on foreign oil by NOT exploring domestically. That'll certainly keep OPEC prices stable.
Lets ***** start goin already, we may hit the motherload or improve our ability to extract crude domestically. But, God forbid we spook a few owls, while our Ambulances will be stuck road side waitin for a gallon of gas. Oh, and as for bio-fuels, I'm not looking to trade off $5 a gallon for a $50 piece of meat. And Brazil's sugar crop is damn near harvested by slave labor. - chourobin, on 08/03/2008, -5/+5Look to Iraq, which has current infrastructure ready to pump oil.. At its peak production in the 1990s, it was making around 4.5 million barrels per day. Today, production is at 2.6 million. Want your 2 million? GO get it from Iraq. Stop this drilling nonsense at the risk of catastrophic and costly environmental damage. You have to think about the damage an accident can do to coastlines, tourism, economic impact. I kinda wished we allowed drilling, and then I would get to laugh when a major accident happens. Then the people will point fingers to our congress of course.. never to ourselves. ***** you all.
- chourobin, on 08/03/2008, -6/+2how about electric power u *****? I feel thats the true solution to our oil dependency, since we produce more than enough electricity at night to charge our car batteries. Even if we dont, electric infrastructure is in place, and its easy to make electricity from wind, nuclear, coal, natural gas. Add a e-flex system for prolonged travel distances, and you're set.
- blcarmadillo, on 08/03/2008, -1/+8Yes McCain did switch his opinion. But, his initial opinion was formed back when gas was much less expensive. Now that gas has skyrocketed it shows that McCain is logical and humble enough to see that he is wrong and make a change that he is not going to waiver on. Obama on the other hand continued to object to drilling despite the fact it would help us. It's like how he wouldn't admit that the surge in Iraq did what it was supposed when he voted against the surge because he said it would be an absolute failure. Obama is to thick headed and egotistic to realize that when he is wrong he should admit he was wrong and do what is best for the American people.
- jabberwolf, on 08/03/2008, -1/+3THIS IS TRUE
But you're ignoring 1 thing - the reason the price is so ***** high : SPECULATORS.
This was very good at sending speculators running and the price of oil dropping.
Everyone agrees with alternative methods plan, EVERYONE.
But only Obama and people like you ignore immediate fixes as well, while we wait for the future fixes.
Doing nothing now, still does NOTHING !!
Buried for ignoring EVERY ***** ASIDE FROM YOUR OWN REALITY = which isnt everyone elses. - JoshReflek, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2Drill.
in.
Alaska.
its abundant, permitted, official and ready to go.
offshore drilling contains an ulterior motive...
- VitriolAndAngst, on 08/03/2008, -17/+9Offshore drilling is going to do NOTHING to lower the price at the pump.
Obama is just being smart and supporting this useless giveaway to Big Oil, because -- as we can see here on Digg, most of America is too ignorant to understand that we have Oil waiting to be refined, sitting in super tankers off our shore right now.- blcarmadillo, on 08/03/2008, -3/+5Super tankers? WTH. You mean to tell me there are a bunch of huge tanks full of oil just floating around off our coast. Jeez... why hasn't anyone gone out there and towed them in sounds like an environmental risk to me.... what if one of those massive floating tanks where to strike something and leech its toxic oil in the ocean killing wild life. Dammit PETA get your ass out there.
- cutchyacokov, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2I think he is referring to the fact that the largest current bottleneck in north american oil infrastructure isn't the source of crude oil, it is the capacity of our current refineries. Having said that I somehow doubt that this has caused oil tankers to sit offshore and wait for refinery space to be emptied but I admit not being fully versed on the current situation.
- jabberwolf, on 08/03/2008, -2/+5Um it already sent speculators scurrying back.. and the price of oil dropped.
NEXT!!! - VitriolAndAngst, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1God you people are stupid.
The people ripping you off are laughing at you.
Jabberwolf -- I've been predicting this for about a year now, that the price of gas at the pump would go down magically before the elections. It will just as magically go back up.
"our" oil companies are exporting more oil pumped on American soil this year than they ever have. THEY don't pay that price that you see touted as the example of a supply&Demand oil price. They don't pay $140 per barrel, because with most countries they buy it from they have production sharing agreements -- which means they pay THEMSELVES $140 per barrel.
That huge profit they got is only the operating margin that they show in this country -- it is not the total picture, and I'm pretty sure that they pay other divisions of their own company and realize the profit somewhere else. Multinationals have been doing this trick for years.
Some of that oil is NOT getting refined, because it is owned by speculators. It is sitting around waiting for the higher price.
- pjpark, on 08/03/2008, -1/+9It was very courageous of him to say that after Pelosi sent everyone home.
- chriskzoo, on 08/03/2008, -3/+15Her you go:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/campaign.wr ...
"Obama says offshore drilling stance nothing new"
"...on Saturday morning, Obama said this "wasn't really a new position."
"I made a general point about the fact that we need to provide the American people some relief and that there has been constructive conversations between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on this issue," he said during a press conference in Cape Canaveral.
There is NOTHING this guy will not say to get a vote - the key is if he gains more votes than he loses. In the end, I think it might be a McCain landslide as a referendum against Obama.- Wetzilla, on 08/03/2008, -5/+1This actually seems to be more what he has been about all along, getting ***** done. He is saying that if this is something that is required to get some other energy reforms through congress, then he would allow it. It's called a compromise. I understand that most people aren't used to seeing this in our congress, so it might be confusing for you and cause you to just dismiss it as "pandering".
- n00ptic, on 08/03/2008, -6/+2Look at that. You couldn't even take five minutes to read the article, so now you look like a complete and utter moron to anyone that actually read it. At least the informed people will know just how dumb you are.
- insomniac8400, on 08/03/2008, -7/+2So what Obama compromises on a side issue republicans are stalling the house over and McCain flip flops on everything but his war history. McCain strongly said no new taxes and no negative campaigning. He flipped on both of those.
- jabberwolf, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5Mccain changed his mind on offshore oil drilling.
He admits it, and changes it because our situation is different.
Obama changes his mind, but admits that he was ALWAYS willing to change his mind.
While Mccain changes his mind,
Obama changes his mind AND HIS STORY! - insomniac8400, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1McCain has flipped on every fundamental issue to his campaign. Hell even his own campaign staff says McCain doesn't speak for the campaign. Anything you can dream up about Obama can be said 10 fold for McCain.
- jabberwolf, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5Mccain changed his mind on offshore oil drilling.
- WasabiBomb, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2From the article:
"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."
The only people who can view that as flipflopping are the people who were going to take offense at anything he does, anyway. - jabberwolf, on 08/03/2008, -2/+4AHAHAHAHHA
This Saturday he did it!
He said he was for oil drilling a as a compromise.
That his policy is the same, and has never changed. (aside from tha little thing called offshore drilling) !!
And yes WE ALL READ THE ARTICLE AND THE "COMPROMISE" that only now he is willing to concede to.
But today Obama did as predicted, something he would not budge on, he budges on, and now says he was ALWAYS willing to budge on.
AND LETS QUOTE:
"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama told The Palm Beach Post early into a two-day swing through Florida.
But on Saturday morning, Obama said this "wasn't really a new position."- griffinjam, on 08/03/2008, -0/+0One of the things that drew me to Obama in the first place was the fact that he is able to sit down and realize that he will never get what he wants if he doesn't compromise. Personally, I'm against off-shore drilling, but I can totally see where he's coming from. If, by allowing some new drilling rigs to go up, we are able to get more funding for alternative energy research, possible removing the need for more oil, then I'm all for it.
You all see his willingness to compromise to get what he wants as a bad thing, I see it as an essential ability that a president needs to have. - tkstock, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2Too bad he didn't join the Gang of 14 when invited...
Obama compromises when it's politically expedient to do so, McCain compromises to get things done.
- griffinjam, on 08/03/2008, -0/+0One of the things that drew me to Obama in the first place was the fact that he is able to sit down and realize that he will never get what he wants if he doesn't compromise. Personally, I'm against off-shore drilling, but I can totally see where he's coming from. If, by allowing some new drilling rigs to go up, we are able to get more funding for alternative energy research, possible removing the need for more oil, then I'm all for it.
- spookyttws, on 08/02/2008, -29/+20No, I'd think not. He needed to take that position. It's impossible to say you're open to all options to help the energy crisis including renewable fuels and not have offshore drilling as an option. John McCain recently changed his position from being against it, and now Obama followed suit. It's not a 'flip flop' or whatever *****. They both simply looked more closely at the issue and decided that it had to be on the table.
- Unicorny, on 08/02/2008, -51/+163Once again, Obama plays his supporters for dupes. Will there be any policy differences between Obama and McCain by the time of the election?
- mrraven200, on 08/02/2008, -12/+38No.
Corporate sock puppets are only allowed a narrow range of opinions because U.S. politics is a two party system funded and broadcast by corporations our political spectrum spans between center right and far right compared to any other western democracy.- DucoNihilum, on 08/02/2008, -11/+16Hey guys, anything that's not USSR style socialism is 'far right'.
- mrraven200, on 08/02/2008, -5/+15Yeah how dare we expect an actual spectrum opinion like you see in Europe, Asia, and Central and South America? Wouldn't want those uppity peasants thinking they had a choice or were living in a democracy or anything. Just accept your "Washington Consensus" and keep buying poison Chinese toys, and e-coli contaminated GMO Spinach, and shut up, right?
- DucoNihilum, on 08/02/2008, -10/+13Just because several countries have turned to socialism does not mean that ours should be one that does too. Democracy is simply tyranny of the majority. I love capitalism- it's made me what I am today. I do not live in a shack, hoping that my crops turn out. I am able to afford food, clothing, and even some special goods. Socialism only tries to hurt everything we have worked to achive.
- bjornski, on 08/03/2008, -3/+8@DucoNihilum
That's pretty funny coming from people who think anything short of laizzes faire capitalism is socialism. - chicofaraby, on 08/03/2008, -4/+11"Socialism only tries to hurt everything we have worked to achive."
Total rubbish. European style socialism has resulted in the highest standards of living the planet has ever seen.
It's not all about you. - nosecohn, on 08/03/2008, -2/+8@DucoNihilum
I think you're confusing Socialism with Communism. This is a common red-baiting tactic used by the right. The Soviets called their communist system a "Socialist" republic, therefore socialism = communism, right? Wrong! A certain degree of socialism is practiced all over the world, including the good old US of A, and it doesn't result in any of the doom and gloom that you're describing. Have you ever driven on the interstate? That's a product of taxpayer funded, centrally planned infrastructure development, i.e. "socialism". Gasp! - modestmouse, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1Corporate sock puppets? Do your homework before you talk out of your ass. What this really stems from is the fact that the same people who now regret re-electing Bush are the ones who will vote for McCain if Obama refuses to drill.
- DucoNihilum, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1"
Total rubbish. European style socialism has resulted in the highest standards of living the planet has ever seen. "
I would disagree. The attacks on the free market in Europe are a big hit on efficiency, not to mention that they're blatant attacks on freedom.
"I think you're confusing Socialism with Communism. "
Are you that pretentious to assume I'm stupid enough not to know the difference?
"! A certain degree of socialism is practiced all over the world, including the good old US of A"
I realize that, and that's a serious problem.
"Have you ever driven on the interstate? That's a product of taxpayer funded, centrally planned infrastructure development, i.e. "socialism". Gasp!
"
I would say that for the most part, private money should go into most projects- there are a few that might need some government funding, a necessary evil I might say. Those include only infrastructure, and other things that the free market can't handle. This does not include shopping centeres, health care, or regulating prices. If the free market can do it, then the government has no business doing it.
- Troy64, on 08/02/2008, -7/+15I guess he will be better looking and a better speaker than McCain.
- skyz, on 08/03/2008, -3/+3it is called 'glamour' what obama has / had
- blcarmadillo, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4Better speaker?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc
Sure....
- topgigmedia, on 08/03/2008, -10/+11Ron Paul supporters: "We told you, Obamanauts!". He is apparently just like the "old Washington" he speaks out against. More and more each day I am envisioning writing in my wife's name as my vote for president.
- Netwatcher, on 08/03/2008, -5/+5Ron Paul....
LOL!
Isn't he off planning to an Anonymous raid on the Federal Reserve or something? - Wetzilla, on 08/03/2008, -0/+5Yeah, he's just like everyone else! Willing to compromise! Oh, wait a second.....
- Netwatcher, on 08/03/2008, -5/+5Ron Paul....
- sodade, on 08/03/2008, -2/+18Obama will make the corporations use lube when they assrape us. That is the one factor convincing me to vote. I am voting for a kinder, gentler corporate assraping. I feel so free and empowered by voting. /s
- paulmer2003, on 08/03/2008, -8/+14Dupes? Uh, no. He's playing the political game. if he refused to consede to offshore drilling AND wanted his other reforms, nobody would go with him.
You *have* to make compromises. Welcome to American politics (and life).- topgigmedia, on 08/03/2008, -1/+6"Welcome to American politics (and life)."
I say to you - welcome to denial. - paulmer2003, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Meh. I voted for Ron Paul. I'm not in denial of anything. I'm no Obama fanatic.
- Unicorny, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Why "compromise" before the issue is even debated?
He also supports ethanol which is looking worse and worse by the day. And nuclear power... In other words, it isn't like there is some great agenda that is furthered by this. There is, however, habitat that will be lost forever and a planet that may never recover.
After watching Clinton sell out, um, "compromise" on every environmental issue it is really depressing to see that Obama will do the same.
This is just another move to show corporate America that he is "safe" and worthy of campaign cash.
- topgigmedia, on 08/03/2008, -1/+6"Welcome to American politics (and life)."
- VitriolAndAngst, on 08/03/2008, -9/+8The only Dupes are the people who think allowing Big Oil to drill more -- when they have millions of acres that they haven't bothered to drill already, is going to have any affect at all.
Of course gas prices will magically go down before November -- and they will just as magically go back up again after November.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time -- and those are the people you've gotta concentrate on." -- George Bush
>> True, true. - Poovey, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1Nope
- TwoKill, on 08/03/2008, -3/+9Did you even read the article? He wants to come to a compromise that will help lower the price of gas but ensure that the environments are kept safe. He won't pass anything until he can ensure the environment sides of things are as he sees fit. Don't read a sensational headline and miss all the substance of whats happening with Obama.
- KLBP, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1But reading an article for the substance gets in the way of making knee jerk comments.
/sarcasm/ - mrraven200, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Would you believe: "He wants to come to a compromise that will help lower the price of gas but ensure that the environments are kept safe." Coming from corporate funded Repigs like Bush? Well guess what it's no more credible coming from corporate funded Dims like Obama?
It's the nauseating corporate controlled sock puppet duopoly stupid.
- KLBP, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1But reading an article for the substance gets in the way of making knee jerk comments.
- n00ptic, on 08/03/2008, -4/+5How about reading the article? because right now you look a complete fool... or perhaps just a liar. I'm not interested enough to make the distinction, but at least one applies.
- WasabiBomb, on 08/03/2008, -2/+5From the article:
"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."
Yeah. I'm not seeing the level of flipflopping you're claiming is happenning.- mrraven200, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Careful well thought out drilling is like careful well thought house wrecking an oxymoron. Alone with his pushing nuclear energy and "clean coal" (probably mined with mountain top removal), it looks like an Obama presidency would be an environmental disaster. This along with the FISA flip flop eviscerating the 4th amendment has turned me into an ex-Obama supporter. Too bad I was looking forward to voting for a candidate with a chance of winning for a change. :(
- mrraven200, on 08/02/2008, -12/+38No.
- ngresonance, on 08/02/2008, -43/+132God, Obama, WHY do you keep flipping on the issues which are most important to your supporters?
- mrraven200, on 08/02/2008, -10/+21Backed by Wall St. Do a google search although he has many small donors, in dollar amount his biggest total by far is from Wall St. Who exactly do you think is on the speed dial of his smart phone?
- QuadZeroRoute, on 08/03/2008, -14/+9"Who exactly do you think is on the speed dial of his smart phone?"
William Ayers, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, Nadhmi Auchi, Alexi Giannoulias
http://www.barackbook.com/ - NOIR, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2I hope I am, but I doubt it.
He sure emails me a lot though. - richirwin, on 08/03/2008, -4/+10QuadZeroRoute, I appreciate that you're just parroting the McCain playbook, but are you sure you want to go down the Rezko path?
Tony Rezko raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for republicans, including George W. Bush.
Tony Rezko was invited and attended the Christmas party at the White House with George W. Bush.
Do you really want to make Tony Rezko part of the debate? You need to think long and hard about that...
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4484360 - richirwin, on 08/03/2008, -7/+5Don't Digg me down, you *****!
Just because you don't like the FACT that Tony Rezko is associated with George W. Bush and the republicans doesn't mean you can hide that FACT.
Merry ***** Christmas. Here's hoping Rezko is BACK in the White House again this year. - richirwin, on 08/03/2008, -4/+2How would you even find this comment to digg it down?
You guys are working hard for your McPoints.
Here's hoping you get a t-shirt or something from McAnus.
- QuadZeroRoute, on 08/03/2008, -14/+9"Who exactly do you think is on the speed dial of his smart phone?"
- Troy64, on 08/02/2008, -11/+30Because he wants to get elected, he has no real principles and that issue was a loser for him.
- Tr33fiddy, on 08/03/2008, -5/+14CHANGE!
Or not.- twomeyw23334, on 08/03/2008, -2/+6He had a position, then he changed it. Isn't change great!!!!
- deadbaby, on 08/03/2008, -5/+3What's so terrible about offshore drilling? The only con I can see is environmental and that is a risk of almost any source of energy. Even our precious solar power relies on toxic batteries. Wind power has been show to hurt migrating birds who fly into the props. Hyrdo-electric has been show to hurt fish.
- Treoinmypocket, on 08/03/2008, -3/+5You are missing the point.
For Obama supporters, the environment is king, Obama has won his support by being a d Democrat. That means environmental issues are priority and corporations are evil. Chief amongst evil corporations are Oil companies. Followed only by military suppliers of personnel and firearms like Blackwater USA.
Obama continues to move away from the core issues that his supporters thought he believed in.
If this race started over and Obama was shown to be who he truly is at the outset, the only thing he'd have going for him would be the black vote and white guilt. Strong, but not sufficient. - NachoBusiness, on 08/03/2008, -6/+5Speak for yourself... I'm an Obama supporter and am glad he now supports offshore drilling. You absolutely can't get elected on a platform of social liberalism and environmentalism. I'm glad he's taking the needed stances to get elected... we need a president who won't start a war just because it seems like a pretty cool thing to do. Sadly that's about all I ask of a president anymore... and McCain fails that test.
Anyone with half a clue knows where Obama stands on issues in his heart and that is with the liberal cause all the way. You just can't get elected saying Liberal stuff, and it's been that way since at least 1980. I'd much rather have a electable closet liberal than an unelectable liberal who says what the base wants to hear. What good is a pacified base if your guy never gets elected? Sheesh. - twomeyw23334, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3NachoBusiness, you realize Obama is hawkish on Iran?
- EtherGnat, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2"What's so terrible about offshore drilling?"
I don't think there's anything terrible about offshore drilling. If you oil production will continue to have difficulties meeting supply you can make a strong economic case for waiting. I believe the best strategy is to delay drilling, and keep our deposits as an extended part of our petroleum preserve.
If you do the math (and adjust for inflation) you'll find the oil in ANWR is worth a trillion dollars more today (yes, that's trillion with a T) than it would have been if the Republicans had been successful in allowing drilling in the 70s. That oil would be gone today--a vital national resource we could never get back.
I know people are concerned about high gas prices, but I think they better get used to it. While prices might drop again temporarily demand is only going to rise. Supply may contract as well, and even if it doesn't it becomes increasingly more difficult to find and expensive to extract.
Tightening our belts now and saving it for the future is the wisest choice IMO. To keep things from getting worse we need to immediately begin to increase our nuclear power capabilities and make big investments in alternative energy research. - bjornski, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2@twomeyw23334
And McCain isn't?
"bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran...."
I won't even bring up the candidates with zero chance of winning. - twomeyw23334, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2bjornski, I didn't claim McCain a pacifist, or that he wouldn't start a war. That's the difference, I'm not making ***** up about the candidate I'm going to vote for.
Nacho is basically praising Obama's political corruption and lack of dignity.
I don't like McCain, just don't like Obama more.
Anyone who is seriously excited about either of these candidates is either ignorant or extremely gullible. - bjornski, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Point taken, twomey. Dugg up.
- mrraven200, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1When will this "lesser of two evils" meme ever die? I'd be genuinely interested in a political contest where say Bob Barr and Ralph Nader were debating real economic, civil liberties, foreign policy, and environmental issues. THAT would make me very proud to be an American.
- Treoinmypocket, on 08/03/2008, -3/+5You are missing the point.
- scragg0x, on 08/03/2008, -5/+1Mccain must be "reaching across the aisle" and jerking him off
- SetOverSet, on 08/03/2008, -1/+9Because he knows you'll still vote for him... it's pretty simple.
- egoideal, on 08/03/2008, -2/+4Screw Obama and his willingness to compromise with republicans. What a horrible trait for a leader to have. Come on conservatives, let's roast the guy as soon as he tries any sort of those "bipartisanship" methods.
- soupdawg30, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1Compromise is good.
- griffinjam, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1And no one on the internet understands sarcasm.
- fluoro, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2"God, Obama, WHY do you keep flipping on the issues which are most important to your supporters? "
It's pretty clear. He knows his supporters are going to vote for him because as bad as he is, McCain is worse. So now he has to try to appeal to the people who currently kind of like McCain.
Any of these politicians would be doing this right now. If Clinton had become the nominee, she'd be doing the same sorts of things. Maybe the specific cases would be different, but the overall strategy of screwing the people who got you the nomination would be the same. - griffinjam, on 08/03/2008, -1/+0This is what politics is about. The U.S. government isn't Burger King, you don't always get to have it your way. Obama wanted to push other energy bills that the Republicans would never go with, things that have the possibility of getting results in a couple years, he saw an opportunity to get what he wanted by helping the other side to get what they want.
Incidentally, have you seen the projections for how long it would take for a new well to even get drilled? if an alternative energy technology becomes viable before that time then there's a good chance that no new wells will be drilled and the compromise would have been totally worth it.
- mrraven200, on 08/02/2008, -10/+21Backed by Wall St. Do a google search although he has many small donors, in dollar amount his biggest total by far is from Wall St. Who exactly do you think is on the speed dial of his smart phone?
- Jordan117, on 08/02/2008, -28/+215Obama's power to attract new people to the political process has its pros and cons. And one major con is that these people, while enthusiastic and idealistic, do not understand politics.
Outrage over this decision is a great example of this. It is impossible to get any meaningful work done in Washington without negotiation and compromise. It's the nature of the legislative beast. Every faction has its own agendas and interests, and most of them must be persuaded to agree to some course of action for anything to get done.
In this case, Obama is using the issue of offshore drilling, something many conservatives support, to crowbar in a slate of energy policies that will do some serious good in terms of moving this country towards alternative energy sources. This is something that we really need to do. And if it can be accomplished by giving a few concessions, then so be it.
And really, Obama's shift on this shouldn't come as a surprise. What did you people think his pledge to work in a bipartisan fashion meant? It's not like he can magically hypnotize the Republicans into complying with his every whim. Bipartisanship means choosing your battles and being flexible with less important issues in order to persuade the other side into cooperating. It won't please the die-hard ideologues who hate giving an inch, but hey, it's progress. And progress, even if it requires some concessions, is better than endless partisan gridlock.
"I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done". That is the key idea here.- 17999, on 08/02/2008, -28/+19SPIN! SPINNAHS@!
- mrraven200, on 08/02/2008, -27/+16B.S. Obama is just another corporate shill who not only now supports off shore drilling, nuclear power, and "clean" coal. Anyone who thinks he represents ANYTHING progressive at this point is way beyond naive. And yes I'll confess I was cautiously sipping the koolaid early on, but as soon as he flipped on FISA which is to protect the 4th amendment, I thew ANY support of him out the window and knew I'd been duped.
- DucoNihilum, on 08/02/2008, -11/+22"B.S. Obama is just another corporate shill who not only now supports off shore drilling, nuclear power, and "clean" coal. "
He supports.... power?! My god, we must put a stop to him! We should all be living in the dark, like true liberals! - mrraven200, on 08/02/2008, -11/+9Duco for starters reaching European levels of efficiency and conservation would save us many gigawatts of electricity and billions of barrels of oil. Then there is solar, wind geothermal, and wave power to be tapped. Uh-oh Bill O and Rush didn't give you any talking points for that response did they?
- DucoNihilum, on 08/02/2008, -9/+7I'm not a big fan of BIll or Rush. Uttering 'european' and 'efficiency' in the same sentence is laughable. As of now, most alternative energy simply isn't viable. The best energy we have right now is oil. If alternative fuels were economically viable, then we would have already moved to them naturally, rather than thru subsidies and socialist projects.
- iofthestorm, on 08/03/2008, -2/+9Nuclear power is fairly clean and cheap, we just need to find a good way of disposing of it. Nuclear energy is the future of electrical power, so stop being a ***** luddite.
- stagmire, on 08/03/2008, -2/+4"Uttering 'european' and 'efficiency' in the same sentence is laughable. "
Why? - alliekins619, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Get that pencil ready to write in Ron Paul then, see how far that gets you when McCain wins because people like you threw their votes away.
- DucoNihilum, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1Much of europe is run by the government, the government isn't really considered 'efficient'.
- mrraven200, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2I was talking ABOUT energy efficiency ducodumbass where the EU clearly leads because they don't have as many for example SUVs or big hard to heat houses. Why is that? Because in the EU the cost fuel includes the true impact on the environment and health at point of purchuse. Where as in the U.S. we externalize those costs onto society, which is also a form of socialism.
"In economics, an externality is an impact on any party not directly involved in an economic decision. An externality occurs when an economic activity causes external costs or external benefits to third party stakeholders who cannot directly affect an economic transaction. In other words, the producers and consumers in a market either do not bear all of the costs or do not reap all of the benefits of the economic activity. For example, manufacturing that causes air pollution imposes costs on others, while planting forests (rather than other agricultural activities) would improve the water quality of those downstream.
In a competitive market, the existence of externalities would mean that either too much or too little of the good would be produced and consumed in terms of overall cost and benefit to society. If there exist external costs (negative externalities) such as pollution, the good will be overproduced by a competitive market, as the producer does not take into account the external costs when producing the good. If there are external benefits (positive externalities) such as in areas of education or public safety, too little of the good would be produced by private markets as producers and buyers do not take into account the external benefits to others. Here, overall cost and benefit to society is defined as sum of the economic benefits and costs for all parties involved."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
In plain terms in the U.S. we socialize costs to the commons and privatize profits leading to bad outcomes like wasteful lifestyles that have terrible hidden costs at the pump and for heating fuel that we all end up paying as a society.
Our system may seem more simple and direct but European "socialism" ends up dealing with the complexity of the fuel cycle and it's real costs which is a more accurate map of reality. - DucoNihilum, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1"where the EU clearly leads because they don't have as many for example SUVs or big hard to heat houses"
SO efficiency means LESS goods? Odd, I thought that optimal efficiency would mean that people could get the absolute most out of their labor.... I guess being poor is alright too though.
"Why is that? Because in the EU the cost fuel includes the true impact on the environment and health at point of purchuse. "
In other words, the government charges you double, and steals the excess income not rightfully owned by the oil companies. Protip- there is no 'true impact on the environment and health'
"Where as in the U.S. we externalize those costs onto society"
Only if we accept that CO2 is causing actual harm, and that humans are the primary source of this 'pollution'. Neither has been proven.
"which is also a form of socialism."
Not when it happens due to inaction...
"In a competitive market, the existence of externalities would mean that either too much or too little of the good would be produced and consumed in terms of overall cost and benefit to society."
That only works if you accept the position that driving a car, owning a home, or basically having some of the products of capitalism is an 'Externality'. The 'our entire source of energy' thing is bad, something created by the socialists to trick people into further abandoning capitalism.
"bad outcomes like wasteful lifestyles that have terrible hidden costs at the pump and for heating fuel that we all end up paying as a society."
A wasteful lifestyle wouldn't have any sort of externalize, it would only effect the person who was being wasteful- in the terms of a possible monetary problem.
- DucoNihilum, on 08/02/2008, -11/+22"B.S. Obama is just another corporate shill who not only now supports off shore drilling, nuclear power, and "clean" coal. "
- Mankar, on 08/03/2008, -12/+5Major damage control.
- aph252, on 08/03/2008, -3/+37well said, jordan
- xman8, on 08/03/2008, -15/+4WOW Jordan, you really good at *****. You must work for the Obama camp. If not, you should.
This is not bipartisanship, this is taking all sides. Worse than flip-flopping.- Myonosken, on 08/03/2008, -3/+8"This is not bipartisanship, this is taking all sides"
Ummm...
- Myonosken, on 08/03/2008, -3/+8"This is not bipartisanship, this is taking all sides"
- Treoinmypocket, on 08/03/2008, -7/+13I think "Obama's power to attract new people to the political process has its pros and cons. And one major con is that these people, while enthusiastic and idealistic, do not understand politics." is absolutely correct and the result is only con combined with ignorant idealism.
If his supporters realized either of your two points, Obama wouldn't be in this race at all.- runCMD, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2LOL. I can't stop laughing!
- solistus, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2I'm an Obama supporter who does understand politics. Plenty of us are fine with this compromise proposal. I think it's a good move given opinion polls on the issue. McCain was gaining traction on this issue; now, that traction is gone. Instead of the Republicans forcing their agenda on us by trying to push up a vote on offshore drilling (which will have no effect on gas prices, btw. none.), Obama is now in a strong position to pursue energy reform, making enough concessions to satisfy moderates without caving in to the right.
- mrraven200, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2If we have a giant ecology damaging offshore oil spill I hope you revise your assessment "without caving in to the right."
- arvvvs, on 08/03/2008, -6/+1To quote Arnold something: "I like flip floppers"
- quattro4444, on 08/03/2008, -7/+2Now wait just a second here...
The main goal of the Republicans has been -- and for months and months, I might add -- to drill offshore to meet our immediate needs, so that we can buy some time and financial resources to develop alternative sources of energy. They have been consistently criticized by supporters of Obama.
Now he becomes a true politician -- coincidentally immediately following the protest by House Repubs that received much praise by American people from either end of the political spectrum -- and you defend him as being wise in understanding the way politics work.
What happened to "hope and change". Just watch him continue to "hope" for the presidency by "changing" his views.- fluoro, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2"The main goal of the Republicans has been -- and for months and months, I might add -- to drill offshore to meet our immediate needs, so that we can buy some time and financial resources to develop alternative sources of energy."
Sure, that's what they say. But there is zero evidence to support this. The oil drillers have access to enormous amounts of land already. But that's almost beside the point. The cost of oil is not so high just because of demand, it's also where it is due to speculation of a war against Iran and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. Could it be all this saber rattling against Iran is just a trick to artificially inflate the cost of oil and to deliver more sought-after land into the hands of the oil drillers even though they don't need it?
Lastly, we have history against your argument that we'll actually develop alternate technologies while we drill in these areas. Say that the cost of oil were to go back down soon and gas costs $1.75 again or something. You think anyone will remember 6 months ago and think, "hey maybe we should be investing in other technologies." No. It always works the other way. Americans will go back to buying SUVs and big ***** trucks and cars again. - quattro4444, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Your arguments apply to Obama as well. We have absolutely no evidence to support anything Obama says, because he has NEVER taken a stand on any issues. This man has no experience, so please, can one of you point to any shred of evidence he provides regarding any of his stances.
The land that has been designated for them to drill on is either too difficult to access or has NO OIL.
I'd like to know who Barack thinks is ultimately going to foot the bill for a bogus "windfall profits tax". Those of you who support Obama need some basic courses in economics. He may be a powerful figure in American politics, but no one is powerful enough to change the most elemental laws of economics.
- fluoro, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2"The main goal of the Republicans has been -- and for months and months, I might add -- to drill offshore to meet our immediate needs, so that we can buy some time and financial resources to develop alternative sources of energy."
- TwoKill, on 08/03/2008, -1/+11I'm glad someone posting here actually read the article.
- mrraven200, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1Yeah geeze shadowfox your so right it's only the 4th mendment of the Bill of Rights why shouldn't Obama treat it like toilet paper just like Bush? Hurray! Eviscerated civil liberties and a trashed environment are soooooo much better when the party doing them has a D instead of an R in front of their name. The letter D that's change I can believe in...
Obama Koolaid fresh and delicious now with 50% less substance! Oh yeah!
- mrraven200, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1Yeah geeze shadowfox your so right it's only the 4th mendment of the Bill of Rights why shouldn't Obama treat it like toilet paper just like Bush? Hurray! Eviscerated civil liberties and a trashed environment are soooooo much better when the party doing them has a D instead of an R in front of their name. The letter D that's change I can believe in...
- CaviMike, on 08/03/2008, -0/+8"Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best."
~Benjamin Franklin - mikemil828, on 08/03/2008, -0/+10Indeed, the only reason why Ron Paul and Bob Barr remain relatively clean is their relative unimportance over all in the grand scheme of things, and they have otherwise never were forced to compromise their positions except for a couple cases.
Look at Barr, the guy was once one of the greatest defenders of the war on drugs, the otherwise failed effort to keep drugs off of American streets, his view on marijuana wasn't that far off of how Harry Anslinger viewed it, it is because of him that marijuana is illegal in D.C. to this day even though voters legalized it back in '98. Now 10 years later he's all for marijuana and the end of the war on drugs, of course it's probably because he lost reelection to congress partially because of his hardliner stance on drugs, that he is this way now. The reason why none of you diggers raised a fuss over this flip flop is because diggers hate the war on drugs themselves. Just think of all the flip floping that would occur if Barr or Paul were actually important in this race.- fluoro, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Bob Barr is a complete ***** who has no principles whatsoever. He was one of the biggest supporters of an impeachment against Clinton, and now he's totally opposed to an impeachment of Bush.
I can completely understand being in favor of the Clinton impeachment, but I can also kind of understand being against it. I can understand being for impeaching any offense, and I can reluctantly understand being against impeachment at all. But being in favor of impeaching someone for Clinton's offense and being against impeaching someone for Bush's offenses is insane and unethical.
- fluoro, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Bob Barr is a complete ***** who has no principles whatsoever. He was one of the biggest supporters of an impeachment against Clinton, and now he's totally opposed to an impeachment of Bush.
- Falldog, on 08/03/2008, -1/+12Exactly. Judging from the comments on this Digg it appears everyone is too blind to notice the truth.
It's a shame that to many people are brainwashed to understand. The die hard Obama fans, who believe he can do no wrong, and the die hard Obama haters who will jump on every opportunity to tear him down, regardless of whether their base is completely made up.
I'm a Obama fan but I understand that in his quest for change he's going to do things he may not agree with and things I may not agree with. Hell, as a politician there are sure to be things he does which I don't agree with. Yet, compared to the many opponents, I agree with this base ideals. There's no perfect politician.- mrraven200, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1I was sipping the Obama koolaid early on but after doing research changed my mind. All of these are easily cinfirmedby google search BTW.
1. By dollar amount he gets most of his money (over 50%) from Wall St.
2. FISA flip flop goodbye 4th amendment REQUIREMENT for an individual warrant before a search. How is this any better than Bush?
3. Supports "clean coal," nuclear energy , and now off shore drilling despite the fact the oil companies are sitting on unused leases and we need to start seriously switching to alternatives NOW!
That's too many negatives for me to seriously consider voting for him, YMMV. - mrraven200, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Rather than digg me down prove me wrong. You can't because like it or not my 3 points above are true.
- mrraven200, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1I was sipping the Obama koolaid early on but after doing research changed my mind. All of these are easily cinfirmedby google search BTW.
- DamnMan, on 08/03/2008, -3/+3"And one major con is that these people, while enthusiastic and idealistic, do not understand politics."
You lost me there. The gist of the statement is that people new to politics should just stay out of politics because they haven't been as brutalized and desensitized by the whole process as you have? Do you see no flaw in the argument that new people with new ideas on what politics should be is a bad thing? It makes your entire comment sound pompous and repellent. Would he be the Democratic nominee without the help of the legions of these "ignorant" new people you speak of with disdain?
The total ban on offshore drilling may indeed be unfeasible. The fact reminds that up until this point his stance has seemed to support the total ban. In that regard no matter how realistic or altruistic as his "clarified" position is, It seems to differ from that of his stance during the Primaries when votes were more important than "get something done"- mikemil828, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2//he gist of the statement is that people new to politics should just stay out of politics because they haven't been as brutalized and desensitized by the whole process as you have?//
It's not that people new to politics should stay out, its that they should tone down their expectations a bit, its hard to make substantial changes immediately when you have to deal with folks that don't necessarily agree with your position and you are unwilling to kill or hurt them and they can likewise do you harm themselves, try and force them to take your position and they'll just dig their heels in more. However if you are flexible, they will be more willing to listen to what you have to say. That's the way it is not merely just in politics but in society in general. - mrraven200, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Yeah geeze people tone down those expectations didn't you learn from Bush that the Constitution is "just a goddamn piece of paper?" Just because we fought the American revolution over that document doesn't mean we shouldn't swallow Obama's koolaid FISA supporting, nuke and off shor vdrilling and all, right?
You act like Obama was promising you change you can believe in, oops he WAS, wasn't he?
Hint the "lesser of two evils" is still hideous evil, still a corporate pawn of the oil comapnies who ALREADY hold thousands of udnrilled acres of off shore oil leases and who is still using our Constitution as a butt wipe.
- mikemil828, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2//he gist of the statement is that people new to politics should just stay out of politics because they haven't been as brutalized and desensitized by the whole process as you have?//
- paulhendrixson, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4Thank you. Brilliant post. Obama never said he wouldn't compromise - which is what you need to do to get stuff done in Washington.
- mrraven200, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1Yeah lets just "compromise" the 4th amendment great idea
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am ...
In the current age our phone calls and email are "paper and effects" and under the new FISA law Obama voted for no warrant is necessary to blatantly violate them.
But hey it's only our basic Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties we are giving up, right? That of course doesn't compare to having a shiny new President whose party's name begins with D, right? Please read this piece and THINK:
http://counterpunch.org/bageant07242008.html
It's people like you who would sell our rights down the river at the drop a faddish hat that makes me one hard lefty who is pro 2nd amendment. Some of us won't watch our Constitutional republic just disappear without a fight. If that means Greens like me and Libertarians and paleo-cons have to form solidarity groups against the corrupt pro centralist, pro globalist, "moderate" middle, so be it, lets get cracking.
If it sounds like I am angry it's because I am, people willing to support Obama no matter what are every bit as dangerous to our civil liberties and overcoming corporate globalist "New World Order" domination as any neo-con Bush supporter.
- mrraven200, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1Yeah lets just "compromise" the 4th amendment great idea
- superkendall, on 08/03/2008, -3/+2Gee, isn't that exactly what McCain is doing as well on issues people accuse him of flip-flops on?
- allnone, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3If people can take a stupid email and believe it, I won't put anything past the typical voter. Obama can do a damn thing if he never makes it to the White House. Sometimes you to behind, so you can do what you need to do to win.
If Obama listened to digg, he would lose and we would have more Repulican criminals back in the White House. - TinternAbbot, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1So you mean, politics as usual? The old politics?
- Lamadave222, on 08/03/2008, -1/+0If liberals like Obama had done the sensible thing twenty years ago and allowed greater oil exploration in all areas then we would not have the "crisis" that we have now. There is no more spurious arguement, and Barry keeps using it, than to say that the oil from "new" offshore drilling will not come online for 5 to 10 to 20 years. If the socialists had not been obstructionist lo these many years, it would already be online. Willing to be bi-partisan for a Marxist mean willing to compromise as long as you get in power and then eliminate the oppostion.....by the way....the demented midget in Iran has suggested that anyone who wants Iran to compromise can go pound sand. How will our first Arab president handle that one?
- 17999, on 08/02/2008, -42/+67I'm telling you, right now, Obama's grandmother is *******!
Oh, wait, he already disowned her... what's left... ... privacy... nup... seperation of church and state... nah...
Taxes! Obama still has our taxes to raise! Phew. - FrankHope, on 08/02/2008, -49/+47The shapeshifter Obama has decided that Exxon's profits are more important than the environment. And of course this will do absolutely nothing to lower gas prices. Crude oil prices and crude oil costs are not in any way correlated. However, gas prices and Exxon profits are totally correlated.
Vote for the Green Party!- sogeshirts, on 08/02/2008, -17/+13Go ahead throw your vote away. You might as well vote for mickey mouse.
- FrankHope, on 08/02/2008, -6/+19Or Donald Duck McCain, or Pluto Obama. More and more people are coming to the conclusion that the real waste of a vote is to cast it for the Democratic/Republican duopoly.
- DucoNihilum, on 08/02/2008, -6/+15This isn't about Exon's profits. Why should we punish a corporation just because they happen to make money? Offshore oil drilling should have been allowed for a long time, there is no reason to ban it.
- bjornski, on 08/03/2008, -2/+4They've had YEARS to drill in the land they've already got leases on.
The Republicans held all three branches of government for YEARS, and decided not to do anything about it.
And NOW it's all the Democrats fault.
Yeah, right.
- mikemx7f, on 08/03/2008, -2/+6Wait, seriously? Because the guy thinks that a compromise which includes elimination of tax breaks for companies like Exxon, and frees up funds for more environmentally friendly advancements?
Consider the alternative. He, and the rest of the democratic party "stick to their guns", and utterly refuse to compromise. You know what happens? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. If you think nothing is a better alternative, you are not in favor of the environment. Perhaps ideologically speaking, you are, but in terms of actually taking steps to help the environment, you are not.- twomeyw23334, on 08/03/2008, -2/+0Good point, the reason our country still has 50% of its electricity generated by coal is because of the enviro wackos.
- r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2Wow, coal is one of the least environmentally-friendly energy sources there is; you're truly an idiot.
- mikemx7f, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1Maybe he was referring to my point that when you refuse to compromise as I'm sure "enviro wackos" would, nothing gets done so the country hasn't been able to move away from coal.
Legislation that requires drastic movements towards environmental-friendliness is guaranteed to be shot down by the people who stand to lose millions by its enactment. You have to compromise and work slowly towards a goal. Unless you have a full-scale revolution, which I, personally, don't want right now. - twomeyw23334, on 08/03/2008, -2/+0How am I an idiot. European countries like France moved to nuclear long ago. But the US, supposedly one of the most advance countries in the world, is still running 30 year old coal plants that run under 40% efficiency. We can build new plants with close to 90% efficiency but that would require building a new coal plant, which enviro hippies are against.
What's wrong with nuclear? A republican named Reagan pushed for nuclear, a republican, ewwwww! So, I am not wrong in claiming our coal dependency is in a large part the result of the enviro wackos policies.
Maybe you are too young to remember, but it wasn't the big oil/coal lobby that stopped nuclear. It was leftists claiming that Reagan wanted to destroy the world with his corporate buddies just to save a few cents on electricity.
- chukd, on 08/03/2008, -2/+5Obama is crazy if he thinks a corporate windfall tax will do anything to lower prices. He increases the cost for the companies to do business, the businesses will just increase the cost of the product. It is simple economics.
- bjornski, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2So is not drilling on leases you already hold, so you can keep it in "inventory" and keep supplies how enough to keep your record profits humming alone.
Use 'em or lose 'em, assholes.
I haven't seen a gas line yet, has anyone else?
There's no shortage of supply. - mikemx7f, on 08/03/2008, -1/+0I didn't notice anywhere where he linked taking money from oil companies to lowering oil prices. The best thing for the oil crisis in the long run would be for oil to be so ridiculously expensive we stop BSing about alternatives and are actually forced to do something about it. In the short run we might need to be ready for another Depression though.
- bjornski, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1The only way any additional drilling plan would reduce prices for the US market is if the oil was sold ONLY in the US market.
Ant' it won't be. Stop fooling yourselves.
- bjornski, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2So is not drilling on leases you already hold, so you can keep it in "inventory" and keep supplies how enough to keep your record profits humming alone.
- sogeshirts, on 08/02/2008, -17/+13Go ahead throw your vote away. You might as well vote for mickey mouse.
- UniqueJewelry, on 08/02/2008, -35/+101I'm not American but it seems Obama says whatever the people want to hear, just depends on who he is talking to at the time. Its not up to me, you guys have to decide between both ends of the proverbial stick.
- akchrs, on 08/03/2008, -7/+27I am American and we see it too. He just says what people want to hear.
- Pake, on 08/03/2008, -5/+8That's called politics. What it comes down to is which candidate does it the least.
- Shiftyeyedgoat, on 08/03/2008, -1/+3Incorrect. It comes down which candidate can convince more people what he's saying will come true.
Still waiting for the coke in the water fountain I was promised in 3rd grade.
- Shiftyeyedgoat, on 08/03/2008, -1/+3Incorrect. It comes down which candidate can convince more people what he's saying will come true.
- Metasquares, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5The interesting thing is that this was something Hillary was doing a lot when the primaries were still going on, and was perhaps why she lost. Now that they're over, Obama is flipflopping all over the place.
- chukd, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4You summed it up so well.
- Unicorny, on 08/04/2008, -0/+0There's always:
votenader.org
- caferrell, on 08/02/2008, -40/+43He is responding to the ***** political ploy of the Republicans. This is so ridiculous. We are facing economic meltdown, unpayable debt and endless war - real problems that need real solutions and we are going to banter about this? It is complete BS
Oil is the most fungible commodity on the planet. That means that it doesn't matter where oil is drilled and it doesn't matter where it is sold, its price will be determined by international markets. If Exxon drills for oil off of the Florida coast, they will sell that oil for the same price as oil of comparable quality from Nigeria or Venezuela or Iran.
It don't make no difference where it comes from.
Therefore, by drilling we will not increase American supplies of oil, we will increase worldwide supplies of oil. The amount that we might increase worldwide supplies might be 1% by the time production ramps up, but it would probably be less than that. Therefore its effect on international market prices will be very slight to unnoticable.
This drilling ***** is a canard, an election ploy and nothing else. The fact that Obama is agreeing with this nonsense is an indication of his lack of moral character and bravery- FrankHope, on 08/02/2008, -17/+11Excellent comment. If we had a responsible MSM that was willing to expose these issues as you have just done, then Republicans wouldn't be able to get away with these ridiculous, childish pranks. As it is, it is up to us in the blogosphere to lead the charge, and hope that the MSM will be shamed into telling the truth so that it will get out to the American People.
- iofthestorm, on 08/03/2008, -3/+3Us in the blogosphere? Are you ***** me?
- DucoNihilum, on 08/02/2008, -6/+17"Oil is the most fungible commodity on the planet. That means that it doesn't matter where oil is drilled and it doesn't matter where it is sold, its price will be determined by international markets. If Exxon drills for oil off of the Florida coast, they will sell that oil for the same price as oil of comparable quality from Nigeria or Venezuela or Iran.
It don't make no difference where it comes from."
However, the laws of supply and demand are still intact. With a greater supply, costs should go down (as this greater supply should help compensate for the very high demand). This might even help cull the speculators, which is a very good thing.- gobbleplex, on 08/03/2008, -8/+7Caferrell's message accounts for the supply and demand that you base your arguement on. You've missed the point that at *most* we could account for an additional 1% of oil supply. How much do you think that would translate to in terms of prices at the pump? 2 cents per gallon? And how long would it take to see that? five years? Ten?
- QuadZeroRoute, on 08/03/2008, -6/+6gobbleplex you are wrong. The shale oil that is being blocked by the Democrats is along the lines of a trillion barrels. More oil than what Saudi Arabia has.
- Metasquares, on 08/03/2008, -2/+4Shale oil has also been much more costly to extract, traditionally.
If we're getting that desperate, perhaps we really *have* hit peak oil. - YZBot, on 08/03/2008, -4/+4Oil is an inelastic commodity. Once you grasp that concept it's easy to see how a small increase in supply will have a huge affect on price.
- twomeyw23334, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4Oil shale is profitable at $50-60 a barrel. Coal CTL at $40. The idea that we have no alternative but expensive oil is purely imaginary.
- EtherGnat, on 08/03/2008, -3/+4"The shale oil that is being blocked by the Democrats is along the lines of a trillion barrels."
And it is very expensive to extract. If you think it's going to result in noticeably lower prices you're mistaken. - NuclearIsShit, on 08/03/2008, -3/+2You are all forgetting that in 5 to 10 years when this oil starts coming online, demand will be much higher than it is now, so the supposed cost benefit would be negated anyway.
- twomeyw23334, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2It will take under 1 year to 3 depending on location, though it may take 7 to go through all the government *****. The reason it takes so long is because the people who make these retarded "it will take too long" comments WANT it to take a long time.
Have you watched "Their will be blood?" Great movie, but do you really believe guys with shovels and coal fired engines could get oil out of the ground in a matter of months but with all our new technology it now takes 10 years!?
In reality, from saying "OK, go" oil is about the fastest thing we can do. Much faster than building a wind farm or solar farm or building a new nuclear plant.
The arguement that the demand will be higher just shows we SHOULD be drilling more now to get ready for the higher demand.
All these arguments coming from you "no we can't" leftists are beyond illogical. It would be laughable if you didn't really believe them. - caferrell, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1@twomeyw23334 , if oil shale were economical at $50-$60 dollars per barrel, don't you think that the Canadian Oil sands in Northwest territiories would be ramping up like crazy. It is cheper and easier to extract oil from oil sands than from oil shale. There is one less step in the process and there is a higher percentage of oil in the matrix.
Oil is now certain to stay above $120, so why isn't there a mad scramble to develop oil shale and oil sands where it is permitted? Because you argument is *****, that why.
Oil shale won't be profitable until oil hits something well over $200 per barrel, and it will produce an ecological disaster. If 10% of oil shale is oil, you have to dispose of the remaining 90% which is full of contaminants. So if you produce 50,000 barrels of oil per day, y also produce 100,000 cubic meters of hazardous waste per day. The cost of dealing responsibly with that waste makes it about impossible to envision oil shale as a profitable resource in the near future. - twomeyw23334, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1@caferrell
As one of my following links mentions, Shell has developed a method to extract oil shale for $30 a barrel. The experimental factor they are waiting on is the "frozen wall barrier" which is purely for environmental protection of surrounding areas, to keep oil from bubbling up outside of designated zones. This, again, is a purely environmental road block, we CAN extract oil shale for dirt cheap, the technology is proven. If you want to call it an ecological disaster, fine, but don't say I'm full of ***** when the technology is proven. Do a god damn Google search.
As far as oil sands, they are attempting to ramp up like crazy in Canada, as another of the links suggests. The problem, as always, is government, which is supposed to be limiting their CO2 pollution over time according to their pollution plan. The current conservative government has been trying to offset CO2 in other areas to allow for more sands extraction as this has been a huge growth area for the country, but there is only so much offsetting they can do.
Search the net, Exxon has also been trying to get into U.S oil shale extraction, only to be turned down by the government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/mar/18/roy ...
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002981.html - caferrell, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1good answers twomeyw23334, thanks
- twomeyw23334, on 08/04/2008, -0/+0thanks for being open minded
- nemo001, on 08/03/2008, -6/+11Not to be rude but a community college near you probably teaches Economics 101. Probably in the first two weeks supply and demand will be discussed.
- NachoBusiness, on 08/03/2008, -2/+6Will they explain that a 1% increase in world supply will result in maybe a 0.3-0.5% drop in American prices, not the massive drop down to sub-$2 gas that Americans want to believe offshore/ANWAR drilling will bring? The above poster is right... I never hear the MSM point out that all of the drilling proposals only amount to marginal price drops, and not any time soon. If I just went by the MSM I might believe anyone who didn't support immediate drilling was a jerk who was making me pay $4 a gallon when with a simple law change I could be paying $1.50 a gallon tomorrow.
- twomeyw23334, on 08/03/2008, -3/+2How about oil shale, which proven reserves account for 100% supply for over 100 years, or CTL, which uses coal, another commodity we have in abundance? Who is paying you to make these ridiculous comments Nacho?
- NachoBusiness, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Where's your source for that "100% supply over 100 years"? If CTL was economically viable companies would be doing it on their own. Thus far they only seem interested in doing it if heavily subsidized. Who's paying you to make THOSE comments? Accusing other editors of being paid is borderline crazy. People can disagree with you without being part of a conspiracy. I *wish* I was getting paid to ramble on Digg...
- twomeyw23334, on 08/03/2008, -0/+0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale#Reserves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Liquefaction_-_C ...
Please note the price break-point for CTL ($35). Companies are starting to build CTL plants
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003569.html
though there are obviously tons of government hurdles to overcome, which is the whole point I'm trying to make. We have the capability to have dirt cheap oil, but the "no we can't leftists" have every excuse in the world to claim that we just can't have cheap oil. CTL has been seeing faster growth in China where pollution is less of a concern.
I can understand the pollution issue. It is a legitimate arguement. But I fail to see why leftist completely lack any balls to ever say what they believe. If you don't want cheap gas because of CO2 pollution, then say it, but don't try to claim that we can't have cheap oil or make other absurd claims to hide your true agenda. I don't see how you can disagree with me, I'm not putting forth an opinion, I'm presenting facts. The fact is we could have dirt cheap oil.
- Rich711, on 08/03/2008, -1/+6Yeah, it's not his fault, it's never Black Jesus' fault!!
- loudmouth11, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1god frankhope you are so wrong
- FrankHope, on 08/02/2008, -17/+11Excellent comment. If we had a responsible MSM that was willing to expose these issues as you have just done, then Republicans wouldn't be able to get away with these ridiculous, childish pranks. As it is, it is up to us in the blogosphere to lead the charge, and hope that the MSM will be shamed into telling the truth so that it will get out to the American People.
- ToeCracker, on 08/02/2008, -33/+85Is there anything this guy won't 'promise' to become president?
- FrankHope, on 08/02/2008, -11/+27No. And there's nobody he won't throw under the bus either.
- OffPiste, on 08/03/2008, -9/+7To protect the constitution?
- poxonyou, on 08/03/2008, -5/+3My support for him has vanished.
He did talk about unity, but it was supposed to be Reagan style. He would be so popular and compelling as to draw those on the other side of the fence on to his side.
Instead, we're seeing a Lieberman-esque compromiser. Side A says it wants to do something, Side B says the opposite, so, we have to somehow do both (or meet in some "middle"). In the end, Republicans always win that game. Plus, it just makes him look like he has no real stance on any issue.
Dude apparently can't just say, "Look, your position is *****. It's not going to happen. I'll get America behind me on this, and YOU will have to compromise," which I think is what many of us expected of him. - twomeyw23334, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2I don't know, but $1,000 dollar checks sound nice. Until McCain offers $1,200 my vote is locked.
- blcarmadillo, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Umm... I assume you're talking about that rebate for the POOR.... So unless you're doing nothing with your life I doubt you'll ever see that $1,000.
- twomeyw23334, on 08/03/2008, -0/+0I'm joking, but pretty sure the 1,000 dollar rebate is to all middle class citizens. Though, if Obama does win, his leftist policies may convince me to nothing with my life.
- NuclearIsShit, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1and further more, if you vote for me and support real change, I will give you all hand jobs!
Crowd cheers....
- dood, on 08/02/2008, -15/+77'"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."'
I think y'all are playing this up for more than it's worth. This is a reasonable stance.- FrankHope, on 08/02/2008, -15/+19As usual Obama makes a two-faced statement that can be read anyway you want. How about actually taking a stand on something? This is a formula. This is what he always says. This is the same thing he said about FISA.
OBAMA: "I don't want to be rigid, as long as they RAPE the Country and the Constitution in a well thought out way. I can compromise on that."
When you put it that way, it sounds like a perfectly "reasonable stance".- dood, on 08/02/2008, -6/+13I'm not sure what you expect him to say. "I'll never budge on this, even in the face of evidence that it is necessary." Or "Read my lips." Those are Bush administration policies.
- gobbleplex, on 08/03/2008, -2/+4there is no evidence of its necessity. That's the point.
- Troy64, on 08/02/2008, -8/+10Of course it is reasonable that is why Republicans want to do it.
- twomeyw23334, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2I'm sure there's one insignificant tiny detail they will need to change, and then claim it was their idea.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/03/2008, -1/+3I don't like Obama, but I do think that's a reasonable stance, assuming he means it. We do need to do more drilling for the time being (and those saying it would take 20 years to get it are full of *****) while research and development of viable alternatives moves ahead. Yes, we do need to get off of oil, but until something becomes economically feasible, we're stuck with it and need to make the current crunch hurt as little as possible.
- blcarmadillo, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2McCain isn't suggesting that we just drill and completely abandon searching for alternatives. So really Obama has just cloned McCain's reasonable stance.
- dood, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1We don't need to give the oil companies more places to drill. They are already sitting on leases that will allow them to expand drilling. If they want to give those up in exchange for new leases, that seems reasonable, in the short term.
- jabberwolf, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2THIS IS REASONABLE YES
But it wasnt something Obama was willing to do 1 month ago.
Now his story is that he was ALWAYS willing to do this.
THATS THE POINT ! - TrinitronX, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2After consulting with a trusted industry insider, I thought I'd relay this information: The whole ANWAR drilling issue about supposed major environmental impact is really just political fodder. Most people in the public believe that it would permanently harm the ecosystem up there... whereas it really will have minimal impact. There are policies and procedures in place that minimize environmental factors when this type of drilling is done. I think the public's viewpoint stems from common belief, and possibly media factors, not to mention memories of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
- FrankHope, on 08/02/2008, -15/+19As usual Obama makes a two-faced statement that can be read anyway you want. How about actually taking a stand on something? This is a formula. This is what he always says. This is the same thing he said about FISA.
- michaelwong38, on 08/02/2008, -22/+19i don't know what or who to believe in anymore. um what about kevin rose for president?
- Troy64, on 08/02/2008, -5/+6He could have Alex as his vice president and he could drink beer during his press conferences.
- festman, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Why would you trust Kevin? He can't even keep the promise to shave his head.
- GetSmartGal, on 08/02/2008, -10/+29Politics it's a tangled web
- girwen, on 08/02/2008, -24/+15I'd like to slam a door on his nose, but I think I'm gonna vote for him anyway.
- SeventhSon, on 08/03/2008, -3/+4Why?
- QuadZeroRoute, on 08/03/2008, -6/+1Don't throw away your vote. Vote for McCain in 08! He is a real candidate. Obama is just covering all of his bases and is moving toward McCain every day.
- bjornski, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Yeah, he's a hell of a politician alright.
http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm
- bjornski, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Yeah, he's a hell of a politician alright.
- johnofsilence, on 08/02/2008, -18/+35If we want to protect and insure the constitution then we should vote different. Obama voted for the patriot act and the FISA bill. He is a good candidate but regardless a corporate candidate.
He votes in favor of the corporations and not the people. Single pay health care. Living Wage. End War in Iraq and Afghanistan. Shift Tax burden.
Don't be a political slave to the two party system.
Look at the other candidates, Mckinney, Barr, and Nader.- DucoNihilum, on 08/02/2008, -5/+14The "corporations" are not necessarily 'evil', or a separate entity from the people. Corporations help all of us live. If you want to see a country without Corporations, try going to North Korea or Africa. Industrialization, no mater how strongly your socialist rhetoric might lash out against it, is a very good thing. I find it incredibly ironic that you talk about the evil corporations and mention Barr in the same sentence. Libertarians are all for capitalism.
- gobbleplex, on 08/03/2008, -5/+3...Africa is a country?
- sodade, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5Some American corporations are truly a boon to our society, but many of them have way too much government influence. During the Bush reign, these corporations were allowed to run amok. These corporations are clearly the enemy of America and they should have their corporate charter revoked.
- DucoNihilum, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1No, Africa isn't a country. Africa is a funny place, considering the vast majority of Africa isn't very well off.
I have no issue with any corporations so long as the government is not at all involved in them.
- Treoinmypocket, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1So how exactly is he a good candidate then?
- NachoBusiness, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4Logic like that got us in Iraq in the first place. Gore would never have gone to Iraq... we'd probably have a budget surplus now. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is a good thing... when you consider the greater evil has possibly ruined America for anyone under the age of 30. If I end up spending my golden years in a country with a ruined economy and no jobs, it won't be much consolation to know a guy who promised a living wage lost by 49,999,999 votes instead of 50 million.
- DucoNihilum, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1A "Living wage" doesn't exist.
- mrraven200, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1DucoNihilum I suspect if I were to pay you 6 dollars an hour and you had to live in your car or couch surf and chose between seeing the doctor or eating you'd rapidly change your opinion. Only people who have lived in an upper middle class bubble with comfortable housing, good food, health insurance, and money for endless gadgets and entertainment their entire lives can make absurd statements like "A "Living wage" doesn't exist." It most certainly does exist and can be easily defined as the minimum wage that will provide consistent shelter, food, and health care in the area you live. In most areas that is 10+ hour with benefits assuming full time work. Note the "minimum wage" is just barely above half that amount without benefits, meaning people that work for minimum wage need to live with their parents, couch surf or in their cars and be on eek scary "socialist" food stamps just to survive, and some form of socialized medicine if its available or if not expensive to society emergency room visits just to survive.
Hint try going to downtown Detroit and saying "A "Living wage" doesn't exist," I'd advise wearing a bullet proof vest and face mask if you do so though. - mrraven200, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1No nachobusiness Gore probably would have gone into Columbia instead to protect his families Occidental Petroleum oil interests there.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000522/silverstein
Ds are just the same story as Rs with a happy face. - DucoNihilum, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1That's funny, considering I'm not one you might consider to be in the upper middle class. Although it must be rather convenient for you to attack those whom you disagree with as being those evil rich folk. Sure, it is possible to be poor and not be so well off, but there is a major issue in raising the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage gives incentive for employers to do a few things. Businesses will either have to raise the price of their products to compensate, thus causing a form of inflation. This means that eventually, the economy will even itself out. Another thing businesses might do in order to compensate for losses ( remember, money doesn't come out of nowhere) is not hire people that they do not absolutely need under the new wage, or fire those at the bottom. This doesn't even mention the companies that will not raise the wages of their other employees, effectively lowering all of their wages as compared to the minimum. If minimum wage works so well, then why not simply make minimum wage 50 dollars an hour, so that everybody is upper middle class? This clearly wouldn't work, the economy wouldn't allow for it. Employment follows the same laws of supply and demand as does everything else, an artificially high minimum wage doesn't help many. Do you think people would prefer to be jobless, or to have a market wage? In life, there will always be a lower class- one that can not afford the best of the best, and may have some struggle living. It is unfortunate, however, normal and to some extent necessary.
- DucoNihilum, on 08/02/2008, -5/+14The "corporations" are not necessarily 'evil', or a separate entity from the people. Corporations help all of us live. If you want to see a country without Corporations, try going to North Korea or Africa. Industrialization, no mater how strongly your socialist rhetoric might lash out against it, is a very good thing. I find it incredibly ironic that you talk about the evil corporations and mention Barr in the same sentence. Libertarians are all for capitalism.
- FrankHope, on 08/02/2008, -14/+19Thanks to the Electoral College system, in many states the Presidential vote doesn't really matter since the outcome is known in advance. If you live in one of those states, then please take advantage of this opportunity to make a clear statement against the DemoRepub duopoly. Even if you don't, consider voting for a 3rd party candidate. It has to start sometime and I believe that Now is the time.
- Gbobrt4, on 08/02/2008, -3/+18Out of curiosity, why is the story picture people sitting at a restaurant bar?
- plimpton777, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3I think that one guy is drilling up his nose.
- xaoiv,