This is your candidate? Really Democrats, do you really think the American people want to elect a president who is OK with oil prices being this high? He must be smoking something other than cigarettes if he thinks the American people would have been OK with a gradual increase in prices. We don't want to pay more for anything. How clueless can you be?
If this isn't made into a commercial, then the Republicans deserve to lose.
And good for McConnell pointing out that higher gas prices have been a goal of the Democrats for years now (didn't Gore say that the way to end oil dependency was higher gas prices).
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Michele, first of all, thanks for your response, and I have to tell you I have had a chance to learn more about this bill in detail.
It's a stinker.
From my reading, it's not the taxation of the biggest oil companies that is drastically out of whack, it's the authorization of the President to declare emergencies and the authorization of suits against oil producing nations and so on.
I stick by my assertion that Americans have in fact adjusted to slowly rising gas prices for about eight years now. And it is poor people in places like Mississippi and Wyoming and Alabama and Texas who are really hit hard. There's something just plain wrong about this outcome. On the assertion that Americans have adjusted to slowly rising gas prices, however, Obama is right. $1 since last year, but $3 since 2000. The pain has been more recent.
And do you really suppose Michelle, nobody in the White House realized that every time there's a spoken threat of blowing up Iran, oil prices go up? If there had been drilling in ANWR or offshore, the Republicans (and to be fair, many others) could still have manipulated prices by general belligerence--and drum up votes and defense contracts in the process.
But you tell me, if you'd like to tell me, do we have insight into God's will as to the drilling under the seas and in the wilderness and everywhere else? Is it our right to take what we want from the earth regardless of any consequences? I'm listening. And thanks.
How many times has the amount of oil in ANWR been mentioned, over and over, on this same blog?
If Clinton, for instance, had permitted it (and I will note that even a Republican majority congress couldn't get it through, for much the same reason), it'd take more time to get TO the oil than the amount of oil you would get FROM ANWR. Not enough to reduce the price of gasoline, even assuming that we had the refinery capacity. It isn't like the pumps are out there running out of gasoline and that's why the price is so high.
Once again, ANWR wouldn't supply even just US needs for more than a year or two. Period. The idea that we have this secret stash of infinite oil that if those darn treehuggers would just let us get to, it'd solve all our energy needs is a pipe dream. (And I don't mean pipeline...)
Seems like the lies just keep flowing from God's Own Party, Michele.
www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40776.html
GOP claim about Chinese oil drilling off Cuba is untrue
By Erika Bolstad and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — As Congress has debated energy policy over the past several days, an unusual argument keeps surfacing in support of drilling off the U.S. coastline and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Why, ask some Republicans, should the United States be thwarted from drilling in its own territory when just 50 miles off the Florida coastline the Chinese government is drilling for oil under Cuban leases?
Yet no one can prove that the Chinese are drilling anywhere off Cuba's shoreline. The China-Cuba connection is "akin to urban legend," said Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida who opposes drilling off the coast of his state but who backs exploration in ANWR.
"China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period," said Jorge Pinon, an energy fellow with the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami and an expert in oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Martinez cited Pinon's research when he took to the Senate floor Wednesday to set the record straight.
---------------
We can be thankful that nobody has died because of this lie, Michele. Unlike some of the others that have been told by the GOP.
"So, you think that American people will "accept" higher gas prices knowing that we can drill over shore but won't?"
not all, not the weak minded americans who believe that there's enough oil in anwr and our other national parks to register even a bump in oil prices and that it's worth destroying their beauty to rape them for their crude they hold. those people are short-sighted.
"You might want to revisit history there, Rob. It's the Congress who won't drill for oil, it's the fault of the Democrats. Not too much Bush can do if they won't lift the ban. Try to shift the blame all you want but yesterday's vote puts the lie to your premise."
mccain voted several times to protect anwr from drilling. hmmmmm. golly, why doesn't bush issue one of his too often used "executive orders" to bypass congress?
republicans' votes prove that they are in the pocket of BIG OIL and will do all they can within their power to shield big business from paying their fair share of taxes. so while other taxes increase to make up for their breaks, we pay BIG OIL even more money for the inflated price of gas.
mcconnel needs to pull his head out. had republicans not been against alternate energies for so long we might have cheaper alternatives already. i'm ok with paying $20 for a gallon of gas if my car can go 300 miles on a gallon. what happened to you republicans and your love (and understanding) for basic economics? of course democrats are right when they say that higher gas prices will fuel innovation for alternate energies - that doesn't equate to democrats wanting gas to be more expensive. your logic is flawed. actually you displayed absolutely no logic in this post.
I only started reading this blog recently.
Am I to understand that somehow drilling for oil in ANWR is an issue of special significance to Reformed Christians, as contrasted to, say, finding oil in North Dakota or off Brazil? Can someone explain that one to me?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.