-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
bob_arctor said:
If nothing else, I love that it was a tried and true liberal who killed public finance reform. That is awesomeness in itself right there
That's good and honest. Seems like what the reaction as in most left of center editorial boards around the country as well.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Amir0x said:
I saved that one for the FISA/Telcom "compromise". :-(
eznark: Obama breaking the pledge doesn't bother me so much - it makes for bad publicity, but i can't fault someone for opting out of public campaign finance considering the grassroots financing machine his team nursed through the primaries. now, his dissembling on the flood of current GOP 527s is a different matter...
i also hate the very idea of ethanol fuel (converting food to fuel smacks as wrong, not to mention the doubled carbon footprint in converting said food to fuel), which makes the NYT piece on Obama's love of corn a bit worrying.
i also hate the very idea of ethanol fuel (converting food to fuel smacks as wrong, not to mention the doubled carbon footprint in converting said food to fuel), which makes the NYT piece on Obama's love of corn a bit worrying.
no, that's not what I said at all. I don't support domestic drilling because it in no way helps us further our technology, the price of oil, or would make an real impact on the amount of production.Gaborn said:
Our focus should be alternative energy and I've yet to see an explanation as to why we shouldn't.
Amir0x said:
And, oddly, that was one decision I'll give Obama credit for. More free speech and ignoring the obnoxious McCain Feingold is ultimately good policy.
pxleyes - the reason we should support a bit of everything is because although drilling by itself isn't enough to lower the price of oil, if we drill more, reduce our overall usage of oil, and adopt more forms of alternative fuel technology ultimately that DOES lower the price of oil
Ignoring the baiting, my reaction was:eznark said:
1) Good. He's going to need it to combat what the GOP is going to throw at him.
2) He didn't really break a pledge. The "pledge" came with the following caveat:
He later outlined the specifics of that agreement, which McCain has publicly (and according to the Obama camp, privately) refused to agree to.
Though he should have been more aggressive in pursuing it. One meeting with lawyers and some public statements isn't "aggressive". Of course, McCain is busy breaking his own campaign finance laws right now, so I'm not sure how much that agreement would have been worth.
Yeah.bob_arctor said:
JayDubya said:
BECAUSE DRILLING FOR DOMESTIC OIL IS NOT A STRATEGY FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. Yeesh.
Gaborn: Your "central point" is dumb.
Whatever the deep reserves, the amount anyone could pump daily a year from now, five years from now, or ten years from now is generally agreed on. And those amounts do virtually nothing to get us towards energy independence.
Saying a place has enough for "X years of energy" is completely meaningless if the rate of extraction is a limit, which it is.
GhaleonEB said:
I think we need to establish that just because some of use really really dislike Obama's policies, we do not necessarily like McCain any better, so the "yeah but's" are just kind of a waste of time.
As to your points...rationalization is a very important characteristic whenever you invest yourself in a politician.
(and my baiting was only to steer the discussion back to the election, not to incite anger).
scorcho said:
My boy Edwards said in an interview with Grist that corn ethanol should be seen as a transitional technology, to get the infrastructure in place for when switchgrass and algae ethanol are viable options.
Now I'm not sure whether there's enough overlap of technology that this is true, or whether it was just sop to the agricultural lobby. Either way I wouldn't write off ethanol completely, but I'd stay worried that the usual interest groups would keep the US tied to the less efficient or even harmful variations.
Can you all just give up this AWAR and Offshore drilling solutions? These ideas will take anywhere from 6-10 years to even start seeing ANY benefit let alone any benefit that amounts to anything.
What's a bigger question is why the oil companies need any more places to drill. They are sitting on leases that by some estimates contain BILLIONS of barrels of oil. They are just flat out refusing to drill for it. Let them drill there first.
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/stories/Documents/truth_about_americas_energy.pdf
What's a bigger question is why the oil companies need any more places to drill. They are sitting on leases that by some estimates contain BILLIONS of barrels of oil. They are just flat out refusing to drill for it. Let them drill there first.
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/stories/Documents/truth_about_americas_energy.pdf
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Tamanon said:
Very first comment:
:lol Indeed.
Mandark said:
Ok, even if the rate of extraction is a finite limit (a completely fair point) it's still better to have access to more oil than less oil as part of a comprehensive energy policy.
Maynerd - Saying something is "open for drilling" does not address how easy it is to get at any Oil or Natural Gas which may or may not be there. I looked at that report and I don't see estimates that the areas that are open to drilling are cost effective to access.
Mandark said:
It's not a strategy for "oil independence" (i.e. more oil does not further the cause of the non-use of oil) but it reduces dependence on foreign oil as an energy source, and that's kind of a mouthful, so maybe "energy independence" ain't a bad thing to call that.
Even if your most conservative (lol) estimates are true, more domestic oil = less demand for foreign oil. You can say it would only have a modest effect or for a short time, but you can't say that more domestic access to more of a natural resource does not further the goal in question, if not the lofty, pie-in-the-sky goal you'd prefer to forward.
Frank the Great
Banned
Mandark said:
It's not dumb.
The entire point is to give the free market more time to come up with a solution to the energy crisis!
Why invest in solving the problem directly when you can post-pone it for years, allowing oil corporations to make even more money which they will later be forced to use to develop new energy after oil runs out!
People like you are trying to stifle the market >:-( The oil reserves need to be depleted everywhere, and then and only then will the free market save us!
Justin Bailey
------ ------
Maybe he's smarter than we think. He's basically telling the terrorists "If you want another 4 years of Bush, by all means attack" essentially guaranteeing our safety until after November.
Alternately, you could look at what the politician actually said, as opposed to what you wish he had said. And your selective reaction to my giving your question an actual response makes it clear you were being disingenuous in the first place. I won't make that mistake again.eznark said:
There's no rationalizing his position on FISA. It's the incorrect one to take, when he should be leading on the issue.
Wow...way to spin it.JayDubya said:
Stating it is "energy independence" when it leads to nothing of the sort is misleading on a huge level. We are talking about, at best, a small reduction in our dependency on foreign oil...by the time we should already have an alternative source of fuel.
Frank the Great said:It's not dumb.
The entire point is to give the free market more time to come up with a solution to the energy crisis!
Why invest in solving the problem directly when you can post-pone it for years, allowing oil corporations to make even more money which they will later be forced to use to develop new energy after oil runs out!
People like you are trying to stifle the market >:-( The oil reserves need to be depleted everywhere, and then and only then will the free market save us!
Someone has a problem with reading. Why must you consistently misrepresent what I say? Please show me where I oppose alternative energy. Go on, please, show me.
pxleyes said:
I'm spinning nothing. You want the total non-use of oil. Apparently your buzzword for that is "energy independence," and that phrase gets bandied about by both the right and the left so someone, somewhere must have thought it was pretty marketable to the voters. However, it's also abundantly clear that not everyone means the same thing when they say it.
Kind of like "equity" and "fairness" a few pages back.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
GhaleonEB said:
Do you think Obama's campaign should pounce on these comments? I would, especially to point out how much better Obama would be on economic issues and by extension, reality.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xmlMandark said:
yay, Pelosi, yay. i'm not sure why she publicly pushed such a hard line on telecom immunity(all the while Democrats were further bullied on the issue for months) only to capitulate in time for the November election. it made no sense whatsoever. i'd also be interested in knowing how much involvement Obama had on the House debate considering it's technically his party now.
i also heard Edwards (or was it you?) talk about switchblade grass before, but to me it doesn't make sense to sink heavy investment on a transition technology with heavy net-negatives if a more viable alternative already exists. i would think that any investment in ethanol now would further legitimize it as the only alternative (hellooooo subsidies).
It isn't my buzzword, it is McCain's. McCain spoke of domestic drilling today as a solution for "energy independence." Not a reduction of dependency on foreign oil but total independence. That is a blatant twisting of the facts on his part and I'm calling him out on it.JayDubya said:
There is only one definition for the term, and it does not involve relying on foreign countries for energy.
He's not. He's representing McCain's policy and showing it to you. You are making the leap that he believe you don't want alternative fuel sources.Gaborn said:
speculawyer
Member
Well . . . yes and no. Sure . . . that would increase the % of domestic oil temporarily. However, it might also lull us back into complacency such that we will continue to build the economy on the need for oil. When that oil runs low, we will just end up finding ourselves in an even more difficult situation than we currently face.JayDubya said:
This foreign oil dependency is definitely an area where I do not follow the Libertarian party-line. Markets are great most of the time but the energy market has too many externalities that are not accounted for. Things like national security risk of being dependent on foreign oil, national security risk of funding these dictators and religious fundamentalists, pollution, greenhouse gases, the fact that it is a finite resource, etc.
Well hey, McCain said he doesn't know anything about the economy, and he clearly doesn't, so he's trust worthy. A leader we can trust. But seriously, as long as you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, you might as well scare some people while you're at it.GhaleonEB said:
speculawyer said:
I've noted a lot of those areas, yeah.
pxleyes said:
Not really, but if you can't see how more domestic oil (low-balling of amounts aside) doesn't even partially further the cause of reducing dependence on foreign oil or couldn't be a plank of a larger strategy thereof, there's not a whole lot to debate.
Yes, I realize you want the non-use of oil, but not to put too fine a point on it, now who's all about the puppies and sunshine?
speculawyer
Member
WTF?
The only way that Islamic extremism is a great threat to the USA is that they cause people like you and George Bush to over-react in a way that drains our treasury and loses all our allies. I'm sure we will have spent more money on the Iraq war than the 9/11 attacks cost us economically. Any they won't be able to pull that one off again.
- Status