Support NeoGAF

[pxleyes]

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 to fine a point on it, now who's all about the puppies and sunshine?

There isn't a whole lot to debate when you cant grasp the issue being debated. McCain is pushing a policy of energy independence by claiming that domestic drilling will achieve that end. It will not. What else is there to grasp?

 

[Gaborn]

There isn't a whole lot to debate when you cant grasp the issue being debated. McCain is pushing a policy of energy independence by claiming that domestic drilling will achieve that end. It will not. What else is there to grasp?

The fact that JayDub isn't arguing in lockstep with McCain but a related point?

 

[Slurpy]

Can't believe this fucking Buffoon is running for President. Islamic extremism can affect our very EXISTENCE? Really?

 

[JayDubya]

There isn't a whole lot to debate when you cant grasp the issue being debated. McCain is pushing a policy of energy independence by claiming that domestic drilling will achieve that end. It will not. What else is there to grasp?

If he stated that it will achieve that end in and of itself, he is wrong.

However, I believe you were the one complaining that he also seems to be pushing for some other means, which would mean that he is obviously pursuing a multilateral strategy of some sort, so I'm left wondering what you're complaining about.

Or wondering if perhaps you're just complaining about something badly, and with all the wrong words.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Can't believe this fucking Buffoon is running for President. Islamic extremism can affect our very EXISTENCE? Really?

What a conundrum McCain's comment and Black's paint. On the one hand, Islamic extremism threatens our very existence. On the other, it might help McCain get elected.

 

[Mandark]

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.

The DoE estimates drilling in ANWR would reduce American oil imports by 3 to 6%.

In terms of the benefits people generally desire or anticipate from energy independence (inoculation against global price shocks, immunity against OPEC-style cartel economics, being able to tell horrible regimes like the Saudis to stuff it) that would do nothing. The US would be just as reliant on other nations as ever.


"Well, 5% would be better than nothing, right?"

Except that increasing domestic oil flow, or other temporary measures to lower the price of gas (hallo there gas tax holiday!) is that they will perpetuate short-term incentives that will cause long-term pain.

Putting aside climate change (because I know you're sympathetic to the global warming truthers), we know that the price of gas is eventually going to get damn high. Right now though, we have a lot of infrastructure built on the assumption that gas will be plentiful and cheap.

What I mean is there are tens of millions of vehicles on the road that run on gasoline. Gajillions of miles of paved road just for these vehicles. Bazillions of gas stations so they can refuel. Cities and suburbs that developed on the assumption that people could drive wherever they wanted.

Every year we put off a major change in energy policy, we're likely to see more sprawl, more gasoline-based cars on the road, etc. And the large-scale changes are the ones that are necessary for energy independence.



Now this ain't a libertarian vs. dirty socialist issue.

You are more than welcome to argue that the current pickle we're in is a result of centralized planning, from those guys at the DoD who spent billions on the interstate highway to the hundreds of county-level Departments of Transportation and Transit Authorities who pandered to developers and constituents. Blame city zoning boards for their inflexibility in letting denser development happen.

You can argue that the market should be allowed to work and if there's a lot of economic pain, then people shouldn't have made stupid decisions. You can say that importing oil is just the result of supply and demand and that we should stop freaking out about it.

Just don't pretend that drilling somewhere that would produce 1/20th of our imported oil will lead to anything that could be called "energy independence" in any meaningful way. It won't.

 

[Gaborn]

Can't believe this fucking Buffoon is running for President. Islamic extremism can affect our very EXISTENCE? Really?

Well, anything CAN affect it, but by and large, you're right, our presence is affecting the radical extremists more than theirs is affecting ours.

Mandark - Why do you understand the impact of lowering incentives in oil drilling but not in civil unions vs marriage?

 

[pxleyes]

If he stated that it will achieve that end in and of itself, he is wrong.

However, I believe you were the one complaining that he also seems to be pushing for some other means, which would mean that he is obviously pursuing a multilateral strategy of some sort, so I'm left wondering what you're complaining about.

I'm only going to say it again and then you are welcome to actually listen to his comments and read what I said instead of just flatly ignoring it.

McCain states that domestic drilling will lead to energy independence. He is running on a platform that domestic drilling is the solution to the problem.

He is wrong as domestic drilling will have little to no impact on our real problem which is oil as a whole. He is misstating the idea that domestic drilling is the solution to energy independence when we all know, and as you have just stated, isn't the case.

 

[TDG]

Can't believe this fucking Buffoon is running for President. Islamic extremism can affect our very EXISTENCE? Really?

I sometimes wonder whether people like him actually believe the shit they're selling. the way some people talk, you'd think "Islamic Extremists" had all banded together into one huge army with endless weapons, ready to destroy america as soon as a Democrat is elected.

The problem is simply that most people don't understand what terrorism really is.

 

[Gaborn]

I'm only going to say it again and then you are welcome to actually listen to his comments and read what I said instead of just flatly ignoring it.

McCain states that domestic drilling will lead to energy independence. He is running on a platform that domestic drilling is the solution to the problem.

He is wrong as domestic drilling will have little to no impact on our real problem which is oil as a whole. He is misstating the idea that domestic drilling is the solution to energy independence when we all know, and as you have just stated, isn't the case.

Wow, it's like you only hear half of what JayDub says because you simply don't want to acknowledge his point :lol :lol :lol

 

[pxleyes]

Wow, it's like you only hear half of what JayDub says because you simply don't want to acknowledge his point :lol :lol :lol

I'm not going to let him change the topic to make his own point when he wont address my own. Sorry, but I am not playing that game.

 

[maynerd]

Bah...you all are ignoring my post from the last page.

 

[Tamanon]

I thought the State department said to stop calling them Islamic extremists or Islamofascists anyways. I think we should just adopt the Taqfiri(sp?) term.

 

[Skiptastic]

So you'd support drilling for oil if we put an incentive on developing alternative energy?

He doesn't support McCain's domestic drilling for oil plan the same way you don't support Obama's civil unions for gays instead of marriage plan. They both hinder the progress towards the end game (in his case, alternative energy independence and in yours, gay marriage).

(I think that is right, am I right?) EDIT: Goddammit, I hate being slow to the punch. :lol

 

[Mandark]

Mandark - Why do you understand the impact of lowering incentives in oil drilling but not in civil unions vs marriage?

I was actually about to point out that I'm making basically the same argument that you were in the civil union vs. marriage debate. And if you go back and actually read the posts, I don't think I ever said you were wrong (you confusing me with someone else? all socialists look alike?).

Except in this case I see some pretty clear economic incentives pushing in one direction, whereas the other case it was based on your own gut feeling about how social mores would shift.

 

[scorcho]

I thought the State department said to stop calling them Islamic extremists or Islamofascists anyways. I think we should just adopt the Taqfiri(sp?) term.

and remove a conservative talking point? no way man, not with so many Brown people against our freedom!

 

[pxleyes]

Bah...you all are ignoring my post from the last page.

the problem is your post brings up a legitimate issue and we cant have that here.

 

[Hitokage]

and remove a conservative talking point? no way man, not with so many Brown people against our freedom*!

* Advertised freedom does not include the right to challenge one's own imprisonment.

 

[Macam]

Macam just wants to tune in for his regularly scheduled Obama circle jerk hour and it's making him cranky.

This thread actually serves as a decent place to get a quick overview of political news, and it'd be helpful if you could take your tea parties elsewhere. A separate thread or, better yet, Paulville, TX perhaps.

 

[JayDubya]

The DoE estimates drilling in ANWR would reduce American oil imports by 3 to 6%.

Which is something. Speaking of which, about that DoE budget...

In terms of the benefits people generally desire or anticipate from energy independence (inoculation against global price shocks, immunity against OPEC-style cartel economics, being able to tell horrible regimes like the Saudis to stuff it) that would do nothing. The US would be just as reliant on other nations as ever.

What's the problem with trading with Saudi Arabia again? Furthermore, to clarify, knowing full well how I feel about commies, what's the problem with trading with Cuba again?

"Well, 5% would be better than nothing, right?"

Except that increasing domestic oil flow, or other temporary measures to lower the price of gas (hallo there gas tax holiday!) is that they will perpetuate short-term incentives that will cause long-term pain.

You know how I feel about pigovian taxation. If we're going to have a sales tax, it should apply to gas, but we shouldn't have a sales tax that's just on gas.

Putting aside climate change (because I know you're sympathetic to the global warming truthers), we know that the price of gas is eventually going to get damn high. Right now though, we have a lot of infrastructure built on the assumption that gas will be plentiful and cheap.

*nods head*

Every year we put off a major change in energy policy, we're likely to see more sprawl, more gasoline-based cars on the road, etc. And the large-scale changes are the ones that are necessary for energy independence.

*shakes head*

Now this ain't a libertarian vs. dirty socialist issue.

Pretty much. It seems apparent that natural resource scarcity will push the issue. You want to prod it along now, I don't believe government has the right to screw with the market and individual freedom like you want it to.

You can argue that the market should be allowed to work and if there's a lot of economic pain, then people shouldn't have made stupid decisions. You can say that importing oil is just the result of supply and demand and that we should stop freaking out about it.

I will, and I do. I probably wouldn't call some of those decisions "stupid" on the basis that when some of those decisions were made, gas prices were at $1 per gallon (cars and homes are major, long-term investments).

Just don't pretend that drilling somewhere that would produce 1/20th of our imported oil will lead to anything that could be called "energy independence" in any meaningful way. It won't.

Well there you go with something as subjective as "meaningful," which a lack of would imply meaningless, and of course that's not true, because there's very much a market for the dead dinosaur juice out there that we're not using for some reasons some Democrat somewhere thought was important and I probably fundamentally disagree with.

 

[Gaborn]

I was actually about to point out that I'm making basically the same argument that you were in the civil union vs. marriage debate. And if you go back and actually read the posts, I don't think I ever said you were wrong (you confusing me with someone else? all socialists look alike?).

Except in this case I see some pretty clear economic incentives pushing in one direction, whereas the other case it was based on your own gut feeling about how social mores would shift.

Ok, I very well could have confused you with someone else (at one point there were about 10 posters disagreeing with me and 2-3 mostly agreeing with me so I apologize for thinking you were one of the 10 or so).

I can understand your point about incentives, and it sounds good, except I will say (I just checked McCain's site just to see what he said and if he truly believes as pxleyes said in just drilling. From his latest campaign article:

"We're going to produce more, conserve more and invent more." He called for the production of new automotive technologies and expansion of flex-fuels and alternative fuels "in the interest of our national security." . . .

In Fresno, McCain insisted his plan provides a new and innovative attempt to address a range of energy issues confronting American consumers.

"Whether it takes a meeting with automakers during my first month in office, or my signature on an act of Congress, we will meet the goal of a swift conversion of American vehicles away from oil," he said.

McCain said corn-based ethanol has been "a case study in the law of unintended consequences," resulting in high prices to consumers, and argued that there's "a better way." He said the government should "break the monopoly" of all alcohol fuels, and encourage flex-fuel technologies, vowing, "We will meet the goal of a swift conversion" away from oil consumption.

He called for "Clean Car Challenge" tax credits for low emissions cars, including a $5,000 tax credit for zero emission cars and lesser credits for other lower emissions vehicles.

But some critics note that right now only hydrogen-fuel cell cars meet zero emissions standards, and are rare and far out of reach of most consumer pocketbooks.

McCain's speech also called for a $300 million prize for "the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids and electric cars."

I mean, I'm not trying to defend John McCain directly, but it seems like pxleyes is overstating his case. And I think doing something similar to what McCain is suggesting, moving away from oil but at the same time providing more of it as we use it less is basically right.

Whoops, just to add, the difference between the energy debate vs the gay marriage vs civil union debate is that with energy the structure is already in place and there are numerous incentives being proposed by McCain at the least (damn you for making me defend him though, makes me feel dirty) to switch to alternate fuel, there is none for gay marriage once civil unions are imposed.

 

[kkaabboomm]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-06-19-one-forty-oil_N.htm

USA daily production: 8.7 million barrels
USA daily use of said domestic production: 5.1 million barrels
thus...
USA daily exports: 3.6 million barrels

----
USA daily use: 20.4 million barrels

so right now, 25% of the oil the US uses daily is domestically produced, meaning we import 75% of our oil
if we didn't export 3.6 million barrels, but instead used it, 42.6% of oil used by the US daily would be domestic, lessening our dependence on imported oil by...

17.6%. not the 3-5% estimates of drilling ANWR. 17.6%.

we could lessen our dependence on FOREIGN OIL, and not increase our own production/drill ANWR/deep sea off shore/whatever else might be being proposed, all by not exporting the oil we already produce

(sorry, i saw these numbers in USA and was confused - maybe someone out there can tell me why we export 41.4% of all the oil we produce and then rant and rave about how we need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and drill more domestically)

 

[Mandark]

I thought the State department said to stop calling them Islamic extremists or Islamofascists anyways. I think we should just adopt the Taqfiri(sp?) term.

If their goal was to precisely and accurately describe groups, then that could be a good idea.

But their choice of nomenclature has as much to do with PR as anything. They want people to conflate Iran, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the defunct Hussein regime in Iraq, etc. The more people think there's one big hegemonic Islamic threat, the easier it is to drum up support for military operations against whatever swarthy country or organization you want to target.

 

[Mandark]

What's the problem with trading with Saudi Arabia again? Furthermore, to clarify, knowing full well how I feel about commies, what's the problem with trading with Cuba again?

It's not that we are trading with Saudi Arabia. It's that we have an economy which has cheap oil as its foundation, and relatively few countries control a lot of that oil.

Which means the US gets entangled in other nation's domestic business, like propping up the House of Saud or the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran before that, and that OPEC and company can wreak havoc on the US economy if they want.

It's not like Cuba would be able to bring America to its knees by stopping the flow of cigars and bananas.

 

[Tamanon]

Considering the public outcry over Samantha Powers' use of "monster" and her forced resignation, anyone want to take a bet on whether or not there's an outcry against Black?

 

[scorcho]

please don't bring up Samantha Power i'm still vexed over that resignation.

 

[Mandark]

I was SECRETLY DELIGHTED when she resigned, even though the Clinton campaign's fake indignation was the stuff rolleyes are made of.

 

[bob_arctor]

LINK

John McCain distanced himself Monday from a top adviser who said another terrorist attack on the United States in this election year would benefit the Republican presidential candidate.

Citing his work to establish a commission to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States, as well as his membership on the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain added: "I cannot imagine it, and so, if he said that — and I don't know the context — I strenuously disagree."

Black, interviewed by reporters as he stood outside McCain's fundraiser, said: "I deeply regret the comments. They were inappropriate. I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration."

 

[GhaleonEB]

LINK

The ironic part is, the camp is simultaneously disavowing Black's comment that an attack by (presumably) Islamic extremists would help the campaign, but at the same time raising the specter of an attack by Islamic extremists to help their campaign. :lol

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

Wow, that is fucking amazing, and in a bad way.

 

[Tamanon]

:lol at the coverage of the statement on Hardball.

"Oh, Black was just being TOO FRANK"

 

[Frank the Great]

:lol at the coverage of the statement on Hardball.

"Oh, Black was just being TOO FRANK"

I am highly offended by that notion.

 

[Tamanon]

Hey, WTF happened to "Francois" anyways?

 

[Frank the Great]

Hey, WTF happened to "Francois" anyways?

I asked for a name change, because I'm not French and don't speak the language. Didn't want to appear as something I'm not...plus, my name is Frank.

 

[eznark]

God damn it, it is impossible to go to the gym and maintain a sense of where this thread goes.

Ghaleon, I wasn't being disingenuous and my"rationalization" comment wasn't meant as an insult, just as a statement of fact. As someone who voted for Bush twice (all I wanted was my own personal retirement savings account and the death of the IRS....), I know all about rationalizations made for political purposes.

 

[bob_arctor]

:lol at the coverage of the statement on Hardball.

"Oh, Black was just being TOO FRANK"

Yup, that sounds about right. *shoots self in head*

 

[TDG]

:lol at the coverage of the statement on Hardball.

"Oh, Black was just being TOO FRANK"

I'm low on sleep so maybe I'm just being a bit dense, but that sounds about right to me.

 

[frankthurk]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-06-19-one-forty-oil_N.htm

we could lessen our dependence on FOREIGN OIL, and not increase our own production/drill ANWR/deep sea off shore/whatever else might be being proposed, all by not exporting the oil we already produce

Sooo, yeah this is the whole problem I see with the entire Anwar thing... don't oil companies drill for the oil and sell to the highest bidder on the global oil market? The fact that it's being pumped from American soil doesn't mean it has to be sold to US citizens does it? It doesn't mean it would be sold at a discount to citizens in America does it? The profits all go to the oil company drilling and the price is still set by this global economy right?

So how does this help exactly?

And I'm the first to admit my knowledge in this area is limited... enlighten me please.

 

[Gaborn]

Oooooh, you guys will like this. Matt Welch (chief editor of the fantastic Reason magazine) brutalizes McCain in a 5 part interview with the LA Times, his former employer. None of the segments are all that long individually and there's an explanation of what each one has so I suggest you take a look!

 

[Chichikov]

:lol at the coverage of the statement on Hardball.

"Oh, Black was just being TOO FRANK"

But you know, it’s true.

A terror attack will help McCain get elected, much like 9/11 helped GWB get re-elected.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Obama camp on Black's comment:

Barack Obama welcomes a debate about terrorism with John McCain, who has fully supported the Bush policies that have taken our eye off of al Qaeda, failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, and made us less safe. The fact that John McCain’s top advisor says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a "big advantage" for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change. Barack Obama will turn the page on these failed policies and this cynical and divisive brand of politics so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose to finish the fight against al Qaeda.

Ouch.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Burton_Black_comment_a_disgrace.html

 

[3rdman]

But you know, it’s true.

A terror attack will help McCain get elected, much like 9/11 helped GWB get re-elected.

Wow...I completely disagree. If there was another attack, it'd open the door to Obama who can show proof that the Reps can't protect us and their policy isn't working.

 

[Door2Dawn]

Obama camp on Black's comment:


Ouch.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Burton_Black_comment_a_disgrace.html

 

[Amir0x]

I asked for a name change, because I'm not French and don't speak the language. Didn't want to appear as something I'm not...plus, my name is Frank.

No offense but you care about what other people perceive about your e-nickname waay too much. So care about what I think: The old nickname flowed better man, shoulda stuck w/ it!

 

[Gaborn]

No offense but you care about what other people perceive about your e-nickname waay too much. So care about what I think: The old nickname flowed better man, shoulda stuck w/ it!

Yeah, i mean, my nickname is confusing enough to people because they think it's a reference to my sexuality rather than David Farland's Runelord saga character but I wouldn't change mine either just because of what people might think. I liked the old name, I knew the old name and it's more surprising to see the new one.

 

[BobTheFork]

Wow...I completely disagree. If there was another attack, it'd open the door to Obama who can show proof that the Reps can't protect us and their policy isn't working.

Republicans will blame the democratic turn in congress for slowing down Bush policy. Not saying that will work, but honestly I think an attack would help McCain campaign, and thats so sad.

 

[eznark]

Obama camp on Black's comment:


Ouch.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Burton_Black_comment_a_disgrace.html

obviously you can't say things like that (what Black said) and Obama should come out hammering, it's politicall prudent, but what he said is probably true. A terrorist attack and the American people likely turn to the guy with military (and just general) experience.

In the abstract, people will love Obama, but when shit "gets real" they are likely to stick with the old vet.

So what Black said was completely foolish stupid and out of line...but also true.

 

[Frank the Great]

I didn't like the name, lol, leave me alone!

 

[Gaborn]

I didn't like the name, lol, leave me alone!

Hey it's your name, and if you feel Frank the Great fits you better than Francois more power to you

 

[TDG]

moved.