digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Obama: GOP Takes Pride In Being Ignorant

blogs.abcnews.com — "Now, two points: One, they know they're lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they're making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by three to four percent... You know, they think it is funny that they are making fun of something that is actually true."

show profanity settings
expand all
  • ImperialRome, on 08/06/2008, -73/+49it wouldnt reduce our oil consumption 3 or 4 percent, it would increase mileage of gasoline powered cars 3 or four percent; it will only reduce our imports by 1 percent, assuming that EVERYONE does it diligently.
    In Reality, this will not reduce the price of oil, as all our efficiencies cannot compete with what China and India import on an increasing basis.
    Its one world, one economy, and as long as we pretend that we are going to meet our future needs by conserving, we will never catch up to the demand.
    Its time to stop pretending that we can save enough oil to matter, we have to increase the supply of oil and outstrip the demands. That means bringing Outer Continental Shelf drilling as well as ANWR as well as biodiesel as well as using switchgrass for ethanol, as well as importing Brazilian sugar (or even Cuban sugar) as well as retrofitting cars for flexfuel.
    We need it all, and tire guages won't do it. We need more sources and more refineries, more options and better choices.
    • Origin415, on 08/06/2008, -21/+27If oil companies wanted to drill more, they would have done it already on the 68 million offshore acres they have leased.
      • Ricemanstm, on 08/06/2008, -20/+17Which have little or no oil in them genius, else they would have drilled already.
      • ouzome, on 08/06/2008, -9/+11Using the same argument as Nancy? funny stuff.
      • compdude32, on 08/06/2008, -7/+7Imperial your right on.

        The solution to the problem is increasing supply while we work on a viable alternative, although I don't agree with you on ethanol (several other types of alcohol are more effective with less of an impact on staple food supplys), you do have a much better grasp of the problem than most here on Digg do.

        Origin, the dirty little truth Nancy and the rest of the Dems aren't telling you about the 68 million acres they have leases for is most of it, thanks to modern technology, has been proven to not have any produceable quantities of oil. The remaing, aproximatley 10 million acres, the oil companies have exploration leases (which means they can only do exploritory drilling), and congress refuses to give them production leases for that land.
      • jcm267, on 08/06/2008, -6/+8Why wouldn't they drill in those places if there was money to be made by doing so?
      • schuder, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4Does anyone know the proven reserves in the land the oil companies already have leased? I seriously don't know and would like an answer, because it would obviously frame the debate a lot more than these BS party talking points on both sides. Substance please people.
      • thejimmyo, on 08/06/2008, -0/+9There is indeed oil in the non-producing leases.
        http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINE ...

        However, just because the areas are "non-producing" doesn't necessarily mean that they're sitting idle. It takes a long time to drill for oil, and people are very secretive and reluctant to reveal what they're actually doing or planning on their leased areas (I guess that they're scared somebody else will drink their milkshake).
      • Charlotte_Web, on 08/06/2008, -7/+5Want to know what's REALLY stupid? Expecting 300 million drivers to go check their tire pressure and calling it "policy".
      • Origin415, on 08/06/2008, -2/+7Its not policy, its putting it into perspective. A tiny bit of efficiency goes a huge way, much longer than this oil would last us.
      • MammasMilk, on 08/06/2008, -2/+5"Want to know what's REALLY stupid? Expecting 300 million drivers to go check their tire pressure and calling it "policy"."

        You know what's really stupid? Some sorry ass ***** like you acting as if that common sense suggestion is being put forward as policy. Especially when in the dark, fetid, recesses of you tiny, sad, little mind you know good and damn well it isn't policy.

        It's simply one small thing that any person (except probably you) can do to save a little bit on gas. This has been advocated by people who know cars for years. There's nothing wrong with more people getting that info.
    • RUFFyamahaRYDER, on 08/06/2008, -5/+16"It wouldn't reduce our oil consumption 3 or 4 percent, it would increase mileage of gasoline powered cars 3 or four percent"

      So making our cars 3 or 4 percent more efficient doesn't reduce our oil consumption? This doesn't make sense unless you think people will drive more (even though it's at a downward trend at the moment).
      • jcm267, on 08/06/2008, -3/+6Isn't this 3-4% figure based on the assumption that all of us don't have properly inflated tires and that all of us will properly inflate them?
      • compdude32, on 08/06/2008, -2/+5Do you read much, he said the 3 or 4 percent increase in efficency will have a 1% impact on our imports. 1% won't really affect the price at the pump any.
      • schuder, on 08/06/2008, -0/+5He never said that, just stated that cars are not the only source of our energy consumption for oil. So while increasing fuel efficiency 4% is good, it may not necessarily decrease oil consumption 4%.
      • Wargalas, on 08/06/2008, -0/+6It doesn't make sense to you because you're not looking at the bigger picture. We don't use oil exclusively for powering cars. We use oil for electricity, lubrication on parts, and a host of other uses. If we increase mileage on cars, ALL cars by 3-4%, yes it will help, BUT, what we should be doing is getting off of gas entirely.

        Personally, I like the compressed air cars because filling up can take minutes rather than hours with electrical cars. The "fuel" isn't flammable, and the range is pretty good.
    • wwwonka, on 08/06/2008, -10/+12more sources? More refineries? This just continues on the GOP's oil "crack addict" course.

      Start now with the little things(yes, even tire pressure) to get us the f$%k off oil. Bush has become this nations oil crack addict dealer. Running low? Hell, drill for some more despite the fact that it will give us next to nothing and last only for 10 years max. Temporary possible/maybe fixes to a MUCH MUCH grander problem.

      It comes down to those that understand,see, and want to fix the future to those that want to cater to our fears, instant gratifications, and pandering to the ignorant.
      • jcm267, on 08/06/2008, -6/+12Bush has been the strongest proponent for wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, tidal, etc energy in government.
      • compdude32, on 08/06/2008, -5/+7jcm SHHHHH the Dems don't care about facts.
      • ouzome, on 08/06/2008, -2/+7Bottom line, show me a better solution than to drill now and also work on alternatives. That's the Bush plan, the McCain plan, and Obama is still too scared to say he wants to drill for oil, but he will and you diggers will forgive him as always.
      • CryRightardCry, on 08/06/2008, -6/+3@jcm267
        You'll have to back that outrageous claim up with ANYTHING.

        I'm not surprised you didn't, since there is no evidence of what you claim.
        In fact, the Bush administration has been accused of blocking renewables.
        In addition, Bush had sex with Jeff Guckert in the White House. See, I believe that claim, but I can't prove it. Same with yours. At least mine has SOME proof.
      • PolishLogic, on 08/06/2008, -0/+6@CryRightardCry

        "You'll have to back that outrageous claim up with ANYTHING."

        It's funny to see people that consistently make outrageous claims with no proof, asking others to show proof of their claims.
      • jcm267, on 08/06/2008, -3/+4@ CryBaby

        Bush is in favor of energy independence. Go ahead and look at Bush's publicly posted energy policy, review what he has said at each State of the Union regarding energy and get back to us. It's not Bush's fault that he never had a Congress that was in lockstep with his agenda.

        While you're at it, go ahead and tell me why the current Congress hasn't handed anything over to Bush's desk.
      • DreadPirate, on 08/06/2008, -2/+3Polish - CRC never backs up his rants with anything approaching factual response. He just tosses crap out there, then runs away to the next thread like the coward that he is. I have yet to see him stick around in a thread and respond to any of the debunking of his nonsense posts. All he has the "courage" to do is anonymously insult people (often innacurately), and then run away.
    • Gerz1219, on 08/06/2008, -7/+10You know, Obama's point was that offshore oil drilling is so pointless as a long-term energy policy that we might as well just inflate our tires instead -- i.e., it's not intended as a solution, it's an example he used to demonstrate the absurdity of McCain's emphasis on offshore drilling. He also used it as a throwaway point in a much more comprehensive energy policy that included almost everything you listed in your post.

      Obama is right. You people take pride in being willfully ignorant.
      • compdude32, on 08/06/2008, -3/+2Have you heard the sound bites? there is no mistaking his point, he clearly said that was part of his plan to get us off of oil.

        And the part that you keep missing in the drill now plans is that it is acknowledged to be a short term solution, a stop gap, until a viable form of alternative fuel is found.

        Why not do something to bring prices down for the 10 years it will take to find an alternative fuel.
      • Gerz1219, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3Because it will take 10 years for new wells to produce any oil.

        And I'm actually in favor of drilling. I just don't like the dishonest way drilling proponents are framing the debate.
      • ouzome, on 08/06/2008, -4/+2Gertz12129 - wrong, more like 2 to 6 years - that's from the oil companies, not the oil haters.
      • Gerz1219, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3I trust oil companies. I also trust the weather predictions of tornado insurance salesmen.
    • skews13, on 08/06/2008, -3/+3i find myself in agreement with you my friend, except for the anwr part of your comment. it is like one of my kids asking for more ice cream while they still have some in their bowl. the fact that the oil companies have held on to their current drilling leases for as long as they have, while our current president has looked on, and now acts as though the current oil, refining problems we now face is something that just cropped up without him seeing it coming is a bald face lie. planting cellulose based crops for fuel, drilling on leases already obtained, upping fuel standards for vehicles, and using wind, and solar power for electricity generation, as well as building new refineries as you state, will have an immediate effect on oil prices, as well as gas prices. if the oil companies want new leases for drilling, then they need to take steps by acting in good faith by drilling on already leased lands. something they are currently not doing, and you dont reward bad behavior, by giving in to demands. one of the provisions the congress needs to stipulate to them is any new drilling must result in all oil found on these leases, must remain on the american market, and that absolutely not one drop can be sold on the world market for the benefit of their own bottom line. i disagree with obamas plan for him to give out stimulus checks to families based upon their profits. a much more effective plan would be to force them to use those obscene profit margins to build new refineries in the states that want them right now. that would reduce gas prices, as well as create new jobs in those states.
    • DeFex, on 08/06/2008, -2/+3china only uses as much oil as california. the "china taking all the oil" excuse is a bit lame.
  • Whorebane, on 08/06/2008, -51/+24Obama just fed the trolls.
    • jorichter, on 08/06/2008, -6/+5OM NOM NOM NOM
    • cawpin, on 08/06/2008, -19/+4He also showed he isn't any different than other politicians. I respected the man, even if I disagree with him on some things, for the way he has carried himself. Now, he finally comes out with it. "I'm just a politician."
      • brownr21, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3What?
      • schuder, on 08/06/2008, -3/+2Finally? Telco immunity, campaign finance, full flip on strategic reserve (you don't use a fire extinguisher until a fire breaks out, save it for an emergency) half flip on drilling (according to politico). Not that McCain is any better of course.
      • nalen33, on 08/29/2008, -3/+2Yea, I am amazed that you think he is *finally* showing he is just like every other politician. We've known that all along.
    • slifty, on 08/06/2008, -0/+18Yeah, probably :(

      It is nice to see a Democratic candidate with the stones to call out mudslinging, though.

      Before someone accuses me of being biased for implying support towards one side, I also think that the McCain should call out any of Obama's low blows. The moral of the story is that complaints about the opposition are appropriate in my eyes so long as they aren't manipulative and/or lies.

      Misinformation is what I hate most about politics.
      • PhantomRogue, on 08/06/2008, -9/+3Obama's YES vote for FISA showed what kind of stones that he really has.
    • jzuska, on 08/06/2008, -7/+2I R Troll. Go Go Johnny Mac!

      OLD MAN POWERS ACTIVATE!!!
    • evilregis, on 08/06/2008, -0/+10And the alternative? Ignore them like Kerry? End result: Ignorant public believe the trolls.
    • compdude32, on 08/06/2008, -14/+5Obama showed his complete lack of intellegence and inability to grasp the problem.
      • timpanik, on 08/06/2008, -0/+0I still don't understand why everyone who disagrees with someone has to completely disregard what someone says.

        I don't agree with a lot of John McCain's ideas, but I don't say "Myeh, X issue shows that he's a complete geriatric with Alzheimer's"
      • compdude32, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0I don't completely disregard what people who disagree with me say.

        It just so happens that this proves that obama completely has no grasp on this issue.
  • consciousNOT, on 08/06/2008, -72/+57Not that I care, but when was the last time an anti-Obama or pro-McCain story got to the front page? We should rename this place diggobama.com.
    • ajforgue, on 08/06/2008, -21/+55Maybe if there were any good things about McCain's campaign, they'd make it to the front page. I mean seriously, it's like this guy doesn't even care if he wins the presidency or not.
      • sysop073, on 08/06/2008, -8/+8* McCain winks at Diebold manufacturers as they install "critical patches" on select machines
      • IphtashuFitz, on 08/06/2008, -2/+9Thankfully most Diebold machines have been relegated to the trash heap.
      • furi0us1, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Thats actually too bad because all the evidence needed to prove tampering was in the patch itself
    • DuggDowner, on 08/06/2008, -11/+66Younger, tech-savvy voters don't like McCain. Why should that surprise anyone?
      • MattB123, on 08/06/2008, -3/+12Or as I like to call them/us, the smart folks.
      • boerema, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3I think it comes down to the fact that our generation is much more liberal than most. We have suffered through the Bush administration and don't want to do it again. It also doesn't help that I have yet to see an ad from McCain that doesn't consist completely of shots at Obama. I'm not sure I even know his platform, save that it is exactly opposite of Obama.
      • AssJuice, on 08/06/2008, -2/+2no they are just dumb and young like 90% of the people on this site.
      • Jackson0909, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1boerema,
        Wanna hear the truth?

        This generation is nor more liberal than the generation of the 60s. And look where they are all at now. The majority is voting for McCain.
      • xptweakerntn, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1Ii'm 17.
        I'm extremely tech savvy, being a developing photographer, programmer, graphics designer, engineer (civil), and learning databasing in my spare time. I also use teh Linux.
        I like John McCain more than Barrack Obama.
        Surprised?
    • slifty, on 08/06/2008, -14/+48To be honest, I haven't really been seeing many pro-McCain stories anywhere... well, other than Fox News
    • iluvatar, on 08/06/2008, -5/+78This "equal time for everyone" mentality is exactly what's wrong with today's mass media. Instead of fact checking, researching, and doing actual JOURNALISM, it's been reduced to "This guy said that, but that guy said this".

      No fact checking. No follow-ups. Just ***** gossip.
      • ndanie3, on 08/06/2008, -1/+11That's what happens when news companies are trying to be the first to get the story
    • EarlOfLade, on 08/06/2008, -8/+34I am not sure you understand the concept of Digg.
      1. Submit a story YOU find interesting
      2. Promote it to everyone with the same views
      3. Comment on it
      4. If enough people feel the same way as you, it will make the front page.

      If 4 does not happen, don't complain about Digg, complain about not enough people agreeing with you, but then again, who says anyone has to?
      • xyzzypoofs, on 08/06/2008, -18/+7or just realize that Digg = mob-rules "Censorship"
      • sysop073, on 08/06/2008, -0/+7I think you're picturing old Digg. The new concept of Digg is to click on as many stories as possible and post comments like "Bury me" and "It's a trap!", preferably with gigantic ASCII pictures
      • AssJuice, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Two of my Ex-Wives died on the old Digg.
    • flink405, on 08/06/2008, -16/+26digg is a club.
      digg is a club made up of pro-Obama/anti-McCain, Huffingtonpost, MoveOn.org type people.
      If you are not one of these people, there is no reason to read digg political discussions. It is totally slanted and biased toward Obama.
      These pro-Obamaniacs do not realize that they are only being read by people that have the same opinion.
      It is like talking into the mirror, but they don´t realize it. They are wasting their time trying to convince other pro-Obama people to be pro-Obama.
      -----------
      A broader, diverse group of opinions on digg would bring in more visitors and more active discussions. The Obama people seem to be afraid of that and block out or bury any discussions that don´t paint their candidate in a glowing fashion.
      • Joe_rigby, on 08/06/2008, -7/+7I think digg is a collection of unremarkable people who do not have a secret or not secret connection to huffpost or moveon.org.

        Majority rules.
      • snds, on 08/06/2008, -6/+6It should be obvious to even the most retarded that if there are people who don't agree with you on Digg, then the people who DO agree with you just aren't digging your kind of story or comments as diligently. Either that or there aren't stories enough online that say good things about your point of view. I don't agree with the amount of Huffington Post/MoveOn.org articles either but that doesn't mean that diggers such as yourself can't post competing articles.

        As it has been said, the concept of Digg is that if the article is popular enough it will make front page. I won't speculate on any gossip about a flawed Digg algorithm but if the concept is still the same then you shouldn't be bitching. You should be posting more articles that expose your point of view. If you keep getting dugg down, then one could deduce that out of the thousands, let alone millions of people on Digg at any given moment, mot of them don't seem to agree with you. Based on basic statistical evidence, if you and your article were consistently dugg down then either a) your opinion isn't favored, b) you are a troll, or c) not enough people of similar opinions are voicing them. And considering the type of people you would be arguing for, that is par for the course.
      • SpinningHead, on 08/06/2008, -6/+9Ive seen plenty of reasonable pro-McCain comments dugg up. It tends to be the "Obama is a secret Muslim sleeper cell" crap that gets dugg down. Unfortunately, that kind of baseless slander seems to be the only fuel the far right has to power their machine.
      • ShisouKen, on 08/06/2008, -4/+4Seems like there are plenty of you around to dig down posts like the one snds made but not enough to dig UP pro-McCain stories...lol
      • ngmcs8203, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3I think the majority of us realize that "we are talking to a mirror".
      • ax8284, on 08/06/2008, -2/+2I have yet to see a good argument for any McCain policy on this website. Almost every single one is literally taking words out of his mouth and regurgitating them (which really doesn't help anyone). It's a matter of opinion. A lot of people like Obama. Sorry if you don't. you don't have to vote for him, you don't have to digg articles about him, and you don't need to spend ALL day whining in the comment section of a pro-Obama digg article.
    • hmunkey, on 08/06/2008, -9/+8There are no good pro-McCain stories. I would love to have 2 great candidates running, so I could pick the better of 2 goods... but that isn't happening.
      • nalen33, on 08/29/2008, -1/+4I'd take one good candidate at this point.
    • RudeTurnip, on 08/06/2008, -7/+30Reality has a pro-Obama bias.
    • springboks, on 08/06/2008, -3/+8Well done. Digg is Pro-Obama, and has been for a long time - There have been many articles on this including on cracked.com

      Go join moorewatch and enjoy the FOX news channel if this place isn't for you.You'll get plenty of anti Obama rhetoric
    • MammasMilk, on 08/06/2008, -1/+5This is like complaining about all the Chemistry stories and saying Digg is pro-Chemistry and anti-Alchemy.

      Maybe if most people didn't see that McCain and Republican policies amount to turning crap into gold, then you'd see more of what you'd like. Instead, folks see through that crap and there isn't much good to say for McCain and the cons.

  • OdinTGE, on 08/06/2008, -20/+90Am I losing my mind or is this the third Digg submission to hit the front page with nearly the exact same title in about 12 hours?
    • zacharytelschow, on 08/06/2008, -0/+26While I cannot vouch for your sanity, this is indeed #3.
    • Kishoba, on 08/06/2008, -1/+13Really speaks volumes about that "algorithm" problem digg says they have doesn't it?
    • JonLatane, on 08/06/2008, -6/+1You actually remember Digg stories? I couldn't tell you anything about the story I read before this one.

      It's like a blur of information, none of which is significant to my life in any meaningful way (save that one about the flaw in most binary search implementations), that I simply MUST READ. Based on conversations with friends who use Digg, I think this is the situation for most people. So of course there will be duplicates.
    • SpartanErik, on 08/06/2008, -5/+9Reality: Digg Users Take Pride in Being Biased
    • sk11, on 08/06/2008, -0/+6It's Groundhog day!!
    • tas08, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2You're probably correct.

      http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Diggers_have_poor_short_ ...
  • roddack, on 08/06/2008, -42/+21From the mouth of the socialist

    Hello Pot!
    • dildoolielly, on 08/06/2008, -6/+8UNJUST WAR, SPYING, TORTURE, CHILD RAPE

      Are these the "values" you Psychos speak of?!
      • roddack, on 08/06/2008, -2/+3I am sorry apparently you think that I must support the other party because I ripped on this one.

        Way to be a mindless sheep and fail to see the whole picture.

  • OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 08/06/2008, -27/+6This isn't something that Obama should be saying to keep up a great public image.

    That said, Obama '08
    • LLLSecretChimp, on 08/06/2008, -7/+8Criticizing opponents is only negative campaigning when Republicans do it, so he's still golden.
      • Phyraxus, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3It isn't negative campaigning when he didn't take what his opponents said out of context or strawmanning them.
    • jorichter, on 08/06/2008, -2/+2I think there is a limit to how much ***** either candidate should take without some form of (mild) retaliation. Ideally there would be none of this so called "name calling" from either side, but unfortunately that's just not the way it is.
  • nickbyfleet, on 08/06/2008, -19/+45Buried as duplicate, this was on the home page just 2 days ago, original here: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_GOP_takes_ ...
    • wilywondr, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3Just one point.
      You sense of time appears to be off by about 24 hours. I understand exaggeration would make your point seem more significant, but an exaggeration of this magnitude makes you appear irrational/illogical or just the average mccain supporter.

      The article you link to was added 22 hr 4 min ago, made popular 19 hr 25 min ago.
    • tas08, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1But we must try to get it on the front page as much as possible! It's important!
      http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Diggers_have_poor_short_ ...
  • 10ofDiamonds, on 08/06/2008, -35/+24This story has hit the front page three times now. Obabam supporters must have a short memory; That explains their haste in forgetting his lies on FISA. Fanboy Obamabots have doomed this election.
    • luet, on 08/06/2008, -2/+5lol obabam
      • 10ofDiamonds, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Yeah I botched that. But it's catchy as a mother *****. I am now always going to refer to him as Obabam.
      • luet, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1yes but it also carries no real meaning lol
    • bjs3171, on 08/06/2008, -8/+3yeah. because the general public visits digg every day to see how many pro-obama stories hit the front page. moron.
      • 10ofDiamonds, on 08/06/2008, -3/+3Did you have a point or are you just stringing words together?......moron
    • xyzzypoofs, on 08/06/2008, -10/+4It is interesting that the system administrators for Digg are now cheating the numbers. If I (as a conservative) press a thumbs-down, there will instantly be a plus-two digg. Thsi site is bogus, and is obviously taking its queues directly from the DNC, Obamalama, and George Sorors. You are a bunch of hypocrites.
      • nesagwa, on 08/06/2008, -1/+6You understand that those numbers arent updated real time right?
      • mithrasinvictus, on 08/06/2008, -2/+5no, it works, i buried you and it went from +1 to 0.
        the system was taking into account diggs from other people as well. (other people are active while you read)
      • gadgetlust, on 08/06/2008, -2/+8This phenomenon you mention is nothing more than the activity of people who are smarter than you moving stuff around in the tubes while you're busy sounding out the big words.
    • dondara, on 08/06/2008, -4/+5Let's not overstate Digg's relevance in the US political spectrum. On a scale of 1 to 10, Digg is about a 1. This is internet chit chat not the McLaughlin group. And if the fascists don't like the pro-Obama stories they can ***** off.
  • DuggDowner, on 08/06/2008, -45/+102The GOP also takes pride in being bigots too.
    • Ricemanstm, on 08/06/2008, -30/+16Yep, that's what we are. Just because we think a junior senator with no legislation under his belt, no time on the world stage, and very little experience in Washington is unqualified; By God we must be racist! I didn't realize that being black automatically gave you experience and made you qualified. If that's the case...it sucks to be white.
      • sandersdamnit, on 08/06/2008, -14/+28you hate gays, non-religious people, anti-war people, anyone who doesn't agree with you, McCain has just as much experience being POTUS as Obama does
      • Ricemanstm, on 08/06/2008, -22/+11Oh, okay. Well as long as you're stereotyping:

        You people love child molesters, murderers, and drug addicts. You care more for the criminal than for the victim. You would rather let people do what they want instead of doing what's right. You'd rather sit and talk than stand an fight. You've turned dime store science into an environmental cult movement. You stand for free speech as long as there's no dissension. And what the public doesn't want by vote, you forcefully legalize via the courts.

        Oh, as for McCain, not that I'm a huge fan. At least McCain has been around the political block a few times.
      • jasoninoakland, on 08/06/2008, -4/+20Yes, but remember, Christians and white people are beleaguered minorities in this country who have to fight for what little rights they have left. The GOP stands up for them.
        /sarcasm
      • stizz, on 08/06/2008, -11/+6Yes, ignorant racist bigots. the lot of you.
      • dan222555, on 08/06/2008, -1/+9As if hate were contained exclusively on one side of the political spectrum....
      • compdude32, on 08/06/2008, -10/+5sanders,

        thanks for telling me what I hate.

        Truth is you couldn't be farther from the truth, read about what true conservitisim is before just spewing your blind hatred for that that you don't understand.

        As for Obama being as qualified as McCain, please explain how a Jr. Senator with 3 years experience in the Senate who has never lead anything in his life is as Qualified as a veteran Senator who was a Squadron leader in the Navy, and has a well established name in the country as well as the world.
      • DuggDowner, on 08/06/2008, -9/+12Crashing a few airplanes hardly qualifies you as a leader.
      • evilesttoast, on 08/06/2008, -9/+8As a member of the GOP, this extremely bothers me. How can you take the far right as the median and say all Republicans are bigots? I have nothing against gays or atheists. I may not agree with you, but I dont hate them. So, continue being a hypocrite.
      • fejjfunklamella, on 08/06/2008, -7/+10Sanders:

        "you hate gays, non-religious people, anti-war people, anyone who doesn't agree with you, McCain has just as much experience being POTUS as Obama does"

        Wow. I hope that you're just trolling. Because that just might be the dumbest generalization I've seen in quite some time.

        I hate gays? Um, no. I could care less what adults do, as long as no one under the age of consent who's given their consent gets hurt.

        I hate non-religious people? Uh, no. I hate fanatics who try to force feed their beliefs onto someone who doesn't want them. Oh, BTW, I'm non-religious. Gee, go figure...

        I hate anti-war people? Um, no. I thought we should have been out of Iraq once WMD's were discovered to be the red herring that they are. We shouldn't be nation building, IMHO.

        I hate people who don't agree with me? Uh, no. Just the ones who toss out knee-jerk, BS talking points that prove beyond a doubt that you, my friend, are nothing but a mindless sheeple who pukes out DailyKOS rantings on internet message boards.
      • Ricemanstm, on 08/06/2008, -7/+8Wow. Just wow. Duggdowner and sanders...sad little ignorant trolls.
      • TheHerk, on 08/06/2008, -8/+3Doesn't mind *****, logical foreign policy, or free thought. Sounds very non-R to me.
      • catcher6250, on 08/06/2008, -5/+8There are ony 2 Black republicans, hmm, I wonder why
      • Ricemanstm, on 08/06/2008, -7/+2I dunno, go ask Condi.
      • compdude32, on 08/06/2008, -6/+2DuggDowner. McCain did more than just crash a few airplanes.

        Do you have any idea what it means to be a squadron commander?

        I will be the first to agree the McCain isn't the best qualified man who ran for the nomination, but he is clearly far more qualified than Obama is.
      • DuggDowner, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1Squadron commander is the position McCain was unqualified to serve in and got only because of his daddy's military might. So let me amend my earlier statement--nepotism and crashing a few planes hardly qualifies one to be president.
      • compdude32, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

        You clearly have no clue how the military works, yes your family can get you rank, but it won't get you the command of a squadron.

        And you still keep avoiding the question of what has Obama done to qualify him?
    • justjoehere, on 08/06/2008, -16/+4[citation needed]
      • justjoehere, on 08/06/2008, -3/+2I get dugg down and still no citations. Interesting.
    • vbullinger, on 08/06/2008, -11/+4Alan Keyes? Colin Powell? Condoleeza Rice? Fail.

      Hell, I voted for Keyes in the 2000 primary. Thank God we had Ron Paul this time around so I can actually be proud to vote for someone (Keyes was kind of a "whatever" vote. Better than Bush and McCain).
  • OC73, on 08/06/2008, -47/+29Funny, the guy who attended a racist church for decades is calling others ignorant.
    • wafla, on 08/06/2008, -9/+12White guy, huh?
    • sandersdamnit, on 08/06/2008, -13/+18Yes McCain did attend a racist church with a fanatical pastor.
      • dan222555, on 08/06/2008, -8/+4What church was that?
      • sandersdamnit, on 08/06/2008, -4/+8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee
      • dan222555, on 08/06/2008, -7/+3And when did John McCain attend his church?
      • catcher6250, on 08/06/2008, -1/+6Hagee on Hurricane Katrina "All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]

        Hagee on Islamic Beliefs
        Fresh Air host Terry Gross asked if Hagee believed that "all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews," to which Hagee replied, "Well, the Quran teaches that. Yes, it teaches that very clearly." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]

        John McCain sought out this man's endorsement! Nuff said!

        Hagee on African-Americans
        The San Antonio Express-News reported that Hagee was going to "meet with black religious leaders privately at an unspecified future date to discuss comments he made in his newsletter about a 'slave sale,' an East Side minister said Wednesday." The Express-News reported:

        "Hagee, pastor of the 16,000-member Cornerstone Church, last week had announced a 'slave sale' to raise funds for high school seniors in his church bulletin, 'The Cluster.'

        "The item was introduced with the sentence 'Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone" and ended with "Make plans to come and go home with a slave." [San Antonio Express-News 3/7/96]

        Hagee on Catholicism
        "Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews." [Jerusalem Countdown by John Hagee]

        Hagee on Women
        "Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist." [God's Profits: Faith, Fraud and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters, Sarah Posner]

        "[T]he feminist movement today is throwing off authority in rebellion against God's pattern for the family." ["Bible Positions on Political Issues," John Hagee]

      • dan222555, on 08/06/2008, -4/+2I'll ask again in case you missed it....when did John McCain attend his church?
      • dan222555, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Exactly....that's what I thought.
    • dildoolielly, on 08/06/2008, -9/+13FAMILY VALUES: GAY RAPE / TORTURE

      Keep voting Republican, sickos! The Devil is cheering you on!
    • publiclurker, on 08/06/2008, -6/+9What does his religious affiliation have to do with the fact that you are ignorant?
  • obamayomama, on 08/06/2008, -30/+30Origin415 : "If oil companies wanted to drill more, they would have done it already on the 68 million offshore acres they have leased." Do you get your news from DailyKos? The acreage you speak of is not offshore but on dry land and, and does not have sufficient reserves to make drilling pragmatic. We've only explored about 6% of the continental shelf so far. Get your facts straight.
    • WasabiBomb, on 08/06/2008, -10/+22Then why do they maintain the leases? Leases have to be paid once every three years- and, at least in my experience, oil companies lock down leases so that OTHER oil companies don't get to drill on them.

      In other words, they're hedging their bets, and trying to lock down FURTHER oil leases.
      • publiclurker, on 08/06/2008, -6/+13Shhh!, it's supposed to be a secret.
      • obamayomama, on 08/06/2008, -12/+8OK, even if I accept that premise, WHO CARES why they hold on to the leases? Ever consider that there may be SOME oil there, and they're waiting for technology that would make it economically feasible to get at it someday? We need to open up as many areas as possible to drilling, as well as be open to other forms of energy production. You lefties need to put the latte down and realize that the American people are hurting.
      • dan222555, on 08/06/2008, -3/+7They maintain the leases as a future investment. With the development of new technologies it's likely what's currently unproductive land could have oil extracted from in the future.

        If there was oil available there now using existing technology don't you think they'd be getting it out of the ground and selling it at record prices?
      • caramba420, on 08/06/2008, -1/+5It also allows them to claim the leases as assets in their SEC filings, thus inflating the paper value of their companies.
      • UltraDavid, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1Whoa, not all of us like our coffee with milk in it, alright?

        As for me? Gimme that soy milk, baby.
    • jimlamb, on 08/06/2008, -2/+1So how do we know that there's any more economically recoverable oil off-shore than on-shore? What about the oil we're exporting because it's more costly to refine than the oil we can import? Would off-shore drilling just line the pockets of the oil industry with more exports?
    • zydeco, on 08/06/2008, -2/+4More importantly, how do we guarantee that those oil companies sell the oil to American refineries? How do we know that Royal Dutch Shell won't put that oil on the open market to be scooped up by China?
      • fajitamelt, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Maybe they can pass a law that says no selling the oil to other countries.
      • utahnkid, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1We can't, don't need to, but most importantly that goes against everything America stands for. The cost of oil is universal. Whether the supplies come from Qatar or Quebec, oil costs the same to everyone on the open market. The goal is to get more oil into the supply chain, influence the futures investors opinions of worldwide oil supply, and NATURALLY reduce the cost of oil.

        As much as liberals would absolutely LOVE to get in on that sticky black action, tax the profits to hell, and further increase their reach into everyone's lives via the one central all powerful government they strive to create, sadly for them that won't happen. These things only realistically work when people do it because they want to.

        And I find it so hypocritical that everyone here will complain about the police and anything about the government's role in any part of their life but the second that person isn't the one in question he screams for higher and higher taxes and more and more control taken away from the people or businesses that are. You can't demand more freedoms for yourself then turn around and demand that others have less just so you can benefit from it.
    • obamayomama, on 08/06/2008, -6/+4They may well put the oil on the open market- that's how global markets work. That doesn't change the fact that 1) More crude (or even the prospect of it) on the open market lowers cost. 2) China is ready to "scoop up" the oil lying off our OWN coast before we get to it. Oil that Speaker Pelosi and her fellow Democrats won't even allow a fair vote on, despite the fact that Americans OVERWHELMINGLY support drilling for it.
      • caramba420, on 08/06/2008, -2/+4So wait a minute....China is going to come set up shop and start drilling off our coast if we don't do it first? What have you been smoking and where can I get some?
      • obamayomama, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2Sure, you can have some... toke on this:

        According to CNNMoney.com: "Plans for foreign oil companies, some from India and China, to drill off the cost of Cuba are prompting calls from lawmakers to ease environmental restrictions that prohibit coastal drilling in most of the U.S... Cuba is opening up its continental shelf for oil and gas exploration while most of the U.S. continental shelf outside the Gulf of Mexico, which extends 200 miles from shore, has been off limits for drilling since the early 1980s, the New York Times reported."

        "China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC) yesterday signed a $50 million contract with Norwegian company Aker Kvaerner ASA for deepwater drilling equipment supplies. The maximum drilling depth will reach 12 km, which means it can operate in deepwater regions in the South China Sea, Southeast Asia, Gulf of Mexico and West Africa." - ChinaDaily.com

        "If Cuba and communist China believe they too can find oil in the Gulf, we should pull out all stops," argues Smith. "We may be able to bring the price of gasoline down under $2 a gallon if oil can be found in these huge quantities within our territorial waters. It's crazy to think we should be dependent on foreign oil when we've made Mexico our number two supplier of oil with the reserves Mexico has found in the Gulf." - WorldNetDaily.com

        "The U.S. government is forbidding drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Eastern seaboard on the Continental Shelf. Meanwhile, China is preparing to tap into the same oil pockets with Cuba’s cooperation. China will actually be able to pump several oil pockets in the Gulf dry while American companies are forbidden from drilling in the same areas." - freerepublic.com


      • caramba420, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2This make absolutely no sense. Any area that is within the Government's jurisdiction to decide who can drill, should equally prevent American and Chinese companies from drilling. Any area that China can drill, the US Government cannot stop corporations from drilling.
      • obamayomama, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1What you've been smoking has apparently hindered your capacity for logical thought. The drilling ban extends into international waters, and foreign countries are not about to subject themselves to the the draconian laws that the US has self-imposed.
      • UltraDavid, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2Here's a bit from that WorldNetDaily source:

        "The new deep-water finds in the Gulf of Mexico are more validation for what we wrote in "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," co-author Jerome R. Corsi explained to WND. "The deep-earth, abiotic theory – that the ORIGIN OF OIL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL – argues that oil is abundant at levels deep within the earth."

        Co-author Craig R. Smith pointed out "all of these Gulf of Mexico oil finds are at deeper levels than traditional-thinking 'FOSSIL FUEL' GEOLOGISTS typically looked."


        Totally. So when Smith says, "We may be able to bring the price of gasoline down under $2 a gallon if oil can be found in these huge quantities within our territorial waters," you can trust that not only will that "if" be fulfilled, but his economic predictions will come true as well. Riiiiiiiiii. Diculous.
      • caramba420, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Do you have any idea how "international waters" got its name? It's because governments can't unilaterally impose laws on it. DERP!

        Besides, if what you are saying is true, what would stop Exxon-Mobil from incorporating some subsidiary in Dubai and having this proxy do all their drilling for them?

    • wilywondr, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2Where do you get your "facts" from? If drilling is not "pragmatic" on those leases why do you think the oil companies would not give up those leases? It costs them money to hold those leases.
      What do you believe they gain by holding onto those leases?
      Why do you believe the republicans would not go along with a bill that would force the oil companies to drill on that land or give up those leases?
      "H.R. 6251: Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act
      To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing new Federal oil and gas leases to holders of existing leases who do not diligently develop the lands subject to such existing leases or relinquish such leases, and for other purposes."
      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110 ...
      • obamayomama, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1As I stated before, ever consider that there may be SOME oil there, and they're waiting for technology that would make it economically feasible to get at it someday? I don't know what they gain by holding on to those leases, nor do I really care, as it has no bearing on the issue at hand- that is, we need more oil and ought to be able to drill for what we have rather than importing the vast majority of it.
      • caramba420, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0"I don't know what they gain by holding on to those leases, nor do I really care, as it has no bearing on the issue at hand..."

        Then you should have no problem with the bill as it "...[prohibits] the Secretary of the Interior from issuing new Federal oil and gas leases to holders of existing leases who do not diligently develop the lands subject to such existing leases OR RELINQUISH SUCH LEASES."

        So if new leases would be better than the ones they have, they could just relinquish their current leases. All this is trying to do is stop the ***** kid from licking every Dorito in the bowl just so nobody else can have any, while at the same time asking mom to open another bag of chips.
      • obamayomama, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0As we're a nation that will continue to rely on oil for the foreseeable future for our very economic existence, I'm not sure the dorito analogy is a good one, especially when one considers that oil companies pay for the leases they have, so in a sense they are "their doritos."

        Yes, I do have a problem with the bill as it's ambiguous language leaves its interpretation and enforcement open to politicization. Logic dictates that since the oil industry pays millions of dollars for these leases, it would not make sense to purposely leave the areas untapped. Years of exploration is required before drilling can even begin, and it is especially hard now that a worldwide boom in oil exploration has pushed up the prices - and timelines - to obtain skilled workers and specialized equipment.

        H. R. 6251 allows the prevention of new drilling by perpetually claiming that oil companies aren't developing the lands they already have, and it's subjective language leaves plenty of wiggle room for politicians to do so. We all know that there is a core group of Democrats that oppose new drilling, not because of unused leases, but because of what they (or more likely their uninformed constituents) regard as environmental factors, and we also know that they'll use this kind of legislation to achieve their ends. That's why this bill, supported by a long list of Democrats and not one Republican, failed.

      • caramba420, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1"Logic dictates that since the oil industry pays millions of dollars for these leases, it would not make sense to purposely leave the areas untapped."

        This is not necessarily true. There are many instances where manipulating supply is more profitable. Take for instance the California Energy Crisis. There was never more demand than supply, but energy companies arbitrarily closed down plants for "maintenance," artificially driving the prices up. Also, look at DeBeers...if they put all the diamonds they have on the market, they would be worthless. These companies are gaming the system by making sure that the little guy can't get his hands on these leases and drive the price down.
      • obamayomama, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0"There are many instances where manipulating supply is more profitable." Of course there are, but it stands to reason that by opening up more supply, to more individual companies, the effort to control it becomes more difficult. I've no illusions that corporations will serve their own self interest when they can, but I also think competition and increased supply help temper that infinitely better than government.

        As for the California Energy Crisis, it was government meddling that brought it about. Instead of deregulating the industry, the California legislature imposed a kind of "regulation lite," that made no sense and rendered market forces ineffective. Energy price regulation forced suppliers to ration their electricity supply rather than expand production. This scarcity created opportunities for market manipulation by energy speculators like Enron to control the markets. State lawmakers capped the price of electricity at the pre-deregulation level, while at the same time requiring utility companies to buy electricity from spot markets at uncapped prices when faced with imminent power shortages.

        The larger issue remains, however, that H. R. 6251 will not be used as a political tool to further the environmentalist agenda and stifle energy production.
  • springboks, on 08/06/2008, -26/+51It's true, the GOP needed to hear that. They take pride in being stupid and do it at the expense of the un-educated vote. They're a bunch of hillbillys! Why? Check out McCain in South Dakota, he says "I'd rather be greeted with the sound of motorbikes than 200k Berliners"

    Guess what McCain your bikers are a bunch of inbred South Dakotans who are leaving a bigger carbon footprint with their ***** bike revving than 200k Berliners!

    Sounds like McCain is obviously jealous that he's not getting the attention Obama is so he turning everything and making fun of it e.g. tire pressure comment, big crowds. I'm sure if Obama wore pleated pants he'd make fun of that (re: the John Steward reference).

    Shame on Republicans. You're the most backward people in the developing nation.
    • merlin5, on 08/06/2008, -29/+18Coming from an obvious Kos/Huffingpoo fed Obritney-bot zombie. This inbred ***** bike revving carbon spewer says....Thanks!

      Get a job, stop jerking off at your computer.
      • Lyk4n, on 08/06/2008, -3/+9Says the man on a computer, likely jerking off to Ann Coulter..
      • TheHerk, on 08/06/2008, -3/+9"Obritney-bot"
        Don't you realize you are part of this absurdity.
      • Sumtin2Say, on 08/06/2008, -4/+3Guess that makes him a McSame-bot?
      • Sumtin2Say, on 08/06/2008, -2/+3Hmmmmm... I wonder who dugg me down.
    • flink405, on 08/06/2008, -6/+17U.S. bikers vote for the U.S. President, 200k Berliners don´t.
    • barstegry, on 08/06/2008, -10/+1It's Stewart... John Stewart... you ignorant slut
    • Kishoba, on 08/06/2008, -14/+10You have got to be kidding me. You think the GOP takes advantage of the uneducated vote. HAHA, I don't even need to say more. You just reinforced the opposite.
      • caramba420, on 08/06/2008, -2/+6Who is it that is constantly trying to dismantle the public education system?

        "Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction."

        -Adolf Hitler
      • coljung, on 08/06/2008, -2/+2Well, who does middle uneducated america votes for ?

        I think democrats win most of the big cities, while republicans take small town america......
      • Jackson0909, on 08/06/2008, -1/+4coljung,
        Please inform me as to the demographic makeup of most inner-cities. I think you will find the most uneducated Americans living there.

        Living in middle America does not make you uneducated. I am sick of Obama supporters with pompous attitudes constantly trying to prove how smart they are.

        Here's a news flash for you: Supporting John McCain does not make you uneducated. On the flip side, support of Barack Obama does not automatically make you a genius.

        Sometimes different people have a different opinion as to the direction our country needs to go. Often times, it has nothing to do with intelligence.
      • caramba420, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Polls show that people with only a high school education favor Dems. People with a bachelor's degree slightly favor Reps. People with PhDs favor Dems.

        I would argue, though, that people with degrees in hard sciences are more likely to favor Dems. Just read a few issues of Scientific American. Or some peer reviewed journals for that matter. I think you'd be hard pressed to find biologists supporting a party that wants you to believe that Jesus rode dinosaurs, or a physicist supporting a party that would like to legislate the Big Bang out of our schools.
    • dan222555, on 08/06/2008, -5/+8"They're a bunch of hillbillys! Why? Check out McCain in South Dakota, he says "I'd rather be greeted with the sound of motorbikes than 200k Berliners""
      Appreciating the enthusiasm of the American people over the enthusiasm of foreigners makes him a hillbilly?
      • phoenixshard, on 08/06/2008, -3/+6I wouldn't say that, but I would say that taking shots at Obama for not going overseas, then bitching about it when it draws more media than he gets, then bitching that Obama pulled those numbers in Berlin pretty much makes him an idiot.
      • springboks, on 08/06/2008, -5/+6Because America is the only thing on the world map right? The global acceptance of Obama is now become a jealousy point for McCain. First Obama doesn't know squat about foreign policy, he's proven this to be wrong, and talking things through with the "enemy" has been fruitful (i.e. the cheering Berliners).

        Then McCain has to one up this and say, ha but I got greeted by Bikers, you can't get greeted by Bikers Obama.

        Oh yeah and the dumb vote is exactly what McCain is going for. Republican's will do anything to get a vote, even if it's from Bikers. 200k Berliners votes don't matter when it comes down to the race of the white house, but think big picture. It means a people outside America for the first time have welcomed an American and approve of his policy. It certainly says more than your hillbilly (yes I said it again) dumb as dog ***** American voters.
      • dan222555, on 08/06/2008, -4/+5"Because America is the only thing on the world map right?"
        No, because Americans are the only ones who elect the American President. Why should a candidate for the President of the United States prefer the enthusiasm of foreigners over the enthusiasm of Americans?

        "Republican's will do anything to get a vote, even if it's from Bikers."
        Liberals: always willing to stereotype as long as it's not directed at anyone they agree with.
      • dan222555, on 08/06/2008, -4/+4By the way:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(Uni ...

        Check out the Education section...
      • sonicpentatonic, on 08/06/2008, -2/+3That's interesting, because if you look at the demographics of how the last few presidential races have gone, the states with the better education systems and scores tend to go Democrat (think California, New England, and most definitely NOT the south).
      • Jackson0909, on 08/06/2008, -1/+4Dan,

        Thanks for the Wikipedia find. While most would find the article very informative, there are others (sonicpentatonic) who will continue to make excuses.

        I, personally, couldn't care less which party is more "educated", but I do find it annoying that I am constantly being told by the left how ignorant and dumb I am for my political opinions. The majority of this site seems to be very pretentious and takes pride in promoting themselves as intelligent individuals, while relegating anyone who thinks differently to ignorance.

        I like to call it Keith Olbermann Syndrome.
      • dan222555, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2"That's interesting, because if you look at the demographics of how the last few presidential races have gone, the states with the better education systems and scores tend to go Democrat (think California, New England, and most definitely NOT the south)."
        It's a major stretch to draw a correlation between a state's public education system and how the entire state goes in the general election. If you broke it down by district it'd be a hell of a lot more accurate and I would hypothesize it would show the same correlation seen in the data I presented. As an example (not suggesting this proves anything) I live in NJ which is one of those states with a really good education system that always goes Democratic. But the educational system in my Congressional district is one of the top-rated in the nation and the district is a lock to go red. Whereas the public education system in Newark is absolutely terrible, and that district consistently goes blue. But when you balance those things out the population of areas like Newark overpowers the population of areas like where I live and the state goes blue.

        But all that said you'd be a fool to take that rough correlation you've formed over hard data based on the actual electorate.
      • obamayomama, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0sonicpentatonic: "the states with the better education systems and scores tend to go Democrat (think California, New England, and most definitely NOT the south)." What's interesting is that in Morgan Quitno’s annual reference book, Education State Rankings, 2006-2007, California is ranked 47th out of 50 (not 57) states- BELOW Louisiana and Mississippi. http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm
        Furthermore, where I went to school (here in the ignorant south,) they taught me- correctly, I beleive, that New England is a region, not a state.
    • mst3kcrow, on 08/06/2008, -0/+7Both parties take part of the uneducated vote. A few examples of what they engage in: party politics, suggesting the gov is a limitless bank account for social amenities (and not considering this would cause higher taxes), and ignoring important issues while they ***** their voting base over.
    • zydeco, on 08/06/2008, -1/+9Hey, it worked for the wealthy Yale grad from Maine that suddenly became a cowboy. YEE-HAW!
    • RichardSwingman, on 08/06/2008, -13/+2Obama dick suckers ^
    • compdude32, on 08/06/2008, -8/+5LOLOLOLOLOL now that is just hysterical accusing the GOP of going after the uneducated. Pot meet Kettle.
    • dan222555, on 08/06/2008, -4/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(Uni ...

      You'll find it under Education....
      • diabloenfuego, on 08/06/2008, -2/+2You're telling me that the 'old school' I don't care what "The Google" is don't vote?

        Senior and back-woods citizens make up some of the largest polling numbers...the problem is that they vote for "ethics" often entirely based on religious perceptions and policies that they follow rather than come to conclusions themselves.
      • dan222555, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3I'm not telling you anything. I'm just showing you the facts.
      • compdude32, on 08/06/2008, -2/+1Wikipedia, what a great source, the same site that says Mikey Mantle played for 40 billion years.
      • dan222555, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2Did you read it? Wikipedia is just presenting the data. The data itself is from a 2004 survey by NES http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/2004prep ...
    • SkittlesUSA, on 08/06/2008, -5/+6How does the GOP take advantage of the uneducated vote when the uneducated don't vote?

      And plus, the uneducated will vote for the people that will give them free health care and government handouts.

      Hmm... I wonder which candidate will do that.
    • IJstickI, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2yea they needed to hear it...because they take anything obama says very seriously.......not.
    • d2drake, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1So, the basis of your argument is an ad hominem attack (and a huge generalization to boot!). Of course, ad hominem attacks signal a weak argument and as such, the argument should be discounted or dismissed altogether. And the fact that there is no substantive supporting reasoning, well, maybe you shouldn't bring up intelligence as a debating point.
    • obamayomama, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0springboks, if you're going lambast the GOP along educational lines, I'd think you'd at least like to do it in a grammatically correct and somewhat coherent manner. It's more than a little bit ironic that you begin your attack by citing the GOP's "un-educated vote," apparently oblivious to the fact that the word uneducated is not hyphenated. You follow that up by calling us "hillbillys," seemingly unaware that the correct spelling is "hillbillies."

      Perhaps you'd like to come down south for a while and attend some English classes.
    • johnnyctone, on 08/13/2008, -0/+0GOPers on this thread shouldn't put faith into a Wiki education argument. I'm pretty sure a 4-year degree in states with better education is not the equivalent of a 4 year degree in other states.

      As far as this election goes, your arguments would still be null-and-void:
      http://www.gallup.com/poll/106381/Obama-Education- ...
  • SpiceWare, on 08/06/2008, -10/+19reducing demand is great thing to do, but if we *also* open up the drilling then money that would have been going overseas would instead be used to create jobs in America.
    • DavidYeah, on 08/06/2008, -7/+11
      Oil companies already have plenty of access to billions of gallons oil in America, they just aren't using it. How about you redirect your anger towards the oil companies for not drilling the oil they already have instead of lobbying congress for more access?
      • exronin, on 08/06/2008, -3/+2i say we start drilling under your house first.
      • dan222555, on 08/06/2008, -4/+2Produce the secret evidence you're holding onto that proves the oil companies are holding onto land that is capable right now with existing technology of producing "billions of gallons of oil".
      • phoenixshard, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3Since it requires a change to something as important as the environment and could pose a real danger to that, how about you get the oil companies to prove there isn't oil on the land they've already got the rights to drill on.
      • DavidYeah, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4Oil is no longer the answer and that we need to invest more in alternativ e sources of energy. If they haven't figured out how to get oil out of the 68 million acres of land that is leased to them for the purposes of drilling, then they should stop being subsidized so we can invest in companies that DO have plans for generating power through solar, wind, and water energy sources that surround us every day.

        I don't get why you're looking for drilling offshore when it would take years for us to realise the results.. The GOP is making it sound like it's going to happen next month. If we have to wait years for results, I'd rather we stop subsidizing oil and put that money into the research of green energy sources.

        Drilling for more oil and prolonging our problem just doesn't make a ton of sense.
      • nalen33, on 08/29/2008, -1/+1So I'm going to assume you've never heard of Greenpeace or any other environmentalist lobbying organizations David. There are reasons they don't/can't drill which is why oil has not been produced in many areas they have leased. Do you even have any idea when the last refinery was built in this country? I'll give you a hint, it was 32 years ago. I agree we need to go in another direction, but using drilling and adding new refineries as a stopgap while we develop other alternatives is the best, most sound plan we've got.
      • DavidYeah, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2RJGONZO: If the areas that they would have to build refineries are of concern to Greenpeace, then I would agree with them. But I'm thinking the fact that the land ives already leased to the oil companies means that they already have rights to drill on it.. otherwise it wouldn't be leased to them. Correct me if I'm wrong on how that works.

      • DavidYeah, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2Isn't it shocking that companies have to spend billions of dollars to dig up and refine oil while we have energy in the form of solar, wind, and water surrounding us at all times?

        It's completely illogical, unless of course you're trying to corner an energy market for massive profit, in which case it makes complete sense to make sure everyone with a roof can't tack a solar panel to get their energy. It's time to start ignoring the oil shills and barons, and start being energy independent.
    • Intercon, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3If reducing oil prices is the goal, let's have legislation that closes the London Futures Market to unregulated American investors. New drilling won't pay off for many years to come. Stopping greedy speculators who drive up the price for the entire planet would have immediate benefits. I don't hear any Republicans and very few Democrats going into this topic, but if the American public got a little more educated on how the oil industry functions as a market, they might begin to apply pressure in areas that will actually have an impact.
      • JinnRikki, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3Do you believe oil produced domestically is held here or put on the world market? If you believe it is kept in the US for our benefit I have an oil well in downtown Manhattan I'm willing to sell cheap.
  • atmmac, on 08/06/2008, -26/+15Does Obama honestly think that people are just going to start listening to him about their tire pressure. Sure maybe a few people will start to check their tire pressure (everyone knows they should but are lazy) does he really think that this is going to save 3 to 4%..... are you kidding me. We need to drill more and look into other resources for fuel such as NATURAL GAS! we have a ton of this stuff and our cars can be converted to run on it (GM AND FORD WAKE UP!) If they want to solve the tire pressure problem then they need to look no further than the michelin tweel.
    • TrueXtremeIcon, on 08/06/2008, -0/+16He said that if everyone did it, the benefits would be huge (which is true). I highly doubt that he expected every vehicle owner in the United States to suddenly go and check their tire pressure. It was used as an example of how thinking in conservation and efficiency terms can make huge impacts, as opposed to the extra 1% of oil 10 years from now we would get from drilling.

      Just because Obama made a very smart suggestion and a majority of people are too stupid and/or lazy to act on that suggestion shouldn't be treated as if Obama is the stupid one.
    • TheEggAndI, on 08/06/2008, -1/+9do you have any idea what you're talking about?
      obama never said that he expected the entire united states to check their tire pressure. ONE PERSON asked him what he/she could do to personally help, and he gave them a tip followed up by a satistic that is everyone in the country did this it would reduce consumption. which is TRUE. why do people keep trying ot pass this off as his energy plan? are they really grasping at straws that badly?
      if everyone stop drinking, smoking, and started exercising, that would eliminate atleast 50%(which is an under estimate) of diseases in the country, that is TRUE, it doesnt mean that anyone expects everyone in the country to do that.
    • zydeco, on 08/06/2008, -0/+8Quick Quiz, atmmac. Who said the following?

      "Energy efficiency by using improved technology and practicing sensible habits in our homes, businesses and automobiles is a big part of the answer, and is something we can achieve right now."

      Hint: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/ ...
    • thaddeusj, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1You ask if people are going to really start checking their tire pressure because of Obama, then suggest the Tweel? You'll have more luck getting people to use a tire gauge than getting everyone to replace all their wheels. That really should go without saying. But the whole point of the comment was that we have conservations opportunities that are as effective if not more effective than supply opportunities.

      Oh and a note on natural gas. We have been able to convert engines to run on it for decades. Zamboni machines, those things that smooth ice rinks, run on natural gas. We had one at an ice-rink I worked at. The engine was a Chevy 454 V8, powered by natural gas, made about 30 hp. That's why you don't see fleets of natural gas vehicles on the road.
      • Quisquis, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Bull *****... All the vehicles on our campus (UWM) run on natural gas and they have a damn good amount of pickup.
      • atmmac, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0Woah attack of the liberals....... Its human nature to be lazy, if a program was started to implement the tweel over a period of time then it would eventually eliminate the need to tire pressure period solving the problem. Having barak obama come on tv and expecting people to magically start putting air in their tires is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure having air in your tires is common sense. And obviously we have conservation oppurtunities available does that mean people are going to take advantage of them.....nope! we need to find another way of getting things accomplished. but hey you know what they say....its time for a change.... maybe Obama should get a reality show and emphasize how everyday when he wakes up he checks his tire pressure..... then we can take a vote of the favorite person on the show to be in his cabinet.
  • chrissku, on 08/06/2008, -23/+19Finally! It's nice to see Barack hit back and own the GOP!
  • Sh0ck4, on 08/06/2008, -25/+39OMFG are you guys serious? I saw this on the front page of Digg last night. Matter of fact, here is a link http://digg.com/search?s=GOP&submit=Search§ion ...

    notice the 15 hours ago, then 9 hours ago, then this. Holy ***** people, I understand wanting to take it in the ass from Obama but this is getting ridiculous. Please bury for the love of god.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 08/06/2008, -15/+10Maybe we are just not the ignorant people he thought we were.
    • jetboyterp, on 08/06/2008, -12/+5We're not "ignorant", remember...we're "bitter" and we cling to our guns and our bible for comfort...

      • publiclurker, on 08/06/2008, -6/+6I doubt it's an either or in your case, Jethro.
    • sandersdamnit, on 08/06/2008, -8/+4I think he was talking to you, don't speak for me please.
    • graahBrains, on 08/06/2008, -0/+0Dude... wait, what?
  • jzuska, on 08/06/2008, -27/+19All your silly Obama submissions are going to backfire on you guys.
    • datastorageguy, on 08/06/2008, -4/+2So true. As a proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy, I am over joyed that the groups pushing so many Obama stories on this web site are doing so. It makes it look like ridiculous propaganda.
  • BobSconce, on 08/06/2008, -18/+49Part of Obama's energy plan is to (1) impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies to fund (2) a tax rebate to consumers. In other words, he wants to tax production and subsidize consumption. And, as always happens when government does either of those things, prices will go UP not down.

    [And, now, I prepare to be dug down by pro-Obama zealots who just don't like hearing any criticism of their god.]
    • vexingmodstwo, on 08/06/2008, -5/+8Exactly. What we're seeing here is an exercise in obfuscation. Obama was wrong to suggest properly inflated tires will save as much as offshore drilling will produce and is trying to change the subject.

      Too bad the only one's eating it up are the far left moonbats on Digg.
      • BobSconce, on 08/06/2008, -3/+5There is certainly something to be gained by properly inflating tires. But, that's not a realistic strategy -- it's just complaining. Is he going to institute a "tire inflation administration" to go around and check to see if tires are properly inflated? Will we, as citizens, need to keep records of having our tire inflation regularly checked by a professional and submit those records with our taxes? Any strategy that depends on 300 million people individually and voluntarily changing their behavior is no strategy at all. And, any strategy which forces people to keep their tires properly inflated will (properly) earn public derision for ridiculous micromanaging.

        Given the logic behind this strategy, his next strategy will probably be to adjust the timing on every stoplight in the country so that idling cars spend less time waiting for the green light. And, then after he does that, maybe he'll mandate that garages be built 5' closer to streets, that dogs are not allowed to stock their heads out car windows (increases drag) and require cars to draft behind big rigs whenever possible.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 08/06/2008, -3/+5I hear you, Bob. I really have to question the sanity of the Obamabots who are acting like his comment was some sort of brilliant idea. It doesn't even make sense when you give it two seconds of thought. Most people already keep their tires properly inflated and anyone who doesn't, isn't going to suddenly do it because some dumbass politician said so.
      • Sumtin2Say, on 08/06/2008, -1/+4@Bob

        "But, that's not a realistic strategy -- it's just complaining. Is he going to institute a "tire inflation administration"?"

        Properly inflated tires wasn't a strategy or an energy plan. It was just a comment made to make a point. I'm sure obama's website has more details.
      • sinrtb, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2Let me get this straight when asked " What can I alone do to reduce my consumption of foreign oil" your response is to drill offshore? If the oil companies cannot do it what makes you think individual americans can?
    • scoottie, on 08/06/2008, -3/+1he needs to lay out his plan with every penny accounted for. until that happens just saying that you will do something without saying how is just rhetoric
    • compdude32, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1Taxing production to subsidize consumption, isn't that kind of like a perpetual motion machine?
    • ElSnuggles, on 08/06/2008, -3/+5Seriously, how is Windfall taxes going to increase prices? I'm tired of hearing this. Exxon just posted the most profitable quarter in the history of the WORLD. Not revenue - profit. They did this by a careful manipulation of market conditions. I don't blame them for it as a "big evil corporation", hell that's what corporations are here to do - make money. A windfall tax on their PROFIT isn't going to increase prices because it isn't going to affect their bottom line.
      Back on subject - I really like Obama because of stuff like this. The Republicans have been playing the ignorant card for the last decade and poking fun at science, and it was time somebody said something about it.
      • BobSconce, on 08/06/2008, -2/+2It will increase prices because that extra tax will be added to the cost that it costs an oil company to produce gasoline. After salaries, depreciation, equipment purchases, tax, rent and buying crude oil from oil-producing countries, gasoline companies price their gasoline to make about a 10% margin. That 10% is the amount that they have to make in order for it to make sense for them to produce gasoline instead of doing something else. The other 90% goes into those other things.

        All a windfall profits tax does is change how much 90% is. If a windfall profits tax means that the 90% goes from $3.60 to, say, $3.78, then gasoline will go from $4.00 to $4.20.

        (It's a bit more complicated than that, but the idea is about right. In reality, the $4.20 is probably more than many people are willing to pay, so the price will drop down to, say, $4.10 or $4.15. From an economics point of view, a tax, including a windfall profits tax, moves the supply curve to the left, which means that where it crosses the demand curve moves up.)

        Care to enlighten me on how they "manipulated market conditions"? I've heard that accusation, but it seems to add up to no more than paranoia.
      • 140Suffolk, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1You're tired of hearing that increasing taxes on a business will raise prices? You're tired of hearing it?
        How would that happen? Are you kidding?

        If you're running a lemonade stand selling lemonade at $1/glass and suddenly government adds a 25 cent tax to you, what will you do? Add that new tax to your price. So now lemonade will be $1.25/glass. Get it?
    • ObamAmerican48, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1So what do you suggest?
      • BobSconce, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2First of all, recognize that there is no way to bring gas prices down in the short run. And, in fact, we shouldn't be trying -- high gas prices create incentives for people to find alternatives. We've already seen people starting to commercially exploit the tar sands in Canada, sales of small cars taking off and sales of SUVs dropping into the toilet. Meanwhile car manufacturers are increasing research and production of hybrid (including plug-ins) and electric cars. If the government tries to intervene in gas prices, that will be a signal that companies shouldn't try to create alternatives.

        Secondly, develop pro-nuclear policies, including re-processing of nuclear fuel. 70% of France's electricity is produced by Nuclear Power, and they don't have nearly the same problem with spent fuel, since they reprocess it. If electric cars become the norm, we will be replacing gasoline with electricity, and (unless you want coal-fired plants), Nuclear is the more realistic alternative. Wind-farms are pie-in-the-sky.

        Third, stop subsidizing ethanol. Much of the increase in worldwide food prices can be traced back to the increase in corn prices and repurposing land previous used for other crops due to Congress' idiotic pro-ethanol policies. If corn-based ethanol makes sense as an energy source, it won't need a massive government handout to keep it afloat. As-is, it takes nearly as much energy to create corn-based ethanol as the ethanol itself provides.

        Fourth, open new off-shore areas up to leases. Sure, some leases aren't being exploited today, but that's because (1) some of the leases are about to expire (so why spend millions building a platform) and (2) some of the areas have no oil. It's probably true that the Earth isn't making any more oil, but that's also true of, say, nitrogen. The fact is that we have no idea how close we are to "running out," except that proven reserves are higher now than they were in the 1970's.

        Fifth, modify environmental regulations to specify total amount of pollutants that coal-fired plants are allowed to give off, INSTEAD of requiring scrubbers. Scrubbers use an enormous portion of the electricity such plants generate. Power companies can achieve the same result with much less expensive means. Western coal, for example, burns much cleaner than eastern coal and doesn't require nearly as much scrubbing. [The scrubber requirement happened because Sen. Robert Byrd wanted to guarantee a market for dirty coal from West Virginia.] The Federal Scrubber requirement has effectively killed off innovation.

        Sixth, drop the sugar tariff -- sugar-based ethanol requires much less energy to create and requires much less land per unit of energy. Opening up the US market to Brazilian and Caribbean sugar would also allow for an alternative to Gasoline without nearly the harm to the food supply.

        Seventh, stop bailing out the airlines and allow foreign ownership of US airlines. When they go bankrupt, don't guarantee any loans to them. You don't want to prop-up old, fuel-inefficient, airlines.
      • sinrtb, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2I would say stop subsidizing oil and start subsidizing alternative energy sources
        nuclear, ethanol, wind, solar, and clean coal (if its real). Then just let the market take its course.

        If that doesn't work tax more oil so the price continues to rise and subsidize alternatives. Get enough tax out of gas and eventually you will be able to buy an electric car for everyone in America with enough alt fuels to run them. It worked for cigarettes why would it not work for oil?

        There seems to be two arguments going right now, 'for oil but against foreign oil' and the other is 'against oil period'. I think the problem is people are not letting go of the fact that oil as a fuel is no longer working regardless of if it comes from the middle east or if it comes from our backyard it will run out. It is not forever whether it runs out tomorrow or in 200 years is not important if we get our addiction weened off before it runs out.
        Also if we are weened of oil before we start drilling everywhere we will have those reserves in the future should we need them.
    • SimmaDownNow, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2@BobSconce
      THAT is the way to discuss politics.

      Nonetheless, I have been waiting a long time for a major politician to articulate Obama's point about the GOP’s insistence on peddling ignorance. Sometimes they would insinuate something so outrageous, that I would just chuckle, nobody is going to believe that nonsense. Then slowly but surely, it begins to reverberate throughout the ether, until it becomes fact. I just wish he would say the pledge of allegiance and visit the troops once in a while though.
    • Hokke, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1Energy needs to be more expensive so that saving energy comes a standard.
    • StarlessKnight, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1I dug you down because of your attitude problem, actually. "Look at me! I'm gonna get dugg down by those phantom Obamamaniacs!"
  • Spektr4, on 08/06/2008, -11/+14Some say that if everyone properly filled their tires, it would only make a small dent in the oil situation. But then again, so would continental shelf drilling. I think that is Obama's larger point.

    Furthermore, I think it's real nice that everyone who wouldn't have the oil platforms "in their backyard" are in support of drilling. Living in a coastal state myself, I don't want that crap off my shore. This sort of measure wouldn't have passed even just a few years ago. Now everyone is running around like a chicken with their head cut off over high gas prices, and the oil companies see they can take advantage and ram this through.
    • compdude32, on 08/06/2008, -5/+0NIMBY.

      So just because you live in a coastal state your against it because it may interupt your view.

      So because you want a nice view the rest of the country has to continue to pay $4 a gallon for gas.
      • Sumtin2Say, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4So many American's wanted to have an SUV over the last decade consumption, thus demand, thus prices have gone up. We all pay the same thing at the pump regardless of our vehicles mpg. So just because people wanted to make their luxury purchase I have to subsidize it?

        This is where the whole "alternative enegy sources are not yet economically viable" argument breaks down. We are not even taking advantage of technologies that already exist. Many vehicles get over 25 mpg. If every car on the road got at least that much those percentages we've been reading about with offshore drilling and tire guages would be a drop in the bucket by comparison.
      • Anonchrist, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4First of all, it is his state and they gets to decided things concerning their state. Secondly, that is how most of states like Florida's economy functions. Why should he be forced to destroy his economy for you benefit?
  • Ricemanstm, on 08/06/2008, -14/+9The mere fact of beginning to drill will cause oil prices to drop. Drilling gives us MORE options. There are a lot of "green" ideas out there but most of them WON'T work on a large scale. Instead of rushing bad ideas to market because of an oil crisis, drilling would allow us to bring cheaper and more reliable "green" ideas to fruition. It's a simple concept that lib-tard activists don't want to admit.
    • dextrocardia, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3Dude, I was right there with you until "lib-tard." I'm not a fan of drilling, but you make a good point worth considering. And then you ruin it with stupid name-calling.

      Next time this hits the front page (about 2 hours or so, I'm sure) submit the same comment without the last sentence and see what happens.
      • Ricemanstm, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1I was merely pointing out that today's Democratic party is letting activism dictate their political course and set the agenda. However, point taken.
    • nydwarf, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1There is no threat of drilling but the price is going down anyways thus proving you wrong.
  • dildoolielly, on 08/06/2008, -20/+32Republican "Family Values" = Making homosexual advances to teenagers in between stuffing bribes into their pockets while denying food and medical care to poor children.

    Illegal wars, treason and SPYING on Americans, TORTURE, CORRUPTION, MAN-BOY SEX, ALL Republican "Family values"
    • Suricou, on 08/06/2008, -6/+1True as this might be, it isn't relivent to oil prices.
      • dildoolielly, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2-------------True as this might be, it isn't relivent to oil prices.-------------

        Bush was an oil executive. Condi had a tanker named after her. Cheney? CEO of an oil services company. We attacked the most helpless country with the most oil. Oil prices are at their highest levels in history. Oil companies have been forced to post record profits for all of America to see...

        ...Connect the dots, Einstein.
    • vbullinger, on 08/06/2008, -4/+2"Baseless characterizations and ignorant stereotypes FTW!"

      - dildoolielly
      • anstice85, on 08/06/2008, -1/+6None of those characterizations are baseless.
      • dildoolielly, on 08/06/2008, -4/+1-----------""Baseless characterizations and ignorant stereotypes FTW!""-----------------

        Now see what you've done? You've created a "you" and "us" situation.
  • airwalke, on 08/06/2008, -9/+18It's about time he started hitting back. McCain can suggest that Obama is the anti-christ or nothing more than a celebrity, but if Obama says that the GOP is ignorant, oh no, what a tragedy! He shouldn't be saying things like this!
  • EarlOfLade, on 08/06/2008, -10/+15Ignoring facts and truth, that is something that is the hallmark of any right wing party and of anyone religious. Not surprisingly, the combination of being a right winger and a christian seems to go pretty hand in hand here in the US, so why are people surprised when they ignore reality? It's just business as usual for them.
    • kigcoopa84, on 08/06/2008, -6/+2No one has said drilling is a short term solution but since it takes so long to feel the effects and since we use oil for a lot more than just gas, we should probably start now. This article also left out the important fact that today's oil prices are based on speculation. When drilling is increased the speculation of future oil output, supply, foreign dependency improves causing the price to drop alot sooner than 2030. This phenomenon is the same thing that causes prices to rapidly increase after a hurricane, terrorist attack, or any other event that could be seen effecting the output of oil even though there is no immediate effect. Also what % of people are driving around with poorly inflated tires? less than 10% for sure. What we need is a real solution and if you think inflating your tires is one , you have no business voting
      • compdude32, on 08/06/2008, -2/+1Takes long to feel the effects? Gee Bush removed the excutive ban on off shore drilling and oil came down $10 a barrell overnight, just think what it would drop to if congress approved off shore drilling.

        See that is how specualtion works it literally will lower the price over night.
      • kigcoopa84, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2Ya thats what i was saying
    • kigcoopa84, on 08/06/2008, -6/+2No one has said drilling is a short term solution but since it takes so long to feel the effects and since we use oil for a lot more than just gas, we should probably start now. This article also left out the important fact that today's oil prices are based on speculation. When drilling is increased the speculation of future oil output, supply, foreign dependency improves causing the price to drop alot sooner than 2030. This phenomenon is the same thing that causes prices to rapidly increase after a hurricane, terrorist attack, or any other event that could be seen effecting the output of oil even though there is no immediate effect. Also what % of people are driving around with poorly inflated tires? less than 10% for sure. What we need is a real solution and if you think inflating your tires is one , you have no business voting
    • pnmoore, on 08/06/2008, -2/+1If you think ignoring facts and truth is a trait held solely by right wing politicians you have a lot to learn about politicians in general. All politicians are going to say what they think enough people want to hear to get elected.
    • phoenixshard, on 08/06/2008, -2/+2"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

      "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

      Albert Einstein. I rather think that what is arguably the most intelligent man in modern history. He didn't espouse religious views to everyone, but he man did believe in a higher power.

      Believing in a god does not denote a lower intelligence by any means.



  • dildoolielly, on 08/06/2008, -15/+11LIST OF GOP "FAMILY VALUES"
    Here is the list of the GOP Family Values:

    http://www.armchairsubversive.com
  • dafragsta, on 08/06/2008, -18/+51It's 100% true. The GOP is a ***** image, not a political party. It's an image of good ol' boy sswaggering around like they