digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Bush Says Drill, Drill, Drill — and Oil Drops $9!

kudlow.nationalreview.com — In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • spankaccount, on 07/15/2008, -12/+93This says a lot about the oil market. Now if only the Democrats weren't eager to keep oil prices high.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 07/16/2008, -6/+41If the Democrats rescue the economy, then how will Obama get elected in the Fall?

      It's in the Democrats' best interests to keep the economy in free fall until November.

      When Bush was calling on Congress to lift the ban, Harry Reid said, "Well, why doesn't Bush do it first?"

      Now that Bush has done it first, Pelosi is out there saying that the move is meaningless (and the markets naturally proved her wrong).

      The Dems want to give us political double-speak, not action.
      • farmerjohn48pan, on 07/16/2008, -1/+13That's the same reason they don't want to win the war....yet. They want their party to end it, not the rightwingers. Too bad neither side realizes that it has just begun.
      • rpeterclark, on 07/16/2008, -14/+4Yeah, oil prices are down the last couple days, but not because of Bush's statements:
        http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/16/markets/oil/?postv ...

        The administration released their weekly oil stockpile report and it turns out that oil supply is up and demand is down. This coupled with a reduced OPEC demand forecast and positive news out of Brazil's oil production is the reason price is down. Basic economics, Bush had nothing to do with it.
      • Rikety, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3Clark - this report virtually mirrors several reports that have been made in the past six months. Nothing new there. What is new this time was the removal of an Executive Order put into place 28 years ago.

        THAT is the difference this time.

        And Farmer - those that are in the current administration and know what it takes to really fight this war (long term and persistent pressure on them, not just in the field) are being pushed to the sidelines by those who want to do what they perceive as necessary to maximize Republican 'wins' this November.
    • digitallysick, on 07/16/2008, -21/+3We have plenty of oil, we have no need to tap reserves or do more drilling. Thats not the price problem, its our poor economy and constant screwing with iraq/iran that jacks up the prices.
      • radiofrequency, on 07/16/2008, -0/+22Most of the world hasn't been importing oil from Iraq or Iran for over a decade.
      • farmerjohn48pan, on 07/16/2008, -3/+16We don't have a poor economy. What we have is a bunch of Americans buying stuff they can't afford with money they don't have. It doesn't help that the envirowhackos keep strangling the business world with ridiculous demands. Only in America can living below the poverty line mean you only have one color TV and regular cable. Even our maximum security prisoners live better than REAL poverty stricken people.
      • BadgerDigger, on 09/04/2008, -1/+15Canada is the U.S. biggest supplier of oil. Irag is # 5 and Iran isn't in the top 15.
        Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_ ...
      • Rikety, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2BooBama - When you look at that list, you start to see why Bush has been pushing for a North American Union. Canada and Mexico are both up there.

        However, both C and M will need to develop more to keep the flow going. The reason we 'need' them is because we are not allowed to pull out the oil from the high-quality reserves that are available on our continental shelf, ANWR and other places.
      • twinklyJesus, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1I'm thinking you used the name "digitallysick" because you can't spell "terminallystupid", right?
    • caramba420, on 07/16/2008, -11/+1Ummm...

      Only shareholders in oil companies want to keep oil prices high.

      Most shareholders in oil companies are Republican

      Therefore, most people who want to keep oil prices high are Republican

      QED
      • RawSense2004, on 07/17/2008, -0/+7I can assure you that most unions (WHICH VOTE DEMOCRAT) have a large share of oil in their 401k's. Do you know anything about the market? I do not have the time, not the will, to explain econ 101 to you. Have a nice day.
      • caramba420, on 07/17/2008, -4/+0Unions don't vote. People do.

        I doubt that many people that have money 401Ks or mutual funds want the price of oil to go up. Those types of funds are so diversified that your average Joe in a union would lose more money by driving to work than he would gain by having a small amount of oil in his portfolio. The average American is spending over $3000 a year on gas, double what he was spending in 2005. I wouldn't imagine that your average union worker is making $1500 in dividends from the oil in their 401Ks. Furthermore, it is foolish not to draw a distinction between someone who willingly directly invested a sizable amount in a given stock, and someone who unwittingly invested via a proxy.

        I am still eagerly anticipating your lecture on econ 101.
      • spankaccount, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2High oil prices mean people will use less, dude. The oil companies don't want that. If you look at the profit margin of your average oil company, it's actually very small.
  • BBWolf, on 07/15/2008, -7/+89Drill Drill Drill, then Drill some more.

    Shoulda been done years ago.
    • ramiro, on 07/16/2008, -4/+29We should drill the skulls of the Dems and inject some sense in there as well.
      • KJeffV, on 07/16/2008, -2/+25Now THERE's a vocation that'll never see stagnation!
      • starsarebent, on 07/16/2008, -1/+21@ramiro> LOL. Nice. We should drill the skulls of politicians in general as well... and inject them with "LISTEN TO THE ***** PEOPLE".
      • flip2trip, on 07/16/2008, -0/+11That's where all the oil is!!! No wonder dems don't want more domestic drilling!!!

        Thanks for the laugh ramiro. ;)
      • fulibs, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5Good plan, although its not feasible. Democrat skulls have a hardness rating much higher than the high-carbon drill bits in use today. Maybe after some technical innovation it will be possible, but for now its just a pipe dream.
    • digitallysick, on 07/16/2008, -17/+3If we use all of our oil now, we will still have the same problem later down the line. It would be smart, to be the last man standing with the most oil.
      • PolishLogic, on 07/16/2008, -1/+17Down the line, we'll be that much closer to alternative fuel.
      • BadgerDigger, on 09/04/2008, -1/+13This is a new twist on the don't drill argument. But then again, if we drill now, we could be helping ourselve and could still be the last man standing.
    • PolishLogic, on 07/16/2008, -2/+22That's what cracks me up about all the naysayers today with their mantra of "this won't begin helping for 7-10 years". Well, if we'd have started 7-10 years ago, we'd be reaping the benefits right now. So let's not waste more time.
      • floorman56, on 07/17/2008, -0/+12One thing they also forget
        They are bidding on oil today for delivery in 2016
        so yes if they hear there is drilling the price will go down because the fields will be open by then
      • fulibs, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3The naysayers also don't have any sort of plan that "will" help us now, other than alternate sources, which wouldn't be on-line for at least 7-10 years.
  • BrandonP63, on 07/16/2008, -7/+84If Congress cooperates $9 drops will be nothing!
    • ChronicColonic, on 07/16/2008, -0/+28If Congress cooperates, their approval rating will leave single digit territory.
    • Rikety, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3There is a certain level of fortuitous intellectual capability and insight that may be lacking in the House leadership right about now.
  • mattalice, on 07/16/2008, -9/+81Dems don't give a flying f@*k about the oil prices. If they did, they could have done something about it other than attempt to sue OPEC. How stupid is it that they wanted to sue an organization that operates outside of the US?

    A hypothetical conversation between one U.S. Democrat to another-

    "Hey! I have a great idea on how we can waste time and accomplish nothing and pretend to care about the price of gasoline! How about we sue an international organization that is a monopoly? Even though U.S. laws on monopolies don't apply to them and it will just make them laugh at us, it will still appear to our constituents like we care!"

    Of course, we could changes our laws so that we can drill and provide our own oil to break the monopoly, but why would we want to lower the price of gasoline? It plays into our "religion of green."
    • farmerjohn48pan, on 07/16/2008, -1/+16The Dems care very much about oil prices. They WANT prices high because it allows them to meddle in your business under the guise of helping you. Yeah, helping you right out of your money and giving it to someone that did not work for it, earn it or deserve it.
    • caramba420, on 07/16/2008, -6/+0DERP!

      Less than 25% of the drilling leases that have already been granted to oil companies have been developed.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111184

      So my question to you is, what the ***** is opening more land going to do when the oil companies refuse to develop the leases they already have?
  • brandontyler, on 07/16/2008, -6/+68Drill here, Drill now, pay less:
    http://tinyurl.com/4h5s4u
  • markgl, on 07/16/2008, -5/+44Sweet. But I bet alot of people would be pissed if the oil goes down, because then people start to push and brush off thoughts and keeping the eye on the prize of alternative fuels. It shouldn't but I can't stand putting so much money in my car!
    • kreatre2007, on 07/16/2008, -1/+30I think that alternative fuels and energy sources are a worthy pursuit but, we have to fuel our energy needs while we develop the alternatives. There seem to be a lot of delusional morons who believe otherwise. They expect us to use the alternatives long before any of them have become a viable alternative. I am looking forward to to day when we don't have to use fossil fuels. However, that day won't come for a long time. To take a page from the Democrat play book.... It will be years before the alternative fuels will hit the market. They won't lower the price of energy at all.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 07/16/2008, -2/+22Another way to look at it is that we've already made significant gains in alternative fuels and alternative engines. A steep drop in oil might slow further research, but I think that some of these technologies are coming to market regardless of where the price of oil is. For example, I think plug-in hybrids, once they hit the market in full swing in 2010, will be here to stay.
      • BadgerDigger, on 09/04/2008, -0/+22Regardless of the price of oil, if auto makers can make money (I know, evil thought) selling alternative fuel cars they will continue to make them and improve them.
  • StepCousin, on 07/16/2008, -6/+60I don't often say this, but "good job, W"!!
  • kreatre2007, on 07/16/2008, -5/+57Although this ban shouldn't have been in place anyway, I say that this was a great move by President Bush. It means that Congress (and the Democrat party) now have to go on record as being for or against high oil prices. Those evil speculators responded exactly the way that they should have -- by selling off their futures. This is basic economics. Why do we keep sending morons to Congress who don't understand this?
    • buba1243, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1Because intelligent people don't want to have a life of politics. I would love to see us get more oil but use the profits from to build a better mass-transit system and invest in more alternative technologies. Solar will eventually out pass all other forms of energy since just about all of our energy currently comes indirectly from the sun.
      • kreatre2007, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5"use the profits from to build a better mass-transit system and invest in more alternative technologies"? How can we "use the profits" for anything other than what the oil companies want to use them for? Would you appreciate someone telling you what to do with your extra income? I know I would tell someone to ***** off if they tried to tell me what to do with my own money. Profits that companies make are not public funds to be made available for liberal causes. Those profits belong to the shareholders and no one else. I think the quest for alternative energy sources is a worthy pursuit. However, if these alternative sources cannot make it on their own in the free market, they don't deserve to be subsidized in any way. One of the biggest problems with our energy industry is that government won't step out of the way and stop interfering.
      • buba1243, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1I agree the government won't get out of the way it subsidizes the oil companies and creates legislation to block solar farms from being created due to "environmental reasons". I also agree that the government should not tell the companies what to do with the profits but said "I would love to see", great way to try to read between the lines. If the oil companies did like T Boone Pickens did and take his money made from oil to build wind farms people would stop hating the oil companies. The problem is oil execs are very short sited as are our elected government officials.
  • BadgerDigger, on 09/04/2008, -4/+48Now that the drill ball is in the court of Pelosi, Obama, Reid (aka POR), and the Democrat controlled congress, plus it being an election year, I expect a move like the following so that they can try to look good and continue to block this. I expect POR to say yes to drill now but only if it includes an environmental impact study. This study would delay drilling long enough to get past the election where then they can go back to the hard core no drilling attitude.
    • faultlineusa, on 07/16/2008, -1/+9You made some good points!
    • flip2trip, on 07/16/2008, -0/+6Wow! Good insight into the radical liberal mind.
    • michael43, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3You're smarter than the average bear
  • ramiro, on 07/16/2008, -2/+36You guys might want to know that this anti-drilling hysteria has started in the 60s with the oil spill in the Sta. Barbara channel (CA). Since then the anti-oil activism only grew and spread from there.
    Now the irony is that they found out that oil is seeping naturally from the sea floor in Sta. Barbara, while they are paying near $5 a gallon, polluting the channel and the air, and now THEY WANT OIL DRILLING BACK.
    • caramba420, on 07/16/2008, -6/+0OK...first of all, I live in Santa Barbara. Don't put words in my mouth. Second, everyone has always known that oil seeps from the ground here. This isn't some kind recent revelation. The Chumash sealed their canoes with tar from the beach, and anyone who has ever been in a boat here has seen the natural gas seepage. Third, how can we "want drilling back," if it never left in the first place? We have 5 platforms off the coast that have been running continuously for decades. Fourth, we pay near $5 a gallon because of pump taxes here, not because we aren't producing. In fact, California accounts for 10% of all US oil production.
      Lastly, less than 25% of the drilling leases that have already been granted to oil companies in the US have been developed.
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111184
      Granting more leases will do nothing to alleviate prices, because oil companies refuse to develop the leases that they already hold. Just as granting more mining leases to DeBeers would do nothing to drive down the price of diamonds.
      • ramiro, on 07/17/2008, -0/+4It is not true. Oil companies do not refuse to develop the leases, they just don't see the point in jumping through hoops in order to get little profit left after spending so much to comply with regulation and so much harassment from the environazis.

        It is not true that everyone knows about the oil seepage. The general public in SB still has no idea how to react to the environmental hysteria. There is even a web site to try to get them to know about the facts:
        http://www.soscalifornia.org/
      • caramba420, on 07/17/2008, -2/+0"...they just don't see the point in jumping through hoops..."

        Then we agree that the problem is something other than a lack of leases on drillable land that have been granted to oil companies.

        "...in order to get little profit..."

        Oil companies are businesses, and as such are only concerned with their profit. If they increase supply, the price goes down. This isn't good for their bottom line. Of course they don't want to drill all their leases. The only immediate reason they buy most of these leases is so they can claim them as assets on their SEC filings. It makes them look more valuable. Then, they can drill them in the future, when oil is even more expensive. What's in their best interest is not what's in our best interest. If we really wanted to bring the price of oil down, we'd force them to develop the leases they already have, instead of granting more leases that they will just stockpile.
  • ericjohnson0, on 07/16/2008, -3/+35One of the headlines I read on this one was "Bush Grows a Pair." Its a bit late, but its nice to see him talking like a conservative.

    Also, Newt Gingrich has been pressing this one for a few months also.

    http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/7/16/3795 ...
  • TRMarchesano, on 07/16/2008, -6/+25Its an election year, the dhims need some sort of tragedy ..
  • Kent4jmj, on 07/16/2008, -2/+30Austrian school of Economics; basic fundamental premise Human Beings Act! And when they do there are consequences. When they are prevented from acting in a free market by government intervention there are always negative consequences.
    • buba1243, on 07/16/2008, -7/+1Not always look at logging. If not for government intervention the lumber industry would have chopped the all the trees down. The problem with completely free markets is that it encourages greed. We need is a free market with an over site that can reign in the greed when it gets out of control. A hard system to do correctly and a system we are trying to do now.
      • Kent4jmj, on 07/17/2008, -0/+4There are other very powerful factors that affect a free market sytem other than the government. Good management of resources is now recognized and given its due. Consumer perception of companies is another. Greed always shoots itself in the foot in the long haul. We also have a legal system which has on many occasions ruled against business.

        A free market can not get out of control because it is self regulating. Improving quality and efficiency is what a true free market does best. Is it perfect, will there be abuses, mistakes? Of course there will but the recovery and correction time is exponentially faster without Government interference.
      • CARHINO, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3Yes the system we have now is much better, we ban even the clearing of brush on private property, and more trees go up in smoke every year, due to forest fires, than were ever cut by the lumber companies. Try to buy an american made 2x4 at your local Lowes or menards, We are importing ALL our Natural resources, the envirowhackos are to blame for the factory job losses in this country. Living in MI we know firsthand what the rest of the country will look like after the leftist Obamassiah begins his tax and give policies.
      • buba1243, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2So you are both saying with out government control the logging industry would have stopped itself? Give me a break. Do you think with out government control oil companies would stop them selves from making more money by dumping their waste illegally? Free markets do what ever benefits themselves the most at anyone time. Only when the barriers of entry to a market are low enough then government control is not needed. I completely agree that greed shoots itself in the foot every time look at the current housing crisis we deregulated it it took off with a boom and then greed took over. I bet both of you advocate helping out Mac and May.

        Do you think that we import all our natural resources I would like to see your source on that last I checked we export lumber.

        From http://www.wa.gov/esd/lmea/sprepts/indprof/lumber. ...

        "The state lumber and wood products industry has always been primarily an export industry, shipping products out of state. Raw logs remain a significant part of the foreign export mix"
  • Kent4jmj, on 07/16/2008, -4/+31If Congress would say Drill, Drill, Drill the Saudi's would be poopin their pants big time.
  • punx, on 07/16/2008, -6/+29Ok Dems, the ball is in your court now. But we all know they will just procrastinate and delay this, so the economy gets worse and worse, to make sure our next president is a POS, worthless do nothing. God help us all.
    • jaydoj, on 07/16/2008, -0/+9I can only hope we make the right decision...God help us all indeed.
  • ProfessorSYM, on 07/16/2008, -32/+8The price of oil is not high because there is no drilling, idiots.
    • 2612, on 07/16/2008, -2/+27Actually the price is high because of scarcity and speculation, which is amplifying the scarcity. The prospect of new drilling will move the speculation price before the new oil increases the supply. Congress OKs drilling and watch the price drop again.

      Maybe you should understand the argument before you start calling people idiots.
    • BadgerDigger, on 09/04/2008, -2/+20Nice, give a statement like that without you saying what you think is making the price of oil high. If you wish to disagree with something you should add in what the other side is. Without that, you look like the idiot.
    • farmerjohn48pan, on 07/16/2008, -3/+9Professor of what? Your stock is not high now!
  • 2612, on 07/16/2008, -5/+33Dems - "Everyone must do their part to conserve. Every little bit helps."
    How about we drill and get millions of more barrels of oil? "Won't help."
    • BadgerDigger, on 09/04/2008, -0/+17It would help until alternative fuel cars (which even eventually gets used mainstream) are perfected.
      • radiofrequency, on 07/16/2008, -1/+19Remember rolling blackouts? Dems would love to see the electric car take hold because then they can jack up prices on electricity for all of us.

        If gas prices are high you can take the bus, train, move closer to work, and travel less in general. But if the electrical grid is burdened by heavy use from charging electric vehicles, prices on electricity will shoot up and there's almost no way to avoid paying for electricity unless you're going to live in a cabin in the woods and read by candlelight.

        Beware the electric car - it's not about pollution.
  • elveis, on 07/16/2008, -3/+36I'll take whatever I can get. $70 to fill up this morning. I wish President Clinton hadn't vetoed ANWR legislation in 1995, we might be in better shape right now.
  • swrostmore, on 07/16/2008, -17/+4Why doesn't Bush say "Drill, Drill, Drill" on the 75% of the land already available for drilling that Big Oil refuses to drill on?

    If Big Oil refuses to drill on 75% of the land they have available, what makes you think they will drill offshore even if the ban is lifted?
    • rpfinley, on 07/16/2008, -1/+21Just because land is available doesn't mean it will produce any oil, if you could get oil from every piece of land people would be building drills in their backyards.
      • swrostmore, on 07/16/2008, -11/+2By "available" I mean Big Oil is paying the government for the right to drill there.

        If it won't produce oil, why are they paying for it?
      • keymanjim2, on 07/16/2008, -2/+18Because they don't have the right to drill there for purposes other than exploration. Congress wont let them extract any oil.
        I explained this to you yesterday.
      • swrostmore, on 07/16/2008, -12/+3Leased for production != leased for exploration. And the actual number is 80% leased FOR PRODUCTION but not used.

        An Associated Press computer analysis of Bureau of Land Management records found that 80 percent of federal lands leased for oil and gas PRODUCTION in Wyoming are producing no oil or gas. Neither are 83 percent of the leased acres in Montana, 77 percent in Utah, 71 percent in Colorado, 36 percent in New Mexico and 99 percent in Nevada.

        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111184
      • keymanjim2, on 07/16/2008, -2/+12That 80% doesn't have sustainable resources.
        The 20% that does, that you indirectly admit isn't leased for production, has the oil that is of a sustainable supply. But congress wont renegotiate the leases to allow for its removal.
      • swrostmore, on 07/16/2008, -10/+3Haha so you're just going to gloss over the fact that your original explanation was blatantly false? Now you're changing your story to claim that they do have the right to drill for production, but its not "sustainable?" If I disprove your latest theory, I'm sure you'll just come up with a third explanation, so what's the point?

        The intellectual dishonesty of GOP apologists knows no bounds.
      • keymanjim2, on 07/16/2008, -4/+15I've said the same ***** thing you brain dead moron. You just refuse to read it.

        I'd have an easier time teach a pig to dance than to get you to see the truth.
        You're done. You have no argument. You have been owned. Now put away your computer until you are intelligent enough to use it. Something above a third grade education will do.
      • tattonchantry, on 07/16/2008, -1/+9great job keyman.
        swrostmore, they have to lease the section(66 acres) for ten years, before they can even study it and see if there is oil there. So, of course they have leases that are not usable.
    • Kent4jmj, on 07/16/2008, -0/+8If...?

      Profit is the incentive.
      • swrostmore, on 07/16/2008, -5/+1I must be misreading your reply, because you seem to be agreeing with me.

        ...Or are you saying that reducing the price of oil will somehow increase profits from the sale of oil? Because that would be contradicted by the facts on the ground (2007 saw both the highest prices & highest profits in history)
      • Kent4jmj, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5let me try again

        swr
        You seemed to be implying that even with the opening of new areas for drilling that oil companies would not do anything about it. If that is the case I would disagree. I think that continental shelf and ANWR would be very attractive to oil companies for exploration and drilling.
    • mattalice, on 07/16/2008, -0/+9I mean, I am guessing but, because there is oil offshore?

      10.3 billion gallons approximately give or take a billion just off the shore of cali. The oil hasn't gone anywhere until china started to build in the pacific in international waters. China drills off shore. They are tapping international resources that we are not allowed to tap because of our sh!t laws.

      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 ...
      • tattonchantry, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4"I mean, I am guessing but, because there is oil offshore?"

        haha! That great!
  • leesw, on 07/16/2008, -6/+33It's so easy even an idiot could understand it. You add to the supply and the price goes down. It's like this folks, if I have one candy bar left and everyone wants it, I can charge a lot for it. But if everyone around me has a candy bar, I can't get as much for it. So if we add to the supply of oil, the cost goes down. It's just basic college economics called SUPPLY AND DEMAND. And see, all those speculators were buying up oil until they saw that Bush meant business in wanting us to add to the supply and they pulled back because the future of high oil prices didn't look as good. So the more we add to the supply the better. There's 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California for Pete's sake! Let's give the Saudis and the middle east some competition instead of letting them have an easy monopoly!
    • mhenstell, on 07/16/2008, -8/+1And before you know it, everyone's candy bar wrappers are all over the ground! Depending on oil, no matter where it comes from, is not beneficial to anyone. Off shore drilling is a short term fix that we wont see the benefits from in the short term.
      • 03FightOn, on 07/16/2008, -0/+10Not quite, it's a mid term fix that has short term impact. The price of oil is skyrocketing based on "future purchases". Drilling now means more supply in the future so those who speculate on the future price have significantly more variability they have to account for. In essence the risk goes up and the potential profit goes down. Therefore, just the knowledge that supplies will change in the midterm has immediate effects in the market.
  • obamayomama, on 07/16/2008, -6/+30It's amazing that the lefties continue to use the argument that oil companies "aren't using the land they already have" to drill on. Are they really naive enough to think that if there were significant stocks of oil on these lands, that the oil companies wouldn't drill there? The do-nothing, 9% favorable Democratic congress continues to stand in the way of the US using its natural resources as the Chinese stand ready to suck the oil right from under our feet. If Obama doesn't add drilling to other five hundred things he's changed his position on we'll be swearing in President McCain in the new year.
  • Rotzooi, on 07/16/2008, -29/+7It's been a while since I've seen so many right wing nutters in one thread. Hi guys!

    Enjoy your oil - which will last from about March 2015 until December 2015. Then it's all gone - but fortunately that's the moment your genius forward looking Republican plans will kick in. Oh, wait. YOU HAVE NONE.
    • BadgerDigger, on 09/04/2008, -4/+27Troll alert
    • InRussetShadows, on 07/16/2008, -4/+24The left has predicted that the US can obtain only enough oil to last until December 15th. It's easy to make predictions when you know now one will hold your feet to the fire, isn't it? Of course, if you knew anything about the history of predicting oil reserves, you might be more sanguine. Then again, if you were more sanguine, you wouldn't be a screaming leftist.
    • punx, on 07/16/2008, -4/+17You guys are so much nicer than I am, so I'm just going to have to respond to Rotzooi the way I see fit. Shut the ***** up, you nauseating, filthy, leftist turd. It's because of cowardly little ***** like you, and your nasty ass hippy parents before you, that this country is as messed up as it is right now. Do everyone a favor, go crawl back under the rock, please. No one needs your kind around...wow, I didn't realize what a bad mood I was in until I ranted there. I feel so much better, thanx Rotzooi. Now go take a shower. If you are anything like the other filthy hippies, you smell.
    • farmerjohn48pan, on 07/16/2008, -6/+15The grownups are talking right now, why don't you run along and play now?
    • allisonrose870, on 07/16/2008, -5/+18Nothing is stupider than someone shouting don't do anything because of what may or may not happen based on someones possible prediction of the probability of what the future may hold! Progress would come to a grinding halt if options were never fully explored to see what actually would happen beyond speculating on the outcome. Even if the supply of oil wasn't exactly what was desired once drilling commences, one never knows what can be gleaned in the process when we actually drill for it. get it? Its called a latent effect. Besides, is it not wiser to actually explore and drill where we aren't and can for no other reason than a prior Pres. admin and Congress saying you can't do it!

      Ohhhh ... wait ... this isn't about solving our oil and energy problems for you is this? Your too much of a partisan hack and troll to be able to look a gift horse in the mouth, just because it was a republican from whose mouth it came.

      So why don't you put away your crystal ball and get on the bandwagon of drilling for oil. C'mon, you can say it .... DRILL DRILL DRILL : ))))))

      • BigBenKlingon, on 07/16/2008, -9/+3"Nothing is stupider than someone shouting don't do anything because of what may or may not happen based on someones possible prediction of the probability of what the future may hold! "

        You mean like going to hell? Ouch!
      • flip2trip, on 07/16/2008, -2/+9@BigBenKlingon--stay on subject troll.
      • BigBenKlingon, on 07/16/2008, -5/+2See that little button that says "reply" under every comment? yeah, that's called nesting. look into it.

        BTW I like your little icon there...shouldn't you be busy blowing some alter-boy?
    • JakobVirgil, on 07/16/2008, -9/+2The solution to a an addiction
      • flip2trip, on 07/16/2008, -1/+9I am so tired of leftists calling oil use an addiction. So, are you willing to turn the clock back over 100 years? If it wasn't for petroleum skippy we'd still be living in cabins growing our own food and hunting animals for meat---hmmm sounds like a good idea because then all you leftists would just curl up and die if you had to live off the land.
    • mattalice, on 07/16/2008, -2/+8Do you drive to work? OMG. SHAME ON YOU!

      Right? isn't that what you think?
      • Rotzooi, on 07/16/2008, -11/+2No. Unlike Republicans, us liberals tend to have a certain capacity for critical thought - unlike you we don't need our Masters to tell us what to think.
      • allisonrose870, on 07/16/2008, -4/+7blah blah blah rot ... more partisan bitterness from the cry baby with the crystal ball.
      • punx, on 07/16/2008, -3/+9I thought I told you to crawl back under your rock, Rotzooi. Get your Obama worshipping, tree hugging ass back under there.
      • Rotzooi, on 07/16/2008, -8/+2punx, like I said above - but apparently your memory doesn't last as long as it takes you to read three lines of text - I don't take orders very well, unlike you brainwashed extreme right-wing militant Republican types.
        Go polish your gun now, so you can save your family from the terrrrrsts.
  • wreckosaurus, on 07/16/2008, -20/+5You're all retarded. http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/15/markets/oil/?postv ...
    The price of oil fell because of Bernanke's statement. This had nothing to do with bush
    • obamayomama, on 07/16/2008, -2/+14Ah yes... CNN says it, and so it must be true.
      • wreckosaurus, on 07/16/2008, -10/+3Right, CNN doesn't know what they're talking about, not like the "Kudlow National Review"
        /sarcasm

      • obamayomama, on 07/16/2008, -2/+6The first intelligent comment you've ever made on Digg... congrats.
    • mattalice, on 07/16/2008, -2/+8It's irrelevant why it dropped. I think bush is a terrible president and I am a conservative... which bush really isn't.

      The point is drilling will help.

      Monopoly = 1 company or organization that holds all of a product = OPEC
      If we drill, we break the monopoly.
  • diamondbigdog, on 07/16/2008, -3/+18http://www.onebigdog.net/nancy-pelosis-oil-hoax/
  • LoneRanger85, on 07/16/2008, -7/+33If just announcing the intention to drill makes oil prices drop, Imagine the impact of actually sinking wells. The speculators would run like cockroaches. This is what Republicans have been saying all along. The brainwashed liberals refuse to acknowledge that we have more oil than the entire Middle East. All they care about is their goddess, Gaea and their High Priest of Global Warming, Algore.
    • rpeterclark, on 07/16/2008, -10/+2I can't you all believe Bush had anything to do with the current price drop. Many news sites are reporting on it and they are all very clear and to what caused the drop. The price drop was because the administration released a weekly report yesterday stating that we have more oil stockpiled than forecasted along with positive production news from OPEC and Brazil. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121621541625958501 ...
      • LoneRanger85, on 07/16/2008, -1/+13Did I say Bush had anything to do with it? And I can't believe you would think any news site would give Bush credit for ANYTHING.
  • goldy1064, on 07/16/2008, -13/+4While the Democrats aren't correct in blaming the speculators, Bush isn't correct in assuming that off shore drilling will do anything about the long-term price of oil for a while. All this will do is a give a temporary reprise without any lasting effect. Yes, speculative prices might have temporarily dropped, but If anyone actually was interested in the poor fiscal policies of this administration, some of you might be able to connect the dots between higher money supply and a higher cost for gas (the cost of gas hasn't changed, but the amount of money in circulation has). (Note that when inflation numbers are stated, the government is intentionally leaving out the cost of oil.)

    Maybe if we hadn't created trillions of new dollars in the last 7 years, oil prices wouldn't be so high. Maybe if Bush takes "all options" off the table so that Iran isn't threatening to disrupt 60%+ of the worlds oil supply, oil prices wouldn't be so high. Maybe if we had started to drill 10+ years ago, which is how long it will realistically take to get any oil out of there to actually affect long-term prices, oil prices wouldn't be so high. Maybe if we had listened to Carter 30 years ago and done something to curb our addiction, oil prices wouldn't be so high.
    • flip2trip, on 07/16/2008, -2/+11So your answer is to do nothing again?
    • farmerjohn48pan, on 07/16/2008, -2/+6Some of what you say makes sense, but not all of it.
  • DocGuy, on 07/16/2008, -14/+6This is absolutely misleading. The real reason why oil dropped $9 yesterday is because the constant rise in the SPECULATIVE price of oil is having a negative impact on all other areas of the economy. They can raise prices on oil until it is through the roof but that will eventually bite them in the ass because of the negative affect on inflation. Not only do people have to spend more money on gas, they have to spend more money on everything. Oil companies are not immune to the downward pressure of inflation. No surprise that Republicans are attempting glorify that moron Bush as the reason for the drop. I mean honestly, wouldn't you glorify Bush too if your candidate was John McCain?
    • goldy1064, on 07/16/2008, -5/+2All the speculation is doing is forcing us to deal with the economic reality sooner. About the only thing that can be done to definitely state whether or not speculation on oil is causing higher prices is to repeal the Enron loophole (pushed through by McCain's senior economic adviser Phil Gramm), which allows for unregulated (note, no oversight) swaps in energy futures.
      • InRussetShadows, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7You cannot predict what the economic reality is. See the history of oil reserves. Now, get off the stage. Thanks.
      • goldy1064, on 07/16/2008, -4/+1And you can? I'm just pointing out what the actual on-the-ground facts are that a lot of Digg users seem to overlook in favor of the simplistic view that the bright shiny object in your living room tells you.
    • leesw, on 07/16/2008, -3/+14And all that just happened to finally take effect yesterday? Please. On the same day that Bush lifted a 20 year ban on drilling you say that all kinds of other factors just happened to finally come together to cause a drop in oil prices. Talk about sticking your liberal head in the sand! If I were a speculator and what I was speculating on suddenly had a potential future boost in production I'd know that the prices could potentially drop. That's what any speculator would think about any type of product. I wish you'd think with your brain instead of your elect-Obama-even-though-he's-only-got-143-days-of-experience blinders! Bush threatened the very means by which speculators were making their money and the REASON they were speculating on oil futures. Bush proposed more supply to be added and it's coming from the President of the United States. So speculators take that seriously and pull back. It's called common sense and it's in short supply in the United States. I wish Democrats would lift their self-imposed ban on common sense so that they could actually think.
      • DocGuy, on 07/16/2008, -5/+2Pull your head out of your ass for a second and breath in some oxygen. Bush's statement had little to no impact on the price of oil yesterday. Americans use 19.6 million barrels of oil A DAY. That 10 billion off the shore of Cali is a drop in the bucket and would last roughly a year and a half for America alone. Bernanke's statement that the economy sucks, that Americans do not have wiggle room in their budget, and that the feds and adjusting the key lending rate are more or less helpless because of rising fears of inflation are having the biggest impact on the price of oil.
      • flip2trip, on 07/16/2008, -2/+6@DocGuy--so your answer is--do nothing?
      • DocGuy, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3No, my answer is Bush did nothing to substantially affect the price of oil yesterday. Bush took the easy way out yesterday. There is no easy solution to this problem but Bush irresponsibly (as usual) would have you believe that our energy crisis is over if we drill off our coasts. It will be over long enough for him to get out of office on a high note (a.k.a with an approval rating above 30%).
      • rpeterclark, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3Bush didn't do a thing. Go pull up any reputable news site and read about the current price drop. The price drop was because the administration released a weekly report yesterday stating that we have more oil stockpiled than forecasted along with positive production news from OPEC and Brazil. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121621541625958501 ...
      • flip2trip, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4@DocGuy--you cannot honestly say it had NO effect, that my friend is being disingenuous. And do you really think Bush is about approval ratings? Now that's funny.
      • PolishLogic, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3@DocGuy

        "That 10 billion off the shore of Cali is a drop in the bucket and would last roughly a year and a half for America alone."

        If we use ONLY this oil. Using it to offset the amount we get from overseas would be another option. Drilling in ANWR, adding to it the shale deposits in N. Dakota and the surrounding states, and expanding drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, would further add to offsetting the amount we require from overseas.

        I don't understand where this "all or nothing" mentality comes from that you and quite a few others like you are taking on .
      • DocGuy, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1flip2trip,

        I really believe it had little to no affect. All he did is lift the executive ban. No guarantee that congress will do the same. You really think that investors in oil would leave profits on the table because of a chance we MIGHT start drilling for oil again? Fat chance. That is why I say that Bernanke's remarks were far more reaching in terms of an instant impact on oil prices. Americans have ZERO wiggle room when it comes to ANY increases in their budget. Sooner rather than later, that fact will have an impact on oil profits.

        PolishLogic,

        It's not an "all or nothing" mentality, it's an "all the extra drilling really won't take us very far" mentality. When all of these extra deposits and untapped reservoirs are factored in, we are probably talking in the neighborhood of a few extra years of oil supply. So, it would amount to band-aid.

        So, without losing sight of my original point, what Bush did yesterday really didn't amount to much compared with the specter of unchecked inflation.

      • PolishLogic, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2@DocGuy

        A few years ago, we didn't have the Prius. A lot can be accomplished in a few years. As for unchecked inflation, I'm all for taking steps to fix that too. A quick 3% tacked onto the prime rate would be a nice start.
    • PolishLogic, on 07/16/2008, -0/+8"Oil companies are not immune to the downward pressure of inflation."

      Considering their product is part of what keeps things moving around the globe, they're much more shielded than most industries. Oil could shoot up to $20/gal. tomorrow, and people would still be buying. If Pepsi increased to $20 a can tomorrow, they'd be left with nothing but full warehouses of product that nobody would buy.
      • flip2trip, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6I agree with you in principle, but $20/gal for OIL? That would be over $800 dollars a barrel! I don't think anyone would be buying oil for that price because that would probably translate to over $35/gal for gas. I couldn't afford it, I know that.
      • PolishLogic, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5@flip2trip

        My bad, I should have caught that.

        ***$20/gal for gas.
    • farmerjohn48pan, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6It's the dems that insist speculators have no effect on oil prices, can you explain?
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/16/2008, -3/+4Oh suddenly liberals have a problem with misleading Digg headlines?
  • digitallysick, on 07/16/2008, -6/+6Don't worry the democrats are secretly republicans and cave in to all republican ideals. Might as well dissolve the parties and just become one.
  • swrostmore, on 07/16/2008, -14/+8This is nothing but political theatre.

    "Nearly three-fourths of the 40 million acres of public land currently leased for oil and gas development in the continental United States outside Alaska isn’t producing any oil or gas, federal records show, even as the Bush administration pushes to open more environmentally sensitive public lands for oil and gas development." (Associated Press)
    • keymanjim2, on 07/16/2008, -8/+11That's because it can't. There isn't a sustainable supply on the land leased for production and the land that has a sustainable supply, congress wont renegotiate the leases for its removal.
      You were educated about this less than an hour ago. Is your memory that short that you'll vote for obambi too?
      • swrostmore, on 07/16/2008, -7/+3I thought it was because "they don't have the right to drill there for purposes other than exploration." (-keymanjin2, an hour ago)

      • keymanjim2, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2 "congress wont renegotiate the leases for its removal." = "they don't have the right to drill there for purposes other than exploration."
        IDIOT.
  • FyreDragon17, on 07/16/2008, -9/+2Nothing actually happened though! Ok, Bush said drill. But Congress has yet to act, so in essence, his "'action" did nothing to ease supply demands...probably because these prices are kept up by fear-mongering, and not by actual supply and demand issues! This story doesn't make me believe that drilling is the answer to cheaper prices, and it shouldn't make you believe either.
  • Crazychipmunk, on 07/16/2008, -9/+6Did...did Bush do something good?
  • JakobVirgil, on 07/16/2008, -13/+6This is a world market there is not enough oil in the north America to make more than a few cents difference in the price of a gallon of gas.
    • Nuken, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6what are you talking about we have more oil than any other country
      It's just that we done like touching ours.
      We can't drill here oh no just ship it out to other countries with fewer safety regulations then us, I am sure they will harm the environment less when they drill.
      • JakobVirgil, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1You have information? Cite please, or either preface your remarks with IMO.
        -Jake
      • mustangmike53, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3Funny, I didn't see any cites in your comment, Jake.
    • flip2trip, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5You have information? Cite please, or either preface your remarks with IMO.
      • JakobVirgil, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1the ASPO 2007 says the US has about 26 Gigabarrels of reserve about 2% of 903
        reserve the world has.
        Not Enough to make a rats ass of difference. even in ten years when it would come online.
        -Jake
  • 03FightOn, on 07/16/2008, -2/+9The major underlying problem is that we use a SINGLE source (oil) for almost all of our transportation energy. As long as that is the model, then there will be an environment for future traders and speculators because price will be supply driven. Somehow (and no I don't have the answer), to make this market truly free, we will need vehicles capable of utilizing diverse energy sources (eg; a car can use electric, cng, methanol, ethanol, gasoline). The true benefit of the plug in hybrid tech is the ability to diversify between two radically different power sources.
  • alexology, on 07/16/2008, -6/+7in other news: the dollar continues its free fall nullifying any gains made on lowering oil prices

  • spikepeck, on 07/16/2008, -9/+2I can finally have 15 minutes to be proud of my vote for Bush....ok pride moment over, 14 minutes to spare.
    • baldr, on 07/16/2008, -7/+4now, maybe you should take a few years of silence for the >4000 Americans you caused to die.
      • flip2trip, on 07/16/2008, -0/+8Now you can take the rest of your life in silence for the 50+ Million Americans you caused to die since 1973.

        See I can make asinine comments too.
      • spikepeck, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2Make sure that you let those that voted for the following know that they too should take a few moments of silence:

        Allard (R-CO)
        Allen (R-VA)
        Baucus (D-MT)
        Bayh (D-IN)
        Bennett (R-UT)
        Biden (D-DE)
        Bond (R-MO)
        Breaux (D-LA)
        Brownback (R-KS)
        Bunning (R-KY)
        Burns (R-MT)
        Campbell (R-CO)
        Cantwell (D-WA)
        Carnahan (D-MO)
        Carper (D-DE)
        Cleland (D-GA)
        Clinton (D-NY)
        Cochran (R-MS)
        Collins (R-ME)
        Craig (R-ID)
        Crapo (R-ID)
        Daschle (D-SD)
        DeWine (R-OH)
        Dodd (D-CT)
        Domenici (R-NM)
        Dorgan (D-ND)
        Edwards (D-NC)
        Ensign (R-NV)
        Enzi (R-WY)
        Feinstein (D-CA)
        Fitzgerald (R-IL)
        Frist (R-TN)
        Gramm (R-TX)
        Grassley (R-IA)
        Gregg (R-NH)
        Hagel (R-NE)
        Harkin (D-IA)
        Hatch (R-UT)
        Helms (R-NC)
        Hollings (D-SC)
        Hutchinson (R-AR)
        Hutchison (R-TX)
        Inhofe (R-OK)
        Johnson (D-SD)
        Kerry (D-MA)
        Kohl (D-WI)
        Kyl (R-AZ)
        Landrieu (D-LA)
        Lieberman (D-CT)
        Lincoln (D-AR)
        Lott (R-MS)
        Lugar (R-IN)
        McCain (R-AZ)
        McConnell (R-KY)
        Miller (D-GA)
        Murkowski (R-AK)
        Nelson (D-FL)
        Nelson (D-NE)
        Nickles (R-OK)
        Reid (D-NV)
        Roberts (R-KS)
        Rockefeller (D-WV)
        Santorum (R-PA)
        Schumer (D-NY)
        Sessions (R-AL)
        Shelby (R-AL)
        Smith (R-NH)
        Smith (R-OR)
        Snowe (R-ME)
        Specter (R-PA)
        Stevens (R-AK)
        Thomas (R-WY)
        Thompson (R-TN)
        Thurmond (R-SC)
        Torricelli (D-NJ)
        Voinovich (R-OH)
        Warner (R-VA)

        Ackerman
        Aderholt
        Akin
        Andrews
        Armey
        Bachus
        Baker
        Ballenger
        Barcia
        Barr
        Bartlett
        Barton
        Bass
        Bentsen
        Bereuter
        Berkley
        Berman
        Berry
        Biggert
        Bilirakis
        Bishop
        Blagojevich
        Blunt
        Boehlert
        Boehner
        Bonilla
        Bono
        Boozman
        Borski
        Boswell
        Boucher
        Boyd
        Brady (TX)
        Brown (SC)
        Bryant
        Burr
        Burton
        Buyer
        Callahan
        Calvert
        Camp
        Cannon
        Cantor
        Capito
        Carson (OK)
        Castle
        Chabot
        Chambliss
        Clement
        Coble
        Collins
        Combest
        Cooksey
        Cox
        Cramer
        Crane
        Crenshaw
        Crowley
        Cubin
        Culberson
        Cunningham
        Davis (FL)
        Davis, Jo Ann
        Davis, Tom
        Deal
        DeLay
        DeMint
        Deutsch
        Diaz-Balart
        Dicks
        Dooley
        Doolittle
        Dreier
        Dunn
        Edwards
        Ehlers
        Ehrlich
        Emerson
        Engel
        English
        Etheridge
        Everett
        Ferguson
        Flake
        Fletcher
        Foley
        Forbes
        Ford
        Fossella
        Frelinghuysen
        Frost
        Gallegly
        Ganske
        Gekas
        Gephardt
        Gibbons
        Gilchrest
        Gillmor
        Gilman
        Goode
        Goodlatte
        Gordon
        Goss
        Graham
        Granger
        Graves
        Green (TX)
        Green (WI)
        Greenwood
        Grucci
        Gutknecht
        Hall (TX)
        Hansen
        Harman
        Hart
        Hastert
        Hastings (WA)
        Hayes
        Hayworth
        Hefley
        Herger
        Hill
        Hilleary
        Hobson
        Hoeffel
        Hoekstra
        Holden
        Horn
        Hoyer
        Hulshof
        Hunter
        Hyde
        Isakson
        Israel
        Issa
        Istook
        Jefferson
        Jenkins
        John
        Johnson (CT)
        Johnson (IL)
        Johnson, Sam
        Jones (NC)
        Kanjorski
        Keller
        Kelly
        Kennedy (MN)
        Kennedy (RI)
        Kerns
        Kind (WI)
        King (NY)
        Kingston
        Kirk
        Knollenberg
        Kolbe
        LaHood
        Lampson
        Lantos
        Latham
        LaTourette
        Lewis (CA)
        Lewis (KY)
        Linder
        LoBiondo
        Lowey
        Lucas (KY)
        Lucas (OK)
        Luther
        Lynch
        Maloney (NY)
        Manzullo
        Markey
        Mascara
        Matheson
        McCarthy (NY)
        McCrery
        McHugh
        McInnis
        McIntyre
        McKeon
        McNulty
        Meehan
        Mica
        Miller, Dan
        Miller, Gary
        Miller, Jeff
        Moore
        Moran (KS)
        Murtha
        Myrick
        Nethercutt
        Ney
        Northup
        Norwood
        Nussle
        Osborne
        Ose
        Otter
        Oxley
        Pascrell
        Pence
        Peterson (MN)
        Peterson (PA)
        Petri
        Phelps
        Pickering
        Pitts
        Platts
        Pombo
        Pomeroy
        Portman
        Pryce (OH)
        Putnam
        Quinn
        Radanovich
        Ramstad
        Regula
        Rehberg
        Reynolds
        Riley
        Roemer
        Rogers (KY)
        Rogers (MI)
        Rohrabacher
        Ros-Lehtinen
        Ross
        Rothman
        Royce
        Ryan (WI)
        Ryun (KS)
        Sandlin
        Saxton
        Schaffer
        Schiff
        Schrock
        Sensenbrenner
        Sessions
        Shadegg
        Shaw
        Shays
        Sherman
        Sherwood
        Shimkus
        Shows
        Shuster
        Simmons
        Simpson
        Skeen
        Skelton
        Smith (MI)
        Smith (NJ)
        Smith (TX)
        Smith (WA)
        Souder
        Spratt
        Stearns
        Stenholm
        Sullivan
        Sununu
        Sweeney
        Tancredo
        Tanner
        Tauscher
        Tauzin
        Taylor (MS)
        Taylor (NC)
        Terry
        Thomas
        Thornberry
        Thune
        Thurman
        Tiahrt
        Tiberi
        Toomey
        Turner
        Upton
        Vitter
        Walden
        Walsh
        Wamp
        Watkins (OK)
        Watts (OK)
        Waxman
        Weiner
        Weldon (FL)
        Weldon (PA)
        Weller
        Wexler
        Whitfield
        Wicker
        Wilson (NM)
        Wilson (SC)
        Wolf
        Wynn
        Young (AK)
        Young (FL)
  • Kent4jmj, on 07/16/2008, -2/+11swr
    You seemed to be implying that even with the opening of new areas for drilling that oil companies would not do anything about it. If that is the case I would disagree. I think that continental shelf and ANWR would be very attractive to oil companies for exploration and drilling.
  • BadgerDigger, on 09/04/2008, -2/+13I believe that oil dropped again today too.
  • Pinasco, on 07/16/2008, -3/+4Lube me up W.
  • digitallysick, on 07/16/2008, -14/+6Wow, i found the people that voted for bush! they are on this article posting comments.
    • david8370, on 07/16/2008, -2/+8Over 50% of American voters voted for Bush both times. A fairly large group of folks, wouldn't you agree?
      • fulibs, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5He is just upset because he isn't in the typical Digg majority this time. It is a natural response for a liberal to resort to crying, name calling and sputtering illogical comments when they are at a disadvantage.
  • l0k0, on 07/16/2008, -4/+7Even if it won't help in the immediate future, offshore drilling will help, and in these circumstances, we need all the help we can get. It truly amazes me, the Bush administration took forever to even establish energy plans and initiatives, and now that they have one, Congress is still bitching. It's no wonder the approval ratings for both of them are in the toilet.
  • exomni, on 07/16/2008, -10/+5Ah, a temporary solution to a problem that we are only feeling the onset of.

    Drilling more is the last thing we should do. $4 gas is nothing but a good thing, alleviating the pains of $4 gas should be done with public transport initiatives and support for alternative fuels.

    For example: http://digg.com/environment/An_Air_Car_You_Could_S ...
  • jamesfaction, on 07/16/2008, -11/+4Do some research people. Even OPEC heads have said there is not a shortage of oil, and if it weren't for speculation on Wall St the price would be less than half what it is now.

    The price is high because of WAR, INSECURITY, and SPECULATION. Not shortages.

    So in fact you can thank Bush and his cronies for going to war in the middle east for the price being as high as it is now.
  • Markrw58, on 07/16/2008, -8/+5You need to look farther than what one persons bias claims, checkout this AP story with regards to the drop in oil prices:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/

    or this one in the New York Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/business/worldbu ...

    I would no more trust the National Review to be unbiased than I would The Huffington Post.
  • algaeturd, on 07/16/2008, -12/+5I'm blown away that people are falling for this ploy and blaming the dems for high prices. You DO realize that big oil hasn't even used the millions of acres given to them that was freed up some time ago, right? And that Bush is an oilman himself and is looking out for his oil brothers?
    Drill, drill, drill!
    Idiots, idiots, idiots!
    If you understand why the price of gas is high, you'd realize that this isn't going to do ***** for dropping the prices. But I am on Digg, anyway so I guess I'm not too surprised.
    This whole submission almost seems rigged. There are THAT many people who are so misled by the high price of oil and what causes it/keeps it high?
    Wow.
    Just wow.
    • HanFastolfe, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6"You DO realize that big oil"

      Why is it that "big" is supposed to be such a pejorative. Generally if a company is big: They're doing it right. I don't think I'd want gas from some guy selling from the back of his pickup (who's to say it's really gas, or that it's not full of impurities?). What kind of processor you have in your computer? Easy bet is that there are more companies producing oil, then CPU's. Why is there no outrage directed at big CPU companies?

      "hasn't even used the millions of acres given to them that was freed up some time ago, right?"

      If oil companies are not drilling with leases they already have because they don't really want to drill for oil, then there should be nothing wrong with selling them more leases they wont drill with either, right? The Feds don't give the leases away. So if they are not going to use them at least take the money, and put it in the treasury. It's not like the clowns in congress will have a hard time finding ways to spend it.
  • URnotheonly1, on 07/16/2008, -3/+10Democrats own the energy crisis 100%!

    Hows that owl doing?
    • JakobVirgil, on 07/16/2008, -5/+1By not Impeaching Bush.
      -Jake
      • URnotheonly1, on 07/17/2008, -0/+7you guys figure you can fantasize yourselves threw this like you did in Iraq? Hows that war loss going for ya? You guys are really sorry *****, won't you accept any responsibility? No not the democrats!
      • JakobVirgil, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1what data supports us going to war. I think the fantasy is on your side real conservatives i.e. Pat Bucannan , Ron Paul. See Bush for the Dumb ***** he is. He has done more to destroy your stupid party than any and you defend him to the death? Who are the sorry *****? I tell you the G.O.P. that sold out its core principles for a new england frat boy with a fake Texas accent. ***** yeah the democraps are responsible they went along with this republican *****.
        Never call me a Democrat you internationalist , interventionist- Moron defending *****
        -Jake
    • fulibs, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Mmmm.. tastes like chicken.. Nom, Nom, Nom
    • SuperVepr308, on 07/17/2008, -0/+4$4 a gallon gas finally made everyone hate that ***** spotted owl in unison:)
  • PappyPapillon, on 07/17/2008, -0/+7Too many great comments to digg them all up as I came in to the conversation late, but you know who you all are so at least accept my +1 digg if only in spirit.
  • SuperVepr308, on 07/17/2008, -1/+4I love how we hear how it could take 10 to 15 years to see an effect. Golly, weren't we asking to do this very same thing 10 to 15 years ago? We would be drowning in oil now if we had drilled and setup refineries then. Are we going to say the same thing 15 years from now? I hope not.
  • faultlineusa, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Strange. But I'm unable to Digg the article even though I'm logged in.
  • PabloMac, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1That's great, but when oil goes up $9/barrel, the price at the pump instantaneously jumps a noticeable amount. Where is the corresponding pump price reduction with this significant barrel price drop?
  • GWBARNHOUSE, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Hey Icon., people in my part of the country are accused of a lot of things, mainly being racists. As you know there is some racism everywhere and that is lamentable and unacceptable. We are called gun toting knuckle dragers and we talk funny. If you were to actually come here, this is what you would find. People who are bitter and rely on God and guns and are suspicious about people who are not like us.
    ============================
    Our bitterness is directed against people in congress who are going against the common good of all the American people. We are bitter about the programs these people are pushing to please a small segment of the population, programs that harm the majority.
    ==============================
    The racists here are few in number. We judge people by the content of their character. Pelosi and Reid are judged as evil. Their stand against drilling for oil to increase the supply to lower prices has opened a lot people's eyes. Many of these people had previously had no interest in the doings of Congress now know names and who to blame. Pelosi and Reid should feel a crawling under their collar because their names are so reviled. They are evil.
    ==============================
    This is how we can make judgments like this. The Bible and the US Constitution is our guide. Our authority is from a higher power. Reid and Pelosi do not recognize this higher power so their nefarious actions are unhindered. They are public enemy #1
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.