What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
314 Comments
- grlykool, on 06/18/2008, -21/+62So he was against it before he was for it. Who McFlip Flop! Sigh, to think I once respected this man.
- EnviroChem, on 05/22/2009, -16/+55The "Straight Talk Express" was abandoned in favor of the "Flip Flop Express". Too bad for Mr McSame, and fortunately for the American voter, YouTube and other sites document every flip flop he does.
- Troy64, on 06/19/2008, -26/+55With gasoline is at 4 dollars a gallon. a lot of people are changing their opinion on drilling. That is why this is a losing issue for Democrats. Not drilling is to bury your head in the sand and hope some other source of energy shows up before our economy is completely ruined. The worst thing that can happen from drilling is that they don't find anything and it cost the oil companies a little money. This is not a government program, it does not cost us anything. Modern drilling techniques are environmentally friendly, and just approving drilling will stop some of the speculation that is driving up the cost of oil.
- Calinthalus, on 06/19/2008, -8/+36More Huffington Post articles....yippiee!
- yellowsnowcone, on 06/19/2008, -6/+23Well, I think the factors have changed quite a lot. There is $4 a gallon gas. Some people are predicting $225 a barrel oil. You have to increase production.
I imagine there are a lot of average Americans who probably would support drilling offshore and in Alaska, who probably wouldn't have before. - lane.montgomery, on 06/19/2008, -9/+24Either his campaign doesn't get the complete archival nature of the web as it is now compared to 2000, or this guy really has too much "oldness" (as he put it on SNL) to be President.
After spending nearly 8 years trying to decide if our current President is either stupid, or doing it all on purpose, I don't want to spend another 4 or 8 doing the same thing. - danielson, on 06/19/2008, -11/+25Here's an idea, instead of just digging these Huffington Post articles, let's just have the digg administrators link an RSS feed from Huffington Post directly to the front page?
Huffington Post is like the Fox News of liberals. - pintomp3, on 06/19/2008, -4/+16"Opening up offshore areas to oil exploration — currently all coastal areas save a section of the Gulf of Mexico are off-limits, thanks to a Congressional ban enacted in 1982 and supplemented by an executive order from the first President Bush — might cut the price of gas by 3 to 4 cents a gallon at most, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. And the relief at the pump, such as it is, wouldn't be immediate — it would take several years, at least, for the oil to begin to flow"
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1 ...
the issue isn't supply or demand. it is speculation. the same way enron played the energy market, the speculators are playing the oil market. - Renostyle, on 06/18/2008, -26/+37That guy is so damn soulless.
Grumpy McSane really needs to figure out how to use a computer so he can realize how people really notice each time he flip-flops on every issue. - homah, on 06/19/2008, -2/+13Definitely. If McCain has a few hundred more "flip flops" like this, I might actually vote for him.
- inactive, on 06/19/2008, -0/+11PolishLogic, I sense much bitterness within you.
- egroeg85, on 06/19/2008, -1/+11It's always funny when you insult someone's intelligence with misspellings.
- cliffzdude, on 06/19/2008, -1/+10Gas is now $4 a gallon, many folks including myself have hit the psychological barrier, and have flipped. I'm a Floridian, and many of us have very recently flipped including myself.
I won't be voting for McCain, just sayin' this is getting old.
If Obama flips, he's made a scholarly refinement in his core belief system.
if McCain flips, he's flipped and sold out to the man.
Rose colored glasses I tell ya, rose colored glasses. - Troy64, on 06/19/2008, -8/+17Even if it takes 5 years, you must start somewhere, and there will be an immediate effect on the speculation market that will drop prices immediately.
Offshore drilling cost oil companies hundreds of millions of dollars, they would not invest that kind of money if it was just a drop in the bucket. - freezeout, on 06/19/2008, -4/+13LEAVE GRANDPA ALONE! :(
- matthiasgoodman, on 06/19/2008, -7/+16Sorry, but first I hear complaints that conservatives are too rigid, that we don't take any opinions other than our own into account. Now you all are upset because a conservative listened to his advisers and then changed his opinion in a changing world. Make up your minds.
- pintomp3, on 06/19/2008, -4/+13if mccain was truly worried about the price of oil, he wouldn't be pushing to go to war with iran.
- JPMaximilian, on 06/19/2008, -4/+13Oil was under $40 a barrel in 2003, now it's over $100. "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?" - John Maynard Keynes
- cawpin, on 06/19/2008, -5/+14It's funny because if this would have been Ron Paul you'd be cheering because he wants to give the states the power to decide. He didn't try to mislead anybody. He even said he changed his mind.
- bababoosh, on 06/19/2008, -3/+11Honestly, there is nothing wrong with changing your mind about an issue, even and especially as a politician. Realistically and probably, the reason he is doing this is to get votes. That is the problem with the flip-flop
- bababoosh, on 06/19/2008, -1/+8This is the first time I've heard John McCain described as a "conservative." Up until the election, he was a "Liberal in disguise" I don't think that anyone has a problem with McCain changing his mind so much as they do his motives for doing it. Further more, most of us have a problem with him flip-flopping like he does because up until now he was a maverick republican that opposed most of the views held by the administration that we disagree with and now he seems to be just another quintessential republican candidate, saying what people want them to hear because he needs your vote.
- staunchcentrist, on 06/19/2008, -1/+8Huffington Post / Fox News... one is praised by diggers the other vilified. However, same extreme bias.
- grlykool, on 06/19/2008, -12/+19Look it will take at least 5 years to get the oil, also it is a drop in the bucket, That oil wouldn't even last us a year, bc we consume a lot.
Why don't we close the Enron loophole, that might cut prices by 25 to 50 percent. - bjs3171, on 06/19/2008, -0/+7"Grumpy McSane"
are you 3? - Troy64, on 06/19/2008, -5/+12Also closing down the futures market in the U.S., which is what I believe you are talking about when you want to "close the Enron loophole", would have little effect on the price. It would just make speculators go outside the U.S. to buy futures.
- FrapFreak, on 06/19/2008, -2/+8Haha. All politicians flip-flop. Hell, sometimes I'm glad they do because their original positions were wrong to begin with. People crack me up. They bitch about someone saying something they disagree with, then, when the politician changes their mind to agree with them, they accuse them of flip-flopping.
For example, let's look at the other candidate. He recently changed his mind about NAFTA. http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/ ...
Of course, he is covering for himself by holding onto what he calls the "core" stance on NAFTA. Just as John McCain would say that the reason his stance changed (which was a pre 9/11 stance) is because the circumstances changed, yet still holding onto some "core" beliefs of his like not drilling in ANWR.
A) Politicians flip flop all the friggin' time.
B) If they don't, they'd never correct their mistakes.
I say as a whole, flip flopping (assuming they truly believe in the flop) is better for all of us. - Sogui, on 06/19/2008, -3/+9I don't see how this is a flip-flop:
"[W]ith those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels," McCain said when asked about offshore drilling. "We are going to have to go to alternative energy, and the exploitation of existing reserves of oil, natural gas, even coal, and we can develop clean coal technology, are all great things. But we also have to devote our efforts, in my view, to alternative energy sources, which is the ultimate answer to our long-term energy needs, and we need it sooner rather than later."
Then a month later McCain comes up with a plan for some short-term oil relief, while also presenting a plan to build over 45 new nuclear reactors to help long-term energy needs, in addition to $2b in research on clean coal burning. Until Obama presents a clearer plan on what he wants to do about the looming crisis, I'd say McCain has an edge right now. (Not to mention the last 2 polls on Offshore oil and Nuclear energy heavily favor McCain's policies).
Meanwhile, Obama just reneged on his signed promise to use public funding for the general election, just pointing that out since you'll never see it on the front page. - inactive, on 06/19/2008, -1/+7Didn't Obama come out recently with a flip flop on Nafta
- iamlost456, on 06/19/2008, -1/+7Lol, Digg can't seem to get enough of this completely biased publishing!
- Wingdom, on 06/19/2008, -8/+14This is actually a good change of position. We need that oil if we are ever going to start towards energy independence. Not everyone can drive hydrogen powered cars starting tomorrow.
- badqat, on 06/19/2008, -5/+11Like Obama can't be attacked for his own flips and flops?
- PATSCRU, on 06/19/2008, -2/+8ZING!
- cmorriss, on 06/19/2008, -10/+16Honestly, I don't care if he flipped his position. At least he's doing the right thing now. The oil prices will drop before this oil is even on the market because speculators will see that more supply coming in the future. This is the only way to get the prices down in the next few years and it uses normal market mechanisms to do it.
Of course, we still need a long term strategy aimed at moving off of oil and on to renewable resources, but this will help keep our economy from going completely into the toilet until then. - zacharytelschow, on 06/19/2008, -4/+10The response in these threads often goes like this:
Obamabot: "Obama has a plan!"
Reasonable Person: "What is it?"
Obamabot: "He supports lower gas prices!"
Reasonable Person: "I didn't ask what his stance was, what is his PLAN?"
Obamabot: "Check his website."
Obama does not have a plan, only stances. - Razzajazz, on 06/19/2008, -0/+6The OCS he is referring to has been surveyed at approximately 18 and a half billion barrels of oil, and America on average consumes 7 and a half billion barrels every year, so even when it finally does start to produce oil, years down the line, it'll only last for about 2 and a half years! While I understand the reasons for opening up sources like this, it shouldn't detract from what is clearly the most important issue, development of renewable energy and effciency/reduction of consumption.
- tman84, on 06/19/2008, -11/+17What's Obama's plan again? That's right he has no plans, all he does every day is come out to criticize his opponents plans. Because Obama's true plans are to turn our nation into a Socialist Nanny State. I don't support McCain, but its obvious he comes up with ideas every day on how to solve problems. Obama in typical Dem fashion just criticizes whatever plan the Repubs come up with, while never actually offering a feasible solution.
- egroeg85, on 06/19/2008, -5/+11I know its a crime on these forums to say anything hinting Obama is not god, but while you all insult McCain remember that Obama is steadily against drilling. I don't really like McCain, but for me this is a big strike against Obama. He may be a great guy but I don't want to pay $6 a gallon for gas just because, as the democrats in Congress say, "It's good for the American people." Good for them to give their paychecks to foreign oil? Obama is not against high oil prices, he just would have preferred a "gradual change." The Democrats are also against building more nuclear power plants. These things are very troubling to me. If Obama would change his mind on these issues then I would be more inclined to vote for him.
- Brownds, on 06/19/2008, -2/+7I say you go educate your self on economics before you post about oil again!
- tman84, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5I see lots of federal investing (spending) in that plan. E85 is not a viable solution and will make the cost of living for everyone go up. Maybe I will take your advice and suggest he repeal the archaic marijuana laws and get to developing hemp based biofuels.
The only thing I agree with Obama on is getting us out of Iraq, but even with that he's planning on using the UN to assist us. We should withdraw from Iraq and the UN altogether.
At the end of the day, I am too freedom and liberty minded to support someone who wants to give more power to the Federal Government. And is why I don't support McCain or Obama for POTUS. - zacharytelschow, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5You provided yet another perfect example. Those are all POSITIONS, not PLANS. Those are things he wants to do but says absolutely nothing on HOW he will do them.
- thebaron2, on 06/19/2008, -1/+6Because they aren't allowed to build any goddamn refineries because of the same environmentalists that refuse to let us drill!
Open up land, allow refinery expansion, and we'll be on our way to better times. Is it going to happen overnight - not at all. But if we'd started in the late 80's / early 90's like we WANTED to then we'd already be reaping the benefits.
Of course back then they posed the same arguments we're hearing now. Senate Dems filibustered the ANWR bill of the late 80's / early 90's, Clinton promised to veto anything that opened ANWR up, and here we are almost 20 years later complaining about how it's going to take 10+ years to see any effects of more drilling. So let's just put it off AGAIN and we can complain some more in 10 years about how we should have started now. - joerao, on 06/19/2008, -3/+8American's have changed, and we don't need to be forced to do anything. America is not a socialist country, nor should it be...
Consumption is down in measurable amounts, and Detroit is in trouble because the demand for large SUV's and trucks has taken a turn for the worse. The Civic beat out the F150 for America's top vehicle too....
We do need to drill, or put more resources toward oil shale. Regardless of what the end consumer does, we still have needs for oil beyond that, what about the trucking industry, or shipping, or flight?
China just decided to raise prices... its a good sign that the pain is now being felt beyond Europe and America... - Thoughtmonk, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5Wait, so Republicans are supporting McCain now because he flipflops, and Democrats are bashing him for the same reason? Weren't these positions flipped in the 2004 election?
Seriously people, make up your mind on what you want candidates to do. Stop flipfloping on these issues... - ultimate_ed, on 06/19/2008, -1/+6That not a plan, it's a wish list. A plan is HOW you reach all those lofty goals.
- inactive, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4Wait a minute. You're being logical. Thats not fair.
- boofy507, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4McCain's solution is offshore drilling. Obama's solution is investing 150 billion over ten years in alternative energy. Why don't they do both. The government will increase revenue through taxes and leases due to offshore drilling and then they can invest that money into alterntaive enegy.
- Pillage, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4McCain wants to have 47 new nuclear power plants by 2030, and he also wants to invest in other renewable energy sources.
- pintomp3, on 06/19/2008, -5/+9the correct position? the position that will save us a whopping $.03 per gallon five years from now? meanwhile, obama will reduce taxes for 95% of americans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fbxpMw4mco - Julik, on 06/19/2008, -4/+8It is funny because people bash Bush because he is stubborn and doesn't change his mind... then they bash McCain when he changes his mind... for the better.
It is a good thing he is allowing this. Countries like China and Cuba are already exploring off our shores for oil. Why can they explore 50 miles off our shores but we cannot. - amoro99, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4From a link in the wikipedia article you (meant to have) referred me to:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/result ...
"With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively.17 Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil18 prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."
Doesn't seem like it would be much of an impact. Sorry pal. -
Show 51 - 100 of 321 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is