Obama to allow oil drilling off Virginia coast

[calpoon]

What does this have to do with liberals or conservatives?

Where I live in Arizona and in much of the southwestern US it's sunny about 300 days out of the year. You could cover every building in solar panels and the price of that initial investment would give your free energy forever. Sounds pretty perfect to me.

The only reason that it is not implemented is because the expense has to come out of pocket for business at full manufactured cost, because it is not subsidized by the government in any real market capacity (other than a minuscule tax write off) the way that "traditional" energy supplies are and so we'd rather use "cheap" electric (meaning fossil fuel) power.

The truth is that the market is dominated by the companies that have no vested interest in alternative energy and that is why it is not happening. For the most part they don't want to see investment in what is really their competition. Even the few that are into embracing it have been very slow to push for it knowing that replacing the existing infrastructure and phasing out the old is a pain in the ass for them.

 

[Hot Mega]

:eek:

:rofl: :1orglaugh

...oh ... oh my God ... you were serious....


No political calculus at all? Pure, carefully contemplated, sensible policy - nothing more?


Have you considered...

1) An effort to woo legislators needed to pass his broader climate bill?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62T06520100331
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html

2) An effort to shift the debate...


http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/theg...egy-behind-obama-s-drilling-announcement.aspx

3) To call the other side's bluff

Peter Maass

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/whats-behind-obamas-drilling-plan/


This move is nothing if not political.


David Roberts



How much oil was that again?


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html

Much of what you provided were opinions. The fact of the matter is it does him no personal political good how ever you slice it.

He said they have been looking into the prospect for about a year. What do you think he was looking at??? The feasibility or how it would serve his personal political interests?? He's always maintained he's not opposed to it for ideological reasons and if there was any sense in it he would look at it feasibly.

Again...he doesn't gain any popular support with this...those who generally support him are going to be indifferent at best and he wins no new support from those who don't.

If this amounts to some negotiation, the fact that he's said he's looked into the prospect for about a year should refute any quid pro quo claim IMO.

 

[Ceska]

Much of what you provided were opinions.

...and information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the U.S. Department of the Interior on how the benefits are negligible.
What did you provide?

The fact of the matter is it does him no personal political good how ever you slice it.

If that is true, that would be evidence that he made a poor political calculation, not evidence that there was no political motivation.

He said they have been looking into the prospect for about a year. What do you think he was looking at??? The feasibility or how it would serve his personal political interests??

Probably both.
Perhaps he concluded that although the actual benefits are negligible the political benefits make it worth proceeding.

Apparently, to satisfy you, all he has to say is that he "looked into it".
I know, when Obama speaks they are not "just words" but ...
Don't you at least require him to justify what he "found"?

What factual information can you provide to support that this action is going to significantly reduce gas prices or lead to energy independence?

What factual information has he provided about how much this new plan is supposed to reduce gas prices and lead to energy independence?

The U.S. Energy Information Administration and the U.S. Department of the Interior apparently have repeatedly found that it will not. They are large organizations with thousands of employees. It is their job to research this information. What to you think Obama "found" in "about a year" of "looking into it" that contradicts their data?

Why hasn't he provided it? Why do you take him simply at his word?

He's always maintained he's not opposed to it for ideological reasons and if there was any sense in it he would look at it feasibly.

and ... what did he find?....

Again...he doesn't gain any popular support with this...those who generally support him are going to be indifferent at best and he wins no new support from those who don't.

Again, that would be evidence that he made a poor political calculation, not evidence that there was no political motivation.

If this amounts to some negotiation, the fact that he's said he's looked into the prospect for about a year should refute any quid pro quo claim IMO.

I see. The fact that "he's said" he "looked into it for about a year" should refute any claim that he is trying to woo conservative congressmen to his broader energy policies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you also take Obama at his word on June 20, 2008 in Jacksonville Florida when he said...

"I understand how badly people are struggling to pay gas prices ...but what wouldn't do a thing to lower gas prices is ...to open up Florida's coastline to offshore drilling...Senator McCain once had a different position on offshore drilling and it is clear why he did. It would have long term consequences for our coastlines, no short term benefits since it would take at least 10 years to get any oil. ... "we won't see a drop of oil until 2017, and in fact you wouldn't see any full production ... until 2030. It will take a generation to reach full production and even then the effects on gas prices will be minimal at best.
...So let me just repeat ... to drill offshore ...would not provide families with any relief, this year, next year, five years from now.
Believe me, if I thought there was any evidence at all that drilling could save people money..I would consider it. But it won't. John McCain knows that....
This is a proposal that would only worsen our addiction to oil and put off needed investments in clean renewable energy. It's not the kind of change the American people are looking for. They are looking for leadership that moves this country forward and actually offers real solutions to the serious challenges that we face.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/drill-barack-drill-obama_n_520523.html?page=3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8fkbEuCQss
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No matter which Obama you are listening to, you immediately believe them all
Based on nothing more than their words.....

You are a loyal acolyte indeed....

 

[Hot Mega]

...and information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the U.S. Department of the Interior on how the benefits are negligible.
What did you provide?



If that is true, that would be evidence that he made a poor political calculation, not evidence that there was no political motivation.



Probably both.
Perhaps he concluded that although the actual benefits are negligible the political benefits make it worth proceeding.

Apparently, to satisfy you, all he has to say is that he "looked into it".
I know, when Obama speaks they are not "just words" but ...
Don't you at least require him to justify what he "found"?

What factual information can you provide to support that this action is going to significantly reduce gas prices or lead to energy independence?

What factual information has he provided about how much this new plan is supposed to reduce gas prices and lead to energy independence?

The U.S. Energy Information Administration and the U.S. Department of the Interior apparently have repeatedly found that it will not. They are large organizations with thousands of employees. It is their job to research this information. What to you think Obama "found" in "about a year" of "looking into it" that contradicts their data?

Why hasn't he provided it? Why do you take him simply at his word?



and ... what did he find?....



Again, that would be evidence that he made a poor political calculation, not evidence that there was no political motivation.



I see. The fact that "he's said" he "looked into it for about a year" should refute any claim that he is trying to woo conservative congressmen to his broader energy policies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you also take Obama at his word on June 20, 2008 in Jacksonville Florida when he said...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/drill-barack-drill-obama_n_520523.html?page=3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8fkbEuCQss
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No matter which Obama you are listening to, you immediately believe them all
Based on nothing more than their words.....

You are a loyal acolyte indeed....

:dunno: Seems like you believe you've done a fairly good job of staking out your position. Too bad it's surrounded by the wrong premise.

Obama said nothing (that I heard)about this latest policy being an attempt to impact gas pricing which was the context of his previous statement and McCain's efforts to use it as a campaign gimmick.

From what I heard (I only listened once), Obama reasoning was jobs and reduction in for dependence...I don't think he mentioned it as a method of combating gas prices once which was his previous point.

If you see a political point to this when it does nothing to help him among any constituent base...then we just disagree.

The guy ran on being a pragmatist...which I suppose means above all that he isn't guided by some per se ideological mis-mash. Of course it will be the case that someone like that may at some point say, I've looked at something and I now believe this is best policy irrespective of the politics. You can probably believe based on this also that he won't be the guy standing in a shit pile of his own making claiming he's made no mistake.

 

[Ceska]

...
Obama said nothing (that I heard)about this latest policy being an attempt to impact gas pricing which was the context of his previous statement...

From what I heard (I only listened once), Obama reasoning was jobs and reduction in for dependence...I don't think he mentioned it as a method of combating gas prices once which was his previous point.
...

Perhaps you need to listen more than once. (to both speeches)
In 2008, he wasn't only referring to gas prices.

What do you think he meant by "It would have ... no short term benefits since it would take at least 10 years to get any oil."??

Does that sound like he believes offshore drilling leads to energy independence?? In the short term or the long run?
If there will be no oil for 10 years and insignificant amounts thereafter, what kind of independence is that?

Instead he says "This is a proposal that would only worsen our addiction to oil and put off needed investments in clean renewable energy."

(Would he have added "oh and by the way the same drilling proposal would also lead to energy independence and many jobs")


If you really think he believed such contradictory things, why do you suppose he didn't say it at that time?

so back to the questions you failed to answer:

1) What factual information has he provided about how much this new plan is supposed to lead to energy independence?

2) Why hasn't he provided it?

3) Why do you take him simply at his word?

 

[Facial_King]

So, where are all the conservatives saying that they're really happy about this, and that they've got to give Obama some credit??

 

[question]

3) Why do you take him simply at his word?

Good question. :thumbsup:

Obama say abcdefg. Hot Mega seems to accept it all on face value. :dunno:

 

[Ceska]

June 24, 2008 - Las Vegas - Obama mocks McCain over offshore drilling
http://multimedia.boston.com/m/20249299/obama-discusses-energy-in-las-vegas.htm

[The proposal] ... will not produce a drop of oil, not a single drop, for at least 10 years, and by the time drilling is fully underway in 20 years our own Department of Energy says the effect will be ... and I quote ... insignificant. Insignificant.

Senator McCain actually admitted this... he said, and I quote, "I don't see an immediate relief but the fact that we are exploiting these reserves would have a psychological impact that I think is beneficial. [laughter] A psychological impact. In case [chuckle] you were wondering ..uh .. in Washington speak what that means is 'It Polls Well'. [laughter] It's an example of how Washington tries to convince you that they've done something to make your life better when they really didn't.

How very prescient of Obama to explain how support of offshore drilling is not beneficial but is politically expedient.
Is he also trying to convince us that he's done something to make our lives better when he really hasn't?

American people don't need psychological relief or meaningless gimmicks to get politicians through to the next election cycle, they need real relief ... They need a long term energy strategy that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by investing in the renewable resources of energy that represent the future. That's what the American people need.

Sure enough Mega, Obama states we reduce our dependence on foreign oil by investing in renewable resources
(not by exposing more land to drilling for oil)

Meanwhile the oil companies already own drilling rights to 68 million acres of federal land. I want you to think about this. The oil companies have already been given 68 million acres of federal land both onshore and offshore - to drill. They're allowed to drill it, and yet, they haven't touched it. 68 million acres that have the potential to nearly double America's total oil production. And John McCain wants to give them more when they are not using what they've got. That might make sense in Washington, but it doesn't make sense for America.

Now Obama wants to give them more when they are not using what they've got.
but wait ... it doesn't make sense for America.

Does it make sense for oil companies?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html

These are not serious energy policies. They are not new energy policies. And they are certainly not the kind of energy policies that will give families the relief that they need or the country the oil independence that we must have.

Read that again Mega.
Sure enough, Obama explicitly states offshore drilling would NOT lead to energy independence from foreign oil.

I realize that gimmicks like ... offshore drilling might poll well these days because people are desperate. But I'm not running ... to do what polls well, I running to do what's right for America.

Apparently that means he is now trying to do what polls well. (well looky there ... could that be a political calculation)

 

[Hot Mega]

Perhaps you need to listen more than once. (to both speeches)
In 2008, he wasn't only referring to gas prices.

What do you think he meant by "It would have ... no short term benefits since it would take at least 10 years to get any oil."??

"no short term benefit" What else could that mean other than gas prices??? ESPECIALLY in the framework and context of that particular discussion (McCain's plan for alleviating gas prices).

Does that sound like he believes offshore drilling leads to energy independence?? In the short term or the long run?
If there will be no oil for 10 years and insignificant amounts thereafter, what kind of independence is that?

Again, what were you listening to?? He never concluded then or now that it (drilling) alone will lead to energy independence.

While I still maintain this has zero to do with his personal popularity politics and under some circumstance he believes this is the best policy...I concede his calculus was about legislative politics. He's said as much nearly 2 years ago when he first discussed his potential support for off-shore drilling...

Obama Shows New Openness to Offshore Oil Drilling
The candidate says he would consider lifting the moratorium to help Congress pass energy bill
By Kent Garber

Posted August 4, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama today softened his opposition to new offshore drilling, saying in a speech at Michigan State University that he is "willing to consider" allowing additional drilling in a limited number of offshore areas if it helps Congress pass energy legislation........

In his speech, Obama indicated that his shift on offshore drilling is political, not philosophical. "I still don't believe that's a particularly meaningful short-term or long-term position," he said, but added that he did not want to make "the perfect the enemy of the good." In that sense, he still appears to differ from McCain, who has made expanding offshore drilling a centerpiece of his energy plan, including drilling off the California coastline, which is not included in the Gang of 10's plan and is strongly opposed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/08/04/obama-shows-new-openness-to-offshore-oil-drilling.html

Instead he says "This is a proposal that would only worsen our addiction to oil and put off needed investments in clean renewable energy."

(Would he have added "oh and by the way the same drilling proposal would also lead to energy independence and many jobs")


If you really think he believed such contradictory things, why do you suppose he didn't say it at that time?

How is what he's saying then or now a contradiction?

He was EXACTLY right of McCain's proposal (what he was addressing). A plan for drilling alone without serious measures to curb our consumption would do nothing in our long nor short term interest as it relates to energy independence and amounts to nothing more than campaign gimmickry.

His long term plan then and now has always centered around conservation..not drilling.

The biggest contradiction I see which is why I oppose drilling generally at this point is precisely because of his conservation goals. Frankly, if I'm in oil...why would I necessarily invest in what it would take to produce oil over some period of time when I know Obama has an aggressive conservation plan? But that's a different debate.

so back to the questions you failed to answer:

1) What factual information has he provided about how much this new plan is supposed to lead to energy independence?

Wrong premise. He's never said nor have I said he's said this alone would lead to our "energy independence". In fact, it's been estimated this drilling would have a negligible impact (maybe 1-2 pct) on our dependency. I imagine that was the common sense behind his opposition to drilling alone proposals in the first place.

2) Why hasn't he provided it?

Not sure what you're trying to ask here but Obama's long term energy plans are all over the net. Some were implemented as part of the stimulus (new tech incentives, wind generation, etc.) Some he's taken steps on (new hybrid or flexfuel gov vehicles, etc.) Others require congressional debate and approval which I suppose is the reason they haven't been laid out as measures yet along with this.

3) Why do you take him simply at his word?

For one reason, I voted for the guy so why would I be generally skeptical of what he says??? Especially something that doesn't require too much interpretation to begin with. But see my response below.

Good question. :thumbsup:

Obama say abcdefg. Hot Mega seems to accept it all on face value. :dunno:

Well forget Obama for a second, I generally take anyone at their word unless there is evidence that I shouldn't.

I mean the guy said he's opening up some acres for drilling leases that will lead to jobs and among other measures will lead to our energy independence.

I suppose we have to wait and see the results but what is there in that to "question"???

My biggest problem is I actually listen to what people say and in the context they say it. Not what they sound like they're saying.:2 cents:

 

[Ceska]

My question was...

1) What factual information has he provided about how much this new plan is supposed to lead to energy independence?

Your answer:

He's never said nor have I said he's said this alone would lead to our "energy independence". In fact, it's been estimated this drilling would have a negligible impact (maybe 1-2 pct) on our dependency. I imagine that was the common sense behind his opposition to drilling alone proposals in the first place.

Why do you make up your own question to answer?
Where in my question is the word alone???
I asked ... What factual information has he provided about how much this new plan is supposed to lead to energy independence?

Where did you get that "fact" that his current proposal will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by "maybe 1-2 percent of dependency"?
(and don't say some general crap like "it's all over the internet")
"It has been estimated" ... by whom?
Do you make up your own questions and your own "facts"?

Forget about oil "alone" leading to energy independence...

Again, in 2008 Obama didn't say "these policies alone won't lead to oil independence" he said "these policies won't lead to oil independence"

Think about it..

If no oil for 10 years ..... then no impact on energy independence at all for at least 10 years. ...right?..right?...are you following?....
"and after that insignificant, insignificant.".... Obama's words remember??
"they already have federal land on which to drill which they are not using" ....Obama's words remember??

If the impact is insignificant and only can lead to oil independence with the help of other things...why not do more of those other (significant) things instead? ....right?

because offshore drilling "would only worsen our addiction to oil and put off needed investments in clean renewable energy." ... Obama's words remember?

The rest of your post consists of your continued attempts to try to explain how Obama hasn't been inconsistent.

Then you post a quote about how he changed his position!!.....WTF?

No, worse than that... It is an article about how he changed his position on offshore drilling not because it is sensible policy but rather ...
1) FOR POLITICAL REASONS NOT BECAUSE IT IS SENSIBLE POLICY IN THE SHORT TERM OR LONG RUN
and
2) TO PASS BROADER ENERGY LEGISLATION

THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL POINT!

(ORIGINAL POINT)

Obama Shows New Openness to Offshore Oil Drilling
The candidate says he would consider lifting the moratorium to help Congress pass energy bill
By Kent Garber

Posted August 4, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama today softened his opposition to new offshore drilling, saying in a speech at Michigan State University that he is "willing to consider" allowing additional drilling in a limited number of offshore areas if it helps Congress pass energy legislation........

In his speech, Obama indicated that his shift on offshore drilling is political, not philosophical. "I still don't believe that's a particularly meaningful short-term or long-term position," he said, but added that he did not want to make "the perfect the enemy of the good."

("the good" not being drilling of course but a political enticement offered to get the votes needed in order to pass renewable energy legislation)

Leading you now to say...

I concede his calculus was about legislative politics.

WHAT??!!

Then who the hell was this guy??...

...nor do I think he's weighing a political calculus with this policy.

Obama did this because in his mind he believes it is the reasonable thing to do....He will engage in what he believes is the best policy ... not the best politics.

Un....fucking....believeable.
I'm sorry to say but your flip flops make Obama's seem smooth and subtle.

Any sensible person that watches Obama's video speeches will understand that he has changed his original position and has not yet defended his current proposal in light of HIS OWN previous criticisms.

 

[glock27]

I wouldn't feel too badly about the decision to allow offshore drilling, HotMega.

I'm afraid at this juncture it is a necessary evil, in that the immediate and long-term benefits outweigh the costs.

With a major international push in the works to sanction (and possibly embargo) Iran, we are desperately going to need to find more oil. Add to that the recent proven unreliability of coal production and the proposed energy bill that will help decrease our dependency on fossil fuels further down the road, and it just makes sense to attempt more domestic oil production, if only for the interim.

It's not a flip-flop, neither is it a broken promise.

 

[Hot Mega]

My question was...
1) What factual information has he provided about how much this new plan is supposed to lead to energy independence?

Whatever anyone provided would be supposition not "factual" proof. However, if he believes this is some lynch pin (as he's stated previously) for his broader energy agenda wouldn't that at least qualify as his plan for energy independence???

Why do you make up your own question to answer?
Where in my question is the word alone???
I asked ... What factual information has he provided about how much this new plan is supposed to lead to energy independence?

Uh, the context for virtually all of your points on this has been in relationship to Obama's statements about McCains plan for drilling. You appear to couch you entire point on the premise that this is now Obama attempting to drill us into energy independence when it's not.

Where did you get that "fact" that his current proposal will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by "maybe 1-2 percent of dependency"?
(and don't say some general crap like "it's all over the internet")
"It has been estimated" ... by whom?
Do you make up your own questions and your own "facts"?

http://bbn.frn.com/fis/540WFLA/storypage.asp?site=wflf2-am?feed=346271&storyID=11403

Forget about oil "alone" leading to energy independence...

Again, in 2008 Obama didn't say "these policies alone won't lead to oil independence" he said "these policies won't lead to oil independence"

Think about it..

Don't need to...I know what his position is with respect to what he believes is the ultimate solution.

If no oil for 10 years ..... then no impact on energy independence at all for at least 10 years. ...right?..right?...are you following?....
"and after that insignificant, insignificant.".... Obama's words remember??
"they already have federal land on which to drill which they are not using" ....Obama's words remember??

If the impact is insignificant and only can lead to oil independence with the help of other things...why not do more of those other (significant) things instead? ....right?

because offshore drilling "would only worsen our addiction to oil and put off needed investments in clean renewable energy." ... Obama's words remember?

The rest of your post consists of your continued attempts to try to explain how Obama hasn't been inconsistent.

Then you post a quote about how he changed his position!!.....WTF?

No, worse than that... It is an article about how he changed his position on offshore drilling not because it is sensible policy but rather ...
1) FOR POLITICAL REASONS NOT BECAUSE IT IS SENSIBLE POLICY IN THE SHORT TERM OR LONG RUN
and
2) TO PASS BROADER ENERGY LEGISLATION

THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL POINT!

See below

("the good" not being drilling of course but a political enticement offered to get the votes needed in order to pass renewable energy legislation)

Leading you now to say...


WHAT??!!

Then who the hell was this guy??...

Do you understand what conceding a point means?

Un....fucking....believeable.
I'm sorry to say but your flip flops make Obama's seem smooth and subtle.



Any sensible person that watches Obama's video speeches will understand that he has changed his original position and has not yet defended his current proposal in light of HIS OWN previous criticisms.

Now I didn't criss cross through all of what you posted because I think you're getting beyond the basic point.

The political calculus I spoke of was one of popular constituency support...not a legislative calculus based on some impending compromise. Maybe I misspoke in conveying that but that's what I meant. I believe he believes this is the best policy not the best politics to garner support among the electorate...because it doesn't IMO.

Your suggestion that he's changed from his original position is pretty much untrue as I illustrated in my previous post. The fact of the matter is had you known all of what he'd said on the subject you shouldn't have been surprised now nor is this a reversal. As I pointed out he reasoned nearly 2 years ago what his calculus would be with respect to any potential support for new drilling. IMO after I pointed out the 2008 statement your point is fairly moot as he said before he got elect what he would be inclined to do if it meant passing his broader energy goals. He's said it wouldn't be an ideology change if he allowed drilling...MEANING he still wouldn't view it as the solution or even a significant factor if he DID allow it.

Now you can take that FWIW but you and I were simply referring to different things.

 

[Mics444]

I love Obama but this is just a Ploy on the futures market

The recession is over .. Numbers prove that
so Oil prices are gonna go up.. He is just saying this stuff so the futures markets dont get to crazy

 

[Ceska]

You appear to couch you entire point on the premise that this is now Obama attempting to drill us into energy independence when it's not.

I did not say that. It is not my premise.

Again you are trying to answer a point that I am not making.
Namely "Obama wants to use drilling alone to "drill us into energy independence "
Such a statement is easy to reject so you would rather believe I was saying that.

Again ... looking at what I actually said...not the point you wish I said...

"What factual information has he provided about how much (meaning what additional benefit beyond all of Obama's other energy proposals)
...this new plan (TO DRILL FOR OIL OFFSHORE)
is supposed to lead to energy independence?

(meaning what is supposed to be the contribution of Obama's new offshore drilling proposal on oil independence)


Your understanding is:

"His current proposal will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by "maybe 1-2 percent of dependency"?

based on this: http://bbn.frn.com/fis/540WFLA/storypage.asp?site=wflf2-am?feed=346271&storyID=11403

which states...

"The report noted that potential oil reserves ... would not be able to boost U.S. oil production by more than one or two percent"

It shows that you didn't understand what you read.

U.S. Oil dependence is based on consumption not production.

For drug addicts that have consumption of 200,000 grams and production of 100 grams.
If they produce 2% more or 102grams, this DOES NOT reduce their "foreign" consumption by 2% or about 4,000grams.
It reduces it by 2 grams (or 1/1000 of 1 percent)

Your 1-2% figure is way too high.

(....assuming they will even use this land at all - considering they were already given 68 million acres they currently don't use.)

In any case, the benefit is - not for at least 10 years - and - Insignificant thereafter.

So with "actual benefits" like this, what made Obama go from...

June 2008 - Offshore drilling is a bad idea
to
August 2008 - Offshore drilling is a bad idea but it is ok as a political move to get support for other renewable measures
to
April 2010 - Offshore drilling is a good idea because it will help lead to energy independence and economic competitiveness (his current claim)

except for political calculations and legislative maneuvering?

He's said it wouldn't be an ideology change if he allowed drilling...MEANING he still wouldn't view it as the solution or even a significant factor if he DID allow it.

Again, if it is insignificant ... then why do it?

except for political calculations and legislative maneuvering
(it doesn't have to be only be an attempt to directly sway the electorate to be considered political calculation)

Your suggestion that he's changed from his original position is pretty much untrue as I illustrated in my previous post. ... nor is this a reversal.

As I pointed out he reasoned nearly 2 years ago what his calculus would be with respect to any potential support for new drilling. ... I pointed out the 2008 statement ... he said before he got elect what he would be inclined to do if it meant passing his broader energy goals.

That is not what he is saying now.
You do not hear him saying as he did in August 2008 that he "still doesn't believe it's a meaningful short-term or long-term position" and that he's doing it primarily to "help other renewal energy proposals pass." (of course)

Instead he is trying to claim that he is doing it based on the tangible benefits (help toward energy independence and economic competitiveness) drilling would provide.

That is political maneuvering.

And a reversal...
(Even if he alerted us in August 2008 that he was going to shift his stance in order to pass other legislation, it still represents a shift from his original position)

 

[Hot Mega]

I did not say that. It is not my premise.

Again you are trying to answer a point that I am not making.
Namely "Obama wants to use drilling alone to "drill us into energy independence "
Such a statement is easy to reject so you would rather believe I was saying that.

Again ... looking at what I actually said...not the point you wish I said...

"What factual information has he provided about how much (meaning what additional benefit beyond all of Obama's other energy proposals)
...this new plan (TO DRILL FOR OIL OFFSHORE)
is supposed to lead to energy independence?

(meaning what is supposed to be the contribution of Obama's new offshore drilling proposal on oil independence)


Your understanding is:

based on this: http://bbn.frn.com/fis/540WFLA/storypage.asp?site=wflf2-am?feed=346271&storyID=11403

which states...



It shows that you didn't understand what you read.

U.S. Oil dependence is based on consumption not production.

For drug addicts that have consumption of 200,000 grams and production of 100 grams.
If they produce 2% more or 102grams, this DOES NOT reduce their "foreign" consumption by 2% or about 4,000grams.
It reduces it by 2 grams (or 1/1000 of 1 percent)

Your 1-2% figure is way too high.

(....assuming they will even use this land at all - considering they were already given 68 million acres they currently don't use.)

In any case, the benefit is - not for at least 10 years - and - Insignificant thereafter.

So with "actual benefits" like this, what made Obama go from...

June 2008 - Offshore drilling is a bad idea
to
August 2008 - Offshore drilling is a bad idea but it is ok as a political move to get support for other renewable measures
to
April 2010 - Offshore drilling is a good idea because it will help lead to energy independence and economic competitiveness (his current claim)

except for political calculations and legislative maneuvering?



Again, if it is insignificant ... then why do it?

except for political calculations and legislative maneuvering
(it doesn't have to be only be an attempt to directly sway the electorate to be considered political calculation)



That is not what he is saying now.
You do not hear him saying as he did in August 2008 that he "still doesn't believe it's a meaningful short-term or long-term position" and that he's doing it primarily to "help other renewal energy proposals pass." (of course)

Instead he is trying to claim that he is doing it based on the tangible benefits (help toward energy independence and economic competitiveness) drilling would provide.

That is political maneuvering.

And a reversal...
(Even if he alerted us in August 2008 that he was going to shift his stance in order to pass other legislation, it still represents a shift from his original position)

I swear...I have no idea why you keep going on this. You must want a cookie or something.

1. Obama was responding to McCain's drill proposal and it's (non) effects on current gas pricing. Everyone else (but you apparently) can listen for themselves.


2. Obama stated subsequent to that what terms whereupon which he would consider opening up offshore drilling. He said it wouldn't be a philosophical change but one to help push through a broader package which would lead to our energy independence. EVEN THEN he expresses his skepticism of drilling as an effective measure for lowering gas pricing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0140632620080802

HE STATED it would be political so technically I was wrong when I concluded broadly his decision wasn't "political". However, I admitted my definition didn't include some legislative compromise but one based on making him personally favorable in some poll. I still maintain that belief. In fact, that belief has only been strengthened in this debate.

3. Obama opens up offshore drilling as part of a broader plan (which he previously addressed) to reduce our foreign dependence, save and create jobs and protect the environment. Simply backing up a position verbatim he's already stated nearly 2 years ago.



Now all of these items have been hashed and rehashed by you and I here. WTF is the point of wringing out some semantical difference between dependence and production??? I don't do semantics...you can play in the circle yourself. I don't see a reversal but if you do..more power to you.:dunno:

Oh...almost forgot..here's your cookie.:o

 

[Ceska]

Thank you. The cookie is much more sensible.
Even it can understand what you cannot.

In the words of Barney Frank "Trying to have a conversation with you is like trying to argue with a dining room table"

Nonetheless, you admitted you were wrong so I accept your apology.

:wave2:

 

[Hot Mega]

Thank you. The cookie is much more sensible.
Even it can understand what you cannot.

In the words of Barney Frank "Trying to have a conversation with you is like trying to argue with a dining room table"

Nonetheless, you admitted you were wrong so I accept your apology.

Proving once again sweets can stop children from senseless whining where reason and logic fail.:hatsoff:

I explained my reasoning, cited the technical differences between what you were claiming, he was claiming and I was claiming with videos and quotes..from that you get and apology. Ok.:o Enjoy your cookie.

 

[Cloudshadow]

Well I for one am glad that Pres Obama is going to allow drilling, in the long run it will help. Wish that we would see this off the whole east coast.