Slashdot Mirror
House Dems Turn Out the Lights On the GOP
Politico is reporting that while GOP leaders opposed a motion to adjourn the House, the Democrats have closed up shop and even turned out the lights. While the lights and microphones have since been turned back on, it makes for an amusing mental image and possibly even a few dark YouTube video spoofs. "Only about a half-dozen Republicans were on the floor when this began, but the crowd has grown to about 20 now, according to Patrick O'Connor. 'This is the people's House,' Rep, Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) said. 'This is not Pelosi's politiburo.' Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker's Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers."
It's great that C-SPAN covers kindergarten now.
I'm missing the story other than Boehner and gang are trying to make a fuss about nothing.
The motion to adjourn passed, so the Speaker banged the gavel and they went home. Am I supposed to think that the Democrats are somehow disregarding the rules of the House and refusing to let Republicans speak?
I fear we get to look forward to more of this childish crap from the two teams from now on. Burbclaves, here we come.
The summary didn't state everything. Pelosi was trying to stop a vote concerning foreign oil drilling. The REP's are currently mad and speaking to the public who have gathered in the upstairs gallery, arguing (one-sided, of course) their concerns and solutions for rising gas and energy prices.
What actually happened, of course, was that the House adjourned for its August recess. As scheduled. Just like it does every year. Presumably it was scheduled months in advance. Everyone knew it.
Except this time the minority party refused to, you know, leave. Though the government is not in session, the Republicans insist on hanging around anyway.
Why? Not to get any work done. They're sticking around in the hopes of getting some press simply for being stupid.
It may work. If the Democrats did this, the media would be happy to portray them as whiny little losers who didn't know when to go home. (Which would basically be accurate.)
But since it's Republicans doing it, the media -- including Slashdot, in this case -- will find amusement in what the Dems "did" to the GOP. Politico, which is generally an organ of the Republican Party, is true to form by calling Democrats "furious" and "complaing" [sic]. Slashdot says the Dems "turned out the lights on" them and giggles that the Democrats left even though "GOP leaders opposed a motion to adjourn." (It doesn't matter what "GOP leaders" wanted. The motion to adjourn passed. So the House adjourned. Learn 2 parliamentary procedure, noobs.)
Calling the House a "politburo" (meaning "the policymaking committee of a Communist party") because it adjourned on schedule is -- and here I have to agree with the Democrat who was quoted -- moronic.
And the issue the GOP is demagoguing is gasoline prices and offshore drilling. This pushes today's stunt from ridiculous to pathetic. The Department of Energy's official projection is that if offshore drilling were legalized immediately, "any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant" -- even in 2030.
And that's an inflated stat, since its numbers include hypothetical drilling off the coast of California. The GOP is pushing to allow states to allow OCS drilling if they choose -- "states' rights," as the slogan goes. And California's politicians, including its Republican governor, have made it clear the state will not allow more drilling off its coast. So the actual benefit of the current GOP proposal would be about 2/3 of the DoE's hypothetical. In 2030 :)
It's hard to believe that the Republicans would hang around a vacated government building after everyone's gone home, and yell into a bullhorn about how Congress needs to debate lower gas prices right now -- not in September! -- when Bush's own Department of Energy admits any changes would have zero effect on oil prices for 9 years and "insignificant" effect after that.
The GOP's twitter feed indicates their dogma du jour is: "drill here drill now to get us through the next 10 to 15 years." Again, the DoE's projections indicate zero effect on oil production or prices for the next 9 years, and "insignificant" effect after that.
It's unbelievable how pathetic our national politics has become. This embarrassment is why we need the grownups back in charge. And every media outlet that fails to make clear why the stunt is pathetic is part of the problem. Sadly, I include Slashdot in this.
Yawn...."Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m. and are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess."
What a load. Even if the offshore drilling is allowed it will be many years before we see any benefit from it (assuming that prices actually go down) More corporate welfare from the Repubs.
I think that's closer to what he was trying to say.
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
GOP: "We must protect this House!"
'a';DROP TABLE users; SELECT * FROM DATA WHERE name LIKE '%'... if you're reading this, it didn't work.
As I recall in 2003 the GOP chair of a committee refused to allow the Democratic members of the committe to speak, ignored a motion to continue the hearing and stormed off WITH the gavel in hand...all this beacuse the dems wanted to call some witnesses for testimony.
I forget the details but google knows all.
I'm just waiting to hear the spin the media-types put on this story, if it gets covered at all..
From the link, 4th update...
Theres some funny updates on the article
"He then said I am a Democrat and here is my energy plan' and he held up a picture of an old VW Bug with a sail attached to it. He paraded around he house floor with the sign while the crowd cheered."
must be a friday
Shows how immature the democrats are being, and how messed up politics in general are (both dems and republicans)
My question is, if we can drill on US soil and its environmentally safe then whats the big deal? How is that different then getting oil from somewhere else?
Yes we need to put more focus on alternative fuel sources but that's something that won't happen for a few more years.
wait until you see the singapore or korean parliament footages. circus doesnt describe it.
even in turkish parliament there has been a lot of fights, and one representative was killed even, by a stray fist landing unintendedly.
Read radical news here
Even if the offshore drilling is allowed it will be many years before we see any benefit from it...
And you guys have been saying that for many years. That's why we couldn't fix the problem back then too. Now, many years later, it is not fixed.
More corporate welfare from the Repubs.
Translation: "Americans can't have cheaper gas because some corporation might make some money. It's worth it to have poor people suffer just so you can stick it to those nasty corporations."
What a bunch of fucking children. Can I say that here? Well, I did. We're way overdue for a revolution.
I for one welcome our new Republican overlords... wait a minute
This is all very interesting, but why is this on the front page of slashdot? This is hardly news for nerds, has no tech connection, has very little political meat, and no relevance to the site's mission.
Maybe you should keep this on your personal blog and not using this site as your own personal soapbox.
Yesterday Exxon-Mobil announced they made $11 billion dollars in profit last quarter, the largest profit of any company in American history. Today, Republicans are making a huge fuss about giving drilling rights, above and beyond the used and unused leases the oil companies currently have.
There's a connection here, but I'm not smart enough to see it.
Oh wait, maybe it's that the GOP is in the pockets of the oil companies, and know that if they make a concerted enough effort that the talk-radio listening drones will join in the cacophony.
Morons. This fake sanctimony just makes them look weak.
...just what the fuck this has to do with "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"?
What are we now, DIGG!?
all it is is flames in both directions. we have more important things to discuss. like, for instance, goatse.cx
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
This may have been a "stunt", but it's politics. You act like this stuff never happens. The whole thing was done to protest the Democrats' plan of adjourning the Congress so that there would be no more calls on the House floor to open up oil expoloration, something that, despite your opinion on the matter, the public overwhelmingly supports. Pelosi's idea was, no session, no cameras, no problem. She figures the issue will hurt Democrats less if no one actually speaking about it in Congress. And be honest, it's smart politics, and if the positions were reversed, and it were Democrats running this protest, you'd be screaming like a banshee about how fascist the GOP was for "cutting off debate".
The motion to adjourn passed? Of course it did. Right along party lines. The GOP wants to keep this issue in the press, because it's popular and it helps them. The Democrats are hoping this issue goes away, because it hurts them. What's the approval rating of Congress now? 9 percent?
By the way, "Dogma Du Jour". Good, lets have more, because the US could be an energy exporter if it wanted to be. Hell yes, drill more. Use every option we have. You want to get political? Fine. The Democrats "Dogma Du Jour" is you people are just going to have to do with less and pay more for it. I'll take our position over yours all day long.
I think liberal Slashdotters protest too much...
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Oil prices are high because speculators think future supply will be low. If we drill, speculators may think future supply will be higher. This will lower current prices even though the oil won't be immediately available.
You are assuming that everyone is going to go hang out at their own 1000 acre ranch.
Congress adjourns BECAUSE we are a representative democracy. Most congressmen go to their home districts and then spend all their time meeting with the people (YOU) to better understand what you want and represent you better.
This is congress doing their job.
What really tells is how active Congress is when they are in session. This Congress has been very active even though all the important legislation has been vetoed. Personally I am looking forward to meeting with my representative (Jim Marshal D-Ga) without having to fly to Washington.
News for Nerds... er, ok.. how is this?
Were the lights turned off by robot running linux?
Seriously editors, the best way to compete with Digg is not to compete with Digg. People will come.
Elected representatives are supposed to remain in touch with the districts they represent. Having them remain in Washington, D.C. 11 and 1/2 months a year makes it difficult to do that.
Not, of course, that every representative uses his or her vacation time to keep in touch with his or her constituents, mind you. But that's part of the point, at least.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
The value of crude oil has gone up considerably in the last 10 years. All the oil that was not pumped out of the ground under the U.S. and burned in the last decade is now much more valuable, and if you can avoid pumping and burning it for another 10 years then it will be still more valuable.
Given that Americans are handing huge bills to future generations, including a $10 trillion debt and another $80 trillion in unfunded liabilities (Medicare, Social Security), it is nice that some valuable resources can be passed on too. It is unfortunate that many Americans seem to think "If we don't drill and burn this crude oil now, *I* won't benefit from it! Drill Drill Drill, Burn Burn Burn! It's MY crude oil and I want to BURN it NOW!"
Except that the august recess has always been in place, regardless of if you are a dem or a rep. Bush took vacations all the time and extended the amount of time taken compared to previous presidents. Such is not the case here. Also, The dems are preventing the vote as a matter of principle. There are already tons of areas approved for drilling that have not yet been used, the reps just want to drill in areas that are protected as any disaster in those areas if they were drilling could cause massive economic and environmental damage. The economic being the main part. California will not allow off short drilling because their economy is based on costal attractions and seaports. If there is a major oilspill there, you can kiss that goodbye. Why drill in higher risk places when you still other other reserves to tap?
For these reasons, the dems are preventing the vote. The already scheduled vacation time is just a means to an end. Trying to point to this as an example of hypocrisy is just dumb.
After all, this is /. - you wouldn't expect me to comment on that until I RTFA, right? 8^D
Why the flying fuck are any of our "concerned" leaders taking a fucking vacation when according to so many of them our country is on the road to hell? Why aren't they working their assess off to make the country, so many of them "love", a better place?
Could it be that few if any of them actually give a fuck about us? Could it be that maybe they do this for themselves, and themselves alone, regardless of their political alignment.
Wake up folks, they don't care, they don't love you, they don't want to make the world better for you, or anyone else. They want to mold the world to be the way they see it.
Bush, McCain, Clinton, Pelosi, Obama, Cheney. It goes for all of them. There may be a few good folks left up there, but they are completely outnumbered.
You mad
Then I guess the vote could wait a few weeks without the economy imploding yes?
The point of the Republicans is that if the Dems have their way, there'll be no vote on it at all... not today, not a few weeks, never. Because the issue hurts them in the polls.
Keeping an issue front and center when it hurts your opponents is effective politics.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Republicans in Congress had ~160 hours of hearings into allegations that the Clinton administration vandalized the White House before turning it over to Bush. (They failed to find a single instance of vandalism) They spent ~12 hours investigating the 9/11 attacks. That's why they are now in the minority - because they cannot govern worth a damn. Today's stunt - ignoring the rules of procedure to grandstand for environmentally damaging policies that won't make a difference in gas prices for decades if ever - shows they have not learned their lesson.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
not that this stuff happens, it is that your view on who are the idiots is based upon your personal politics. So, approximately 1/2 of you are completely wrong. Which 1/2 are you in? Really? Are you sure that it is all those other people that are idiots and not you?
How about this. I am smarter than you (very highly likely to be true even if you don't think so) and I don't know that I'm not the idiot here.
any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant
zero effect on oil production or prices for the next 9 years
It's ths kind of thinking, or lack of it, that got us into this problem in the first place. You folks can't think 6 inches in front of your dicks. IF it does take that long to get production started, then GET THE FUCK STARTED ON IT!
And despite the drugs you are on, if the situation was reversed, then ABCCBSNBCMSNBCCNN would have folks up there covering it like flys on horse crap.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I wonder if Oil lobbyists have contributed enough money to the republicans to get them to start throwing their own poop? Time will tell.
A lot of real people are in a world of hurt with these high gas prices. America simply announcing there will be plenty of oil by its commitment to drill will drop prices over night. But Pelosi's summer vacation and politics trump the less advantaged. Par for the course for Democrats.
Headline: Nancy Pelosi is trying to save the world: Women and minorities hardest hit.
"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
In a democracy the idea is that the people tell the goverment how the goverment should rule them. There is an inherent problem in this. For instance, when it comes to law enforcement. I basically tell my goverment to throw my ass in jail if I do what I want to do but that I don't want anyone else doing. This is already trouble enough.
But the people and the goverment are seperated, we need a third party. I got my day-job, I can't spend all my time watching the powers that be. For that matter politicians can't talk to everyone, wouldn't it be nice if there was some third party they could use as a go between, both for informing the people AND for getting info on what the people are thinking?
Well, that is the job of the press. They watch the goverment and tell its watchdogs (the people) what they are up to. At the same time they watch the people and tell goverment what the people are up to. It works, for a while.
But sooner or later corruption sets in. Not outright simply corruption in the form of brown envelops under bathroom doors but "who is going to get the interview with the minister", which reporters get an invite to a news event? It has gotten so bad the Russian reporters during the first clinton election commented they felt right back at home, the exact same measures were in place in the US as had been in the USSR all the way up to ONLY pre-approved questions being allowed and reporters who couldn't be counted on to only ask those pre-approved question were banned.
How has it happened? Because we, the silly people didn't see anything wrong with letting the media/press become ever more commercial and we rather watch Big Brother and election night. But that is not where it started, it started the first time the beep in front of the news was changed into a jingle. When a 20 minute news segment has a 5 minute intro and a 5 minute outro and a 5 minute recap and preview in the middle. The remaining 5 minutes? Human interest stories.
I remember during the first gulf war a SIX minute segment about the royal family in holland visiting some art exhibition. That is when I really knew the system was screwed beyond repair.
Another example happened years ago, Shell wanted to sink an old oil platform claiming it to be EMPTY of hazardous material. Greenpeace went aboard and measured X amount of hazardous material. Then Shell said Greenpeace was wrong and it was only 1/2X. Not a single reporter in ANY COUNTRY (it was a major story at least around the North Sea) picked up on the fact that 1/2X is still an infinite amount more then EMPTY. It came as little suprise to me that Kok (then prime-minister in holland) later came on the board of Shell. The reporters, still around, still missing the obvious either because they are too stupid, they think the public can't handle complicated stories OR they have been corrupted.
Of course, there are bigger examples, but these 2 for me because of their simplicity show just how bad the press has gotten, because we the people let them and with them gone we have lost the tool to both monitor goverment AND to inform goverment of our views.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Politics is mostly theater, faux outrage, and pandering. Why would a stunt like this cause the average Slashdot reader's blood to boil?
Because it's the GOP pulling the stunt. I don't recall much scoffing at Dennis Kucinich's attempt to hold impeachment hearings on President Bush. No, I guess that was all about a righteous avenger shining a spotlight on The Greatest Evil Our Planet Has Ever Known.
These kinds of stunts get the media's attention and some coverage for issues one party or the other thinks is important. The fact that the Democrats didn't even hold a vote on domestic drilling despite overwhelming public support is something that ought to be mocked.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Ah yes -- as it's been said, the trains always ran on time under Mussolini and the legislative bodies always adjourned on time under Stalin.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
You've a great deal of unfounded claims there.
This was not an abuse of rules, nor would any reasonable observer claim the Democratic Party members have "abused" the rules as aggressively (nor broken as many) as the Republicans who control the House for the previous 12 years. Simply adjourning - which cuts off formal floor debate inherently - is not comparable to changing bills after they had been passed, holding votes open longer than permissible or the abusive use of holds (in the Senate). Your claims to the contrary are transparently partisan.
I know Congress has a deserved reputation for wasting money, but somehow I don't think they keep all the microphones, cameras and lights on in the months they spend adjourned. And C-Span is not contractually required to carry what is being said in the House regardless of whether or not its in session; you invented that out of whole cloth. They frequently don't show House debate - for instance if there is a major political story or an important House committee meeting. To make such a suggestion implies an almost total lack of familiarity with the channel.
The Ds adjourned. They didn't let the Republicans control the agenda. Boo-hoo. The House is designed for majority rule and the Republicans should get used to it since few 'experts' think they'll have more than 200 members next term.
Fixed that for you.
It looks like our tax dollars are hard at work. (sarcasm) If our congressmen would quit acting like childre, say something useful during regular sessions, and stop the partisan politics blocking each others bills, the American people would be getting their money's worth out of the 110th. It sounds like attention whoring to me.
Rep. John Culberson of Texas is covering the "blackout" via his Tiwtter account and on Qik. I like the idea of Congressmen speaking without mics like the 1800s but Twittering away in the darkened chamber (even if it isn't really exactly like that).
That is right. Like the proper woman. Lick them. Now.
Why has politics devolved to such childish acts? This is how I would've tried to win an argument at the age of 7 - either by turning off the lights and leaving OR just talking through the end of a conversation. Now our elected officials are running the country like this? Ugh.
What a dumb thing to say, and absolutely opposite of your stated political opinion. Please, state for the record that you wish congress to enact more laws. I really wish I could see your face right now, because I know you are gritting your teeth and frothing at the mouth due to cognitive dissonance.
You really think that passing more laws is going to fix this? REALLY? You think congress should cancel their regularly scheduled vacation so they can pass more laws? I do not for a second believe that you really mean that.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"The point is that more drilling isn't a fix. More drilling in the US will provide a relatively small amount of oil which will delay our energy problems for months, maybe a few years at best."
More drilling alone isn't a fix by itself, but it's patently stupid and dishonest to say that more oil in the supply line won't help prices.
"The Republicans are putting on a show today because it looks good to the unwashed masses, but getting their drilling won't solve our energy problems."
I notice that, to liberals, when the issue is liberal and popular with Americans, then they're a great and wise people, righteous in their anger at the Republicans. But when the issue is conservative and supported by Americans, they're stupid unwashed masses.
If you were really concerned about us solving our energy problems, you'd actually let us solve them. We've got plenty of ways to do it... more drilling, more shale, more coal to gasoline, more nuclear... liberals just don't like those options. What you're really mad about is that we won't do it your way... with nothing but biofuels and electric cars.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
That was their excuse ten years ago. It would take ten years to see any benefit, so why bother?
God! I hate this reasoning....all above.
Look, if there was really money to be made, don't you think with the BILLIONS of dollars the oil companies have to throw around, the they would have lobbied to have the laws changed so that they could drill? Hmmm?
The fact is that, with the price of oil where is and has been and where it is it's just not worth it to the oil companies to drill off shore.
But, it sure does make great talking points to the pundits and others who want to discredit the environmentalist movement with straw man arguments because it's not PC to say, "It's just not worth it for us!" Otherwise the big oil would be branded as un-American by the ignorant masses and the elite.
Now, because some asshat who doesn't know satire when he sees it, I'm posting at zero and /. is making me wait more to post. So, I'm going to use this time to protest.
I hate the "Funny" mod. If you look at my history, I've received "+5 Funny" for a few of my posts. But, some ass mod'ed me "-1" for something which means more than +5 Funny. So now, I'm posting at zero.
Not a big deal, because I'll just create another account with a throwaway email, karma whore my way up to "Excellent" and then become a "Troll" Meta-mod. That's right, say something "Insightful"?!? HA! "Unfair"! HAHAHHAHHAAH@!
Still making me wait.......
How about you turn off politics in your preferences? If other /.'ers want to discuss the matter - even if it often breaks down into flaming - it's our prerogative. You have no obligation to watch, let alone contribute.
P.S. How often is there anything almost notable in politics that isn't crap which leads to flaming?
P.P.S. Feel free to complain about anything in the Idle section, though. Either it's hiding very well or we can't turn it off.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
While I agree the stunt is a little immature I commend them for drawing attention to such an important issue- Nancy Pelosi. She has refused to allow the house to vote on offshore drilling.
First and foremost, unless the issue involves human rights: such as legalizing rape or murder, the house has a right to vote on it. The people of this country have a right to vote on subjects- that's what makes a democratic republic.
Second, I am one who feels the price of oil would drop with offshore drilling. It's a simple supply and demand problem. The supply is scarce so the cost rises. This allows oil speculators to raise the price even higher. Oil industry experts believe that oil could reach the market in 3 years; don't believe the 7-15 year nonsense. See 1980s oil glut for how supply and demand effect oil prices.
Third, I truly believe moving away from oil as a fuel source is the ultimate solution. This will not happen today, tomorrow, or 10 years from now. The correct action today is to unburden the lower class and the economy with the cost of gasoline by increasing oil supply.
Fourth, anyone who believes that Exxon makes excessive profits is a moron. 11.68 billion on 138.07 billion of revenue- 8.45% profit. That's considered an average profit in the business world.
11:23 A.M. -
On motion to adjourn Agreed to by recorded vote: 213 - 197 (Roll no. 566).
The House adjourned pursuant to H. Con. Res. 398. The next meeting is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on September 8, 2008.
11:07 A.M. -
Mr. Hoyer moved that the House do now adjourn.
I know they adjourned suddenly, but the lights thing is news to me!
The republicans made the mistake of treating the Democrats professionally.
Queen Nancy made it very clear that there is NO voice for the minority party in her house. None. The history of the house be damned, this is her place now.
Your argument is essentially that they acted inappropriately because their adjournment was premature and was therefore a premature adjournment.
There was a perfectly valid vote where a majority chose to adjourn. Republicans wanted to take control of the agenda. They were not allowed to. The Senate had adjourned the day before. Its grandstanding by a party too used to being able to bully Democrats.
Except that the areas they have okayed to drill don't have oil. The oil companies have said to Congress "go ahead, take them back, we can't use them."
(Some have oil shale, which is not the same thing.)
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Do you have any sources to back up that statement?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
If the Republicans cut off debate on the Democrats and went home for vacation, I can guarantee you that this story would have been about the Republicans censoring the Democrats.
The public overwhelmingly supports it? Citation or you're just talking out your ass. The last 3 polls I saw stated exactly the opposite.
My pleasue. Here you go. I got my poll results from CNN. Where are you getting yours?
73 percent of Americans favor offshore drilling.
I'd call 73 percent overwhelming, wouldn't you? And even in California, long an anti-drilling bastion, support for drilling is now at 51 percent and climbing.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Socialism http://www.capitalisms-gravediggers.ws/ http://infidelsarecool.com/2007/10/16/15-reasons-why-socialism-sucks/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LfDn4vhQ6Y Socialism sucks get a clue libs! If we stay republican I will be fine. If we go this obama socialist route I will quit my job, impregnate women a plenty and claim all the offspring on my taxes and sit on my rear end and let the government pay me $2k a month! Screw using the money to feed the kids, they can wonder the neighborhood and get food at their friends house or something. It will be great, either way I win and will be happy!
Increased capacity down the line might move oil producers to increase their production now (because of the decreased future profits from keeping it in the ground). 20-40$ per barrel is of course a stupid amount of money to account for that.
The market doesn't speculate based on fundamentals though, the market speculates on based on what they perceive the market will speculate on based on what they perceive the market will speculate on based on what they perceive the market will speculate on .... based on the fundamentals. Pumping up bubbles is a completely rational thing to do when leverage is available (and the collapse of the housing markets have made a lot of capital available for oil speculation). Or at least it's rational as long as you think you are smarter than everyone else, better able to find the percentage advantages needed to make the most of the leverage and smart enough to see when to get out.
It's not so much that the announcement of drilling would change the fundamentals, but everyone expects it to be the pin prick which will burst the bubble (which thus becomes a self fulfilling prophecy). Don't be the one left holding the bag ;)
Except of course that he kept working through most of those vacations since to be perfectly honest the amount of stuff that the president needs to be at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave to do is rather small. As long as he's got the football with him, almost everything else can be done elsewhere.
You said it yourself: "they're out to make the most cost-effective dollar".
Its not that it isn't cost-effective or non-profitable to drill in (many of) the areas they currently leased but aren't drilling in, its only that they could make even greater profits by drilling in the areas closer to shore. And as long as the oil companies continue to think the cost of lobbying for access to the cheaper-to-exploit areas will be less than the difference in profit between drilling further out to sea vs. closer to short they will continue to invest in lobbying instead of taking a smaller profit while getting oil to the US consumer sooner.
Congressman 1: I move to adjourn.
Speaker: Do I have a second?
Congressman 2: Second.
Speaker: All in favor, all opposed.
*vote*
Speaker: The aye's have it. The House stands in adjournment.
Democracy. The House is adjourned. Premature is an irrelevant modifier.
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
"Democrats are so afraid to talk about solving our country's energy needs that they turned out the lights and cameras on the debate." I'm sure that will be the mildest attack too.
I really hope the Democrats keep making mistakes since this upcoming election is theirs to lose.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
His schedule was often published...he typically did 1-1.5 hours of meetings when in Texas and the remainder of the time he "cleared brush" etc.
I do 1-1.5 hours of meetings a day when I am on vacation and I always keep the football around....sounds like Bush spent a lot of time on vacation and his performance demonstrates that.
Maybe those people that I elect and pay shouldn't be on vacation while I'm looking for second job so I can pay for the gas to get to my first job!
If you really want your elected representatives to spend all of their time in DC, I'm sure some of them would be perfectly fine with that. Sure, you can call being out of session and returning to the districts they actually represent a 'vacation'... but most of the time, I wouldn't.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
Maybe those people that I elect and pay shouldn't be on vacation while I'm looking for second job so I can pay for the gas to get to my first job!
If you really want your elected representatives to spend all of their time in DC, I'm sure some of them would be perfectly fine with that. Sure, you can call being out of session and returning to the districts they actually represent a 'vacation'... but most of the time, I wouldn't.
I expect my representative to stay where there is work to be done. Today, that is in Washington.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Does this mean they left town without voting on the Marijuana Bill??? Bastards.
"Also, Republicans can thank Shadegg for turning on the microphones the first time. Apparently, the fiesty Arizona conservative started typing random codes into the chamber's public address system and accidentally typed the correct code, allowing Republicans brief access to the microphone before it was turned off again."
Website Hosting
Actually, the republicans aren't really whining like 4 year olds. They're milking it for easy, free press. I honestly don't believe they care about the particular issue that much, but a lot of their supporters do, and throwing in the "us against them" rhetoric helps solidify the "working for the common people claims" even better.
At the same time, however, fully half of congress voted to go sailing because actually doing their job would mean making decisions that are guaranteed to piss off some fraction of their constituency no matter which way they vote. They wussed out.
Dang I wish I could do that.
"Hey boss, this project isn't going so well. I'm undecided between x and y because I think both have some potential to cause the project to fail, so instead of analyzing the situation and making an informed decision like I was hired to do, I'm going to go on vacation for a month and hopefully the VP will forget about it by then and we can go back to rewording old project updates to make it sound like we're getting new work done."
I think I'm one of roughly seven Americans who doesn't have a strong opinion on the drilling issue, but regardless, it bothers me that one side is shirking responsibility on a vote their bosses (the other 299,999,993 Americans) feel is important one way or the other, and the other side only cares about the opportunity to make their club look good.
It takes me back to the good ol' days of 2006. Congress spend so much time arguing about war-spending and sneaking in or deleting riders and pork-barrels that they completely failed to vote on over half of the appropriations bills, meaning most of the actual executive departments of the federal government spent months unsure of their funding, then got stuck with the same budgets as the previous year, whether appropriate or not.
Oh well. At least Ted Kennedy will have some more free time to enjoy his mansion on Nantucket Sound before those evil energy companies almost, sort-of, minorly affect the view with a row of neatly spaced, subtly colored wind turbines that jut glaringly almost half a degree into the skyline on perfectly clear days. Not to mention, Ted Stevens better get headed back to Alaska. Somebody needs to get started on building a series of tubes to nowhere.
I find it surprising that a building dating from 1800 would be designed in such a way that it would require artificial lighting. Surely, given the technology of the day, it would have been more convenient to install windows than to light candles and oil lamps whenever Congress was in session?
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm
US companies didn't bother to submit a bid because legally they couldn't drill that close to US shore. China has no such limitation.
Changing a bill after it had been passed
Holding open vote
(additional examples)
It is against House rules to keep a vote open in order to alter the outcome.
"Abusive holds" is difficult to quantify but I'd point towards Tom Coburn's extensive holds.
To think we elected these guys to govern this country and they act like a bunch of little children. Sad. I say fire them all! We have a crisis in our hands and they should do their jobs trying to resolve it. It's nice to know our tax dollars are at work.
If...
the price of oil = X dollars + (opening a wildlife area to drilling and damage)
...then we are not lowering the price of oil; we're just paying for some of the oil with financial resources and some with environmental resources.
The price of oil has still gone up.
We've got plenty of ways to do it... more drilling, more shale, more coal to gasoline, more nuclear... liberals just don't like those options
There's another "groupthink" situation approaching mankind that does actually threaten our way of life. And that's believing that the earth has endless resources. Finite means finite! No matter how much stuff the earth has, there's no such thing as "virtually" infinite. We'll have the sun's energy for billions of years - which is a long time, but still not infinite, especially when you think about how much energy falls on the surface of the earth on a daily basis. How long will any of those coal/shale/oil solutions last?
"Oh! We're running out of oil. Use natural gas. Oh! We're running out of natural gas, how about coal? Oh! We're running out of coal, how about..." Eventually you run out of stuff. Why waste those valuable energy stores when we can go ahead and make the move to renewable energy sources and maintain our standard of living? If there's a huge volcanic eruption in 50 years (and we're long overdue), and our sun-based energy is severely diminished, aren't you going to feel a bit stupid having used all of those easily accessible resources up because it saved the trouble of switching early? It's penny wise and pound foolish.
This just re-enforces my thoughts that everyone should vote against every incumbent in Washington this year. It is time to fire every member of this childish thundering herd of dumbass!
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
First, your link is wrong. You are linking to the vote on when to come back from adjournment which occurred on the 31st. Adjourning passed 213 - 197 today, the first.
Second, you have anything to back up your claims on oil prices dropping? The Bush Administration's own Department of Energy says that "access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."
Dear Britain: I've heard you have a royal family you're not using, and I know they've got better sense than our politicos. So how about this: We'll take 'em off your hands, you won't have to subsidize them anymore, and we'll get someone with a modicum of common sense in charge. Thank you.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The conservatives are having a party. Not the D's fault f they don't show. They were invited.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No, they have exploration leases on millions of acres. There's no guarantee those acres have any oil. On the other hand, there are places already known to have proven reserves of oil and natural gas that are off-limits to drilling.
Well then, I guess they should get to work looking for oil in those millions of acres they have and stop wasting time looking for oil in places where they don't have leases while us consumers suffer their profits.
It's a moot point anyway. Even if we sign over ANWAR and the California coast (neither of which would actually go through even with the GOP bill), by the time they start producing crud oil from it, the growth of demand in China will have already out paced it.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
This hot air will be used to generate power to directly alleviate our energy crisis. Some of our more lecherous politicians could use their repetitive motion to also generate energy.
Let them do their part.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
You do realize that those MF'ers are just taking from Peter to pay Paul, don't you?
It just breeds resentment. Like I have for Pennsylvania, Ohio, and the other "Rust" belt states and the same for all the farmers on welfare. I Wish, just wish, I could get on that scheme. Especially, with the sanctimonious rock and country stars raising money for those people.
Whatever man. I've lost all faith in my Government and in any sense of fairness. It's all about special interest groups, losers, and lobbyists.
You know what ANWR is about?
Drilling in an area one-sixth the size of Dulles Airport that leaves undisturbed a refuge one-third the size of Britain.
For my children, I'd like to pass on a society that peacefully transitioned to alternative energy sources rather than one that wet through a decade or two of the hellish aftereffects of an economy strangled by energy costs. Because along with that you get well-preserved resources too, as the article notes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
... then the sooner we get started the better!
The point is that more drilling isn't a fix.
But that point is invalid. ANWR alone could have oil flowing in around eighteen months, and that certainly would affect prices near term. Offshore drilling is a longer process but that keeps us healthy as an economy until alternative energy comes online in quantity to meet our needs.
It is a fix, if you don't ignore long-term consequences of your actions! And, it's WAY better for the environment.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Interestingly, I don't see coverage of this anywhere else. Is it possible that this story isn't true? Has anyone seen anything that corroborates this story?
I wonder if Oil lobbyists have contributed enough money to the republicans to get them to start throwing their own poop?
Well they seem to have earned enough in profit to make you spout it from your own mouth, a start I suppose.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why do people keep implying that I said they were "evil"?
They are corporations, they have no moral code, they are not sentient, they are not living, they can not be "evil" any more than a grain of sand can be evil.
Corporations are responsible to their share holders, specifically to increase the value of those shares. They can do so by increasing assets, reducing liabilities, and overall improving their market cap.
Lobbying for the green light to survey and drill in currently forbidden areas doesn't mean that they don't have access to other areas, it just means that they feel that they can get at the oil with less liability in those locations, and thus, improve their market cap. And if they can't get into those low liability areas, they already have an extremely profitable production facility in place, sure, their Q2 estimates were a bit off, which hurt them on wall street, but a slight adjustment to their Q3 forecasts and they'll continue on with out worry.
No one is being evil, they are being capitalists, which is fine. Me, I'll be a capitalist as well and look for alternative and cheaper competitive solutions. The biggie, which I've already stated, is a slight change in behavior. Less miles driven means I'm paying less for fuel, and the reduction of fuel consumption has already caused the price at the pump to drop.
Which gets us back to the topic, why take the risks for wait for a long term possibility by opening up more drilling leases when we already have sufficient crude oil to saturate our refining capacity and a slight change in driving behavior has already proven effective at reducing gas prices at the pump?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
You're expressing the WORST argument for not drilling. Oil companies know better than ANYONE precisely how much it costs to get a drop out of the ground. Do you really think they would be pushing to drill in other areas if drilling where they already have leases were cost effective - particularly at the pace prices have been growing for the past 3 years?
Oil companies may be leveraging the crisis to get more drilling rights. Either way, they either get more places to drill, or the price keeps going up. Nothing forces them to drill as they watch their assets tick up as fast as the dollar signs on a fuel pump.
Do you REALLY think that those "evil" oil companies just want to be mean to everyone and run rampant and pillage? They're out to make the most cost-effective dollar by drilling for oil.
In the past, they've overthrown democratic governments, killed thousands of people, and destroyed the environment for a profit, mostly using the military forces of the US and England to do so. They're out to make money, bottom line, no matter what the side effects are. An economy tied to their whim is a wet dream come true.
Think about it this way - they AREN'T drilling on those leases because they WON'T make any money doing it....and I would trust their word on how much money they make off of oil than yours, unless you're some sort of petro-economic engineering expert.
Alright, so you trust companies making billions of dollars with histories of violence, government corruption, and self-interested conquest, but people protecting the environment or looking for non-finite energy solutions are part of some conspiracy?
How naive are you?
Also, Republicans can thank (Rep. John) Shadegg for turning on the microphones the first time. Apparently, the fiesty Arizona conservative started typing random codes into the chamber's public address system and accidentally typed the correct code, allowing Republicans brief access to the microphone before it was turned off again.
Isn't that unauthorized access to an electronic system? Surely such hacking is subject to prosecution.
Easy, uses google:
Rather, years of exploration is required before drilling can even begin. In some cases, no oil is found on leases they hold. In others, drilling the wells and building the pipelines takes years.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/economy/oil_drilling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://www.energytomorrow.com/energy/Facts_about_Non_Producing_Leases.aspx
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
I guess your answer is Never.
It's absurd to think that at no point in time will extra domestic oil supply result in no reduction in prices.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Right. Because speculators are so rational.
This is why when Iran made bogus claims about its missile capabilities that were proven to be not merely false but literally a laughable photoshop job before the day was even over, despite the fact that Israel had shifted into the most diplomatic posture it has held in the past decade as domestic political confusion and the Olmert scandal over-rode almost all the rhetoric about potential attacks on Iran, attacks which didn't occur even when more direct threats were made by Iran with a harder-line PM at the helm of Israel, fears of new turmoil in the Middle east drove oil prices up $20 in a week.
Yep. Speculators are clearly rational. And BS is purple and smells like rainbow sherbert.
Actually, some speculators are rational. Those are generally the same ones who manage their capital on a long term basis and know that if a drop or even a leveling out of the value of their investments is expected in the future, the time to dump that investment and put the money in something else that will show further growth instead of stagnation or decline is ASAP. All-the-more so when inventories are growing because prices have clearly begun affecting demand.
In case anyone doesn't remember:
Record Oil Prices: Iran and the Strait of Hormuz
"Anyone with any right to talk about this says that it won't affect petrol prices"
Wow, you are really talking out of your ass.
We went down some this year, and I suspect we may be able to squeeze down a little more.
Put gas at $5 tomorrow and you will see a LOT more squeezing. Heck, put it at $6 and you'll see people cramming into VW bugs like a pile of circus clowns. As transportation costs increase, people will adjust. People aren't just going to stop going to work and the grocery, people aren't going to lay down and die just because it is expensive to drive. People will turn to their neighbors, friends, and local municipalities for alternative means of transportation. Will it be comfortable? hell no. Would civilization as we know it continue on? yes.
oil is a good stopgap because we already know what we're doing with it.
I agree entirely! Oil is an excellent stopgap. But at this point, we have to treat it like a stopgap and not a long term solution. Reduction of use today and the continued promotion of alternative fuels are IMO the best way to move from this stopgap to a feasible long term solution. Oil will always play some role in fueling America, but we need to reduce the prominence of that role so that its changes in costs have a largely insignificant impact on the economy of the country. Drilling for more oil will not do so.
I'm stating that what you're suggesting cannot - and won't be - enough.
Absolutely, conservation by itself is not a solution. There is a finite amount of oil available in the world, and no matter how much we conserve, at some point, it will be gone. Conservation is the key though to get oil to last us for a sufficient period of time to get more electric, fuel cell, and bio diesel fueled vehicles on the road.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Nuclear may be a good option, and one that I'd pick over coal/shale any day. Hydrogen is, of course, a solution in search of a problem. It's use as an energy storage unit for solar is one possible application.
The preferred nuclear option is the enormous amount of the sun's energy that hits our planet every day. Now, if you think the earth will be affected by wind power, I'd ask what steps you've taken to prevent forestation for fear of environment damage.
I keep hearing solar isn't economically viable. Feel free to point me to any recent study you'd like. That's only when the cost of ruining earth's life supporting biosphere is zero. That's the one side of the equation missing in this capitalist question - how much does it cost to take something out of the earth that can never be replaced, especially when you're going to change it from a valuable energy storage unit into thin air and pollution? I think it should cost a great deal.
Let me address a few issues that you seemed to have found in your ass.
Not to mention, do you REALIZE the amount of pollution solar panels incur during manufacturing?
Who said solar panels? What about simple Sterling engines? What about simple thermal storage? For instance, if you live in a decently sunny area, you can have free hot showers for life with a big black barrel and a hose. Less sunny parts of the country can use wind or geothermal.
Not to mention that most of the world doesn't get nearly enough sun to make this worthwhile. Not to mention the potential ecological impact you'll have when you deny the ground a great deal of heat.
So the earth doesn't get enough sun to support life. Here's quote from page one of a Google search: "All the energy stored in Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas is matched by the energy from just 20 days of sunshine." I welcome any study to the contrary. And the vast majority of earth being comprised of molten rock is in danger because of solar panel shade? Are you actually serious?
You've been baited by companies who's very existence is dependent on your willingness to do absolutely nothing about switching to renewable energy sources. Next time you utter the words "nanny state," remember you're its favorite child.
I don't recall much scoffing at Dennis Kucinich's attempt to hold impeachment hearings on President Bush. No, I guess that was all about a righteous avenger shining a spotlight on The Greatest Evil Our Planet Has Ever Known.
Well, how would *you* go about doing it? It's obvious that Bush could easily be impeached (and tossed out of office) if the winds were blowing strongly enough against him; there's plenty of evidence, just no political will to follow through.
Kind of like 3rd party candidates...are they "stunts" as well? If you were a minor political party trying to field a candidate, would you see it as a stunt? Or is it in the eye of the beholder?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Just a heads up, EnergyTomorrow is run by the American Petroleum Institute (API). The same company that marketed the 'uncertainties in climate science' in opposition to global warming. The same company that represent the oil industry as a whole. The same company that spent $4 million lobbying our federal government last year.
I'm not saying that a trade group for the oil industry should not be taken seriously, just that it should be taken with a grain of salt. Their FAQ is pretty straight forward, but no where on that page does it say that in the existing millions of acres of leases that they have that there is no commercially viable oil or natural gas, as the parent appeared to be implying.
The CNN story describe what my expectation of the situation is. There are off limit drill sites that present a lower financial risk to the corporations. For the purpose of increasing market cap it is in their best interests to lobby the government to allow them into those financially safer properties than it is to invest in longer term projects for drilling in more difficult to reach locations.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
""There are 20-plus million acres that are currently leased by the oil companies which have either been drilled and then capped or never drilled at all."
Those lands might have oil. In places we know there's oil... off the coasts and in ANWR... oil companies have been forbidden to drill for purely political reasons. So blaming the oil companies for wanting to prioritize drilling on places other than their current leased lands is hypocritical... they leased them because that was the only alternative after liberals forbade them from drilling in the places that they knew had oil.
What Democrats are doing here is just a stalling tactic, and people see right through it.
"Oil is more than halfway to being used up."
Even if that were true (and there's a lot of dispute on that), that's existing fields. It certainly isn't true for the massive fields we haven't even touched yet, including the arctic, the US coasts, and of of Brazil's coast. There's almost certainly more fields we haven't found yet. And that's not including all of the massive amounts of other sources that could be converted to gasoline, like shale and coal. This "peak"... this "scarcity"... is artificially induced.
"Mark my words: it may be forced on us by the rest of the world community, but at some point down the line, George Bush and Dick Cheney will have to face what Pinochet faced."
Only in your fevered fantasies. And there are affordable treatment options for that kind of thing now.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I'm amazed that people can suggest that there is "no benefit" to increasing U.S. drilling because it will have a small impact on the price of oil. Do you know how large the world oil market is? Here's a hint: 21 billion barrels of oil * (conservatively) 100$ per barrel = 2.1 trillion dollars. It is your opinion that we should just leave that money in the ground?
Relax I just want some peanuts.
So the energy and oil crisis isn't pressing?
Sure it is. But the most salient point under discussion -- offshore drilling -- aren't going to provide any kind of timely extra supply, and has some interesting problems associated with it (such as: (a) if this is about greater domestic energy independence, will this oil go on the international market or will it only be sold domestically (b) what about strategic reserves? Our military runs on oil. Don't we want to use as much of the rest of the world's supply before we drill locally for optimal security? (c) if oil prices go down, doesn't that retard economic incentives for moving to renewables (d) if there's a real possibility we're at world peak oil, don't we want to save some extra oil for the last part of the curve just in case we need extra resources to transition over?).
It's a bit misguided to claim there's some kind of urgency that means voting for drilling *this* *month* when the issue of how to use our remaining supply is that complex AND it's impossible to bring the supply online quicky.
Then let the Democrats explicitly say so, and give the (R) campaign fodder for the Nov elections.
Assuming that the Republicans also understand the complexities above, the explanation that makes the most sense is that campaign fodder is exactly what this is about.
Assuming they don't, that's campaign fodder of a different but much more relevant sort.
Tweet, tweet.
What makes them evil?
Corporations CAN NOT BE EVIL.
Period.
Done.
End of story.
Fin.
$400 billion in revenue, $33 billion in taxes, $11 billion in profits.
Note sure where you got $400 billion from, all accounts I've seen put Exxon's revenue right around $100 Billion for the last quarter, putting the profit margin at just over 9%. Still, not a record breaking profit margin. But due to their size, they don't need huge margins to literally, make billions. I don't have any problem with them making billions either. I'm just saying that if they have an existing drilling schedule that is making them $1500 a second, why would they risk their stock value on risky leases?
Again, they are not evil, the are corporations, they have no moral code, they have only their obligation to the share holders and the limitations and regulations placed upon them by the government. That doesn't make them evil, but it may put them into positions that do not match the opinions of many people who are not stock holders.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
There was a perfectly valid vote where a majority chose to adjourn. Republicans wanted to take control of the agenda. They were not allowed to.
Also the Democrats may have cloned the "adjourn and turn off the lights" ploy from the Republicans - except that the Democrats did it by the rules.
Here's how I understand it (from reports - I wasn't there - maybe somebody can correct any errors...)
At the Nevada Republican state convention (supposedly run by the delegates chosen in the district caucuses) the Ron Paul contingent was very strong. Romney had the most delegates, Paul was a close second, and McCain a distant third - though the party machine was for him. (Nevada is a very libertarian state and might have gone for Paul big-time except that, with a large Mormon population and a big campaign push, Romney squeaked by. Then Romney dropped out and endorsed McCain.)
The party elite ran the convention and pushed a rules change to elect a (McCain) slate they had chosen. Both the Paul and Romney deligates revolted, pushed through their own change (candidates proposed from the floor), and were busy selecting national delegates with Paul getting the lion's share.
The McCain delegates walked out to try to get below a quorum, but weren't successful. So they came back in.
Then (in violation of the rules, which requires a vote) the chair announced that the meeting was recessed (allegedly because the time for which they'd rented the hall had expired - turned out not to be true). The party hacks quick-walked out, shutting down the PA system and the lights on their way. By the time the delegates got things back on enough people had left in the confusion that they were below quorum (and somebody called for a count, which made that official and convinced the rest to leave, rather than pick a new chair and continue).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Personally, I have never seen any evidence for a "liberal bias" per se, especially not at the moment. Recently there was some news giving evidence of conservative bias even when they are crying "liberal bias" (three news programs, I think it was something like ABC/CBS/NBC, gave more negative statements on Obama than McCain, while McCain's campaign was complaining of bias towards Obama). And with all the attention given to (for example) "intellectual design", criticism of scientists, and the lack of coverage over Afghanistan or Darfur or New Orleans, I'm finding outright "liberal bias" very difficult to believe. Personally, I think there's an "underdog bias" or a "horserace bias" - swing states, intellectual design, maybe the Democrats when the Republicans were in power, and so on. The media loves a horserace.
The cynic in me suspects that the "liberal bias" mantra is so often repeated to pull "unbiased" towards the right, and try to get more media airtime than their ideas would otherwise deserve. And I expect a counter from the Democrats soon.
"Please, state for the record that you wish congress to enact more laws. "
I want congress to do more work you disingenuous fuck.
Every time some moron says "but the oil companies already have millions of acres of leased land!" I say, "Gee, I wonder why they didn't think of that." Glad to see you were modded up.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
Just like they do those of US citizens trying to cross the border.
Maybe that will wake them up.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I see a lot of "even if we drilled today it would take years for that oil to come online". This is true and the same can be said for building wind farms or pouring money into fuel cell research or any other technology. The reality is that we should be doing everything. We should immediately start exploring ANWAR and offshore. We should immediately give tax incentives for investing in alternative energy. Why limit our options? Invest in everything and maybe a clear winner will emerge or maybe the combination will work.
Mean spirited and elitist tactics used against republicans will ensure a midterm congressional turn over for Obama just as it did with Clinton.
If you really want to think long-term, the country should hoard our oil and leave it in the ground, until we don't need it and there's basically none left in the world. Then we sell it for thousands and thousands of dollars per barrel to the poor suckers that still require it. Considering the residual demand for COBOL programmers (despite how specialized they were), I'm sure we'll have no problem fetching high prices for something as currently ubiquitous as oil in the future.
This is the most childish behavior yet from congress!!! I wish we could vote out all the do nothings and get in some people that would do the right thing for the people they represent. And stop voting themselves raises as that should have to be a national vote. Allowing them to vote themselves a raise is like telling a kid in a candy store not to eat any candy.
And assholes like you are the reason this country is in such bad shape, assholes like Bush who can't admit when they're wrong.
t0rkm3 provided you with information that proved you didn't have all the facts in the matter and when given that opportunity, instead of using that opportunity to reassess your position (because, in case you didn't realize it, you were irrefutably wrong) you reply to t0rkm3 with "Please try to do basic sanity checks on what you quote, to see if it actually supports your premise."
Guess what asshole? It did. YOU created the "fact" that "there's a little over a year's worth of readily accessible oil in Bakken, not the 174 hundred billion barrels you originally claimed." Read the god damned link. It does not say what you claim there, it says
. That in no way resembles your statement, made immediately after you were proven wrong.
So, instead of intelligently assessing the argument and admitting you were factually wrong about a major point in your post, you lie, attack the person who proved you wrong, and then pretend you were right all along.
How do you have time to post of Slashdot when you're running the country Mr. Bush?
There are many different kinds of storage for energy. The sun is where ALL earth energy originates. Period. If you can't live on a parcel of land and live off of the energy contained within it, you don't live sustainably. That being said, we don't all have to live in the desert or underwater... the energy resources of an entire nation can be distributed fairly efficiently to it's population.
This article said it would cost 420b in subsidies to make it cost effective to change 35% of the energy to a renewable form by 2050. Let's assume they're way off, and it costs twice as much. So we end up with 2.5 trillion dollars to get us switched over completely. Hell, just double it again to be sure. So five trillion dollars... which could easily be paid by halving our war budget for only ten years, and about twenty if we aren't wasting it on a war.
If we're not willing to pay that price, then we probably deserve to slip into history with a whimper.
Conservation yields more benefits than anything else, as does a sensible immigration and birth control policy -- incentives that reward, but not so much as to punish those with different lifestyles.
I understand your trepidation, but being a deer in headlights isn't a rational response to our predicament. There are many roads to success, but only one to failure, and that's apathy.
Maybe you're not aware of it, but from the mid 90s to 2006, there's all kinds of shut-out stories of precisely the kind you're talking about -- the Republican party didn't episodically decide to shut the Dems out, there was a concerted effort and plan for marginalizing them as fully as possible. Take a listen to Act III of This American Life's Houses of Ill Repute episode if you're interested in some perspective.
Personally, I don't recall stories during that time period about how the Republicans were censoring the Democrats, but perhaps, since you have *guaranteed* that it would be covered in that manner, you can put up some examples.
Tweet, tweet.
If you were really concerned about us solving our energy problems, you'd actually let us solve them. We've got plenty of ways to do it... more drilling, more shale, more coal to gasoline, more nuclear... liberals just don't like those options. What you're really mad about is that we won't do it your way... with nothing but biofuels and electric cars.
Indeed, you're pretty much correct*. If you hadn't noticed, there's this other certain problem called "greenhouse gas emission" that needs solving too. Might as well solve everything at once, no? Are you really opposed to solving both problems with a single well-thought-out solution, instead of overhauling energy once in the short term and once again in the longer term?
*Except for the nuclear part; liberals are starting to warm up to it. It's clean, but it still has a lot of NIMBY factor.
Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the dimly lit chamber is a "vision of the future by the Democrat Party: The lights are out, there's no power, and the air conditioning is gonna go off soon."
**>>BELCH
Straight free-market capitalism provides no built-in costs for long term environmental destruction or exhaustion of finite resources.
Therefore, if it is profitable to take the Amazon rain forest and destroy it for sugar cane and farming, thereby causing irreparable damage to the ecology of the entire earth, it will be done and is acceptable to "the market" if not the people who can no longer survive.
Oil companies are aware that the combination of conservation and renewable energy sources will put them out of business. So, for the same reason they bought and subsequently dismantled mass transit in the 50s, they will continue to spread fear and disinformation about the feasibility and benefits of new energy sources. They've been profiting off of inefficiency and government-assisted lock-ins for decades, and they're not going to stop unless the public demands it.
And if your faith in an unregulated market isn't shaken by the constant failures (great depression, sub-prime crisis, inflated health care costs, self-censorship of media) then your priorities are quite different from mine.
Yes, markets work for many things. But not for everything. If you really believe otherwise, push for the privatization of water. You'll be quickly reminded of why we don't hand industry the keys to the liquor cabinet without reminding them that we are watching.
So on $400 an $11 markup is gouging? I want to shop where YOU shop.
I wanted to point out that those numbers are $11 billion per quarter and $400 billion per year. The correct numbers are $11.68b profit this quarter, on $138b revenue this quarter.
AND, do you want to know who's #2 in the 'record profits' field? Is it Shell, Conoco, etc? Nope, it's Walmart. Look it up.
I looked it up and you are incorrect. As of April 2008, the number two spot, sorted by profits, is indeed Royal Dutch Shell. Walmart is way down there at #19 (you'll have to count). See http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/18/biz_2000global08_The-Global-2000_Prof.html .
The thing is the country is looking for any solutions, even feel good ones that won't help much. The Dems have shown an unwillingness to debate the issue, they will easily be painted as the cause of a lot of problems and as beholden to the environmentalist movement at the expense of the average American. The ads write themselves, a shot of a recognizable Dem on vacation, a shot of Republicans demanding to debate the issue, a shot of an oil price sign. Pelosi should not have allowed herself to be so easily maneuvered and she should be replaced. She should have been replaced long ago when the Congress hit an all time low after the Dems took over. The Congress ratings may have no connection with who is running the thing but that is the perception and in an election year. Not throwing her under the bus was foolish. If anything is gonna slow the Democrat juggernaut this year it will be Nancy's inept leadership of the House.
You know what? I've been shown to be off base about oil company profits, I retract my statements that they are unfair. I'll even put it in the headline so everyone can see it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
have a difficult time being matuire when they dont get their way.
Classic!
She's probably running the House like her comrades are running the Senate, pushing what they want through and stopping anything else cold. The Democrats running the Senate were recently shown to have passed 855 of 911 bills without allowing debate or vote.
We don't need no stinkin' debate! We are the overlords! Maybe that's why they're down around single digits in approval ratings, putting party politics and agenda above the good of the country.
What the drive-bys aren't reporting is that Exxon paid 3 TIMES that amount in taxes. Sounds to me like the federal government is the one in need of a windfall profits tax.
It would hurt my retirement portfolio. When oil companies do well, so do I. So would you if you had any damn sense.
... on the Republicans a long time ago.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Yes, it's true. Even the very argument Democrats use to NOT drill is a reason TO DRILL. Oh the Irony!
Won't be happy until gasoline is $15 a gallon, right?
It is a common tactics of Belarussian government --- shutting off the electricy during opposition actions.
Either is Belarus a democratic country or there is a great deal of hypocricy among so-called democrats in the USA.
They run at maximum capacity because they shut down refineries when they aren't needed.
The US currently consumes over 20 Million barrels of oil a day. The EIA lists the combined output of all US refineries at just over 17 million barrels a day, which means we are importing refined fuel. The reason they shut refineries down is to convert them to winterized/standard fuel mixes at the changing of the season and for maintenance. A single refinery going down unexpectedly will have an immediate effect on gas prices at the pump as the only way to continue to meet supply and demand is to import more refined fuel. Heck, even in the scheduled down time, when switching to and from winterized fuel, you can usually expect a short term $0.05 price jump at the pump.
I disagree on your assessment that more drilling won't lower the price. I believe it will.
That's nice. How did you come to that conclusion? The oil fairy tell you? Or just going with the gut on it?
Me personally, when it comes to the future of transportation fueling, I'll take the word of people who's job it is to monitor and determine such things. Following the recommendations of the Department of Energy http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html opening up the continental shelf to drilling would provide an almost negligible benefit by 2030. This study also assumes that the lifting of the federal ban on drilling in these areas would be followed by the States lifting their own bans, which, in the case of California, will not happen.
So, go with your gut if you like, I'll stick to the scientists point of view.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
The DOE hasn't gotten much of anything right in the last few decades, so I think I'll take their price predictions with a huge grain of salt.
-- Will program for bandwidth
I am intrigued by your comment and would like to hear more. Have any recommended reading?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Oil is a global market, influenced by global supply/demand balance. If the U.S. were sitting on a Saudi-Arabia-sized pile of reserves, you'd be correct: a significant increase in expected future supply will cause oil prices to fall. The problem is that the U.S. is not sitting on a Saudi-Arabia-sized pile of reserves. We have approximately 3% of global oil reserves. Three percent! So, basically, how much the U.S. drills or doesn't has a very minor effect on overall supply/demand balance.
Now we do have a whole hell of a lot of oil shale, but that doesn't seem to be included in the current proposal, which is solely for offshore drilling of conventional oil, of which we have fairly small amounts.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The main problem with oil companies is that they're selling oil that's found on publicly owned land, i.e. oil owned by the U.S. public. Now it's not like they came in and stole it; they signed contracts, which are quite unfavorable to the original owners (all of us). This is the government's fault for signing them, of course. Even at the time (when oil prices were much lower), the market value of these contracts was considerably higher than the flat statutory royalty rates that we assess. If oil-drilling rights on public land were auctioned off at market rates, the U.S. public would keep a significantly bigger percentage of the profits from drilling for that oil, and it'd be more free-market to boot.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Come fall the entire Northeast needs to buy fuel oil! Begin the drilling now! My reps are the ones staying late they know what is coming. My $2500 heating bill for a modest home. Want me to move to California OR Texas? Fine, I'm bringing my income and education to raise your housing and school bills to record levels. Welcome to your new million dollar 800 square ft house.
Oh and BTW NH is converting to Pellet fuel at a record rate. You got it, we're cutting down those nice Eco friendly trees to BURN THEM! Wait till the trees are gone because of your idiotic policies.
Pelosi and Co. are a bunch of morons.
Can we impeach every democrat on the hill?
Is there any chance this was broadcast on C-Span and recorded? If so, link please.
So to recap, the House votes to adjourn, they adjourn, and some moron aides think it would be funny to cut the power while Boner and his pals decide they didn't like the outcome of the vote.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Do you really think oil production destroys more wealth than it creates? Then why don't we stop producing today? Because, (duh) the benefits of oil production vastly outweigh the costs.
And also a few corrections for you. Go look at pictures of ANWR: no trees. It's a tundra. The OCS regions we're talking about are not in the Gulf of Mexico. And carbon offsets are not expensive, nor is the environmental damage from oil spills. At least not when you compare them to the price of 10's of billions of barrels of oil. That money goes to pay workers too you know... not just executives. And then those workers can buy other things, support their families, pay taxes, and so on...
Oil production is your friend.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
What you talkin' 'bout. Dis is /. baby.
Hey! Who turned out the lights?
Why don't they even have to travel there? Why can't their just all telecommute, so they can do all their work while not being pulled away from their constituents. It just makes more sense to me that way.
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He could have meant "shite".
"Grand Old Party" apparently http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/03/politics/main531460.shtml
Wow, the opinions around here, maybe everyone here should run for office, can't be any worse than who you've elected in your respective city/state.
:)
On the other note, letting the oil sit in the ground now, importing from saudi america at an inflated rate may hurt now, but they're almost dry (give it 10 years)... Now, think about this... When they're all dried up, and china has an overly hungry appetite for oil, they'll come knockin for ours... And well, see, politicians like countries/companies with money, lots and lots of money.
Don't worry, we'll drill, eventually... unfortunately it won't be for domestic consumption.
A much more prevalent factor in the current economy is the rapid loss of value of the dollar. Many things besides oil have inflated in price much more, and that's because there is virtually no faith in the dollar as a currency because we have bankrupted the country fighting wars we could not afford in ways that were clearly wasteful and idiotic.
But yeah, the speculation has inflated oil even more on top of that, but compared to the loss of value of the dollar, it's very minor.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
So we're paying them each $170k a year to act like immature asshats? I guess I'd be in a hurry to start a month long vacation too.
The sad thing is, we citizens actually chose these people.
Sometimes I think America is going straight to hell. And when I think about it a little more, I'm pretty sure we deserve it.
Maybe not
I'm not very fond with the title. This implies that the Democrats just randomly closed shop, while today was actually the first day of the August Recess -- a tradition which has existed for a long time. Apparently, some Republicans decided to stick around in the House.
There's a difference between a teacher walking out on the student and students staying after school ends.
I have to agree. After working in any environment long enough you will see 2 types of employees. (not to imply you can't break this down different ways, but this is one way). There are those that will do their job when people place specific tasks ahead of them and once they complete those they will slack off, because after all, they have nothing to work on right? Then there are those that once they finish the task at hand will actively go out and pursue other tasks that are hiding under the table that also need to be addressed and work on those as well. I assure you, there is no lack of work to do in nearly ANY job. Bush is of the first type and doesn't have a work ethic to qualify him for any job nearly as important as what he does.
I'm watching a story on Ted Stevens' problems with Veco. I would have thought that the GOP would want the lights and microphones turned off right around now.
Nothing to see here. Move along now.
Have gnu, will travel.
'This is the people's House,' Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) said.
What he means, of course, is "This is the lobbyists' House -- the People's entrance is in the rear, as we Congresspeople all know."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are partially correct. Commodity traders are not to blame. It is a supply issue, but not due to an actual shortage. People seem to forget that the price of gas started going up before the price of oil. This was blamed on damaged refineries after Katrina. What has happened is the oil cartels have finally closed the markets:
This allowed monopoly pricing to set in, and they have been squeezing ever since. OPEC noticed and decided they wanted a piece of the pie, too, so they turned down the tap. Supply and demand at its finest. 'We control the supply, and this is what we demand'
The 'invisible hand' only works if you actually have a free market - independent sellers and independent buyers.
They indicate that in the second "fact"
In many cases, the so-called âoeidle leasesâ are not idle at all; they are under geologic evaluation or in development and could be an important source of domestic supply. However, this does not mean all leases have the potential to produce. Companies can evaluate leases for several years only to determine that they do not contain oil or natural gas in commercial quantities. ... [Emphasis added]
One wonders if a alternate fuel company made this much if they would be grabbing 75% of the profits as taxes and wanting even more from them as "windfall".
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
You forgot Microsoft (29.26%)
[E]veryone should vote against every incumbent in Washington this year...
[Disclaimer: For the last 3 years, I myself have been a State Treasurer for one of those little parties -- and we will *never quit* harassing the major parties, who long ago abandoned any semblance of principles. They can't fool us, they can't buy us, and they can't stop us.]
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
Ah come on guys, you're whining about Pelosi when this kind of crap has been going on since '94 when the republicans got in charge. It's just the shit's on the other foot, get over yourselves.
Dear congress,
If you sing "God Bless America", you owe the boy scouts royalties.
It was a bit surprising to find this on the front page of Slashdot... Regardless it is good to see the Republicans back in their natural habitat in the permanent minority. Their constant whining and perpetual tantrums, superfun and comical, but usually only for the hardcore political geeks...
They each get paid at least $169,300, with automatic yearly adjustments to the "cost of living" (Twenty-Seventh Amendment be damned), and this doesn't count various gifts and other perks, which may or may not be allowed by the FEC. And this is what they do on your time!
Bush just got crude to drop $35 per barrel in 3 weeks simply by lifting the executive order ban so it's quite naïve of you to say that drilling doesn't help. The market reacted to the future potential of more oil supply by dropping the price of crude drastically. Now imagine what would happen to the price of oil if Pelosi actually allowed a vote on the issue and if congress lifted the congressional ban.
Republicans are at least trying to do something about the supply so it's quite partisan of you to say that they're being shameful when it's the Democrats playing obstructionism. What's shameful is congress leaving for a 5-week vacation when the issue important to this nation's future can't even get voted on. The reality is that we need to deal with both the conservation issue and the supply issue and you need to come to terms with that. Most Americans want more supply but the leadership on the left is playing obstructionism by preventing any sort of vote on the issue.
Obama now wants massive windfall taxes on oil companies which is effectively a higher tax at the gas pumps. That doesn't do a thing to lower gas prices and if Obama reverses Bush's lifting of the ban, you can kiss those recent price drops goodbye.
We are all SO fucked it's not even funny.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
There is oil in the ground. We know how to get it. The infrastructure is already in place to use it. We know it works.
All the alternatives, at present, either are impractical with current infrastructure (hydrogen, wind), are politically impossible for the foreseeable future (nuclear), release way too much in the way of pollution and "greenhouse gases" to be allowed (coal-to-oil), or yield a net energy loss at current technology levels (solar). They all have two things in common, however: They have potential.
So how about "all of the above"?
Drill for the oil we need to keep our economy running now. Invest some of the returns on the oil-run economy into research and development for the energy sources we will need in the future.
I suspect that the oil companies themselves aren't all that averse to the idea of spending a tidy sum on developing these alternatives. This is because they aren't actually "oil companies" - they're "energy companies". They'd be happy to sell you a windmill and a maintenance contract, or hydrogen, or nuclear energy, whatever - so long as they can clear a profit on it somewhere. They haven't taken a secret vow to tie their financial futures to the infinite availability of a finite resource.
Do it all. Do it now. Do it before it's too late to save either the economy or the environment.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Remember, when dealing with me, the angrier you get, the happier I am.
I believe that is known as a troll or a snert/flamebait. Moderator's, mod him/her/it down as such.
I have no opinion on carbon offsets because I haven't read up on the matter. And of course my "math" is not valid; my whole point is that there are NON-economic factors to consider.
Obviously by calling it a "remote part of the world," you intend to say "who cares if it's damaged or destroyed." Then you go back to saying "look at the economic benefits."
Fine. Let's assume jobs are created, everyone is rich, gas is free, etc. My point still stands: part of the price we paid for that scenario is the environmental cost. And when we have used all of the non-infinite oil we've extracted, we won't be able to re-create those natural areas.
If we want to pay a permanent price for a temporary gain, that's valid; we just need to understand what we're doing. And maybe it would be wiser to look ahead to the point when the gas WILL run out and start planning for that.
...what type of playground crap is this. I mean come on...how many diffrent ways can our elected officals show that they have completely forgotten about the working man?
Joe Investor
Why should I start saving for retirement now when I've still got 40 years before I retire?
It will probably TAKE us 100 years to wean ourselves from oil. By the time it gets prohibitively expensive to extract or buy it, we want to have alternatives in place. That means investing and researching now - not when we reach a crisis point.
"Ahahaha, thank you."
No, thank you. I was undecided on my vote for this year, and thanks to YOU, I'm voting straight Republican.
Laugh at me mooting your vote.
You aren't mooting shit. I doubt you live in my state. Last time I checked, we had this thing called an electoral college. Unless you live in my state, your vote has no effect on my vote, we are voting for different electors. I find it hard to believe anyone as dense as you would have voted anything but Repuglican anyway.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Mooting your vote while you can't do anything about it makes me smile.
"I find it hard to believe anyone as dense as you would have voted anything but Repuglican anyway."
I voted third party the last three elections.
Thanks to YOU, that ends this year.
And the fact that you obviously hate it, and know I got over on you, makes me so happy I don't have words.
Here's some more good news, I'm going to donate 100 bucks to the GOP every time you post between now and the election.
MOOOOOOTED!
I find it hard to believe you are even old enough to vote. So, how do you know where I live? and WHERE do you think I live? Anyway, seeing as how I vote third party, you aren't exactly mooting my vote even if you do live in my state. I vote to send a message, I don't actually think my candidate will get elected. Your vote won't change the message my vote sends to both parties. Your childish antics do amuse me, though. Call it schadenfreude, but I love watching pathetic losers fail miserably. Does it burn inside, knowing you've failed? I can only imagine how bad it must feel. I mean, I'm flattered that I matter that much to you, but maybe you should pick a new obsession.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"So, how do you know where I live?"
It's in your journal moron.
MOOOOTED!
PS, there are vote trading service available, so even if we weren't in the same state I could moot you.
"Does it burn inside, knowing you've failed? "
Sorry, you have me confused with your parents.
"I can only imagine how bad it must feel."
You don't have to imagine, just remember what you felt when you realized your idiot ass caused your own vote to be mooted.
I win.
Still mooted.
"My word, is that what you've been reduced too?"
No, but if it was it would be what I had been reduced to.
"Fingers in your ears shouting 'IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT!' "
Nope, I never said "IS NOT IS NOT" anywhere in our discussion, I just reiterated the fact that you lost and your vote is mooted.
You don't read well do you?
"You just don't have the skills, and you made the CARDINAL mistake of such contests: you let your opponent know you care. "
I do , I care about mooting your vote. It seems that you have no way to deal with that, so you keep telling me I've lost this "contest" despite the fact that I've stopped engagin you in any kind of discussion long ago.
If I care, and I've already stopped, what does that say about YOU continuing to reply even after I've made it clear I've settled on my course of action and no longer give a fuck what you think?
OH right, it sways YOU care MORE than I do. Oops, I guess your "CARDINAL mistake" was telling me my mistake was something YOU CONTINUE TO DO.
"After that, it's a completely one sided affair. You lose your cool, you lose the fight."
Yes, I mooted your vote and you tried to do something about it, but failed miserably. So yes, it has been one sided, and when you lost your cool and continued to reply after I made it clear I didn't give a fuck about your opinion, you lost the fight. When I said "still mooted" and your reply was anything AT ALL, you admitted you cared, and you admitted I got to you, and you lost. And I loved it.
But we knew that, why are you admitting something we all saw you do?
PS you vote is still mooted bitch. Nothing you can say will change that, but you'll try, completely in opposition to your moronic attempt to claim you don't care.
And you'll lose again.
The argument you present is just as silly. If we had listened to those environmentalists and became a less oil dependant nation these problems would be far fewer. Think CAFE, air quality, ect. Destroying our planet should not be an option.
Energy is becoming more technical by the day. Battaries, Solar, Hydro, Nuclear, heck even coal and existing techs are getting rethought and re-imaged.
While I agree the stunt is a little immature I commend them for drawing attention to such an important issue- Nancy Pelosi.
They held a vote. The vote passed. Sure, someone's playing political games, but it isn't the speaker.
She has refused to allow the house to vote on offshore drilling.
Because it's a fraud. It's not about lowering the price of gas, it's about handing more money to Exxon.
Second, I am one who feels the price of oil would drop with offshore drilling.
What a surprise, you're wrong. It would take 10+ years to see results, and the oil wouldn't automatically go to the U.S., Exxon or Shell or BP could just as easily send it to the India or China. The amount of oil obtained would be dwarfed by what could be saved with basic energy conservation. Finally, and most importantly: why aren't the oil companies drilling on the land they already have the rights to.
Fourth, anyone who believes that Exxon makes excessive profits is a moron. 11.68 billion on 138.07 billion of revenue- 8.45% profit. That's considered an average profit in the business world.
And how common is 138.07 billion dollars in revenue? Moron. And higher taxes would make up for the fact that they've continued to receive tax breaks and subsidies while their profits were exploding.
The fact that the Democrats didn't even hold a vote on domestic drilling despite overwhelming public support is something that ought to be mocked.
The majority of Americans do not support more drilling, much less an overwhelming number of them.
Domesitc production wont do jack to change the price of oil, because it wouldn't be our oil, it would be Exxon's or Shell's oil, and as likely to end up in India as Texas. Unless, of course, we nationalized the oil fields. But then we'd have to the CIA overthrow our government for being (gasp!) socialist.
But they did! Don't you people remember pre-2006 the stuff the Republicans pulled? This kind of thing and worse. The Republicans wouldn't even let the Democrats have a meeting, relegating them to a basement room. Then there's that bizarre voice vote. I'll admit I'm sorry to see the Dems stoop to the Republicans level, but they certainly deserve it.
J