| Author |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
JoefromPhilly
651 Posts |
 Posted - 07/16/2008 : 12:58:09 PM
|
The lame brain liberal is at it again. Obama says he will rid the world of nuclear weapons. I can hear Osama and Al Quida laughing their butts off right now. Yeah, like militant Muslims and countries like Iran are going to say, "You know, he's right. Lets all live in peace". Hahaha. It was nuclear weapons that brought down the USSR, even without launching them. The strong deterrent they provide has kept this country strong. If we were to dismantle our weapons, we would become targets for every terrorist organization out there. Even the leaders of countries like Russia and China are not that stupid to suggest that we rid the world of nukes.
Thus, again I wonder if those of you who are going to vote for Obama even have half a brain.
- Joe |
|
mortgagemessiah
8003 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:07:18 PM
|
| Joe after reading your posts I wonder if you even have a brain at all. Your political information you post 99% of the time is even close to being accurate and you provide no source material for your comments. |
|
|
mganovsky
2044 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:13:21 PM
|
Steve how are ya. He sounds like a democrat. what they do is take a small portion of a sentence out of a paragragh or even a page of the speech and twist it around to make a political statement.
I do not like Obama either but he is no idiot and I really doubt that is exactly what he said. |
|
|
shaslam
402 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:14:01 PM
|
I think it's obvious that his overall message is that "in a perfect world", we wouldn't need nuclear weapons. The man is doing nothing more than stating his desire for world peace.
And what exactly is wrong with that, JoefromPhilly? I'd much rather vote for someone who favors diplomacy and peace over endless war mongering and violence. |
|
|
JoefromPhilly
651 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:15:05 PM
|
Steve,
My political info is correct. It is the liberal minds who don't understand it. All it takes to validate my information is to read the news. Or, even watch the political ads that Obama is running. He is slamming McCain for the oil drilling proposals, stating that this will produce no oil for 7 years. Well, had the Dems not blocked ANWR 10+ years ago, we would have more oil NOW. I notice that his plan calls for NO new oil or energy that is practical. You show me ONE place where Obama says that he is for increasing our supply of oil, gas or coal and I will issue you an apology.
- Joe |
|
|
ritabradley01
3144 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:17:07 PM
|
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 — Senator Barack Obama will propose on Tuesday setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, aides say.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: Barack Obama
Blog
The Caucus
The latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.
Candidate Topic Pages
More Politics News
In a speech at DePaul University in Chicago, Mr. Obama will add his voice to a plan endorsed earlier this year by a bipartisan group of former government officials from the cold war era who say the United States must begin building a global consensus to reverse a reliance on nuclear weapons that have become “increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.”
Mr. Obama, according to details provided by his campaign Monday, also will call for pursuing vigorous diplomatic efforts aimed at a global ban on the development, production and deployment of intermediate-range missiles.
“In 2009, we will have a window of opportunity to renew our global leadership and bring our nation together,” Mr. Obama is planning to say, according to an excerpt of remarks provided by his aides. “If we don’t seize that moment, we may not get another.”
His speech was to come one day after an announcement by the Bush administration that it had tripled the rate of dismantling nuclear weapons over the last year, putting the United States on track to reducing its stockpile of weapons by half by 2012.
The exact number of weapons being dismantled, like the overall stockpile, is secret, but officials said Monday that with the planned reductions, the total number of American nuclear weapons would be at the lowest levels since Dwight D. Eisenhower was president.
Under a 2002 treaty, the United States and Russia agreed to limit the number of operational nuclear weapons in their arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012, though that agreement did not address weapons in reserve stockpiles.
Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, is seeking to draw attention to his foreign policy views with the approach of the fifth anniversary of the Congressional vote authorizing military action in Iraq. He is highlighting his early opposition to the war, which he argues is a sign of judgment that is more important than the number of years served in Washington.
Mr. Obama, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, often tells voters that the Iraq war has consumed American foreign policy to the detriment of its ability to address other threats facing the nation. In his speech on Tuesday, aides said, Mr. Obama will assert, as he has before, that the United States should not threaten terrorist training camps with nuclear weapons.
If elected, Mr. Obama plans to say, he will lead a global effort to secure nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years. He also will pledge to end production of fissile material for weapons, agree not to build new weapons and remove any remaining nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert.
In his speech, according to a campaign briefing paper, Mr. Obama also will call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. Aides did not say what Mr. Obama intended to do if diplomacy and sanctions failed.
In setting a goal of eliminating nuclear weapons in the world, Mr. Obama is endorsing a call for “urgent new actions” to prevent a new nuclear era that was laid out in January in a commentary in The Wall Street Journal written by several former government officials. The authors of the article were George P. Shultz, secretary of state in the Reagan administration; Henry Kissinger, secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations; William J. Perry, secretary of defense in the Clinton administration; and Sam Nunn, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
David E. Sanger and Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting.
|
|
|
shaslam
402 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:17:52 PM
|
quote:
He is slamming McCain for the oil drilling proposals, stating that this will produce no oil for 7 years. Well, had the Dems not blocked ANWR 10+ years ago, we would have more oil NOW. I notice that his plan calls for NO new oil or energy that is practical. You show me ONE place where Obama says that he is for increasing our supply of oil, gas or coal and I will issue you an apology.
Dude, the oil companies are only using 10% of the offshore areas they have right now to look for oil. That's right - TEN PERCENT!! You can look that up too. Pushing for more land to drill offshore is nothing more than PR. Those oil companies have no real intention of drilling underseas to look for oil when they can just import it and jack up the price. They only cry about needing more access to deflect from the fact that they are doing nothing except swimming in their giant money vaults like Scrooge McDuck.
And secondly, we don't WANT Obama to increase oil, gas or coal supply. Or any other candidate for that matter. Are you a tool? Seriously? Did you eat a retard sandwich for lunch? We need the gov't to mandate investments in new technology so we don't NEED fossil fuels. If Big Oil starts spending millions to find/develop new supplies, they won't be putting their efforts towards fuel cells, bio fuels, solar, etc.
|
|
|
sacramento
778 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:18:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mortgagemessiah
Joe after reading your posts I wonder if you even have a brain at all. Your political information you post 99% of the time is even close to being accurate and you provide no source material for your comments.
quote:
Originally posted by mganovsky
Steve how are ya. He sounds like a democrat. what they do is take a small portion of a sentence out of a paragragh or even a page of the speech and twist it around to make a political statement.
I do not like Obama either but he is no idiot and I really doubt that is exactly what he said.
"As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy," Obama 07/16/2008
He actually DID say he wanted to rid the world of ALL nuclear weapons.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD91V3A3O0
or
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91V3A3O0&show_article=1 |
|
|
cspatmon
2071 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:20:06 PM
|
| I would feel more comfortable that someone that's trying than not....no matter what the outcome. |
|
|
sacramento
778 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:25:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by cspatmon
I would feel more comfortable that someone that's trying than not....no matter what the outcome.
 |
|
|
sacramento
778 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:27:04 PM
|
| So if Obama becomes President and dismantals all of our nukes as Iran is busy building theirs....what next? |
|
|
ritabradley01
3144 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:29:39 PM
|
So you don't mind if Iran obliterates us as long as Obama is trying?
quote:
Originally posted by cspatmon
I would feel more comfortable that someone that's trying than not....no matter what the outcome.
|
|
|
ritabradley01
3144 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:30:48 PM
|
| He's dangerous. We'd better hope to God he doesn't get elected. Fortunately for us, candidates never keep their promises once they get into office. |
|
|
shaslam
402 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:33:32 PM
|
How many years of calisthenics did it take for you folks to be able to actually insert your craniums into your rectums? Three years? Seven?
The nuclear-armed world powers are ALREADY dismantling their bombs. Bush's admin has been dumping them at an incredible rate.
|
|
|
sacramento
778 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:41:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by shaslam
How many years of calisthenics did it take for you folks to be able to insert your craniums into your rectums? Three years? Seven?
The nuclear-armed world powers are ALREADY dismantling their bombs. Bush's admin has been dumping them at an incredible rate.
The United States & Russia agreed to REDUCE the amount of stock piled nukes. HUGE difference than actually getting rid of them all.
What was the first half of your post refering too? |
|
|
ritabradley01
3144 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:44:35 PM
|
I seriously doubt it's happening.
quote:
Originally posted by shaslam
How many years of calisthenics did it take for you folks to be able to actually insert your craniums into your rectums? Three years? Seven?
The nuclear-armed world powers are ALREADY dismantling their bombs. Bush's admin has been dumping them at an incredible rate.
|
|
|
Rene Viloria
1824 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:44:44 PM
|
| The politics of fear... Lets' just nuke everybody...That is the right solution...Reagan the god of republicans, got rid of a bunch of nuclear weapons which was Gorbachev idea, it help to end the cold war and communism...Oh no! lets be cowboy macho like mr. bush look were it got us... Now licki licki with North Korea... |
|
|
mganovsky
2044 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:46:15 PM
|
OK so you dismantle a few?, They keep a couple around and we keep a couple around;then what. 30 years ago I read an article that said the U.S. had enogh nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world a couple of times over.
Having a goal to do away with Nuclear weopons is not a bad idea. It will never happen though.
What is the only country in the World that has ever unleashed Atomic or Nuclear weapons on another country. If you said the U.S. then you my friend win a cigar.
So who are we to say that another country can not have nuclear weapons. American's are just plain arrogant.
|
|
|
brad.easter
695 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:50:15 PM
|
| ..."and Obama is STILL a post turtle!" |
|
|
sacramento
778 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:51:19 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rene Viloria
The politics of fear... Lets' just nuke everybody...That is the right solution...Reagan the god of republicans, got rid of a bunch of nuclear weapons which was Gorbachev idea, it help to end the cold war and communism...Oh no! lets be cowboy macho like mr. bush look were it got us... Now licki licki with North Korea...
Who was talking about nuking anyone? There's nothing wrong with reducing the numbers of stock piled nukes like we are currently doing under President Bush because of a treaty with Russia. If you want to come and defend a position please be rational and logical, your typing out of emotion. |
|
|
kweli83110
405 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:53:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by shaslam
Did you eat a retard sandwich for lunch?
That is classic. LOL |
|
|
assassin17
4154 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:58:48 PM
|
Nothing like becoming a 'Sitting Duck' for the lunatics of the world.
Yes, we used nuclear weapons to a quite-desired result against an aggressive enemy. And if you think anything else kept Russia from firing at us for many years, you're nuts, just like Obama. |
|
|
hertz
851 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 1:59:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sacramento
quote:
Originally posted by Rene Viloria
The politics of fear... Lets' just nuke everybody...That is the right solution...Reagan the god of republicans, got rid of a bunch of nuclear weapons which was Gorbachev idea, it help to end the cold war and communism...Oh no! lets be cowboy macho like mr. bush look were it got us... Now licki licki with North Korea...
Who was talking about nuking anyone? There's nothing wrong with reducing the numbers of stock piled nukes like we are currently doing under President Bush because of a treaty with Russia. If you want to come and defend a position please be rational and logical, your typing out of emotion.
That is what Rene always does. That and point out "facts" that are opinion. |
|
|
brad.easter
695 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 2:05:15 PM
|
Did you eat a retard sandwich for lunch? We need the gov't to mandate investments in new technology so we don't NEED fossil fuels. If Big Oil starts spending millions to find/develop new supplies, they won't be putting their efforts towards fuel cells, bio fuels, solar, etc.
[/quote]Oil companies are in the OIL BUSINESS!!! The scarriest thing that you wrote is that the government should MANDATE investments in new technology. That is a great big slice of "developmentally disabled" on a bonehead bun! |
|
|
hertz
851 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 2:08:02 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by brad.easter
Did you eat a retard sandwich for lunch? We need the gov't to mandate investments in new technology so we don't NEED fossil fuels. If Big Oil starts spending millions to find/develop new supplies, they won't be putting their efforts towards fuel cells, bio fuels, solar, etc.
Oil companies are in the OIL BUSINESS!!! The scarriest thing that you wrote is that the government should MANDATE investments in new technology. That is a great big slice of "developmentally disabled" on a bonehead bun!
[/quote]
$4-$5 per gallon gas will do more to infuse dollars into alternative energy than anything the gov't could ever do. |
|
|
cspatmon
2071 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 2:08:36 PM
|
| Obams,try ridding the world of nuclear weapons peacefully is a plus...My true thoughts on the question of who and who can't possess nuclear weaponry...by who's standards. Joefromphilly, if you can possess a fire arm at your home to protect you and your family.....so can I..... |
|
|
sacramento
778 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 2:17:45 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mganovsky
Having a goal to do away with Nuclear weopons is not a bad idea. It will never happen though.
And I wish I had a tree that grew money and a faucet that flows with Chopin Vodka...
That statement is like saying we will rid the world of drugs, weapons and saturated fats. It's nice to have a fantasy world but once they're here, they aren't going away.
quote:
What is the only country in the World that has ever unleashed Atomic or Nuclear weapons on another country. If you said the U.S. then you my friend win a cigar.
And we haven't used it since, but the threat that we CAN if needed put's us in a position of power.
Correct me if I'm wrong; wasn't it a Dem that was President when we droped the bomb?
quote:
So who are we to say that another country can not have nuclear weapons.
First of all it is the UN; 195 governemnts not just the big bad USA. If you have an enemy that repeadedly says he will murder you and your family...wouldn't you try to prevent him from getting a gun?
quote:
American's are just plain arrogant.
Are you not an American? Why would you insult someone's nationality because you disagre with their politics?
|
|
|
mortgagemessiah
8003 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 2:18:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoefromPhilly
Steve,
My political info is correct. It is the liberal minds who don't understand it. All it takes to validate my information is to read the news. Or, even watch the political ads that Obama is running. He is slamming McCain for the oil drilling proposals, stating that this will produce no oil for 7 years. Well, had the Dems not blocked ANWR 10+ years ago, we would have more oil NOW. I notice that his plan calls for NO new oil or energy that is practical. You show me ONE place where Obama says that he is for increasing our supply of oil, gas or coal and I will issue you an apology.
- Joe
How does relate to your original statement?
How is drilling ANWR going save you money at the pump? It's not. This is the same argument that was made n 1970s for the pipeline. The pipeline did not bring consumer gas prices down. The only benefit it had was it created 2500 short term jobs and it allowed the oil companies to widen their profit margin. Do you really think the oil companies are going pass ther savings on to you? You're living in a fantasy world if you think they will. The oil companies are the ones who are manipulating oil prices right now. They did the same thing as they did with the gas shortages of the 1970s. They are creating an atmosphere of fear and blackmail to get what they want. Why? For profit and this is all this is about. They know they how much they can squeeze the consumer for they've already done the market data. |
|
|
mykal5
2738 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 2:19:14 PM
|
I will argue with anyone game that nuclear weapons did not cause the collapse of the Soviet Union rather it was socialism and debt, overstretch, bad policy & poor planning, and corruption.
And lastly, Joe if all the world is rid of Nuclear Weapons (dumb idea in my opinion) how are we then vulnerable to the threats of Russia and China?
Oh and another thing both Bush Jr. and John McCain have unveiled plans aimed towards nuclear weapons reduction.
Whole lotta half brained people in this country huh? |
|
|
EMScommercial
5138 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 2:24:20 PM
|
| i can see this one flaming up |
|
|
JoefromPhilly
651 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 2:25:07 PM
|
quote:
And secondly, we don't WANT Obama to increase oil, gas or coal supply. Or any other candidate for that matter. Are you a tool? Seriously? Did you eat a retard sandwich for lunch? We need the gov't to mandate investments in new technology so we don't NEED fossil fuels. If Big Oil starts spending millions to find/develop new supplies, they won't be putting their efforts towards fuel cells, bio fuels, solar, etc.
The FREE market should determine what power we produce. We should not be "mandating" anything in a capitalist society. Plus, what part of "Big Oil" don't you understand? It is not "Big Solar", or "Big Bio", or "Big Wind", etc... Their job is to find, drill, refine and sell oil. Period.
I'm all for alternative energy supplies, but guess what, these technologies will not replace the BTU's that gas, coal and oil can provide any time in the next 20 or 30 years. You're telling me that a 747 will be flying loaded to the gills with batteries? You are totally incorrect in suggesting that we can just stop using oil.
- Joe |
|
|
sacramento
778 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 2:25:45 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by cspatmon
Joefromphilly, if you can possess a fire arm at your home to protect you and your family.....so can I.....
Yes you can. But if you're threatening to kill my family over and over; I'll contact the authorities so you don't get a gun permit. If you still get one, I'll do everything in my power to stop you to protect my family you are hell bent on killing. I would think you'd do the same. |
|
|
lemeuss
456 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 2:26:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by kweli83110
quote:
Originally posted by shaslam
Did you eat a retard sandwich for lunch?
That is classic. LOL
I also laughed...out loud...at that one.....kudos shaslam |
|
|
lemeuss
456 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 2:28:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by brad.easter
Did you eat a retard sandwich for lunch? We need the gov't to mandate investments in new technology so we don't NEED fossil fuels. If Big Oil starts spending millions to find/develop new supplies, they won't be putting their efforts towards fuel cells, bio fuels, solar, etc.
Oil companies are in the OIL BUSINESS!!! The scarriest thing that you wrote is that the government should MANDATE investments in new technology. That is a great big slice of "developmentally disabled" on a bonehead bun!
[/quote]
Brad that was at 205...did you not have lunch yet? |
|
|
lemeuss
456 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 2:31:23 PM
|
Obama didn't get into his ACTUAL plan guys, c'mon, take it easy...
When he said "get rid of all the world's nuclear weapons" he CLEARLY meant launch them at aggressors, dessimating anyone in the world who would even think of a senseless attack on our soil.
Figure this...there are mandates to have cars have estimated MPG's in the 30's currently....imagine, the middle east is covered in radioactivity....how many MPG's do you think you'd get off of radioactive fuel? ENERGY SHORTGAGE SOLVED!
Obama's got the masterplan. |
|
|
JoefromPhilly
651 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 2:37:38 PM
|
quote:
How is drilling ANWR going save you money at the pump? It's not. This is the same argument that was made n 1970s for the pipeline. The pipeline did not bring consumer gas prices down. The only benefit it had was it created 2500 short term jobs and it allowed the oil companies to widen their profit margin. Do you really think the oil companies are going pass ther savings on to you? You're living in a fantasy world if you think they will.
Apparently, Steve missed Econ 101, where they talk about supply and demand. He also forgets that the oil markets are controlled by countries and not the oil companies. Steve, let me teach you some basics:
1) If we increase the supply of oil, we get lower prices.
2) If we increase the demand for oil, we get higher prices. Let us look at countries like India and China where they are consuming oil at increasing rates, due to their peeps' increased incomes and the availability of relatively cheap cars. Plus, the gigantic construction projects in China are also causing a huge increase in their demand for energy. This, Steve, is why the price of energy is going up. Not because the oil companies are manipulating prices. Did you know that China subsidizes the price of oil to its citizens? They don't pay the full freight, so they keep consumin' more and more.
If the market were flooded with more oil, prices would decline. Competition would ensure that this would happen. If you don't agree with that, then you really don't understand the fundamentals of supply and demand.
- Joe |
|
|
sacramento
778 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 2:38:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mortgagemessiah
How does relate to your original statement?
How is drilling ANWR going save you money at the pump? It's not.
I don't know how this got to ANWR...
The push right now is not ANWR but offshore. Since President Bush's vocal push for Congress to allow us to drill yesterday oil has droped 8%. The largest 2 day drop in 27 years! That was soley based on his strong push for it. How can you say that if we are allowed to drill prices won't drop immediatly? Prices are based on futures. Read below for a good write up on it.
quote:
Bush Says Drill, Drill, Drill — and Oil Drops $9! [Larry Kudlow]
In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.
Now isn’t this interesting?
Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices won’t decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain — all of them.
Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.
The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires September 30, so that becomes a key date. A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They’re talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.
There’s also a “gang of 10” in the Senate, five Republicans and five Democrats, that is trying to work a compromise deal on lifting the moratorium. So it’s possible a lot of action on this front could occur much sooner than people seem to think.
So I repeat: Drill, drill, drill. Deregulate, decontrol, and unleash the American energy industry. Those hated traders will then keep selling oil as the laws of supply and demand and free markets keep working.
Bravo for Bush. Bravo for the traders.
|
|
|
JoefromPhilly
651 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 2:54:25 PM
|
Good job, Joey! Now, I'm sure that there will be those who still don't get it.
- Joe |
|
|
mykal5
2738 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 3:07:44 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sacramento
quote:
Originally posted by mortgagemessiah
How does relate to your original statement?
How is drilling ANWR going save you money at the pump? It's not.
I don't know how this got to ANWR...
The push right now is not ANWR but offshore. Since President Bush's vocal push for Congress to allow us to drill yesterday oil has droped 8%. The largest 2 day drop in 27 years! That was soley based on his strong push for it. How can you say that if we are allowed to drill prices won't drop immediatly? Prices are based on futures. Read below for a good write up on it.
quote:
Bush Says Drill, Drill, Drill — and Oil Drops $9! [Larry Kudlow]
In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.
Now isn’t this interesting?
Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices won’t decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain — all of them.
Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.
The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires September 30, so that becomes a key date. A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They’re talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.
There’s also a “gang of 10” in the Senate, five Republicans and five Democrats, that is trying to work a compromise deal on lifting the moratorium. So it’s possible a lot of action on this front could occur much sooner than people seem to think.
So I repeat: Drill, drill, drill. Deregulate, decontrol, and unleash the American energy industry. Those hated traders will then keep selling oil as the laws of supply and demand and free markets keep working.
Bravo for Bush. Bravo for the traders.
While I have no desire to take anything from Bush (he has done a better job than most give him credit for) you cannot believe his lifting of an executive order banning offshore drilling is solely responsible for the drop in oil prices. Of course lifting the ban had a psycological affect but I don't believe for one minute the effect was as great as you or the author of the article you posted suggests.
The price decline was probably more a result of inflation fears and the increase in US inventories of about 2.95 million barrels last week. |
|
|
mortgagemessiah
8003 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 3:11:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoefromPhilly
quote:
How is drilling ANWR going save you money at the pump? It's not. This is the same argument that was made n 1970s for the pipeline. The pipeline did not bring consumer gas prices down. The only benefit it had was it created 2500 short term jobs and it allowed the oil companies to widen their profit margin. Do you really think the oil companies are going pass ther savings on to you? You're living in a fantasy world if you think they will.
Apparently, Steve missed Econ 101, where they talk about supply and demand. He also forgets that the oil markets are controlled by countries and not the oil companies. Steve, let me teach you some basics:
1) If we increase the supply of oil, we get lower prices.
2) If we increase the demand for oil, we get higher prices. Let us look at countries like India and China where they are consuming oil at increasing rates, due to their peeps' increased incomes and the availability of relatively cheap cars. Plus, the gigantic construction projects in China are also causing a huge increase in their demand for energy. This, Steve, is why the price of energy is going up. Not because the oil companies are manipulating prices. Did you know that China subsidizes the price of oil to its citizens? They don't pay the full freight, so they keep consumin' more and more.
If the market were flooded with more oil, prices would decline. Competition would ensure that this would happen. If you don't agree with that, then you really don't understand the fundamentals of supply and demand.
- Joe
I do understand Econ 101. I'm probably more educated and probably have more governmental experience than you. It's not the demand from China, Russia and India that is entirely responsible for the price of oil. It makes up about 25%. It's the speculators who are responsible driving up the price. The demand in these countries has been climbing for more than a decade. This is not something that happened overnight. Again, this is playing out just like it did in the 1970s except then they blamed the Europeans, Japan and Brazil. I understand supply and demand very well, it's you who has either been brainwashed by the oil lobby or just listen to too much Rush Limbaugh. |
|
|
Agent_Mike
371 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 3:19:12 PM
|
| Joe is a secret gestapo for the FOX network |
|
|
lunarhamster
3961 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 3:23:15 PM
|
| Obama is frightening. |
|
|
neversaynever
1044 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 3:24:50 PM
|
| GET OFF THIS WEBSITE |
|
|
cspatmon
2071 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 3:25:57 PM
|
| Joe is one of those alarmist, that will make the weak minded and faint at heart....to jump off buildings and bridges... |
|
|
sacramento
778 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 3:28:43 PM
|
mykal, the reason I believe President Bush's vocal push for congress to allow drilling was the primary reason oil prices droped 8% immediatly following his address:
1) Oil prices are set by futures. Traders buy futurs based on what they think the replacment cost will be at the term (months to years in advance). So today they are trading on what they feel it will cost next year, the year after and so on.
Knowing that. Me as a trader hear the President of the United States push to allow us to drill for more oil increasing supply also knowing congress's ban on drilling expires in only 2 months AND seeing the growing support by the American people and even Dem's in congress to drill... Of course I'm going to buy it for less, there's a HUGE chance replacment costs will drop very quickly and I lost my investment. |
|
|
lunarhamster
3961 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 3:33:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by neversaynever
GET OFF THIS WEBSITE
Who the hell are you talking to? |
|
|
cspatmon
2071 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 3:39:03 PM
|
| Now, now Kathi, don't take offense. Just think that they don't know any better...anyway where have you been? |
|
|
sacramento
778 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 3:39:53 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mcamp60610
Some of you guys need to lay off of the Rush Limbaugh and Fox News... Seriously, PUT THAT COFFEE DOWN!
quote:
Originally posted by cspatmon
Joe is one of those alarmist, that will make the weak minded and faint at heart....to jump off buildings and bridges...
quote:
Originally posted by neversaynever
GET OFF THIS WEBSITE
Why not try to input something inteligent to the conversation? I haven't heard either Rush or Fox quoted or commented on. Personally I don't even really like Rush. Wether you agree or disagre with anyone's politics dosen't really matter; make your point on the subject; Personal attacks are childish and show how much you really understand on the subject at hand. Are you a person with an oppinion or a sheeple? |
|
|
StayInHomeGuy
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 3:42:31 PM
|
Oil?
***RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE***
Nukes?
***RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE***
For FUQS SAKE just STFU already.....opinions are like @ssholes, yeah eveybody has one. I hate political arguments, peoeple aren't going to change their mind based on what others say. I am as close to the middle of the road as one could get. I beleieve that there are whackos on both extremes sides of the political parties (some of them are here now). Hopefully regardless of your official affiliation you could agree that this country is in bad shape, largely in part to the man who has been running it for the last 8 years. I don't care who is next aas long as he makes a positive change, we can't afford to continue down the road tha ole W put us on.
:blog: |
|
|
lunarhamster
3961 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 3:44:07 PM
|
|
Search for: