They get started by jealous republicans, and they get mad seeing something they had - somebody is holding...

rewrote that all by myself. Stop clapping.


Article about those lyin' liars below. Emphasis mine.



The Associated Press: Obama site confronts rumors

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

Oh, come on.....let's be fair, the Dems have started their fair share of rumors, too. You can't fool us.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Really? Such as???

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

HillBuzz

Which is a blog from a Hillary supporter does a lot of rumor flying...mainly against Obama.

This is one disadvantage from having a candidate that people do not know much about. They will dig up anything and try to spin it. The internet goes crazy and the rumor mill starts going.

Wouldn't you be surprised to find that the "Whitey" talk is true and the Republicans (or Hillary) is holding it till October??!!! Nothing surprises me anymore!

And you can blame those 'jealous Republicans' all you want, but those nasty Democrats are just as bad (or worse!)

A lot of the rumors, I believe, were started by the Clinton campaign. The "whitey" rumor was started by Larry Johnson. Johnson also started a rumor that Obama was having extramarital affairs and was caught with drugs on him in 1999. Offered $100K to pass a lie detector test. He accepted the offer but failed the lie detector test. Yet, based on his allegations, many gullible Americans will believe his every utterance.

Considering the source, I, for one, would be very surpised if the "whitey" rumor turned out to have any validity whatsoever.

The GOP in the last election cycle proved how low they would go. I think that we can expect more of the same.

My maiden name, literally translated from Polish is "whitey"...Kinda funny, since I am often mistaken for Latina or Middle Eastern (I am a dark person).
FTR, I am a conservative republican and dont believe Michele Obama called anyone "whitey" ..It even sounds ridiculous saying it out loud.

I can't imagine that Michelle Obama ever said "whitey" from the pulpit. She might have said "Why be...." or something like that but she is smart, too smart to say something like that.

The rumors that are circulating are starting to look like desperation from people who are frightened and will do/say anything to discredit the Democratic Party and their candidate. They know that people who are afraid of Sen Obama and the change that is possible and the fact there might be a AA president will believe that she is a racist without proof. If it was true, they would present the evidence when they start the rumor to blow the candidacy out of the water right now. But, because there is more than likely no tape, they can say whatever they want to and those people who are already afraid that he is a "militant, racist, anti american, non patriotic, radical muslim with his think a like wife. It is silly and unbelieveable.

I personally would feel better if people didn't like Obama because of his political beliefs and not on things that don't make a difference. The next thing we will hear will be that his daughters wore black one day (and there is a video) and therefore they must be "goth" or "emo" or "juggletes" and he isn't a good father so he can't be a good president.

People will lie about anything because the majority of the public will not wait for proof. Nor listen to common sense. Does it make sense for Michelle Obama to have said "whitey" from the pulpit and then had her husband run for office? Throughout this campaign, there have been some doozys spread about Obama. He isn't patriotic because he won't wear a flag pin, or he didn't put his hand over his heart once or twice, or he isn't pro war, or his pastor at his church said some things that were hard to hear, or that his wife said that she is now proud of America or something like that.

These are not the issues. The issues should be on who is going to get us out of the mess we are in in Iraq, the person who gives us hope that there is a solution to the health crisis, the economic crisis, the housing crisis, the credit crunch, the erosion of the middle class. I happen to believe that the Democratic party gives the best reason for hope. Because we already know what we have, I don't want what we have now and hope to have something better for the future.
JMO and YMMV

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

I hear these rumors and ignore them, as I'm sure many, many, many others do. I think you'd have to be gullible to think the stories make that much of a difference to anyone. People are smarter than that. At least the people I hang with.

As I said before, I believe Obama will sink his own boat. JMO

The comment about "the pastor at his churhc said some things that were hard to hear". C'mon, it was more than that. Downplay it all you want, but it is what it is. Obama sat in that church for years. Wright's opinions were no surprise to him, just to the rest of the world. As far as him leaving, too little, too late. I think it speaks volumes about Obama. You can't twist it, or change it, or take it out of context. Like I said, it is what it is.

It makes no difference to me what color he is. None at all. I still don't like him.

But, all of us silly Republicans will just believe whatever the Republican gods tellus to believe, and we are irrational and simply cannot think for ourselves. And gullible? You've never seen a more gullible ppl, those silly Republicans. And we have no idea what common sense is, so there's no sense preaching at us about it!! LOL

Please, it goes both ways, so to imply that the Dems don't do the same is irrational. I'm not sure there is a "higher ground" in politics.

Melissa

Knowing is half the battle! Good for you!

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

[quote=momrajum;3006468]
The comment about "the pastor at his churhc said some things that were hard to hear". C'mon, it was more than that. Downplay it all you want, but it is what it is. Obama sat in that church for years. Wright's opinions were no surprise to him, just to the rest of the world. As far as him leaving, too little, too late. I think it speaks volumes about Obama. You can't twist it, or change it, or take it out of context. Like I said, it is what it is.[quote=momrajum;3006468]

Just as five years being tortured would probably leave a person with some mental problems. Some of the after effects include, weakened impulse control, bursts of anger and depression. It is what it is.

I could care less whether he's black, white, orange or purple! I don't like his political beliefs (or lack thereof). Wait till he taxes the heck out of you and gas prices go to $12/gallon. Let me see what the democrat followers say then. We have oil right here on our soil and thanks to the Democrats, we can't drill on it. The prices of gas didn't go to these high prices until the Democrats took over Congress (thanks Nancy Pelosi and co.). Whatever happened to her statement when she took over that the Democrats were going to make a difference now? Wow, they sure did -- gas is over $4.00/gallon, grocery prices are soaring and that's only the beginning!

You're funny.

I want to see you laughing when it happens (that is, IF Obama becomes president). And that's a big IF.

What is funny here to me, Melissa is that I never said anything about what color Obama was. I said that I wished that people would not vote for Obama based on the platform and not on silly things like pledging the "right" way or not wearing a flag pin and I said nothing about color. Your statement says a lot to me. It actually says that this is what you think of first when you think about him...not the issues.

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

I read somewhere today that in polls, it is Obama that will win the election right now. I know that a lot of things can change between now and November but I guess you better get ready.

It could happen...and then I am hoping that those who are so vehemently against him will be willing to hear exactly what those people who didn't want to see GWB in office a few years ago heard....."He is the president of the US. Deal with it."

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

You're funny.

This is what you said, usnamom - "They know that people who are afraid of Sen Obama and the change that is possible and the fact there might be a AA president will believe that she is a racist without proof"

You most certainly did make a statement about what color Obama was. I take it that your "AA" means African American? Or does AA mean something else to you? Automobile Association? How could you possibly know that this is what I first thought of when I think about him? You said AA in your post!!! I read what you wrote about him! Gosh!

MTT, If you read what I posted I was talking about his wife.

Then I spoke about the other issues that have come up and in THAT paragraph I stated, the issues of the wearing of the pin, the saluting etc. There is a saying I heard once about protesting too much.

I don't care really if you are not voting for him because he is black. What is wish is that people would be honest and say it. You can deal with honesty and there is nothing anyone can do about his color. But I have a sneaky suspicion that for a lot of people, if he was pro life, pro war in Iraq, wore a suit made of the flag, saluted when someone said America, went to church every morning with the "right" pastor, claimed to be white on Tuesdays, Thursday and every other Friday, they would still not vote for him.

It is interesting. I think for a lot of people, ( and obviously I am not speaking to those people who will shortly post that they don't care what color he is) the things they have chosen to have a real problem with (he doesn't wear a flag pin, he doesn't stand or put his hand over his heart when he says the pledge, the new black panther org. endorses him, he didn't denounce his pastor soon enough, he doesn't claim his white mother's heritage, he doesn't claim to be white....are just smoke screens because deep down inside, they don't believe that the time is now for a Black person to be president of the US. Which is cool. They get to live however they want. But it is clear what is really up.

I admire those people who can see both candidates for who they are and just vote their candidate without all the crap that goes along with it. The lies.....John McCain is a fine candidate with faults but I can't say that his faults are why I won't vote for him...I know that I have heard he has a bad temper but it really didn't make any difference to my vote.

The nastiness that some of his supporters here on this board show me more fear rather than confidence in the Republican candidate. I don't understand it. The glee in the comment about if Obama wins is an odd comment to me. I understand it in the context of being afraid of having someone who is different and you don't understand or want to understand.

I heard something on the radio that was very true today on the way home. A conservative had a guest caller and he was saying whether you are Democrat or Republican, we as a nation, should be proud of ourselves and of Sen Obama because 40 years ago, this would not have been possible. Not even close. And he said that as a nation, this speaks of how far we have come, with the exception of now instead of letting the issues speak, we attack and bring innuendo and falsehoods because we haven't come that far.

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

twist, twist, twist....

You (usnamom) mentioned AA as I read the rest of your post that was on my mind. Period. Read what you will into it, but you are wrong. Period.

I think it is exciting that we have a black man running for President. I just don't happen to trust him, or like him. Period. It is not about what color he is.

And you did say something about there being an AA president....even though paragraph was about his wife...last I checked, she wasn't running.

Melissa

Like momrajum said, you can twist it all you want, but you said what you said. It's there to see. And as for the 'nastiness' on the Republican side? You've got to be kidding! I don't understand the Obama supporters nastiness. The things they have called people here on this board! OMG!

As for the 'glee' you mentioned, the only glee was one of your Obama supporters who continuously says "You're funny" when she has no answer for a statement. There is no 'glee' in Obama winning when he raises everyone's taxes and the gas and grocery prices keep rising.


Obama is the most liberal voter in Washington. If Obama were to somehow by a miracle change his views on a lot of issues, yes, I would vote for him. But I don't see that happening anytime in the near future for sure.

You're funny.

I didn't twist anything. I called it like I saw it.

I didn't mention that people wouldn't vote for Obama because of his color in my first post. But a poster quickly said she didn't care if he was blue, purple or whatever because of whatever. I didn't say at all that people wouldn't vote for him because he was black in my first post because I liked to think that the people here are not that way. I rather, gave examples of what I thought were silly reasons that have been brought up here.....the pin, the pledge, the "hidden" tape. But, I think that maybe a nerve has been hit. The gleeful post that truble made did not have quite the same tone as what was posted ".......I want to see you laughing when........." Compare that to "you're funny".

And I don't have Obama supporters. I am a supporter of Obama. Me, myself. I personally know John McCain. His kid went to school where my kids went. I believe that he is a fine person, patriot, an American, someone who has a nice family, I believe that he is doing what he thinks is best (which is all anyone can do), he has overcome many things and I give him credit for all he has done...his kid is a nice young man, I hear. But, he does not want the same things I do for the future of this country. I do not feel the need to drag him or his wife through the mud, pick at his failings nor jump on every person associated with him if they may not be "up to standards" I hold John McCain to the same standards I hold Sen Obama to. What does his vision of the country does he have? Does it match mine?

That is what I was saying. I think there is a faction of the country who won't support Obama because he is black. Those are the ones who are passing info such as "he is a muslim, wait until he gets us to all become muslim, he is hiding something, he is evil, he is a socialist, he will tax us to death" None is true that I can see at this time. I understand that the taxes will be for the top 3% to pay more taxes to fund for the people who make less. I also know that he has stated that the money that is used for Iraq would be more than enough to pay for health care for each American. But, you can think what you want. I am not being evil nor will I be gleeful when he wins in November but I will be excited to think that perhaps the mess we are in right now might change. At least, Obama has an idea that there is a problem. The current President hadn't noticed.

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

I guess I'd respectfully disagree with this, somewhat. I don't doubt at all that there are some who will not vote for him because of his skin color, but I don't know that I would attribute the rumors solely to people who hold that prejudice. There are a number of liberal positions that he supports that would cause someone to be anxious to start tumors that have nothing to do with his color.

My concern is that these things don't happen in a vacuum. It sounds good - and on the face of it might look good on paper - to say that the Iraq war $ would pay for health care for all Americans. But I believe it's just not true.

As expensive as maintaining our position in Iraq is (the war itself has been over for a long time), it will ultimately be a rather finite cost. I assume we'll have troops there for a very long time, just as we still have troops in Germany and Japan, etc. - but don't believe they will always be at this expensive level. Eventually our presence there will be in 'maintenance mode"... but the health care expense would become a machine that would be a runaway train. So far, our government has not successfully run a single social program without a tremendous amount of waste and fraud, and there is not a single program they've initiated that begins to compare to the costs that would be associated with federally-funded health care.

Eventually, they would have to impose severe limits. Will those limits be in the form of reduced benefits? Immediate access to physicians? Will taking the profit motive out of medicine - the thing that often drives our prices up - inhibit the drive that keeps us on the cutting edge, finding new cures? If all research must be done with government dollars, how much is that going to cost on TOP of health care for all?

100 years from now, hopefully, we won't be in Iraq like we are today. But if we get into a federal health care system... that will still be costing taxpayers a fortune in 2108. Social Security is currently a huge concern because a social program that began from good intentions has lived long enough to see the population base that has had to support it suddenly needing to rely on it, and at such a great level that it will overwhelm the system itself. The same thing would eventually happen with health care. We hear horrible stories about veterans not getting adequate health care. The American people are extremely supportive of this service, and yet it isn't effective for a number of reasons, many of them related to the fact that it is tax-supported. How will we respond when the system becomes clogged with people with self-induced medical issues begin to rely more heavily on this 'free' system than they do now when they must fund some or all of this care themselves? If you're giving something away free, you can expect use to increase substantially, so today's cost isn't an accurate predictor of future use if it's 'free'.

I see Obama as a wonderful and natural public speaker... but I have a feeling that his appealing proposals are often surface-level deep, and when taken to their logical conclusion, they won't work out.

Ah, where to start. Taxes, today, for most, are much less than what my husband and I paid back in the 90's. He does taxes for our family and was amazed this year when he dredged up some old tax returns of ours to see what the comparable tax rate was. We were in the 28% bracket then and would be in, with the same income, the 15% bracket today. That was when the deficit was being paid down with the extra money we were paying, and there were jobs, and the economy was generally good. And you do realize that even if you are in the 15% bracket, in reality you probably pay somewhere around 9 or 10%.

Yes we have oil, but for how long. We need to keep using the oil from other sources so that when they all run out, we will still have some. It's not like it spoils. Let's save ours for later. The oil companies have been issued all sorts of drilling permits but don't use them, why do they also need Anwar? On top of that, I've been trying to find reliable information on our oil exports, yes I said exports, and can't find any. The commerce department evidently has the info but they are the only ones. We are exporting oil, (go figure), but how much is what I can't find. I've seen as little as 10,000 barrels a day up to a couple of hundred thousand. Why should we give drilling rights to companies that send the oil to Asia? Why shouldn't we at least know, if and, how much we are exporting?

For the Dems to make a difference they would have to had a veto-proof majority and they didn't and don't. The oil prices in the U.S are not as high as in the rest of the world and never have been. We have been spoiled into thinking we are entitled to all of the world's oil and we're not, at least not unless we are willing to pay as much as everyone else does. And if the prices go up it will not have anything to do with drilling or not drilling in Anwar or what the Dems do or don't do. It will have to do with the rising consumption as other nations begin to use gasoline like we do. Less oil plus more consumers equals higher prices. It will have to do with the extremely weak dollar because of all the debt we are carrying to pay for the war. It will have to do with the failed policies of the current president. It will have to do with the fact that this has been coming for years but everyone has ignored it, for the most part. More drilling is a short-sighted non-answer to a much bigger problem.

wildwood, there is so much more to it than that. I don't think we've been spoiled into thinking the world's oil is ours. We just so happen to have been the most prevalent consumer of that particular commodity. It was our fuel of choice and not necessarily used on a widespread basis in underdeveloped nations.

What people don't seem to grasp is that there is NOT an oil shortage. Not in the least. The problem is that OPEC has decided to limit how much they pull out of the ground specifically so they can charge more for the little that is available. That's their prerogative, I guess, but it forces us into the need to make some decisions. Do we want to continue to be beholden to the oil OPEC controls, or do we want to have the ability to supply enough of our own domestically that reliance on OPEC's oil is diminished substantially so that market forces will drive the price per barrel down?

You mentioned our exporting oil. I wasn't aware of that, however, I can certainly understand it. Right now oil is $140/barrel. If an Asian nation is willing to pay an American oil company $140, and the American company has some to sell, they are allowed to sell it to whatever buyer they want. I assume those contracts to sell at least a base number of barrels per day to Asia have been in place before the OPEC-driven price hikes, and our companies are bound by them. It's also possible that at the time those contracts were created they locked in a price much LOWER than the $140/barrel, but the American companies are bound by agreements to sell at... say... $60 over a certain number of years. Additionally, the fact that we export doesn't change the fact that the price on the world market is what it is - $140/barrel. Any American company who says, "I'm only going to charge $60/barrel despite the fact that the market rate is $140" would be doing a disservie to it's stockholders. They are responsible to get as much for the oil they pump as they can. Elderly retirees whose income is based on the investments they made into mutual funds during their working years would drop significantly if willy-nilly, Exxon started charging less than the market value for the oil they sell.

Also, leases/permits aren't *issued*. Companies must BUY them. For many, many years the price of oil has been low, and drilling wasn't necessary. Suddenly, it IS necessary, and long-held leases can be capitalized on by drilling. However, there are only so many rigs available to do the drilling, and rigs themselves cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Once drilling has been completed and a pump or just tanks (depending on the pressure below the surface and whether or not a pump is needed) then the rig can move on and drill elsewhere, but each rig will be committed to a well site for a number of weeks during the drilling process. Investors for each well must be secured. Leases and damages must be negotiated with the topsoil owners (who often don't own the minerals below the surface). It's a very involved process, so unless there is *motive* to drill (which there wasn't when oil prices were low) it's an awful lot of time, money, and effort for little payoff when prices are low.

In the meantime, when companies hold leases to drill but *don't* drill, they are paying to retain the *right* to drill on any given section. They MUST pay the owner of the minerals for the rights to drill, even if they never choose to drill.

The interesting thing about areas such as ANWR and the shale fields in the Rockies and the Everglades is that those are federally-owned lands. I assume that means that we, the taxpayers, our government, would reap the proceeds of the sale of those minerals. Not only would we be able to be much more self-sufficient, but we would be adding a significant revenue source to the government coffers. At 100,000 barrels a day.... that's significant income to our government.

In ten years it will be 2018. People are screaming, "BUT IT WILL TAKE TEN YEARS BEFORE WE EVEN SEE A DROP OF OIL FROM ANWR IF WE START TODAY!" Okay then, we'd better move NOW. If we'd moved ten years ago when Bill Clinton was in office, we would have that oil today! 2018 will come whether or not we drill there, so I say we might as well make sure that when 2018 rolls around we're not still saying, "But it will be ten years before...!"

Personally, I think if we announced that we were going full-force with drilling in those areas that OPEC would back off the high prices and produce more. As things are, they see themselves as THE source. If we let it be known that we just aren't going to play that game, there will be a recession in the price they set.

I assume that in 40-50 years we will have a number of other energy sources to power our transportation and other needs. Situations like the one we're in now are forcing our hand, and that's not a bad thing. Like social security problems, trouble is looming in the eventual future if we don't do some planning now. In the meantime, for OUR time, oil is our key fuel, and there's no reason why we can't or shouldn't do what it takes to ensure as small a cost as possible. 150 years ago the 'scares' were probably related to hay shortages when horses were the main means of transportation... and they dealt with them. For our time it's oil. For the next gen, it'll be something different.

According to Obama's tax plan, couples making $55K or less a year will pay $1,000 less in taxes. Under McCain's plan, they get $300. Obama does plan to raise taxes on incomes over $250K. He will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. McCain's plan actually adds 4 trillion to the defecit.

We have high gas prices because of Republican energy prices.

Drilling in ANWAR will have a net effect of lowering the price of oil by 4% per barrel. All of it would ship to Asia.

You cannot blame OPEC for exploiting the only resource they have. It isn't going to last forever.

In the meantime, there's a lot we can do to lessen dependence. We need to switch to more fuel efficeint cars.

wowitsdark, you know you're my girl, but you're doing those REALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLY long posts again, lol. What did it say in shorthand?

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

I think the rule is that if you post less frequently you get to triple the length of your posts.

Shorthand?

It's foolish to throw out specific figures like the assumption that gas prices would only decrease by 4% if we drilled in ANWR. You can't assign an amount like that to an issue that has many subjective, perception-related factors causing the price to remain high. OPEC is one of several prongs that are keeping prices inflated. The others have to do with speculative futures markets and a lot of Wall Street game-playing, as well as the perception by dictatorships in the Middle East that they can push us around because we're pansies that won't commit to drilling. It's nuts that China is drilling ten miles off the coast of Florida but on principle, we have laws against doing so ourselves. No wonder they think they can just keep sticking it to us!

It would take an area the size of a postage stamp on a football field to drill in ANWR. That's it. Technology is so advanced that next to no 'wildlife' (not that there is much wildlife there!) would be disturbed at all. If we'd gotten off our duffs and done that ten years ago - as well as drilling offshore and in the Rockies - we might not be in such a pickle today.

I repeat : THERE IS NO OIL SHORTAGE. There is just a slowed production because the Middle Eastern nations *can* slow it. Do you remember what clued them into the fact that they could get by with raising prices and we'd just keep paying them? Katrina! Prices initially shot up because supposedly our key refineries were going offline. At the time, that was legit, however, ding-ding-ding, suddenly it became very much obvious that we'd pay whatever we had to, and now that the refinery issue is not at the heart of the prices, they continue to skyrocket.

Sorry - not very shorthandy! Bottom line? It's as much a mind game as it is a straight-up numbers game with those poeple, and we've made it very clear by refusing to tap our own resources that we can be led around by a nose ring like a bull.

But even if you're right and there was no oil shortage, if we continue to drill it WILL eventually be used up. And the environement will be affected. and I'm high on the meds I got this morning. so i'm gonna bouw out now.

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

We just don't have a lot of resources. We have let ourselves be led around by the nose.

You're wrong. We DO have plenty of resources. The extreme environmentalists have prevented us from accessing them.

We may have 7% of the world's oil supply. You really think that this amount would make a huge impact in the price?

Absolutely. It's an amount that is large enough to supply our own needs without any importing for approximately 40 - 50 years. Just because more exists in the word doesn't mean it is being developed, either. Canada and Mexico have tremendous oil and gas reserves and have barely tapped them at all. The sooner we get started drilling, the further ahead we'll be in terms of having an impact on the PRODUCED (as opposed to just *existant*) oil.

We import quite a bit of oil from Canada and Mexico already. Do you really think that we should destroy the wilderness in Alaska so that, at yesterday's price of $135, we could save 5.4 cents per barrel? Do you really think that would translate into any savings whatsoever in what you pay at the pump? I don't think so. We cannot meet our own needs with our own natural resources. Oil shale is cost prohibitive to extract although it may be getting close to break even at today's prices. We cannot possibly meet our own demands.

Both Floridians and Californians are vehemently opposed to drilling off their coasts. It doesn't look like it's an option.

A link to infor about ANWR.

Arctic Power - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - Palin pushes ANWR on Glenn Beck show

I do think that a comprise should be in place. Of course, we need to protect the enviroment but we can responsibly seek oil in Alaska and other places.

Edited to add: Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is rumored to be on McCain's list of VP picks.

Sorry, there's no way I could sit through Glenn Beck for even 1 second. Even if we did drill in ANWR, the effect would be nominal.

This leaves offshore drilling and the only states I have heard mentioned are Florida and California. Both oppose drilling offshore. Either you believe in state's rights, or you don't.

I do believe in state rights. "More than 75% percent of Alaskans support exploration and production.."

But anyway, here is the link to the home page..

Arctic Power - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - Home

Mexico (Correction.. it is Cuba not Mexico) has already allowed China to come into the Gulf of Mexico for drilling. Not too far from Flordia.
Any environment danger is already there. I would rather see US companies there than China.

The amount of oil that may exist in ANWR is purely speculative. At best, it could contribute 2% to the amount of oild produced in this country within 7 to 10 years. You cannot deny that drilling in ANWR would impact the ecosystem.

I think that the real problem is listed here. NationMaster - Oil > Consumption (most recent) by country

And I maintain, that environmental issues aside, we are better off using everyone else's oil and not ours. One possible reason that the Middle East is lowering output is because they have declining product available. There are many good points being made that this is what is happening. Imagine a world where the Middle East has no oil. This is probably a far better way to win a war than actually going there to fight. Use their oil and let's see how well they fend in the world arena without the power of oil. Win the war by using their oil. Likely much cheaper in the long run than fighting an actual war.

There is something called Hubberts Peak, (some kind of charted formula), that was used in the 50's to predict the decline of oil production in the U.S. It proved to be very accurate. The same predictor says that Ghawar, (the large Saudi field), would peak in about 2000. Indications are that this has also happened. Of course all the countries keep their true best estimates and actuals a secret, so everything you read or hear in the world of oil is suspect.

Our oil should be preserved for the future. There may come a time when we really really need that oil and right now I don't see the urgency.

I agree with this to an extent.

I think it's vital that we begin the process of accessing our known reserves TODAY. Of all oil-producing nations, we are third in line between Saudi Arabia and Russia in terms of total supply that is known. There is no valid reason that I can see today to *not* begin the process of drilling for that oil. I believe that would serve two purposes. One, it would put those jerking the prices up right now on notice that we're not going to let 'pristine wilderness' be a reason to tie our hands. The reality is that the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge is DARK for 58 days of the year and the temps hover around -70F. It's barren and just sitting there. It's the size of South Carolina, and the amount of space that would be temporarily distrubed during the drilling phase is, total, supposed to be about the size of downtown Boston. Once drilling is done it doesn't take much sitting on the surface of the earth at the well site to keep things running, at which time a lot *fewer* acres would be required to maintain things.

So I say we start *now* and not later. There is no law that says we must produce every barrel we possibly can once the wells are completed, so if it's advantageous to produce a minimal amount, that's great!

I also think that eventually, oil won't be our main energy source, so we need to milk it while the opportunity exists. And while I'm not convinced there is global warming caused by human energy use, even if there *is*, I'm truly not worried because I just don't think we'll be using combustible non-renewable fuels for so many years that it will change much about our climate in the grand scheme of things. Whether we end up going nuclear, wind, solar, hydropower...eventually, I believe our energy sources won't create any heat.

I especially think it's nuts that we don't allow offshore drilling. Just nuts. There are no laws against it in countries we compete with, and they come right up to OUR shorelines and plant rigs! Insane! If they're going to do it in water as close to our shores as the Germans brought the U-Boats, by golly we might as well be doing so, too.

Like I said before..... 2018 will be here in ten years. Had Bill Clinton not vetoed the bill to tap the ANWR reserves, we wouldn't even be having this discussion today.

Coincidentally, it's been surmised that if Saudi Arabia would increase production by 1M barrels/day our gas prices would drop by 25% immediately.

Look back at news articles about ANWR from ten years ago. Clinton's argument was that ANWR would only produce about 1M barrels a day.

A million is a million is a million, no matter how you slice it... and I'd like a 25% reduction, myself!

I absolutely, unquestionably deny that it would impact the ecosystem. There IS next to no ecosystem in ANWR. And have you researched what happened when they put in the Alaska Pipeline some years back? The number of caribou actually INCREASED because the heat and shelter found right underneath the pipeline created a safe place for them to huddle in incliment weather.

I'm a landowner with a number of wells on my own property - wells that were drilled long before the current technology that uses minimal acreage to drill. Even so, those wells are just *nothing*. I think that on a 180 acre parcel, the largest well site is probably 1/8th the size of a football field, max. The rattlesnakes still roam freely. The pheasant still fly overhead and the quail are plentiful. Cattle graze all around it, the rain still falls and the ponds are full of turtles and fish. Not a SINGLE negative thing has happened to the ecosystem.

And lest you think I am biased because I am a well owner, think again. I don't own any of the minerals at all - only surface rights. Damages were paid in full at the time of the drilling, which was prior to my owning any of the land, so I didn't benefit at that time. The only perk I get is that the oil companies do a bang-up job maintaining the roads from the well out to the country road, and they keep the cattle guards maintained. If anyone were going to be adversely harmed by the presence of the wells it would be ME, because of a decrease in the value of "my" surface ground and the ecosystem it holds. However, the ecosystem is unchanged and unaffected... so I speak from firsthand knowledge about this subject. It's not like strip mining. Drilling is a stealth operation.

First of all, every square inch on this planet is part of an ecosystem. ANWR is no exception. Everything humans build affects the ecosystem in which it is built. Wells and roads destroy habitat. The more complex the organism affected, the more damage it sustains.

Sorry, but this is something just not worth debating. There is nothing any more special about a square mile in ANWR than a square mile in anyplace else on earth. In terms of living things, there are far fewer living things per square inch of turf in ANWR than per square inch in the lower 49 states because it's frozen tundra. The place is the size of SOUTH CAROLINA and we'd use a TEENY TINY AREA of that space for what's necessary. Nothing would go extinct. Anything that exists there today would still exist there in ten years.

More squirrels die on the streets in my town each day than the number of living things that would be impacted by drilling in ANWR.

As a Christian, I believe the world was created for us to use. I have no clue if you are of any religious persuasion, but I am... and that is the basis for my position. I think it's irresponsible of us to *not* utilize something that would be so helpful to us in order to preserve a tiny area of land that is of no benefit to us.

If in 100 years we're not running on oil, just go in and remove all traces of the equipment it took us to produce the oil, and it's right back to where it is today, ecologically-speaking.

Well I think it's like that bag of potato chips, once you open it you eat it. I see no reason to open that bag to begin with. And there are no rules in place to protect that oil and keep it from being sold now, and no laws to say it can't be sold to other countries. And even it there were laws, I have no doubt the oil companies would do as they please and wait and see if anyone caught them. Even if there are rules put into place, the first time the American public gets a price raise in their gasoline and start complaining, that will be the end of saving it for the future.

Back to the environmental issues, if we have so much oil available why is it necessary to drill in ANWR? I understand that an executive order is needed by Bush to permit offshore drilling and he is refusing to issue one. I'm really curious as to why everyone is so dedicated to drilling in ANWR? What is there about that location that drives all this political bickering?

Tell that to all the species in Prince William Sound.

Because it would likely be - if I recall correctly - the 2nd largest oilfield the US has. The largest was on the ... um... now I can't think of the specific name of the region, but it's a slope in Alaska, which is where the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline runs from. That pipeline has been in place for about 30 years, IIRC, and it peaked in the last few. That means it will likely have produced oil for about 50 years once it peters out. Then again, even after 50 years they may still be going strong because newer technologies can allow them to pull oil that is currently in a form that's too thick for standard equipment to extract. If they're able to perfect that technology, there's a tremendous amount of oil that could still be removed even after the more liquid oil has been played out.

I understand what you're saying about a bag of potato chips, but this is my thinking, using that analogy....

My family and friends only *need* food for about 80 years of their lives. Prior to being alive they don't need it. After their lives are over they don't need it. There is a window in time, though, where it's what all the people I know *need*.

If I don't go to the store *now* - or at the very least, make plans to go to the store - when they get hungry, there'll be no food. I don't care about the year 2090, because they probably won't need it then. I also don't care that they aren't hungry this very minute, because I know that they *will* be soon. If I don't make sure I have cash in my wallet and gasoline in my tank, when the time comes that they *are* hungry for those potato chips, I won't be able to obtain it in time to satisfy them at the *time* they need it most.

Why wait ten or twenty more years to get the necessary equipment in place and wells drilled? We've had a steady, reliable supply from the other Alaskan region for many, many years, and the world didn't stop spinning because of it. In fact, it's helped Alaskans themselves tremendously because of the revenue it's brought to their state. Each Alaskan receives a sizable dividend each year because the revenue in the state fund attributable to oil sold through the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline had surpassed a BILLION dollars, and the state needed a way to disperse all that cash!

If it truly will take ten years before a refinery would see a drop of that oil, it's obviously not something that will ever help us in a crisis. If we want to use it when a crisis hits, we MUST prepare it now.

That was obviously a bad situation. Very few things happen without problems, and I expect that they would occur in some form if we drilled in ANWR.

However, no way would I want us to give up the benefits we've had from Alaska's oil if it meant the Valdez problem could've been averted. Exxon had to pay for cleanup and was assessed a tremendously substantial fine.

It's not pleasant, but animals die all over the world, every day, from natural events like hurricanes, volcanoes, tornadoes, tsunamis, floods, famine, wildfire, and the like. It's unfortunate when a man-made catastrophe has an effect similar in nature to natural disasters, and certainly we should impose high fines that will keep oil companies in check if they even consider getting slipshod in their methods.

Also, I forgot to address something I quoted in my previous post that you'd asked regarding why all the bickering about ANWR. That's an excellent question. I wish I knew. To me, it's goofy. Go to Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas... look around and you'll see plenty of rigs and well sites if you're in an oil rich area. What makes ANWR - an area nobody even SEES - more worthy of extreme protection than Oklahoma's capital grounds? Than the native prairie that is teeming with wildlife? If anything, I'd think those areas would be *more* worth protecting than a barren wasteland that's too cold to live in and that's impossible to get to by car.

There used to be a well named after me sitting on a place my parents owned when I was a kid. Wells are named after people, and people often name them after their kids. "Mine" (which is rather a joke because I didn't own any of it!) produced pretty well for about fifteen years, and then it was dry. They just removed the tanks and called it good. Today you wouldn't be able to tell where on earth it sat. It's only been gone for about ten years, but vegetation took it over in nothing flat. The process isn't nearly as problematic as is painted by extreme environmentalists.

We have plenty of oil available for our needs right now. Oil companies have already been granted leases to vast areas of federally held lands. They have been granted very generous tax breaks by this Republican administration and during the GOP Congressional majority reign. They are doing no exploring. There are thousands of capped of wells in this well that the oil companies have no intentions of uncapping any time soon. Oil companies are making way too much money right now to want to change a thing.

We have enough oil to meet our needs (or did I miss gas lines?) The only thing we can do to bring gas prices down is to use less. There's just no need whatsoever to destroy areas that we have set aside as wildlife habitat.

Prudhomme Bay is probably the oil field that you were thinking of. It is already in decline.

OK, BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC....

This is HILARIOUS!!! Boy oh boy. Desperate times call for desparate measures from wingnuts I guess:
Obama Accuser Larry Sinclair Holds Stupefying Press Conference - Politics on The Huffington Post

I wonder what's next - Obama is responsible for Chernobyl???

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

Those are the Democratic talking points.

What they neglect to mention is that many of those leases are for mineral rights in areas where it is not known that there is any oil. That's why it's called EXPLORATION. The oil companies weren't GIVEN the leases - they PAID for them. When that happens, it's because they want to have dibs on a piece of the pie if in fact SOMEONE discovers oil in an area. It's a "you snooze, you lose" situation. If oil is discovered in North Dakota, every oil company will want to have something they've got a right to tap... but just holding a lease is no guarantee of ANYTHING.

Given how expensive drilling is, nobody wants a dry hole.

Places like ANWR, the Rockies, and some areas offshore wouldn't need explored. They simply need *drilled* and hooked to a pipeline. Nobody will spend $500K, cross their fingers, and hope they *might* hit black gold.

If oil wells are such an environmental mess, why are environmentalists wanting exploration companies to "litter" places with oil wells while they *look* for oil and hit dry holes when they could just go plant a few in areas KNOWN to have oil? It makes no sense, unless of course you're SuperGreen and actually WANT the price of oil to stay high.

For what it's worth, they do happen to be exploring in North Dakota where a lot of those leases are held, but there are fewer than 100 rigs *in* ND to use for the exploration, so it can't exactly be done quickly.

Actually, yeah.... I think he is!

Apparently, Larry had an outstanding warrant, and was arrested after the press conference.

__________________
@@@
l/ l/ l/
Dont go through life,
GROW through life

Real eyes...realize...real lies.

You're exactly right. The democrats in Washington don't want to vote to drill at least till AFTER the election because they want the American people right where they are now -- wanting lower oil prices. If they vote to drill, then their continuous voice of 'change, change, change' won't be as effective.

Exactly.

The Democratic politicians would rather see poor people pay more at the pump and get desparate and vote for them becaue they'll claim they can change-change-change things for them. Poorer people have older cars which tend to guzzle gas. When was the last time you saw a poor lady driving a new hybrid vehicle? It's the working poor who are most hurt by the Democrat's refusal to allow us to increase production by tapping known reserves.

They worry more about the enviroment than our poorest citizens. Or at least, when push comes to shove they'll shelter the environment before they'll relieve a struggling American who is having trouble getting to work so they can feed their families because the price of gasoline is too high.

Lest anyone think I'm a biased cynic, I also think we'll 'find' Bin Laden close to the time of the election. I actually believe Bush has known exactly where he is for a very long time, and will produce him when the time is most advantageous to help put a Republicain in the WH.

How many years since the Exon Valdiz? There are still oil pockets endangering wildlife. Some of the species have not re-established themselves. This is ongoing to this day after all these years. We can't do anything about natural disasters, but we can do things to avoid man-made disasters, including leaving our largest wildlife refuge alone.

High fines do nothing. They just raise prices or take it out of profits and go on doing what they do. Jail time would be a better solution. I'm tired of CEO's who take a walk with a golden handshake when they do bad things, or sometimes get a raise and more stock options. When corporate execs are held accountable with jail time and paying the fines out of their own pockets, then we can talk.