F... gas prices

[70Chip]

When Democratic politicians opposed to drilling in ANWR make either of the following arguments:

1. It will take years to develop, or
2. all the oil there only represents __% of the world's reserves,

they are not revealing their true motives. They are oppossed to it because environmental groups like the Sierra Club have told them to be against it. The next time Obama says he's going to stand up to special interests, someone should ask him why he's against drilling in Alaska.

David Brooks on Obama and Special Interests: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/op...brooks.html?hp

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

When Democratic politicians opposed to drilling in ANWR make either of the following arguments:

1. It will take years to develop, or
2. all the oil there only represents __% of the world's reserves,

they are not revealing their true motives. They are oppossed to it because environmental groups like the Sierra Club have told them to be against it. The next time Obama says he's going to stand up to special interests, someone should ask him why he's against drilling in Alaska.

I totally agree and have said that I would love for the Republicans to present a bill just for exploration of oil in Anwr and other areas just to make people either vote for or against. This would be perfect timing with the current gas prices.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I totally agree and have said that I would love for the Republicans to present a bill just for exploration of oil in Anwr and other areas just to make people either vote for or against. This would be perfect timing with the current gas prices.

The Dems just voted one down LAST WEEK.

Idiots. They still claim "but it will take years to develop!"

That's MORE of a reason to start it NOW. If they HAD voted for it during the Clinton years, we'd be using that oil TODAY.

The real reason they won't vote for it because their campaigns are funded by environmentalists who oppose it and will stop writing checks if they do what's right for America.

[Skins fan 44]

[QUOTE=Buster;449559]The Dems just voted one down LAST WEEK.

Idiots. They still claim "but it will take years to develop!"

That's MORE of a reason to start it NOW. If they HAD voted for it during the Clinton years, we'd be using that oil TODAY.

The real reason they won't vote for it because their campaigns are funded by environmentalists who oppose it and will stop writing checks if they do what's right for America.""

I will tell you and everyone now. Any one who votes against drilling in the states will not get my vote. I would think that running against someone voting again on shore drilling would not be too difficult. All one would have to do is run a commercial stating what your opponent has done about high gas prices and what you will do

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Skins fan 44

I will tell you and everyone now. Any one who votes against drilling in the states will not get my vote. I would think that running against someone voting again on shore drilling would not be too difficult. All one would have to do is run a commercial stating what your opponent has done about high gas prices and what you will do

all 3 are against the drilling. now what do you do?

[Skins fan 44]

Originally Posted by dmek25

all 3 are against the drilling. now what do you do?

Vote for someone that will drill. Someone will run that will favor drilling.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by dmek25

all 3 are against the drilling. now what do you do?

get really pissed off about how much they all suck

[VABCHSKINSFAN]

Gas sucks. I drive a cab and my gas expenses more than double my rent!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

When Democratic politicians opposed to drilling in ANWR make either of the following arguments:

1. It will take years to develop, or
2. all the oil there only represents __% of the world's reserves,

they are not revealing their true motives. They are oppossed to it because environmental groups like the Sierra Club have told them to be against it. The next time Obama says he's going to stand up to special interests, someone should ask him why he's against drilling in Alaska.

David Brooks on Obama and Special Interests: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/op...brooks.html?hp

Really? Look what my friend Google turned up, by THE pro ANWR group no less:

Senator Barack Obama ( Illinois ) – Often cited as one of the top presidential contenders. Barack Obama has an abysmal record on ANWR voting on the Cantwell Amendment in 2005 to lock it up. He has been opposed to exploration and has rallied with Sen. Clinton in that regard numerous times. Barack states, "I strongly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernable impact on U.S. energy security.” In his two and a half years in the Senate he has been part of the introduction of over 100 pieces of “green” legislation from promoting ethanol use to increased car mileage. However despite this many in the left see Obama as a moderate as he is caught frequently citing the need for bipartisan support and dialogue on energy issues as the way forward. His support of corn derived ethanol and liquid coal do not win him support in the Green camp either, which when coupled with ANWR proves a weakness. Illinois is, after all, one of the top ethanol states in the nation. Obama has yet to visit ANWR or the Alaskan Arctic. By 2020 Obama hopes 20% of all US energy will come from renewable resources. For more information on Obama's energy platform visit:

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

Really? Look what my friend Google turned up, by THE pro ANWR group no less:

Nothing in there refutes anything I said. Obama failed to stand up the special interests on ANWR and on ethanol. Using the word "bi-partisan" a lot doesn't make you an environmental "moderate" no matter what the extreme left thinks.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Nothing in there refutes anything I said. Obama failed to stand up the special interests on ANWR and on ethanol. Using the word "bi-partisan" a lot doesn't make you an environmental "moderate" no matter what the extreme left thinks.

First you claim democrats as a whole are not revealing their true motives and then you proceed to call Obama out specifically. What part of the his quote doesn't suggest his "true motive?" Further more, just because you're pro environment doesn't mean policy is being dictated by the Sierra Clubs. They play an advisory role I am sure (it's called listening to scientist and assessment) but ultimately the candidate makes the decision whether you agree with it or not. Lastly, opposition to drilling in ANWR is not limited to one "true motive," one can in fact have a host of motives.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

First you claim democrats as a hole are not revealing their true motives and then you proceed to call Obama out specifically. What part of the his quote doesn't suggest his "true motive?" Further more, just because you're pro environment doesn't mean policy is being dictated by the Sierra Clubs. They play an advisory role I am sure (it's called listening to scientist and assessment) but ultimately the candidate makes the decision whether you agree with it or not. Lastly, opposition to drilling in ANWR is not limited to "true motive," one can in fact have a host of motives.

One can claim to have a host of motives but in politics there is generally one overriding factor. In this case, Obama knows that the environmental groups have , in effect, a veto over the Democratic Presidential Nominee. He's barely going to nip Hillary at the tape and he could not have done so with the opposition of "Big Green". It's easy to stand up to special interests that don't support you. It's much tougher to do when they give you money. As far as I can tell, BHO has never done the latter, and would seek to make the former an act deserving of sainthood.

Drilling for oil in ANWR is so obviously in the national interest, that only someone enthralled with the narrow interests of the extreme environmental left could be oppossed. Of course, that means the vast majority of Democrats.

Also I'm sure that in referring to the Democrats you meant "whole" and not "hole" but the mistake is understandable, on the whole.