If the election was held today

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Angry, are you kidding with this stuff?

Drilling isn't a yes or no proposition. And for record, Obama is for drilling -- which he always has been -- but not as the primary and sole solution to our energy dependence. His first and foremost concern with drilling is that we first explore the land leases that have been granted but haven't been tapped.

I guess I could go down the list and tick off each one, but what's the point? Then is becomes just another talking point.

I need some education on that. I keep hearing that there are land leases in place which oil companies are not taking advantage of.

Knowing what I know about business and how a finance department of a major company would allocate its investment dollars, I'd imagine the CFO of ConocoPhillips has a list of all his existing land leases and an expected financial return calculated by his analysts for each one of them. That financial return, I'd imagine, is largely based on how much oil they think they could get from that space, and how efficiently they could deliver it from the oil field to the refinery to the market. He knows he has X number of dollars to invest in exploring all of his leases, so he goes down the list and picks the ones that offer the greatest potential for financial return. Inevitably he's going to run out of budgeted investment dollars before he explores every land lease, and naturally some will go unexplored for a period of time.

I'm guessing this is essentially how the process works, but I'm not sure. Do you know why companies are not exploring their existing land leases?

The potential financial return on exploring them is an important piece of the puzzle. If the land lease won't yield enough oil to offset the cost of setting up drilling operations, or if the land lease won't yield enough oil to offset the cost of needing to build an oil pipeline or build more refinery capacity, then Obama's position insisting that companies explore these existing leases will only serve to drive gas prices higher, not lower them.

If Obama forces oil companies to drill on land leases that cost more than the revenue they generate, then the oil companies will pass along those costs to the consumer.

I'm admitting up front that I don't know if this is the reason or not, but Obama needs to give this some serious thought.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I need some education on that. I keep hearing that there are land leases in place which oil companies are not taking advantage of.

Knowing what I know about business and how a finance department of a major company would allocate its investment dollars, I'd imagine the CFO of ConocoPhillips has a list of all his existing land leases and an expected financial return calculated by his analysts for each one of them. That financial return, I'd imagine, is largely based on how much oil they think they could get from that space, and how efficiently they could deliver it from the oil field to the refinery to the market. He knows he has X number of dollars to invest in exploring all of his leases, so he goes down the list and picks the ones that offer the greatest potential for financial return. Inevitably he's going to run out of budgeted investment dollars before he explores every land lease, and naturally some will go unexplored for a period of time.

I'm guessing this is essentially how the process works, but I'm not sure. Do you know why companies are not exploring their existing land leases?

The potential financial return on exploring them is an important piece of the puzzle. If the land lease won't yield enough oil to offset the cost of setting up drilling operations, or if the land lease won't yield enough oil to offset the cost of needing to build an oil pipeline or build more refinery capacity, then Obama's position insisting that companies explore these existing leases will only serve to drive gas prices higher, not lower them.

If Obama forces oil companies to drill on land leases that cost more than the revenue they generate, then the oil companies will pass along those costs to the consumer.

I'm admitting up front that I don't know if this is the reason or not, but Obama needs to give this some serious thought.

you're essentially right with how the leases work. the research the leases most likely to provided oil first, and they have a (flexible) budget for doing x leases per year, but some of those leases would cost more to research and drill than the potential oil needed to cover costs and meet their revenue targets.

the offshore stuff is appealing to them because they know with good certainty that the oil is there, and that there's enough of it to be worth setting rigs up immediately.

that said, the amount of oil there isn't amazing, but the intention to drill drives down the rampant oil speculation (see colbert for a GREAT piece on how that worked).

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Angry, are you kidding with this stuff?

Drilling isn't a yes or no proposition. And for record, Obama is for drilling -- which he always has been -- but not as the primary and sole solution to our energy dependence. His first and foremost concern with drilling is that we first explore the land leases that have been granted but haven't been tapped.

I guess I could go down the list and tick off each one, but what's the point? Then is becomes just another talking point.

I never said that any of them was a yes or no talking point. I fully agree that you have to delve deeper into each candidates theories to truly understand what his stance is on each issue. My posting of that nonsense was a blunder that I had already appologized for. No need to revisit that.

Personally I believe that we as a nation should tap into every fuel resource possible so that we are not overly dependant on a single one. In other words I do not mind if we drill for more oil, but we had better be also Building Nuclear power plants, setting up windmills, mining for coal, expanding usage of natural gas etc.etc.etc.

[saden1]

They lost me at:

Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it
Yes
No

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by saden1

They lost me at:

Like I said, I didn't write it nor do I know the original sender. If you will look you will notice that McCain's answers are on top and Obamma's are on bottom.

I dont fully understand the Judge thing either, nor do I really care. Correct me if I should.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by Angry

Like I said, I didn't write it nor do I know the original sender. If you will look you will notice that McCain's answers are on top and Obamma's are on bottom.

I dont fully understand the Judge thing either, nor do I really care. Correct me if I should.

Yes, you should. I would argue that the Judicial branch is far more important than the executive branch. The power that the U.S. Supreme Court has to steer this country, and interpret/make law is absolutely incredible and dwarfs ANY presidents power.

Frankly I wish the executive branch were FAR less emphasized. Nowadays it's all about who's president - I'm pretty sure most of the population has simply forgotten how the system works and that there's a lot more going on than what one guy/girl in the Oval Office does.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Yes, you should. I would argue that the Judicial branch is far more important than the executive branch. The power that the U.S. Supreme Court has to steer this country, and interpret/make law is absolutely incredible and dwarfs ANY presidents power.

Frankly I wish the executive branch were FAR less emphasized. Nowadays it's all about who's president - I'm pretty sure most of the population has simply forgotten how the system works and that there's a lot more going on than what one guy/girl in the Oval Office does.

I wasn't looking at that perspective, but It still does not change my mind abut the candidates overall.

[saden1]

I wonder if the imbeciles even know what the word judge means. What it means to be a judge. They would have been better served to just say "wants to appoint anti-abortion conservative judges."

v., judged, judg·ing, judg·es.

v.tr.

1. To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration: judge heights; judging character.
2.
1. Law. To hear and decide on in a court of law; try: judge a case.
2. Obsolete. To pass sentence on; condemn.
3. To act as one appointed to decide the winners of: judge an essay contest.
3. To determine or declare after consideration or deliberation.
4. Informal. To have as an opinion or assumption; suppose: I judge you're right.
5. Bible. To govern; rule. Used of an ancient Israelite leader.

v.intr.

1. To form an opinion or evaluation.
2. To act or decide as a judge.

n.

1. One who judges, especially:
1. One who makes estimates as to worth, quality, or fitness: a good judge of used cars; a poor judge of character.
2. (Abbr. J.) Law. A public official who hears and decides cases brought before a court of law.
3. Law. A bankruptcy referee.
4. One appointed to decide the winners of a contest or competition.
2. Bible.
1. A leader of the Israelites during a period of about 400 years between the death of Joshua and the accession of Saul.
2. Judges (used with a sing. verb) (Abbr. Judg. or Jgs or Jg) A book of the Bible.

[MTK]

The latest smear ad from the fish

McCain Paints Obama as Disrespectful | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

The latest smear ad from the fish

McCain Paints Obama as Disrespectful | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

Who cares? Why even post this?

Everyone here should be smart enough to look past the inevitable smearing that both parties engage in, and mature enough to cut through this crap to get at the issues.

So they're going to smear each other, why do you care? Why post it when you know Obama's camp is going to do very similar things?

Don't be a sheep, lead the way and show people how to reach an educated decision on who to vote for. Talk about the issues and leave this garbage out of it. I might as well be paying attention to what Paris recently said about Nicole Richie.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Who cares? Why even post this?

Everyone here should be smart enough to look past the inevitable smearing that both parties engage in, and mature enough to cut through this crap to get at the issues.

So they're going to smear each other, why do you care? Why post it when you know Obama's camp is going to do very similar things?

Don't be a sheep, lead the way and show people how to reach an educated decision on who to vote for. Talk about the issues and leave this garbage out of it. I might as well be paying attention to what Paris recently said about Nicole Richie.

I just thought this latest smear was particularly troubling as McCain seems to be kicking up the smear ads to new levels. Or as factcheck.org states it:

The new McCain-Palin ad "Disrespectful" begins like an earlier ad we criticized, with its reference to Barack Obama's celebrity, but then goes down new paths of deception.

Are most people intelligent enough to look past this garbage from both sides? I hope so. But if it wasn't having an impact on someone, why are they doing it?

Here's some Obama mistruths too if it makes you feel better:

FactCheck.org: School Funding Misleads

[johnerotten]

the race is too close to call.i just hope there is'nt a two month wait that requires a supreme court vote that will determine the winner.

[dmek25]

i was always convinced the American people are way smarter then anyone in government gives them credit for. but after seeing the McCain camp skirt around the issues, and basically switch their campaign strategy in mid season. they have taken mud slinging to a new level. can anyone on this board show me why the senator is known as a maverick? what exactly has he done to earn this title? and now his partner is also a maverick?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by dmek25

can anyone on this board show me why the senator is known as a maverick? what exactly has he done to earn this title? and now his partner is also a maverick?

McCain has been willing to depart from the party line on numerous occasions. That's why so many conservatives were so upset about McCain securing the nomination. He's shifted to the right since 2000, but he's still fairly independent minded as far as most politicians go. For her part, Palin repeatedly publicized the "wrongdoings" of fellow republicans in powerful positions. You can disagree with their politics and they are not totally independent minded by any means, but, as far as Washington goes, they are mavericks.

[NM Redskin]

Voting with Bush, 90% makes you a maverick? A governor with more earmark requests per person than any other state makes you a maverick? Ummm ok.