Hmm. 3 hours green and no comments?

'cause nobody gives a shiat about Pelosi?

/I thought so

Mental bleach, stat!

Ignoring the repulsiveness of the mental image for a moment, the compromise I saw seemed like it was actually a pretty good deal. It goes for a whole lot of concessions in return for the expanded areas for drilling.

"softens" is what we're calling "caving into Republicans" now?

Of course, one could also call this "Repeat".

CravenMorehead: "softens" is what we're calling "caving into Republicans" now?

Of course, one could also call this "Repeat".

Check out the specifics, it's not really a cave at all.

Atillathepun: CravenMorehead: "softens" is what we're calling "caving into Republicans" now?

Of course, one could also call this "Repeat".

Check out the specifics, it's not really a cave at all.

Some would call it a "Gang of 10 Compromise."

She's 68, when you are as old, not so good looking will you be.

Kurmudgeon: She's 68, when you are as old, not so good looking will you be.

Still:

McStinky: Hmm. 3 hours green and no comments?

'cause nobody gives a shiat about Pelosi?

/I thought so

No. It's just that no one is surprised.

I don't effin CARE anymore, to be honest.

We're not gonna drill our way out of this energy crisis. Only retards think that drill drill drill drill is the answer. Screw you guys, and your 1st grade understanding of the current situation. You dumb f*cks.

Half of our oil already goes overseas, but I don't see anybody whining about that. (Suck it, idiots)

DRILL!

DRILL!

DRILL!

That will solve everything (if you're a retard)

Pelosi softens, wouldn't mind a good drilling

Pelosi sucks

She realized how much her farding habit relied on petroleum.

This is, perhaps, one of the lamest threads I've ever read on Fark.

That said, this is serious legislation, addressing one of this nations most serious problems, and bears the prospect of providing what little help we can manage from a legislative prospective. Good to hear that it will die a partisan death while both sides chant unhelpful slogans that have nothing to do with the public good.

Remember back when Fark was about finding funny articles? Now it's apparently about finding boring articles, then creating the stupidest, most obvious, borderline retarded headline imaginable.

Yes, I get it. Subby just learned about sex. Hopefully in a decade or three, he'll learn about humor.

I guess conservatives will have to find another issue to hyperventilate over.

Might turn the tables on you...

Whenever I see 'bipartisan' I pretty much now expect it's another example of some bad Republican idea surrounded by Democratic cheerleaders while we're left with the cleanup bill.

Atillathepun: Check out the specifics, it's not really a cave at all.

When your stance is "no drilling" and you change that stance to "drilling is ok" even with caveats it's giving in. It seems these days that the only party capable of standing their ground is the Republican party. And they are on the wrong side of pretty much everything these days.

i has an internet: Whenever I see 'bipartisan' I pretty much now expect it's another example of some bad Republican idea surrounded by Democratic cheerleaders while we're left with the cleanup bill.

So you have some specific issues that you'd like to share with us with the bipartisan effort to expand off-shore drilling, while establishing renewable energy tax credits? Or are you just contributing useless noise into an incredibly important discussion for America's national security?

CravenMorehead: Atillathepun: Check out the specifics, it's not really a cave at all.

When your stance is "no drilling" and you change that stance to "drilling is ok" even with caveats it's giving in. It seems these days that the only party capable of standing their ground is the Republican party. And they are on the wrong side of pretty much everything these days.

There's nothing wrong with drilling offshore. It's just that there's nothing particularly right with it, either, as it doesn't do anything to solve our long-term problems. I wish everyone could understand this.

Dear Congress:The reason you have an approval rating in the single digits is that no one in a leadership position even knows what a backbone is for.

lilbjorn: Dear Congress:The reason you have an approval rating in the single digits is that no one in a leadership position even knows what a backbone is for.

So you have some specific issues that you'd like to share with us with the bipartisan effort to expand off-shore drilling, while simultaneously establishing renewable energy tax credits? Or are you just contributing useless noise into an incredibly important discussion for America's national security?

Corpus Delecti: Remember back when Fark was about finding funny articles? Now it's apparently about finding boring articles, then creating the stupidest, most obvious, borderline retarded headline imaginable.



Partially a result of, instead of approving 10 to 15 articles a day in it's heyday, they now approve around 60 a day.

In pro-sports, they call it the 'dilution of talent'.

BAD PELOSI! NO BISCUIT!!!!

Someone' got her by the balls and is squeezing hard- first she blocks chimpeachment and now this...?!?!?!

The risks far outstrip the very small, very far in the future gains on this one.

Sleeping Monkey: Pelosi softens, wouldn't mind a good drilling

Pelosi sucks

... and you *know* she spits.

E.S.Q.: BAD PELOSI! NO BISCUIT!!!!

Someone' got her by the balls and is squeezing hard- first she blocks chimpeachment and now this...?!?!?!

The risks far outstrip the very small, very far in the future gains on this one.

So you have some specific issues that you'd like to share with us with the bipartisan effort to expand off-shore drilling, while simultaneously establishing renewable energy tax credits? Or are you just contributing useless noise into an incredibly important discussion for America's national security?

Someone kick carpbrain in the box, her needle's stuck again...

E.S.Q.: Someone kick carpbrain in the box, her needle's stuck again...

Didn't think that you had anything to contribute. Would have preferred that you had something to say about the issues at hand, though.

Oh hell, I've got thirty seconds...

1) this is not about national security
2) this is not a bipartisan effort.
3) your reading comprehension is on par with Dan Quayle
4) you are a poopyhead.

That's all you get, except for maybe an icepack for your kicked box.

carpbrain: E.S.Q.: Someone kick carpbrain in the box, her needle's stuck again...

Didn't think that you had anything to contribute. Would have preferred that you had something to say about the issues at hand, though.

And yet you've posted nothing of substance.

Typical.

E.S.Q.: Oh hell, I've got thirty seconds...

1) this is not about national security
2) this is not a bipartisan effort.
3) your reading comprehension is on par with Dan Quayle
4) you are a poopyhead.

That's all you get, except for maybe an icepack for your kicked box.

The energy problem is not just a national security issue, it is a global security issue. All of the wars we will face for the next several decades will be over energy resources.

Ad hominem attacks are the retreat of fools who have no intellectual content to bring to the discussion.

Thanks for playing.

This is the problem with politics today. Not what Pelosi did, that was called "compromise", something politicians promise but rarely deliver. No, the problem is the morons like those in this thread that call it caving in because they are adamantly opposed to doing anything that is less that entirely their way.

It's a good start, I hope the politicians can ignore the idiots long enough to keep it up.

carpbrain: E.S.Q.: Oh hell, I've got thirty seconds...

1) this is not about national security
2) this is not a bipartisan effort.
3) your reading comprehension is on par with Dan Quayle
4) you are a poopyhead.

That's all you get, except for maybe an icepack for your kicked box.

The energy problem is not just a national security issue, it is a global security issue. All of the wars we will face for the next several decades will be over energy resources.

Ad hominem attacks are the retreat of fools who have no intellectual content to bring to the discussion.

Thanks for playing.

I swear to god there are at least ninety obvious trolls all calling ad hominem. AD HOMINEM!

Hey, you know what carpbrain, you're an obvious troll, and your mother sucks underage dick at the daycare. You like your....ah forget it.

dangelder: carpbrain: E.S.Q.: Oh hell, I've got thirty seconds...

1) this is not about national security
2) this is not a bipartisan effort.
3) your reading comprehension is on par with Dan Quayle
4) you are a poopyhead.

That's all you get, except for maybe an icepack for your kicked box.

The energy problem is not just a national security issue, it is a global security issue. All of the wars we will face for the next several decades will be over energy resources.

Ad hominem attacks are the retreat of fools who have no intellectual content to bring to the discussion.

Thanks for playing.

I swear to god there are at least ninety obvious trolls all calling ad hominem. AD HOMINEM!

Hey, you know what carpbrain, you're an obvious troll, and your mother sucks underage dick at the daycare. You like your....ah forget it.

I thank you for your contribution to the discussion. For those who have lost the thread, the subject is energy policy for the United States.

That warm, moist delta is just beggin' to be drilled ...

carpbrain: I thank you for your contribution to the discussion. For those who have lost the thread, the subject is energy policy for the United States.

No it isn't. It's about what an obvious troll and a personally disingenuous douche you are. That makes my post on topic and yours a blatant thread-jack.

Thanks again for your contribution. Let's review your contribution:

1) this is not about national security
2) this is not a bipartisan effort.
3) your reading comprehension is on par with Dan Quayle
4) you are a poopyhead.

That's all you get, except for maybe an icepack for your kicked box.

1 and 2 are completely and obviously wrong, and the others do not deserve comment. Your last post:

No it isn't. It's about what an obvious troll and a personally disingenuous douche you are. That makes my post on topic and yours a blatant thread-jack.

Way to take the high ground, dangelder.

carpbrain: There's nothing wrong with drilling offshore. It's just that there's nothing particularly right with it, either, as it doesn't do anything to solve our long-term problems. I wish everyone could understand this.

There is something wrong with off-shore drilling. It has a negative impact on the environment. Put a couple drilling platforms off the Florida coast where hurricanes happen and you are asking for a disaster. We need to find a solution to our energy problem and destroying our environment to buy a few more years to put that off is not the answer.

If our leadership in congress had the balls to stand up for that we be headed in the right direction. But instead they'll approve this band-aid "solution" because they aren't willing to stand up to a Republican minority. Pathetic.

carpbrain: Thanks again for your contribution. Let's review your contribution:

1) this is not about national security
2) this is not a bipartisan effort.
3) your reading comprehension is on par with Dan Quayle
4) you are a poopyhead.

That's all you get, except for maybe an icepack for your kicked box.

1 and 2 are completely and obviously wrong, and the others do not deserve comment. Your last post:

No it isn't. It's about what an obvious troll and a personally disingenuous douche you are. That makes my post on topic and yours a blatant thread-jack.

Way to take the high ground, dangelder.Ad-Hominem Attack Deleted

I hate you Pelosi. Bush is awful. We all know that. He is the worst president in American history and should have been removed. If only we had put a necessary majority of the people required to remove him partway through his term. Oh, right, we did. Then they kowtowed to his nearly every whim and "took Impeachment off the table" (whatever the hell that means).

I hate you, you goddamned embedded Republican in Dem's clothing.

CravenMorehead: carpbrain: There's nothing wrong with drilling offshore. It's just that there's nothing particularly right with it, either, as it doesn't do anything to solve our long-term problems. I wish everyone could understand this.

There is something wrong with off-shore drilling. It has a negative impact on the environment. Put a couple drilling platforms off the Florida coast where hurricanes happen and you are asking for a disaster. We need to find a solution to our energy problem and destroying our environment to buy a few more years to put that off is not the answer.

If our leadership in congress had the balls to stand up for that we be headed in the right direction. But instead they'll approve this band-aid "solution" because they aren't willing to stand up to a Republican minority. Pathetic.

I say if the Floridians want to drill off their coast, let them have at it. We will never drill off the coast in California, because we know it's not worth it.

That all said, offshore drilling can be done with less environmental harm than in times past. Everything we do with energy extraction on this planet has large costs, and offshore drilling is not intrinsically worse than hilltop stripping for coal or most the other the other grim alternatives.

I am for learning how to get by with far less energy consumption, and to find sustainable approaches to energy production. Obvious enough ideas, but it seems to beyond most of the population. I believe this is where the discussion should be centered.

carpbrain: CravenMorehead: carpbrain: There's nothing wrong with drilling offshore. It's just that there's nothing particularly right with it, either, as it doesn't do anything to solve our long-term problems. I wish everyone could understand this.

There is something wrong with off-shore drilling. It has a negative impact on the environment. Put a couple drilling platforms off the Florida coast where hurricanes happen and you are asking for a disaster. We need to find a solution to our energy problem and destroying our environment to buy a few more years to put that off is not the answer.

If our leadership in congress had the balls to stand up for that we be headed in the right direction. But instead they'll approve this band-aid "solution" because they aren't willing to stand up to a Republican minority. Pathetic.

I say if the Floridians want to drill off their coast, let them have at it. We will never drill off the coast in California, because we know it's not worth it.

That all said, offshore drilling can be done with less environmental harm than in times past. Everything we do with energy extraction on this planet has large costs, and offshore drilling is not intrinsically worse than hilltop stripping for coal or most the other the other grim alternatives.

I am for learning how to get by with far less energy consumption, and to find sustainable approaches to energy production. Obvious enough ideas, but it seems to beyond most of the population. I believe this is where the discussion should be centered.Ad Hominem junk

dandelder
I seems as if you don't know what "Ad Hominem" means. This significantly undermines the weight of your contributions.

carpbrain: dandelder
I seems as if you don't know what "Ad Hominem" means. This significantly undermines the weight of your contributions.

Nobody listen to this virgin who spells my name wrong. He has absolutely nothing worthwhile to say. I have encountered him in many threads and you are wasting your time by trying to have any kind of sophisticated discussion with him.

dangelder: carpbrain: danelderberries
It seems as if you don't know what "Ad Hominem" means. This significantly undermines the weight of your contributions.

Nobody listen to this virgin who spells my name wrong. He has absolutely nothing worthwhile to say. I have encountered him in many threads and you are wasting your time by trying to have any kind of sophisticated discussion with him.

OK, I'll help you out, as you don't seem to be able to sort this out for yourself. Ad Hominem refers to an attack on a person, as opposed to discussing the ideas a person may be presenting. It is perceived to be a sign of weakness, as the person who takes up an Ad Hominem attack is generally ceding any meaningful discussion on the issues at hand.

I hope you can see the irony here, given your new understanding of the term.

That all said, I have no idea whether I agree or disagree with you on any aspect of US energy policy. Perhaps we are in total agreement? No way for me to tell.

carpbrain: dangelder: carpbrain: danelderberries
It seems as if you don't know what "Ad Hominem" means. This significantly undermines the weight of your contributions.

Nobody listen to this virgin who spells my name wrong. He has absolutely nothing worthwhile to say. I have encountered him in many threads and you are wasting your time by trying to have any kind of sophisticated discussion with him.

OK, I'll help you out, as you don't seem to be able to sort this out for yourself. Ad Hominem refers to an attack on a person, as opposed to discussing the ideas a person may be presenting. It is perceived to be a sign of weakness, as the person who takes up an Ad Hominem attack is generally ceding any meaningful discussion on the issues at hand.

I hope you can see the irony here, given your new understanding of the term.

That all said, I have no idea whether I agree or disagree with you on any aspect of US energy policy. Perhaps we are in total agreement? No way for me to tell.

For the last time, please stay on topic. Attacking me does not make your points any more valid.

dangelder: dangelder:
For the last time, please stay on topic. Attacking me does not make your points any more valid.

I'd be more than happy to discuss the topic. The Democratic leadership appears to be ready to compromise on opening the Continental Shelf for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and on the Atlantic Coast, in exchange for the establishment of tax credits for development of renewable energy. What's your take on this, dangelder?

carpbrain: dangelder: dangelder:
For the last time, please stay on topic. Attacking me does not make your points any more valid.

I'd be more than happy to discuss the topic. The Democratic leadership appears to be ready to compromise on opening the Continental Shelf for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and on the Atlantic Coast, in exchange for the establishment of tax credits for development of renewable energy. What's your take on this, dangelder?

I think every time Fox News starts blaring that something is neccesary immediately, they leave off the right end "...before Democrats get the power to do whatever we were going to compromise anyway."

dangelder: carpbrain: dangelder: dangelder:
For the last time, please stay on topic. Attacking me does not make your points any more valid.

I'd be more than happy to discuss the topic. The Democratic leadership appears to be ready to compromise on opening the Continental Shelf for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and on the Atlantic Coast, in exchange for the establishment of tax credits for development of renewable energy. What's your take on this, dangelder?

I think every time Fox News starts blaring that something is neccesary immediately, they leave off the right end "...before Democrats get the power to do whatever we were going to compromise anyway."

OK.

So, you think that the Democratic leadership should wait for a new administration to deal with energy issues? I think that we should act now.