I guess it's human nature to hate what you're opponents are doing, until you see how well they get paid for doing it, and get that job yourself.

A great prophet once said "Money changes everything".

I actually liked something I heard as a rumor awhile back that doesn't seem to be true: attach it to a condition that they will NOT be allowed leases to the offshore sites until they drill/develop the acreage they already possess leases to, first.

How many acres of land do they already have leased, that they aren't developing? 68 million? Something like that? Yeah, do that first. Otherwise, shove this up your ass.

Am I the only one whose first thought immediately went to seeing a child get kicked down the stairs?

Maybe things have changed since then. And if I hear another word about a "do nothing Congress" from the GOP when Bush still has the veto, I'm going to kick a child down the stairs.

submitter: By allowing a vote on offshore drilling, Democrats are retreating on what has been a strongly-held party position for more than 20 years, kicking it down the political stairs like an unwanted child acting like actual adults, allowing debate and vote on a referendum that may indeed turn out in a way they would prefer it not. Known as "governing" throughout most of the world, it confuses and frightens most Americans, who prefer being handed a party bingo card so they know which positions to take on all issues.

Fixed for partisan hacks of all stripes.

Using parliamentary procedure to stop debate and votes is a pussy move, no matter who's doing it.

The GOP are power hungry assholes, the DNC are a bunch of wannabe pussies.

We're farked, no matter how you slice it.

/wonder how had it would be to find work in the UK or Germany or something

So biatch and moan that the Dems won't budge, then taunt them for giving what you've been biatching and moaning for in the first place.

And please, someone remind me, exactly who was it who instituted the drilling ban in the first place?

/hint: he's closely related to the current president

Heaven forbid changing your opinion based on changing circumstances. I'm pretty sure that they really changed their view based on political trends, but it could also be that they realize that it is in the country's best interest to keep cheapish oil around for a few extra years.

When did evolving views based on changing facts get to be so bad?

The economic benefits of offshore drilling are very small compared to the costs and the environmental damage. The ban should be extended. Also, haven't we proved just how vulnerable those platforms are to hurricanes? Why should we increase our risk from a hurricane hit?

/Better late than never

GAT_00: The economic benefits of offshore drilling are very small compared to the costs and the environmental damage

Well, since private companies are going to be shelling out the cost to develop and drill I think someone has crunched the numbers and they came out positive. As far as the environmental damage, what is the environmental impact of an offshore drilling platform? Do you know or are you just parroting a line that is suppose to scare us?

GAT_00: Also, haven't we proved just how vulnerable those platforms are to hurricanes?

When was the last time a hurricane came over the western sea board? And what is the likely-hood of a hurricane come over the western, up the gulf and another over the eastern all in the same season? I dont have the number but I bet it's low. Right now we have damn near all our eggs in one basket, dont you think it would be a good idea to spread the risk a little bit?

GAT_00: Why should we increase our risk from a hurricane hit?

How does increasing the number of platforms increase the risk?

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Well, since private companies are going to be shelling out the cost to develop and drill I think someone has crunched the numbers and they came out positive.

I'd like to see data on that. I suspect they will be using the biggest numbers they can for oil field sizes.

As far as the environmental damage, what is the environmental impact of an offshore drilling platform? Do you know or are you just parroting a line that is suppose to scare us?

The current problems with dead zones in the Gulf are partially to blame from oil derricks. The rigs also cause habitat damage where they are put down, though I suppose since the oceans will be dead by 2030 anyway, killing it off a year or two earlier doesn't matter much.

When was the last time a hurricane came over the western sea board?

The drilling isn't only off the west coast, that was in reference to East Coast drilling. And, if we increase our dependence on the offshore rigs, though there is no definite proof that there is a significant amount of oil out there, then we become more vulnerable to hurricane hits. More rigs, more dependence, more oil taken out of the US economy when a storm does come by. Also, I don't know if anyone has examined possible losses due to West Coast earthquakes, which is a very real concern.

It's one big Good Cop/Bad Cop game. They both work for the same people, and it's not We The People, the ones who pay their salaries.

GAT_00: I'd like to see data on that. I suspect they will be using the biggest numbers they can for oil field sizes.

Does the term "windfall profits" ring any bells? They are making money (not a very high margin) on what they are doing. So I would guess they would not do this to lose money.

GAT_00: The current problems with dead zones in the Gulf are partially to blame from oil derricks. The rigs also cause habitat damage where they are put down, though I suppose since the oceans will be dead by 2030 anyway, killing it off a year or two earlier doesn't matter much.

Partially? Like what? One maybe two percent? I thought the real reason was all the chemical and such from growing corn? And thanks to the "green" movement this years corp will be the largest in history. So just drop that one.

GAT_00: The drilling isn't only off the west coast, that was in reference to East Coast drilling. And, if we increase our dependence on the offshore rigs, though there is no definite proof that there is a significant amount of oil out there, then we become more vulnerable to hurricane hits. More rigs, more dependence, more oil taken out of the US economy when a storm does come by. Also, I don't know if anyone has examined possible losses due to West Coast earthquakes, which is a very real concern.


Drill everywhere and we will not have this problem. East coast, west coast, gulf and all the points in between. Get them all. That should buy us the 10-20 years we need to get other techs off the ground.

It's a publicity stunt. When 70% of the country said "Out of Iraq, dammit!!!" they trumpeted that the will of the people must be done. Now 70% of the country is saying "Drill, dammit!!!". Pelosi probably figured she'd better save face during an election year & at least make it appear that they're following the will of the people. It's kinda sweet how they're letting us think we have any say in it.

GAT_00: The current problems with dead zones in the Gulf are partially to blame from oil derricks. The rigs also cause habitat damage where they are put down, though I suppose since the oceans will be dead by 2030 anyway, killing it off a year or two earlier doesn't matter much.

Now you are just making stuff up. Here and here both disagree with you about what causes deadzones.

As far as "habitat damage", I'd be interested in what evidence you can provide. The "rigs-to-reefs" program is actually creating underwater structures to facilitate habitat development.

Subby has the headline wrong. The proper wording is "kicking it down the political stairs like a pregnant ex-girlfriend"

Fark it. Let them have their oil rigs. And then, 15 years from now when it doesn't make a damn bit of difference, we can go around and cockpunch every single one of them, hitting them four times, saying:

I
TOLD
YOU
SO

If we're still alive, of course.

Skail: How many acres of land do they already have leased, that they aren't developing? 68 million? Something like that? Yeah, do that first. Otherwise, shove this up your ass.

Many of those leases only have a smattering of oil that currently isn't worth developing, but they hold onto them in case a large deposit IS found in the area or some new technology comes out to make it worth developing. Some have no oil, some have not been explored.

This is wonderful news for my state, and I applaud the Democrats for allowing it to go to a vote instead of impeding the process of our representative democracy. Good for them.

Crosshair: Skail: How many acres of land do they already have leased, that they aren't developing? 68 million? Something like that? Yeah, do that first. Otherwise, shove this up your ass.

Many of those leases only have a smattering of oil that currently isn't worth developing, but they hold onto them in case a large deposit IS found in the area or some new technology comes out to make it worth developing. Some have no oil, some have not been explored.

ANWR, the land that the oil companies are positively drooling over, ain't all that great either. The EIA estimates the oil will peak in production in 2027 at 780,000 barrels a day, which is about 3% of our daily consumption.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: GAT_00: Why should we increase our risk from a hurricane hit?

How does increasing the number of platforms increase the risk?

A big reason is to reduce reliance on foreign oil. If a larger percentage of the oil consumed by Americans comes from offshore rigs, hurricanes could disrupt a larger part of the supply.

Nabb1: This is wonderful news for my state, and I applaud the Democrats for allowing it to go to a vote instead of impeding the process of our representative democracy. Good for them.

Your state needs all the help it can get.

/Hope there was enough money after this time, after all the bribes were paid, to actually fix the engineering problems there


.

Just a few more weeks, incumbents, just a few more weeks.

pnjunction: A big reason is to reduce reliance on foreign oil. If a larger percentage of the oil consumed by Americans comes from offshore rigs, hurricanes could disrupt a larger part of the supply.

Ok, I think I found the disconnect here. Our need for energy is not going to decrease! It's going to increase. Also we are looking for oil in places that are inland as well. So we are not going to be increase the percentage that comes from oil rigs! We are going to be increasing the overall pie with the help of many many more rigs.

This should last us until we come up with the Mr. Fusion.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum: /Hope there was enough money after this time, after all the bribes were paid, to actually fix the engineering problems there.

The tidal surge from Gustav gave it a real test and the levees passed with flying colors. The only real tense moment came when water was lapping over the sides of the industrial canal, but it still held. I tip my hat to the ACE on this go around.

Skail: "I actually liked something I heard as a rumor awhile back that doesn't seem to be true: attach it to a condition that they will NOT be allowed leases to the offshore sites until they drill/develop the acreage they already possess leases to, first. How many acres of land do they already have leased, that they aren't developing? 68 million? Something like that? Yeah, do that first. Otherwise, shove this up your ass."

A breathtaking display of ignorance, Skail. Bravo. You win a kewpie doll!

I love how allowing a vote, and thereby allowing democracy to happen, is tantamount to kicking a child down the stairs.

I would say that the democrats are acting on the will of their constituents, but we all know that when democrats do that, it's called "chasing the public opinion polls."

I look forward to my $1.00 a gallon gas next year.

Skail: I actually liked something I heard as a rumor awhile back that doesn't seem to be true: attach it to a condition that they will NOT be allowed leases to the offshore sites until they drill/develop the acreage they already possess leases to, first.

How many acres of land do they already have leased, that they aren't developing? 68 million? Something like that? Yeah, do that first. Otherwise, shove this up your ass.

If you REALLY believe that you can drill anywhere you want and a Jed-Clampet gusher will result, why don't you re-mortgage your house and drill in your backyard so you too can become an evil oil millionaire?

News Flash : Having an EXPLORATION lease on an area doesn't magically cause oil and gas to appear underground there in easily accessible pockets.

tricycleracer: I love how allowing a vote, and thereby allowing democracy to happen, is tantamount to kicking a child down the stairs.

A child that George Bush Sr. gave birth to.

20 years ago, gas cost about 70 cents a gallon or so.

submitter: By allowing a vote on offshore drilling, Democrats are retreating on what has been a strongly-held party position for more than 20 years, kicking it down the political stairs like an unwanted child keeping Republicans from being able to blame Democrats when drilling does jack shiat to ease gas prices

/yes, a real plate in Arizona
//isn't that special

hej: 20 years ago, gas cost about 70 cents a gallon or so.

And a gum ball cost a penny. Currently gum costs $0.50

Gas should cost $35.00 a gallon

Wendy's Chili: A child that George Bush Sr. gave birth to.

I didn't think he had those parts.

Some people might call it responding to political reality. Even so, they kind of had to wait until the Republican President in power removed the executive ban that was signed by that other Republican President...you know, his Daddy...20 years ago...

It's good to see that the Democrats can recognize when it's time to abandon a bad policy position. It's a rarity these days.

Yeah, well, 20 years ago gas wasn't 4 dollars a gallon*.

* I don't think drilling will make a difference**, I'm just saying the political pressure to do so has increased exponantially.

** a difference in price, no. A difference in profits to those drilling, oh hell yeah.

MasterThief: /Better late than never

Hey, whats that little D on that there graph? Can that change too?

Better late than never.

Can anyone explain to me why, if we have oil just off our shores, it isn't better to just leave it there until the gulf states run out?

So . . . the Democrats oppose offshore drilling as a matter of principle even when gas prices are rising, and people biatch because they're supposedly standing in the way of lowering gas prices.

So the Dems say, "All right, fine, let's do it your way, if you want it so bad," and people biatch at them for being hypocrites.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Sorry to rain on the burning partisan hatred in here, but I would just like to point out that the offshore drilling restrictions are set to expire if congress doesn't re-pass them by the end of the month. Since drilling is going to happen no matter what they do, the Democrats in congress might as well do it through a bill so they can add some stipulations in their favor. Then everyone gets a little of something they want.

/Compromise, in my government?

Drilling is not the answer. Alternative energy and increased efficiency are needed. Drilling is the most short-sighted bunch of crap but people apparently don't give a shiat.

/Innovate. Don't just use more old-tech. Morans.

Beachcomber: Can anyone explain to me why, if we have oil just off our shores, it isn't better to just leave it there until the gulf states run out?

It is, but when is the last time you've heard anyone in government mention 50 or 100 year planning?

Skail: I actually liked something I heard as a rumor awhile back that doesn't seem to be true: attach it to a condition that they will NOT be allowed leases to the offshore sites until they drill/develop the acreage they already possess leases to, first.

How many acres of land do they already have leased, that they aren't developing? 68 million? Something like that? Yeah, do that first. Otherwise, shove this up your ass.

I heard this too, and would also support it if written this way.

Why do I doubt it will be?

I wonder who will get the blame when offshore drilling fails to bring fuel prices signifigantly? Actually, I know who will get the blame, I just wonder how it'll be spun.

DeltaXi65: It's good to see that the Democrats can recognize when it's time to abandon a bad policy position. It's a rarity these days.

It's not bad policy. Drilling is not going to lower prices by any significant amount even when it finally hits the market in 10-20 years. It's not going to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. The oil companies saw America's "pain at the pump" as an opportunity to make a power grab.

As long as they don't destroy the coastline by dumping millions of gallons of fuel into the ocean (whoopsie!), the drilling will be benign at best. Hopefully, the Dems can use it as leverage to get a real energy policy off the ground.

BlippityBleep: Drilling is not the answer. Alternative energy and increased efficiency are needed. Drilling is the most short-sighted bunch of crap but people apparently don't give a shiat.

/Innovate. Don't just use more old-tech. Morans.

Not to mention it will take quite a while to even see the effect of that oil on the market.

How is "allowing a vote" a bad thing? Democracy at work.

Also, FTFA:

"rather than see the moratorium expire and open the way to drilling as close as three miles from the coast, they said they were pushing any drilling at least 50 miles offshore, requiring states to agree to it and tying the whole package to a series of clean energy initiatives that have so far languished in Congress."

CaptMacMillian: BlippityBleep: Drilling is not the answer. Alternative energy and increased efficiency are needed. Drilling is the most short-sighted bunch of crap but people apparently don't give a shiat.

/Innovate. Don't just use more old-tech. Morans.

Not to mention it will take quite a while to even see the effect of that oil on the market.

That makes it a long-term plan for a short-term solution. Brilliant.