In which liberals concede that burning it off to the last drop as fast as we can is correct hydrocarbon policy and then brag about how much better they are at it than republicans.

chopit: Crap. This is going to push alternative energy back another 30 years. Whoo hoo! Cheap energy! Let's start building SUVs again!

Not necessarily. There's a good chance we've already peaked oil globally (with the exception of some tar sands and Libya), so there is almost no likelihood of us enjoying the freakishly low oil prices that we had during the 80s and 90s after Reagan had the nation spit out all the alt-energy medicine that Carter was trying to force down our throats. At best, the speculators and natural gas guys will profit like crazy, electricity and heating gas prices will stay stable, and we'll keep hitting benchmarks where things like wind, solar, geothermal, and alt-energy vehicles become economically viable.

Just not as quickly as we would if Obama ACTUALLY did what Republicans think he does...

lennavan: You know how you can tell you're about to get the weakest argument ever? When someone feels the need to tell you the conclusion before beginning to present the argument.

Obama's failed energy policy at work.

If you felt the need to tell us the conclusion that the energy policy is failed, then you must not be very sure about the argument that leads to that conclusion, right subby? The cool people would have called it "Obama's energy policy at work" and let the argument speak for itself.

I think your sarcasmometer needs to be calibrated.

oh comeon subby, stop lying.

The US does not include Canada and Mexico

ftfa: Counting the output from Canada and Mexico, North America is "the new Middle East," Citigroup analysts declare in a recent report.

IamKaiserSoze!!!: What did Obama do that resulted in this large gain in oil production?

I'll just cherry pick one. According to the BLM, the number of producible and service completions on federal lands is at record numbers during the Obama administration.

Source

// I don't really know what that means.

Diogenes: Strawman at best. Lie at worst.

This just in, the Hyperbole is a lie. news at 11.

I had no intention of deceiving anyone. My statement was meant to highlight the general reticience of people to attribute good things to their political enemies.

tenpoundsofcheese: The US does not include Canada and Mexico



You sure about that?

Diogenes: Lie at worst.

furthermore, I am genuinely surprised that anyone would not see the statement for what it was!

Bontesla: Mugato: And he's still going to trounce Romney, because people aren't quite as stupid as the Republicans are counting on them being.

I think President Obama will win.
I also think the election is going to be unnervingly close.

For some reason - there has been an oddly successful campaign painting Rmoney as a secret moderate. So long as people have the impression that Rmoney is in, but not of, the Republican party . . . people can speculate that he really will lead the country as a moderate.

If they buy that Rmoney is a moderate then the question is: moderate Republican Rmoney OR President Obama?

People are idiots. We cannot underestimate them.

President Obama is the best Republican President we've seen in decades. Yet, he's widely accepted as an overreaching liberal usurping constitutional power.

People are idiots.


All arguments/poltics aside "Republican" is still a dirty, dirty word. These are still Bush's wars, this is still Bush's failed economy, all those bank failures and the sub-prime collapse is all still Bush's fault, all those unemployed people..it's all still Bush's fault...

While Romney might take a few more states than McCain...Obama wins again. Book it. Done.

One problem, China is buying up the rights to at least 1/3 of it. Source: Link

With the "global economy" the U.S. will not have energy independence regarding fossil fuels unless we nationalize the industry.

Diogenes: Ned Stark: In which liberals concede that burning it off to the last drop as fast as we can is correct hydrocarbon policy and then brag about how much better they are at it than republicans.

And we're back to "libs can't do one thing right."

Universal public education was a/the big liberal win. Yeah it may have gone mostly to shiat and be on it's last legs now, but it was a pretty BFD. Nothing but mad props for that.

/that's one thing.

dorko16: Mugato: because people aren't quite as stupid as the Republicans are counting on them being.

I'm not certain of that point.

I was going to say: I was a volunteer (data coordinator, attended two events, poll watcher on election day) for Obama '08 in PA but I'm not going to give any statiscicals...



...partly because a week is a long time in politics (never mind a few months). But mainly because I have more brains in my s*** than GaryTravelingPDX has anywhere. And GaryPDX is like a lot of "regular people": stupid. I was watching Repo Games for a few minutes last night. Specifically: this woman. Holy shiat, she (and her family) were dumber than rocks. Listen to her idiotic answers to the easiest of questions. Then listen to her "yayyy, go Betsy!!" mother (who said her daughter was "pretty smart" earlier).

"Let me call the lady..." do you think 'the lady' wants to get your call? Or do you think the repo men are there because they've already washed their hands of you and already moved on. Right after they get your car, or all the money, back?

People are stupid. Men In Black got it right. A person can be smart, people are dumb panicky animals.

HeartBurnKid: lennavan: You know how you can tell you're about to get the weakest argument ever? When someone feels the need to tell you the conclusion before beginning to present the argument.

Obama's failed energy policy at work.

If you felt the need to tell us the conclusion that the energy policy is failed, then you must not be very sure about the argument that leads to that conclusion, right subby? The cool people would have called it "Obama's energy policy at work" and let the argument speak for itself.

I think your sarcasmometer needs to be calibrated.

Nah, it's working great. I just needed to read the rest of the headline. I hit "failed energy policy" and stopped.

Rent Party: Ayn Rand's Social Worker: Rent Party: Ayn Rand's Social Worker: and then douchenozzle supremes like Cantor, McConnell, and Boner have increased the number cloture votes to the point that they might lose it for violating the constitution.

The Constitution grants the Senate absolute power to set their own rules. Nothing about cloture is unconstitutional unless the Senate says it is.

You musta missed this one: The filibuster is unconstitutional, and the best lawyer in America is suing to get Supreme Court to abolish it

You musta missed this one:

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member." I'll leave it to you to discover where that is written down.

There is not a court on this planet vested with the authority to intervene in Senatorial matters, including the SCOTUS. There is a separation between the three powers of our government. You would have to be the world's worst lawyer to even think a court can compel a congressional rule change.

There is no Constitutional requirement that votes in the Congress be determined by simple majority, or even a freaking vote at all. If the Senate decides that "Whatever Harry Ried thinks is good gets passed, but only on Tuesdays" then that's the rule. Constitutionality of Senate (and House) rules is *entirely* subject to the decisions of the members. Not the courts. Any court. Including the Supreme Court.

Don't they teach civics any more?

There was a "might" in there. They have been the least gentlemanly congress in history, kicking and screaming and filibustering anytime their opponents propose legislation. Do I see it happening? Not really. But that BS cloture rule is circumventing their own authority and ability to govern, and hopefully they'll take the pressure and look at their collective abysmal approval ratings and make some changes.

Just so you know, I'm not a Dem. I voted McCain in 2000 (then Bush, regretably), Green in '04, Republican in every gubernatorial campaign save the last one (Brown is a DINO), and am considering voting Johnson in this election because Obama will have California in the bag. I'm what you call a pro-small business Radical Centrist.

Does it upset you that Obama is so economically and fiscally conservative? Because I quite like it. I just wish he'd have actually fixed health care, because as a business owner the current system sucks big fat donkey balls. I don't mind that we use fossil fuels, I just wish we used more of that cheap energy to build long term sustainable production so we don't screw over our kids and grandkids...

bugontherug: Pro Zack: Ask yourself this: would any Democrat give a Republican President credit for anything positive? Of course not.

90% of Americans approved of Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. It seems probable that number included some Democrats.1

1Intentionally understated for rhetorical effect.

nice. I think I need to add footnotes.

Rent Party: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member." I'll leave it to you to discover where that is written down.

There is not a court on this planet vested with the authority to intervene in Senatorial matters, including the SCOTUS. There is a separation between the three powers of our government. You would have to be the world's worst lawyer to even think a court can compel a congressional rule change.

There is no Constitutional requirement that votes in the Congress be determined by simple majority, or even a freaking vote at all. If the Senate decides that "Whatever Harry Ried thinks is good gets passed, but only on Tuesdays" then that's the rule. Constitutionality of Senate (and House) rules is *entirely* subject to the decisions of the members. Not the courts. Any court. Including the Supreme Court.

I suggest you do some research on what expressio unius est exclusio alterius means and make an argument as to why it doesn't apply here.

this is bad news.... for the arab terrorists.

Serious Black: Rent Party: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member." I'll leave it to you to discover where that is written down.

There is not a court on this planet vested with the authority to intervene in Senatorial matters, including the SCOTUS. There is a separation between the three powers of our government. You would have to be the world's worst lawyer to even think a court can compel a congressional rule change.

There is no Constitutional requirement that votes in the Congress be determined by simple majority, or even a freaking vote at all. If the Senate decides that "Whatever Harry Ried thinks is good gets passed, but only on Tuesdays" then that's the rule. Constitutionality of Senate (and House) rules is *entirely* subject to the decisions of the members. Not the courts. Any court. Including the Supreme Court.

I suggest you do some research on what expressio unius est exclusio alterius means and make an argument as to why it doesn't apply here.

O hai! What's going on here?

bugontherug: Pro Zack: I had no intention of deceiving anyone. My statement was meant to highlight the general reticience of people to attribute good things to their political enemies.

Projection. Many Democrats gave Bush credit for good things early in his administration. By contrast, The Republicans never gave Obama a chance period.

You are not the world. Just because you're willing to deny objective reality to avoid giving due credit to your opponent doesn't mean everyone else is.

The thing is, you have to be willfully self-deceiving to be a Republican anymore. There are plenty of former Republican non-Democrats, such as myself, who are willing to look at the situation objectively and say things like "Bush was a shiatty president, who did a few good things in Africa but for the most part was an absolute disaster" and "Obama means well, and is doing quite capably leading from the middle considering his handwringing cowards in his own party and the heels in the ground assholes opposing him".

Current Republicans, however, are incapable of giving Obama any credit, because they've retreated from reality into an echo-chamber of lies that their 'media' outlets spew at them. Thanks to de-regulation during the past 30 years (culminating during Bush's presidency), now people can listen to news 24 hours a day from multiple sources (radio, tv, cable, internet) and not get a single unspun fact. Granted, the left was subtly doing this for some time before Fox News and Clearchannel started their campaign against truth and decency, but the right doesn't even TRY to pretend they're not doing it. Thats why I say ALL current Republicans are either willfully self-deceptive, or stupid. There is no third option if people choose to stay inside that sad, shell of a party.

They can't even see when trollbama steals all of their ideological golden calves, executes on them better than the last 4 republican presidents COMBINED, and then still gets painted as a socialist. Why? Because they're either lying, or stupid.

If you have a single bone of credibility in your body, you'd become a 'decline to state'r like myself, or become a libertarian. Republicans have NO redeeming qualities anymore other than media profitability...

Serious Black: Rent Party: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member." I'll leave it to you to discover where that is written down.

There is not a court on this planet vested with the authority to intervene in Senatorial matters, including the SCOTUS. There is a separation between the three powers of our government. You would have to be the world's worst lawyer to even think a court can compel a congressional rule change.

There is no Constitutional requirement that votes in the Congress be determined by simple majority, or even a freaking vote at all. If the Senate decides that "Whatever Harry Ried thinks is good gets passed, but only on Tuesdays" then that's the rule. Constitutionality of Senate (and House) rules is *entirely* subject to the decisions of the members. Not the courts. Any court. Including the Supreme Court.

I suggest you do some research on what expressio unius est exclusio alterius means and make an argument as to why it doesn't apply here.

It doesn't apply because the Constitution says

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."

It says it in plain old farking English, even.

In short, the Constitution says, "You need super-majorities for the following things. Expulsion, treaties, impeachments, etc... For everything else, you make up your own rules."

The procedural rules of the houses is *entirely* up to the houses. The courts don't have any authority there. Not even a little bit. And even if they did, the only people with standing to challenge it would members of the Congress.

Does that help you understand how it is, and disabuse of your notion about how you wish it were?

Xaxor: Mugato: So no, they'e not going to give him credit for anything else, ever.

Sad Unpatriotic, Un-American, just about sickening and but true.

bugontherug: Pro Zack: I had no intention of deceiving anyone. My statement was meant to highlight the general reticience of people to attribute good things to their political enemies.

Projection. Many Democrats gave Bush credit for good things early in his administration. By contrast, The Republicans never gave Obama a chance period.

You are not the world. Just because you're willing to deny objective reality to avoid giving due credit to your opponent doesn't mean everyone else is.

Please don't put words in my mouth. One of the rules of the politics game appears to be 'don't give your opponent credit for accomplishing positive things'

Fox News told me that B-Rock the Islamic Shock Hussein Taxbongo personally went to every oil well in the US and shut them off and then sold the mineral rights to Iran. He then cackled maniacally, mushroom-stamped the oil rig workers, and gave a nice Evangelical girl a forced gay abortion while raising my taxes. You sheeple can be swayed by your "facts" and "figures" if you want to be. I, for one, am going to listen to the truth! Now you all need to shut up, Rush is starting in a couple of minutes and I need to know what I'm outraged about today.

Wow...these threads never change do they?

Coach_J: Wow...these threads never change do they?

What were you expecting?

Pro Zack: Mugato: So no, they'e not going to give him credit for anything else, ever.

I am sure they will give him credit for all of the negative things that occur while he is president, and for the twenty years following it.

Ask yourself this: would any Democrat give a Republican President credit for anything positive? Of course not.

Nixon resigned, that count?

If Obonghits keeps on doing what he's doing, the GOP might as well spend the entire election cycle biatching about the birth certificate, because that's all they will have.

Oh, and the shadowy specter of Islamobamacare hanging over everything (too bad Mittens can't really go there, though).

Let me show you MY plan for Animal Farm.

Meanwhile, House Republicans vote to end Defense Department research into renewable fuels...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/republican-navy-biofuel/

So ideological purity trumps the lives of soldiers and sailors, because instead of renewable energy systems for combat units in Afghanistan they will be reliant on fuel convoys hauling $400 a gallon gas that are subject to roadside bombings. And Navy ships will have to stop for fuel in unfriendly ports and get blown up like the USS Cole.

Why are liberals so farking stupid with this talking point. Oil is up on state and private lands, down on federal. Obama affects the latter part. Obama doesn't get credit.for.shiat he has no hand in. Stop being ignorant hacks.

That's nice, but what is the current and future cost to our environment and public health. In PA they are pumping chemicals into the ground that potentially affected citizens are NOT allowed to know what they are. And I am pretty sure this is happening in plenty of other states as well.

Obama's energy policy is to restrict the release of drilling permits on federal lands. This will push the price of a barrel of crude to the point that it makes it economically viable to extract oil from shale in the western US. Brilliant!

MyRandomName: Why are liberals so farking stupid with this talking point. Oil is up on state and private lands, down on federal. Obama affects the latter part. Obama doesn't get credit.for.shiat he has no hand in. Stop being ignorant hacks.

He only gets the blame for shiat he had no hand in, m i rite?