If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Obama's failed energy policy at work: The US is currently the world's fastest growing oil and natural gas producer. "The new Middle East" according to Citigroup analysts   (usatoday.com) divider line 262
    More: Obvious, countries by natural gas production, U.S., T. Boone Pickens, Oil and gas law in the United States, Southern California Edison, horizontal drilling, gas wells, energy policy  
•       •       •

2957 clicks; posted to Business » on 16 May 2012 at 2:24 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



262 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-16 05:53:23 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: meat0918: I'd like to have some alternative before we reach that point,

*cough* ride a bike =D *cough*


I do :P
 
2012-05-16 05:57:11 PM
New Middle East?
Great. So we'll be killing each other over religion in the middle of a desert.
Sounds about right.
 
2012-05-16 05:57:47 PM

Jackpot777: People are stupid. Men In Black got it right. A person can be smart, people are dumb panicky animals.


I've been quoting that myself a lot lately, and I always feel so weird saying it came from Men in Black but goddammitsomuch it's true.
 
2012-05-16 05:59:17 PM

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



imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-05-16 06:06:43 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Rent Party: You guys keep saying this, but have yet to cite the portion of the constitution is supposedly violates.

Do that once. Just once. I dare you.

You mean educate you on the difference between NON-constitutional and UN-constitutional? That really shouldn't be necessary.

And the part I'm referring to is Article 1 Section 3:

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."

And they cannot change that with whatever rules they decide on.

Just get Biden in there. "Call for Cloture on the Bill under discussion? Tally shows 41 for, 41 against. With my deciding vote, I deem Cloture is approved and the Bill will be voted on next business day"


Uh, no. The result would be cloture vote is 42-41 for closing. Senate rule requires 60. Bill is tabled. Nothing in your scenario is unconstitutional. The VP gets a vote to break ties. There's nothing there that says a tie means the bill passes. What passes or doesn't pass is up to Senate rules, which they set themselves, and no court can change.
 
2012-05-16 06:09:58 PM

meat0918: Uchiha_Cycliste: meat0918: I'd like to have some alternative before we reach that point,

*cough* ride a bike =D *cough*

I do :P


Well, I guess you have an alternative, don't you? =D
 
2012-05-16 06:13:40 PM

Colour_out_of_Space: New Middle East?
Great. So we'll be killing each other over religion in the middle of a desert.
Sounds about right.


As long as it is x-tians killing each other in the fly-over states I am ok with this.
 
2012-05-16 06:14:36 PM

jjorsett: The US is currently the world's fastest growing oil and natural gas producer. "The new Middle East" according to Citigroup analysts

Yes, due to development on private lands, where Obama has no opportunity to block it. For his contributions to our "fast growth", look to things like the Gulf moratorium, and the Keystone pipeline. The Democrats aren't pro-environment as much as they're anti-oil. Democrat-dominated California has an enormous pool of oil just off its coast and it won't even permit slant-drilling from freaking land to get at any of it. This despite the fact that its fiscal condition makes Zimbabwe look well-managed.


Ya, lets look at the keystone pipeline, which would have extended the current pipeline from it's current end in the midwest all the way to the gulf coast so that oil companies could ship the oil overseas and reduce "oversupply" in the midwest. Let's look at it and consider the existing pipeline is only at 60 percent of capacity and the only real benefit to the proposal was to get more gas out of our country. Let's look at that and consider how anti-oil it is to say that we should work on supply at home before shipping it off to China and India. Lets also look at things like the Gulf deepwater moratorium wherein he flatly said that if oil companies couldn't figure out how to do it safely (after the BP catastrophe), then they can't do it. Lets look at how he worked to protect the tourism-based economies of most Gulf Coast states instead of caving in to oil companies. Lets look at how BLM has still managed to approve a record number of oil drilling leases that aren't on private lands as you contend (more than 153% of what the Bush administration approved in it's last four years). Let's look at these reasonable policies, then look at you saying they make Zimbabwe look well managed, then lets laugh at you.
 
2012-05-16 06:16:22 PM

firefly212: jjorsett: The US is currently the world's fastest growing oil and natural gas producer. "The new Middle East" according to Citigroup analysts

Yes, due to development on private lands, where Obama has no opportunity to block it. For his contributions to our "fast growth", look to things like the Gulf moratorium, and the Keystone pipeline. The Democrats aren't pro-environment as much as they're anti-oil. Democrat-dominated California has an enormous pool of oil just off its coast and it won't even permit slant-drilling from freaking land to get at any of it. This despite the fact that its fiscal condition makes Zimbabwe look well-managed.

Ya, lets look at the keystone pipeline, which would have extended the current pipeline from it's current end in the midwest all the way to the gulf coast so that oil companies could ship the oil overseas and reduce "oversupply" in the midwest. Let's look at it and consider the existing pipeline is only at 60 percent of capacity and the only real benefit to the proposal was to get more gas out of our country. Let's look at that and consider how anti-oil it is to say that we should work on supply at home before shipping it off to China and India. Lets also look at things like the Gulf deepwater moratorium wherein he flatly said that if oil companies couldn't figure out how to do it safely (after the BP catastrophe), then they can't do it. Lets look at how he worked to protect the tourism-based economies of most Gulf Coast states instead of caving in to oil companies. Lets look at how BLM has still managed to approve a record number of oil drilling leases that aren't on private lands as you contend (more than 153% of what the Bush administration approved in it's last four years). Let's look at these reasonable policies, then look at you saying they make Zimbabwe look well managed, then lets laugh at you.


i7.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-16 06:20:58 PM

SultanofSchwing: Shrugging Atlas: SultanofSchwing: What? Keystone has nothing to do with selling Oil to foreign countries. Unless by foreign you mean Illinois? We don't need to pipe oil through America to sell it elsewhere, we have two open coastlines to do that if we wanted to.

This has to either be the snarkiest or most clueless comment ever made on fark. But I honestly can't tell which for the life of me.

Prove me wrong.


The existing keystone pipeline has an end in Illinois and is at less than 60% capacity.

reportergary.com

You're just plain wrong, the proposal was all about getting the pipeline to the gulf coast for exports, it had nothing to do with making the Illinois end carry more unused capacity. I know the Republicans told you it would bring more oil into the country, but it wont... they also promised it would create hundreds of thousands of American jobs that would last forever (didn't you find that a little sketchy?).... but denying it was all about not letting a Canadian Oil company diminish capacity in the midwest by running giant pipelines through our country so they could ship it around the world and make more money off of it.
 
2012-05-16 06:21:03 PM

Pro Zack: bugontherug:
I didn't put any words in your mouth. Rather, I explained that you are psychologically projecting your own attitude onto others. Democrats credited Bush for much during the early years of his administration. Republicans have credited Obama for practically nothing, including killing Osama bin Laden.

As I explained: you're imagining other people share your view of the world. Not all of them do. Only other Republicans do.

I don't even know where to begin. you sound like a reasonable person, however you have an outrageous view of Republicans you pretend that republicans are a single bloc of people with monolihic views, so that you can malign them without any . Many (most?) Democrats turned against Bush when Gore lost the election, their vitrol and hatred of bush were quite enlightening.

Many Republcans, including myself hold the view that Obama is doing a pretty good job - there are things that we disagree with, but that is to be expected. We don't want him to win reelection, and that is to be expected.

I object to the fact that you make this personal, and I think you should take your psychologist routine on the road. you will certainly get more laughs.


I'm a conservative with a psychology background. I have a few points worth mentioning here:

1) You are consistently one of the most personal attack oriented posters on Fark. Your "objection" is duly noted, and overruled. Don't want people to get personal with you? Don't make it a habit get personal with them.

2) You are either dishonest or you lack the intelligence to grasp the reason progressives were upset in late 2000/early 2001. They were not upset Bush won. They were upset Bush won by a Supreme Court decision which rejected conservative principles, and by a minority of the popular vote. They were further upset by Bush's attitude toward the legitimacy question raised by the circumstances of his "election," which was beyond dismissive, to downright hostile. The Bush administration not only didn't acknowledge the reasonableness of opposition concerns, but actually took the position that the concerns were insincere, and that his opponents were bad people for raising them.

The Republicans, by contrast, had no such moment which gave them good reason to sour on the Obama administration. Most of the reasons for right-wing outrage are predicated on distortions or exaggerations.

3) Despite the Bush administration's hostile attitude toward people who raised honest questions about the legitimacy of his presidency, progressives gave Bush real credit on a lot of issues. Republicans, by contrast, have refused to give Obama credit for virtually anything, including killing Osama bin Laden.

No serious, honest person can possibly dispute that the derp in response to Obama is as baseless as it is out of proportion to all reasonable cause. Obama has been a moderate to conservative president who has governed from the center. Bush, by contrast, took a radical approach to numerous issues during his administration, ranging from his aggressive, bellicose foreign policy chance, to his normalization of rough treatment or torture of US detainees, to his implementation of history's largest scale electronic eavesdropping program. If progressives were outraged by the Bush administration, they had reason to be.

Remember, I'm a conservative. So you can't just scream "libs libs libs" in response to this and discount it.
 
2012-05-16 06:29:15 PM

Rent Party: Vlad_the_Inaner: Rent Party: You guys keep saying this, but have yet to cite the portion of the constitution is supposedly violates.

Do that once. Just once. I dare you.

You mean educate you on the difference between NON-constitutional and UN-constitutional? That really shouldn't be necessary.

And the part I'm referring to is Article 1 Section 3:

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."

And they cannot change that with whatever rules they decide on.

Just get Biden in there. "Call for Cloture on the Bill under discussion? Tally shows 41 for, 41 against. With my deciding vote, I deem Cloture is approved and the Bill will be voted on next business day"

Uh, no. The result would be cloture vote is 42-41 for closing. Senate rule requires 60. Bill is tabled. Nothing in your scenario is unconstitutional. The VP gets a vote to break ties. There's nothing there that says a tie means the bill passes. What passes or doesn't pass is up to Senate rules, which they set themselves, and no court can change.


So by your hypothesis, the Senate could make rules to require unanimous decisions if they wanted to. Sure is funny that the Founders thought to include a method to break ties then. You think that SCOTUS would say that of course it was obvious the Founders intended for the Senate to bypass the tie-breaker provisions in the Constitution.

With your take on it, all that would be needed is a one vote majority at the start of session, they could make a rule that requires that ALL measures to require a 2 vote plurality. That would totally cancel out the intent of Article 1 Section 3 with regard to tie-breaking.


It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.


--James Madison, Federalist Paper #58

/gee, didn't that guy compose something famous?
 
2012-05-16 06:29:42 PM
It takes YEARS to get the drilling rights and to start drilling. All of this was done in the previous administration. Sorry to rain on your love fest for Obama. But the facts are the facts.
 
2012-05-16 06:32:32 PM

Citrate1007: The only reason the GOP hates his energy policy is because he doesn't want to let a CANADIAN company build a pipline across OUR COUNTY to sell oil to FOREIGN countries.

/Fark the GOP and their unethical ties to big oil


Actually Obama's good buddy Warren Buffet would have lost money. You see right now all the oli is on trains from Burlington Northern. Crony capitalism at its best!
 
2012-05-16 06:34:09 PM
Are there ANY comments in this thread that discuss how this is a good thing for America, or are ALL the comments Democrat vs. Republican?
 
2012-05-16 06:37:28 PM

praymantis: It takes YEARS to get the drilling rights and to start drilling. All of this was done in the previous administration. Sorry to rain on your love fest for Obama. But the facts are the facts.


Or, even the administration before the last administration. Or, Obama hasn't been blocking new drilling over the last 3 years as claimed.

ALL of it means nothing. All that SHOULD matter is this means more American jobs, more stability, and less money going to OPEC.

Sadly, to many like you want to make this a Republican vs. Democrat thing, rather than an American thing...
 
2012-05-16 06:45:42 PM

downpaymentblues: ALL of it means nothing. All that SHOULD matter is this means more American jobs, more stability, and less money going to OPEC.


It's good in that respect. What cheeses me off about this whole thing is the extreme lengths oil and drilling companies go to prevent even one more ounce of regulation on their activities by the smallest of municipal governments.

I support drilling in the US. I just don't support allowing drilling companies to do whatever the hell they want.

Link
 
2012-05-16 06:46:08 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner:

So by your hypothesis, the Senate could make rules to require unanimous decisions if they wanted to.



That is exactly what they could do. Because "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." You know, the words that are in the constitution? You might not be familiar with them.


Sure is funny that the Founders thought to include a method to break ties then. You think that SCOTUS would say that of course it was obvious the Founders intended for the Senate to bypass the tie-breaker provisions in the Constitution.


That doesn't bypass anything. The VP came down, cast his vote, and broke the tie. That doesn't mean the measure passes. You seem to believe that the constitution says a simple majority means a measure passes, when in fact, it says "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." So if the rule they determine is 60 votes, an outright unanimous vote, or the minorty leader's consent, that is entirely within their purview, and the courts have absolutely NO authority or standing to tell them differently. That "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" language is where the "separation of powers" lies. It is not within the courts power to determine Senate rules, it is within the Senate's power to do so.


With your take on it, all that would be needed is a one vote majority at the start of session, they could make a rule that requires that ALL measures to require a 2 vote plurality. That would totally cancel out the intent of Article 1 Section 3 with regard to tie-breaking.


Uh, no. It wouldn't impact the VP's role at all. He could still come down and break ties all day long. Whether or not a simple majority means a measure passes isn't within the VPs domain, or the courts. It's with the Senates, with this language right here... "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings."


It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be den ...


Well, you know, what constitutes a quorum is constitutionally defined, too. So you'll have to deal with it.
 
2012-05-16 06:57:35 PM

downpaymentblues: praymantis: It takes YEARS to get the drilling rights and to start drilling. All of this was done in the previous administration. Sorry to rain on your love fest for Obama. But the facts are the facts.

Or, even the administration before the last administration. Or, Obama hasn't been blocking new drilling over the last 3 years as claimed.

ALL of it means nothing. All that SHOULD matter is this means more American jobs, more stability, and less money going to OPEC.

Sadly, to many like you want to make this a Republican vs. Democrat thing, rather than an American thing...


Hey it is all good for the US, I just find that on Fark anything good is because of Obama and anything bad was a Republicans fault.
 
2012-05-16 06:58:15 PM
Gas prices are going down. This is bad news ... for Obama.
 
2012-05-16 07:05:19 PM

Rent Party: That doesn't bypass anything. The VP came down, cast his vote, and broke the tie. That doesn't mean the measure passes. You seem to believe that the constitution says a simple majority means a measure passes, when in fact, it says "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." So if the rule they determine is 60 votes, an outright unanimous vote, or the minorty leader's consent, that is entirely within their purview, and the courts have absolutely NO authority or standing to tell them differently. That "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" language is where the "separation of powers" lies. It is not within the courts power to determine Senate rules, it is within the Senate's power to do so.


Gee. That's an interesting position to take. That the courts have no say in the dealings of rules of the Senate. So who DOES enforce the rules of the Senate then. Suppose the the President of the Senate (the VP) ignores Rule XXII, takes a vote on a Bill. Gets a majority assent. Orders it sent to the Conference Committee, does the same when it comes back, writes it into the Congressional record as such, gets it sent to the President for his signature. Who does the minority whine to when they want to say "UNFAIR! That doesn't count!"? Can't be the Courts, according to you.

Since you seem to be of the opinion that the Senate doesn't have to follow constitutional provisions to avoid deadlocks, why should they follow constitutional implications to have rules that must be followed? VP tells the POTUS "yeah, we passed that, sign it."

/PS: your avoidance of the fact that the author of the Constitution argued that super-majority requirements in normal legislative business was awful, is just adorable!
 
2012-05-16 07:12:44 PM

Baz744: 1) You are consistently one of the most personal attack oriented posters on Fark. Your "objection" is duly noted, and overruled. Don't want people to get personal with you? Don't make it a habit get personal with them.


I can't think of a time when I have personally attacked any farker, and I find it difficult to believe that my posts stand out enough from the standard Fark post to be noticed at all much less to have myself branded as "the ad hominem guy"... but in case you are right, I will look back on my previous posts to see if I have been taken over by my evil twin.
 
2012-05-16 07:18:30 PM

firefly212: You're just plain wrong, the proposal was all about getting the pipeline to the gulf coast for exports, it had nothing to do with making the Illinois end carry more unused capacity. I know the Republicans told you it would bring more oil into the country, but it wont... they also promised it would create hundreds of thousands of American jobs that would last forever (didn't you find that a little sketchy?).... but denying it was all about not letting a Canadian Oil company diminish capacity in the midwest by running giant pipelines through our country so they could ship it around the world and make more money off of it.


OMG, The GOP are a bunch of bold faced, brain dead liars? Say it ain't so. It amazes me people still vote for them after what they've deliberately done to the middle class over the last 30 years. It's like their base is getting even DUMBER.
 
2012-05-16 07:38:22 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: tenpoundsofcheese: 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.

Hey, look!

It's that guy who plays semantics and ignores the context!

It's no pipe dream. The U.S. is already the world's fastest-growing oil and natural gas producer. Counting the output from Canada and Mexico, North America is "the new Middle East," Citigroup analysts declare in a recent report.



subtard said the US was the new Middle East. I merely pointed out that he was lying. That isn't semantics, it is reality.

You can be the fastest growing by growing from 1 to 100 when everyone else is growing from 1000 to 2000. Just look at that percentage growth.
 
2012-05-16 07:41:45 PM
I guess you can put lipstick on a pig.
 
2012-05-16 07:44:25 PM

Aarontology: Drill baby, Drill only counts if a democrat is in charge!


This now correctly reflects your reversal on this topic.
 
2012-05-16 07:48:26 PM
firefly212:
The existing keystone pipeline has an end in Illinois and is at less than 60% capacity.


Dude. You don't wait until a pipeline is 100% full before building a new one.

Long-term projections have production from western Canada and North Dakota growing by quite a bit to 2025 and longer. If you wait until the existing pipeline system is 100% full before adding new pipe, then you'll spend years in a bottleneck situation as production continues to climb but there's not enough capacity to get it to market.

What companies are doing is making estimates of when these existing pipelines will be full and when new pipes will be needed. They've done it this way for decades, for both oil and natural gas, and Keystone XL isn't some new twist on it. Their estimate of when the new pipe will be needed won't be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative of waiting until everything is 100% full.
 
2012-05-16 07:59:11 PM
I don't suppose anyone noticed the whole conservation part in energy independence.
 
2012-05-16 08:00:32 PM
I thought it was wrong to produce oil and natural gas these days?
 
2012-05-16 08:03:38 PM

Baz744: *snip smart, intelligent comments*
Remember, I'm a conservative. So you can't just scream "libs libs libs" in response to this and discount it.


Fark. Anyone know what wine pairs well with my hat?
 
2012-05-16 08:23:51 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: subtard said the US was the new Middle East. I merely pointed out that he was lying. That isn't semantics, it is reality.


This is you in every thread recently. Lying, as you well know, must have the element of deceit: One is lying when one intends to deceive someone else.

An inconsequential edit conveying mostly the same message, with no victims, and you start spouting off about how much Fark sucks, then sit around and tell everyone else what they *really* meant when they said one thing, because your semantic mind-cap knew they were actually saying something else.

It's not the least bit entertaining or enlightening. It's a bad trend for you. By election time, everyone will hate you and, by extension, all Republican apologists.
 
2012-05-16 08:25:06 PM
1) The fact that the US has massive reserves of oil and natural gas has NOTHING to do with Obama's failed energy policy.

2) The fact that these massive US reserves are being kept from reaching the market, helping the US trade balance and lowering the price of gasoline has EVERYTHING to do with.

3) Grow up, subby, Obama doesn't walk water and has been farking up the US economy for 4 years.

The hope is gone and the change can't come fast enough.
 
2012-05-16 08:36:14 PM

Warlordtrooper: Does not change the fact that all society is practically based on a resource that is finite. People need to understand the real problem is that oil won't be around forever

 
2012-05-16 08:40:35 PM

Rapmaster2000: Citrate1007: SultanofSchwing: Citrate1007: The only reason the GOP hates his energy policy is because he doesn't want to let a CANADIAN company build a pipline across OUR COUNTY to sell oil to FOREIGN countries.

/Fark the GOP and their unethical ties to big oil

What? Keystone has nothing to do with selling Oil to foreign countries. Unless by foreign you mean Illinois? We don't need to pipe oil through America to sell it elsewhere, we have two open coastlines to do that if we wanted to.

So you're going to tell me that the point of ending the pipline in the Gulf of Mexico has nothing to do with selling the oil to foreign countries.......right. Keep drinking the cool aid.

[static8.businessinsider.com image 640x474]
Excuse me, but we only have five current pipelines delivering tar sand oil. All we need is a 6th and prices will really come down. You've just got to believe!


actually that oil that would be delivered through that pipeline would be going to other countries. it's harder to refine. we use the good stuff.
 
2012-05-16 09:05:26 PM

Maud Dib: David Dewhurst, GOP Texas Senate candidate, slamming Obama for his domestic energy policies WHILE STANDING ON A GODDAMN NEW OIL RIG is frikkin' hilarious.

[i865.photobucket.com image 640x445]


My favorite is the one where he talks about his dad was the greatest generation and the next one spent us into oblivion-without realizing he's part of that generation. unbelievable!
 
2012-05-16 10:02:53 PM

Pro Zack: Baz744: 1) You are consistently one of the most personal attack oriented posters on Fark. Your "objection" is duly noted, and overruled. Don't want people to get personal with you? Don't make it a habit get personal with them.

I can't think of a time when I have personally attacked any farker, and I find it difficult to believe that my posts stand out enough from the standard Fark post to be noticed at all much less to have myself branded as "the ad hominem guy"... but in case you are right, I will look back on my previous posts to see if I have been taken over by my evil twin.


I have you highlighted in troll/asshole green, and I have a "three strikes" policy when it comes to that. FWIW.

Furthermore, at least half a dozen people responded to your initial statements with quotes of elected officials complimenting and congratulating Republican Presidents, most of which were favorable of George W. Bush, the single-most divisive Republican President.

You barely walked back your statement at all, and have yet to acknowledge the fact that Obama has received unprecedented criticism; that this phenomena of "not complimenting ones political enemies" is taken to extremes by the Right.

In short, your behavior has been a tad bit disingenuous.
 
2012-05-16 10:10:10 PM

firefly212: SultanofSchwing: Shrugging Atlas: SultanofSchwing: What? Keystone has nothing to do with selling Oil to foreign countries. Unless by foreign you mean Illinois? We don't need to pipe oil through America to sell it elsewhere, we have two open coastlines to do that if we wanted to.

This has to either be the snarkiest or most clueless comment ever made on fark. But I honestly can't tell which for the life of me.

Prove me wrong.

The existing keystone pipeline has an end in Illinois and is at less than 60% capacity.

[reportergary.com image 640x853]

You're just plain wrong, the proposal was all about getting the pipeline to the gulf coast for exports, it had nothing to do with making the Illinois end carry more unused capacity. I know the Republicans told you it would bring more oil into the country, but it wont... they also promised it would create hundreds of thousands of American jobs that would last forever (didn't you find that a little sketchy?).... but denying it was all about not letting a Canadian Oil company diminish capacity in the midwest by running giant pipelines through our country so they could ship it around the world and make more money off of it.


If by "hundreds of thousands" you mean "ten million" then yes, that's what the Republicans promised.

No I don't remember specifically who said that, but it was somebody prominent, probably Boehner or Cantor or McConnell. And yes that was the absurd number--ten million. One worker for every two barrels we consume every day.

They're probably calculating that these are non-union employees making 10 cents an hour.
 
2012-05-16 10:16:13 PM

Dan the Schman: Pro Zack: Baz744: 1) You are consistently one of the most personal attack oriented posters on Fark. Your "objection" is duly noted, and overruled. Don't want people to get personal with you? Don't make it a habit get personal with them.

I can't think of a time when I have personally attacked any farker, and I find it difficult to believe that my posts stand out enough from the standard Fark post to be noticed at all much less to have myself branded as "the ad hominem guy"... but in case you are right, I will look back on my previous posts to see if I have been taken over by my evil twin.

I have you highlighted in troll/asshole green, and I have a "three strikes" policy when it comes to that. FWIW.

Furthermore, at least half a dozen people responded to your initial statements with quotes of elected officials complimenting and congratulating Republican Presidents, most of which were favorable of George W. Bush, the single-most divisive Republican President.

You barely walked back your statement at all, and have yet to acknowledge the fact that Obama has received unprecedented criticism; that this phenomena of "not complimenting ones political enemies" is taken to extremes by the Right.

In short, your behavior has been a tad bit disingenuous.


Go easy on him; his conservative brain is now wired to be this way. It can't undo that all overnight. The fact that he's responding with any level of self-reflection is honestly amazing.
 
2012-05-16 10:28:34 PM

adjective: Dan the Schman: Pro Zack: Baz744: 1) You are consistently one of the most personal attack oriented posters on Fark. Your "objection" is duly noted, and overruled. Don't want people to get personal with you? Don't make it a habit get personal with them.

I can't think of a time when I have personally attacked any farker, and I find it difficult to believe that my posts stand out enough from the standard Fark post to be noticed at all much less to have myself branded as "the ad hominem guy"... but in case you are right, I will look back on my previous posts to see if I have been taken over by my evil twin.

I have you highlighted in troll/asshole green, and I have a "three strikes" policy when it comes to that. FWIW.

Furthermore, at least half a dozen people responded to your initial statements with quotes of elected officials complimenting and congratulating Republican Presidents, most of which were favorable of George W. Bush, the single-most divisive Republican President.

You barely walked back your statement at all, and have yet to acknowledge the fact that Obama has received unprecedented criticism; that this phenomena of "not complimenting ones political enemies" is taken to extremes by the Right.

In short, your behavior has been a tad bit disingenuous.

Go easy on him; his conservative brain is now wired to be this way. It can't undo that all overnight. The fact that he's responding with any level of self-reflection is honestly amazing.


It's really sad how low the standards are for what's considered a "reasonable Republican" these days. What's even sadder is how few meet those low standards.
 
2012-05-16 10:45:35 PM
Obama should get credit for all the oil and gas drilling going on same as George Wallace should get credit for integrating the Alabama school system. Both happened on their watch after all.
 
2012-05-16 10:51:57 PM
Anyway... Unemployment, gasoline costs, massive deficit, no budget.
 
2012-05-16 11:33:31 PM

Snatch Bandergrip: Warlordtrooper: Does not change the fact that all society is practically based on a resource that is finite. People need to understand the real problem is that oil won't be around forever


I'll third this.

And to add to it, there are other things to do with petroleum than burn it for energy. I'd like to have plenty left for that.

Link

So if we could start transitioning to alternative sources of fuel sooner rather than later, that'd be great.
 
2012-05-16 11:34:32 PM

tjfly: Anyway... Unemployment, gasoline costs, massive deficit, no budget.


Right, because a President passes a budget, and creates gasoline, it's right there in the constitution....
 
2012-05-16 11:48:34 PM

Bontesla: Hey . . . have you seen the Prius V? They're larger and more cost-effective than the older Prius


Seen it? Hell, I bought it....

4.bp.blogspot.com

//Yes. I am that boring.
 
2012-05-17 12:36:16 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: tenpoundsofcheese: subtard said the US was the new Middle East. I merely pointed out that he was lying. That isn't semantics, it is reality.

This is you in every thread recently. Lying, as you well know, must have the element of deceit: One is lying when one intends to deceive someone else.

An inconsequential edit conveying mostly the same message, with no victims,

a lie is a lie. Editing out the important part (Canada and Mexico) is not inconsequential.

and you start spouting off about how much Fark sucks,

wut? Fark is great. Just don't expect serious discussion on a site that is about mocking news.

then sit around and tell everyone else what they *really* meant when they said one thing, because your semantic mind-cap knew they were actually saying something else.

editing a story that changes the meaning is relevant. If you don't believe so, I am sure you defend Breitbart's Shirley video.

It's not the least bit entertaining or enlightening.

well, good thing that I am not trying to entertain or enlighten you..

 
2012-05-17 12:38:53 AM

Dan the Schman: have yet to acknowledge the fact that Obama has received unprecedented criticism


Jesus received unprecidented criticism, too, but his followers still claim that he walked on water.
 
2012-05-17 01:00:30 AM

GoodHomer: firefly212:
The existing keystone pipeline has an end in Illinois and is at less than 60% capacity.

Dude. You don't wait until a pipeline is 100% full before building a new one.

Long-term projections have production from western Canada and North Dakota growing by quite a bit to 2025 and longer. If you wait until the existing pipeline system is 100% full before adding new pipe, then you'll spend years in a bottleneck situation as production continues to climb but there's not enough capacity to get it to market.

What companies are doing is making estimates of when these existing pipelines will be full and when new pipes will be needed. They've done it this way for decades, for both oil and natural gas, and Keystone XL isn't some new twist on it. Their estimate of when the new pipe will be needed won't be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative of waiting until everything is 100% full.


That's not the argument put forth by the Canadians... capacity on the keystone has only increased by 7% in the last 10 years... I agree that isn't chump change, but if you look at the mapping, this had absolutely jack shiat to do with getting oil to american markets, they wanted a bee-line to Port Arthur so they could better take advantage of increasing global demand. I don't blame them for trying, but nobody who looks at the end and exchange points proposed could seriously think that this project had anything to do with getting more oil refined in the US.
 
2012-05-17 01:07:47 AM

praymantis: It takes YEARS to get the drilling rights and to start drilling. All of this was done in the previous administration. Sorry to rain on your love fest for Obama. But the facts are the facts.


And the facts say you're full of shiat, the BLM has approved more than 153% more oil drilling permits in the current administration than it did in the last four years of the Bush Administration. Sorry to rain on your love fest for Bush (you can go back to that economy if you want) but the facts are the facts.
 
2012-05-17 01:26:10 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Rent Party: That doesn't bypass anything. The VP came down, cast his vote, and broke the tie. That doesn't mean the measure passes. You seem to believe that the constitution says a simple majority means a measure passes, when in fact, it says "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." So if the rule they determine is 60 votes, an outright unanimous vote, or the minorty leader's consent, that is entirely within their purview, and the courts have absolutely NO authority or standing to tell them differently. That "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" language is where the "separation of powers" lies. It is not within the courts power to determine Senate rules, it is within the Senate's power to do so.

Gee. That's an interesting position to take. That the courts have no say in the dealings of rules of the Senate. So who DOES enforce the rules of the Senate then.


The Senate does. Duh.


Suppose the the President of the Senate (the VP) ignores Rule XXII, takes a vote on a Bill. Gets a majority assent. Orders it sent to the Conference Committee, does the same when it comes back, writes it into the Congressional record as such, gets it sent to the President for his signature. Who does the minority whine to when they want to say "UNFAIR! That doesn't count!"? Can't be the Courts, according to you.


Well, since the VP is only entitled to vote in one very specific circumstance, that law would be challenged in the courts. That isn't a Senate rule, sport. That's the Constitution. The one that says the Senate makes it's own rules. In plane farking English.


Since you seem to be of the opinion that the Senate doesn't have to follow constitutional provisions to avoid deadlocks, why should they follow constitutional implications to have rules that must be followed? VP tells the POTUS "yeah, we passed that, sign it."


There is nothing about the VP having a vote when the senate is equally divided that is even remotely associated with your scenario. In your scenario, the VP had a vote when the Senate wasn't equally divided. That's the Constitution. All other matters not specifically enumerated are set by, and enforced by, the Senate.


/PS: your avoidance of the fact that the author of the Constitution argued that super-majority requirements in normal legislative business was awful, is just adorable!


Your avoidance of the issue that the authors of the Constitution wrote specific wording ensuring the Senate could do whatever the fark it pleases is even more adorable. Madison didn't pen that thing all by himself. Here's a hint: The opinions of the Federalists don't mean shiat. Jefferson thought they were a bunch of clowns. What means shiat is the letters and words they put in the Constitution. And that says "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."
 
2012-05-17 01:30:04 AM

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


i550.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 50 of 262 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report