State of the Union Speech Didn't Include This - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Baraka_Guru · 01-30-2010, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Do you support expanding the use of oil platforms off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to drill for oil? Does Obama?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obama's State of the Union address

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

(emphasis mine)

yournamehere · 01-30-2010, 07:07 PM

I stopped reading at:
"Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck . . . "

ratbastid · 01-30-2010, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

It's getting as painful to read this forum as it is to participate in it. There's enough attitude from the participants that have a point that the opposition has to painfully ignore to not have 20 tfp rules and yellow cards thrown in face for what would be deserving response in the real world..... but to have to put up with the handful of resident ankle-biters that consistently have nothing to add but commentary whose sole purpose is to belittle other people is just too much. Not even fun to read. It's just freakin obnoxious.

For those who might be tempted to insinuate I'm playing a victim, I'm not really invested enough to consider myself one - so please don't waste your time. Sometimes I just can't help myself from adding my own commentary.

When the thread's a joke to begin with, it's hard to have anything like a quality discussion.

Shell · 01-30-2010, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shell

Why would we loan a "measly" 2 billion to the already super-rich oil company, Petrobas in Brazil?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Every company in the world, even the biggest one, generally borrows money to expand it's business.

What is the issue here, exactly? The bank is making a profit through the loans, lending money that does not come from tax payers, and in the process helping the US export more.

And even if this decision was made by Obama (which it wasn't), and even if the stocks belonged to Soros personally, and not his hedge fund (which they dont) the notion that it was done to benefit Soros is nonsense. Whatever benefit Petrobras gets from this loan will be long term and diluted among its many, many stockholders (and Soros is very, very far from being a major stockholder in the company).

Thank you, dippin. I understand.

pan6467 · 02-03-2010, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I don't know about this, it is the first time I have heard of it. But I would assume it goes something like this.

Brazil finds oil (or thinks there might be oil)
China needs oil
China is willing to pay big money for the oil
Brazil and China do not have the new oil drilling equipment
USA companies do have this equipment
USA owes China a lot of money
Brazil wants to be able to sell this oil
Brazil does not have the money to build new oil platforms (or there are unused ones)
USA loans Brazil a few billion in order to have them hire Americans and use USA equipment.
Brazil sells China the oil
USA gets paid back, and a third party country benefits from us reducing the trade deficit with China.

Out of all this other bickering, this post makes the most sense and is probably closest to reality.

I quoted this not only to praise it but so that it wasn't lost in all the bickering and nonsense.

Thanks ASU.

Shell · 02-04-2010, 05:17 AM

You're right, Pan. Thanks ASU.

aceventura3 · 02-04-2010, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

(emphasis mine)

What do you believe? The empty words in his speech or the actions of his administration? The empty words during his campaign or his empty words in the state of The Union Address? My point has been that Obama's empty words contain something for everyone, you can walk away having heard whatever you wanted to hear. He is masterful at it, but what does he really believe? Do you know?

Quote:

Some Virginia politicians reacted with dismay Wednesday to reports that the federal Department of the Interior plans to delay drilling off the commonwealth’s coastline for at least a year.

Gov. Bob McDonnell said he would “strongly oppose” any delay on drilling beyond 2011. And U.S. Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb sent a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar urging him to move forward with the lease sale for an area off the Virginia coast for drilling “in a more expedited manner.”

Va. officials upset by report that feds will delay sale of offshore oil leases | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

{added}

YouTube - Barack Obama on Offshore Oil Drilling

I would love an explanation, to help me understand Obama's position.

roachboy · 02-04-2010, 08:34 AM

so the a priori that underpins the fabrication of this story is a conservative fave---that "we" should be drilling the fuck out of american territorial waters as a pathway to some illusory conservative version of "energy independence"...so the story in the op is constructed basically to trigger this response from amongst the conservative faithful. it doesn't matter that the story's a fabrication. what matters is that the conservative us/them boundary is activated on matters of energy policy. wouldn't want the troops to start agreeing with the obama administration about something sensible now would you?

aceventura3 · 02-04-2010, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so the a priori that underpins the fabrication of this story is a conservative fave---that "we" should be drilling the fuck out of american territorial waters as a pathway to some illusory conservative version of "energy independence"...so the story in the op is constructed basically to trigger this response from amongst the conservative faithful. it doesn't matter that the story's a fabrication. what matters is that the conservative us/them boundary is activated on matters of energy policy. wouldn't want the troops to start agreeing with the obama administration about something sensible now would you?

I know what I am for, I know what I think will work. I could say the same for the politicians I support. I am clueless when it comes to you, liberals, and politicians like Obama. What is your solution? what do you want to do? What do you support? How do you think we should address our growing energy needs? I know I won't get any clear or coherent response, but I present the questions to make the point.

Digbudro · 02-05-2010, 03:51 PM

The obama and democrat lies continue. They say they want to end our dependence on foreign oil, but do nothing to end the dependence. We have all of the resources we need here in our own country. Besides the energy industry could lower unemployment.

Derwood · 02-05-2010, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digbudro

The obama and democrat lies continue. They say they want to end our dependence on foreign oil, but do nothing to end the dependence. We have all of the resources we need here in our own country. Besides the energy industry could lower unemployment.

Ending our dependence on foreign oil does not mean drilling for our own oil.

Baraka_Guru · 02-05-2010, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What do you believe? The empty words in his speech or the actions of his administration? The empty words during his campaign or his empty words in the state of The Union Address? My point has been that Obama's empty words contain something for everyone, you can walk away having heard whatever you wanted to hear. He is masterful at it, but what does he really believe? Do you know?

I can't say I know as much as I'd like. In the Canadian media, I get a few reports of what goes on in American discussions and policy. I get the sense that Obama is taking a multifaceted approach that includes conservation, alternative energy solutions, in addition to these "tough decisions" on oil projects. There is also the issue of incentives for developing current projects more than they already have. The other issue, of course, is doing all of this during a recession. It's difficult to use incentives as a tool when companies and individuals are in defensive mode.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Ending our dependence on foreign oil does not mean drilling for our own oil.

Although I'd say it might be a part of the solution, it certainly isn't the "crown jewel." There are a number of areas that can still be explored: development of alternative sources of energy (not just "green" energy, but, perhaps, natural gas, which remains grossly underused); new technologies for improved efficiency on the consumer, commercial, and industrial levels; investment and development of the oil sands in Canada (though "foreign," Canada is a far more beneficial trading partner than other foreign oil sources); and, of course, the maximization of current oil projects.

The focus I see on offshore drilling I think is shortsighted, considering everything else that tends to get overlooked. It's a good thing its not overlooked by everyone.

dippin · 02-05-2010, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digbudro

The obama and democrat lies continue. They say they want to end our dependence on foreign oil, but do nothing to end the dependence. We have all of the resources we need here in our own country. Besides the energy industry could lower unemployment.

Neither the outer continental shelf nor the Alaskan wildlife refuge have anywhere near the reserves to make the US "energy independent."

01-30-2010, 07:07 PM	#42 (permalink)
yournamehere Invisible Location: tentative, at best	I stopped reading at: "Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck . . . " __________________ If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors: "If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too." It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

02-04-2010, 05:17 AM	#46 (permalink)
Shell Cheers Location: Eastcoast USA	You're right, Pan. Thanks ASU. __________________ ..."Say what you think. Those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind" ~ Dr. Seuss

02-04-2010, 08:34 AM	#48 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so the a priori that underpins the fabrication of this story is a conservative fave---that "we" should be drilling the fuck out of american territorial waters as a pathway to some illusory conservative version of "energy independence"...so the story in the op is constructed basically to trigger this response from amongst the conservative faithful. it doesn't matter that the story's a fabrication. what matters is that the conservative us/them boundary is activated on matters of energy policy. wouldn't want the troops to start agreeing with the obama administration about something sensible now would you? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-05-2010, 03:51 PM	#50 (permalink)
Digbudro Upright Location: South Louisiana	The obama and democrat lies continue. They say they want to end our dependence on foreign oil, but do nothing to end the dependence. We have all of the resources we need here in our own country. Besides the energy industry could lower unemployment.