America is never going to be energy independent. More drilling won't help a whole lot either. I mean it's a good thing, might as well use the stuff but acting like it'll make us not have to deal with OPEC or something would be a massive stretch.

j_crazy wrote: considering companies are spending up to $56,000,000 for the right to drill on 1 block, this is a good thing for the US government.

56 mil = < 1000th of a drop in the bucket.

Even if they do drill, it's not going to help us. When's the last time we built a new refinery? We don't have the capacity.

derek bomar wrote: I would have liked to see him open up the Pacific Coast too...but this is indeed good news. Let's call a spade a spade and all just agree that this was a good thing (could've been better I'll give you that but cmon, it's a good move). If we can't even acknowledge when someone from across the isle does something we (for the most part) agree with, we are totally fucked in terms of partisanship.

IF it happens, I would agree. Just him speaking those words means nothing. His credibility on following up on past statements is very weak.

I don't believe it will ever happen under his presidential term. He is one to say anything to accomplish his agenda. And the sheep follow.

tk421 wrote: Even if they do drill, it's not going to help us. When's the last time we built a new refinery? We don't have the capacity.

A new refinery wouldn't be fiscally responsible. By the time you'd get a ROI we'd definitely be past peak oil (some argue we are or are very close) and we'll definitely have a better medley of energy production options by then (wind and solar especially considering their rate of improvement as well as nuclear).

I Wear Pants wrote:

tk421 wrote: Even if they do drill, it's not going to help us. When's the last time we built a new refinery? We don't have the capacity.

A new refinery wouldn't be fiscally responsible. By the time you'd get a ROI we'd definitely be past peak oil (some argue we are or are very close) and we'll definitely have a better medley of energy production options by then (wind and solar especially considering their rate of improvement as well as nuclear).

Fiscally responsible? Ha, that's funny. You are talking about fiscal responsibility with the federal government?

Wind and solar energy aren't going to replace oil. You aren't going to drive a solar powered car anytime soon. Even with alternative energy sources, this country is going to need oil for the foreseeable future. We need more refineries if we are going to open up all of the oil available to us. We will still be using oil in 60-70 years.

The federal government doesn't own or operate refineries.

Ok, first off - I'm glad that this is going to be done.

Now to the business part. I think alot of Obama supporters need to realize a few things:

- not too many people were thrilled to see Obama get elected in the first place

- the way this government health insurance bill was mismanaged from day one just about completely severed any chance of nay-sayers warming up to him at all

- taunting the American people was a big mistake ... HUGE, and I doubt this act will soothe anybody anytime soon

Add all that ^^^ up together and you've got a huge amount of people that feel this will never right their feelings or viewpoints about him. They may say something like "oh, well isn't that nice?" and then go on with their disgust.
So, for those who are dismayed by some of the reactions on here, open up your minds a little bit and try to see the other side of things.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Ok, first off - I'm glad that this is going to be done.

Now to the business part. I think alot of Obama supporters need to realize a few things:

- not too many people were thrilled to see Obama get elected in the first place

- the way this government health insurance bill was mismanaged from day one just about completely severed any chance of nay-sayers warming up to him at all

- taunting the American people was a big mistake ... HUGE, and I doubt this act will soothe anybody anytime soon

Add all that ^^^ up together and you've got a huge amount of people that feel this will never right their feelings or viewpoints about him. They may say something like "oh, well isn't that nice?" and then go on with their disgust.

Um...what?

There were literally people celebrating in the streets.

Those of us who feel disgust toward the man won't have to create anything new to keep those feelings going.

He'll provide us with plenty of fodder in the weeks and months ahead.

It's a certainty.

Pants,

Sure there were.

But that doesn't mean that 1/2 of the population or the majority were "dancing in the streets".

CenterBHSFan wrote: Pants,

Sure there were.

But that doesn't mean that 1/2 of the population or the majority were "dancing in the streets".

52.9% voted for Obama.

Stop acting like he got in on some technicality. Most people were not disappointed seeing as as most people voted for him.

I Wear Pants wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Pants,

Sure there were.

But that doesn't mean that 1/2 of the population or the majority were "dancing in the streets".

52.9% voted for Obama.

Stop acting like he got in on some technicality. Most people were not disappointed seeing as as most people voted for him.

52.9% of people who voted. Voter turnout was 56.8% of 231,229,580 people of age to vote in 2008. Obama received 66,862,039 votes. So, Obama got 28.92% of the votes from people old enough to vote in 2008. That's not a majority. Not even close.

Those people don't count. At all.

I Wear Pants wrote: Those people don't count. At all.

They do. The live in America, don't they? You are acting like Obama has the backing of the majority of the country which voted for him. They clearly didn't. Like it or not, of the people old enough to vote, he didn't come close to the majority.

Why not?

I personally know people who didn't vote at all because they didn't like ANY of the people listed.
I also know people who voted for names that would clearly not have a chance - protest votes.

I spoke about the general feeling, Pants
You brought up voting in your 2nd reply to me

You cannot assume that those people wouldn't have voted for Obama (or that they would have). Otherwise we're just arguing over assumptions.

And they don't count, if you can't get of the fucking couch long enough to vote then who gives a shit if you like or don't like a particular president or policy?

I Wear Pants wrote: You cannot assume that those people wouldn't have voted for Obama (or that they would have). Otherwise we're just arguing over assumptions.

And they don't count, if you can't get of the fucking couch long enough to vote then who gives a shit if you like or don't like a particular president or policy?

Then don't tell people that Obama has the backing of the majority of the country. He may have the backing of the majority of those who voted, but that's not the majority of the country.

I Wear Pants wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Pants,

Sure there were.

But that doesn't mean that 1/2 of the population or the majority were "dancing in the streets".

52.9% voted for Obama.

Stop acting like he got in on some technicality. Most people were not disappointed seeing as as most people voted for him.

That means 47% who voted voted against Obama. Large vocal minorities have accomplished some pretty major things in this country. Many voters are fickle, some are ill informed, and I would imagine some have changed their minds.

tk421 wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: You cannot assume that those people wouldn't have voted for Obama (or that they would have). Otherwise we're just arguing over assumptions.

And they don't count, if you can't get of the fucking couch long enough to vote then who gives a shit if you like or don't like a particular president or policy?

Then don't tell people that Obama has the backing of the majority of the country. He may have the backing of the majority of those who voted, but that's not the majority of the country.

The only majority that matters is the one that votes.

I wasn't trying to say that everybody loves what Obama is doing now. But it was said that not too many were happy he was elected. Which isn't true otherwise people wouldn't have voted for him.

You don't get to complain about anything if you don't vote.

I Wear Pants wrote:

tk421 wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: You cannot assume that those people wouldn't have voted for Obama (or that they would have). Otherwise we're just arguing over assumptions.

And they don't count, if you can't get of the fucking couch long enough to vote then who gives a shit if you like or don't like a particular president or policy?

Then don't tell people that Obama has the backing of the majority of the country. He may have the backing of the majority of those who voted, but that's not the majority of the country.

The only majority that matters is the one that votes.

I wasn't trying to say that everybody loves what Obama is doing now. But it was said that not too many were happy he was elected. Which isn't true otherwise people wouldn't have voted for him.

You don't get to complain about anything if you don't vote.

So, I assume kids growing up now shouldn't bitch about the massive amounts of debt they will have to take care of? Voting between the lesser of two evils doesn't really mean much.

They can bitch.

What do you want voters to do other than vote for the candidate they believe is the best (or least worst)? If you cannot find someone that you can conscionably vote for then perhaps you should have ran for that office.

Hey, we're getting off the main topic.

While I still think I'm right (haha) the fact is, that a large portion of this society, for numerous reasons, will never be happy with President Obama.

Even if this act is a good move.

Agree or disagree?

majorspark wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Pants,

Sure there were.

But that doesn't mean that 1/2 of the population or the majority were "dancing in the streets".

52.9% voted for Obama.

Stop acting like he got in on some technicality. Most people were not disappointed seeing as as most people voted for him.

That means 47% who voted voted against Obama. Large vocal minorities have accomplished some pretty major things in this country. Many voters are fickle, some are ill informed, and I would imagine some have changed their minds.

A telling many who are changing their minds are independent voters who have no affiliation with either party... see the recent elections in New Jersey, Virginia and Mass. BHO and those democrats who rode his coattails in 2008 were able to sway the independent vote which ultimately gave democrats overwhelming control of the federal government. It is an entirely different situation in 2010 with regards to the independent voters.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Hey, we're getting off the main topic.

While I still think I'm right (haha) the fact is, that a large portion of this society, for numerous reasons, will never be happy with President Obama.

Even if this act is a good move.

Agree or disagree?

Agree with that.