myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
War!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 34, 35, 36  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FWIW, Politifact rated the statement, "oil production on federal lands dropped under President Barack Obama"
as Half True.
Their analysis at http://tinyurl.com/c6qt9dr closed with
"Our ruling:
A Crossroads GPS ad says Obama takes credit for Bush-era policies, then blames him for a downturn in oil production on federal lands. While it’s true that the effect of a president’s policies don’t show up in oil production for some time — in some cases, decades — the ad goes too far when it cites a 14 percent decline in production in a single year as evidence of the impact of Obama's overall energy strategy. The ad says oil production's down where Obama's in charge." The facts show that the decline represents a single year that followed years of substantial gains and occurred only offshore in the wake of a major oil disaster. The ad’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details and takes things out of context. We rate it Half True.".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, in the big game of things, US oil interests are still ahead, regardless of President Obama and his administration. Has that benefited the average American? Are prices now lower overall, and will that continue into the future?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9118
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes... We are in a pretty good place. Inventories are sky high, we are swimming in the stuff. Gas mileage is higher, demand is at 25 year lows.. Things are good. For $60 bux I can put 15 gallons of diesel in my Audi and drive 500 miles... That's a good deal!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Funny how mrgybe's comments again ignored the oil spill in the gulf, and the evidence that the oil industry had compromised the integrity of the Minerals Management Service so thoroughly that it had to be run out of town on a rail.

When the incompetence and dishonesty of the oil industry causes problems for the oil industry, the only thing to do is what the Tea Party does--blame everything on Obama. Spin the data to try to prove it. Ignore all rebuttals. It's called the oily bounce.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well for me, getting 13-14mpg, I'm paying a lot if I'm driving around a bunch. Also, not that many weeks ago we were all paying well over $4 a gallon. I think that we can bank on the fact that gas pricing will be going up again in the near future. It doesn't seem that increased oil drilling yields lower prices. If the Keystone XL pipeline was approved and built, it wouldn't change the pricing at the pump one bit.

I think that we all know where the extra money goes, and who tends to benefit. Moreover, in the international scheme of things, with growing demand worldwide, the average American will pay an ever escalating price irrespective of how much drilling is done here in the US.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting commentary:

Quote:
Is Obama Too Hawkish for Democrats?

By Lanny Davis

The day before President Obama’s Sept. 10 speech on the threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to American security — in my judgment, one of the best speeches of his two-term presidency — a pundit I like and respect, Chuck Todd, was interviewed on PBS’s “Charlie Rose Show.”

Todd, the new moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” told Rose, “If [Hillary Clinton] were running to be the second woman president, I think she would not even be considered a front-runner. She’d be just considered another candidate.”

Put aside that Todd’s rather surprising opinion is contradicted by the facts.

Hillary Clinton would likely be the front-runner if she were a man, too, given her qualifications and experience as a leading participant in education reform, healthcare reform and in many other substantive areas.

She served as first lady of Arkansas for a decade and first lady in the White House for eight years, as a U.S. senator from New York for eight years, and as a widely praised secretary of state for four years.

She received roughly 18 million votes in the 2008 primaries — about the same as the total then Illinois Sen. Barack Obama received — including her election victories in such large states as Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, Florida, and California.

The only alleged facts Todd uses in support of his controversial reference to Clinton’s gender are, in fact, not facts at all. They are labels.

For example, Todd claims Clinton would not be a front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination because, among other labels, she is “much more hawkish than where the Democratic Party is on foreign policy,” and thus “she’s kind of out of step where the Democratic Party is going to be in 2016.”

Note the word hawkish is a label, not a fact.

So are there any facts to support this conclusion that she is out of step with the Democratic Party in her foreign policy views? To the contrary.

In his Sept. 10 speech to the nation, Obama agreed with Clinton on the need to support the Syrian political opposition. Yet when Clinton took the same position in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, there was an explosion of commentary by pundits and on the liberal blogosphere that Clinton risked being too hawkish for the Democratic Party.

The word "hawkish" in association with Hillary Clinton, by the way, presently gets more than 100,000 hits on Google.

But the facts are that Clinton and Obama not only agree on the policies the president set forth in his nationwide speech — specifically to use U.S. air power and ground forces — though limited for now — to support and train Kurds and Iraqis in order to “degrade and destroy” ISIS — but also on the surge in Afghanistan, the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and the use of drones to target and kill terrorists.

Does that mean both Obama and Clinton are both too hawkish and interventionist so as to be out of step with the liberal Democratic Party base?

Let’s look at the inconvenient facts for those who say they are:

On the same day as the Todd interview, Sept. 9, a Washington Post/ABC poll found that two-thirds or more of the American people support airstrikes in Iraq and in Syria to stop ISIS, and that “sizable majorities of Democrats” take the same position.
The important national organization No Labels, a bipartisan centrist group founded in 2010, got it right when it insisted that, “our leaders put the labels aside and focus on fixing America’s most pressing problems.”
I hope all of us — Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, even pundits, bloggers and columnists — myself included — can refrain from using labels to describe political opponents and, instead, stick to facts as the basis for constructive debate, leading to real solutions to our problems at home and abroad.

Lanny Davis is the principal in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Lanny J. Davis & Associates, which specializes in strategic crisis management. He served as President Clinton’s Special Counsel in 1996-98.


By the way, the House went for backing Obama by a bi-partisan margin. Perhaps the third in 6 years. But if you listen to the wanna-be pipeline builders and oil leasers, it is all Obama's fault. I think he demonstrated again that he is playing chess, and the Tea bagger wing of what used to be the Grand Old Party is playing checkers. That's what really pisses them off. That, and when we remind them of that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pointster



Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 376

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I posed six questions to mrgybe in an effort to get him to substantiate his claim that Pres. Obama has put roadblocks in the way of our ability to ween the US off mid-east oil. He chose to only respond to the last question on the proportion of oil mid-east oil imports to total imports, with what I take to be an affirmative reply. I must admit, this was a rhetorical question, as I know mrgybe has a background in the oil industry.

The other questions were specific and non-rhetorical, and I am surprised that he did not answer, as he is from the oil industry, and I would expect that he would have the answers close at hand. (except for the one on alternative energy.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe chooses only to pay attention to material that agrees with his belief structure. Lies from ALEC and the Koch's fit neatly in that niche.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pointster wrote:
I posed six questions to mrgybe in an effort to get him to substantiate his claim that Pres. Obama has put roadblocks in the way of our ability to ween the US off mid-east oil.

Maybe mrgybe has a life outside iW.

The news has substantiated that claim from Obama's 2008 campaign right up through 2020 Zulu 18 Sep 2014. "I will kill coal". "I will cause the cost of electricity to skyrocket." "Carbon this." "Carbon that." Keystone. Taxpayer subsidies of wind and solar energy at ANY expense. Drilling/mining roadblocks.

I'd type a few more pages of examples, but even I have a life outside iW.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9118
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I beg to differ....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 34, 35, 36  Next
Page 35 of 36

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group