Welcome to PatsFans.com

It's a start; McCain first to Flip Flop on oil drilling

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patriot_in_NY, Jun 18, 2008.

  1. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Makes him look like a tool, but it's a step in the right direction.

  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,327
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +249 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    I don't consider it to be much of a flip flop, the facts for the decision have changed dramatically with $4.50 (and going up) gas. You can still be against drilling but reluctantly support it given the changes that have occured. Not sure he'll express it like that, but things have changed.

    Regarding conservation, that's great I guess but with the additional uses of energy around the world, our conservation will not have much of an impact. Not that it's not good but a 25% decrease in U.S. consumption will be used up somewhere else. It's a global energy situation that is beyond our shores.

    But, sure, we should be drilling. We should have been drilling. We should be building more nuclear energy plants and we should be working more on alternatives.
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,851
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +295 / 1 / -9

    Another year of $4 Per Gal gas and you will see Oil Drilling in Central Park and on Coney Island, the slobbering phony democrats will be running the drills.

    :bricks:
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2008
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,327
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +249 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    I think the Democrats are happy with gas prices right now; it fits their agenda of preaching conservation, hatred of oil companies and the chance to try to influence how people live their lives.
  5. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    I agree with you, it's a logical position change, given current events. It will be spun as a flip flop though and McCain won't counter it.
  6. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    It is absolutely a flip-flop! Call it what it is. You Pubbies had no problem using the word on Kerry or (insert evil flip-flopping Democrat here), so do so for everyone or you look like a partisan rumpswab, which we all know you aren't...:rofl:

    I'm opposed to drilling for more oil in areas that aren't yet polluted, but the Gulf is not in that category, IMO. Drilling in the Gulf is not a novel option. It's like saying , "No more refineries in northern New Jersey". If it will keep the oil corporations and their chump supporters happy and away from ANWAR, then maybe more drilling in the Gulf might be an acceptable comprimise - as difficult as it is for me to say. The Gulf is already half-dead because of sediment and fertilizer runoff from the Mississippi and I assume new rigs will be held to the highest standards of environmental and worker safety and will most likely be engineered with the most advanced technology available.

    The problem with continued drilling is that it takes away resources and attention from the urgent need for alternative energy development in our present political environment that has no policy or support for new technology and source development. There is no policy to speak of as it is. More drilling seems like a continuation of the status quo which is lazy and counter-productive. Increasing drilling rewards the oil industry and their lobbyists (Bush and Cheney) more than they deserve and will no doubt include additional massive subsidies from my pocket, and I have a serious problem with that. Oil Corp rumpswabs in this society know that profits made by Oil Corp are partially welfare, pure and simple while they all champion the cause of a "free market economy" unencumbered by restriction by the federal government. What a friggin joke that is. And they all laugh their arses off to the bank on my dime.
  7. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    That's funny............:(
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,729
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +248 / 3 / -2

    I've never understood why we have no problem paying other people to "destroy" the environment for oil, but claim the high road when talking about harvesting our own. It boggles the mind. We trust China to drill of Cuba's shore, which is a mere 80 miles off our own coast, but not ourselves. We pay Venezuella $140 a barrell to sell us oil from the same planet we coexist on. I'd like to think that we're more environmentally careful & considerate than the Saudi's, Venenzuella's, Cuba's, etc. of the world. Yet here we are paying them for something we have plenty of. It just boggles the mind. Wouldn't we be better served keeping that money inside our own borders? Drilling our own supply doesn't have to mean that we won't look for alternatives. I've never understood the policy in this country.
  9. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,327
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +249 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    I don't really care if it's a "flip flop" or not. You know what I think is funny ? Democrats get all bent out of shape because Bush will pick his position and not change it when the facts change. Well, the facts have changed for drilling (price of oil/gas) so are Democrats going to be upset now if McCain changes his position based on facts changing ? Or would you prefer the Bush "ostrich" type of thinking ?
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,579
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +108 / 7 / -10



    T SOwell called liberalism the 'politics of self congratulations', the situation you describe is a perfect example of this.
  11. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Don't feel bad. There is no policy to understand.
  12. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,851
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +295 / 1 / -9

    Never thought of that one and right you are........:rocker:
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    I never said one party is better or less likely to whatever. They're the same. They both protect their perceived "turf" while losing sight of what is best for the country. The Republicrats have consistently demonstrated that.

    I don't get upset when anyone changes their positions on anything when such a change of policy is based on facts and reason. That's exactly what we need. Good for McCain. The Bush "ostrich" method of "leadership" is exactly what is wrong with out present energy situation (not to mention other national issues).

    I'm agreeing with you for the most part.
  14. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,242
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +20 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    Screw the gas prices,look at the price of diesel fuel its also know as #2 heating oil. At around $5 dollars a gallon whats it going to cost to heat a house this winter. You can always decide not to drive anymore than you have to, car pool,buy a smaller car or even a motorcycle. But what is the alternative when its 10 degree's and you Have to heat you're house. :confused:
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2008
  15. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,327
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +249 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    As I said, the facts have changed.

    Still, when I was growing up my parents didn't heat the house after, whatever, 7pm or something. I was sent to bed with an extra blanket and a "hot water bottle" - not sure if you had those in the U.S. (I lived in England until I was 12), but it was just a big, rubber thingy filled with hot water that would keep me warm until I got to sleep.

    Obviously heating of houses is necessary but heating to a lower temperature and putting extra clothes on will have to be considered these days too.
  16. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,851
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +295 / 1 / -9

    Nuke The Middle East Take Their Oil And Put The Surving Bastards In Detention Camps With Their Donkeys.

    Round Up All The Big Oil CEO's And Stone Them To Death

    Gas Will Drop To 50 Cents Per Gal.

    God Damn America
  17. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Great ideas, and we do that at our house, but Americans are not willing to do that, as a whole. Maybe the higher costs this winter will change their behavior, but I doubt it. We are lazy and have no knowledge of these things. Using extra blankets or wearing wrmer clothes to bed is unknown to many Americans. They invoke their "right" to have their house at 75 degrees all the time.
  18. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,327
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +249 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Well they're going to have to get used to it unless they think that extra taxes on oil companies will pay for it.

    Personally, I have my thermostat set at 68 during the winter. It's set for 5am (when I get up) to 7am (when my wife gets the kids out of the house) and from 3pm (when I get home) to about 8pm (I'm up until 11, the heat being on until 8pm lasts OK until I go to bed). So I have it on about 7 hours of the day (more on weekends but the same 68). Admittedly it doesn't get as cold here as in Boston but we're below freezing most days of the winter (yes, the desert gets cold). If I lived elsewhere it would take more heating to get to the 68 I'm set to but that's a very livable temperature (for me anyway) and I much prefer it to be cold vs. hot at night.
  19. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,242
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +20 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    I don't know how many people have thought about winter yet. It only occured to me after someone at work who makes a pretty good living wanted to work overtime. I said "you want to work overtime"? :eek: He said "yeah its going to cost me 3K+ plus to heat my house this winter". So I think it will come as a shock to allot of people when late Oct., Nov. rolls around. If prices stay the same i can see a crisis for those in a lower income bracket.
    It could be that if this keeps up families go back to living together in multiple family houses instead of each owning their own home. It was like when I was a kid. Its more cost efficiant for everyone to pool their money.
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2008
  20. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,729
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +248 / 3 / -2

    This isn't a liberal/conservative, republican/democrat issue. This is an issue of the general attitude of many in this country. We talk about preservingthe environment as a reason for not drilling here at home, yet we happily pay through the nose to have lesser environmentally concerned nations drill there own for our consumption. It's stupidity & ignorance at a monumental porportion. The enviroment isn't restricted to the borders of the United States. The environment is the entire planet. So it's truly idiotic to send our money outside of the country, to give us what we already have, especially when we'd do it more safely. This is a policy we've had for decades, and countless administrations. So it's not restricted to lib,con,dem, repub, etc.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>