You won't hear me admit that, because it's not true. That's not any more true than saying that Obama is more pro-life that Rick Santorum.

Bill Clinton: Drilling delays 'ridiculous' - Darren Goode - POLITICO.com

Here is what Bill Clinton (the right wing nut job) said about Obama's drilling delays in the Gulf...

"Clinton said there are “ridiculous delays in permitting when our economy doesn’t need it,” according to Noe and others."

There is a reason that oil companies donate huge $$ to Republicans.

Actually, I supported the decision. If he turns around and approves it after Nov 2012 I will be very disapointed.

We'd be refining oil that is produced from THE WORST possible way to obtain a fossil fuel (just short of or on par with strip-mining coal) for the Canadians to then ship anywhere they wanted. We'd have the right to buy it back on the open market. I don't oppose it for the pipeline portion of it, I think the networth to US is very low.

I'd rather see them focus on domestic efforts on more nukes and more domestic natural gas.

"I think the networth to US is very low." The labor union that would have benefitted (steel workers??) sure made it sound like a big deal.

"I'd rather see them focus on domestic efforts on more nukes and more domestic natural gas"

Agreed.

If gas hits $5 this summer (I don't see how that fails to happen, I think $6 is easily possible if something happens with Israel/Iran), and the GOP shows video of Obama saying "higher gas prices would be good for America" (which he has said, and which is unbelievably stupid), that hurts him big time. We'll see.

Your 4.4 trillion for Bush is lower than I have seen.
Anyway... from readily available numbers
Bush- 4.8 tr
Obama 4.9tr

4.9/48= 1.02 or 102% or
4.8/4.9= 0.98 x 100 =98%

Not sure where your 4.4 came from, but there seems to be variability depending on the source.. When Bush took office it was 5.78 tr. When he left it was 10.626. That is +4.84. I clearly said "at this point. " Debt will continue to rise, but where it is at the end of Obama's second term depends on so many variables it wasn't part of my math. On top of that, some of Obamas debt is the result of war started by Bush, but I didn't try to tease that out either. Anyway, that is the math. Not made up at all.

Hypertechnicality??? You say something that is baseless or factually incorrect and I counter it.

There was never a question of how oil friendly he is. We are responding to your quotable statement that he wants to cut oil production. He hasn't said it, hasn't done it. What else is there to discuss about your statement that he wants to cut oil production?

"Not made up at all"

I posted a link to my numbers, you didn't. Let's assume your numbers are corrcet, OK? Maybe they're not made up. But you're sure comparing apples and oranges...

(1) Bush was president for 8 years, Obama for 3. NO ONE denies that the debt is still going up significantly for 2012. Tough to compare debt added in 8 years to debt added in 3. By the time Obama is done, no one is denying he'll add more to the debt than any president in history.

(2) A HUGE portion of Bush's debt was the (in my opinion necessary) response to 09/11. The USA built a HUGE anti-terror infrastructure. Obama hasn't been faced with a life-or-death situation that required a massive expenditure like that. His spending has been, largely, to fund liberal pet projects (giving big $$ to labor unions, green companies, etc).

As I have said, Bush also spent a fortune in Africa, saving 1.2 million lives (money well spent). But Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize, and Bush gets called a racist.

He has cut oil production, in the sense that oil production is LESS than it would be if a republican was president. He has been more of a hindrance to oil production that John McCain would have been. Let me put ti that way.

Ok, lets leave out the checkmate and show me I'm wrong comments, then. Also, it would be helpful if you said oil production is less than if a republican was president, rather than he wants to cu production.

Why think when you can just hit the :easy:

And this from a guy who thinks he's rational???

-spence

Zimmy, if you say that Obama only added 2% more debt than Bush, but you're comparing 3 years of Obama to 8 years of Bush (and ignoring that Bush had to build the anti-terror infrastructure) I'm going to call you on it.

I will try to clarify my terms. I will not stop using hyperbole. If I say Castro is more fiscally conservative than Obama, I'm pretty sure you know I'm using hyperbole and humor.

If Obama has said it you shouldn't have any problems finding a video...or at least a quote...sorry I should be more specific.

A real quote, don't just quote your own made up nonsense.

-spence

don't know if Obama has actually stated it but Chu certainly has'''

“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”



Steven Chu's Europe gas quote haunts President Obama - Bob King - POLITICO.com

No, according to Jim President Obama said "higher gas prices would be good for America" (Jim's quotes).

He's a rational man who's mathematically obsessed with FACTS.

I'm sure he'll chime in soon.

-spence

I am in no means advocating that super high gas prices are GOOD. I'm not even Chu said it would be goo, and he didn't reference any impact other than on transitioning to other energy sources. The context that without a rise in gas prices, we will not move away from fossil fuels. This is probably a true statement

We need some kind of transition away from them, whether you believe we should for climate, pollution or national security. The reality is it will take some serious time to do (decades). The problem is, this can keeps getting kicked down the road...

The last lines:

Never mind that some energy experts say Chu had it exactly right, and that higher fuel prices would encourage consumers to buy more efficient vehicles, discourage suburban sprawl, make renewables more competitive and reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil. Not even Chu’s department is making that argument these days.

Read more: Steven Chu's Europe gas quote haunts President Obama - Bob King - POLITICO.com

Jesus Bryan, there you go with that "context" again :rolleyes:

-spence

many on the left have believed for a very long that high energy prices would be the best way to reduce consumption and force people into energy efficient vehicals and more efficient lifestyles, the left has longed for European level energy costs.....Obama has, on several occasions talked about higher energy prices, he lamented quick rises that the public would not respond well to but he does not have a problem, based on his statements, with high energy prices....I'll get the quotes if you'd like, but it's no revelation...he does have a problem in an election year if gas continues to soar...

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;924458] I'm not even Chu said it would be good, and he didn't reference any impact other than on transitioning to other energy sources.

“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”



is it possible he thought this would be a bad thing?

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;924458]

The last lines:

Never mind that some energy experts say Chu had it exactly right, and that higher fuel prices would encourage consumers to buy more efficient vehicles, discourage suburban sprawl, make renewables more competitive and reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil. Not even Chu’s department is making that argument these days.

wouldn't be a very good argument...Obama motors can't sell the Volt, a boatload of Obama investments in green energy have gone belly up and we're still dependent on foreign oil where it is a powder keg currently....Obama is currently arguing for higher taxes on oil and gas companies however, which should help the cost of oil and gas plummet...right?

Well, there's a pragmatic position that says energy costs will rise as carbon sources are finite and global consumption is rising.

There's the Republican position that oil is infinite because God made it so, nobody can tell you that 6000 pound SUV isn't your right to drive by the glory of the American flag and if we do have an issue the free market will have long since resolved the issue (note: probably with Chinese technology).

-spence

are you making a point or just stomping your feet? :)

YES HE CAN!!!

Obama: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK"

I wonder how much Obama's car weighs and what kind of mileage it gets?

I looked it up...The vehicle fuel consumption is about 8 miles per US gallon.

kinda like everything else with this president isn't it?...does it reflect badly on his character Spence?

I'd post some pics of him eating but it's not pretty and he likes to keep the temps in the rooms that he is occupying Hawaii warm:)

Some Math, gas was 9% LOWER (adjusted for inflation) when Bush
left office than when he started.

When Obama took office gas was $1.83/ gal., and now we are headed
for $5 maybe $6. What a difference 3yrs makes.

Well, he drove a Chrysler 300 before he was elected and did his
campaining, not mispelled :), in an SUV.

So what's the difference?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like I said, some Math, be my guest if you choose. :)
I think you divide the lower # by the higher one. :hihi:

which god do you believe in? do you believe in the God of the Bible? if so, what would you know of him without the Bible? There are many "man-made"religions that place their "faith" in many forms of "higher power" and not necessarily in a god...if you believe in the God of the Bible, do you study religion through the Bible or the Bible through religion..there's a difference...and do you apply that study to other "religions"...there is a difference there as well....if you believe in the God of the Bible, do you believe that he created you and all that you see? If you accept that remarkable ability ...do you not believe that wine and host could not be the body and blood of Jesus and representative of his sacrafice, is it insane?....I'm pretty sure that Jesus was quoted as saying "this is my body..... this is my blood....do this in memory of me"..I'm happy to provide the full quote should Spence request it.....do you believe in Jesus as Saviour?...what do you hope for when your time here is concluded and do you think any of it is tied to what the Bible teaches? I ask these questions because many of the things that you say seem contradictory when it comes to your belief....maybe you know too much:)

I have to admit, the only reference I could find was energy secretary Chu who said this...

"“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...reply&p=924457

Spence, I admit I cannot find a quote attributing that to Obama. Now, will you show us the same courtesy? On the Romney dog thing, yuo said putting the dog on the roof says something about Romney's character. But when asked about Obama's character in terms of Rev Wright, you said that you need to consider the good that Wright did, before yuo make any judgments about Obama's character for associating with him. And for the record, you supplied zero evidence of any good done by Wright (who is a snake that got fabulously wealthy by peddling in hate), you just said you "bet" he's done some good things, too.

Spence, when you said something about Romney's character, why were you willing to makwe judgments based on one bad decision in isolation? In Obama's case, you said we need to consider all the good in connection with the bad. Why don't yuo offer Romney the same courtesy?

Answer...you are a hypocrit.

Lastly, Spence...If Mr Chu said he wants our gas prices to be as high as Europe's, and Obama picks this guy as ENERGY SECRETARY of all things, it stands to reason that Obama is on board.


There's a lot of political hay to be made of that statement for the GOP, when gas prices hit $5 in a few months.

Wait, wait!!!!!

Spence, here's what you said...

"There's the Republican position that oil is infinite because God made it "

OK, Spence. When I made a claim about somehting Obama said, yuo demanded that I prove it.

OK, buddy, what's good for the goose! Spence, please show us a video or post a link of a prominent Republican saying that.

I'm waiting Spence, and I'm all ears.

You just can't help shooting yourself in the foot, can you?

I'm pretty sure that's a Santorum quote:uhuh:

"without a rise in gas prices, we will not move away from fossil fuels. "

Not true. We don't want gas prices to rise, that's not a healthy reason to transition to renewable energy. What we want is for renewable green energy to be cheaper than gas is today. Rockhound, if we set gas at $100 a gallon, then yes, it will be cheaper to buy crappy electric cars, and it will be cheaper to pay $50,000 to convert our houses to geo-thermal.

BUT WHO DOES THAT HELP? Anyone? Not that I see...

"The reality is it will take some serious time to do (decades)."

That's true, we are decades away from realistically-priced green energy. The question is, what do we do in the meantime? Because in the meantime, the world will use lots of oil. The countries that provide that oil, some of which are not very nice places, will make tons of money. It seems to me that here in America, we could use tons of money. Why let others get rich off of us? Why not cash in our lottery ticket, too? This is an issue for which I cannot fathom the view on the left, it's literally incomprehensible to me.

"The problem is, this can keeps getting kicked down the road..."

We are? Kicking the can down the road? Obama gave $500 million of our money (which he had to borrow from the Chinese) to Solyndra. Billions and billions of stimulus $$ went to green energy.

Rockhound, whoever invents the first electric car that actually works for American families, will instantly become the richest person who has ever lived. That's all the incentive that the private sector needs. They're working on it. It's just a hard problem to solve.

Remember where prices were about August 2008? Probably best if we ignore them...

Remember where gas prices were 6 yrs ago? 99 cents gal.

I don't remember paying $0.99 since I had my first car (during the Clinton years).... certainly don't remember that price in 2006...

Mostly because of a very strong fossil fuel lobby. You are a math guy right? Try adding in all of the costs associated w/ oil, coal, natural gas into the mix and see where it comes out. You might be suprised. It would have to be an honest assessment that includes the cost of military involvement in the middle east, taxes and special tax breaks, etc. It is pretty complicated, but the numbers are interesting.

Also, the Volt a crappy car? I don't know where you get your info on that, but it has been almost unanimously received as a well made, incredible piece of engineering and gets excellent reviews for performance. Was that just "hyperbole", too?

"the Volt a crappy car? I don't know where you get your info on that"

From consumer demand. Even with a $7500 tax credit thanks to Komrade Obama, nobody wants them. (allow the hyperbole, as the truth is, almost nobody wants them).

Hard Times For the Chevy Volt - HUMAN EVENTS


Zimmy, you corrcetly stated that when you talk about the cost of oil, lots of thing sneed to be factored in. Try reading the link I posted, which talks about what the Volt ultimately costs, when you factor in the government subsidies.

And who ends up paying $40,000 for Chevy Volts? Not poor folks, but wealthy folks. So despite liberal claims that conservatives are the ones who want to make the rich richer, here is a case where Obama is giving everyone who buys a Volt (wealthy people), a $7500 thank-you from the feds.

How many janitors and men's room attendants are plunking down$40,000 for a car? Zero. I'd think bleeding heart liberals would be opposed to giving handouts to people who have $40,000 to purchase a car?

Almost nobody wants these cars. They're insanely expensive, and they're not practical.

No hyperbole. Just fact. Not facts that you will like, or even admit given your rabid fanaticism, but facts nonetheless.

Hard Times For the Chevy Volt - HUMAN EVENTS

"it has been almost unanimously received as a well made, incredible piece of engineering"

Despite some as-yet unexplained fires after crash-tests?

http://www.slashgear.com/volt-misses...oals-05206315/

The Volt was a sales flop, despite the fact that the feds were offering a $7500 rebate.

What do you say, Zimmy?

My bad RRH, lowest was $1.39 in 2006, had to be earlier than that
but it was while I was on this site which was since 2003. Gas war for about
a month went below $1.00.

It's funny, when gas went up under Bush he said he can't do anything about it. Yet now people want to blame Obama...even though he can't do much about it either.

-spence

Big difference between strapping a dog to a roof and making a provocative remark to get your parish to think. I've listened to a number of his sermons, he's pretty interesting.

He strapped a dog to his car.

No it doesn't. Obama has been consistent in his statements that higher gas prices hurt Americans and in his entire first term hasn't raised the Federal Gas Tax a single penny.

The proof is in the pudding.

-spence

My remark wasn't in quotes, I was making the point that the Republican position on energy at times sure isn't very pragmatic.

-spence