No, I never said that. Your's is a statement of delusion. I countered your patently false and baseless claim that "he wants to cut oil production" with actual facts about oil production levels over the past 12 years. Oil production has increased, he has not indicated he wants to reduce production, and I never claimed he was a bigger friend to oil. I am not sure you you really think I said he was a "bigger friend to Big Oil than Bush"? Is that some weird debate technique or do you really think I said that?

Zimmy, a little while ago, you said this (an exact, direct quote)..."Adding more debt: yeah 2% more than Bush 2 at this point."

Instead of dissecting every hypertechnicality of my posts, how about telling us all what you meant by that. Can you support that statement, please?

Here is some data (1st column is year, 2nd column is debt as of that year, 3rd column is annual increase to the debt)

Government Spending Chart: United States 2000-2012 - Federal State Local Data

Year Debt Annual Debt Increase
2000 5,629
2001 5,770 141
2002 6,198 429
2003 6,760 562
2004 7,355 595
2005 7,905 551
2006 8,451 546
2007 8,951 499
2008 9,986 1,035
2009 11,876 1,890
2010 13,529 1,653
2011 14,764 1,235
2012 16,351 1,587

During Bush's first 3 years (2001-2003), he added $1.1 trillion to the debt. During Obama's first 3 years (2009-2011), he added $4.8 trillion to the debt.

During Bush's entire 8 years, he added about $4.4 trillion to the debt (less of an increase than Obama added in just 3 years). And Bush got dragged into a war on terror, forcing us to build a massive anti-terror infrastructure. And he saved the lives of 1.2 million Africans, which to me is worth just about any price.

Zimmy, once again, here is what you posted...

"..."Adding more debt: yeah 2% more than Bush 2 at this point."

Zimmy, please do one of 2 things...

(1) show me how Obama increased the debt by 2% more than Bush

or

(2) admit you made it up.

Good day. And checkmate.

Now wait? I ask you a direct question about one of your statements, you ignore it and write a diatribe that you want me to respond to?

When I ask you to clarify a mathematically false comment, it's a "diatribe"?

Zimmy, please tell me what question of yours I dodged. If I answer your question (and I will), is there any chance you'll answer mine? I've asked you, several times now, to support your statement, and you are also dodging.

I'm as flawed as anyone, but I am not in the habit of ignoring direct questions. Ask me a question, you'll get a direct answer. Please show me the same courtesy.

Spence, my statement, that Obama "wants to cut oil production", is not patently false, nor is it baseless. He has consistently hindered efforts to drill in the Gulf, and he won't make a decision on the Canadian pipeline until after the election (gee, I wonder why).

Oil production is less with Obama in the White House than it would be if a "drill baby drill" conservative was in the White House. Do you deny that? Really? If you deny that, then why do oil companies give so much $$ to Republicans?

I think I responded to your question. Maybe you have the integrity to respond to mine? How did Obama increase the debt by 2% more than Bush to this point?

We're all watching, and we're all waiting...

Really?

There is a difference between requiring more oversight, which is pretty apparant if corners are being cut that caused the DW Horizon accident, and constantly hindering efforts to drill.

Obama to expand drilling off Alaska, in Gulf - Yahoo! News

Obama Takes To Nevada And Colorado To Talk Energy, Expanding Drilling In The Gulf

Obama eyes more drilling in Gulf of Mexico - Business - CBC News

"Really?"

Yes, really.

RIROCKHOUND, forgive me, but I'm not going to say that Obama is oil-friendly, just because the Huffington Post says so. You cannot get more biased than the Huffington Post.

I could easily post stories from the Big Oil lobbyists talking about every drilling permit that Obama has denied, and how he has dragged his feet on the Canadian pipeline.

You need to consider both sides.

In any event, I never said Obama eliminated all production. I said he has prevented the oil companies from doing much of what they want to do, and that's true. If you want to learn if that's true, ask someone besides Ariana Huffington. If you're getting your news there, that explains quite a bit. Did you let your subscription to The Daily Worker expire?

Tragically, we cannot eliminate things like oil spills, no more than we can eliminate car accidents. Reasonable oversight is obviously necessary to prevent what is preventable. But with the pipeline, Obama has made it clear that no decision will be made until afetr November 2012. Why do YOU think he says that? Is it because the oversight takes precisely that long, or could the election have something to do with it.

I've heard many strange things on this forum. I never thought I'd hear the liberals deny that Obama is hindering oil production. If that's the case, liberals would have no valid concern for conservatives being in the pocket of big oil companies. would they? But I hear that all the time. Unlike you and Spence and Zimmy, I'm honest enough to admit that conservatives are going to produce more domestic oil than Obama would. I won't deny that reality just to make us seem different than what we are.

So, they had carte blanche under GWB? Are their numbers regarding the % percentage of denied permits under the different administation. Or are we both speaking anectodally here?

Should continue to have that status... ? If so, I would disagree completely with that mindset...

But you're not honest enough to admit that Obama is not nearly as anti-Oil as the right likes to portray him.

"So, they had carte blanche under GWB?"

Stop putting radical, crazy jibberish words in my mouth, OK? I never said Obama eliminated all production. Likewise, I never said that any conservative would let them do whatever they wanted.

And I see that you have obviously chosen to refuse to address the subject of the Canadian pipeline entirely.

What I'm saying is this...as a rule, republicans would allow for more domestic oil production than Obama would allow. I have never heard anyone deny that, anywhere, until now. If you are right (and you are not), why do oil companies give $$ to republicans. They must really be stupid I guess.

Next, you guys will tell me that Obama is a better friend to the unborn than Bush was.

What planet do you people live on, anyway?

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