Humor
 

Michale puts foot in mouth once again with bad joke about Irene. Can't understand this girl, suppose to be smart, she's not a blonde.

Do not know which way I'm going to vote. May need help voting for a Republican or Democrat. :confused:

Is there anyone in either party that knows what :We The People," stands for?

It was an idiotic comment.

I'm not sure many would vote for her anyway. Perry is going to gain a lot of steam but he's going to really turn off moderate voters with the gun slinging.

About the only Republican who's closer to the middle is Huntsman, but he could use some fire in the belly...

Most likely it's going to be Mitt, which is going to make for a lot of conflicted people in the voting booth.

-spence

"I'm not sure many would vote for her anyway"

Agreed 100%. She'll fizzle at some point...I agree with her on most issues, and I'd vote for her if she won the primary, but man she says stupid things. No more than Biden does, but of course he gets a pass...

"Perry is going to gain a lot of steam but he's going to really turn off moderate voters with the gun slinging."

I think the bible-thumping will be more of a turnoff. Spence, this election will be about the economy. 40% of the jobs created in this country since 2008, have been created in Texas, which pulled that off despite not knowing what "taxes" are. That is a record you can run on. By every measurable statistic, the national economy is much worse than what Obama "inherited" (put that in quotes since he "inherited" the economy from a Democratic congress where the Pres, the VP, and the SecState, were all influential senators)

As a conservative, I like Perry a bit more than Romney. However, I think Romney is more electable in the general election.

"Most likely it's going to be Mitt, which is going to make for a lot of conflicted people in the voting booth. "

The moderate independents (whoever they are) will not be conflicted unless the economy improves significantly. True moderates were scared into voting for Obama when the stock market collapsed.

We are a center-right country...no poll has ever suggested anything else. The moderates gave radical liberalism a shot, and they do not like what they see, and sure as hell they don't like the results.

If the economy stays where it is (or gets worse, which I predict), than a Romney/Rubio ticket will rout Obama/Biden. Chances are, a Perry/Rubio ticket would likewise win. If the economy does what I'm afraid it's going to do, #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney could beat Obama. Boy, I'd pay to see THAT debate.

In the states that will decide this election (FL, NC, VA, PA, OH, MN, NV), Obama is bleeding independents to both Romney and Perry. On top of that, all the energy and enthusiasm will be with tea party conservatives. The black turnout and youth turnout will be nothing like 2008.

Obama may have to dump Biden, who literally adds nothing to the ticket.

Yes. Marco Rubio, the Republican US Senator from Florida, knows that. He will be the VP pick in 2012, and he gets that elected officials serve the will of the public.

I suspect Rubio will be in the executive branch from 2013 until 2029. He's an impressive kid.

If the GOP tries to run against Obama as a "radical liberal" they're going to lose no matter who they put up.

-spence

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;883887
I think the bible-thumping will be more of a turnoff. Spence, this election will be about the economy. 40% of the jobs created in this country since 2008, have been created in Texas, which pulled that off despite not knowing what "taxes" are. [/QUOTE]

And how many are a direct result of oil production, transport or refinement of gulf oil.

Location, Location, Location......

Spence, Obama is a far-left liberal. During his time in the Senate, he had the most liberal voting record (if you put any validity to how they measure that). He may not call himself a far-left liberal, but it's his actions, not his words, that define what he is.

He's an empty suit who has had only one thing going for him his whole life...people got out of his way because he's black, and he's willing to play that card like a Stradavarius.

If that's what it is (and I cannot refute it), maybe we should consider tapping into other oil deposits?

Anyway, I don't know if that's what it is. Do you?

Texas' location also has poses some monstrous challenges...you se, Texas shares an enormous border with a country called "Mexico", meaning that Texas has a huge number of penniless Mexican immigrants. Yet somehow, Texas is adding jobs, and it's a place where people in my state (CT) are fleeing to.

Only a liberal would dismiss Texas' success as being based on oil, and then refuse to expand on that success elsewhere.

Where should we expand this too? Show me CT's rich oil reserves or ideal locations for a refinery?

why do yo assume this liberal is anti-drilling. I'm not pro-anwar, but not anti, especially not offshore.

we absolutely need to transition from fossil fuels, but that won't happen overnight.

"Where should we expand this too? Show me CT's rich oil reserves or ideal locations for a refinery? "

You really don't know? Oil companies are DYING to exploit the deposits in Alaska (both in ANWAR and in Prudhoe Bay), the Gulf Of Mexico, and in the Dakotas. It might not help CT, because liberal economic policies have doomed this state. But if we can replicate Texas' success in a half-dozen other places (and as an added bonus, reduce our dependency on middle eastern oil), why on Earth wouldn't we want to do that?

"why do yo assume this liberal is anti-drilling"

Because most liberals are adamantly opposed to drilling.

"we absolutely need to transition from fossil fuels, but that won't happen overnight"

Agreed. In the meantime, countries that produce oil will get filthy rich. We can get rich, or we can make other countries rich, some of which are not very nice places. I simply do not see any rational argument against exploiting our natural resources. It's like sitting on a winning lottery ticket.

Actually, in that scenario, the geology of CT doomed it as much as it's liberal policies :D

Yeah, but what about the moose?
I'm all for conservation, but what is more important at this point,
being held over a barrel by foreign oil, or creating independence
and creating jobs by drilling, refining etc. ?

Remmeber, that deciding to tap into oil doesn't mean you lay waste to the environment. Unlike most I suspect, I've been north of the Arctic circle in Alaska, I've seen the pipeline, and I've seen massive herds of carbou right there, herds whose numbers are increasing.

Norway's entire economy is based on oil, and it's one of the most beautiful places you could imagine.

I'm all for conservation too, but not silliness to the point where it becomes economic suicide.

No, because even if we had oil, the irrational liberals (sorry for the redundancy there) would just let the oil sit there. In CT, liberals feel there is this infinite ATM machine out there called "business", which they can raid whenever they want, without consequences. It has worked out swell.

Is he pulling this off with the Obama ban on new oil patforms and the gulf oil spill backlash?? I would say he's doing a pretty fair job then.

How much free oil have we received from Kuwait for saving their
arses at the cost of our men and treasure?
How about Iraq sending us some free oill too?

It's a one way street, our billions of foreign aid, when did any country
send us aid in any form?

Summed up nicely.

IDK but the Lybia deal could be real sweet for Europe, Ya know..if NATO chosen people end up in power,

Yea, Norway is a great example :rolleyes:

Small population and a mostly socialist government that "takes" the oil oil revenues and invests them around the world. Because the government is basically running their drilling they don't have the energy industry clamoring for deregulation. The Gulf spill likely wouldn't have happened there because the government mandates safety equipment that US producers find hurts shareholder value.

Your declaration that liberals are anti-drilling is equally absurd. By your reasoning Obama is a radical liberal and yet when he became President he...MOVED TO INCREASE OFFSHORE DRILLING! :rotf2:

The objection to drilling ANWR isn't that it's going to kill caribu, it's that human activity has the potential to destroy one of the few perfectly balanced ecosystems left on this planet.

Can it be done? Perhaps if we act more like Norway...

The US doesn't have enough oil to just open up more drilling. Energy independence will only come with alternative technologies, more frugal consumers all back filled by the carbon fuels we do have in abundance like natural gas and coal which we know how to produce and use safely assuming proper regulations are in place.

-spence

Obama said he was going to open it up but instead shut it down, You have to look at what he does..not what comes out of his mouth.

The US has more enviromental restrictions and precautions then most of the country's that now drill on their own land. Are you saying that Norway is better at this then us??? I call BS.

"Your declaration that liberals are anti-drilling is equally absurd."

No, it's not. Liberals are the reason why we arent drilling in mor eplaces.

"By your reasoning Obama is a radical liberal"

Spence, that's not my reasoning, it's a rational conclusion based on the man's words and actions.

"Norway is a great example "

It's a spot-on example of my theory that you can exploit natural resources without destroying the landscape.

"when he became President he...MOVED TO INCREASE OFFSHORE DRILLING!"

He also shut it down after the spill, and has denied all kinds of requests for drilling. Spence, it's not the conservatives that are stoping companies from expanding drilling.

"The US doesn't have enough oil to just open up more drilling. "

You have absolutely no way of knowing that. The oil companies are dying to expand drilling at their own expense. That tells me that those guys think it will be worth their while, and I bet they know ALMOST as much as you about these things.

"The objection to drilling ANWR isn't that it's going to kill caribu"

That's one of the reasons that I keep hearing...

"Energy independence will only come with alternative technologies,"

I don't know how old you are. I'm 41, and I've heard that my whole life that we need to move away from oil. It will not happen this decade. In teh meantime, we can get rich, or watch others get rich.

It was shut down with a pretty decent reason. How many wells out there lack the relatively inexpensive blow out protector that could have significantly reduced the spill of last April? If the answer is we don't know, then yes, Norway and others may be doing this better than us.

I think you're confusing liberalism and conservation. There are plenty of conservatives who believe in conservation ironically enough. The forces pushing hardest to expand drilling are from industry. I believe most people regardless of party want a balance of both.

The debate is really about conservation vs exploitation.

Norway, you're shining star also shut down deep water drilling after the Gulf spill. Then both Norway and the US lifted the temporary bans after the issue had been studied.

There's a surplus of evidence supporting this position.

The oil companies want to exploit these fields because they represent some of the last "easy oil" to extract. The old wells are going dry and drilling is being moved further offshore or more costly extraction has to be used for oil sands etc...


You're probably not old enough to remember the OPEC crisis under Carter. I'm about your age and don't either. This event was a warning that Carter today is still mocked for trying to get Americans to listen to.

Two interesting stats I just googled up.

1) Domestic production back then was ~40-45% higher than it is today

2) Domestic consumption back then was ~15% lower than it is today

There's a reason you've been hearing this your entire life.

-spence