Just curious, would any of you vote for Santorum

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Jesus God Almighty. I'm debating a guy who claims that Obama is a bigger friend to Big Oil than Bush. I have never, EVER, heard that one before.

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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?

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...

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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).
.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Really?"

Yes, really.
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..

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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...

"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?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

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.

[zimmy]

Jim in CT; forgive me, but I'm not going to say that Obama is oil-friendly, just because the Huffington Post says so.

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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?

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

He has cut oil production, in the sense that oil production is LESS than it would be if a republican was president.

Why think when you can just hit the

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

-spence