Offshore Drilling Ban to be Lifted by Bush

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

...lovely otter staining Exxon Valdez-style oil spills...

The Exxon-Valdez accident had nothing to do with offshore drilling - it had to do with transportation of oil from a land-based oil source. while many steps have been taken to ensure that an accident of this magnitude does not happen again, this kind of incident could just as easily happened with oil coming from the Middle East.

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

I'm more concerned about the environmental factors then the aesthetics.

If they can do this without harming the environment then I'm really not opposed to it.

While there are no guarantees, significant strides have been made to ensure captivity of potential spills.

Originally Posted by Tref

Thank God it is almost over ... both Bush and the Conservative movement are in the death throes, but these final months are key.

Originally Posted by Tref

Its not even Autumn, yet, Scaeagles, and across the country Conservatives are dropping like dead leaves off a tree, even in old Republican strongholds. People are tired of being lied to, they're angry and disgusted by what they see and it is beautiful thing.

Not too many years ago, the exact same things were being said about the Democratic Party.

I truly believe that what the American Public is sick of the current two-party system and would like to see all of the old stalwarts (from BOTH parties) go away. Unfortunately, what most people are afraid of is change. Not the empty promise sound bite of change from Obama's current campaign, but a complete overall of our current political environment.

Originally Posted by Tref

Off shore drilling will benefit no one but the Oilmen -- <snip>. Off shore drilling will not lower the cost of gas and if it does it will be by pennies, but the cost of construction, the cost to the environment and the cost to our future can not be so easily measured.

Who would you rather have making the profits: the "rich oilmen" or the Saudi's? I agree that domestic oil drilling (be it onshore or off), will probably not lower prices. It just brings it to the point of being profitable for the domestic oil companies to extract the oil and sell.

And I have no problem with the money being kept domestically (rather than paying OPEC). That means AMERICAN JOBS - people who work on the oil derricks, the people who work in the offices of the oil companies, etc. If you look at the old oil towns in Texas, Oklahoma, etc. you will see depressed regions that despearately need an influx of jobs. It is NOT just a couple of rich white guys that are benefitting - it is our nation's economy.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

It is NOT just a couple of rich white guys that are benefitting - it is our nation's economy.

And people who have invested in those corporations. Corporate profits are tied to the financial well being of the investor, which usually includes Joe Sixpacks retirement fund.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

And people who have invested in those corporations. Corporate profits are tied to the financial well being of the investor, which usually includes Joe Sixpacks retirement fund.

Tell that to the good peons of Enron. (And all the others who have lost their retirement due to corporate greed, speculation and deregulation of the energy industry). Industries aren't regulated for nothing- there is always a very good reason, and it usually involves greed and lack of concern for anyone but the people who stand to benefit the most. Trickle down economics is not only a myth, it's a lie. It's a lie that is destroying our country.

Further- the oil mess has greatly impacted the dollar, so it's almost a case of 'chicken vs egg' here. I know the current state of affairs is most certainly not helping the dollar.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Not too many years ago, the exact same things were being said about the Democratic Party.

Originally Posted by Tref

How does the kool-aid taste, brother, sweet, or bitter?

Okay, I will accept that I made a claim without supporting evidence. However, this was something being itterated a couple of decades ago (I want to say either after the second Reagan election or after the Bush the first election) and I am having a hard time finding info on it.

However, the statement I made was simply just an issue of responding to the "Conservatives are falling" statements. The statements seemed to indicate you believed that the Republican Party was coming to an end. And this simply is not true (despite how much some people may want it).

But the bottom line is that I personally would like to see a major upheaval in this country with BOTH of the major parties falling by the wayside and a whole new crop of people coming in. BOTH parties are responsible for some major f-ups of this country.

And I am NOT a Bush supporter - far from it. While I don't believe he is the anti-Christ as some Conservatives would paint him, I believe he is sucking off the teet of the religious right too much as well as various blunders in the handlkng of many issues.

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Who would you rather have making the profits: the "rich oilmen" or the Saudi's? ...

And I have no problem with the money being kept domestically (rather than paying OPEC). That means AMERICAN JOBS ...

Originally Posted by Tref

How does the kool-aid taste, brother, sweet, or bitter?

I am not sure how to respond on these two points which you highlighted. Do you think that the Saudi's et. al. (yes - I erroneously singled out the Saudi's - sue me) are NOT getting rich off of oil? Do you believe that it is NOT just a few key individuals who are profiting off of their country's resources? Do you believe that only a few people in this country would benefit from oil being produced domestically?

Give me something concrete to respond to and I will be happy to do so. Until then, the Kool-Aid line is just empty rhetoric and lends me to believe that you really don't have a rational response.

[Tref]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

... Kool-Aid line is just empty rhetoric and lends me to believe that you really don't have a rational response.

Empty, perhaps, tasty, yes.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Tref

Empty, perhaps, tasty, yes.

Thank you for confirming that you do not have a rational argument.

[Tref]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Thank you for confirming that you do not have a rational argument.

You're welcome. Come again.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Tell that to the good peons of Enron. (And all the others who have lost their retirement due to corporate greed, speculation and deregulation of the energy industry).

Do you believe that Enron (and World-Com, etc.) are the exception or the rule? I believe they are they exception. No, it is not a perfect world. Yes, there are greedy people in it (and there always will be).

You cannot make rules which limit growth. Otherwise, this country will stagnate and die. Yes, someone will always find a loophole. When that happens, you deal with it.

Deregulation is not a blanket bad thing. Many instances have benefited you and I - the American People (splitting up Ma Bell for example).

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Do you believe that Enron (and World-Com, etc.) are the exception or the rule? I believe they are they exception. No, it is not a perfect world. Yes, there are greedy people in it (and there always will be).

You cannot make rules which limit growth. Otherwise, this country will stagnate and die. Yes, someone will always find a loophole. When that happens, you deal with it.

Deregulation is not a blanket bad thing. Many instances have benefited you and I - the American People (splitting up Ma Bell for example).

You obviously do not have Qwest as your answer to the MA Bell divestiture. I miss PNW Bell, as do most people around here.

Enron is the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps you can point out companies or examples that support your stance? I'll willingly change my tune if given some positive input. Oh, and the rules did not limit growth- they limited graft.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

You obviously do not have Qwest as your answer to the MA Bell divestiture. I miss PNW Bell, as do most people around here.

Let's see: we now have CHOICES in phone service. There is major competition amongst phone companies for your business. New products, services, and technologies, which we may or may not have seen without the breakup, have appeared (I believe mostly not, but we will never know).

Qwest and Worldcom were individual instances of this being less than a perfect world (something I have repeatedly acknowldged). But I believe that our economy is generally better off with de-regulation.

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Oh, and the rules did not limit growth- they limited graft.

Usually, the rules which keep monopolies in place and over-regulate industries limit competition which takes away the incentives for companies to innovate and grow. That is an econmics 101 lesson.

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Perhaps you can point out companies or examples that support your stance? I'll willingly change my tune if given some positive input.

It wouldn't be companies to point out, it would be industries. I believe that the phone company is a good example of that. No, it is not perfect, but I believe we are much better off overall with a deregulated phone system.

I am sorry I cannot expand on that, but I am running short of time.