upnorthkyosa said:
Mrhnau - I'm not a "Bush hatin' fool" and I've spent a little time reading about this over the years. I will always be able to give you specific reasons why I don't like this or that policy.
Then my statement regarding your opinion being based on Bush was incorrect, and for that I do apologize.
This policy isn't going to do much but make some money for a small group of people and it will do "nothing' to cut our dependence of foriegn oil.
After Katrina, American's cut consumption by 2% and just watch how fast our prices have dropped. With that in mind, wouldn't a policy that advocates decreases in consumption make more sense? Wouldn't a policy like that do MUCH more to cut our dependence on foriegn oil? Wouldn't a policy like that ensure that just may have more oil on hand in the future when it becomes even more scarce?
The policy would help our supply of oil. otherwise whats the point? it would make money for people. of course it would. we live in a capitalistic society. it would also create jobs. making money in some form is not evil. for a corperation to consider drilling, they need to potential for making back the money they invest.
cutting consumption is a great way to cut dependancy. however, thats not the only thing that affects prices. commodity sentiment affects things alot. Hurricanes, natural disasters, refinement capacity, OPEC supply, political relations with supply countries and investor paranoia all play parts. We also have to consider world wide consumption with India and China ramping up oil consumption. Its not simply "lets cut oil consumption 10%". Regarding cutting demand, see post #9. Until we get good alternatives of practical ways of cutting consumption, we still need oil. I prefer domestic dependance whenever possible.
Why does the Bush administration and the Republican leaderhship favor solutions that won't acheive the best results?
What is best is what is being argued. The Bush administration is not simply sitting there thinking "how can we achieve the worst results". Its a battle of their experts vs someone elses experts. They believe they are correct. You have strong opinions, so do I. I think ANWR drilling would provide the best results for reasons I've stated, as long is caution is used for the environment. I thought the first paragraph of the latest dubljay was good regarding potential benefits.
As hotly contested as this issue has been and will probably remain, I am both amazed and unsurprised that it was buried in a larger bill and that the media hasn't brought it to the foreground.
It was not "buried", hence it being brought up now. It was attached to a budget bill so it could not be filibustered. We can argue the merit of that if you want, but it seems a bit backhanded. Then again, I don't like the democrats throwing the threat of a filibuster towards anything they don't like. I don't recall Republicans doing that during the Clinton years (at least not with as much press paid). Regardless of it being "buried", its already been shot down by the house as Arni pointed out. Sort of a moot point now. I hope it comes back up in future legislation.
Irrelevant to this specific topic. Debate the merit of the idea. Ad Hominem is illogical.
Not sure if you were referencing me since you double quoted, but if me, see post #9.
*sigh* Sometimes the shortsightedness of the government really irratates me.
Based on the first paragraph of your post, I'm a bit confused. I assume your view of short sightedness deals only with the potential environmental impact and not your paragraph regarding potential benefits?
