2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[kurai]

Yes, redefining terms allows you to consider "scaling back" to mean something that it does not mean.

I fail to see how an examination of the real process of exploration as it actually happened embodies ignorance. Your claim about its expense and profitability only serves to undermine the point that a wider field for production would be an immediate solution. It was not a solution in the past - it already failed to provide energy independence.

There is no reason to insist on partisan scapegoating on this issue. The sitting president is always blamed, and yet the same problems keep arising. Consider that current American oil production is simply not conducted in the interests of domestic consumer price advantage. It is unreasonable to blame Obama for a corporate failure to expand coastal production during the decades before he came to office - the profitability of the status quo had been perfectly fine without such expansion, and thus they never did so when the option was available. This appears as a crisis in a periodic fashion, as production simply can't fall into place immediately, but the time to scapegoat is always at hand.

The fundamental problem is the focus of American energy policy. Energy independence means a surplus of available production, which is not going to be immediately profitable, and thus has never been undertaken in advance. The material opportunity was wide open, but intentionally avoided, and now consumers pay the price.

It's not a partisan issue, and not one specific to any particular moment in time.

[Roy Karrde]

Yes, redefining terms allows you to consider "scaling back" to mean something that it does not mean.

"to reduce or make a reduction in the level of activity, extent, numbers, etc."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scale+back

By not allowing exploration he is reducing the level of activity. By using the EPA to deny permits off of Alaska, he is reducing activity. By denying the exploration of public land he is reducing the number of sites available. As a result of the 2010 moratorium and uncertainty about future permitting, 11 drilling rigs representing 14 projects have left the Gulf of Mexico since April 2010. Should I continue? All of these provide a reduction of domestic oil production through his policies. If you do not see that as representing scaling back, then it seems as if your view on what scaling back means, needs to be redefined.

I fail to see how an examination of the real process of exploration as it actually happened embodies ignorance. Your claim about its expense and profitability only serves to undermine the point that a wider field for production would be an immediate solution. It was not a solution in the past - it already failed to provide energy independence.

You forget that there are already areas such as in Alaska's ANWR that we know contains oil that the Government forbids access to. The same goes with various "NO" zones off our coasts that have continued to be forbidden.

There is no reason to insist on partisan scapegoating on this issue. The sitting president is always blamed, and yet the same problems keep arising. Consider that current American oil production is simply not conducted in the interests of domestic consumer price advantage. It is unreasonable to blame Obama for a corporate failure to expand coastal production during the decades before he came to office - the profitability of the status quo had been perfectly fine without such expansion, and thus they never did so when the option was available. This appears as a crisis in a periodic fashion, as production simply can't fall into place immediately, but the time to scapegoat is always at hand.

I have said that it was a problem before, however Obama also came into office on the tail end of extremely high gas prices, that in and of itself should be the imputes to work on making sure that we do not reach that level again. Not only has he refused to do that, but he has made it harder for oil companies, and he has hired a energy secretary that is decidedly against oil and wants higher prices. You can call it partisan scapegoating but the fact is that 2008 should have been a wake up call to progress on both our own energy and North American energy, instead we have regressed.

It's not a partisan issue, and not one specific to any particular moment in time.

Yes actually it is, as not only Obama but the Democrats have held up energy exploration and the building of refineries for decades on end. Which has only driven us deeper into importing our oil.

http://rpc.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-7eec7d1fe167

If you wish to believe that Obama's policies have not hurt our progress to energy independents then feel free. However history nor facts are not on your side with this.





Edit: And Dark Sage, a interesting article on 15 questions the Mainstream Media would ask Obama if he were a Republican, care to elaborate?

1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been murdered with weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware of Fast and Furious and if so, shouldn’t you resign?

2) In 2010 you said Solyndra, a company that donated heavily to your political campaign, was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost over $500 million on loans that your administration knew might never be paid off when you made them. How do you respond to citizens who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration?

3) Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, unions gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost $14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special $45 billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?

4) Through dubious means you and your Democrat allies in Congress managed to force through an incredibly unpopular health care bill that helped lead to the worst election night for the Democrat Party in 50 years. Since the bill has passed, many of your claims about the bill have proven to be untrue. For example, we now know the bill won’t lower health care costs and despite your assurances to the contrary, big companies like McDonald’s say they may drop health care because of the health care reform. Congress has exempted themselves from the health care reform and instead has their own taxpayer-funded premium health care plan. Many large companies (that donate to Democrat political campaigns) have received special exemptions from the health care plan. Since the majority of the American people have rejected your health care reform and it doesn’t do what you said it would, shouldn’t you work with the Republicans to repeal it?

5) When you took office, the national average for one gallon of gas was $1.89 per gallon. Since then, you’ve demonized the oil industry, dramatically slowed offshore drilling, blocked ANWAR, and rejected the Keystone Pipeline. Now, gas is $3.54 per gallon and rising and is expected to reach $5 per gallon by May of this year. How much higher do you anticipate driving gas prices?

6) Occupy Wall Street has been protesting against Wall Street and the richest 1 percent in America. You are in the top 1 percent of income earners in America and you have collected more cash from Wall Street than any other President in history. So, aren’t you exactly the sort of politician that Occupy Wall Street wants to get rid of?

7) How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and why do you think that’s appropriate for an American President?

8) If they could, don’t you think the Nobel Committee would take back the Nobel Peace Prize that you were awarded after serving just one month in office?

9) You made bipartisanship one of the central themes of your campaign in 2008. Yet, you’ve worked to push bills through Congress with almost no Republican support, spent much less time negotiating with Congress than George Bush did, and you’ve said things like, “But, I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.” Why did you decide to break your campaign promise to pursue bipartisanship?

10) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time under your watch. What do you think you should have done differently to have prevented that historic failure?

11) You cut more than 500 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund your wildly unpopular health care reform bill. Given that Medicare is running in the red already, don’t you think it’s irresponsible to cut money out of one entitlement program, that millions of seniors depend on — to put it into a risky new entitlement program?

12) Back in July, you said, “Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years.” Since you plan to raise taxes if you’re elected and you’ve had kind words for a value added tax, shouldn’t every American expect a tax increase if you’re reelected?

13) Why should the American people reelect you when your 10 year budget saddles America with more debt than all previous Presidents combined?

14) Your stimulus bill cost more in real dollars than the moon landing and the interstate highway system combined. Many prominent economists have concluded the stimulus plan was a total failure. What do we have to show for all of that money spent?

15) Members of your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, we’ve had 35+ months of 8% and above unemployment. Doesn’t that mean we wasted a trillion dollars on nothing?

http://pointsandfigures.com/2012/02/...-a-republican/