There are all kinds of variations on possible situations, I just dont understand the insistance that It wont work. What do we have to lose?

Outside of potentially catastrophic environmental impacts?

OPEC raising prices would be very highly unlikely. We are their bread and butter and their best customers. Competition does not work that way in the marketplace, it drives costs down.

What grounds do you have to say that OPEC "raising prices" would be highly unlikely? Historically, they have not been adverse to doing just that when things were turning against them. The 1970s, of course, being the obvious example. One of triggers being the Yom Kippur War. I don't see how this could turn out to be any different, and it's not that hard to imagine at all.

OPEC, frustrated with growing US animosity, decides to decrease capacity (they just did it recently because the cost of oil was "too low", btw). The US administration, lead my Mr. McCain, issues a scathing press release denouncing OPEC. As a result, oil speculators believe that a new "oil war" has started and it drives the cost of a barrel of oil up.

How is that hard to believe? Is this another topic we should just agree to disagree? I'm not seeing how the above scenario is a stretch of the imagination at all. You are familiar with the way OPEC has responded to pressure in the past, aren't you? Not favorably!

When did Obama become a supporter of drilling? John McCain is also an "all of the abover". I think this issue is where the candidates stances are the most similar, if BO is now a drill supporter.

Note where he supports drilling. You haven't stipulated what McCain's plans are for alternatives. All you hear in the media are Repubs yelling "More American Oil!". So what are they?

Outside of potentially catastrophic environmental impacts?

What grounds do you have to say that OPEC "raising prices" would be highly unlikely? Historically, they have not been adverse to doing just that when things were turning against them. The 1970s, of course, being the obvious example. One of triggers being the Yom Kippur War. I don't see how this could turn out to be any different, and it's not that hard to imagine at all.

OPEC, frustrated with growing US animosity, decides to decrease capacity (they just did it recently because the cost of oil was "too low", btw). The US administration, lead my Mr. McCain, issues a scathing press release denouncing OPEC. As a result, oil speculators believe that a new "oil war" has started and it drives the cost of a barrel of oil up.

How is that hard to believe? Is this another topic we should just agree to disagree? I'm not seeing how the above scenario is a stretch of the imagination at all. You are familiar with the way OPEC has responded to pressure in the past, aren't you? Not favorably!

It is a possibility (for them to decrease production, after we drill). But, I just don't think they would shoot theirselves in the foot. If we develop our own methods of oil, their power of leverage will be diminished.

They are very vindictive (recent actions that you talked about display this), and IA I would not put it past them to hurt America, even if it meant hurting themselves at the same time.

Note where he supports drilling.

Are you talking about Obama? If so, where does he support drilling?

You haven't stipulated what McCain's plans are for alternatives. All you hear in the media are Repubs yelling "More American Oil!". So what are they?

I can post his energy plan from his website. I dont know them all off of the top of my head.

Investing In Clean, Alternative Sources Of Energy (johnmccain.com)

Are you talking about Obama? If so, where does he support drilling?

I posted this once already above:

Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.

An Obama administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.

As far as I understand, he was always supportive of some drilling, just not OTC/ANWR.

I posted this once already above:

As far as I understand, he was always supportive of some drilling, just not OTC/ANWR.

Hmm. I did not know that. Thanks. So he is the maverick against his party on this issue! I know Nancy is against it...although now she is considering it..

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/...re-credibility/

Clinton v. Palin: Who has more credibility?

AIG turns down private equity infusion, turns to Fed: reportupdated 8:18 p.m. CT, Sun., Sept. 14, 2008Font size: NEW YORK (Reuters) - American International Group Inc CEO Robert Willumstad turned down a private equity infusion and turned to the Federal Reserve for help, the Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the situation, reported Sunday.

Copyright 2008 Reuters. Click for restrictions.

Edited September 15, 200817 yr by Roman

The thing is, if the teachers are fine, what else can the government do? I guess that's what I'm getting at.

In any school where all the teachers are fine and the problem is the students and/or their parents then the government cannot do anything since it is a case of students not taking advantage of the resources that have been provided them. I don't think that's the case nationwide though.

Hmm. I did not know that. Thanks. So he is the maverick against his party on this issue! I know Nancy is against it...although now she is considering it..

Like every political party (including Republicans), not everyone will agree on every issue. Over time, some of them may change their stance on issues as well, much like the general population does. The idea that a political figure has to stake a claim on a particular issue forever does not jive with reality. For instance, when I was younger I would have considered myself a Republican. Again, through the years as I have become more in touch with the issues and the different party's platform, I am now a proud Democrat. And probably always will be.

I don't understand how someone could vote for Republicans based primarily on fiscal issues. Social issues are IMO just as important - if not more important - than fiscal ones. I know not everyone will agree with this statement, but it's the way I feel and how I choose whom will get my vote.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/...re-credibility/

Clinton v. Palin: Who has more credibility?

This is why the media makes me shake my head. I don't even see this as a real question. Clinton may not be my cup of tea but she's been around long enough for me to know what she's serving up. I don't see the point in having a segment on CNN to point this out but I guess this intended for people who actually think they're even close to the same thing.

BTW, the media is now trying to give Lindsay Lohan credibility on socio-political issues. First they reported how she wanted people to give Palin a chance and now she's blasting Palin for homophobia. I guess she one ups Paris Hilton with that.

Like every political party (including Republicans), not everyone will agree on every issue. Over time, some of them may change their stance on issues as well, much like the general population does. The idea that a political figure has to stake a claim on a particular issue forever does not jive with reality. For instance, when I was younger I would have considered myself a Republican. Again, through the years as I have become more in touch with the issues and the different party's platform, I am now a proud Democrat. And probably always will be.

I don't understand how someone could vote for Republicans based primarily on fiscal issues. Social issues are IMO just as important - if not more important - than fiscal ones. I know not everyone will agree with this statement, but it's the way I feel and how I choose whom will get my vote.

My cousin just tried to make me feel bad for not being affiliated with a party but she was barking up the wrong tree. I told her that right now the Democrats encompass the party of the people platform I like but I am too conservative to be one. The thing I like about the Democrats is that everyone is welcome and it is reflected. The Republicans still resemble an exclusive country club.

This is why the media makes me shake my head. I don't even see this as a real question. Clinton may not be my cup of tea but she's been around long enough for me to know what she's serving up. I don't see the point in having a segment on CNN to point this out but I guess this intended for people who actually think they're even close to the same thing.

BTW, the media is now trying to give Lindsay Lohan credibility on socio-political issues. First they reported how she wanted people to give Palin a chance and now she's blasting Palin for homophobia. I guess she one ups Paris Hilton with that.

I saw that crap. Why MSNBC even played that [!@#$%^&*] is beyond me.

Then they sit back and blame the campaigns for the negative tone, and the fact that no issues are discussed.

I don't understand how someone could vote for Republicans based primarily on fiscal issues. Social issues are IMO just as important - if not more important - than fiscal ones. I know not everyone will agree with this statement, but it's the way I feel and how I choose whom will get my vote.

IA. I think social issues are important as well. I dont feel that any political party should have influence over my personal life. That's another reason that I lean to the right. Until recently (George W Bush) Republicans have touted their stance for less government. Reagan was a good example of this stance. McCain is calling for similar protocol. That is one of the main reasons he appeals so strongly to me.

In modern history Democrats have answered our country's problems with more intrusive government. FDR was a good example of that. He got us out of the great depression with several social programs that are still in effect today.

The Democrats have increased the size of the government and that has only allowed for Republicans to push their social agenda when in power.

At heart, I am truly a Libertarian. Their stance is very limited government involvement for any issue. They would prefer to let the free market take care of fiscal issues. And they feel people have the freedom to do whatever they want socially. An example of this is their stance on illegal drugs. They would like to legalize all drugs.

They are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. The main disagreement I have with the Libertarian party is their stance on foreign affairs. They would prefer America to be more isolationist. I side with Republicans on military strength.

Unfortunately there is no perfect party for me. But in the sense of voting with a party that actually has a chance of gaining power, I lean strongly towards Republicans.

Edited September 15, 200817 yr by Casey008

Okay this is absolutely......:

Carly Fiorina Criticizes Tina Fey As "Disrespectful...Sexist"

by Jason Linkins

McCain spokeswoman Carly Fiorina has weighed in on the major issue of today, namely, 30 Rock creator Tina Fey's portrayal of vice presidential contender Sarah Palin from this weekend's Saturday Night Live. Fiorina, astonishingly, termed it "disrespectful." Because that's what SNL does - paint flattering pictures of political figures. You'd think she'd be immune to such concerns, or at least not humorless about it -- after all, the very candidate she supports went on SNL last season and wittily lampooned his own age. But in Fiorina's opinion, Fey was "sexist" and failed to delve into Palin's substance.

Speaking of Palin's substance, today on the stump she loudly declared that she'd end the practice of Wall Street rewarding incompetent CEOs with "golden parachutes." Palin made no note of Fiorina's own $21 million-dollar ripcord, because I guess that would be too substantive.

MITCHELL: You are the first person from the McCain campaign I can ask, what did you think of Tina Fey as Sarah Palin?

FIORINA: Well, I think that she looked a bit like her. I think that, of course, the portrait was very dismissive of the substance of Sarah Palin, and so in that sense, they were defining Hillary Clinton as very substantive, and Sarah Palin as totally superficial. I think that continues the line of argument that is disrespectful in the extreme, and yes, I would say, sexist in the sense that just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean that she lacks substance. She has a lot of substance.

Okay this is absolutely......:

Carly Fiorina Criticizes Tina Fey As "Disrespectful...Sexist"

by Jason Linkins

Has she ever watched SNL before Saturday night?!

Edited September 15, 200817 yr by Roman