August 19, 2008 9:42 AM
Poll: we don't like gas/oil companies but love your drilling
Nothing like high gas prices to soften opposition to that drilling rig in your back yard.
Coloradans say they have an unfavorable impression of oil and gas companies but they sure don't want them to stop drilling, reports Todd Hartman.
Those are the conflicting findings of a Rocky Mountain News/ CBS 4 News poll of 500 registered voters conducted Aug. 11-13, reflecting the two minds voters bring to the questions, pollsters said.On one hand, the 66 percent of Coloradans who have unfavorable impressions of oil and gas companies are angry about high gas prices and the record profits enjoyed by energy companies, said pollster Lori Weigel of Public Opinion Strategies, which conducted the poll.
On the other, 57 percent of respondents were concerned there will be too little oil and natural gas development in Colorado.
"People want lower gas prices," said pollster Craig Hughes, director of research of RBI Strategies and Research, who consulted on the survey. "They think the easiest way to do that is to increase drilling."
Weigel's firm generally polls for Republican candidates, while Hughes' generally works with Democratic candidates.
The survey comes at a time when energy companies have assumed a high profile in Colorado amid the state's natural gas boom, which has seen a tripling of state permits to drill for fossil fuels - to beyond 6,000 a year - since 2003.
The industry is also at the center of two major public policy debates in the state:
* The state agency charged with regulating oil and gas development is considering a major overhaul of environmental rules that govern how, when and where wells are drilled. Deliberations on the proposed rules begin today before the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
* And voters in November will consider a ballot initiative, supported by Gov. Bill Ritter, that would eliminate a property tax credit for the industry, generating some $300 million a year to be used for college scholarships, as well as wildlife, renewable energy and infrastructure projects.
August 19, 2008
9:58 AM
Shaggy writes:
Funny how to see all the Democrats flipping on drilling for Oil now that vast majority of voters want to start drilling.
Looks like our one term Governor has finally stuck his finger in the air...hehehe
August 19, 2008
10:23 AM
JMH writes:
Ya, everyone is for more drilling... until it is their own backyard.
Oh by the way shaggy... Read this slowly... "The survey comes at a time when energy companies have assumed a high profile in Colorado amid the state's natural gas boom, which has seen a tripling of state permits to drill for fossil fuels - to beyond 6,000 a year - since 2003."
A TRIPLING? That means 3 times as many shaggy... Sure looks like the Dem controlled state congress isn't exactly getting in the way of drilling. Looks like they have been on board for some time with expanding drilling, but we also need more alternative fuel sources (& cleaner) and at least the Dems realize that... The GOP just pimps for their BIG OIL MASTERS!
August 19, 2008
11:22 AM
am 760 writes:
JMH, I applaud your dedication in trying to educate a complete moron. I think JW said it best yesterday:
Same crap, another day.
I gave up trying to debate shag, who has the mentality of a 3rd grader, and the rest of the neo cons here. Let america go down in flames as long as repubs are in control, is that about right shag. Umemployment keeps rising, inflation keeps rising, housing is in the tank, no one has health care, but boy those repubs can sure wear a flap pin well, and hey thats all that matters to shag and his ilk.
August 19, 2008
11:35 AM
KW writes:
While Americans have a less than favorable impression of oil companies, "Americans rate the lack of congressional action as one of the most important reasons for today's high gas prices."
August 19, 2008
11:57 AM
Shaggy writes:
"I gave up trying to debate shag"--Hate radio boy
Thats because I bitch slap your Liberal ass all over the place.
Yes Bam Bam, Ritter, Udall and Salazar are getting in the way of producing our energy needs.
"but we also need more alternative fuel sources (& cleaner) and at least the Dems realize that... The GOP just pimps for their BIG OIL MASTERS!"
Can you name me just ONE GOP member that has said they do not want to search for alternative and cleaner fuel sources....Please back that up for me.
Or are you just lying again?
August 19, 2008
12:00 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
Funny how the Dem's botched Roan deal that cost us a half-billion dollars has sudeenly captured their undivided attention.
Anything--ANYTHING--would be far better than those phony 1,000 windmill jobs that Ritter just announced (great timing for anyone with egg all over his face) that we will never see.
August 19, 2008
12:05 PM
Anonymous writes:
Last I heard they can't even get the one windmill they set up for show during the DNC to even produce electricity. Not even enough to light a single light bulb.
August 19, 2008
12:07 PM
Bill writes:
Shaggy
I am a fruit farmer and will be voting for Obama
because he is better for my business
August 19, 2008
12:33 PM
SirRealist writes:
Bill, how?
Not saying he isn't or that the other guy would be better or worse. Just asking you to explain your rationale. Thank you.
By the way Sasquatch, do you have a link to a story on their not being able to bring the turbine online or anything? I didn't have any problems getting both of mine going, and they're providing up to 50% of my electricity needs on a good day. But I hadn't heard anything about the project you mentioned and would like to follow up. Thank you.
August 19, 2008
1:00 PM
Corn and soy Guy writes:
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=213&sid=1454544
McCAIN
_Opposed a $300 billion farm bill approved by Congress this year over President Bush's veto. Opposes subsidies to divert corn into ethanol production.
Would cap subsidies to farmers who have adjusted gross income of $250,000 or more, while providing small farmers with "a reasonable safety net
OBAMA
_Supports the farm bill, though he said he favored tighter payment limits and a ban on ownership of livestock by meatpackers.
_Calls for spending $150 billion over 10 years for alternative energy sources such as solar and wind as well as advanced biofuels.
_Backs a renewable fuels standard that encourages use of ethanol and other advanced biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol produced from switchgrass and wood chips. Wants a goal of producing 2 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2013
August 19, 2008
1:17 PM
Anonymous writes:
well, corn and soy guy, you're maybe not going to like this, but farm subsidies are stupid.... the only thing more stupid is putting corn into ethanol, an energy-negative venture as we spend more to make it than it saves ... there are better inputs ... and we won't even have to discuss what the price of corn has done in the world and the number of people suffering and starving because of that increase..... subsidies absolutely trash the free-market economy associated with food production and costs the taxpayers billions for the privilege of paying higher prices in the supermarket .... a loser practice all the way around .... don't get me wrong, I appreciate farmers and ranchers ... my grandfather did both in eastern Kansas, just like generations before him ... but paying farmers to NOT grow things, and controlling the markets via external forces isn't the best use of tax dollars, but I sure don't blame farmers for liking it..... and I don't know anyone right now that isn't pushing for alternative energies and renewable fuels, so I applaud both Obama and McCain for supporting them .... my concern is that the Congress seems to be acting just like no problem exists .. and if they don't act, nothing will be done ... people need to be contacting their representatives and demanding action
August 19, 2008
2:30 PM
am 760 writes:
shag, how long did it take for you to create the warped little universe you live in. Dude your pathetic. your why so many people over the world hate Americans: your brash, stupid, stubborn, misinformed and arrogant. What is there not to hate about people like you who give the rest of us americans a bad name.
Now go on and call me a fem dem or libtard and get your little hehehe from it that you so desperately need on a daily basis. What a moron you are.
The only reason mcsame is close in this state is because a bunch of other morons like yourself from wyoming and texas have moved here. Please move back to your little neo con state and take the rest of your uneducated redneck electorate with you.
August 19, 2008
2:31 PM
John writes:
For anyone who agrees with drilling in Colorado you're an idiot. Say goodbye to ski tourism, say goodbye to the rockies being beautiful, and say goodbye to the progress of alternative energy. This is a republican speaking. On the ethanol, it makes me angry that most democrats promoting its production don't realize how it drives up food cost. Scratch ethanol as a solution you morons. In any case, Obama has my vote if he's willing to spend 150 billion on alternative energy. This should be the US's first priority other than solving our trillion dollar deficit and our blooding sucking iraqi government allies.
August 19, 2008
2:39 PM
jay writes:
wow...so many myths and misinterpretations.
let's go over it again.
even bush's own folks agree that it may be up to 25 years before we see any impact on prices if we drill tomorrow.
there is already 68 million of acres of land approved for drilling (including off shore) which have been proven to have enough resources to increase our domestic oil production by a full 50% and natural gas by 75%
in addition, demand does not account for the price increases we've seen over the last eight years...thus demand will not solve the problem...unless of course you can make the case that demand has risen 300% over the last 8 years....
http://zfacts.com/p/35.html
we can take immediate steps to increase domestic oil production and put the supply demand experiment to the test using land already earmarked for it.
considering those facts, the myths about the "democratic oil blockage" are ignorant. period. let me repeat that. those kind of talking points illustrate one thing and one thing only...that the user is ridiculously uneducated on the subject.
now...if you want to address political obstructionism in regards to this issue, find out which politicians are against leveraging our SOR's in order to influence global production...as has been successfully done in the past.
find out which republican president established the moratorium on lease sales in the ocs.
find out which industry lackeys still don't support increased oversight of the oil and speculation markets.
find out which politicians are against incentivizing oil companies through the retention of portions of their corporate welfare benefits to drill on the millions of profitable acres they've already stockpiled.
find out which politicians continue to support those republican policies of the last 8 years that have further destabilized the middle east and devalued the dollar.
i'd wager a guess that with that knowledge and logic under your belts, you might have the ability to stop yourselves from spouting foolish talking points in support of idiotic policy.
but i've been wrong before.
August 19, 2008
3:09 PM
JMH writes:
OK shaggy, here you go...
You said "Can you name me just ONE GOP member that has said they do not want to search for alternative and cleaner fuel sources....Please back that up for me.
Or are you just lying again?"
OK... One GOP member is John McCain! John McCain has voted against a ton of alternative fuel mandates... Here you go...
[HR 6, Vote 139, Passed 70-26: R 38-14, D 32-12, I 0-0, 6/15/05; HR 6, Vote 138, 6/15/05, Passed 69-28: R 39-14, D 30-14, I 0-0; S 150, Vote 73, 4/29/04, Failed 40-59: R 2-49, D 37-10, I 1-0; S 150, Vote 74, 4/29/04, Failed 55-43: R 39-12, D 16-30, I 0-1; S 14, Vote 207, 6/5/03, Failed 26-69: R 12-37, D 14-31, I 0-1; S 14, Vote 203, 6/3/03, Failed 35-60: R 19-31, D 16-28, I 0-1; S 14, Vote 204,6/3/03, Failed 34-62: R 21-30, D 13-31, I 0-1; S 517, Vote 88, 4/25/02, Passed 60-39: R 28-20, D 31-19, I 1-0, 4/25/2002; S 517, Vote 78, 4/23/02, Passed 69-30: R 31-17, D 37-13, I 1-0].
Juan McSame says he is for alternative fuel sources, but doesn't seem to vote this way. Can Republicans EVER tell the truth?
Shag, it's almost too easy...
August 19, 2008
3:24 PM
JMH writes:
...oh and by the way... drilling has TRIPLED under the Dems in this state - TRIPLED!!!
Now I know you dion't like things like facts and reality, but how the hell can you say "Yes Bam Bam, Ritter, Udall and Salazar are getting in the way of producing our energy needs." when drilling has TRIPLED?
Shoudl we all have our own drilling rig in our backyard? Maybe we should just cut off the top of the Rocky Mountains and get every drop out of those mountains... They are just an eyesore anyway...
Maybe you want our state to look like west Texas? I hear it is really beautiful this time of the year - fire shooting out of the flumes in the August night, the sun glistening off the pipelines, toothless women running around after their inbread childern (the scorched Earth really brings out the black of their eyes), the milky haze in the sky makes it seem like a fun night at a really fun night at Red Rocks with the String Cheese Incident in town, the sweet smell of burning oil & Earth permiating the summer air... ahhhhh...
August 19, 2008
3:26 PM
Shaggy writes:
Don't you know meth is bad for you Bam Bam.
McCain has NEVER SAID he thought alternative and cleaner fuels was not a good idea.
Come on man, your just posting..well I have no idea what you are posting..but it isn't substance.
Kinda like your plastic messiah. Lot of hot air but no substance.
Looks to me like you are posting initiatives with a bunch of Democratic ear marks if indeed McCain voted against them.
August 19, 2008
3:37 PM
Oil Man writes:
This makes no sense to me, 'that it may be up to 25 years before we see any impact '. Why? Are they going to wait 24 years after they hit oil to pull it up and refine it? Having worked in O&G for more than 15 years I can tell you this makes not a lick of sense. A well can be drilled in from one week to one month, in general. The casement and equipment can be installed in 3 days to a week. I've seen well activated withing 4 to 5 weeks after initial drilling, so I'm at a total loss to understand a 25 year claim.
August 19, 2008
3:41 PM
JMH writes:
"McCain has NEVER SAID he thought alternative and cleaner fuels was not a good idea." - shaggy
But he votes that way, and when it comes to lying GOP'ers, pay attantion to thier actions, not their words... I guess a sucker is born every minute. LOL
My God shaggy... Just ignore all the facts. I list a ton of alternative energy bills McCain votes against and all you have to say is "they musta had earmarks".
LOL... of course you have nothing to back this up. Your just making things up! Take that civics class shaggy - every spending bill has earmarks. Unfortanatly that is the way Washington works now.
What I really find funny is you trying to say the Republicans are now "fisically responsible" after we watched them run up the deficit to record heights! Man, reality must really suck for you huh?
Seems McCain never had a problem with earmarks when the Republicans were spending like drunken sailors, tho...
You a riot bro. Sometime I think you just have to be pulling our leg with the nonsense you spit out. You can't be for real.
August 19, 2008
3:54 PM
jay writes:
oil man, take it up with the EIA...they're the ones who have stated as such...among many others of course.
what do you think about drilling here, right now...on the land already approved for it?
shaggy....can you tell us what you like about mccain's energy plan?
August 19, 2008
5:21 PM
Oil Man writes:
Well, there's land where theres some oil, and land where there isn't enough to go after. Part of the issue is too many of the locations would require water injection to bring up and the EPA and local regs make it impossible to do it without it costing more than it's worth. The "drill here, drill now" method doesn't really hold water either because oil isn't 'everywhere'. You have to go where it is and you're going to drill where there's more of it than in other places. It's just financial sense.
August 19, 2008
5:34 PM
burn_it_all writes:
Drill Here Drill Now !
The oil and gas industries are providing a critical service to our country at a time of great need. More regulation will only hamper their heroic efforts to get these strategic resources extracted and help wean our country from foreign resources. To tie the hands of the industry is to enable the evil-doers.
Colorado and the Western states are the great arsenal of energy in our national struggle to defeat terrorism. As a great and proud Republican state I am confident that Colorado will meet the challenge to provide the nation with "Freedom Energy".
We must all do our part.
It is imperative that nothing be tolerated that will slow the supply of oil, gas, coal and uranium from the Western states. Our Great Nation's future depends upon this sacrifice.
August 19, 2008
5:41 PM
Shaggy writes:
"shaggy....can you tell us what you like about mccain's energy plan?"
Do you mean like drilling in areas that actually contain oil while we are searching for alternative clean energy so we can get off of foreign oil?
Yep I like this plan compared to Obamas plan of filling our tires and tuning our vehicles and putting a wind fall tax on oil companies which will be passed on to the consumers at the pump. btw, most vehicles do not require tuning since 1984. Somebody better tell that to the plastic messiah.
He stated this would be equivalent to all the oil we would get from off shore drilling. OMG lol lol the world is laughing at you Obama..hehehe
Another example how naive Obama is.
There are areas in the Gulf that would be online within a year or two...another inconvenient fact.
Any bets the ban will be lifted as soon as Pelosi and company finally get back to work while we are all left to suffer with high gas prices?
It was sure nice of Udall to conveniently miss the deciding vote.
Quit yer pouting there little slugger.
Just because you don't like hearing the truth doesn't turn facts into false hoods.
August 19, 2008
8:16 PM
jay writes:
oil man, no doubt...which is why the dems are all for drilling here, drilling now...on land that is already approved for it and has harvetable resources.
burningman...are you saying that increased oversight over the speculative oil markets is a bad idea?
"Do you mean like drilling in areas that actually contain oil while we are searching for alternative clean energy so we can get off of foreign oil?"
as we've established, both mccain and obama are for this...so we'll scratch this one off the list.
is that it or was there anything else about mccain's energy platform that you like?
August 19, 2008
8:18 PM
Soon to be energy independent writes:
Just cant wait to get an electric car for town driving. Just can't wait.
August 19, 2008
8:48 PM
history buff writes:
Manipulation. Ever heard of it? Ever read about it in the old history books? Do you think there are times when the market becomes subject to manipulative forces? Do you think during a time of war that oil could become subject to manipulative forces? Is it possible that speculating in oil during wartime causes false prices? Do you think it has ever been against USA law to speculate in a strategic resource during a time of war? Do you think this is a time of war? Do you think at all?
August 19, 2008
9:49 PM
Jesse Tomblin writes:
Drilling here is better than doing in places countries that then take U.S. propety for themselves and charge us more for the oil we helped them get. It seems strange to me that Democrats call theseleves the party of the working man but they do everything they can to cost the working man money.Pelosi and Reid went so far as to tell those Democrats who were losing because of their no drilling stand to say they are for it just to keep them in power.I find that to be not only insulting but the best reason to send them packing. They want to rule this counry by any means and LYING and DIHONESTY are the means they choose to use always. Throw them out and get HONEST people in office. Remember tihs is a government of the PEOPLE ,by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE not a government of liars and crooks like Pelosi and Reed and the bunch that follow them.
August 19, 2008
10:46 PM
KW writes:
JMH - Saying McCain is against a certain bill that may happen to include wording "alternative fuels" doesn't make him against all "alternative fuels" bills, anymore than the title of the bill makes it somehow a worthwhile with actual integrity.
Are you insinuating ALL bills out of congress are worthy of being passed simply because they have a pretty title?
Have you read entirely ANY of the bills you cite. Don't lie now, I'll be testing you in the morning if you do.
If the title of a bill is all that matters to you and your buds, then Coulter must be correct when she haunts Obama for his vote to allow alive partial birth abortions to be killed anyway in Illinois. She claims that makes him in favor of killing babies. Is that what we should think. I mean, the bill had a pretty title, didn't it???
/sarcasm
You, jay, am, etc... are complete loons. I read this garbage being posted from you daily and it scares the hell out of me that folks such as yourself have the right to vote. You're completely devoid of rational OR critical thinking skills and your posts here make this inequality between us extremely transparent.
Does Soros pay you all directly to sound this stupid, or are you on the indirect payment schedule like movealong.com or mediamatters?
August 20, 2008
8:58 AM
xjug1987 writes:
I don't have a bad opinion of Oil companies. They are companies that provide a product we need and in America you can do this and make a profit. Its called Captialism. Idiots like Barry or Hitlary want to tax them, well guess what morons (who have never run a business or done anything of substance) the consumer will pay that tax. The only reason the oil companies have a bad rap is the wacked out liberal do gooders and their irrational flower power mentality. Move to China or Russia if you want Communism. People like you,would be put in Jail the Shangri La places.
August 20, 2008
9:49 AM
JMH writes:
LOL... Sorry KW, but you are the ass here. YOur loyality to the party that has ruined the economy, military, our standing in the world and just about everythig else is disgusting.
As far as some of your questions:
"Are you insinuating ALL bills out of congress are worthy of being passed simply because they have a pretty title?"
This is just a riot, coming from one of the footsoldiers of the party who brought us such cute and dishonest titles like the "PATRIOT ACT" & the "CLEAN AIR ACT"... too funny. Is it manditory to be a hypocrite when you are a Republican?
"Have you read entirely ANY of the bills you cite. Don't lie now, I'll be testing you in the morning if you do."
No and neither do most of the politicains in Washington. But I did skim through a few and yes they do deal with alternative fuel mandates and such things as fuel effiecency, etc.
... and by the way, the fact that you actually posted that Ann Coultier makes sense to you just proves you are an idiot. Hysterical. You wingnuts are such sheep...
August 20, 2008
12:07 PM
KW writes:
JMH - My post was to YOU. It had nothing to do with any political "party."
I was referring directly to the crud you and many others post here. And your labeling of McCain as "anti alternative fuels" was a prime example that you totally and completely lack critical thinking skills.
You've never read the Bill nor inquired as to why McCain may have opposed it. You simply like to use someones voting record as a club to beat them with, and only when it fits your political ideology and agenda. When the shoes on the other foot (ie the Ann Coulter /SARCASM remark you apparently couldn't comprehend), you would then defend Obama's voting record to the grave. And even then you still will have never read the Bills you're defending Obama on.
PS - Your admission of not reading the Bill(s) in their entirety does give you some credibility. But until you learn that you MUST read the ENTIRE wording of a Bill to fully understand it's implications and/or (unintended) consequences, you'll never have a complete understanding of what it is your attacking OR defending. There's far more to a Bill than just the pretty (and oft misleading) title.
BTW - Why did you go off on that tangent attacking political parties rather than defending yourself and your own posts?
August 20, 2008
12:08 PM
KW writes:
JMH - My post was to YOU. It had nothing to do with any political "party."
I was referring directly to the crud you and many others post here. And your labeling of McCain as "anti alternative fuels" was a prime example that you totally and completely lack critical thinking skills.
You've never read the Bill nor inquired as to why McCain may have opposed it. You simply like to use someones voting record as a club to beat them with, and only when it fits your political ideology and agenda. When the shoes on the other foot (ie the Ann Coulter /SARCASM remark you apparently couldn't comprehend), you would then defend Obama's voting record to the grave. And even then you still will have never read the Bills you're defending Obama on.
PS - Your admission of not reading the Bill(s) in their entirety does give you some credibility. But until you learn that you MUST read the ENTIRE wording of a Bill to fully understand it's implications and/or (unintended) consequences, you'll never have a complete understanding of what it is your attacking OR defending. There's far more to a Bill than just the pretty (and oft misleading) title.
BTW - Why did you go off on that tangent attacking political parties rather than defending yourself and your own posts?
August 20, 2008
2:29 PM
jay writes:
i see kw is back to pouting after being cornered:
"You, jay, am, etc... are complete loons. I read this garbage being posted from you daily and it scares the hell out of me that folks such as yourself have the right to vote. You're completely devoid of rational OR critical thinking skills and your posts here make this inequality between us extremely transparent."
grow up man...either you can intellectually keep up or you can't.
August 20, 2008
2:43 PM
JW writes:
"Don't you know meth is bad for you Bam Bam.
McCain has NEVER SAID he thought alternative and cleaner fuels was not a good idea."
Idiot. Voting against all those bills is very much MORE than "saying", its called DOING. I dont give a crap if McSame "says" he wants alternatives all damn year if what he DOES is vote against them.
KW,
The problem with your argument is that you are insinuating that all the bills for alternative energy McSame voted against were bad bills, but you dont KNOW. You just ASSUME. And this time, its making an ass out of YOU alone.
Its possible they were bad bills. But you dont have clue 1 whether or not thats the case. Republican shill.
And hell, I could understand being a Republican shill, if it werent for the last 8 years. You gota be absolutely "Drooling, blank stare, candidate for forced sterilization" kind of stupid to shill for Republicans out of nothing but partisan idiocy after the last 8 years. Just really dumber than dirt, and a waste of space.
August 20, 2008
5:27 PM
Shaggy writes:
JW,
Voting against bills because they are loaded with earmarks when other wise one would vote for them is different than just voting against a clean bill?
August 20, 2008
7:44 PM
Just bored writes:
KW it is funny as all hell to see you demolish jay and JMH.
It seems as though they don't have a understanding of reality.
August 20, 2008
8:16 PM
Newbie writes:
Why can't I post here?
August 21, 2008
8:43 AM
KW writes:
Just Bored - It doesn't seem to matter how many times you slap them, they never seem to catch on.
Here's a good example from JW:
"The problem with your argument is that you are insinuating that all the bills for alternative energy McSame voted against were bad bills, but you dont KNOW. You just ASSUME. And this time, its making an ass out of YOU alone."
WRONG!
At no time in either of my posts did I "insinuate" that McCain was justified in his vote. My one and only point has always been this: JMH's use of McCain's vote in a smear attempt without ever reading the bill makes him an arrogant ass.
If JMH feels he can argue against whatever reasons why McCain felt the need to vote against that bill that would be one thing.
But to use a vote on a Bill as a club to beat someone with, when you have no clue about the full content of the Bill OR why McCain voted against it is absolutely idiotic. It demonstrates an individuals complete lack of skills in critical or analytical analysis.
He probably heard or read this claim (movealong.org, commondreams, crooksandliars, etc...) and merely parroted it here as jay, am760, benn, etc... usually do. I was simply, yet efficiently, throwing it squarely back in his face.
But nice try there. You gave good effort at trying to make this about me defending McCain when I was clearly wasn't.
Be careful from now on JW, your rebuttal came off almost as bad as jay's nonsensical response:
"i see kw is back to pouting after being cornered:
grow up man...either you can intellectually keep up or you can't." -jay
I think jay's post right there exposes himself as being the epitome of a vacuous simpleton. And JW, I wouldn't want to be standing to close to that edge if I were you.
BTW - Why do you, jay, JMH, etc... always have to change a persons words around in order to make your counterpoint? Can't you stay on topic?
August 21, 2008
11:21 AM
JMH writes:
"Just Bored - It doesn't seem to matter how many times you slap them, they never seem to catch on." - KW
I love how all you "failure monkeys" on this site just "claim" victory and say you "slapped" someone around, when you proved nothing. You used your assumptions to defend McSame's voting record. No facts. Just your assumptions
I personally think JW & jay both proved my point about you.
Tell me KW, in your infanite wisdom, which bills did you read and in your opinion, why did McCain vote against them? OBVIOUSLY NEITHER OF US CAN GET IN THE HEAD OF A POLITICIAN AND SAY FOR SURE WHY HE VOTED AGAINST SOMETHING. So enlighten me...
You state "But until you learn that you MUST read the ENTIRE wording of a Bill to fully understand it's implications and/or (unintended) consequences, you'll never have a complete understanding of what it is your attacking OR defending. There's far more to a Bill than just the pretty (and oft misleading) title."
If you think McCain or just about any other politcian is reading the bill in it's entirety, you must be completely naive. Which I believe you are anyway, since you fall for the NeoCon propaganda over and over... These politicians hardly ever read the whole bill, sure they have their staff read some of it, but usually it is their "donors" or party leaders who tell them how to vote. Both parties are guilty of this as well...
"you would then defend Obama's voting record to the grave. And even then you still will have never read the Bills you're defending Obama on."
Ummm no I talk about "always have to change a persons words around in order to make your counterpoint?"!!! I am very upset with Obama for caving on giving in on the telecommunications / easedropping bill and have said so before! also upest with how some Democrats vote (including Obama) on the subject of illegal immigration and have said so many times.
Oh, and by the way JW did the slapping with this point "The problem with your argument is that you are insinuating that all the bills for alternative energy McSame voted against were bad bills, but you dont KNOW. You just ASSUME. And this time, its making an ass out of YOU alone."
Damn! Pretty much pegged the entirety of your drivel... er post!
August 21, 2008
11:34 AM
Shaggy writes:
Bam Bam you better start carrying a bigger stick if you think you can slug it out with KW.
He owns your ass day after day.
btw,
The kiddy blogs are on a different site.
August 21, 2008
12:32 PM
JW writes:
KW,
Well argued, and fuck you for the rhetoric. Turnabout is fair play though, so :)
Problem with your point is this:
A consistent voting record against alternative energy is...a consistent voting record against alternative energy. You actually dont need to read ALL those bills. Why not? Because EVERY bill has something in it that one could object to. It is the way our government works, and why it works so well: COMPROMISE.
So, when you get some guy ALWAYS voting against something, the "Well there might be earmarks, or its a bad bill, you dont know" argument goes right out the window. Yes, Im sure McCain could point to something he didnt like in every one of those bills. But he could do the same with every bill he DID vote for as well (McCain Finegold comes to mind, and he wrote that one).
All that said, you were right. You didnt "insinuate" anything about McCain's reasons for voting against those bills, and the general premise of your argument was correct; need to read the bills in their entirety to understand them, and why one might vote against them, before you can say hes a bad guy.
But again, so you dont get confused, a consistent record of voting against bills with alternative energy is a consistent record of voting against alternative energy. If he had voted FOR it a few times...maybe. That would show he is willing to compromise. Since thats not the case, it just looks like he doesnt like funding alternative energy with government funds (consistent with his stated policy on that issue, BTW), and since every bill has some pork, or issue that he can say "I didnt agree with THIS part, so I voted AGAINST the whole bill!" it is a nice scapegoat.
Anyway, Im hoping now that you have apparently improved your critical thinking skills that bs partisan loyalty keeping you stupid will start to disappear as well. Looks like it might be, so congrats. Now, go pull the lever for a Republican...any Republican.