• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Is it REALLY G.W.'s fault????

OLD MULE

Member
I know I am going to get bashed by the cut and paste people who can dig thru hundreds of liberal web sites in order to find fault in what I am saying.
Just what have our liberal dummycrats done for us lately? OH wait they stopped filling the stratigic oil reserve-- 70,000 barrals per day that is earmarked for a national emergency.
Figuting we use 24 million barrels of oil per day that is a whopping .3 percent per day! Yes that is rignt .3% or in the neigborhoos of 1,350,000 gallons per day.
The fems have also managed to frive up worldwide food prices with the joke of the 21s't century known as ethanol.
Of course some of the corporate farms are getting rich with record profits so tell me please why arn't the dizzycrats pitting Cargil,ConAgra,ASM, and others on the carpet, instead of holding congersionaly hearings on baseball players? I mean, every gallon of ethonal is costing us about $1.12 per gallon in subsidies.
Good deal huh? And we use almost a gallon of petroleum to produce 1 gallon of ethonal.
Doesn't that give a warm feeling all over?
Why won't the dems let the oil companies drill off shore, or in the tiny corner of Anwar? Why can't we build more refineries?
Is anyone aware that we send 20000 barrals of crude oil to Canada every day/ Why? Because the refine it and sship it back to us as gasoline becasue we do not have the capicity.
Back in 2006 the democrats promised that if elected they would get the price of gas down,from the $2.33 pump price at that time. Look at the pump price today. What happened?

Before you jump on me being a big Bush fan be advised I didn't vote for him!
 

Cal

Well-known member
Yeah, they claim that drilling in ANWR won't make any significant difference...so they shut down the strategic oil reserve...makes sense. :roll:
 

nonothing

Well-known member
As with any country,the blame will and should always lie at the feet of it's leader....Just like any bussiness the final decision is or at least should be that of it's leader...You can blame many different people but the fact is he signed on to be the leader and if things fell short in his term then in the end,the leader is to blame....If you are happy how your leader has done then you should have no complaints about him or ANY other people or organizations,For your leader should of made sure that ALL was looked after .If it was not then he should step up and say "yes I dropped the ball on that issue"....If fault does not lie at the feet of the top dog then why even bother given one person so much control.....Who else is to blame but he who has the final word.....

If he does not have the final word,that just means he was to weak to control his own leadership and the voters thought he needed help...or worse a shorter leash..
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
nonothing said:
As with any country,the blame will and should always lie at the feet of it's leader....Just like any bussiness the final decision is or at least should be that of it's leader...You can blame many different people but the fact is he signed on to be the leader and if things fell short in his term then in the end,the leader is to blame....If you are happy how your leader has done then you should have no complaints about him or ANY other people or organizations,For your leader should of made sure that ALL was looked after .If it was not then he should step up and say "yes I dropped the ball on that issue"....If fault does not lie at the feet of the top dog then why even bother given one person so much control.....Who else is to blame but he who has the final word.....

If he does not have the final word,that just means he was to weak to control his own leadership and the voters thought he needed help...or worse a shorter leash..

Not sure maybe Canada is set up so one person controls things, would that be the queen over seas?

But in America we have a political process in place that keeps one man from having as much power as you have given him above, we learned our leason years ago when it was a King not queen to deal with.

Our Congress has way more power than the President, the President can't basically do squat if all the States Represenatives do not allow him to do so. All the President can do is suggest things to Congress, any law that is made is done so through Congress, at most the President goes on record of supporting it by signing or veto'ing it if he does not agree, but first Congress must give him something to sign or veto.

We have a checks and balance system here to keep one man from ruling, we been there done that and many Americans gave their lives so that would not happen again.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Very true A+ but you cannot expect the BUSH bashers to admit that it is not ALL his fault, no matter what side of the border they are on, especially the ones that do not fully understand our political process.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Diesel in Mexico is less than half of what it is across the border. Our off road diesel costs almost $1.50 a gallon more.

I did vote for dubya. I'd do it again if he were running.
 

fff

Well-known member
Cal said:
Yeah, they claim that drilling in ANWR won't make any significant difference...so they shut down the strategic oil reserve...makes sense. :roll:

George W. Bush and the Conservative Republican party had complete control of the government for years. They did not vote to drill in ANWR. They did not vote to drill off Florida. You can't hang this one on the Democrats. :D
 

Texan

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
Diesel in Mexico is less than half of what it is across the border. Our off road diesel costs almost $1.50 a gallon more.
And the liberals like to blame that on Bush. They don't like to talk about the fact that Texas refiners can sell diesel into Mexico cheaper than they can retool refineries to meet the low-sulfur standards required to sell it here. Thanks to the liberals and their environmental policies.
 

Mike

Well-known member
fff said:
Cal said:
Yeah, they claim that drilling in ANWR won't make any significant difference...so they shut down the strategic oil reserve...makes sense. :roll:

George W. Bush and the Conservative Republican party had complete control of the government for years. They did not vote to drill in ANWR. They did not vote to drill off Florida. You can't hang this one on the Democrats. :D


Frankie, where do you get your misguided info?

Senate loses bid to drill in ANWR.

Long, bitter battle
A decade ago a Republican-led Congress used a parliamentary maneuver to get an ANWR bill successfully past a filibuster, only to have it vetoed by President Clinton. This time President Bush has made ANWR drilling one of his top priorities and is eager to sign a bill.


Drilling opponents long have argued that ANWR’s oil should not be exploited because of the coastal plain’s fragile ecosystem and its wildlife. While the region looks bleak during its long winters and oil can be seen seeping from some of its rock formations, the coastal strip also is the calving ground for caribou and home to polar bears, musk oxen, and the annual influx of millions of migratory birds.

“There are literally hundreds of thousands of Americans following this issue,” William Meadows, president of the Wilderness Society, said Tuesday, adding that there has been “an outpouring of angst and concern” over Stevens’ attempt to link hurricane relief money, low-income energy assistance funds and money for the Iraq war to push the drilling measure through a reluctant Senate.

Drilling proponents say modern techniques can extract the oil without damaging the environment.

Bill passes House
The House passed the $454 billion defense spending bill earlier this week, 308-106, with scores of lawmakers who previously opposed refuge drilling voting for the legislation.

The bill includes $29 billion for Katrina hurricane relief, $2 billion in emergency funding for low-income families pay high heating bills this winter as well as money for troops in Iraq. Stevens’ provision would funnel 80 percent of the proceeds from Arctic refuge oil lease sales to hurricane relief and 5 percent for the energy assistance program.

The legislation anticipates about $5 billion in federal revenue bonus bids from oil leases, the first of which must be issued within 22 months and the second package in 2010. Half of the lease proceeds and future royalties from oil production would go to Alaska.

Alaska relies heavily on proceeds from oil production, a revenue stream that has been in steady decline as the vast Prudhoe Bay oil fields to the west of ANWR become less productive.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
_____________________________________________________

Thursday, March 17, 2005

Senate OKs oil drilling in Alaska's ANWR
Democrats vow that the fight is not over for wilderness area
By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON -- With a hard-fought Senate vote yesterday clearing the way, supporters of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge said survey teams could arrive on the harsh landscape within a year and leases for tapping its significant deposits of oil and natural gas could be sold as soon as 2007.

And according to Interior Secretary Gale Norton, if all goes according to plan, oil and natural gas could be flowing from ANWR in seven to 10 years.

Those predictions, which once seemed unthinkable, emerged as far more likely in the wake of a 51-49 Senate vote to allow drilling for oil and natural gas in a protected part of the Alaskan wilderness. The vote was a major victory for President Bush and his supporters in business and elsewhere who had long advocated drilling in ANWR as a way to ease the nation's dependence on foreign supplies.

The breakthrough came after two days of heavy lobbying on both sides of an emotional issue that has dominated environmental politics for nearly a decade. Until yesterday, opponents had always been able to stop legislation to open ANWR, an ecologically rich and largely untouched area of northern Alaska that defenders said is far too valuable to threaten with development.



"This action is a crucial step in President Bush's plan for reducing America's dependence on foreign sources of energy through conservation, development of renewable energy sources and increased domestic production of traditional energy," Norton said after the vote.

Opponents, however, vowed not to give up, even though they conceded yesterday's vote was a major setback. They sharply criticized Republicans for attaching the ANWR provision to a resolution setting budget priorities.

"The fight over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is far from over," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who led the opposition. "We almost stopped this budget trickery on the floor today. ... I'll be prepared to use every tool at my disposal to stop drilling in the Arctic. We need a serious national strategy to move us toward energy independence."

Among other ideas, opponents said they would challenge the ANWR provision on parliamentary grounds. The challenge will argue that the ANWR provision is out of order on a budget bill because it deals with policy rather than money. Republicans counter that the provision is safe because it calls for the government to raise $2.7 billion by selling leases and through royalties from ANWR during the next five years.

The House has not included a similar provision in its budget, so the issue is still subject to negotiations later this year. But a House aide said that the chamber is inclined to agree to the Senate wording when the House and Senate bills are merged into one. The House has repeatedly passed measures by lopsided margins over the years to allow drilling in ANWR only to see the legislation stalled in the Senate.

Another possible hurdle is the fact that final passage of the budget bill containing the ANWR provision is not assured. Congress has been unable to pass the budget bill in two of the past three years, and this year there are major fights looming on Medicaid spending, tax cuts and other politically divisive questions.

"The (Republican-led) Senate just decided to make its job on the budget a whole lot harder," said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, an environmental group opposed to drilling.
 

Mike

Well-known member
George W. Bush and the Conservative Republican party had complete control of the government for years. They did not vote to drill in ANWR.

Blatant lies. :roll: Both parties have had 3 shots at dominance since Bush was first elected. Even then you have to get through cloture and filibustering.
 

fff

Well-known member
Mike said:
George W. Bush and the Conservative Republican party had complete control of the government for years. They did not vote to drill in ANWR.

Blatant lies. :roll: Both parties have had 3 shots at dominance since Bush was first elected. Even then you have to get through cloture and filibustering.

No, it's not a lie. Florida Governor Jeb Bush (a Republican and brother of the president of the United States) could have pushed for drilling off the Florida coast. He didn't. That's why there aren't drilling rigs there now.

As for cloture, your link above says the Senate passed a bill (51-49) to drill in ANWR! Of course, the Republicans (Conservatives) tied it to relief for Katrina victims and helping low income people pay for their heating bulls (not exactly normal conservative concerns), but apparently Republicans got it passed both in the House and Senate. Why isn't it law? Republicans owned Congress and the White House. Yet they didn't open up ANWR, nor offshore.

Oops. Looks like Jeb Bush flip flopped after he was re-elected and did push for drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. But most FL Republican Senators and Congressmen crossed party lines to vote against it.

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2005/10/gov-jeb-flip-flops-on-offshore.asp
 

Mike

Well-known member
As for cloture, your link above says the Senate passed a bill (51-49) to drill in ANWR! Of course, the Republicans (Conservatives) tied it to relief for Katrina victims and helping low income people pay for their heating bulls (not exactly normal conservative concerns), but apparently Republicans got it passed both in the House and Senate

Was part of a Budget Bill. Income from renting oil reserves is considered in part of a budget, no? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Didn't pass the House.

You said the Republicans did not vote to drill in Anwr and I showed you where they did.

So........you are a typical lying Dem.. :roll: :roll:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Mike said:
Frankie, where do you get your misguided info?

I think she gets most of her political insight off of the Cartoon Network, because she sure can come up with some funny stuff! :shock:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
LOL LOL
I heard it was actually a site called formisguiededliberals.com. They have all the jokes of the day!!!
Or bashbush.com whos slogan is We make it up for you!

frankie has lost so much credibilty as of late it is rumored that the cab is going to denounce her. :roll: :roll:
 

fff

Well-known member
Mike said:
As for cloture, your link above says the Senate passed a bill (51-49) to drill in ANWR! Of course, the Republicans (Conservatives) tied it to relief for Katrina victims and helping low income people pay for their heating bulls (not exactly normal conservative concerns), but apparently Republicans got it passed both in the House and Senate

Was part of a Budget Bill. Income from renting oil reserves is considered in part of a budget, no? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Didn't pass the House.

You said the Republicans did not vote to drill in Anwr and I showed you where they did.

So........you are a typical lying Dem.. :roll: :roll:

If it didn't pass the House, Republicans didn't vote for it. You're a typical spin Republican. It was Republicans in the House who killed an ANWR drilling bill in 2005.

Both the U.S. House and Senate budget bills included a provision that would allow for oil drilling in a small fraction of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Senate passed its budget bill last week, but leaders in the House dropped the ANWR provision late November 9 after a small group of moderate Republicans threatened to withhold support for the budget if ANWR were included. Although the House repeatedly has voted to allow drilling in ANWR, since most Democrats were expected to vote against the budget, the moderate House members had exceptional leverage in this instance.

One of the moderates, Rep. Charlie Bass (R-NH), wrote a letter opposing ANWR drilling that was signed by at least 24 of his Republican colleagues and delivered to House Rules Committee Chairman David Drier early this week. Rep. Bass' objection to drilling is largely philosophical: "Including the drilling provision in the Deficit Reduction Act would undermine the protection of all public spaces by valuing the worth of the potential resources contained within these lands over their conservation value... Rather then reversing decades of protection for this publicly held land, focusing greater attention on renewable energy sources, alternate fuels, and more efficient systems and appliances would yield more net energy savings."1

The budget measure the GOP moderates held hostage is intended to reduce government spending by $53.9 billion over five years. According to Bloomberg News, "selling leases to oil companies to drill in the refuge would bring in about $2.5 billion."2

From a right wing site at that: http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR111005.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
None of you Bush BK's has yet to explain to me why your current Republican Champion McSame has voted against drilling in ANWR every time it has come up :???:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
None of you Bush BK's has yet to explain to me why your current Republican Champion McSame has voted against drilling in ANWR every time it has come up :???:

Because he is a Liberal and as most liberals he is wrong on this issue!

Things like this and his stand on Global warming amongst others are why I may just write in Jigs as President. Only problem I have is I know Jigs would not win, so I will vote for McCain since Obama is way to far left and would most likely run from the terrorist as Bill Clinton did.

I will vote for McCain for only one reason, that is because he will be the most likely one to continue to fight Terrorism! Obama is more likely to revert back to Islam than to kill them!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
aplusmnt said:
Obama is more likely to revert back to Islam than to kill them!



You are just eat up with ' stupid' today with that statement!!! :roll: :roll: :roll:


Look at the upside, he would not have to change his name like Lew Alcindor and Cassius Clay did :wink:
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Recently after the tragedy of Sept 11th.would most of you not agree that GW Bush had most of the countries support behind him.almost to the point of Carte Blanche on all decisions...Now how he went from such high supporting numbers to such dismal support numbers is a matter of opinion...but he was giving his oppertunity to lead the country...Why is it that So many here wont offer Obama that same power to act at his discretion in political affairs placed under his charge...All you people here who complain about bush bashing,seem to have no problems bashing Obama,the difference being that GW Bush earned his dissrespect of the people on his own..Obama has not even been given the oppertunity to lead and is already being bashed before he even starts.....As I said you can argue the reason why GW Bush fell from such High recorded support to a record low,but the fact is he did..is that bashing or just the truth of what his time in office reflects?
 
Top