Obama Is Ruining America - Really? Tell Us Exactly HOW He Is Doing That

[Quantum Windbag]

This from the guy who holds it's constitutional for the government to impose his worldview on science, his religion really, in the public education system.

how is government "impos[ing] his worldview on science"?

i suspect your confusion is that you think your religion is science and science is somehow a religion.

yes... partisan idiocy.

perhaps if you opened other books as often as you do your bible?

I have heard many people argue that Bush imposed his world view on science when he banned the funding of stem cell research or ordered overseas doctors who receive federal funds not to offer abortions. I am pretty sure you joined the chorus in the latter case. Why is it suddenly impossible for something like that to happen with a (D) in the White House?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seriously You need links to see how Obama is ruining America???
Click on DRUDGE.com. You will find links to most major news sources...Click on any one of them. You will find a multitued of articles as to how & why Obama is ruining America. Are you new to reading the news or just haven't had a chance to catch up with what's happening in the world these days.

Do you own a home??

Yes.

Pretty excellent. It's worth about 8 times as much as it did when we bought it. Even so, how is that Obama's fault?
Well, no. I do have a job, I'm self employed. I make a decent amount of money. Also, how is this Obama's fault?
I don't drive. Also, how is this Obama's fault?
Yeah, that's not true.I do love how now that the President is a Democrat, Conservatives have become pacifists, but according to the War Powers Act, Obama had to send a letter to Congress, and now it's on Congress to vote on it. They haven't yet...You mean the one that has more border guards, and more arrests than it did when Bush was President? Yes, I do. I bet you don't, though. Not really, no. Pretty much the same prices I've been paying for the last decade.


I think his point was no one seems to be able to explain why all of these problems are Obama's fault.

RepubliCON$ = Radicalism.

Plain and simple.

I was actually making things simple for you. Want to learn something new each day start with Real Clear Politics. That should get your day started with something to think about. It's a grown up site!!!

And yet nothing to address any of the points raised in my post.

Sweet.

That's cause they got bupkiss!

lol

MarcATL = Idiot arrogant asshole. Plain and simple does not even cover that statement of fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

President Obama is in no way radical. None. Nothing he's done even compares to the Radical policy of invading a country you percieve as a threat. That's never been done by America before. And it was extremely radical. Add in all the other radical elements of the Bush administration, like torture (Which by the way is unconstitutional), warantless wiretaps (Again unconstitutional), set up "Free Speech Zones" (again unconstitutional), denied an American citizen Habeas ( again unconstitutional ), and foreign citizens were subject to rendition and hidden away in black sites. Thats the short list on Bush. Add in Rick Scott, Michelle Bachmann, Rand Paul, Rick Perry ( who talked about Secession), Paul Ryan, etc..and you have a real hotbed of radicalism.

Invading a country with the blessing of a majority of democrats who controlled the House? I get it...you're a peace lover...that's cool...war is ugly. But you can't strap the right with that responsiblity when so many democrats had the same perception. Torture? Shall I assume you mean waterboarding? There are so many types of torture. Can you say for certain that there has been NO torture during this administration or other administrations prior to Bush (including democrat presidents)? There are so many things that we don't know that happen on a daily basis. I'm not saying I approve of waterboarding. I'm simply suggesting that, once again, you can't just label the radicals on the right if you're not willing to acknowledge the radicals on the left who supported it. Wiretaps...this one is so borderline. Yeah, it did smack of right infringement. But it was hardly "warrantless". It was set up to detect communication between Al Queda members abroad and within our borders. It's concept had merit. Hardly radical. The FBI bugs phones and rooms everyday. Are they radical? No. And BTW, the program was ultimately ruled by the US Court of Appeals to be allowed to continue and was later dismissed by that same court based on a lack of standing by the plaintiff. IO think I have made my point...besides, I'm too tired to go into the rest of these things...but I will say this
though, you put quite a list of names together there at the end...
You should do a little research on Obama and his list of pals over the past. But you are going to have to be willing to accept what you find out. And you're going to have to dig a little. Well, not too deep really. You can look at his early appointed positions to find several. Kevin Jennings comes to mind. Of course, Ayers and Wright...but they are to expected to be brought up here. ACORN...radical to the nth degree, all of them.

As to Iraq..it seems that the intelligence that the President used to persuade Democratic votes in Congress was at best, dated. And, while I didn't sit in the room while he and his boys were constructing a case for invasion, I pretty much think he left alot of things out. Like the aluminium tubing he mentioned in his state of the union speech couldn't be used in the production of nuclear material. Or that the "yellowcake" story that was being floated about..was bogus. Or that Iraq..had No WMDs ( That one was a given, I don't know how anyone got suckered by that one. Several wars and withering sanctions left Iraq in no position to build anything)..and had no reponsibility for 9/11. Torture? Has that been used by previous administrations? Sure. And it was stopped. Personally I don't remember using waterboarding before in this country..but this country has previously categorized it as torture and arrested war criminals for using it. And there is nothing "borderline" about the wiretaps..they were scrapping email servers for textual strings that they thought would root out "terrorist activities" and mainly they were hitting journalists. This yielded so much information it was useless. So not only was it unconstitutional..it was a big waste of resources, time and money. As to Ayers, President Obama had a very casual association with the guy. And this was mainly in fund raising. It's doubtful he knew of Ayer's past and Ayer's was a repected, well liked and contributing member of his community. Turning him into a wild eyed domestic terrorist was and is misleading at best..and a lie at worst. And over and over..it's been shown that Wright's "firey" sermons were few and far between. And heck..you saying this veteran has no right to be angry at the abject racial discrimination that this country has subjected him to? ACORN? Really? What radical thing did they do that gets in your craw. Oh..they employed people no one else would employ and tried to get people shelter that no one else would shelter.

The oversight committees had access to the same data that the CIA used to reach the conclusions. the only one of them that even tried to argue that Bush lied actually apologized for saying that, yet some people cling to their delusions that he deliberately misinformed everyone.

Why is that?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Lately, I have heard a number of conservatives/Republicans grousing about the fact that, in their opinion, Obama is "sinking the country" or is "ruining America."

Is that what you think? If so, howz about coming on this thread and telling us SPECIFICALLY what you think he is doing to "sink the country." Frankly, I would like to know if there is anything to this claim, or if (as I strongly suspect), he just isn't falling in line with what the cons want to have happen.

Gentlemen (and ladies) - start your engines!

All the so called stimulous money that was spent to save jobs for starters. The only jobs it saved were state, local and federal jobs.
Then you have dumb programs like cash for clunkers which helped no one but the people who could already afford to buy new cars to begin with. Hardley uplifting to the poor or lower class
I wont get into tax policies as we will never see eye to eye on that anyhow.
His refusal to include republicans in forming policies because (we had an election and "I" won)
Letting congress run amuck unchecked without displaying any leadership on issues.
Not demanding congress pass a damn budget and vetoing spending bills untill they do so.
Trying to buy votes with bribes (ie healthcare)

Thank you. Now THIS is what I am looking for in this thread.

But folks did give you specifics, not just a few, but a lot, and I gave you the general theory behind Obama's approach to government, particularly, what I put in bold in the above, which is precisely what I described. We could go on forever with specific aspects of this policy, but the general approach is Keynesianism.

Here's another, a form of international Keynesianism that serves no discernable benefit for America whatsoever. In fact, it's the stuff of the American people paying TWICE for energy! LOL! Wait! That's not funny; it's crazy.

Obama has promised to "invest" in the development of oil production in Brazil, so we can buy our tax-funded investment from Brazil at the pump. In the meantime, he shuts down new offshore drilling in this country which would have otherwise provided the very same thing here without government spending, creating business opportunities and jobs here. THE SAME THING BENEFITING OUR ECONOMY DIRECTLY AND WITHOUT INCREASING THE NATIONAL DEBT. WHY WOULD ANY PRESIDENT DO THAT TO HIS OWN COUNTRY? IT’S SENSELESS. NUTS! And his administration's move against our own coal industry, the very best in the world? It is just this sort of pointless regulation and government spending that drives businesses and manufacturing jobs oversees.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

do you even know why our credit is being downgraded? Obama called for an up and down vote to raise the debt ceiling without any conditions attached to it. Republicans said no, they wanted huge spending cuts attached. so we now sit in limbo, and the financial markets dont like limbo. had the debt ceiling been raised, the full faith and credit of the government would still be intact. but now we sit a point without an ability to borrow to cover our obligations. im not talking about random reckless spending im talking about the social safety net programs that both dems and repubs support. medicare, medicaid, and social security. those along with defense and interest on the debt take up about 80% of the current budget. which is more than the federal revenues they take in.

if you truly want to cut spending you need to cut about 30% from all of these programs and you will be able to balance the budget. the problem is that it is political suicide to suggest cutting any of these programs. looks at Ryan's budget to change medicare, its being met with a huge backlash. the bipartisan debt commission couldnt even get enough of its members to agree on a plan to suggest to congress.

this is not a problem obama created, yet it is a problem he has to deal with.

im curious though, when bush and the repubs were in control of both congress (2000-2006) and the WH and the economy was in a huge boom, why were there no calls for fiscal conservancy and spending cuts to pay down the debt?

Deficit in 2006 was under $300B and falling.

Moody's already warned on a down grade because of Obama's annual unsustainable Trillion plus deficits. See how that works?

Reckless crack ho spending and having a POTUS who will **** senior secured creditors to pay off his UAW Vote Manufacturing base is what caused the downgrade.

the actual bush deficit did not include any of the wars, as they were passed under emergency spending bills. this also coming from the same party where Cheney said "deficits dont matter."

So what is driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits?
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008.
President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers.
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt)

yup all things Obama created.

Yup. And you don't care. Because everyone of these types of things are being done by Obama, albeit, on steriods. Silly, leftist. Thanks for making our point. *ZOOM* Right over lefty's head.

 

[George Costanza]

Here's another, a form of international Keynesianism that serves no discernable benefit for America whatsoever. In fact, it's the stuff of the American people paying TWICE for energy! LOL! Wait! That's not funny; it's crazy.

Obama has promised to "invest" in the development of oil production in Brazil, so we can buy our tax-funded investment from Brazil at the pump. In the meantime, he shuts down new offshore drilling in this country which would have otherwise provided the very same thing here without government spending, creating business opportunities and jobs here. THE SAME THING BENEFITING OUR ECONOMY DIRECTLY AND WITHOUT INCREASING THE NATIONAL DEBT. WHY WOULD ANY PRESIDENT DO THAT TO HIS OWN COUNTRY? IT’S SENSELESS. NUTS! And his administration's move against our own coal industry, the very best in the world? It is just this sort of pointless regulation and government spending that drives businesses and manufacturing jobs oversees.

This one sounds to me like the never ending conflict between production of natural resources and environmental issues. Last time I looked, offshore drilling has a pretty serious downside. I found a Web site that discusses both the pros and cons of offshore drilling. Here are the cons:

1. The oil found in offshore oil drilling barely reduces the United States' dependence on foreign oil imports. The US requires approximately 8 billion barrels of oil per year to meet its current needs; deep-water offshore drilling, in its conventional form, is expected to bring in only 18 billion barrels total.

2. Offshore oil drilling will not guarantee lower gas prices. Gas prices are affected by too many other variables to assume that changing one factor will significantly change the result.

3. Offshore drilling results in oil spills.

3a. Deep-water offshore drilling is associated with oil spills; both major and minor oil spills harm the surrounding environment greatly. Spills most often occur when oil is being transported to land via oil tanker, but damaged pipelines or the platform itself may also cause spills. Such spills are a massive drain on both resources and energy, as well as a real and pressing danger to the environment.

3b. Oil spills, despite improved technologies, are still common and predicted occurrences. At current extraction rates, it is predicted that in the Gulf of Mexico there will be one oil spill per year of no less than 1000 barrels over the next 40 years.

4. Offshore drilling is challenging to keep up, as it requires keeping manned facilities above water and disposing of oil rigs is costly. Challenges include the scale of construction required for functional facilities and the need for facilities located in the water where the oil would be extracted from sand, which would demand extra funds and efforts. Removing platforms and pipelines no longer in use is extremely costly.

5. Carbon emissions will increase. Expanded offshore drilling will not reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which contributes to warmer global temperatures.

Answers.com - What are the pros and cons of offshore drilling in the US

The way you present it, there appear to be nothing but benefits to our country from offshore oil drilling and, therefore, President Obama is an idiot not to be in favor of it. I suspect there are very valid reasons why he closed down new offshore oil drilling. Perhaps those listed above are some of them.

 

[txlonghorn]

Lately, I have heard a number of conservatives/Republicans grousing about the fact that, in their opinion, Obama is "sinking the country" or is "ruining America."

Is that what you think? If so, howz about coming on this thread and telling us SPECIFICALLY what you think he is doing to "sink the country." Frankly, I would like to know if there is anything to this claim, or if (as I strongly suspect), he just isn't falling in line with what the cons want to have happen.

Gentlemen (and ladies) - start your engines!

All the so called stimulous money that was spent to save jobs for starters. The only jobs it saved were state, local and federal jobs.
Then you have dumb programs like cash for clunkers which helped no one but the people who could already afford to buy new cars to begin with. Hardley uplifting to the poor or lower class
I wont get into tax policies as we will never see eye to eye on that anyhow.
His refusal to include republicans in forming policies because (we had an election and "I" won)
Letting congress run amuck unchecked without displaying any leadership on issues.
Not demanding congress pass a damn budget and vetoing spending bills untill they do so.
Trying to buy votes with bribes (ie healthcare)

Thank you. Now THIS is what I am looking for in this thread.

You apparently didn't read many of the posts that answered your idiotic question. Or perhaps you just didn't like what you saw and chose to ignore them. But I'm glad somebody finally got your attention. You should go back and read the others with an open mind.

 

[freedombecki]

Lately, I have heard a number of conservatives/Republicans grousing about the fact that, in their opinion, Obama is "sinking the country" or is "ruining America."

Is that what you think? If so, howz about coming on this thread and telling us SPECIFICALLY what you think he is doing to "sink the country." Frankly, I would like to know if there is anything to this claim, or if (as I strongly suspect), he just isn't falling in line with what the cons want to have happen.

Gentlemen (and ladies) - start your engines!

Hi, George. One thing about the founders of America, they often wrote concerns about whether posterity could keep our nation free.

I was horrified by the 2008 election's lawsuits claiming abuses by ACORN, and actual changes made to official counts after the senatorial election in Minnesota.

I was further horrified by Senator Obama's voting record in the Senate and the fact that he didn't show much initiative accomplishing improvements to the broad spectrum of America's voters.

I found zero comfort in a Democrat Lawyer's first questioning Obama's citizenship, then having all papers on the matter closed to anyone and everyone's perusal against the drumbeat of transparency claims by the same person who closed inquiries ordinary people wanted to know for sure, one way or the other.

Also, I did not appreciate the "you're a racist" taunt made repeatedly by Obama against his debate partners, which I felt was personally demeaning since the taunt was used too many times.

On his side, however, I am glad a black man got elected President, and I have been a lifelong proponent of racial equality.

I hope that in the future, election officials will persevere to do a better job than to do such incompetent work the outcome seems fraudulent when their faves don't get elected, so much scampering about and miraculous "finding" of votes that favors the election official's party takes the election away from the winner and is given to the loser.

Just sayin'.

 

[txlonghorn]

Here's another, a form of international Keynesianism that serves no discernable benefit for America whatsoever. In fact, it's the stuff of the American people paying TWICE for energy! LOL! Wait! That's not funny; it's crazy.

Obama has promised to "invest" in the development of oil production in Brazil, so we can buy our tax-funded investment from Brazil at the pump. In the meantime, he shuts down new offshore drilling in this country which would have otherwise provided the very same thing here without government spending, creating business opportunities and jobs here. THE SAME THING BENEFITING OUR ECONOMY DIRECTLY AND WITHOUT INCREASING THE NATIONAL DEBT. WHY WOULD ANY PRESIDENT DO THAT TO HIS OWN COUNTRY? IT’S SENSELESS. NUTS! And his administration's move against our own coal industry, the very best in the world? It is just this sort of pointless regulation and government spending that drives businesses and manufacturing jobs oversees.

This one sounds to me like the never ending conflict between production of natural resources and environmental issues. Last time I looked, offshore drilling has a pretty serious downside. I found a Web site that discusses both the pros and cons of offshore drilling. Here are the cons:

1. The oil found in offshore oil drilling barely reduces the United States' dependence on foreign oil imports. The US requires approximately 8 billion barrels of oil per year to meet its current needs; deep-water offshore drilling, in its conventional form, is expected to bring in only 18 billion barrels total.

2. Offshore oil drilling will not guarantee lower gas prices. Gas prices are affected by too many other variables to assume that changing one factor will significantly change the result.

3. Offshore drilling results in oil spills.

3a. Deep-water offshore drilling is associated with oil spills; both major and minor oil spills harm the surrounding environment greatly. Spills most often occur when oil is being transported to land via oil tanker, but damaged pipelines or the platform itself may also cause spills. Such spills are a massive drain on both resources and energy, as well as a real and pressing danger to the environment.

3b. Oil spills, despite improved technologies, are still common and predicted occurrences. At current extraction rates, it is predicted that in the Gulf of Mexico there will be one oil spill per year of no less than 1000 barrels over the next 40 years.

4. Offshore drilling is challenging to keep up, as it requires keeping manned facilities above water and disposing of oil rigs is costly. Challenges include the scale of construction required for functional facilities and the need for facilities located in the water where the oil would be extracted from sand, which would demand extra funds and efforts. Removing platforms and pipelines no longer in use is extremely costly.

5. Carbon emissions will increase. Expanded offshore drilling will not reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which contributes to warmer global temperatures.

Answers.com - What are the pros and cons of offshore drilling in the US

The way you present it, there appear to be nothing but benefits to our country from offshore oil drilling and, therefore, President Obama is an idiot not to be in favor of it. I suspect there are very valid reasons why he closed down new offshore oil drilling. Perhaps those listed above are some of them.

So let me get this straight...first you are going to quote an opinion from answers.com? And then, to add insult to that move, you're only going to list the cons?

We know you are against offshore drilling as you have just proven by only stating the negatives...which are mostly wrong.

First, let's look at the quantity issue. Exploration will uncover billions more than what has already been discovered. It's rediculous to claim that there is only a finite amount out there. That is a very uneducated statement by your source.

Then there are oil prices...they aren't garunteed to go down. Really? Supply and demand is the fundamental basis for why that statement is simply not true. Speculators, wolves that they are, use this formula first and foremost. How much do you think it costs to ship oil from overseas? Do you think that isn't figured into the cost per barrel? Even the slightest hint of trouble in the region of any of our suppliers sends the speculators into a frenzy. Let's face it...it's a commodity that fluctuates with it's availability...just like corn, wheat, sugar...you name it.

"Offshore drilling produces oil spills." Can you give me a list of major spills that were on the scale of the one we had in the Gulf? Do you recall how much doom and gloom was created over that spill and that it would be YEARS before the Gulf would be productive again...yet here we are, just a year later...no reports of ongoing clean up and fisheries returning to full operation daily. I was fishing the Gulf two weeks ago...it was great.

Can you argue that drilling will not be good for job creation? What is our biggest problem in America right now. NO JOBS. Drilling creates thousands of jobs. So if you are against job creation, then by all means, join your anti-drilling crowd.

And finally...the best saved for last...global warming. Ahhh...the old emissions argument. It never gets old does it? Whenever an issue comes up that some environmentalist group or even one individual doesn't like, they go to the emissions rant. And on that same day, they probably drove all over town in a gas burning car, truck or SUV. Maybe they even bought a ticket on a plane or a bus. They probably used multiple products that are oil based. If they want to decrease emissions to give merit to the emissions BS in order to support their global warming fear mongering, then they need to quit oil cold turkey.

DRILL DRILL DRILL...I hate these fuel prices. Watch them magically go down as we get closer to November 2012. Whether we are drilling or not.

 

[Woyzeck]

Lately, I have heard a number of conservatives/Republicans grousing about the fact that, in their opinion, Obama is "sinking the country" or is "ruining America."

Is that what you think? If so, howz about coming on this thread and telling us SPECIFICALLY what you think he is doing to "sink the country." Frankly, I would like to know if there is anything to this claim, or if (as I strongly suspect), he just isn't falling in line with what the cons want to have happen.

Gentlemen (and ladies) - start your engines!

He's a Democrat/'liberal' is the usual response of what these boil down to by the end.

 

[Douger]

The only thing ruining the nation formerly known as the United States of America are the assholes living and voting there.
OH NO. It aint the Meskinz and Muslims.
It's the murkins, controlled by TV and/or Geejiss.

 

[whitehall]

Lately, I have heard a number of conservatives/Republicans grousing about the fact that, in their opinion, Obama is "sinking the country" or is "ruining America."

Is that what you think? If so, howz about coming on this thread and telling us SPECIFICALLY what you think he is doing to "sink the country." Frankly, I would like to know if there is anything to this claim, or if (as I strongly suspect), he just isn't falling in line with what the cons want to have happen.

Gentlemen (and ladies) - start your engines!

I think someone who takes the name of a stupid character in a sit-com actually becomes stupid. Barry hired a communist with no real experience other than leading an arson and looting rampage to be on his green jobs board. He was real proud of "green jobs" even though there are no green jobs or many other jobs for that matter. Obama refered to the US Chamber of Commerce as a sinsiter tool of the republican party. Does that warm the hearts of neo-socialists? Obama had two years of a entirely democrat government with more than willing partners in the senate and house but he squandered it with a world wide apology tour and a global warming agenda a porkulous bill and a "health care" bill created behind closed doors with corrupt deals.. We have virtually no energy policy, an incoherent anti-capitalist economic policy and a couple of new Military adventures.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Let me get this straight...

The earth is billions of years old.

We've been industrialized for what, a hundred years? And only really in the last 50 years or so have been pumping gases into the atmosphere. And I'm supposed to believe that we're having more of an effect than all the natural toxins that mother nature released in the previous billion years?

Give me a break....

 

[shintao]

Here's another, a form of international Keynesianism that serves no discernable benefit for America whatsoever. In fact, it's the stuff of the American people paying TWICE for energy! LOL! Wait! That's not funny; it's crazy.

Obama has promised to "invest" in the development of oil production in Brazil, so we can buy our tax-funded investment from Brazil at the pump. In the meantime, he shuts down new offshore drilling in this country which would have otherwise provided the very same thing here without government spending, creating business opportunities and jobs here. THE SAME THING BENEFITING OUR ECONOMY DIRECTLY AND WITHOUT INCREASING THE NATIONAL DEBT. WHY WOULD ANY PRESIDENT DO THAT TO HIS OWN COUNTRY? IT’S SENSELESS. NUTS! And his administration's move against our own coal industry, the very best in the world? It is just this sort of pointless regulation and government spending that drives businesses and manufacturing jobs oversees.

This one sounds to me like the never ending conflict between production of natural resources and environmental issues. Last time I looked, offshore drilling has a pretty serious downside. I found a Web site that discusses both the pros and cons of offshore drilling. Here are the cons:

1. The oil found in offshore oil drilling barely reduces the United States' dependence on foreign oil imports. The US requires approximately 8 billion barrels of oil per year to meet its current needs; deep-water offshore drilling, in its conventional form, is expected to bring in only 18 billion barrels total.

2. Offshore oil drilling will not guarantee lower gas prices. Gas prices are affected by too many other variables to assume that changing one factor will significantly change the result.

3. Offshore drilling results in oil spills.

3a. Deep-water offshore drilling is associated with oil spills; both major and minor oil spills harm the surrounding environment greatly. Spills most often occur when oil is being transported to land via oil tanker, but damaged pipelines or the platform itself may also cause spills. Such spills are a massive drain on both resources and energy, as well as a real and pressing danger to the environment.

3b. Oil spills, despite improved technologies, are still common and predicted occurrences. At current extraction rates, it is predicted that in the Gulf of Mexico there will be one oil spill per year of no less than 1000 barrels over the next 40 years.

4. Offshore drilling is challenging to keep up, as it requires keeping manned facilities above water and disposing of oil rigs is costly. Challenges include the scale of construction required for functional facilities and the need for facilities located in the water where the oil would be extracted from sand, which would demand extra funds and efforts. Removing platforms and pipelines no longer in use is extremely costly.

5. Carbon emissions will increase. Expanded offshore drilling will not reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which contributes to warmer global temperatures.

Answers.com - What are the pros and cons of offshore drilling in the US

The way you present it, there appear to be nothing but benefits to our country from offshore oil drilling and, therefore, President Obama is an idiot not to be in favor of it. I suspect there are very valid reasons why he closed down new offshore oil drilling. Perhaps those listed above are some of them.

Let me add a belch...........................

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed 109 oil platforms and five drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.Hurricanes Destroyed 109 Oil Platforms: US Government


The U.S. Minerals Management Service reported 69 offshore deaths, 1,349 injuries, and 858 fires and explosions on offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico from 2001 to 2010.Potential for major spill after oil rig sinks - US news - Environment - msnbc.com


Oil Rigs Destroyed by Hurricane Katrina

Hurricane Katrina - Oil Platforms destroyed by Katrina


Oil Platforms Destroyed by Rita

Hurricane Rita - Oil Platforms destroyed by Rita


How much to replace 1 offshore rig? "For $200 million to almost $1 billion, one can build a new oil-drilling platform."Dramatic increase in offshore rig building | ISA


AND if you dig around you will find these oil rigs are not even built in America or run by American companies.

HOW MUCH IS THAT GALLON OF GULF GASOLINE COSTING YOU??

 

[American Cowboy]

Lately, I have heard a number of conservatives/Republicans grousing about the fact that, in their opinion, Obama is "sinking the country" or is "ruining America."

Is that what you think? If so, howz about coming on this thread and telling us SPECIFICALLY what you think he is doing to "sink the country." Frankly, I would like to know if there is anything to this claim, or if (as I strongly suspect), he just isn't falling in line with what the cons want to have happen.

Gentlemen (and ladies) - start your engines!

I think someone who takes the name of a stupid character in a sit-com actually becomes stupid. Barry hired a communist with no real experience other than leading an arson and looting rampage to be on his green jobs board. He was real proud of "green jobs" even though there are no green jobs or many other jobs for that matter. Obama refered to the US Chamber of Commerce as a sinsiter tool of the republican party. Does that warm the hearts of neo-socialists? Obama had two years of a entirely democrat government with more than willing partners in the senate and house but he squandered it with a world wide apology tour and a global warming agenda a porkulous bill and a "health care" bill created behind closed doors with corrupt deals.. We have virtually no energy policy, an incoherent anti-capitalist economic policy and a couple of new Military adventures.

Yeah, this George Costanza guy is one of the dumbest MF'ers on the board. It is between him a Sallow. I am not sure who's head is farther up who's ass.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The cost of the rigs to taxpayers I presume is 0 since they are run by privately held companies no?
But by all means if you want to drive to work in a pedal car be my guest.

 

[Sallow]

The oversight committees had access to the same data that the CIA used to reach the conclusions. the only one of them that even tried to argue that Bush lied actually apologized for saying that, yet some people cling to their delusions that he deliberately misinformed everyone.

Why is that?

Because that's what happened. It's not "delusional". It's history.

President George W. Bush was completely wrong about Iraq. Completely.

It did fit in nicely with what the PNAC wanted to do.

And many of those lying bastards from the Bush administration penned a book about what a clusterfuck Iraq was..except they waited till after everything was said and done to ring alarm bells about it.

 

[George Costanza]

Here's another, a form of international Keynesianism that serves no discernable benefit for America whatsoever. In fact, it's the stuff of the American people paying TWICE for energy! LOL! Wait! That's not funny; it's crazy.

Obama has promised to "invest" in the development of oil production in Brazil, so we can buy our tax-funded investment from Brazil at the pump. In the meantime, he shuts down new offshore drilling in this country which would have otherwise provided the very same thing here without government spending, creating business opportunities and jobs here. THE SAME THING BENEFITING OUR ECONOMY DIRECTLY AND WITHOUT INCREASING THE NATIONAL DEBT. WHY WOULD ANY PRESIDENT DO THAT TO HIS OWN COUNTRY? IT’S SENSELESS. NUTS! And his administration's move against our own coal industry, the very best in the world? It is just this sort of pointless regulation and government spending that drives businesses and manufacturing jobs oversees.

This one sounds to me like the never ending conflict between production of natural resources and environmental issues. Last time I looked, offshore drilling has a pretty serious downside. I found a Web site that discusses both the pros and cons of offshore drilling. Here are the cons:

1. The oil found in offshore oil drilling barely reduces the United States' dependence on foreign oil imports. The US requires approximately 8 billion barrels of oil per year to meet its current needs; deep-water offshore drilling, in its conventional form, is expected to bring in only 18 billion barrels total.

2. Offshore oil drilling will not guarantee lower gas prices. Gas prices are affected by too many other variables to assume that changing one factor will significantly change the result.

3. Offshore drilling results in oil spills.

3a. Deep-water offshore drilling is associated with oil spills; both major and minor oil spills harm the surrounding environment greatly. Spills most often occur when oil is being transported to land via oil tanker, but damaged pipelines or the platform itself may also cause spills. Such spills are a massive drain on both resources and energy, as well as a real and pressing danger to the environment.

3b. Oil spills, despite improved technologies, are still common and predicted occurrences. At current extraction rates, it is predicted that in the Gulf of Mexico there will be one oil spill per year of no less than 1000 barrels over the next 40 years.

4. Offshore drilling is challenging to keep up, as it requires keeping manned facilities above water and disposing of oil rigs is costly. Challenges include the scale of construction required for functional facilities and the need for facilities located in the water where the oil would be extracted from sand, which would demand extra funds and efforts. Removing platforms and pipelines no longer in use is extremely costly.

5. Carbon emissions will increase. Expanded offshore drilling will not reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which contributes to warmer global temperatures.

Answers.com - What are the pros and cons of offshore drilling in the US

The way you present it, there appear to be nothing but benefits to our country from offshore oil drilling and, therefore, President Obama is an idiot not to be in favor of it. I suspect there are very valid reasons why he closed down new offshore oil drilling. Perhaps those listed above are some of them.

So let me get this straight...first you are going to quote an opinion from answers.com? And then, to add insult to that move, you're only going to list the cons?

We know you are against offshore drilling as you have just proven by only stating the negatives...which are mostly wrong.

First, let's look at the quantity issue. Exploration will uncover billions more than what has already been discovered. It's rediculous to claim that there is only a finite amount out there. That is a very uneducated statement by your source.

Then there are oil prices...they aren't garunteed to go down. Really? Supply and demand is the fundamental basis for why that statement is simply not true. Speculators, wolves that they are, use this formula first and foremost. How much do you think it costs to ship oil from overseas? Do you think that isn't figured into the cost per barrel? Even the slightest hint of trouble in the region of any of our suppliers sends the speculators into a frenzy. Let's face it...it's a commodity that fluctuates with it's availability...just like corn, wheat, sugar...you name it.

"Offshore drilling produces oil spills." Can you give me a list of major spills that were on the scale of the one we had in the Gulf? Do you recall how much doom and gloom was created over that spill and that it would be YEARS before the Gulf would be productive again...yet here we are, just a year later...no reports of ongoing clean up and fisheries returning to full operation daily. I was fishing the Gulf two weeks ago...it was great.

Can you argue that drilling will not be good for job creation? What is our biggest problem in America right now. NO JOBS. Drilling creates thousands of jobs. So if you are against job creation, then by all means, join your anti-drilling crowd.

And finally...the best saved for last...global warming. Ahhh...the old emissions argument. It never gets old does it? Whenever an issue comes up that some environmentalist group or even one individual doesn't like, they go to the emissions rant. And on that same day, they probably drove all over town in a gas burning car, truck or SUV. Maybe they even bought a ticket on a plane or a bus. They probably used multiple products that are oil based. If they want to decrease emissions to give merit to the emissions BS in order to support their global warming fear mongering, then they need to quit oil cold turkey.

DRILL DRILL DRILL...I hate these fuel prices. Watch them magically go down as we get closer to November 2012. Whether we are drilling or not.

Well, at least you had the balls to argue some of the specific points after you attacked the source. Congratulations - usually, all that happens is that people attack the source and leave out any legitimate argument.

While I listed only the cons, I believe I stated there were also pros. I gave the Web site and invited folks to have a look at both.

I disagree with all of your arguments, by the way. Yes, offshore drilling would create more jobs. Hiring people to chop down every tree in our nation and burn all of them would also create lots of jobs. No one likes today's fuel prices. Your statement about them magically going lower as we get closer to the next election is interesting, but I'm going to need a little more to convince me that gas prices are being intentionally kept high until election time.

As to global warming - you don't think it exists. I do.

 

[George Costanza]

Lately, I have heard a number of conservatives/Republicans grousing about the fact that, in their opinion, Obama is "sinking the country" or is "ruining America."

Is that what you think? If so, howz about coming on this thread and telling us SPECIFICALLY what you think he is doing to "sink the country." Frankly, I would like to know if there is anything to this claim, or if (as I strongly suspect), he just isn't falling in line with what the cons want to have happen.

Gentlemen (and ladies) - start your engines!

I think someone who takes the name of a stupid character in a sit-com actually becomes stupid. Barry hired a communist with no real experience other than leading an arson and looting rampage to be on his green jobs board. He was real proud of "green jobs" even though there are no green jobs or many other jobs for that matter. Obama refered to the US Chamber of Commerce as a sinsiter tool of the republican party. Does that warm the hearts of neo-socialists? Obama had two years of a entirely democrat government with more than willing partners in the senate and house but he squandered it with a world wide apology tour and a global warming agenda a porkulous bill and a "health care" bill created behind closed doors with corrupt deals.. We have virtually no energy policy, an incoherent anti-capitalist economic policy and a couple of new Military adventures.

Yeah, this George Costanza guy is one of the dumbest MF'ers on the board. It is between him a Sallow. I am not sure who's head is farther up who's ass.

You seem to be so consumed with anger that you obviously have lost sight of what this thread is all about. Let's review. Quite a few on the Right have been screaming that Obama is "sinking the country" or "destroying America." Time and time again, I see this charge leveled, with nothing else stated - mere generalities.

I felt it was time for some specifics. If my candidate is "sinking the country," tell me HOW he is "sinking the country." I suspected (and still do) that many on the Right would not really be able to state any specifics. They just hate anything Democratic. My suspicions were proven true by many on this thread. Others (yourself included, in amongst all of the taunts and insults) were able to set forth some specific areas of criticism for Obama.

If you find the premise of this thread "dumb," have at it. I suspect others have not found it so and have, in fact, learned something from it. I know I have.

 

[George Costanza]

Funny thing - in all of the things mentioned about Obama which our Friends On The Right "disagree with," (I will use a charitable term), I didn't see any mention of his continuation of the rendition policy or his refusal to close Gitmo.