Drilling isn't short term. New drilling in ANWR and the eastern gulf regions according to an analysis by the Department of Energy says any production from those regions wouldn't hit the market until 2017 and not have any effect on crude prices until after 2030. Obama has called for limited new exploration coupled with expanding renewable resources and R&D. Obama is also in a better position to work with Canada and Norway in securing oil resources and territory in the Canadian Arctic.
seriously.
drilling in ANWR is NOT the answer...and if anything, would prolong the idea of looking for alternate fuel sources i believe.
this woman is so ANTI-choice, pro-NRA, pro-drilling, pro-war it seems...and brings god into the discussion WAY too much, whereas he/she/it should not be in a political speech, period...but i digress.....the woman is a right-wing nutter. it scares the shit out of me to think she appeals to ANY american, and that there may be some...or a lot :eek:....who would love to see her at the executive level. ack!
"Our national leaders are sending them (soldiers) out on a task that is from God....That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
I'm an independent... actually registered Republican just to vote for Ron Paul...
I was completely on the fence, but now I'm kinda scared because this V.P. looks terrible!
"When the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot – what exactly is our opponent's plan – after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? ... Victory in Iraq is finally in our sight, and he wants to forfeit." - Palin
So we have nothing better to talk about than you're opponents "set" (the columns)? Wow. Anything to avoid substance, she just was bashing Obama like a 6th grader running for class president.
Also bashing "healing the planet"? WHAT?!?!!? I thought that is a good thing, instead of having wars with it.
I look forward to the debates. Still on the fence, but before her speech I was leaning McCain... now... leaning Obama.
McCain is not George Bush 2, but it looks like Palin may be.
I completely agree. Just as she finished, and thinking back on her speech I was questioning a lot of what I thought I knew about Obama, but then these petty and useless comments she made left a bad taste in my mouth. I dont like her one bit, even if she is a pit bull with lipstick on.
That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan "
i like that our county's expectations have become so low that we don't even expect our leaders to have a plan before they go to war anymore, we just pray there is one. :rolleyes:
this woman is terrifying. she's like the evil spawn of dubya and cheney's illicit homosexual love affair.
OK I quickly went to ontheissues.com and quickly read where he stands and he seems to be consistant, unless I'm missing something here. His stance seems to be in support of nuclear energy as part of a comprehensible energy plan as long as it is clean and safe. If there is information out there stating otherwise please point it out, but just from a quick look I actually agree with his stance on the issue.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Drilling isn't short term. New drilling in ANWR and the eastern gulf regions according to an analysis by the Department of Energy says any production from those regions wouldn't hit the market until 2017 and not have any effect on crude prices until after 2030. Obama has called for limited new exploration coupled with expanding renewable resources and R&D. Obama is also in a better position to work with Canada and Norway in securing oil resources and territory in the Canadian Arctic.
Depends on your definition of short-term & long-term, I guess...and if we had drilled those areas as soon as it became economically viable, we'd have 'em soon or already.
A pretty exhaustive analysis of his stances...if you watch the two videos, he makes a point of saying that "he is leaving no option off the table" but he definietely does not sound as concerned about nuclear energy in the Democratic debate as he does at his own rally which occurred about five months later. I guess I'll leave it up to you to think if he flip-flopped or not.
i like that our county's expectations have become so low that we don't even expect our leaders to have a plan before they go to war anymore, we just pray there is one. :rolleyes:
this woman is terrifying. she's like the evil spawn of dubya and cheney's illicit homosexual love affair.
i just utterly DISlike all this 'god talk' in government, period. i look at where we are today, decisions made, choices....and a country that was founded on personal and religious freedomes, seems anything BUT imho. i also personally do not like how it makes us appear to other nations. it IS important in this global environment, how we appear and how we act...towards ALL inhabitants of the world, not just here...but even here, i find such talk divisive, not inclusionary. and yes, it just plain scares me.
the fact that a young, intelligent woman talks and believe such, with such fervor...upsets and scares me even more.
Depends on your definition of short-term & long-term, I guess...and if we had drilled those areas as soon as it became economically viable, we'd have 'em soon or already.
Well, whether or not that's what would have happened, the fact is that it didn't. We are where we are, just like we're in Iraq no matter how bad the decision to go in was. 2030? From the Department of Energy? Novawind, can you hyperlink that report? If that is verifiable, cincy, what then is the argument for drilling if will not have a substantial impact on U.S. gas prices until 2030?
OK I quickly went to ontheissues.com and quickly read where he stands and he seems to be consistant, unless I'm missing something here. His stance seems to be in support of nuclear energy as part of a comprehensible energy plan as long as it is clean and safe. If there is information out there stating otherwise please point it out, but just from a quick look I actually agree with his stance on the issue.
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
A pretty exhaustive analysis of his stances...if you watch the two videos, he makes a point of saying that "he is leaving no option off the table" but he definietely does not sound as concerned about nuclear energy in the Democratic debate as he does at his own rally which occurred about five months later. I guess I'll leave it up to you to think if he flip-flopped or not.
If it wasn't off the table it's not a flip flop to promote it now.
He's promoting it more for sure, be it for campaign purposes or because he's learned more and is genuinely more supportive of nuclear power now.
Either way, it's not a flip flop. He never said he was against nuclear power, he just wasn't talking it up until more recently.
2000: Pittsburgh
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
A pretty exhaustive analysis of his stances...if you watch the two videos, he makes a point of saying that "he is leaving no option off the table" but he definietely does not sound as concerned about nuclear energy in the Democratic debate as he does at his own rally which occurred about five months later. I guess I'll leave it up to you to think if he flip-flopped or not.
gee, imagine that. in a speech with limited time and a different audience, he didn't recite the EXACT same lines he used before! :rolleyes:
personally, i don't WANT a president who is going to put a ton of options off the table. i want one who will consider all of them and pick the best one. you sound like a pro-lifer, wanting any choice you disagree with shelved permanently.
and like that... he's gone.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Well, whether or not that's what would have happened, the fact is that it didn't. We are where we are, just like we're in Iraq no matter how bad the decision to go in was. 2030? From the Department of Energy? Novawind, can you hyperlink that report? If that is verifiable, cincy, what then is the argument for drilling if will not have a substantial impact on U.S. gas prices until 2030?
The argument is sustainable energy is a dream right now. Obama says 10 years, but who knows how long...
Expect the best, prepare for the worst.
hippiemom = goodness
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Comments
What is his stance on nuclear energy?
seriously.
drilling in ANWR is NOT the answer...and if anything, would prolong the idea of looking for alternate fuel sources i believe.
this woman is so ANTI-choice, pro-NRA, pro-drilling, pro-war it seems...and brings god into the discussion WAY too much, whereas he/she/it should not be in a political speech, period...but i digress.....the woman is a right-wing nutter. it scares the shit out of me to think she appeals to ANY american, and that there may be some...or a lot :eek:....who would love to see her at the executive level. ack!
"Our national leaders are sending them (soldiers) out on a task that is from God....That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
THAT is beyond fucked up imho.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I completely agree. Just as she finished, and thinking back on her speech I was questioning a lot of what I thought I knew about Obama, but then these petty and useless comments she made left a bad taste in my mouth. I dont like her one bit, even if she is a pit bull with lipstick on.
I think it depends on which way the wind blows.
Honestly can you post some articles. I haven't read much on his stance on nuclear energy.
i like that our county's expectations have become so low that we don't even expect our leaders to have a plan before they go to war anymore, we just pray there is one. :rolleyes:
this woman is terrifying. she's like the evil spawn of dubya and cheney's illicit homosexual love affair.
OK I quickly went to ontheissues.com and quickly read where he stands and he seems to be consistant, unless I'm missing something here. His stance seems to be in support of nuclear energy as part of a comprehensible energy plan as long as it is clean and safe. If there is information out there stating otherwise please point it out, but just from a quick look I actually agree with his stance on the issue.
Depends on your definition of short-term & long-term, I guess...and if we had drilled those areas as soon as it became economically viable, we'd have 'em soon or already.
Valerie Plame speaking at the GOP convention, that must have made for a few awkward moments...
http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/30/obama_factsheet/
A pretty exhaustive analysis of his stances...if you watch the two videos, he makes a point of saying that "he is leaving no option off the table" but he definietely does not sound as concerned about nuclear energy in the Democratic debate as he does at his own rally which occurred about five months later. I guess I'll leave it up to you to think if he flip-flopped or not.
i just utterly DISlike all this 'god talk' in government, period. i look at where we are today, decisions made, choices....and a country that was founded on personal and religious freedomes, seems anything BUT imho. i also personally do not like how it makes us appear to other nations. it IS important in this global environment, how we appear and how we act...towards ALL inhabitants of the world, not just here...but even here, i find such talk divisive, not inclusionary. and yes, it just plain scares me.
the fact that a young, intelligent woman talks and believe such, with such fervor...upsets and scares me even more.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Well, whether or not that's what would have happened, the fact is that it didn't. We are where we are, just like we're in Iraq no matter how bad the decision to go in was. 2030? From the Department of Energy? Novawind, can you hyperlink that report? If that is verifiable, cincy, what then is the argument for drilling if will not have a substantial impact on U.S. gas prices until 2030?
right...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
If it wasn't off the table it's not a flip flop to promote it now.
He's promoting it more for sure, be it for campaign purposes or because he's learned more and is genuinely more supportive of nuclear power now.
Either way, it's not a flip flop. He never said he was against nuclear power, he just wasn't talking it up until more recently.
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
gee, imagine that. in a speech with limited time and a different audience, he didn't recite the EXACT same lines he used before! :rolleyes:
personally, i don't WANT a president who is going to put a ton of options off the table. i want one who will consider all of them and pick the best one. you sound like a pro-lifer, wanting any choice you disagree with shelved permanently.
There was a lengthy thread somewhere here on this subject, just search for it I'm sure you will find it.
The argument is sustainable energy is a dream right now. Obama says 10 years, but who knows how long...
Expect the best, prepare for the worst.
http://current.com/items/88849682_barack_obama_s_ties_to_nuclear_power