Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Amanda on January 24, 2012 at 6:23pm

Hey now, I live in Ohio and was not stupid enough to vote for him.  I'm certainly not going to vote for him this year either.  Honestly, I just wish we had better options to choose from in the first place.   Whoever it is has GOT to be the lesser of two evils.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amanda on January 24, 2012 at 8:52pm

LOL!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robin Jackson on January 26, 2012 at 9:49pm

Have any of you actually read up on George Bushes failures??? Really? Anyone remember the debt? Anyone remeber the lost of jobs in 2008, foreign debt increased by 100%, the market crash, post depression, failed energy policies, war, 911, lowest approval rating of 24%, Oh let's not forget the gas prices, we became more dependant on foreign oil. Iraq oil supplies played a big part in POLITICS..that is it in a nutshell..We will always be what is left of the "politics"..

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Householder on January 26, 2012 at 11:00pm

Robin,

I've been very careful to avoid replying to any political comments on this site, but I feel I must respond to a few of the "Bush failures" you mention, specifically, 9/11, market crash, and lost jobs in '08. I am not attempting to argue politics, just facts.

1. Bush was only in office about 8.5 months when we were attacked on 9/11/01. Our attackers hated us and began planning that sort of attack years before Bush took office.

2. I did extensive research on the cause of the housing crash and subsequent financial meltdown and recession (lost jobs). The faults were numerous, spreading over decades and on both sides of the political aisle. Financial institutions and consumers share the blame as well.

The rest of what you state could be successfully argued given one agrees with your definitions and assumptions. Depending on you POV, his energy policies were failed (as you state), excellent, or somewhere in between. Political debate is healthy and should not be stifled, lets just be sure it is based on factual information, please.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Householder on January 27, 2012 at 12:29am

Mark,

I agree. However, my point wasn't to make a political statement, but a philosophical one. A political debate is only helpful when all parties to the debate speak from a rational, fact based state of mind. Anyone who still thinks Bush caused 9/11 or the housing crash is not thinking rationally. However, a rational person could argue that Clinton's energy policies were great and that Bush screwed them up (please note, that is not what I believe). That was my point. I've read many of Robin's comments on this and other threads, and for the most part, her arguments are valid and support a healthy dialogue, but she was on a slippery slope here. Most of us on here are very like minded. Robin brings a different political perspective, without an outright assault on drilling, because ultimately, she wants what we want: a fair lease with adequate landowner protections.

Mark, you are very passionate. Keep up the good fight. Looking forward to your reply.

Michael

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tanya Gabriele on January 26, 2012 at 8:50pm

Great question, Larry!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Elnathan Cory on January 24, 2012 at 10:35am

Why do we, the gas reserve holders, want dirty oil from Canada? I don't get it! Foreign oil is foreign oil. Screw Canada and its low grade crap oil. This oil will only devalue our gas reserves. They can shove that pipeline! If they build it I vote to hook it up to one of our natural gas pipelines and blow all the oil back to Canada!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tanya Gabriele on January 26, 2012 at 8:58pm

I agree with you Ethan.  Is our Nation getting any kickbacks for transporting another country's oil?  The energy companies don't hesitate to charge consumers for transportation costs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on January 26, 2012 at 9:59pm

The President of TransCanada, the company doing the Keystone line, was on Larry Kudlow's show on CNBC last week.  He stated that they may build the section within the US to transport the oil from the Bakken field in N Dakota. That would be great as it would create thousands of construction jobs and get us more domestic oil faster.

And since it would be fully within the US borders, it doesn't require federal approval.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on January 27, 2012 at 9:44am

Mark, he said that they are considering building the US section right away and then completing the Canadian section after they get approval, which they fully expect within two years.

http://http://www.cnbc.com/id/46063296

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page