McCain calls for offshore drilling, says it would help in the "short term"

[GaryC 7]

In California one of the biggest opponents of off-shore drilling is actually Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, both parties in this state are strongly opposed to it because of this blowout near Santa Barbara in 1969:

http://www.sbwcn.org/spill.shtml

A lot has changed since 1969. Do you know that after hurricane Katrina that not one drop of oil was spilled despite the total destruction of many rigs? The fearmongering of the enviromentalists is not true and out dated.

That may well be, but Prudhoe Bay in Alaska had it's largest spill when 200,000 gallons of crude spilled from a ruptured transit line - that happened in 2006.

Not far from 1969 Santa Barbara spill, 84,000 gallons spilled into a creek only this year in act of sabotage. Cleanup has not been swift: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-01-092.asp

The fact is, there are no guarantees that these things won't happen and most the areas off California, Florida and the Gulf are highly populated. I assume you would not be happy to live in a contaminated area and drink from contiminated water supplies.

As they say, sh!t happens. But unless we are willing to junk our cars and start walking it's a risk we need to take. It seems that one side of the argument is to drill and at the same time look for alternatives. But the other side just wants the price to go up without any attempts to slow it down with our own production. I think we need to get off our oil addiction. But even the most optimistic projections will put that years down the road. So what are we suppost to do in the mean time? Further enrich the Saudies while at the same time pay more and more for gas? I mean really, what justification is there for not drilling our own oil? All I get from the other side of the argument is it isn't much, or it isn't cost effective, or the people of that state don't want it (already shown to be not true BTW dog). If congress and Obama don't wake up they will be in for a very rude surprise come November. Their lame excuses are wearing thin.

Yeah - $hit happens! It's okay if it's not your back yard.

If people trade their gas-guzzling cars/SUVs into more fuel efficient cars because of high gas prices reducing our dependence on foreign oil, the $4 gallon will be the best thing that could have happened.

I'm not sure I want to trash the environment to protect someone's "right" to drive a Hummer on cheap gas.

What is this about Hummers? They represent a very small number of the cars sold. You want high gas prices just to kill the Hummers? #######? You know, poor people that work low paying jobs are getting hurt a lot worse that the very few rich that drive Hummers. If they can afford a Hummer I doubt if the gas is bothering them much.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

In California one of the biggest opponents of off-shore drilling is actually Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, both parties in this state are strongly opposed to it because of this blowout near Santa Barbara in 1969:

http://www.sbwcn.org/spill.shtml

A lot has changed since 1969. Do you know that after hurricane Katrina that not one drop of oil was spilled despite the total destruction of many rigs? The fearmongering of the enviromentalists is not true and out dated.

That may well be, but Prudhoe Bay in Alaska had it's largest spill when 200,000 gallons of crude spilled from a ruptured transit line - that happened in 2006.

Not far from 1969 Santa Barbara spill, 84,000 gallons spilled into a creek only this year in act of sabotage. Cleanup has not been swift: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-01-092.asp

The fact is, there are no guarantees that these things won't happen and most the areas off California, Florida and the Gulf are highly populated. I assume you would not be happy to live in a contaminated area and drink from contiminated water supplies.

As they say, sh!t happens. But unless we are willing to junk our cars and start walking it's a risk we need to take. It seems that one side of the argument is to drill and at the same time look for alternatives. But the other side just wants the price to go up without any attempts to slow it down with our own production. I think we need to get off our oil addiction. But even the most optimistic projections will put that years down the road. So what are we suppost to do in the mean time? Further enrich the Saudies while at the same time pay more and more for gas? I mean really, what justification is there for not drilling our own oil? All I get from the other side of the argument is it isn't much, or it isn't cost effective, or the people of that state don't want it (already shown to be not true BTW dog). If congress and Obama don't wake up they will be in for a very rude surprise come November. Their lame excuses are wearing thin.

Yeah - $hit happens! It's okay if it's not your back yard.

If people trade their gas-guzzling cars/SUVs into more fuel efficient cars because of high gas prices reducing our dependence on foreign oil, the $4 gallon will be the best thing that could have happened.

I'm not sure I want to trash the environment to protect someone's "right" to drive a Hummer on cheap gas.

What is this about Hummers? They represent a very small number of the cars sold. You want high gas prices just to kill the Hummers? #######? You know, poor people that work low paying jobs are getting hurt a lot worse that the very few rich that drive Hummers. If they can afford a Hummer I doubt if the gas is bothering them much.

I'm sure a lot of poor people are hurting - but a lot of them are still driving 8 cylinder gas guzzlers that are probbaly not Hummers.

[GaryC 7]

In California one of the biggest opponents of off-shore drilling is actually Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, both parties in this state are strongly opposed to it because of this blowout near Santa Barbara in 1969:

http://www.sbwcn.org/spill.shtml

A lot has changed since 1969. Do you know that after hurricane Katrina that not one drop of oil was spilled despite the total destruction of many rigs? The fearmongering of the enviromentalists is not true and out dated.

That may well be, but Prudhoe Bay in Alaska had it's largest spill when 200,000 gallons of crude spilled from a ruptured transit line - that happened in 2006.

Not far from 1969 Santa Barbara spill, 84,000 gallons spilled into a creek only this year in act of sabotage. Cleanup has not been swift: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-01-092.asp

The fact is, there are no guarantees that these things won't happen and most the areas off California, Florida and the Gulf are highly populated. I assume you would not be happy to live in a contaminated area and drink from contiminated water supplies.

As they say, sh!t happens. But unless we are willing to junk our cars and start walking it's a risk we need to take. It seems that one side of the argument is to drill and at the same time look for alternatives. But the other side just wants the price to go up without any attempts to slow it down with our own production. I think we need to get off our oil addiction. But even the most optimistic projections will put that years down the road. So what are we suppost to do in the mean time? Further enrich the Saudies while at the same time pay more and more for gas? I mean really, what justification is there for not drilling our own oil? All I get from the other side of the argument is it isn't much, or it isn't cost effective, or the people of that state don't want it (already shown to be not true BTW dog). If congress and Obama don't wake up they will be in for a very rude surprise come November. Their lame excuses are wearing thin.

Yeah - $hit happens! It's okay if it's not your back yard.

If people trade their gas-guzzling cars/SUVs into more fuel efficient cars because of high gas prices reducing our dependence on foreign oil, the $4 gallon will be the best thing that could have happened.

I'm not sure I want to trash the environment to protect someone's "right" to drive a Hummer on cheap gas.

What is this about Hummers? They represent a very small number of the cars sold. You want high gas prices just to kill the Hummers? #######? You know, poor people that work low paying jobs are getting hurt a lot worse that the very few rich that drive Hummers. If they can afford a Hummer I doubt if the gas is bothering them much.

I'm sure a lot of poor people are hurting - but a lot of them are still driving 8 cylinder gas guzzlers that are probbaly not Hummers.

A lot of them are driving old hand me downs that are cheap because they are poor. So they get double wammied. You drive what you can afford. Not everyone can go out and get a Prius.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

In California one of the biggest opponents of off-shore drilling is actually Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, both parties in this state are strongly opposed to it because of this blowout near Santa Barbara in 1969:

http://www.sbwcn.org/spill.shtml

A lot has changed since 1969. Do you know that after hurricane Katrina that not one drop of oil was spilled despite the total destruction of many rigs? The fearmongering of the enviromentalists is not true and out dated.

That may well be, but Prudhoe Bay in Alaska had it's largest spill when 200,000 gallons of crude spilled from a ruptured transit line - that happened in 2006.

Not far from 1969 Santa Barbara spill, 84,000 gallons spilled into a creek only this year in act of sabotage. Cleanup has not been swift: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-01-092.asp

The fact is, there are no guarantees that these things won't happen and most the areas off California, Florida and the Gulf are highly populated. I assume you would not be happy to live in a contaminated area and drink from contiminated water supplies.

As they say, sh!t happens. But unless we are willing to junk our cars and start walking it's a risk we need to take. It seems that one side of the argument is to drill and at the same time look for alternatives. But the other side just wants the price to go up without any attempts to slow it down with our own production. I think we need to get off our oil addiction. But even the most optimistic projections will put that years down the road. So what are we suppost to do in the mean time? Further enrich the Saudies while at the same time pay more and more for gas? I mean really, what justification is there for not drilling our own oil? All I get from the other side of the argument is it isn't much, or it isn't cost effective, or the people of that state don't want it (already shown to be not true BTW dog). If congress and Obama don't wake up they will be in for a very rude surprise come November. Their lame excuses are wearing thin.

Yeah - $hit happens! It's okay if it's not your back yard.

If people trade their gas-guzzling cars/SUVs into more fuel efficient cars because of high gas prices reducing our dependence on foreign oil, the $4 gallon will be the best thing that could have happened.

I'm not sure I want to trash the environment to protect someone's "right" to drive a Hummer on cheap gas.

What is this about Hummers? They represent a very small number of the cars sold. You want high gas prices just to kill the Hummers? #######? You know, poor people that work low paying jobs are getting hurt a lot worse that the very few rich that drive Hummers. If they can afford a Hummer I doubt if the gas is bothering them much.

I'm sure a lot of poor people are hurting - but a lot of them are still driving 8 cylinder gas guzzlers that are probbaly not Hummers.

A lot of them are driving old hand me downs that are cheap because they are poor. So they get double wammied. You drive what you can afford. Not everyone can go out and get a Prius.

They can, however, trade in their Impala for a used Civic or Focus which will probably save them money in the long run. There are also carpools and the bus.

[GaryC 7]

They can, however, trade in their Impala for a used Civic or Focus which will probably save them money in the long run. There are also carpools and the bus.

Have you tried to by a used fuel efficent car lately? I am not talking about the 5-6 thousand dollar good used car, I am talking about the really poor peoples cars that kids starting out and the low income people with bad credit buy. By the time they get down to what someone like that can afford they are so worn out they get crappy milage anyway. Face it, the high gas prices hurt the poor the most. Those of us that can afford a fuel effecient car or make enough they don't care about the milage are just annoyed with it. I always thought the dems were the poor persons champion. This doesn't sound much like it.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

They can, however, trade in their Impala for a used Civic or Focus which will probably save them money in the long run. There are also carpools and the bus.

Have you tried to by a used fuel efficent car lately? I am not talking about the 5-6 thousand dollar good used car, I am talking about the really poor peoples cars that kids starting out and the low income people with bad credit buy. By the time they get down to what someone like that can afford they are so worn out they get crappy milage anyway. Face it, the high gas prices hurt the poor the most. Those of us that can afford a fuel effecient car or make enough they don't care about the milage are just annoyed with it. I always thought the dems were the poor persons champion. This doesn't sound much like it.

You don't want to give poor people healthcare but now you are concerned about their ability to drive cars?

I bought a 1985 Toyota Corolla for something like $1500 and drove it until it had about 200,000 miles on it. I then sold it to a teenage kid for $500. He is still driving it though it's a rust bucket but it still runs fine with a little TLC. It got something like 30pmg when I sold it.

There is also the bus. And carpools.

There are ways to counter high gas prices without ruining the environment.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Drilling for oil near Florida's shores?

Last Edited: Saturday, 14 Jun 2008, 1:33 PM EDT

Created: Saturday, 14 Jun 2008, 1:33 PM EDT

Should drilling for oil be allowed in the Gulf of Mexico?

TAMPA - Despite budget breaking prices at the pump, we're still driving, guzzling gas. So, President Bush us urging the U.S. to drill for more oil.

"We ought to be at the table as producers," President Bush said.

He wants to put more oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, drilling for "black gold" just miles from Florida's "white gold."

Polls show growing support.

The latest FOX 13/Rasmussen poll asks, "should the U.S. begin drilling for oil in protected areas?" 53 percent said yes, 33 percent said no, and 14 percent were not sure.

Senator Bill Nelson's been getting an earful about oil at recent town hall meetings, but he argues the only thing worse for Florida than $4 dollar gas is offshore drilling.

"Everything is a trade off. We don't want oil lapping up on the beaches where we have a $50 billion dollar a year tourism industry for our economy," Senator Nelson said.

Right now there are 3800 active rigs in the gulf, just not within 100 plus miles of Florida's coast.

They're near Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, which earn billions in royalties each year.

John McCain suggests giving Florida an even bigger kick back if we take a risk and allow drilling.

That puts McCain at odds with one of his potential running mates: Governor Charlie Crist.

"The last place I'd like to see happen would be off the coast of Florida," Governor Crist said.

Crist's position matches Barack Obama, who says no to drilling near Florida.

Regardless of what the presidential hopefuls say, the Cubans might beat us to it.

They're looking at drilling in the narrow 90 mile stretch between Havana and Key West, possibly sucking billions of barrels of oil from under us.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/N...mp;pageId=3.2.1

Quite frankly, Gary, we Floridians don't give a hoot whether 53 of America things we ought drill off our shores. Floridians are dead set against it and hence, there won't be no drilling in our back yard. So, on behalf of this great state of ours I tell you and yours to back the ** off!

[HAL 9000 96]

Correct. Small investments need not always be inefficient. I do agree that highly efficient vehicles need to be accessible to the entire population. By default, current increases in gas prices and a decreasing market for gas guzzlers are going to help push the industry in that direction for their own survival.

This is called a shift.

[GaryC 7]

Drilling for oil near Florida's shores?

Last Edited: Saturday, 14 Jun 2008, 1:33 PM EDT

Created: Saturday, 14 Jun 2008, 1:33 PM EDT

Should drilling for oil be allowed in the Gulf of Mexico?

TAMPA - Despite budget breaking prices at the pump, we're still driving, guzzling gas. So, President Bush us urging the U.S. to drill for more oil.

"We ought to be at the table as producers," President Bush said.

He wants to put more oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, drilling for "black gold" just miles from Florida's "white gold."

Polls show growing support.

The latest FOX 13/Rasmussen poll asks, "should the U.S. begin drilling for oil in protected areas?" 53 percent said yes, 33 percent said no, and 14 percent were not sure.

Senator Bill Nelson's been getting an earful about oil at recent town hall meetings, but he argues the only thing worse for Florida than $4 dollar gas is offshore drilling.

"Everything is a trade off. We don't want oil lapping up on the beaches where we have a $50 billion dollar a year tourism industry for our economy," Senator Nelson said.

Right now there are 3800 active rigs in the gulf, just not within 100 plus miles of Florida's coast.

They're near Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, which earn billions in royalties each year.

John McCain suggests giving Florida an even bigger kick back if we take a risk and allow drilling.

That puts McCain at odds with one of his potential running mates: Governor Charlie Crist.

"The last place I'd like to see happen would be off the coast of Florida," Governor Crist said.

Crist's position matches Barack Obama, who says no to drilling near Florida.

Regardless of what the presidential hopefuls say, the Cubans might beat us to it.

They're looking at drilling in the narrow 90 mile stretch between Havana and Key West, possibly sucking billions of barrels of oil from under us.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/N...mp;pageId=3.2.1

Quite frankly, Gary, we Floridians don't give a hoot whether 53 of America things we ought drill off our shores. Floridians are dead set against it and hence, there won't be no drilling in our back yard. So, on behalf of this great state of ours I tell you and yours to back the ** off!

That was a state poll. 53% of Floridians want to drill. So tell your own people to fukc off.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

California (both Republicans and Democrats) don't want drilling in their back yards either.

I would personally like to see the tax incentive offered for hybrids extended to other fuel efficient cards

[GaryC 7]

They can, however, trade in their Impala for a used Civic or Focus which will probably save them money in the long run. There are also carpools and the bus.

Have you tried to by a used fuel efficent car lately? I am not talking about the 5-6 thousand dollar good used car, I am talking about the really poor peoples cars that kids starting out and the low income people with bad credit buy. By the time they get down to what someone like that can afford they are so worn out they get crappy milage anyway. Face it, the high gas prices hurt the poor the most. Those of us that can afford a fuel effecient car or make enough they don't care about the milage are just annoyed with it. I always thought the dems were the poor persons champion. This doesn't sound much like it.

You don't want to give poor people healthcare but now you are concerned about their ability to drive cars?

I bought a 1985 Toyota Corolla for something like $1500 and drove it until it had about 200,000 miles on it. I then sold it to a teenage kid for $500. He is still driving it though it's a rust bucket but it still runs fine with a little TLC. It got something like 30pmg when I sold it.

There is also the bus. And carpools.

There are ways to counter high gas prices without ruining the environment.

I am pointing out that the very people that the dems say they speak for are getting hurt the worse. The bus and carpools are not always an option. Plus the other effects of high fuel prices are also hurting the poor, like food for instance. So what is it? Do the dems want to help the poor or not?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

They can, however, trade in their Impala for a used Civic or Focus which will probably save them money in the long run. There are also carpools and the bus.

Have you tried to by a used fuel efficent car lately? I am not talking about the 5-6 thousand dollar good used car, I am talking about the really poor peoples cars that kids starting out and the low income people with bad credit buy. By the time they get down to what someone like that can afford they are so worn out they get crappy milage anyway. Face it, the high gas prices hurt the poor the most. Those of us that can afford a fuel effecient car or make enough they don't care about the milage are just annoyed with it. I always thought the dems were the poor persons champion. This doesn't sound much like it.

You don't want to give poor people healthcare but now you are concerned about their ability to drive cars?

I bought a 1985 Toyota Corolla for something like $1500 and drove it until it had about 200,000 miles on it. I then sold it to a teenage kid for $500. He is still driving it though it's a rust bucket but it still runs fine with a little TLC. It got something like 30pmg when I sold it.

There is also the bus. And carpools.

There are ways to counter high gas prices without ruining the environment.

I am pointing out that the very people that the dems say they speak for are getting hurt the worse. The bus and carpools are not always an option. Plus the other effects of high fuel prices are also hurting the poor, like food for instance. So what is it? Do the dems want to help the poor or not?

I think the poor probably could be helped in many other ways than drilling for oil so they can continue to drive a gas guzzler. Does your palable concern for the poor extend to offering them healthcare?

Because that's probably hurting them more.

[HAL 9000 96]

They can, however, trade in their Impala for a used Civic or Focus which will probably save them money in the long run. There are also carpools and the bus.

Have you tried to by a used fuel efficent car lately? I am not talking about the 5-6 thousand dollar good used car, I am talking about the really poor peoples cars that kids starting out and the low income people with bad credit buy. By the time they get down to what someone like that can afford they are so worn out they get crappy milage anyway. Face it, the high gas prices hurt the poor the most. Those of us that can afford a fuel effecient car or make enough they don't care about the milage are just annoyed with it. I always thought the dems were the poor persons champion. This doesn't sound much like it.

You don't want to give poor people healthcare but now you are concerned about their ability to drive cars?

I bought a 1985 Toyota Corolla for something like $1500 and drove it until it had about 200,000 miles on it. I then sold it to a teenage kid for $500. He is still driving it though it's a rust bucket but it still runs fine with a little TLC. It got something like 30pmg when I sold it.

There is also the bus. And carpools.

There are ways to counter high gas prices without ruining the environment.

I am pointing out that the very people that the dems say they speak for are getting hurt the worse. The bus and carpools are not always an option. Plus the other effects of high fuel prices are also hurting the poor, like food for instance. So what is it? Do the dems want to help the poor or not?

Hurt by irresponsible financial management by non-Democrats mainly. It seems every time this is brought to the floor you get filibustering by the Reps down to consistent Veto after Veto when the latest Democratically, "controlled" Congress tries to pass laws beneficial to the middle class and "below."

[Jack and Barbara 0]

Cheap cars with decent fuel efficiency are available now and are becoming more affordable and more numerable each year. The standard of the CAFE for 35 mpg in 2020 is a reason why many major automakers are making the switch to more fuel efficient cars.

Short-term solution: more fuel efficient cars from hybrid technology

Longer-term solution: exploring and developing hydrogen, electric, fuel cell cars to get depedence away from oil and ethanol products.

Exploring and drilling for oil don't happen overnight. Why aren't the solutions just mentioned good alternatives?

[GaryC 7]

They can, however, trade in their Impala for a used Civic or Focus which will probably save them money in the long run. There are also carpools and the bus.

Have you tried to by a used fuel efficent car lately? I am not talking about the 5-6 thousand dollar good used car, I am talking about the really poor peoples cars that kids starting out and the low income people with bad credit buy. By the time they get down to what someone like that can afford they are so worn out they get crappy milage anyway. Face it, the high gas prices hurt the poor the most. Those of us that can afford a fuel effecient car or make enough they don't care about the milage are just annoyed with it. I always thought the dems were the poor persons champion. This doesn't sound much like it.

You don't want to give poor people healthcare but now you are concerned about their ability to drive cars?

I bought a 1985 Toyota Corolla for something like $1500 and drove it until it had about 200,000 miles on it. I then sold it to a teenage kid for $500. He is still driving it though it's a rust bucket but it still runs fine with a little TLC. It got something like 30pmg when I sold it.

There is also the bus. And carpools.

There are ways to counter high gas prices without ruining the environment.

I am pointing out that the very people that the dems say they speak for are getting hurt the worse. The bus and carpools are not always an option. Plus the other effects of high fuel prices are also hurting the poor, like food for instance. So what is it? Do the dems want to help the poor or not?

Hurt by irresponsible financial management by Democrats mainly.

Fixed that for you