Madame Speaker's real agenda?

[Mink]

See, I told you.....

[harpman1]

Actually, I told you.

[Mink]

What, you told me that it is bush or the Republican machine is at it again, finger pointing as they hide their mistakes?

You told me Pelosi's job is to not give anymore money to bush?

[harpman1]

I told you that all things in this world & the next will always be traceable back to the evil genius/dunce Pres. George W. Bush.

The substance of your posts confirm that.

And you still have yet to postulate on Madame Speaker's real agenda.

If you don't know, just guess.

We await with bated breath.

[Mink]

"We await with bated breath"?.....don't you mean "you" await?

What I am suggesting is while this thread was started to point fingers at Pelosi, and her real agenda, I am saying that she will not just giveaway money as was done in the past, hence our current dilemma. The so-called energy crisis is just that.....just like the one created in California with Enron (bush crony).

[harpman1]

Give away money?
What money?
Money?
This is about Mrs. Pelosi's
agenda
re:
our
energy
situation
specifically
drilling
domestically.

[Mink]

Given the hugh deficit, yes!

Isn't bush a friend of the saudis? Can't they help? Don't they have influence on oil and prices? Wasn't the war in Iraq to rid the world of saddam and pay for it as well? Now, we have the crisis in Georgia, another oil opportunity......can you see the pattern here? Yes, we have an energy crisis, but how can drilling on our coasts alleviate it? What about the allocated land that the Republicans have for drilling? Why don't they start there before pointing fingers at Pelosi?

[jgaffney]

Nice evasion, Mink. You know very well that the Speaker adjourned the House, and the Majority Leader adjourned the Senate rather than let the Republicans vote on an end to the ban on offshore drilling. Now, both of them are on the edge because, when Congress reconvenes after the conventions, they still have the 12 annual appropriations bills to consider, anyone of which could be amended with an end to the ban for offshore drilling.

So, what to do? A continuing resolution, in hopes that their boy gets elected and all spending restraints will be off? Even a continuing resolution could be a target of the amendment to end the ban on offshore drilling. Will Pelosi and Reid shut down the government, like Clinton did in 1995, rather than allow the Republicans to get their say?

Instead of facing the reality of what the majority of people in America want to see (an end to the federal ban on offshore drilling), Madame Speaker is cooking up a bill that will "kinda" lift the ban, but you can bet that it will be worded in such a way that the ban will effectively remain in place. That way, she can say that she tried to do the right thing, but those wascally Wepublicans wouldn't let her. Only in SF, Marin and Sonoma will she be believed. The rest of the country will howl, but so what?

Actually, something has to be done by Oct. 1, or the ban will expire on its own. The action she needs is to extend the ban - it doesn't renew automatically. Fortunately for us, her actions, if any, will be right before the general election, center stage, for all to see. The Dems are really in a pickle.

Please don't bring up the argument of the "68 million acres" again - we've already refuted it with facts and links.

In all reality, do you think that, if the federal ban were lifted or allowed to expire, California would allow drilling off our NCal coast? Get real.

[Mink]

Gaffney, there is no evasion on my part at all.....merely common sense.

If anyone is in a pickle, it is the country with a poor economy.

[jgaffney]

Aug 24, 2008 22:01:39 GMT -5 Mink said:

Gaffney, there is no evasion on my part at all.....merely common sense.

Let me make sure I've got this straight: The economy is suffering with $114-a-barrel oil prices, down from $147 after Bush lifted the executive order, by the way, and you want to shift the blame from a Democrat Speaker who refuses to allow a vote on expansion of domestic production, to a bunch of oil men who would bring every barrel of oil they could to market at this price? Is that your version of common sense? Remember, Exxon doesn't set the price of oil, the world market does. It responds to supply and demand. Increased supply will drive down prices. In the speculators' market, where they are betting on the future price of oil, the possibility of future increases in supply will drive down the price. Simple economics.

Meanwhile, the Dems want to hang their hat on "68 million acres" when it has been clearly shown that there's no oil there. If there was, the oil men would be bringing it to market already. Have I made that clear?

Instead, you bring up the straw man argument of getting the Saudis to increase production. The Saudis have clearly shown, over the past 20 or 30 years (think Nixon), that, while they enjoy being our strategic ally in the Mideast, they still vote their pocketbooks when it comes time to set OPEC quotas. Or, do you have evidence to the contrary? A one-sentence brush-off is not an answer.

If anyone is in a pickle, it is the country with a poor economy.

Are you talking about the economy that recovered from the double whammy of the Clinton recession in 2000-01 and the 9/11 attacks to, not only wage two wars against terrorists halfway around the world, but also grow, and continue to grow, at rates that are unprecedented, given the external influences. Unemployment jumps from 4.6% to 5.4% and you're ready to form souplines. Have you forgotten the 11+% unemployment, combined with 10% inflation that we enjoyed under Carter? Were you in the work force then? THAT was a hard time - this is a blip.

I understand that a major portion of the Democrat platform is that the economy is in the toilet and only Obama's plan to raise taxes will revive it. It never ceases to amaze me that there is a class of people who believe that the best way to revive an economy is to suck more money out of it. See my new Signature.

And, you didn't answer my question about drilling off the NCal coast. That point, I think, is a key to this whole issue.

[bolverk]

Aug 23, 2008 14:38:11 GMT -5 Mink said:

What are you talking about harpman1?

He is talking about the complete lack of refineries being built, and no oil drilled in a nation that uses everyones natural resources but our own.

Tell me Mink, are you really so naive to believe that the votes to do these things were available on the thin margins the Republicans had in the Congress? Now that Democrats have control, on the same thin margins, they bottle up the Energy Bill, so as not to allow Republicans to add amendments.

Come on Mink, you have been around this state as long as I have. The Democrats were responsible for banning the offshore oil drilling. They were responsible for preventing drilling in ANWR. And, they were responsible for no more refineries. The Democrats are trying to force us off of oil, but it may well back fire on them, because no one can afford the alternatives.

[bolverk]

Aug 23, 2008 15:29:08 GMT -5 Mink said:

Thanks for the explanation harpman1.

Have you noticed that the bush admin. has a history in oil? Everyone doing fine right now are cronies, those that would help bush get to where he is and oil mongerers are one of the cronies.

Now, if Pelosi has history in oil, then she is likewise as guilty.

No, she is heavily invested in natural gas. So she is just one of the cronies of the alternative energy crowd.