Protect Our Coasts -- Not Big Oil's Profits

[Backglass]

As far as senior moments go -

Obama has declared that there's 57 states as opposed to the reality that there's only 50

Thats all you've got? Hard policy statements versus an obvious slip of the tongue? Or do you honestly believe that a man running for president doesn't know what every school kid knows. Seriously.

He's claimed to have seen some of the fallen war heroes in the audience during a Memorial Day speech this year (probably because he has no clue why we even celebrate Memorial Day in the first place)

"Probably"? So we are guessing and postulating versus actual flip flop statements from McCain?

Pretty weak Rick.

Oh I forgot! Obama isn't a senior citizen so he can't fall back on that excuse. Guess we'll just have to identify him as a moron. He's free to take a basic course in geography.

I see. And how many verbal slips has our blithering idiot president made, yet the blind Repulican's give him a free pass? HUNDREDS...enough to make page-a-day calendars from. Really...you need to work harder if this is all you can come up with.

McCain has flip-flopped over 14 times and the list is growing. Not misspeaking...not slips of the tongue...not gaffs or silly word inventions..but literate policy statements on both sides of the coin.

He is a pandering opportunist who plays to whatever crowd he is in front of. He has no backbone. He cheated on his wife, dumped her for a trophy wife drug addict (probably so he could trade rehab stories with your pal, fellow Pill Popping Addict Rush Limbaugh) and makes up his policy and opinion on the fly..

Yes...Barack Obama said he had traveled to 57 states, when he obviously meant 57 stops. But now he's an idiot who doesn't know how many states are in the country he wants to run?

If you honestly believe this as truth, you deserve $8.00 gasoline and a never ending "war".

[silvanricky]

As far as senior moments go -

Obama has declared that there's 57 states as opposed to the reality that there's only 50

Thats all you've got? Hard policy statements versus an obvious slip of the tongue? Or do you honestly believe that a man running for president doesn't know what every school kid knows. Seriously.

Nope, that's just for starters. You get Obama away from his cue cards and he's not much more than just another bumbling idiot.

He's claimed to have seen some of the fallen war heroes in the audience during a Memorial Day speech this year (probably because he has no clue why we even celebrate Memorial Day in the first place)

"Probably"? So we are guessing and postulating versus actual flip flop statements from McCain?

Pretty weak Rick.

Well Glassy, the man actually said he saw some of our fallen war heroes at a Memorial Day event. I can say with almost absolute certainty that he's created a new holiday - War Hero Resurrection Day. A shame he knows so little about why we celebrate holidays. Perhaps this genius can claim that he recognizes some fallen shrubs on Arbor Day.

Oh I forgot! Obama isn't a senior citizen so he can't fall back on that excuse. Guess we'll just have to identify him as a moron. He's free to take a basic course in geography.

I see. And how many verbal slips has our blithering idiot president made, yet the blind Repulican's give him a free pass? HUNDREDS...enough to make page-a-day calendars from. Really...you need to work harder if this is all you can come up with.

Oh, you'll see

Despite your unkind remarks berating someone simply for being older (a sin you'll one day be guilty of yourself), he's still pretty sharp. The fact the guy served his country and survived a POW camp never figures into your equation. He's simply a bad person for being old. Obama doesn't have that excuse to fall back on. I wonder if he thinks there were 27 original colonies.

He is a pandering opportunist who plays to whatever crowd he is in front of. He has no backbone.

Sure you're not talking about Bill Clinton? Selective memory on your part

He cheated on his wife

Wow, are you sure we're not talking about Slick Willy? Nah, maybe Jim McGreevey. No? Hmmm, how about Eliot Spitzer! And the hits just keep on comin'!! Who are the Democrats or you to judge anyone when it comes to adultery? You guys need to worry about yourselves before casting the stones.

dumped her for a trophy wife drug addict

As opposed to Ted Kennedy driving his woman into a channel and swimming to safety while leaving her to drown. How nice of him to not call the cops until after her body was found. Sweet people, these Democrats. Once again Glass, how about cleaning up your side of the political aisle before judging others.

Yes...Barack Obama said he had traveled to 57 states, when he obviously meant 57 stops. But now he's an idiot who doesn't know how many states are in the country he wants to run? If you honestly believe this as truth, you deserve $8.00 gasoline and a never ending "war".

And if you honestly believe that Democrats never say stupid things and never flip flop on issues then you live in Oz. Rush Limbaugh is an arrogant blowhard by the way. I just wanted to point out that you view the world through a very selective lens. Both parties have goofballs, but you make the Democrats sound like their shit don't stink. Time to look in the mirror before you start judging other people.

While we're on the subject of flip flops, here's a list for the Messiah:

Obama Flip Flops

I'll just say this in closing. Republicans aren't saints. I'm just pointing out that you're extremely selective in your interpretation of the news. People who live in glass houses definitely shouldn't be throwing stones. So if you're just going to point fingers remember your side isn't exactly full of a bunch of saints.

[FabledIntegral]

Anyone with a basic understanding of economics would know that gas prices haven't truly risen at all in the past 20 years, with the exception of the oil embargo. Accounting in inflation, gas prices have remained relatively constant, HARDLY moving up at all in actual cost. It has moved up, no doubt, but barely. It is the main argument oil companies use when getting slammed for monopolies, AND it's true.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a poor college student that COMMUTES to school. I hate gas prices. But the oil companies are hardly reaping so many benefits like the media suggests.

[Nobunaga]

... Somebody show a map of where the proposed drilling will take place.

....

[Grooveman2007]

Obama Flip Flops

He's got you there Backglass. But after the Bush years, never changing policies based on the situation would seem like the bad thing. Being a flip-flop may have been bad in 2004, but I think that we need a leader who is willing to admit that he was once wrong on an issue and has adapted his policies to work with current situations.

Anyone with a basic understanding of economics would know that gas prices haven't truly risen at all in the past 20 years, with the exception of the oil embargo. Accounting in inflation, gas prices have remained relatively constant, HARDLY moving up at all in actual cost. It has moved up, no doubt, but barely. It is the main argument oil companies use when getting slammed for monopolies, AND it's true.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a poor college student that COMMUTES to school. I hate gas prices. But the oil companies are hardly reaping so many benefits like the media suggests.

Yeah, pretty much. People just need a scapegoat in times like these. The reason they have record profits is because there is record demand. More people are buying gas from them so they are obviously going to make more money.

As for the drilling, I'm against it. If the price of gas artifically goes down for a few years we will lose the drive to convert over to alternative fuels. What we need now is more nuclear power and we needed it years ago. We need nukes and we need plug in electric cars. Nuclear power is clean, efficient, reliable, relativley affordable, and safe. I think that wind power as a viable energy alternative is a load of horseshit perpetuated by the growing green movement. Even if we saturated the plaines with nothing but windmills we wouldn't be able to power the nation. And we would waste useable agricultural land. The only place for wind power is to power the occasonal small town or private property.

[Anarkistsdream]

I was with you until you said this:

The only place for wind power is to power the occasonal small town or private property.

Because I just have to show you this:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_10027467

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19231397/

http://www.pickensplan.com/

[pimpdave]

Show me how McCain would solve these problems. Show me where he hasn't backtracked on his word... You can't.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure one area in which McCain has demonstrated consistency is in his opinion of torture.

Of course, for the most part, your statement is true, but I think he's been pretty vocal about our disregard for the Geneva Convention.

[Anarkistsdream]

Show me how McCain would solve these problems. Show me where he hasn't backtracked on his word... You can't.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure one area in which McCain has demonstrated consistency is in his opinion of torture.

Of course, for the most part, your statement is true, but I think he's been pretty vocal about our disregard for the Geneva Convention.

Waterboarding FTW!

[pimpdave]

If you want cheap oil, pressure your congressman to take it form Iraq. Don't pay them. They LOST!!! That is how the owrld used to work. Why have a military if you aren't going to benefit from it?

Kill em all, and welcome to the 51st state: Oilsylvania

As I recall, in the build up to the war in Iraq, it was mentioned that A) oil profits would pay for Iraq's reconstruction and reimburse the economic commitment of the Coalition of the Coerced and that B) we'd soon have $20 a barrel crude shipping back, from sea to shining sea.

Don't ever forget the promises they made.

[pimpdave]

Show me how McCain would solve these problems. Show me where he hasn't backtracked on his word... You can't.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure one area in which McCain has demonstrated consistency is in his opinion of torture.

Of course, for the most part, your statement is true, but I think he's been pretty vocal about our disregard for the Geneva Convention.

Waterboarding FTW!

Wait, is McCain opposed to it, supports it, or just abstains from voicing an opinion?

I thought I saw him on C-SPAN awhile back openly chastising the current administration for such "grey area" coercion techniques.

If he's flip flopped on that I have absolutely NO respect for him, because that was the one area in which I could say, "well, at least he's a human being".

[Anarkistsdream]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mcc ... ture-veto/

Last week, the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill — which contained a provision banning waterboarding — to the floor for a vote. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), an outspoken waterboarding critic, voted against the bill.

At the time, ThinkProgress questioned whether McCain would stand with Bush’s threatened veto of the legislation. Today, the AP reports that McCain has come out saying Bush should veto the measure, which would make the Army Field Manual the standard for CIA interrogations.

Talking to reporters today, McCain attempted to defend his stance:

“I said there should be additional techniques allowed to other agencies of government as long as they were not” torture. “I was on the record as saying that they could use additional techniques as long as they were not cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment,” McCain said.

“So the vote was in keeping with my clear record of saying that they could have additional techniques, but those techniques could not violate” international rules against torture.

But the vote was not “in keeping” with McCain’s unclear record on torture; in the past, McCain called waterboarding a “terrible and odious practice” that “should never be condoned in the U.S.”

McCain is trying to have it both ways. He claims the CIA should not use “cruel” or “unusual” interrogations, but he is defending Bush’s veto, a clear approval of waterboarding.

[Nobunaga]

... no map yet?

...

[Anarkistsdream]

... no map yet?

...

For Christ's sake, if you want to participate, do some of your own research...

http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_p ... on/energy/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... a_oil.html

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0408-10.htm

[Backglass]

Nope, that's just for starters. You get Obama away from his cue cards and he's not much more than just another bumbling idiot.

LOL. Cue cards, huh. More guesswork? You have obviously never actually listened to one of his speeches.

Well Glassy, the man actually said he saw some of our fallen war heroes at a Memorial Day event. I can say with almost absolute certainty that he's created a new holiday - War Hero Resurrection Day. A shame he knows so little about why we celebrate holidays. Perhaps this genius can claim that he recognizes some fallen shrubs on Arbor Day.

That is funny, but again what you trumpet as horrible is a minor faux pas when you compare it to 180 degree reversals of policy from flip-flop McCain.

Despite your unkind remarks berating someone simply for being older (a sin you'll one day be guilty of yourself), he's still pretty sharp.

I don't want "pretty sharp for a guy his age"...I want "Extremely sharp".

The fact the guy served his country and survived a POW camp never figures into your equation.

Here we go with the Hero Worship. Yes, John McCain was a POW....FORTY YEARS AGO. Talk about resting on your laurels.

FACT: I saved a neighbor girl from drowning when I was 13. Should I boast about this on my resume decades later? The True American Hero that I am?

He's simply a bad person for being old.

No, he is a bad person for the shit he pulled on his first wife. As for being old...yes, I believe he would be a bad president for being as old as he is. My father is 83. I don't want him to be president either. McCain doesn't even have EMAIL for petes sake...at least my 83 year old father does.

Obama doesn't have that excuse to fall back on. I wonder if he thinks there were 27 original colonies.

Funny! I am surprised you haven't tried to use the tired republican scare tactic of questioning his heritage & citizenship as well.

Sure you're not talking about Bill Clinton? Selective memory on your part

LOL...you mean when our economy was kickin ass? Before the Texan Fool sent us to the poor house? I would WELCOME those days back.

Wow, are you sure we're not talking about Slick Willy? Nah, maybe Jim McGreevey. No? Hmmm, how about Eliot Spitzer! And the hits just keep on comin'!!

Are they running for President too? All these people...I had no idea.

Perhaps you should do a little research into your "hero". Mr. McCain returned from POW camp to find his faithful wife waiting...with a limp. She had been in a debilitating car accident while he was on duty. Was he happy to see his bride patiently, faithfully waiting? No. He started chasing every whore he could find, admittedly cheating on his wife until he met a very rich one half his age. He then dumped the woman he swore to "have and to hold until death due us part" like an old rag. Oh...and Ross Perot paid her hospital bills.

This is your "hero". This is your "Integrity". Move on to the next shiny object that comes along and f*ck promises, honesty and morality. He's a scumbag.

His current trophy wife is also an admitted drug addict, STEALING from a non-profit orginization set up to help CHILDREN to feed her drug habit. And where was John through all this? Completely clueless as to his own wifes actions. "I was stunned. Naturally, I felt enormous sadness for Cindy and a certain sense of guilt that I hadn't detected it." - John McCain. So much for his razor sharp military senses.

Who are the Democrats or you to judge anyone when it comes to adultery? You guys need to worry about yourselves before casting the stones.

I'm not a Democrat so you would have to ask them, but I can judge. I have been married ONCE. How about you? Got a list of ex-wifes on the roster Ricky? It seems promises and oaths mean nothing to John McCain.

As opposed to Ted Kennedy driving his woman into a channel and swimming to safety while leaving her to drown. How nice of him to not call the cops until after her body was found. Sweet people, these Democrats. Once again Glass, how about cleaning up your side of the political aisle before judging others.

Ted Kennedy? Is he running for president TOO?! You keep dragging up old Democrats names like this has anything to do with McCain & Obama. If you think this somehow offends me, it doesn't as I am not a Democrat...I could care less about Ted Kennedy , he seems like a pompous ass to me much of the time.

You see...unlike Mr. McCain I do not live in the past...trumpeting things I did 40 years ago as a reason to vote for me today.

Rush Limbaugh is an arrogant blowhard by the way.

A pill popping, drug addict blowhard! Woohoo! We agree on something!

I just wanted to point out that you view the world through a very selective lens. Both parties have goofballs, but you make the Democrats sound like their shit don't stink.

Wrong. Obama is not perfect by any means. For example, I question his judgment with that whole bizarre church/preacher thing, but than again I question EVERYONES judgment when it comes to adults believing in fairy tales.

Time to look in the mirror before you start judging other people.

I am a voter. I have a right to judge the candidates. If they don't want to be judged and scrutinized, don't run for public office...and that goes for their wives as well.

While we're on the subject of flip flops, here's a list for the Messiah:

Obama Flip Flops

I will check it out. Thanks.

I'll just say this in closing. Republicans aren't saints. I'm just pointing out that you're extremely selective in your interpretation of the news. People who live in glass houses definitely shouldn't be throwing stones. So if you're just going to point fingers remember your side isn't exactly full of a bunch of saints.

I am independent...I think both parties stink. I have voted for Republicans AND Democrats in many state, local & yes National elections (I voted for Reagan). "My Side" is the guy who is best for the job regardless of political affiliation..

George W. Bush has left this country in a horrible mess...have you looked around lately? Can anyone look around and say "Wow...things are great!" John McCain does...he honestly believes that our countries problems are all psychological...he has said so on numerous occasions. Then again if my wife was worth 6 BILLION dollars I would think things were pretty great too. He is an elitist who is out of touch with your life and mine. He is not struggling to make mortgage payments or wondering how he will put his kids through college.

He has stated that he "Does not understand economics". SURELY this must bother you, especially considering the state of our economy today?! Have you looked at your 401k lately?

Most frighteningly of all, he has no idea how to use a computer or how to even read this thread. THAT ALONE should give you pause in 2008. You trumpet his military prowess as a reason he would be a great leader, but in this day and age, what good is a commander in chief that has no clue about modern technology?

I know the phrase is getting tired, but I DO want a change...I don't want four more years of the status quo. It hasn't exactly been a joy ride.

[pimpdave]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/

“I said there should be additional techniques allowed to other agencies of government as long as they were not” torture. “I was on the record as saying that they could use additional techniques as long as they were not cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment,” McCain said.

“So the vote was in keeping with my clear record of saying that they could have additional techniques, but those techniques could not violate” international rules against torture.

The article isn't specific enough to draw a complete conclusion, unfortunately. When McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton, he was tortured for the sake of being tortured. Sort of like what was going on at Abu Ghraib, but on like Super Steroids.

It doesn't specify if McCain is thus condoning waterboarding, or whether he is merely condoning something like sleep deprivation techniques of coercion that may have also been banned by the bill.

So unfortunately it is just too vague. Seems to me that the original statement, that waterboarding is a "terrible and odious practice", still holds, just that the bill in question as a whole (and not it's individual parts) may have been too limiting to the spook interviewers it would effect.

It is possible that he thought the bill simply went too far. I don't know enough about the specifics of that particular vote, or even about the bill itself, I'm just extending the benefit of the doubt. He's still the worst candidate, no doubt. But I'm not left unconvinced of the idea that he hates the idea of torture (or specifically waterboarding) and that the USA has been using it in GWOT.

He would have to actually state something to the effect of "I condone the use of waterboarding by the USA," for me to be thoroughly convinced. Too many insinuations can come from a simple yay or nay vote on a bill, and it's unfair to assume a vote was cast in response to only one part of the bill, rather than the document as a whole.

[Backglass]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/

“I said there should be additional techniques allowed to other agencies of government as long as they were not” torture. “I was on the record as saying that they could use additional techniques as long as they were not cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment,” McCain said.

“So the vote was in keeping with my clear record of saying that they could have additional techniques, but those techniques could not violate” international rules against torture.

The article isn't specific enough to draw a complete conclusion, unfortunately. When McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton, he was tortured for the sake of being tortured. Sort of like what was going on at Abu Ghraib, but on like Super Steroids.

It doesn't specify if McCain is thus condoning waterboarding, or whether he is merely condoning something like sleep deprivation techniques of coercion that may have also been banned by the bill.

So unfortunately it is just too vague. Seems to me that the original statement, that waterboarding is a "terrible and odious practice", still holds, just that the bill in question may have been too limiting to the spook interviewers it would effect.

It is possible that he thought the bill simply went too far. I don't know enough about the specifics of that particular instance, or even about the bill itself, I'm just extending the benefit of the doubt. He's still the worst candidate, no doubt. But I'm not left unconvinced of the idea that he hates the idea of torture (or specifically waterboarding) and that the USA has been using it in the GWOT.

He would have to actually state something to the effect of "I condone the use of waterboarding by the USA," for me to be thoroughly convinced. Too many insinuations can come from a simple yay or nay vote on a bill, and it's unfair to assume a vote was cast in response to only one part of the bill, rather than the document as a whole.

I am sure McCain thinks just like Bush. Torture is just fine....as long as it's the other team being tortured.

[pimpdave]

I am sure McCain thinks just like Bush. Torture is just fine....as long as it's the other team being tortured.

I'm sorry if I'm derailing this thread, but how are you sure?

[Anarkistsdream]

I am sure McCain thinks just like Bush. Torture is just fine....as long as it's the other team being tortured.

I'm sorry if I'm derailing this thread, but how are you sure?

This thread was derailed when Silvanricky showed up.

[Nobunaga]

... Did some lunchtime research. Information is a good thing.

* ANWR is 5x the land area of the State of Massachussets (19.6 million acres).

* Area "10-02" is a treeless area of ANWR covering 8% of ANWR. It is located north of the Sadlerochit Mountains (on the coast, obviously).

* Federal law allows only for 2000 acres of this 8% (Area 10-02) to be used for drilling. It was designated for such by the Federal government.

* "10-02" has no unique ecological systems and is not designated as a refuge.

... So what's the problem?

... The very minor scope of actual drilling and the fact that it will have no forseeable ill effect on wildlife seems to support the validity of arguments in favor of drilling.

... Show me what I'm missing. What support can be given for the argument against drilling? Please be as specific as possible.

....

[Anarkistsdream]

Offshore drilling can wreak havoc on our coasts: Each platform produces toxic discharges that can poison and kill marine wildlife and dumps tons of unregulated air pollutants into our atmosphere. And just one spill can devastate an entire ecosystem.

That's one specific point.

We can also say that, instead of wasting time and money drilling for a fossil fuel that destroys our world, we could be looking for a more 'green' solution.

You are not looking to honestly learn. You are not looking to change your opinion, and you don't care if you become informed.

You are doing your best to be contrary.

[Nobunaga]

Offshore drilling can wreak havoc on our coasts: Each platform produces toxic discharges that can poison and kill marine wildlife and dumps tons of unregulated air pollutants into our atmosphere. And just one spill can devastate an entire ecosystem.

That's one specific point.

We can also say that, instead of wasting time and money drilling for a fossil fuel that destroys our world, we could be looking for a more 'green' solution.

You are not looking to honestly learn. You are not looking to change your opinion, and you don't care if you become informed.

You are doing your best to be contrary.

... You are quite, quite wrong.

... In spite of popular belief I am not a mindless neo-con and do not fall in line with the, "Libs hate it, so I have to like it" mentality.

... I gave you facts, you gave me facts (though details would have been nice). I never considered yours before but now I will. Seriously.

... Consider mine, in Alaska anyway. The Gulf Coast is a different set of circumstances, agreed.

...

[Juan_Bottom]

... Show me what I'm missing. What support can be given for the argument against drilling? Please be as specific as possible.

To me, the best argument against it is the actual cost of oil to begin with. OPEC has released the same statement over and over again. That our governments are the reason that the price of oil is so high. The price would drop in an instant if they wanted it too.
Granted EXXON was kicked out of Venezuala. And yes they did have it coming. But EXXON is the best example of an evil corporation that I can think of. Does anyone recall EXXON's practice of buying up oil refineries in South America and overseas, just to close them? In an all-out effort to raise the cost of oil?
I say no drilling anywhere, because the actual cost of oil/gas is a manufactured cost. It's all fake. And no doubt they are doing it to force the public to give up all of their rights to untapped oil.

[bbqpenguin]

sorry, i'm not buying it. speculation is a part of high oil prices, sure, but there's speculation in every market and there always will be as long as there's smart people looking to make a quick and easy buck. i would contend, however, that the real reason the price of oil is so high and isn't going to get lower) can be attributed to the basic economic principal of supply vs. demand. i'll assume you all paid attention in you high school econ classes so i wont explain the whole thing to you but what it comes down to is this; the world demand for oil is getting higher and higher. america and europe have traditionally sucked up most of the world's oil, but now, as china and india's general populations grow more and more wealthy, the demand is skyrocketing; if even half of eligable chinese and indians get a car, well, that essentially triples and then some the world's driving population (i don't actually know that, i sort of made it up but there's 2 billion of 'em, so i thought i made a reasonable estimate, if you can think of a better guess please correct me). at the same time, the world's oil supply is at best staying the same, and really is shrinking pretty quickly. an increase in demand without an increase in supply always makes higher prices in a free market.

i say we drill here, starting now. drill our coasts, and the reserves in alaska and the west. oil can now be drilled in a much more nature friendly way than we could even 10 years ago. the ecological impact would be unfortunate, but relatively small. increase nuclear power continue research into alternative, cleaner fuel technology, especially solar, and increase the supply of oil. increased supply equals lower prices.

finally, if we don't drill off our own coasts, you can be sure as hell somebody else will. china and cuba are working together in researching potential drilling sites very near our own shores, and you can bet they wont be as evironmentally concious as us.


also, since the OP posted a link to petition against drilling, i thought I'd leave a link for anyone who's in favor of drilling and wants cheaper gas: http://www.americansolutions.com/

[Anarkistsdream]

finally, if we don't drill off our own coasts, you can be sure as hell somebody else will. china and cuba are working together in researching potential drilling sites very near our own shores, and you can bet they wont be as evironmentally concious as us.


also, since the OP posted a link to petition against drilling, i thought I'd leave a link for anyone who's in favor of drilling and wants cheaper gas: http://www.americansolutions.com/

Or, we can use OTHER fuel sources... *gasp*

[bbqpenguin]

finally, if we don't drill off our own coasts, you can be sure as hell somebody else will. china and cuba are working together in researching potential drilling sites very near our own shores, and you can bet they wont be as evironmentally concious as us.


also, since the OP posted a link to petition against drilling, i thought I'd leave a link for anyone who's in favor of drilling and wants cheaper gas: http://www.americansolutions.com/

Or, we can use OTHER fuel sources... *gasp*

i am fully in support of alternative fuels, especially those that are economically viable and ecologically friendly. however, at the current rate of demand there is no way to just hop off oil. trust me, i'd love for everyone to be driving solar powered cars and their homes to be run a windmill in their backyard but that's a long way into the future. what else? ethanol would be more expensive than oil if everyone used it, and it still emits greenhouse gasses and makes food more expensive. hydrogen would also be more expensive, and more dangerous as well. electric cars are nice, but electricity costs money too and you stil have to burn coal to make electricity, and coal emissions are just as bad or worse than gasoline. alternative fuels aren't going to let me drive to work any cheaper for many years, so i say for now, yes, if we have to use gasoline let's at least get it cheap