Jump to content

obama giving mini oil barrels to reporters to make fun of mccain!


mizzufalcfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

you people crack me up!!!!!!

The kit was a retort of sorts to the McCain campaign for handing out tire gauges to reporters inscribed with “Barack Obama Energy Plan,’’ which mocked Senator Barack Obama’s suggestion that Americans inflate their tires to use less gas.

WOW I never knew Barack Obama was the DNC :o:o:o:o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only is he not the DNC, there was this little quote taken from the article:

The kit was a retort of sorts to the McCain campaign for handing out tire gauges to reporters inscribed with “Barack Obama Energy Plan,’’ which mocked Senator Barack Obama’s suggestion that Americans inflate their tires to use less gas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've written a play. It's titled 'ELECTION 08'. Here, in its entirety, for your enjoyment, is

ELECTION 08

by Octoslash

Me: Your candidate sucks!

You: No he doesn't. Your's sucks!

Me: Oh no he doesn't!

You: Oh yes he does!

Me: Wanna bet?

END

(Curtain)

That play was written in 2000 and made an encore in 2004. Currently it's a traveling road tour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing where the tax break to 'Big Oil' is in the bill, unless 'Big Oil' decides to invest in revnewable energy, in which case they'd be in line with everyone else.

This bill looks worthy of a 'Yes' vote to me. Any link to McCain's reasoning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing where the tax break to 'Big Oil' is in the bill, unless 'Big Oil' decides to invest in revnewable energy, in which case they'd be in line with everyone else.

This bill looks worthy of a 'Yes' vote to me. Any link to McCain's reasoning?

I'm not saying it is or isn't in there but I doubt they'd put the words "tax break for big oil" in there. If its in there, it probally would sound a little less back handed than that. politicains are sneaky people.

The titles of these bills always make them seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you people crack me up!!!!!!

WOW I never knew Barack Obama was the DNC :o:o:o:o

Not only is he not the DNC, there was this little quote taken from the article:
So who are you disgusted at now? Matter of fact did you read the article before posting something to try to make a point?

fish_caught_on_jim_dandy2.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing where the tax break to 'Big Oil' is in the bill, unless 'Big Oil' decides to invest in revnewable energy, in which case they'd be in line with everyone else.

This bill looks worthy of a 'Yes' vote to me. Any link to McCain's reasoning?

Section 1329

Allows “geological and geophysical” costs associated with oil exploration to be written off faster than present law, costing taxpayers over $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. The provision claims to raise $292 million from 2005-06, and cost taxpayers $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. It originated in the House (there was no such provision in the original Senate bill). Record-high oil prices should provide a sufficient incentive for oil companies like ExxonMobil to drill for more oil without this huge new tax break.

Section 1323

Allows owners of oil refineries to expense 50% of the costs of equipment used to increase the refinery’s capacity by at least 5%, costing taxpayers $842 million from 2006-11 (the estimate claims the provision will actually raise $436 million from 2012-15). This provision was added by the Senate. Record high prices for oil and gasoline, and record profits by refiners like ExxonMobil and Valero should provide all the incentive needed to expand refinery capacity without this huge tax break.

Sections 1325-6

This tax break allows natural gas companies to save $1.035 billion by depreciating their property at a much faster rate. This tax break makes no economic sense, as natural gas prices remain at record high levels, and these high prices—not tax breaks—should be all the incentive the industry needs to invest in gathering and distribution lines.

Section 342

Allows oil companies drilling on public land to pay taxpayers in oil rather than in cash.

Sections 344-345

Waives royalty payments for drilling for some natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico.

Section 346

Waives royalty payments for drilling in offshore Alaska.

Sections 353-4

Waives royalty payments for gas hydrate extraction on the Outer Continental Shelf and public land in Alaska.

Section 383

Allows oil companies drilling in federal land off the coast of a particular state to pay the state 44 cents of every dollar it would have paid to the federal government for the privilege of drilling on federal land.

Section 322

Exempts from the Safe Drinking Water Act a coalbed methane drilling technique called “hydraulic fracturing,” a potential polluter of underground drinking water. One of the largest companies employing this technique is Halliburton, for which Vice President Richard Cheney acted as chief executive officer in the 1990s. This exemption would kill lawsuits by Western ranchers who say that drilling for methane gas pollutes groundwater by injecting contaminated fluids underground. Only 16 companies stand to significantly benefit from this exemption from clean water laws: Anadarko, BP, Burlington Resources, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy, Dominion Resources, EOG Resources, Evergreen Resources, Halliburton, Marathon Oil, Oxbow (Gunnison Energy), Tom Brown, Western Gas Resources, Williams Cos and XTO. These companies gave nearly $15 million to federal candidates—with more than three-quarters of that total going to Republicans. Moreover, the 16 companies spent more than $70 million lobbying Congress.

Section 323

Provides an exemption for oil and gas companies from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for their construction activities surrounding oil and gas drilling.

Section 311

The section severely limits the ability of local communities and states to have adequate say over the siting of controversial Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) facilities. The section states that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) “shall have the exclusive authority to approve or deny an application for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of an LNG terminal” under the Natural Gas Act (emphasis added).

The language is clearly aimed at a July 2004 lawsuit filed by the State of California claiming that FERC illegally ruled in March 2004 that states have limited jurisdiction over the permitting and siting of LNG facilities inside their borders. The lawsuit is being closely watched by other states, where officials have expressed alarm about the inability of state and local governments to have adequate input into these projects. LNG projects are particularly controversial because liquefied natural gas is extremely volatile and dangerous. Even if one supports increasing the number of LNG terminals in North America, there is absolutely no justification for limiting the ability of states and local communities to have control over the permitting and siting of these facilities. (See our Liquid Natural Gas section.)

LNG proponents claim that states still can veto LNG projects, as they retain jurisdiction over the facilities under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. But these three acts have very limited jurisdiction (for example, LNG facilities don’t really pollute the water or air, so states have no real ability to raise objections under these laws). The broadest possible law is the Natural Gas Act, so it is no surprise that natural gas companies and their allies in Congress pushed to give FERC “exclusive authority” under the one law (Natural Gas Act) with the most sweeping power.

Language added during the conference committee (meaning it wasn’t in either the original House or Senate bills) gives the Department of Defense veto authority over LNG projects proposed near military bases, directing FERC to “enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Defense for the purpose of ensuring that [FERC] coordinate and consult with the Secretary of Defense on the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of liquefied natural gas facilities that may affect an active military installation.” FERC is further required to “obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense before authorizing the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of liquefied natural gas facilities affecting the training or activities of an active military installation” (emphasis added).

But a similar proposal in the Senate to provide states with these exact rights now given to the DoD was rejected by a vote of 52 to 45 (a “yea” vote is bad, in that it was a vote to kill, or table, the amendment that would have forced FERC to get the approval of states to permit LNG facilities).

The House also rejected an amendment that would have removed this section entirely, thereby preserving the status quo and allowing the state of California to continue its challenge in federal court (so an “aye” vote is good, as it was to remove the entire LNG section).

Section 357

Authorizes a survey of the oil and natural gas available underwater off the coasts of states. This is the first step in opening these areas to more drilling. There was an amendment to strike this language that failed 52 to 44.

Section 390

Increases the ability to exclude a broad range of oil and gas exploration and drilling activities from public involvement and impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Section 381

Limits the ability of states to protect their coastlines from oil and gas exploration by limiting their appeals process under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Section 369

Mandates that the federal government make available oil shale and tar sands extraction on federal land for oil companies.

Awesome bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it is or isn't in there but I doubt they'd put the words "tax break for big oil" in there. If its in there, it probally would sound a little less back handed than that. politicains are sneaky people.

The titles of these bills always make them seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I read a good bit of it and didn't see anything that could be interpreted as a tax break specifically for 'Big Oil'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit I may be missing something but what is wrong with a bill structured around looking for alternative energy sources?
Asking the oil companies to find an alternative to oil is like asking an employee to hire his replacement. I'm sure they are searching really hard for their replacement...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

using gimmicks & toys like this to advance serious political campaign!! shows how unfit obama is for the office!! while mccain is out campaigning for real americans today visiting oil rig off new orleans obama is playing politics with stunts like this!! :angry: i'm disgusted!!!

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08...8-campaign-kit/

how quickly they forget that mccain was passing out tire gauges to make fun of obama for telling people to check their tire pressure. obama was right to tell people to check their gauges, yet mccain and his cronies thought it was funny and decided to try to laugh about something that actually helps improve gas mileage. whos unfit for what now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...