McCain Ad a Full Tank of Nonsense

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: AskPlus @ 07/22/2008 7:05:16 PM

    I predict that there will be more lies of this nature in the near future. The "let's see what sticks" mentality is alive and in play. I predict the real and imagined McCain supporters will deny this article was even written, and find some way of blaming the DNC.

    • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 7:52:28 PM

      it seems to me that obama has been trying the "lets see what sticks" game with all his positions since he won the nomination. still dont know what he really stands for.

      • Posted By: AskPlus @ 07/23/2008 11:31:36 AM

        Well, it seems my prediction came true. You didn't even reference the article of course. You did however take the time to blog like a republican. Okay here goes. Exactly what did Obama say about McCain that can be construed as a blatant lie like this one?

        • Posted By: RICJEN48 @ 07/23/2008 1:30:05 PM

          YOU WILL NEVER KNOW BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHAT HE STANDS FOR.

  • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/23/2008 9:50:42 AM

    Shouldn't Obama have known 10 years ago that we should have started drilling? He should have been screaming out for increasing our domestic oil production since he was in Illinois state senate.

    Oh, that's right, he is only against issues, not for them.

    • Posted By: RICJEN48 @ 07/23/2008 1:28:37 PM

      THAT GOES TO SHOW YOU HOW MUCH YOU KNOW. HE WASN'T A SENATOR 10 YEARS AGO. ALL OF YOU ON THE OTHER SIDE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT YOU JUST BELIEVE WHAT PEOPLE SAY TO YOU. USE YOUR BRAINS SEARCH, SEARCH, SEARCH, SEARCH. AMERICA NEEDS SMART PEOPLE.

  • Posted By: lilone232 @ 07/23/2008 12:39:26 PM

    This is so not true. We all know that the gas prices are to be blamed on BUSH.......

  • Posted By: ottoebert @ 07/22/2008 6:42:39 PM

    The CEO of Chevron says drilling will not do ANYTHING now or in the future. Because they will export 75% of the domestic oil and the 25% they will sell us at "world prices" whether it comes from Mexico, the middle east, or anywhere else, it will be sold at over $4.00 a gallon.

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 07/22/2008 7:18:20 PM

      our government can prohibit the exportation of oil from US fields. The CEO of Chevron knows this.

      • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/23/2008 10:08:09 AM

        No, we can't. Because we belong to the World Trade Organization (another neoliberal Democratic blunder), we cannot restrict distribution, nor provide a subsidy for US citizens. That would be unfair to OPEC and against our trade agreements.

        • Posted By: AskPlus @ 07/23/2008 11:37:54 AM

          The WTO is an off-shoot of the GATT. Rules updates ballooned from 1945 to 58 ending with Eisenhower.
          It's a political blunder. Neo-liberal by the way is an off-shoot of what? You are very opinionated and emotional and it seems you try to write to convince, but you're just noise.

          • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/23/2008 11:43:26 AM

            Neoliberal - off-shoot of Democrats for the Globalization under the CFR.

      • Posted By: Nor-Cal for Obama @ 07/22/2008 10:00:57 PM

        And since we import 69% of our oil to begin with your point, Pearsoncrz is absurd.

        Do the math.

  • Posted By: votenic @ 07/23/2008 11:38:54 AM

    That's really lame. And the results have just been posted for the 2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll and Vice President Weekly Poll. See what America thinks at http://www.votenic.com

  • Posted By: laurenmort @ 07/23/2008 11:23:40 AM

    Drilling in our protected areas, which we won't see the results of for years, is only a band-aid. THE WORLD IS RUNNING OUT OF OIL, PERIOD. Stop focusing on a brief, inadequate stop-gap.

  • Posted By: basedrum777 @ 07/23/2008 11:17:12 AM

    I don't agree that we need to try to drill out of this problem. To suggest that we start drilling in areas which will never be rehabilitated from the destruction that drilling causes for oil that won't be pumped for 10 years (even giving you some time there since most say more than that) if ever is deplorable. You guys mentioned Clinton not allowing for drilling. Why stop there? How about Bush I, or Reagan, or Carter or the presidents before then? How about we concentrate on lowering our usage before we go on what amounts to a wild chase looking for something that may or may not yield results? Why are republicans so against the idea that restraint may be the best path to follow? Stock in big oil possibly? They have had the largest profits in history and no argument that its not a real profit will work because I audit some of them. Its real money.

  • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/23/2008 11:14:38 AM

    While the neoliberal Democrats continue to WHINE about how drilling will not result in any usable oil for 10 to 28 years (2030), the only solutions they provide are alternatives for electric energy and electric cars.

    18 wheelers, airplane, boats cannot operate on electricity. The neoliberal Democrats have NO solution for TRANSPORTATION energy, and refuse to negotiate on it. They feel it would be better for the people to walk, ride bicycles or drive electric cars, so the transportation energy can be used exclusively by the WISE neoliberals for their personal consumption.

    • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/23/2008 11:17:04 AM

      Correction: " ... for 10 to 22 years (2030)

  • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/23/2008 10:50:00 AM

    Erik_001:

    Believe me that I AM for alternative energy and renewable energy. Something should have been done 25 years ago, but most funding was stopped. We are 2 1/2 decades BEHIND because of it.

    While we stopped funding on oil shale, Canada continued research in sandy oil (similar procedure of extraction.) the majority of Canada's oil comes from sandy oil.

    In the 70's and early 80's, funding was provided for ethanol and coal gasification. In the Great Plains, ethanol has been available and USED since the 70's. North Dakota has had an operating coal gasification plant since the early 80's. Currently, the western part of ND is booming with coal mining (surface) and oil drilling, brought on by the price of oil.

  • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/23/2008 10:41:43 AM

    And, how long will it take to convert the 18 wheeler engines?

  • Posted By: Brik_001 @ 07/23/2008 10:37:20 AM

    Dinosaurs drill; it has been shown by current research that algae can supply all of USA transportation needs. Algae double in 24 hours. No crop land needed, just brackish water, light and CO2 ands limited space. A new technology that could start by keeping those semi trucks running costing about $2 per gallon to produce.

  • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/23/2008 10:24:58 AM

    Considering that Obama has chosen the neoliberal Democrats WHO ARE AGAINST ANY US PRODUCED FOSSIL FUELS as his think tank team, you can expect gas prices to double without ANY relief.

    Just as Obama thinks he needs to tell us what kind of vehicle we NEED to drive, that our kids NEED to learn Spanish, he believes that we will ONLY want renewable energy if we CANNOT AFFORD fossil fuels. In other words, Obama and his neoliberal Democrats think we have no common sense and are complete idiots. And, based on comments made by some Obama supporters - they are correct about his followers.

  • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/23/2008 10:14:29 AM

    T Boone Pickens for POTUS. He is the only one whose concern is FOR AMERICA by AMERICANS. He WANTS the US to be powered by AMERICAN produced energy.

    We have to be weaned off the oil. The neoliberals are against the Offshore Drilling for Natural Gas too. Just how do the neoliberal Democrats EXPECT our heavy duty trucks to operate? Or, do they expect there to be NO trucking? How is an 18-wheeler going to distribute the electric cars without comparable fuel? How short-sighted they truly are!!

  • Posted By: Debunked! @ 07/23/2008 10:05:22 AM

    NEWSWEEK----

    It's bad enough that the media is giving Obama a HUGEEEEE amount of excessive good coverage but you now find it necessary to post negative or questionable articles about McCain. Could it be that you are getting concerned because you are not seeing as many pro Obama comments/posts as you are use to seeing?


    Why don't you report on Obama not wanting to admit that the surge is working and instead of giving credit to our men and women who are fighting he would rather attribute a lot of "nonsense" as reasons to why there's reduction in violence instead of attributing the success to the sacrifice, hard work and dedication of our troops!!

    The news coverage is so biased and fake that it is ridiculous. Newsweek, are you REALLY in the tank for Obama or are you scared to do some real reporting on him because you don't want to be labeled a racist paper?! I am sure your researchers found out Obama is a huge fraud and possibly more, why on earth do you refuse to be objectional and report your findings instead of being a cheerleader!!??

  • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/23/2008 9:58:58 AM

    And, how is the Democratic proposed $0.10 per gallon increased federal gas/diesel tax going to HELP keep the cost of fuel down?

    Yes, we need to reduce consumption, but contrary to neoliberal Democratic solutions - we CANNOT STOP all consumption today. As T Boone Pickens stated yesterday in the Senate hearings, we cannot go to Page 2 before we finish Page 1.

    It was the neoliberal Democrats who stopped most funding for alternative energy and renewable energy research back in the early 1980's - the same neoliberals who are on Obama's nation of advisers.

  • Posted By: mk2008 @ 07/23/2008 7:16:02 AM

    an entire article on a 30 second ad? I think the author missed the whole point of the ad. lousy 'reporting'.

    you had to break down a 30 second ad? seriously????

  • Posted By: joenapp @ 07/23/2008 6:01:11 AM

    I can't believe an article like this gets on Newsweek ... especially with such substantiated "debunks" like ... "Not true. The federal government's estimate is that if the moratorium on offshore drilling were lifted today, it would be 2030 before we'd see a noticeable effect on supply and prices.

    Oh! The federal gov't said is so it must be true. What is this, The New York Times?


    O

  • Posted By: JeeperAnimal @ 07/22/2008 3:50:23 PM

    Your so full of bull in your comments. Oil drilling now will help our future starting 3 to 5 years from now. If we don't drill now then things will only get so bad that none of us will ever be able to retire with anything set aside.

    • Posted By: ozarkajuice @ 07/22/2008 4:01:32 PM

      well why dont we drill areas where the oil companies already have lease for. Ever heard of the saying "eat whats on the plate, before getting seconds" ?

      • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/23/2008 12:07:10 AM

        Beacuas this is all a sham!

        Oil companies are only drilling on 20% of the acreage available for exploration now. So lets lease them more acreage so they can not drill on those additional areas. Right. Makes sense!

    • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 07/22/2008 4:00:05 PM

      We are already drilling all over the US - North Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana - and offshore in theGulf of Mexico. Drilling for more oil will only take place once they FIND oil. That takes a few years and there is no guarantee there are any major new oil reserves anywhere offshore USA that we don't already know about. I'm in the oil business - I'm not full of "bull" - you are though. Because the oil business keeps its lips very tight about their activities, for competitive as much as any reasons, and they're not used to educating the public too much about their operations, which are highly campital-intensive and last 30-50 years from start to finish. Then too, the American public doesn't seem to care too much how oil is produced and where, when, what it takes -- start talking about it to anyone and their eyes glaze over and their attention wanders.

      Geologists say we peaked out on US oil production in 1970. There have been no new big discoveries with possible exception of Bakken, North Dakota, which potentially is nearly five times the size of Saudi's largest oil reserve. But no big major oil companies are focused on Bakken - they're all too busy outside the US drilling for oil in places like Scandanavia and Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, and of course, the Middle East.

      Marathon Oil is well placed to increase US production by a huge amount. I hope they do.

  • Posted By: udiveny @ 07/22/2008 5:30:26 PM

    Congress Democrats banned offshore drilling in most federal waters since 1982, citing environmental concerns. And with few exceptions, oil companies have largely given up the fight to start drilling off the coasts of California and Florida, where the most reserves are believed to be...
    Republicans argue that the United States could easily produce an extra 3 million barrels of oil a day - a 35% increase in daily domestic production - if the oil companies were allowed to explore in American waters again...
    It's true that lifting the ban won't get a lot more oil flowing quickly. On the other hand, any significant new find could bring down prices simply because the market would know the oil would be available eventually.
    Lets say we discover something within two years of getting the drilling lease,... We may not produce it for another two years, but the price impact may actually be felt during that period. But you'll never find any new discoveries without actually going and looking."
    With the exception of the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, America's coastlines are largely unexplored. There have been only about 350 exploration wells ever drilled in federal waters along the Pacific Coast. Along the Atlantic, it's closer to 50. That compares with more than 40,000 wells in the Gulf of Mexico.
    If the ban were lifted, oil companies would probably rush into places they know, like off the coast of Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. There are already 26 million barrels a year produced there from platforms built before the offshore moratorium on new wells went into effect.

    • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/22/2008 11:48:05 PM

      Oil companies are only drilling on about 20% of the areas available for domestic exploration.

      That's like saying, "I only have 2 dollars, and a cup of coffee costs 2 dollars, so someone please give me 10 dollars more so I can buy a cup of coffee." DOES NOT COMPUTE!

    • Posted By: J.Richter @ 07/22/2008 6:00:15 PM

      This is FALSE and you know better:

      "Lets say we discover something within two years of getting the drilling lease,... We may not produce it for another two years, but the price impact may actually be felt during that period."

      They have drilling areas they havent even gotten to yet!. They will not get to any new leases for more than 4 years. If they get to it, they cant get oil in less than 7 years!

      The estimate for how much oil there is less than 4% over 8 years (--Federal offshore proven reserves: 4483 million barrels total, US current consumption 20,687,000 barrels/day).
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/current/pdf/ch3.pdf#page=2
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html?featureclicked=2&
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

      STOP PUSHING FALSEHOODS. It will kill us all 10 to 15 years from now if we go down this route.

      There are some real research numbers here if you are interested in TRUTHs (from government sources)
      http://kenny.netvios.com/Proposal_Towards_US_Energy_Independence.htm (look in the references)

  • Posted By: Hearwegoagain @ 07/22/2008 4:55:34 PM

    Here's a thought for all of the people who seem to think allowing drilling in currently protected areas off the coasts of the U.S. will solve or make the oil situation any better, what if there is no oil? People assume that permission to drill will automatically conclude with pumping of oil in 2030. What if it doesn't ? Must we wait until the year 2030 to implement a different plan that does not include off shore drilling?

    • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 5:09:27 PM

      thats a nice attitude: let's not try because we might be wrong.

      • Posted By: J.Richter @ 07/22/2008 5:17:19 PM

        No. Let's not try because by the time we get the oil, we'd be done. Globally, oil is set to end between 2039 and 2045. If we havent worked for and found alternatives by 2030 (by which time drilling and defacing our coast was a quest for the unnecessary), we'd be toast, anyway. We keep forgetting the earth is only 7,918 miles or 12,742 km in diameter and petroleum in crude oil or any form represents an infinitesimal, sloqly ending resource whose production has peaked.

        There are current leased offshore lands yet undrilled. Fiving more lands to oil companies will only raise their stock (as all other policies by this oil men administration of Bush Cheney Halliburton and now McCain). THINK mattgilman. Its a coincidence tha toil went over $4 under an admin run by oil men for 8 year?

        For true details and science: look here:
        http://kenny.netvios.com/Proposal_Towards_US_Energy_Independence.htm

        • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 5:34:12 PM

          and just to clrify "toil" (im guessing you mean oil is at $128 a barrel, not $4...if it were $4 we wouldnt be having this discussion

          • Posted By: J.Richter @ 07/22/2008 6:06:11 PM

            Per gallon, mattgilman. Focus on the important. Picking the keyboard wont help anyone $4 or $128.

            • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 7:47:31 PM

              oh, sorry...but im not sure the last time oil was $4 per gallon. you threw me for a loop.

        • Posted By: mattgilman @ 07/22/2008 5:31:16 PM

          ok, I've thought about it for 1 second. You are right. Oil production is not going up, which is kinda ironic since you all claim Bush has been good for Oil. If he were really good for oil, he'd let them drill so they could sell a whole lot more. All thats happening now is the Middle East and Venezuela are making money. But over the last eight years the big reason prices have gone up is that the emerging markets (China, India, Brazil, etc) are industrializing rapidly and they are all less energy inefficient than we are. They are using a lot more oil. Demand is much higher and supply is the same, which results in higher prices. Not so sure what's so controversial about that J.Richter

          • Posted By: J.Richter @ 07/22/2008 6:13:24 PM

            Look at the figures for global oil demand from the government links I sent you. Let's not sit around and push arguments without interest in truth or facts. No one is here to waste time. We are both interested in what's right (except if you are profiting from this oil-friendly environment at which point I'd say kudos to you - your shareholders come first not the country or the environment - that's business, that capitalism, its the job of the governmetn to regulate or place country interest first).

            Yes, demand is increasing slightly (yes due to China and India but not Brazil - Brazil is using over 50% ethanol locally developed - shocking - the only country that has above the 50 mark). Based on economic elasticity law of demand and supply, the current price of oil is several points above projections. Remember, Saudi already stated that the problem is not surply. And yet they even iincreased it further. Squeezing the earth for oil will end, you dont want us holding the bag at that poitn stil running an economy on oil. And no, at best our overal ANWR and offshore resource will add less than 1% to total supply in 12 years AT LEAST.
            http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/current/pdf/ch3.pdf#page=2
            http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html?featureclicked=2&
            http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse