I guess Denial is a river in fat@sslandia...

>>But why in the world this abject hatred for a commodity? I mean, I can understand if you're a little kid and you don't like peas or broccoli. But an entire political party and an ideological movement has now targeted oil as -- as big a threat to this country as conservative Republicans are. It's hard to get your arms around it.

Nah, conservative Republicans are much worse. Though both are becoming more scarce.

 They hate Bush, they hate oil. And both are irrational.

More of Rush encouraging laziness in his zombies. He was able to convince them on "Bush Derangement Syndrome", His audience was still in a small minority of Americans who hadn't figured out what a pantsload Bush was. This was, obviously, due to the fact that the majority of Americans were crazy!

Now he's telling them that everybody who's better informed than they are has some sort of bizarre hatred of an inanimate naturally occuring material. And it will work.

I heard part of the Fatbag's show the other day when he was on this subject, and after setting up the "oil hatred' strawman, he went on to compare this invented hatred with  hating sunshine or rain. In Rush world,oil is an essential element for human life.

Can you tell us the last time you went a whole day not using a product made from crude oil?

Nope, but humans did just fine for almost our entire time on Earth without it.

Yep, almost cost the whale as a species, but we did fine.  We are just doing so much better now however.  We can spend our time surfing the web rather than using the time as "hunters/gatherers."  It has allowed us to go from a population that was largely rural and dependent on our own resources to feed/clothe ourselves (with a relatively short life span) to one when one agricultulist can feed him/herself and well over 100 others (and live many more years as an additional benefit). 

Can you tell us the last time you went a whole day not using a product made from crude oil? (My Cryin'Nerd)

I'd have to check my Crude Usage diary, but it's probably been a while.It is the standard, and has been for way too long.

When the internal combustion engine was the newest innovation, you probably could have asked the same question about horses.

But that was just a demonstration of how stupid I could make your question look, even handicapping you by conceding the strawman. Here's a more accurate question for you that will clearly illustrate your confusion;

Can you tell me the last time somebody died from going a day without petroleum products?

 

Depends on what kind of medicines one may be on and how important they are to one's survival.  Ok, one could probably survive one day or perhaps a week, but from there out......... How could I party without my polyester leisure suits????

How could I party without my polyester leisure suits????- oscar the grouch

OK, Oscar you got me. The most honest argument for keeping the pipeline flowing that I've seen.Those hemp leisure suits just don't catch the blacklights the same way. Drill here, drill now, Party on !!!

You use of ad hominem and a new straw man did not answer the question.

Sorry, Mike, I wasn't around much over the weekend. There was no Ad Hominem and no strawman on my part.

Can you tell me the last time somebody died from going a day without petroleum products? - Col. Harlan Sanders

Are you offering your community to be without fire, police, and rescue for a 24 hour period to see?

No. I was only asking you a question that you dodged.

Failure.Wear it proudly.

It's pure propoganda. Cleaning up your messes is the responsibility that Republicans pretend to have. And hating oil is a silly point seeing as how it will soon not be around to hate.

Boy, Limbaugh sure is good at knocking down those strawman arguments, isn't he?

There is disgust with the people who think that oil exploration and drilling come at no potential risk to the environment.

There is fear with the false meme that we don't have to do anything about global climate change, much of which is clearly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, much of that gas and oil, gets any credibility. It deserves none.

There is disappointment that the facts, like that simply having everyone in America keep their tires inflated to a proper level would save us as much gas as we'll find from new drilling, get downplayed for the false talking points of the right. The ridicule of real ideas and the promotion of the nonsensical is upsetting to us all.

We're targeting lies, and distortions, and rejection of factual information and expert testimony and short-sighted carelessness and disregard for our children's future.

It's not that we hate a commodity at all. We had the people that try to manipulate that commodity and our use of that commodity. What a piece of work!

These Republicans already have their utopia on earth, it's called China. Seriously - everything the right-wingers want is exactly what they have in China right now. I honestly don't understand why they don't move there (not kidding).

Wow.. Just, wow...

When I think Limbaugh can't get possibly any dumber, and this tumbles from his mouth. One of the worst environmental disasters ever, as in, the world, and everything was OK by Limbaugh's standards. I'm sure to him, there are people also living happily in or near Chernobyl. Nature cleaned that up really fast as well. Jeesh...

Here's the thing Rush. Most, or a lot of our oil is provided to us from foreign sources. We can't replace our foreign sources with US sources, because we don't have enough to do so. Why is it "evil"? Mostly because the people who run the oil companies only care about their profits, and that's fine and dandy, but somewhere along the line, we're going to run out. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not even in 50-100 years, but oil is a finite source. We need to find a better way. Oil, when burned also harms out environment, but I"m sure Rush doesn't believe that nonsense either.

"For example, harlequin ducks still show signs of oil exposure and may be negatively affected by such exposure."

Wow. What a terrible result of the oil spill. The well being of these ducks is far more important than becoming energy independent and lowering the price of gas. I say we just completely stop drilling because of the threat of oil spills that could possibly harm ducks. The well being of ducks should always be more important than the well being of the American people.

Look up the word ecosystem and get back to us. Or just stay stupid. Your choice.

No. I understand. You care more about animals and nature than you do about having our country become energy independent. And also, these drilling rigs are much more efficient than they were 20 years ago. They are now able to drill in an environmentally friendly way. We don't have the kind of spills that we used to have. New technology has enabled us to avoid oil spills.

New technology does not prevent drunk captains from smashing their ships into the rocks, so your comments about safer drilling doesn't mean anything in this context. My ecosystem comment was meant to enlighten you to the fact that we are a part of it. It's not just about ducks and fish.

Your comment is baseless and ridiculous. These people are professionals who take every precaution to ensure that there are no spills. Oil spills are obviously harmful to the oil companies because of the lost oil and many other negative consequences, and it's in the best interests of these companies to make 100% sure that there are no oil spills.

My comment isn't baseless at all. It's based in fact. Maybe you need to brush up on the Exxon Valdez spill before commenting? The captain, Joseph Hazelwood, had been drinking, and he went to his bunk to take a nap right before the ship crashed into the reef. Obviously, I realize that oil companies don't want things like this to happen. That's a silly straw man. My point was that you're touting drilling technology in a discussion about a ship that was run aground because the captain had to sleep one off. New drilling technology couldn't possibly have prevented that.

People learn by looking at history. Do you really think that another ship captain would make that same mistake knowing the consequences of his actions?

This is an idiotic conversation. So now that you can't say that my comment was baseless, you're just going to reassure us that it'll never happen again? Stupid.

It is an idiotic conversation. And it all started with you claiming that one incident means that oil companies are irresponsible and hire drunk captains to run these rigs. Thanks for proving my point.

The idiotic conversation started with your inane comments.

In case you haven't figured this out, we can tell who made the first comment in a string. It's really not very hard to do. You should try it.

Rush lied about how severely the environment was damaged and how long-lasted that damage was and how easy or difficult it is for the environment to recover.

You're the one who then posed a strawman argument that stated that we put ducks on a higher pedestal than we put human beings. You make another about how some must think we should stop drilling for any oil.

It was your idiotic argument full of strawmen that started it.

Democrats oppose drilling for oil and put animals in ANWR and along our shores ahead of doing what's best for the American people. It's not a straw man argument at all. I'm simply going by the rhetoric and voting records of Democrats in Congress. It just seems like a straw man because of the fact that the Democrats' position on this issue is so ridiculous.

Yeah, if you don't want oil spills you're clearly a tree hugging liberal.

Democrats oppose drilling for oil

Nope. Democrats are willing to allow drilling for oil in areas that are not going to be terribly badly affected if a spill happens. They reject new drilling in sensitive areas, as should all sane people.

and put animals in ANWR and along our shores ahead of doing what's best for the American people.

Nope. Drilling in sensitive areas isn't what's best for the American people. What's best for American people is to help protect the environment, continue to use gas and oil drilled from current locations or locations already leased, and work on using less and less oil and gas in a variety of ways. Using up our finite resources even faster than we're already doing is not what's best for the American people. It's people like you who don't want to do what's best for Americans and instead you push a non-solution (drilling in sensitive areas) instead of going for a real solution.

It's not a straw man argument at all.

Both of your arguments are strawman arguments. Of that there's no doubt. There are no Democrats saying "don't drill anywhere". Therefore, when you 'debunk' that strawman argument, it's your argument that sucks wind. Dems aren't making that strawman.

I'm simply going by the rhetoric and voting records of Democrats in Congress.

No, you aren't. Liar.

It just seems like a straw man because of the fact that the Democrats' position on this issue is so ridiculous.

The position that's ridiculous is the one that says drilling in sensitive areas will bring us any significant amounts of oil anytime soon, and when it is performing up to capacity will reduce prices beyond an insignificant degree. That's ridiculous, and the Bush Administration's energy experts have already documented that.

"They reject new drilling in sensitive areas, as should all sane people."

So you're saying that 75% of the American people are insane? Because that's the percentage of people who now support offshore drilling. And that includes half of all Democrats. It's only the extreme left that opposes drilling off shore. That's why even Obama is starting to change is mind on the issue. He knows that he has no way of winning if he takes a stance that 75% of the American people disagree with. Most Americans want us to become energy independent rather than rely on other countries. That doesn't make them insane in the least. It just means they aren't extreme far left zealots who care more about penguins and polar bears than the American people.

So you're saying that 75% of the American people are insane?

This poll you trotted out is based on the LIE that more drilling will lower gas prices right away.  This LIE has been promoted by the right-wing liars because it is simplisticly and falsely based on the law of supply and demand - WHICH DOES NOT APPLY HERE.

It's a land grab by the oil companies.  Why can't you see that?

It isn't based entirely on supply and demand. It is based on speculation as well. And if we actually got serious about drilling for our own oil and relying less on other countries, investors would speculate that supply will go up and would start selling right away. It would bring the price of gas down immediately.

Really? In 2006 Congress opened 8 million arcres in the Gulf that was speculated as having 40 billion barrels of oil, it was considered one of the biggest finds, and oil went from $60 a barrel to $120 a barrel. This year Saudi Arabia announced it was going to increase daily output by 500,000 barrels a day and oil went from $120 a barrel to $140 a barrel. Seems to me there's something wrong with your theory, rino.

In 2008 congress also saw it fit to close several areas in the Gulf to offshore drilling, including off the coast of Florida. While the 500,000 barrals is only 1/20 of Saudi Arabia's oil output, not a big jump. However, it's estimated that the U.S. has some 116.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

So you're saying that 75% of the American people are insane?

No, I said that all sane people should reject non-solutions. Drilling in sensitive areas is not a solution to anything. It won't lower the price today, it won't lower the price very much at all in a few decades. It's not a solution. Sane people should reject non-solutions when they're looking for real solutions! It's not my fault people don't always choose good solutions. 

Because that's the percentage of people who now support offshore drilling. And that includes half of all Democrats.

The fact that the majority of Americans support new offshore drilling is because they think it will be a solution, even though it's not. I already explained this above, but since you apparently are too dense to grasp concepts quickly, I'll do it again. It may be politically necessary to agree to this non-solution, to make the undereducated American populace feel better. The fact that it becomes a chosen path doesn't mean it makes sense as an effacious solution!

It's only the extreme left that opposes drilling off shore.

So, that means that half the American public is undereducated about this and/or has bought into the false propoganda from the right (from liars like you) that it is a solution when it's really not, and the other 25% are people who still think George Bush has an admirable job as President - the perpetually blind, dumb and mute voters! If the 'extreme left' are the only ones who oppose non-solutions, then it means that us lefties are the only ones in our right minds. Thanks for finally acknowledging that fact!

That's why even Obama is starting to change is mind on the issue.

Obama hasn't changed his mind on the issue. He's agreed that despite it being a non-solution, if it is necessary to include that non-solution to get the damned Republicans to agree to a common-sense approach that includes real solutions, then he'll do it! It's amazing how you can read one half of Obama's stances and ignore the other pertinent parts and then come here and claim to expose the rest of us to how Obama feels!

He knows that he has no way of winning if he takes a stance that 75% of the American people disagree with.

So, you're saying that he's a savvy politician who realized that politicians have to compromise at times, and he's willing to do this? Thanks for recognizing that Obama, unlike most Republicans, is willing to compromise, and admitting that his actions are a good idea. Too bad so many Republicans have rejected compromise and bipartisanship for so long! But thanks for admitting what a good leader Obama will be!

Most Americans want us to become energy independent rather than rely on other countries.

Most Americans don't know that drilling additional wells in sensitive areas won't move us an inch closer to energy independence or lower gas prices. If they hadn't been misled by people like you, they wouldn't be for it. I will continue to blame you for that false propoganda campaign you've waged and will hold you responsible for endangering our environment and fattening the wallets of the oil companies. I want our nation to be as energy independent as we can be, but that doesn't start or get furthered by addt'l drilling in sensitive areas. I want real solutions, and that begins by realizing that doing additional drilling to speed our using up a finite resource is folly.

Botleblonde, I have to ask you, how do you do it? I read a lot of your posts, pretty much on-topic, no exclamation points or caps, no name-calling (except reciprocal), and on a regular basis, I see the wingnuts threatening to ban you for your temper, whining about "personal attacks", commenting on your "anger".

You really seem to make them nuts. I may be working too hard at being polite. Either that, or I'm not doing a good enough job of making them aware of how confused they are. I'm a little jealous.  ;0)

So calling someone a piece of crapola isn't a personal attack? How wasted were you last night?

So calling someone a piece of crapola isn't a personal attack? How wasted were you last night?- RINO Hunter

I didn't see the "crapola" comment, but that seems pretty mild.Archie Bunker said it on TV in the 70s.

I wasn't wasted at all, actually had to drive a pretty good distance last night , so  I didn't drink. I had a little BBQ tonight, and put down a bit of whisky, but it didn't help , you still don't make much sense. Should I try some Opiates before responding to you?

Thanks Colonel.

If the shoe fits, wear it Rino. And if you need some toilet paper for all that crap you spew, just reach your hand under the stall divider. After all, that worked so well for Senator Larry Craig.

Yeah, and while I'm at it I might cheat on my cancer stricken wife and lie about it over and over again. That worked out well for the Breck girl.

Yeah, but he admitted his affair and the marriage goes on.  Gramps simply traded in his wife for a richer model.

He didn't admit his affair. He lied about it until he got caught. McCain was honest about what happened with his first marriage. That's the difference. ( And the fact that McCain's divorce was over 30 years ago and he's been married to the same woman ever since.)

There's one person who John Edwards needed to admit his affair to, and that would be his wife. He and she shared their marriage vows, and it was those marriage vows that he violated, remember.

So, you're a liar again. The one person he needed to admit his affair to, his wife, knew about this a long time ago. You knew he had admitted it to his wife, and so when you say he didn't admit it, that falsehood is a lie.

My point was you spewing crapola. Larry Craig did that. He got caught by the cops and was charged with a crime he certainly committed, and he lied about it. Edwards was guilty of marital infidelity and he admitted it to his wife and she forgave him. John McCain had numerous affairs, had one last one (that we know about) with Cindy, got a marriage license to marry her while he was still married to his first wife, and you think that you're going to hurt Obama by bringing up maritial infidelity? Get real! Obama didn't cheat on his wife. If Edwards infidelity is relevant to Obama's campaign, then John McCain's infidelity is 100 times more relevant to McCain's campaign.

But, keep up that losing strategy. We need a fresh slate of Republican candidates and behind the scenes guys, and I think the only way that'll happen if for them to lose a couple of election cycles.

So, don't drop the losing strategy that harps on Edwards' affair, failing to realize how that doesn't hurt Obama near as much as it'll hurt McCain, serial adulterer. Remember, Edwards marriage survived his affair, and McCain's did not. Don't you think a fling, and a return to a good marriage is more worthy of praise than what McCain did, deserting an injured wife who didn't desert him for a trophy wife?

He (Edwards)didn't admit his affair. He lied about it until he got caught.

He admitted it to his wife. That's whose business it was.

 

McCain was honest about what happened with his first marriage.

When?

( And the fact that McCain's divorce was over 30 years ago and he's been married to the same woman ever since.)

LOL. Like McCain's been able to do anything in the last 30 years. He's really old.

I don't think a former war supporter like yourself should be casting insults on anyone's masculinity.  Your party is the one that is giving us the candidate who married his affair and the only divorcee president.  Plus, you get your information from a thrice-divorced, drug addicted, ACLU client in Rush, ;).

I addressed the McCain issue above. As for Rush, he's simply a talk show host. He isn't a politician. And also, do you have any evidence that he ever cheated on any of his wives?

No, but when he met wife #3, she was married.

"And it all started with you claiming that one incident means that oil companies are irresponsible and hire drunk captains to run these rigs."

I never said that. This is all getting way too stupid now.

"Thanks for proving my point."

Huh? Are you drunk?

"Thanks for proving my point."

Huh? Are you drunk?

Clams, I was giving Rino/AnotherAmerican the benefit of the doubt, that they weren't sockpuppet twins, even though one of them pretty much admitted to that fact a while back. This has me reconsidering, as "thanks for proving my point" are the exact words each of them use when they've had their point proven wrong.

For the record, this is just a well supported theory.They could be two completely different, but equally stoopid, wingnuts,

People learn by looking at history.

If that were true Bush wouldn't have won a second term.

Rino: "You care more about animals and nature than you do about having our country become energy independent."

...and shouldn't that be the correct order of priorities?  Without animals and nature, countries don't exist, and energy independece becomes an obsolete concept.  How exactly do you plan to become 'energy independent' if you don't care about sustaining your supply of natural resources?

Of course we should take care of the environment, but liberals take it to an extreme. There has to be a balance between taking care of the environment and having a strong economy. Conservatives want to drill for oil in an environmentally friendly way. The new technology that we have now has enabled us to drill for oil without the threat of an oil spill.

"There has to be a balance between taking care of the environment and having a strong economy."

Again, that argument is contradicted by logic: ecology clearly takes precedence over economy, because without the former the latter ceases to exist.  A balance doesn't exist between two things of unequal weight.  It's not a question of bringing them into balance, it's a matter of having an economy that doesn't undermine itself through its ecological effects.

"The new technology that we have now has enabled us to drill for oil without the threat of an oil spill."

Really? No threat of oil spills at all?  Exactly how does this technology work?  It extracts oil and magically transports it through hyperspace to its destination in consumers' gas tanks? 

I agree that the technology has improved, but please don't exaggerate to make your argument: no system of oil extraction and transportation is completely without risk of spill and leakage.

Besides, the real risk of spills is exactly why Limbaugh is busy claiming that spills aren't such a big deal.  He argues that nature magically recovers no matter what humans do.  Break open a tanker?  No biggie -- nature mops it up.  That's why she's called Mother Nature, right?  She's always cleaning up after us.  We can do whatever we want and never have to worry about the consequences.

This from a man who claims to stand for the politics of individual responsibility.

Of course we have to have nature and a good environment for the economy to grow. I was simply talking about extreme environmentalism. I'm talking about the environmentalists who want to stop companies from building facilities in a certain place because they might kill a few lizards. I'm talking about environmentalists who don't want us to drill in ANWR, where nobody lives, because it might scare a few polar bears. This is extreme environmentalism which harms our country and hinders the production of new technology.

No, you were talking about a lie that's been debunked countless times.

And before that you were talking about the strawman arguments you were demolishing like it was something to be proud of.

Sue,

Please try to respond to what I actually say rather than simply spouting ignorant attacks. I know you can put a coherent thought together if you put your mind to it.

I'm not Sue.

I did talk about what you said. Everyone else can see that.

The person making a personal attack would be you. I attacked your argument. Everyone else can see that.

Sue,

You should probably stop the attacks before you get banned again. Nowhere did you respond to the what is being discussed, which is offshore drilling. Feel free to join the discussion if you wish, or you can just throw out baseless personal attacks and get banned for the 10th time.

Actually, the topic is Limbaugh's lies about the Exxon Valdez cleanup. You're the one who keeps trying to make it about offshore drilling.

The larger discussion is about offshore drilling, as Limbaugh is trying to make the case for it by minimizing the effects of oil spills.

The discussion is how Limbaugh lied about what effects the Exxon Valdez oil spill had on the environment, and how that lie helps with the rightwing talking point that it'd be okay to do drilling in sensitive areas.

Limbaugh doesn't even mention offshore drilling. He's talking about how (in his mind) environmentalists want to do away with oil all together. It's a rant about oil use in general, and you're making it about offshore drilling.

Actually, I did. I addressed the topic before you went off topic even. 

Boy, Limbaugh sure is good at knocking down those strawman arguments, isn't he? There is disgust with the people who think that oil exploration and drilling come at no potential risk to the environment. .....

It's not that we hate a commodity at all. We had the people that try to manipulate that commodity and our use of that commodity. What a piece of work!

 

• - BottleBlonde / Friday August 8, 2008 6:53:27 PM EDT (about a half hour after Media Matters posted this crapola from Limbaugh, and before you ever made your first post - how about that!)

And then in the same post where I point out that it was you who began the stupid argument, I said

Rush lied about how severely the environment was damaged and how long-lasted that damage was and how easy or difficult it is for the environment to recover.

It's not my fault you forgot what the topic was (or chose to go off topic, I should probably say!) between last night and this morning!

Then you said

"I was simply talking about extreme environmentalism. I'm talking about the environmentalists who want to stop companies from building facilities in a certain place because they might kill a few lizards. I'm talking about environmentalists who don't want us to drill in ANWR, where nobody lives, because it might scare a few polar bears."

To which I said

"No, you were talking about a lie that's been debunked countless times.

And before that you were talking about the strawman arguments you were demolishing like it was something to be proud of."

I addressed what you said. I addressed the topic of this posting by Media Matters too. You're the one who went off topic, made strawman arguments and lied about what Democrats want to do.

Sure, but Rino, if the arguments of extreme environmentalists are absurd, then the argument that Limbaugh is presenting is equally absurd: "But anyway, the sea eats oil. The sea eats oil alive. That place up there, nature cleaned it up faster than we ever could."

That was what Limbaugh actually said. And he's wrong. If you want to change the subject and argue that extreme environmentalists have unrealistic aims, then be my guest.  But at least recognize that you're changing the subject.  Limbaugh's absurd claim is in no way excused by the fact that someone else is making an absurd claim.

The sea eats oil alive?  Is that really a claim worth defending?  Rino, you're wasting your effort.  The point here is that Limbaugh isn't contributing to a rational and realistic debate.  Instead he's busy muddying the water.  (Or perhaps spilling oil on it.)

By the way, let's put this on the table.  Your arguments against Limbaugh's detractors and critics here suggest that you support at least the spirit of Limbaugh's argument.  Here's a little more from what Limbaugh had to say about the subject of oil and oil's alternative energy sources on Thursday, August 7th, 2008:

"This whole thing of getting rid of oil is absurd.  And I don't care, you may be able to drive around in a hydrogen car or a hydrogen bus or what have you somewhere down the road but you're never going to have air transit rely on that.  Something is going to happen.  I happen to think actually that some bright-eyed wizard of smart is going to find out how to use seawater to replace most of our energy needs.  I think that's going to happen."

So let's be clear.  This is a guy who thinks that we'll be able to replace oil dependency with the energy that we'll be able to extract from seawater.  I think I saw that movie, too. Except I was pretty sure it was a work fiction. Apparently Limbuagh thinks otherwise.

That's who you're defending.  A guy who thinks that the answers to all our energy problems are going to be found by an energy savior who will be able to turn water into electrical potential instead of wine.

And you're busy taking marginalized environmental extremists to task? Why are you wasting your time?  They already have minimal influence.  Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh has an 8-year $400 million dollar contract and the support of a major radio syndicator. He books interviews with major politicians and sitting executive branch officials.  This is a man who actually claims to influence elections.  And the vision of an energy independent future that he professes comes from a bad Keanu Reeves movie?  Is this really the man you want serving as the most vocal spokesperson for your political position?

You obviously never listen to Rush. He was simply being sarcastic and mocking Democrats with his comment. In his opinion many of these alternatives are very far fetched, and he added another absurd idea to prove his point.

Actually, no, I listen to Rush as often as I can and have since 1998. I'm quite familiar with his sense of humor, and if you listen to his delivery, I think you'll agree that he was quite sincere. I didn't just read that line about getting energy from seawater in a transcript -- I heard it live. He didn't offer that in a mocking way at all, and in fact, he qualified his remark by saying, "That's just me; that's just my gut instinct. I'm not a scientist, and I don't play one on the radio." If he was in full-sarcastic-mocking-liberal mode, it would have been more like him to have gone on about how we need to invest tax money in seawater research. Instead, he threw the idea out there as his genuine, uninformed gut instinct. If he had been kidding with his comment about seawater, was he also kidding that it was nothing more than a gut instinct?

You may be right on that one. I don't listen to Rush anymore, because I'm always working when his show is on. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Fair enough, and I'll grant you that Limbaugh's performance is almost always offered as a joke at one level or another.  He sees himself, I think, first and foremost as an entertainer, so the degree to which anything he says is 'genuine' is always a bit illusive.

Did you like how Rino said that you clearly don't listen to Rush, or you could not come to that conclusion? The only way he could come to that conclusion, without it being a knee-jerk reaction that ignored the facts, would be if he (Rino) was a regular Limbaugh listener.

However, after you debunk his statement, he says that he doesn't in fact, listen to Rush. So, if he doesn't listen to Rush, how the heck did he figure he could correct your statement? Well, because he's the king of knee-jerk reactions that have no basis in reality, that's how!

The new technology that we have now has enabled us to drill for oil without the threat of an oil spill.

• - RINO Hunter / Friday August 8, 2008 8:55:47 PM EDT

That's a lie. There were spills just a few years ago from drilling rigs. That's a rightwing talking point that's been shot down here numerous times, but you feel no shame in repeating that long-debunked talking point.

That says more about you than anyone should be willing to admit.

There have been no major spills that have caused any sizable amount of damage. You simply made a false claim without backing it up.

Now you're going to shift the goalposts to "major spills"? And you get to decide what qualifies as major, right?

And "sizable damage". Clams. Sticking in the subjective qualifiers usually happens about the time the wingnuts realize they're owned. They're always the last to know.

The spills in the Gulf after Katrina and Rita were only surpassed by the Exxon Valdez spill.

Hey RINO, I have a better idea. How about you eat all them birds, fish and seals who are thouroughly inebriated with exxon oil? And pay top dollar for that "special meat" while you're at it. Will that work for you?

Offshore drilling wouldn't be done anywhere near the coast. It would be at least 50 miles away. And I've already mentioned the fact that a threat of an oil spill in today's world is basically non-existant.

"And I've already mentioned the fact that a threat of an oil spill in today's world is basically non-existant."

Yes, you did mention that, but you didn't offer any evidence to support it.  Hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in spills of 17,700 barrels of petroleum products. I know, it's not that much, really: just 3/4 of a million gallons. I'm sure, like Limbaugh argues, nature will be more than happy to clean that up for us, right?

So what is this spillproof technology that you have in mind?

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/34982

Imagine that! His 'source' is a horribly-biased article from a source that is associated with Murdock, and even that source doesn't say what Rino claimed it said.

Are you trying to be funny here? Or did you just not read the article that was entirely based on facts?

Um, not to burst your bubble, but that wasn't a news article -- that was an opinion piece.  Or did you miss the big words "Editorials and Opinion" at the top of the page?  Did you also miss the author's ridiculous claim: "Thanks to Earth's curvature, these operations can stay out of sight"?

Out of sight, out of mind, eh?  That's the basis you want to use for our future energy policy?  Boy, it's a good thing that the Earth isn't flat -- otherwise we'd actually have to see the damage our oil extraction does.

Don't hitch your wagon to this moron's argument, Rino.

And his 'source' doesn't say that the threat is non-existent.

I'm not sure Rino is ready to hear that, Bottle. Baby steps...

I said BASICALLY non existent, which means that there's about a .0001% chance of even a minimal oil spill.

The piece you cited offers a statistic of 0.001%, which is greater than the figure you're claiming by a factor of 10, but hey, who's counting when we're talking about annual leaks and spills amounting to over 6 thousand barrels annually, right?

Minimal eh?

What about that oil spill that gummed up the Mississippi recently:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/us/25spill.html

And don't forget the little fact that a lot of the states where there could be offshore drilling, such as Florida, Texas, and a few others are highly conservative, and in year's past, it hasn't been democrats who didn't want to drill, it has been republicans, so when you want to demonize the democrats, maybe you ought to change who your blathering on about.

The well being of ducks should always be more important than the well being of the American people.

Those "well being Americans" are obese, they could stand to walk a few places. 

It's time Americans started to THINK about our gas consumption, not keep drilling to feed our habit.

We should do EVERYTHING! Conserve, drill for more oil, build nuclear power plants, and develop all kinds of new alternative energy. Drilling is a short term solution until we have the technology to convert into new sources of energy. But we have to go with the main source of energy that we have RIGHT NOW, because these new forms of alternative energy are at least 20 years away. But the point is that nothing should be off the table. We need to have a comprehensive energy plan.

"nothing should be off the table"

I'm glad we agree on that. I too am for higher taxes at the pump, higher taxes for passenger vehicles that get less than 40 miles per gallon, ending the SUV exemption from CAFE regulations, revising CAFE regulations, ending corporate welfare for the domestic oil industry. Do you want to add any other goverment policies that will hasten a transition away from fossil fuels?

I meant that nothing should be off the table that will actually lower gas prices. Your proposals will all dramatically increase oil and gas prices. A tax increase on gasoline? Are you kidding me? That's basically a tax increase on the poor. I thought liberals were all about helping the poor? A tax increase on gas would simply mean that Americans would spend less in other areas, and the economy would suffer badly as a result.

I meant that nothing should be off the table that will actually lower gas prices.

Then why are you pushing the proposal of giving land leases to oil companies on which they may or may not choose to drill when all evidence and logic shows that the price of gas will not be lowered one dime as a result?  

The price of oil has come down rapidly in part by simply having the discussion of allowing offshore drilling. And of course drilling for more oil will greatly decrease the price of oil. We have more oil in this country than the entire middle east combined, but we're the ONLY country in the world that limits the amount of oil we produce because of theoretical environmental arguments. There aren't any other countries that care more about polar bears than their own people.

To say that the price of oil went down a little bit because of propaganda about giving leases to oil companies where they likely won't even drill, much like at many of their current leases, is unfounded and absurd.  

The rest of your argument is wrought with ignorance.  Theoretical environmental concerns?  That alone shows how little you know about this subject, just what you've been told by oil company shills. 

The issue of us having all this oil to be independent I addressed in another comment.  We don't get any of it.  Many other countries either nationalize their natural resources or at least get a good percentage of the profits and money from leasing rights.  We give away land and take virtually none of the profit from our resources, all because the oil companies have bathed the politicians in lobbyist money. 

Why not nationalize domestic oil drilling?  Or does that conflict with your free-market-as-God philosophy, RINO?

Yet again, the cons have positioned themselves square in the middle of two mutually exclusive talking points: "drill here, drill now" and "free market rules!"

Really, what is happening is that they are yet again being easily manipulated by corporate interests into pushing a policy that harms the country.

Of course the oil companies will drill where there is actually oil. The oil companies are eager to start drilling where there is actually oil. They just don't drill on some of the ground that is leased to them now, because there is no oil in those areas. They know where the oil is and where it isn't. It would be kind of pointless for them to drill where there is no oil.

If there is no oil there, why do they still need the land then? Why not drop the lease?

Sure, that's it.  They wouldn't possibly want to secure all the land they can for future security in the last few months before their friends in power, the republicans, become the permanent minority for the next few decades  

Cut the gas tax to zero, quit building/maintaining roads.  That will do more to cure the problem than almost anything else in the short term.  The local government is redoing the road in front of my residence and in doing so they have removed the pavement and gravel/rock down to dirt.  That move has cut the traffic by our place by well over 70%.  Let's expand that program, but just not rebuild the paved surfaces.

"But we have to go with the main source of energy that we have RIGHT NOW, because these new forms of alternative energy are at least 20 years away."

Funny, because the Department of Energy says that the benefits of new drilling wouldn't be felt until 22 years from now. The drilling that you're so desperate for will have zero immediate effect.

That's false, we would get more oil within five years, and merely ending the ban on offshore drilling would reduce the price of oil right away because of speculation. Investors would speculate that supply will rise in the future, and they would sell some of their oil futures now. Investors speculate in both directions.

I suppose you're going to back that up with some actual sources? Newsbusters.org, no doubt.

According to the Department of Energy, "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic and Eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

Here's the link to the report: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html 

If you want to believe the government, go ahead. But I'd rather believe private citizens who actually know something about it. This also deals with the new technology in the oil business today:

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/34982

Currently mired in red tape, Chevron's Destin Dome field off Florida could produce within four years. Southern California deposits could yield within five to 10 years. Besides, as Confucius said: "The best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago. The second best time is now."

You do realize you are posting an opinion piece, not a news article, right?

And about that Destin Dome, the bureaaucratic limbo it's been sitting in started under Bush I ran through Clinton and when Chevron sued under Bush 2 his people fought it and proposed buying it back from them and shutting it down.  Tell us all again how this is the fault of Gore and the hippies, I love that story.

It's an opinion piece based on fact. Everything that was said about the new technology is completely factual.

Um, right, but the author's argument is completely fallacious. That's why it matters that it's an opinion piece: it tries to make a subjective argument, not just report facts.

I've already mentioned that the author laughably argues that the curvature of the Earth should offer us solace about potential oil disasters since we in the U.S. won't be able to see offshore spills over the horizon. That's really logical.  Like, really logical.  Please, by all means, try to defend that.  Just give me a moment to pop some popcorn and put up my feet.

Meanwhile, the fact-based opinion piece argues to which you've tied your argument claims that since 1980, human oil extraction has only leaked 0.001 percent as much oil into the environment as nature has oozed into the environment.  To quote the author:

"U.S. offshore oil drilling is not perfectly tidy. It's only 99.999 percent clean. Indeed, since 1980 -- as MMS figures indicate -- 101,997 barrels spilled from among the 11.855 billion barrels of American oil extracted offshore. This is a 0.001 percent pollution rate. While offshore drilling is not 100.00 percent spotless, this record should satisfy all but the terminally fastidious."

And that's a fundamentally flawed argument, because it cleverly attempts to characterize pollution as something that nature can do to itself.  In fact, by definition, human beings are responsible for 100% of pollution caused by human oil extraction -- which is quite a bit more than 0.001%.  Calling the amount of oil released naturally "pollution" is plainly disingenuous. 

Here's why: 50mg of cyanide is fatal for an adult human.  So for a 150lb man, that's  7.34X10^-7 body mass.  That's much, much, much less than 0.001% (1X10^-5). 

Pollution is, by definition, human intervention into a natural system. The author of your article tries to argue that nature pollutes itself, which is a plain contradiction in terms.  The author of the article you cite argues that human oil pollution can't possibly be influential because it constitutes only a 0.001% change in levels of leaked petroleum over what nature naturally leaks... but as I've shown, that additional percentage is more than 100 times a fatal increase in other natural systems. 

Rino, the opinion piece you cited as your defense was badly flawed. Please tell me that your own opinions are better reasoned than that.

 

Sorry -- posted that way too late at night, got confused, cut and pasted the wrong paragraph from the opinion piece and used its numbers instead of the ones from the argument I actually had in mind. The paragraph about nature polluting itself more than man does was actually this:

"Ironically, in terms of oil contamination, Mother Nature is 95 times dirtier than Man. Some 620,500 barrels of oil ooze organically from North America's ocean floors each year. Compare this to the average 6,555 barrels that oil companies have spilled annually since 1998, according to MMS."

So, the author is arguing that man is only responsible for a teeny weensy little fraction of the total annual oil spilled: 6,555 out of 627,055 total barrels... or 1.045%.

Now the part of my late-night post that I stand by is that 1% can be an extremely significant shift in biological systems, and far smaller amounts can be fatal in some. Furthermore, the author's comparison of the amount of oil the oozes naturally on the ocean floor to the amount that oil companies have spilled in general and on the surface is so completely inappropriate as to be nearly meaningless.

"If you want to believe the government, go ahead."

The study was done by a non-partisan group within the Department of Energy. Are you trying to claim that they're somehow biased? You may recall that this is the administration that wants to drill. Or maybe you're trying to imply that your right-wing opinion piece is somehow more reliable than the non-partisan study that uses actual facts and stuff?

Wow, it's like you're channeling the wisdom of OxyBreath.  Nobody said we shouldn't be using oil or transporting it or anything like that because of what happened with those ducks.  What is being said is that there are potential damages that can be caused by using fossil fuels and that we need to be aware of and attempt to minimize those damages.

Rush says "Look, no harm, everything's cool.  Silly liberals."

Silly liberals say "We have pictures of the harm, we have proof of the damage."

Rushfan says "See those silly liberals hate oil and love ducks more than people."

Really effing productive.

How close to your home is too close for one of these my cackling RINO?

Drilling rig

Hey, Pit, I got them all over my neighborhood.

This one I see going to work and back every day. kinda purty at night, though.

I used to visit your fair 'hood. But got beat up by surf punks once to often. The globs of tar stuck in my hair after "going over the falls" turned me off also.

A  few years ago I chaperoned a HS band trip to Disleyland, we drove all night from Colorado, and got to the pier just after dawn. The air was nice, maybe the wind was blowing the refinery smell inland that day, but I was shocked at how murky the water was. When I moved to Orange in '63, the water was relatively clear, you could see the bottom in 20 foot depths, now, not so much, maybe 4 feet.

DETOUR:OFF TOPIC (everybody but Pithaughn ignore) 

lol. Pit, yeah, the surf rats are a bunch of A-holes.As much as they've tried to gentrify downtown HB ( I miss the old version, I'll take the winos and junkies over the fat loud tourists anyday), the ground-zero area around the pier is still a wanker-magnet.

I'm an old guy, not to mention a badass mofo, so I don't get much trouble, but I don't get into the water around the pier much.I just can't take the idiots.

We had a skinhead invasion several years ago, probably because the pussies felt safe with the mostly white population around here, but I think they've all moved out to Riverside.

I surf with the old guys at Dog Beach Cliffs, north of the stoopid zone.