Democrats voted down a bill to build new refineries

[sumyungai]

Refinery measure fails

Republicans branded Democrats as obstructionists on energy. The vote, 237-188, fell short of the two-thirds needed to pass under special procedures.

From CNN.com and not Fox News for you liberals.

Why is Bush being blamed for high oil prices when Democrats are the ones responsible? Granted, even if we started building refineries today, it wouldn't have an effect on prices for years, but what are Democrats doing to help eleviate the situation today?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sumyungai
Refinery measure fails

Republicans branded Democrats as obstructionists on energy. The vote, 237-188, fell short of the two-thirds needed to pass under special procedures.

From CNN.com and not Fox News for you liberals.

Why is Bush being blamed for high oil prices when Democrats are the ones responsible? Granted, even if we started building refineries today, it wouldn't have an effect on prices for years, but what are Democrats doing to help eleviate the situation today?

Why didn't you post the rest of the article with the real reason they rejected it???

"All but 13 Democrats opposed the measure, intended to quicken the permitting process. They said it would not bring down gas prices, could lessen environmental protection and usurp local say where refineries go.

Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Virginia, said the problem was not a delay in permitting.

"The real reason we have a refinery shortage is the companies that own refineries are profiting enormously from the ... refinery bottlenecks," he said.

 

[BDawg]

The problem with oil prices isn't refineries. From what I've seen, refining capacity has gone up, even with no refineries being built. Oil companies have learned to become more efficient where they are.

Right now, our biggest problem is supply. The supply is finite and being artificially limited for price, and the demand is the highest ever.

Bush is at fault because he has taken the task on. When he ran for President, he said he would be able to control oil prices. He would jaw with the oil producers and tell them to "open up the spigots."

Democrats are somewhat to blame. They were in power in the 80s and early 90s. They could've increased CAFE standards then, but chose not to. Of course, their arrogance doesn't even come close to touching today's Republican. The White House today says that the problem has been brewing for a decade. In 01, they said that our lifestyle is blessed and we shouldn't have to worry about reducing the ammount of energy we use. In 00, Bush said that you shouldn't play politics with the strategic reserve. Today, he'd like to open it up to minimize the loss in November.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sumyungai
Refinery measure fails

Republicans branded Democrats as obstructionists on energy. The vote, 237-188, fell short of the two-thirds needed to pass under special procedures.

From CNN.com and not Fox News for you liberals.

Why is Bush being blamed for high oil prices when Democrats are the ones responsible? Granted, even if we started building refineries today, it wouldn't have an effect on prices for years, but what are Democrats doing to help eleviate the situation today?

Why didn't you post the rest of the article with the real reason they rejected it???

"All but 13 Democrats opposed the measure, intended to quicken the permitting process. They said it would not bring down gas prices, could lessen environmental protection and usurp local say where refineries go.

Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Virginia, said the problem was not a delay in permitting.

"The real reason we have a refinery shortage is the companies that own refineries are profiting enormously from the ... refinery bottlenecks," he said.

Help me understand this here. Democrats believe the people who own refineries are making huge profits from have a shortage of refineries (I agree), therefore, Democrats vote down a bill to build new refineries in order to help refinery owners make more money? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: BDawg
The problem with oil prices isn't refineries. From what I've seen, refining capacity has gone up, even with no refineries being built. Oil companies have learned to become more efficient where they are.

Right now, our biggest problem is supply. The supply is finite and being artificially limited for price, and the demand is the highest ever.

Bush is at fault because he has taken the task on. When he ran for President, he said he would be able to control oil prices. He would jaw with the oil producers and tell them to "open up the spigots."

Democrats are somewhat to blame. They were in power in the 80s and early 90s. They could've increased CAFE standards then, but chose not to. Of course, their arrogance doesn't even come close to touching today's Republican. The White House today says that the problem has been brewing for a decade. In 01, they said that our lifestyle is blessed and we shouldn't have to worry about reducing the ammount of energy we use. In 00, Bush said that you shouldn't play politics with the strategic reserve. Today, he'd like to open it up to minimize the loss in November.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: BDawg
The problem with oil prices isn't refineries. From what I've seen, refining capacity has gone up, even with no refineries being built. Oil companies have learned to become more efficient where they are.

Right now, our biggest problem is supply. The supply is finite and being artificially limited for price, and the demand is the highest ever.

Bush is at fault because he has taken the task on. When he ran for President, he said he would be able to control oil prices. He would jaw with the oil producers and tell them to "open up the spigots."

Democrats are somewhat to blame. They were in power in the 80s and early 90s. They could've increased CAFE standards then, but chose not to. Of course, their arrogance doesn't even come close to touching today's Republican. The White House today says that the problem has been brewing for a decade. In 01, they said that our lifestyle is blessed and we shouldn't have to worry about reducing the ammount of energy we use. In 00, Bush said that you shouldn't play politics with the strategic reserve. Today, he'd like to open it up to minimize the loss in November.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Get the Meet the Press episode from last Sunday.

Most of the items in the last paragraph were shown on tonight's Daily Show.

The comment about "jawwing with oil producers" was from one of the 00 debates. Winston-Salem, I think (since I was there).

 

[Rainsford]

If there is one righty term I hate, it's obstructionist. Not because it's not a valid criticism, but because you guys can't tell the difference between obstruction and genuine criticism. Actually, that's not exactly correct, for you guys there is really no difference. ANY criticism, of any kind, is bad. It makes no difference whether or not you raise valid issues, if there is a problem to be solved, it's a bad thing to stand in the way of any proposed solution, no matter how stupid. If Republicans suggested solving the oil situation by flying to Pluto and seeing if IT has any oil, and Democrats criticized it as a stupid idea, the headline in righty posts around the internet would read "Republicans brand Democrats as obstructionist on energy".

And while I'm mentioning the problems with this kind of argument, I also wonder why it's so necessary to blame ONE group of people in a neat little package. The fact that Bush AND the Democrats (and maybe even other people) are all responsible has apparently never occured to you...the idea that a situation as complex as the world oil market can't be explained by a bumper sticker style political jab. I mean, if we're really trying to figure out who's responsible, I'd have to say the Republicans, for being WAY too friendly with the oil companies for way too long, and also their inability to actually come up with any GOOD ideas, the Dems for not coming up with any real ideas at all, the speculators who bring to mind images of cattle in the thunderstorm, the consumers who waste a truly astounding amount of gas driving their H2s to their jobs as marketing analysts, and the oil companies that never quite seem to be as affected by the strange market behavior as you would think.

See, this is the problem with politics. We have a serious issue that needs seriously intelligent solutions. And instead, we have halfwits trying to figure out how they can score the most political points. For the record, I think the Dems are wrong here, a big problem we have in this country is lack of refinery capacity. But I don't know the full details of this bill, and knowing just how the Republicans seem to feel about anything that sounds remotely like an environmental or business regulation, I would be willing to believe that, in addition to trying to expand refinery capacity, this bill was also an attempt the weasle out of some pesky regulations that have nothing to do with oil prices, but that Republican supporters would rather avoid. Of course this is how laws work, we NEED the refinery capacity, so there will be some negotiation to make the Dems AND the Reps happy. Well, damn, the democratic process at work...how dare they!

I think politics would be seriously improved if the only people involved were people who actually wanted to solve problems, and people like the OP stuck to something more in line with their intellectual gifts...like watching professional football and wearing big pieces of cheese on their heads.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: BDawg
The problem with oil prices isn't refineries. From what I've seen, refining capacity has gone up, even with no refineries being built. Oil companies have learned to become more efficient where they are.

Right now, our biggest problem is supply. The supply is finite and being artificially limited for price, and the demand is the highest ever.

Bush is at fault because he has taken the task on. When he ran for President, he said he would be able to control oil prices. He would jaw with the oil producers and tell them to "open up the spigots."

Democrats are somewhat to blame. They were in power in the 80s and early 90s. They could've increased CAFE standards then, but chose not to. Of course, their arrogance doesn't even come close to touching today's Republican. The White House today says that the problem has been brewing for a decade. In 01, they said that our lifestyle is blessed and we shouldn't have to worry about reducing the ammount of energy we use. In 00, Bush said that you shouldn't play politics with the strategic reserve. Today, he'd like to open it up to minimize the loss in November.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Get the Meet the Press episode from last Sunday.

Most of the items in the last paragraph were shown on tonight's Daily Show.

The comment about "jawwing with oil producers" was from one of the 00 debates. Winston-Salem, I think (since I was there).

You get your news from the Daily Show?

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: BDawg
The problem with oil prices isn't refineries. From what I've seen, refining capacity has gone up, even with no refineries being built. Oil companies have learned to become more efficient where they are.

Right now, our biggest problem is supply. The supply is finite and being artificially limited for price, and the demand is the highest ever.

Bush is at fault because he has taken the task on. When he ran for President, he said he would be able to control oil prices. He would jaw with the oil producers and tell them to "open up the spigots."

Democrats are somewhat to blame. They were in power in the 80s and early 90s. They could've increased CAFE standards then, but chose not to. Of course, their arrogance doesn't even come close to touching today's Republican. The White House today says that the problem has been brewing for a decade. In 01, they said that our lifestyle is blessed and we shouldn't have to worry about reducing the ammount of energy we use. In 00, Bush said that you shouldn't play politics with the strategic reserve. Today, he'd like to open it up to minimize the loss in November.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Get the Meet the Press episode from last Sunday.

Most of the items in the last paragraph were shown on tonight's Daily Show.

The comment about "jawwing with oil producers" was from one of the 00 debates. Winston-Salem, I think (since I was there).

You get your news from the Daily Show?

They DO show actual news reports, you know.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If there is one righty term I hate, it's obstructionist. Not because it's not a valid criticism, but because you guys can't tell the difference between obstruction and genuine criticism. Actually, that's not exactly correct, for you guys there is really no difference. ANY criticism, of any kind, is bad. It makes no difference whether or not you raise valid issues, if there is a problem to be solved, it's a bad thing to stand in the way of any proposed solution, no matter how stupid. If Republicans suggested solving the oil situation by flying to Pluto and seeing if IT has any oil, and Democrats criticized it as a stupid idea, the headline in righty posts around the internet would read "Republicans brand Democrats as obstructionist on energy".

And while I'm mentioning the problems with this kind of argument, I also wonder why it's so necessary to blame ONE group of people in a neat little package. The fact that Bush AND the Democrats (and maybe even other people) are all responsible has apparently never occured to you...the idea that a situation as complex as the world oil market can't be explained by a bumper sticker style political jab. I mean, if we're really trying to figure out who's responsible, I'd have to say the Republicans, for being WAY too friendly with the oil companies for way too long, and also their inability to actually come up with any GOOD ideas, the Dems for not coming up with any real ideas at all, the speculators who bring to mind images of cattle in the thunderstorm, the consumers who waste a truly astounding amount of gas driving their H2s to their jobs as marketing analysts, and the oil companies that never quite seem to be as affected by the strange market behavior as you would think.

See, this is the problem with politics. We have a serious issue that needs seriously intelligent solutions. And instead, we have halfwits trying to figure out how they can score the most political points. For the record, I think the Dems are wrong here, a big problem we have in this country is lack of refinery capacity. But I don't know the full details of this bill, and knowing just how the Republicans seem to feel about anything that sounds remotely like an environmental or business regulation, I would be willing to believe that, in addition to trying to expand refinery capacity, this bill was also an attempt the weasle out of some pesky regulations that have nothing to do with oil prices, but that Republican supporters would rather avoid. Of course this is how laws work, we NEED the refinery capacity, so there will be some negotiation to make the Dems AND the Reps happy. Well, damn, the democratic process at work...how dare they!

I think politics would be seriously improved if the only people involved were people who actually wanted to solve problems, and people like the OP stuck to something more in line with their intellectual gifts...like watching professional football and wearing big pieces of cheese on their heads.

We have a problem, Republicans are trying to pass a bill to resolve it. Democrats block the solution and provides no alternatives. In the first paragraph, you rush in and blame me for always accusing Democrats for blocking any kind of solution to all the problems in this world. Next, you agree the problem is the lack of refineries and the Democrats are to blame. In your last paragraph, you insult me by saying that I don't 'actually want to solve the problem,' and insinuate that I'm some kind of uneducated redneck. Your thought process amazes me.

 

[Boo Boo]

its because those ahole rebuplicans trying to sneak drilling in AWP on each bill.

sure wish someone pole pound that rep

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: BDawg
The problem with oil prices isn't refineries. From what I've seen, refining capacity has gone up, even with no refineries being built. Oil companies have learned to become more efficient where they are.

Right now, our biggest problem is supply. The supply is finite and being artificially limited for price, and the demand is the highest ever.

Bush is at fault because he has taken the task on. When he ran for President, he said he would be able to control oil prices. He would jaw with the oil producers and tell them to "open up the spigots."

Democrats are somewhat to blame. They were in power in the 80s and early 90s. They could've increased CAFE standards then, but chose not to. Of course, their arrogance doesn't even come close to touching today's Republican. The White House today says that the problem has been brewing for a decade. In 01, they said that our lifestyle is blessed and we shouldn't have to worry about reducing the ammount of energy we use. In 00, Bush said that you shouldn't play politics with the strategic reserve. Today, he'd like to open it up to minimize the loss in November.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Get the Meet the Press episode from last Sunday.

Most of the items in the last paragraph were shown on tonight's Daily Show.

The comment about "jawwing with oil producers" was from one of the 00 debates. Winston-Salem, I think (since I was there).

You get your news from the Daily Show?

They DO show actual news reports, you know.

Surprise! Young impressionable minds are left leaning. Gee, I wonder why college kids are so anti-Bush.

 

[lozina]

if it was a problem with refineries then why is the price of oil so high? oil is not the output of refineries, it is the input. If the apple juice companies lose a few apple juice plants would that mean the price of apples goes higher? of coruse not.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: Boo Boo
its because those ahole rebuplicans trying to sneak drilling in AWP on each bill.

sure wish someone pole pound that rep

Do you want lower gas prices or save the seals in Alaska? If you choose to save the seals then don't complain about the high gas prices. You can't have it both ways.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: lozina
if it was a problem with refineries then why is the price of oil so high? oil is not the output of refineries, it is the input. If the apple juice companies lose a few apple juice plants would that mean the price of apples goes higher? of coruse not.

Are you filling up your gas tanks with crude oil or refined crude we call gaseline?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: lozina
if it was a problem with refineries then why is the price of oil so high? oil is not the output of refineries, it is the input. If the apple juice companies lose a few apple juice plants would that mean the price of apples goes higher? of coruse not.

Are you filling up your gas tanks with crude oil or refined crude we call gaseline?

exactly, you're proving my point. was that your intention?

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: lozina
if it was a problem with refineries then why is the price of oil so high? oil is not the output of refineries, it is the input. If the apple juice companies lose a few apple juice plants would that mean the price of apples goes higher? of coruse not.

Are you filling up your gas tanks with crude oil or refined crude we call gaseline?

exactly, you're proving my point. was that your intention?

Let's use your example. Let's say we can only consume apples by juicing them. We have plenty of apples just sitting there but not enough juicers, therefore, we have a shortage of apple juice. A higher demand on apple juice will command a higher price.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: lozina
if it was a problem with refineries then why is the price of oil so high? oil is not the output of refineries, it is the input. If the apple juice companies lose a few apple juice plants would that mean the price of apples goes higher? of coruse not.

Are you filling up your gas tanks with crude oil or refined crude we call gaseline?

exactly, you're proving my point. was that your intention?

Let's use your example. Let's say we can only consume apples by juicing them. We have plenty of apples just sitting there but not enough juicers, therefore, we have a shortage of apple juice. A higher demand on apple juice will command a higher price.

yes, exactly, but on the apple juice, not the apples! And in our current day situation the price of the APPLES are high ,as well as the apple juice. so that indicates its not a problem with the juicers. It's a problem with the apple supply, or in our case, the crude oil supply. If there was plenty of cruide oil to supply the refineries, then crude oil would not be the price its at now, it would be close to its average price or even cheaper

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: lozina
if it was a problem with refineries then why is the price of oil so high? oil is not the output of refineries, it is the input. If the apple juice companies lose a few apple juice plants would that mean the price of apples goes higher? of coruse not.

Are you filling up your gas tanks with crude oil or refined crude we call gaseline?

exactly, you're proving my point. was that your intention?

Let's use your example. Let's say we can only consume apples by juicing them. We have plenty of apples just sitting there but not enough juicers, therefore, we have a shortage of apple juice. A higher demand on apple juice will command a higher price.

yes, exactly, but on the apple juice, not the apples! And in our current day situation the price of the APPLES are high ,as well as the apple juice. so that indicates its not a problem with the juicers. It's a problem with the apple supply, or in our case, the crude oil supply. If there was plenty of cruide oil to supply the refineries, then crude oil would not be the price its at now, it would be close to its average price or even cheaper

I understand what you're saying, but are you also saying our refineries aren't working to capacity? And this gives us even more of a reason to drill in Alaska before alternative fuels become common place.

 

[jlmadyson]

Please not more refineries, never. More drilling? Not in this lifetime.

It's a two prong problem. One is oil, is it speculation in the market, of course it is, who can you blame for that Exxon, Shell perhaps? I think not. The traders on the floor of the NYMEX, sure we can blame them, if anything these are the people with the real control over pricing, is that going to change anything, no it isn't. Crude builds today stand at the highest levels since 1998. Gasoline on the other hand has seen serious drawn downs for the last 6-8 weeks except for this week. Why is that, less refinery utilization one during this time period, demand is up overall although this week was flat, and the new good ole EPA summer blends being switched over. All this has had a serious impact on the price of gasoline in the markets and at the pump. Oil traders only add to this problem with speculation trading, but there are two separate and distinct issues at play here.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sumyungai
Help me understand this here. Democrats believe the people who own refineries are making huge profits from have a shortage of refineries (I agree), therefore, Democrats vote down a bill to build new refineries in order to help refinery owners make more money? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

This bill would never cause a new refinery to be built.

Originally posted by: lozina
if it was a problem with refineries then why is the price of oil so high? oil is not the output of refineries, it is the input. If the apple juice companies lose a few apple juice plants would that mean the price of apples goes higher? of coruse not.

You're right about the apples and wrong about the oil. No one wants unrefined oil unless they're planning on refining it. Unrefined oil isn't good for much except refining. You can't put it in your car as gas or engine oil. You can't burn it to heat your home (well, theoretically you could, but I wouldn't recommend trying it). Thus, the input value is inherently tied to the output value.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: sumyungai
Refinery measure fails

Republicans branded Democrats as obstructionists on energy. The vote, 237-188, fell short of the two-thirds needed to pass under special procedures.

From CNN.com and not Fox News for you liberals.

Why is Bush being blamed for high oil prices when Democrats are the ones responsible?

The Democrats are responsible for voting down a bill that they feel wouldn't solve anything, and also make matters worse in other areas.

Bush is being blamed because he's the leader of this country, among other things. He can't be responsible only for the successes that happen under him (although he'd really like to make us believe that).

Granted, I don't see too much from the Democratic side, but personally I'd rather have the status quo than something that'll just be worse.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If there is one righty term I hate, it's obstructionist. Not because it's not a valid criticism, but because you guys can't tell the difference between obstruction and genuine criticism. Actually, that's not exactly correct, for you guys there is really no difference. ANY criticism, of any kind, is bad. It makes no difference whether or not you raise valid issues, if there is a problem to be solved, it's a bad thing to stand in the way of any proposed solution, no matter how stupid. If Republicans suggested solving the oil situation by flying to Pluto and seeing if IT has any oil, and Democrats criticized it as a stupid idea, the headline in righty posts around the internet would read "Republicans brand Democrats as obstructionist on energy".

Cliffs: Sweeping generalizations about how stupid right-wingers are.

And while I'm mentioning the problems with this kind of argument, I also wonder why it's so necessary to blame ONE group of people in a neat little package.

Yet this is what you just spent an entire paragraph doing. No one on this forum said anything about obstructionism. That's a quote directly from the article. Yet, I bet you would label me a conservative and sweep me under the blanket you knit with your first paragraph, even though I vehemently disagree with the Republican approach on this issue. So, like you said, stop trying to blame ONE group of people in a neat little package. Stick to arguing the issues rather than arguing with people and everyone will be better off. Not picking on you - I've just seen this a lot in here recently.

The fact that Bush AND the Democrats (and maybe even other people) are all responsible has apparently never occured to you...the idea that a situation as complex as the world oil market can't be explained by a bumper sticker style political jab. I mean, if we're really trying to figure out who's responsible, I'd have to say the Republicans, for being WAY too friendly with the oil companies for way too long, and also their inability to actually come up with any GOOD ideas, the Dems for not coming up with any real ideas at all, the speculators who bring to mind images of cattle in the thunderstorm, the consumers who waste a truly astounding amount of gas driving their H2s to their jobs as marketing analysts, and the oil companies that never quite seem to be as affected by the strange market behavior as you would think.

Agreed 100%.

See, this is the problem with politics. We have a serious issue that needs seriously intelligent solutions. And instead, we have halfwits trying to figure out how they can score the most political points.

Agreed, but you'll never see a highly educated president. It's more politically expedient to spend those 4-6 years shmoozing and making political ties than it is actually learning and analyzing things. It's become much more about who you know than what you know, especially in politics.

For the record, I think the Dems are wrong here, a big problem we have in this country is lack of refinery capacity. But I don't know the full details of this bill, and knowing just how the Republicans seem to feel about anything that sounds remotely like an environmental or business regulation, I would be willing to believe that, in addition to trying to expand refinery capacity, this bill was also an attempt the weasle out of some pesky regulations that have nothing to do with oil prices, but that Republican supporters would rather avoid. Of course this is how laws work, we NEED the refinery capacity, so there will be some negotiation to make the Dems AND the Reps happy. Well, damn, the democratic process at work...how dare they!

I disagree here. I think that increasing the refining capacity is just feeding the beast. I also firmly believe that, regardless of what the government does (short of actually paying for and building the refineries, then handing them over to the oil companies), no more refineries will be built here. It's just not a financially feasible enterprise at this stage of the game. I question whether there is even a single American company that would attempt such an undertaking, and I sincerely doubt any oil company is overly motivated to pony up around $100 billion in cold, hard cash to build one completely from the ground up, meeting all the new EPA regulations. Especially since they're making more profit by not spending that money in the first place. No, the real solution is to hit the oil companies where it hurts. We need to wean ourselves off of oil. This is the only real solution that I see.

 

[BoomerD]

I have no problem with building new refineries. Hell, I've made baskets of cash working in them over the years, in shutdowns, retrofits, and repairing damage from fires and so on...I and others like me, will continue to make good money working in them. The problem as I see it, is that AS USUAL, the republicans are trying to give Big Oil a pass on environmental controls. Bush has already done more damage to the environment by undoing environmental laws in this country, than we'll be able to UN-DO in our children's lifetimes. Building refineries is fine, but do it in a way that's not going to damage the environment, bu careful planning, quality construction, and sound practices. They also want to take away the say of the local governments in where these refineries will be built. WTF?? Obviously, they need access to ocean ports, since most of the oil comes in on tankers. This is another place where careful planning comes in. No one wants a refinery in their back yard. At best, they are dirty and smelly, and at worst...well, if you've ever seen a refinery fire or explosion, you understand...They are famous for "flaring" product in certain situations, and that puts dangerous toxins into the atmosphere...H2S, and SO2 are the 2 most comoon hazardous chemicals that result from flares.
Build them safely and carefully, in the right places, so they don't pollute the air and water, and I have no problem with more refineries...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If there is one righty term I hate, it's obstructionist. Not because it's not a valid criticism, but because you guys can't tell the difference between obstruction and genuine criticism. Actually, that's not exactly correct, for you guys there is really no difference. ANY criticism, of any kind, is bad. It makes no difference whether or not you raise valid issues, if there is a problem to be solved, it's a bad thing to stand in the way of any proposed solution, no matter how stupid. If Republicans suggested solving the oil situation by flying to Pluto and seeing if IT has any oil, and Democrats criticized it as a stupid idea, the headline in righty posts around the internet would read "Republicans brand Democrats as obstructionist on energy".

And while I'm mentioning the problems with this kind of argument, I also wonder why it's so necessary to blame ONE group of people in a neat little package. The fact that Bush AND the Democrats (and maybe even other people) are all responsible has apparently never occured to you...the idea that a situation as complex as the world oil market can't be explained by a bumper sticker style political jab. I mean, if we're really trying to figure out who's responsible, I'd have to say the Republicans, for being WAY too friendly with the oil companies for way too long, and also their inability to actually come up with any GOOD ideas, the Dems for not coming up with any real ideas at all, the speculators who bring to mind images of cattle in the thunderstorm, the consumers who waste a truly astounding amount of gas driving their H2s to their jobs as marketing analysts, and the oil companies that never quite seem to be as affected by the strange market behavior as you would think.

See, this is the problem with politics. We have a serious issue that needs seriously intelligent solutions. And instead, we have halfwits trying to figure out how they can score the most political points. For the record, I think the Dems are wrong here, a big problem we have in this country is lack of refinery capacity. But I don't know the full details of this bill, and knowing just how the Republicans seem to feel about anything that sounds remotely like an environmental or business regulation, I would be willing to believe that, in addition to trying to expand refinery capacity, this bill was also an attempt the weasle out of some pesky regulations that have nothing to do with oil prices, but that Republican supporters would rather avoid. Of course this is how laws work, we NEED the refinery capacity, so there will be some negotiation to make the Dems AND the Reps happy. Well, damn, the democratic process at work...how dare they!

I think politics would be seriously improved if the only people involved were people who actually wanted to solve problems, and people like the OP stuck to something more in line with their intellectual gifts...like watching professional football and wearing big pieces of cheese on their heads.

We have a problem, Republicans are trying to pass a bill to resolve it. Democrats block the solution and provides no alternatives. In the first paragraph, you rush in and blame me for always accusing Democrats for blocking any kind of solution to all the problems in this world. Next, you agree the problem is the lack of refineries and the Democrats are to blame. In your last paragraph, you insult me by saying that I don't 'actually want to solve the problem,' and insinuate that I'm some kind of uneducated redneck. Your thought process amazes me.

Perhaps I overreacted, but the reason I said what I did is that there is this automatic assumption you made that because the Republicans proposed an idea they had, they are "trying to pass a bill to resolve it". Those are two very different things. The sequence of events is that the Republicans proposed an idea they thought would solve the problem and the Democrats disagreed, saying that they did NOT think the proposed solution would solve the problem. Your position, or my position, on who's right on the validity of this particular solution isn't what bugs me...what bothers me is that you don't see it as simply two different perspectives on the issue, you see it as the Republicans being high-minded individuals trying hard to solve the problem, and Democrats simply screwing around, doing nothing to solve the situation. My various comments aren't contradictions, it's not who's right and who's wrong, it's how you view the whole argument. *I* happen to think the Dems were wrong because the bill is probably a fairly good idea. *You* think they are wrong because it's wrong to oppose any proposed solution, no matter how little merit you think it has. See the difference? We both come to the same conclusion, yet the thought processes we use to get there are quite a bit different.

As for the "uneducated redneck" comments, I appologize...I realize this forum would work a lot better without that kind of crap.