POTUS giving mixed messages on foreign oil

#1
IPorange

IPorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
25,545
Likes
47
#1
Lawmakers, Executives Slam Obama for Boosting Brazil's Offshore Drilling - FoxNews.com

So he tells Brazil he wants to help them develop their offshore reserves, and that we would like to be their "best customer?"

I thought he was pushing us hard to get off foreign oil in particular and oil in general, and that's why he is against various drilling operations here?

Which is it?

I really don't understand this guy, but I have a hypothesis. I am starting to suspect that he follows the advice given by highly compartmentalized subject experts for each move he makes. Because they all don't talk to each other and different things make different sorts of sense in different situations, he ends up looking like he has no guiding principle or direction.

It's freaking sad. Again, like many of my recent posts, this isn't about what one personally believes. No matter what your stance on oil and drilling, this makes no sense. Same with the Libyan war. Same with healthcare.

He is incoherent.
 
#2
#2
Gotta love it.

"And when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers," Obama said.
 
#3
#3
Interesting that gas is going up daily. We have no current option that can replace it. We have oil. And we are telling someone else to produce it so we can buy it.

Sounds like hes sittin on the fence with an election right around the corner. One on hand hes making some happy by not pushing oil production here, while on the other trying to prove to the American people that he is trying to easy the cost at the pump by buying elsewhere.
 
#4
#4
I know this is going to sound like a sound bite or a right wing talking point but this is what happens when you hire a man with a resume like his.

At least, a President should have been a governor or a ceo or a successful business owner and had to make hard decisions. he should also have a resume that shows he's made hard decisions and not just voted present.

I am not a democrat. Honestly, I'm not a republican anymore either. But H. Clinton got screwed. We might not like all of her decisions but I can bet money we'd understand her direction.
 
#5
#5
Possible explanations:

1) Inclination is to suck up to foreign countries to not sound like America is dictating anything

2) Wants to force energy transformation in US so putting roadblocks up to domestic production.

3) Has no clue what he's doing.
 
#6
#6
it's pretty simple he wants to point to his domestic record on environmental issues to his wackjob supporters, yet still have the benefit of offshore drilling. in other words as long as it happens somewhere else he's a ok with it.
 
#8
#8
VolsNSkinsFan said:
It's better to get oil from Brazil than it is the Canadian Tar Sands, IMO
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

We have tons of tar sand oil here in Utah. This guy I know and 2 partners have developed a way to extract the oil. He showed me a demo, it was pretty cool. He tells me it's cost effective but I have to take his word for it cause I don't know. Anyways he's kind of halted it because his partners mysteriously died (in their sleep kind of thing) and he's freaked out.
 
#9
#9
don't they have to like heat up the sludge to get it to work? it can't possibly be cheap to do.
 
#10
#10
droski said:
it's pretty simple he wants to point to his domestic record on environmental issues to his wackjob supporters, yet still have the benefit of offshore drilling. in other words as long as it happens somewhere else he's a ok with it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, most environmentalists benefit from oil drilling so it seems they are fine with ravaging the world, just not our part of the world.
 
#11
#11
droski said:
don't they have to like heat up the sludge to get it to work? it can't possibly be cheap to do.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it didn't take much heating with this compound solution that he mixed with the tar sand. It was really quick. But like I said, I don't know how cost effective it is.
 
#12
#12
droski said:
don't they have to like heat up the sludge to get it to work? it can't possibly be cheap to do.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what they do. They burn NatGas to make steam and then use the steam to heat up/seperate the Oil/sand/tar mixture. Just hugely un-efficient
 
#13
#13
volinbham said:
Possible explanations:

1) Inclination is to suck up to foreign countries to not sound like America is dictating anything

2) Wants to force energy transformation in US so putting roadblocks up to domestic production.

3) Has no clue what he's doing.
Click to expand...

All 3 sound pretty accurate.
 
#15
#15
I just have a serious problem with people who apparently have no real values, and only give lip service to them. I feel like he's taking the downside of environmental strategies and trying to create a climate conducive to alternative energy development, but still taking the downside of environmental degradation in poorer countries as well as the being beholden to foreign oil.

If he stuck with one or the other, we'd be better off. But he's cherry-picking and getting all the negative.
 
#16
#16
You realize that at 27 years of age you already have basically the same credentials as our POTUS?

You also appear to be much brighter than him and more open minded.

There is a reason you're not argeeing with alot of what he is doing.

Because it's idiotic.
 
#18
#18
IPorange said:
I really don't understand this guy, but I have a hypothesis. I am starting to suspect that he follows the advice given by highly compartmentalized subject experts for each move he makes. Because they all don't talk to each other and different things make different sorts of sense in different situations, he ends up looking like he has no guiding principle or direction.

It's freaking sad. Again, like many of my recent posts, this isn't about what one personally believes. No matter what your stance on oil and drilling, this makes no sense. Same with the Libyan war. Same with healthcare.

He is incoherent.
Click to expand...

Excellent analysis. The only problem is, as you know, we absolutely must have foreign oil at our current demand. I think "foreign oil" is actually a euphemism for "Middle East oil" and is probably deeply entrenched in the bureaucracy. After all, I haven't really heard any calls to wean us off Venezuelan oil, which has exceeded Saudi oil imports in some quarters.
 
#19
#19
NEOCON said:
You realize that at 27 years of age you already have basically the same credentials as our POTUS?

You also appear to be much brighter than him and more open minded.

There is a reason you're not argeeing with alot of what he is doing.

Because it's idiotic.
Click to expand...

26, and I disagree with having the same credentials.
 
#20
#20
IPorange said:
26, and I disagree with having the same credentials.
Click to expand...

Walk into a bunch of meetings in the next few months and yell out "Present" and then leave.

And then go organize some community function at your local YMCA.

Then you'll have all you need to run for POTUS.

You atleast seem to have a backbone and are honest.
 
#24
#24
IPorange said:
I really don't understand this guy, but I have a hypothesis. I am starting to suspect that he follows the advice given by highly compartmentalized subject experts for each move he makes. Because they all don't talk to each other and different things make different sorts of sense in different situations, he ends up looking like he has no guiding principle or direction.

It's freaking sad. Again, like many of my recent posts, this isn't about what one personally believes. No matter what your stance on oil and drilling, this makes no sense. Same with the Libyan war. Same with healthcare.

He is incoherent.
Click to expand...

IMHO, he is not competent... but he also isn't as benign as you seem to think. Through associations, deeds, and words, Obama has demonstrated a belief that America and its ideals are defective and need to be "fundamentally transformed". Can you honestly trust someone who says that? Can you trust someone who associates with the idealists he has a long history of associating with... especially when he suppresses/minimizes the nature and extent of the relationships?

It is a blessing that he and his administration can't get their act together.

FWIW, his statement in Brazil makes more sense if you take into account the notion that WE are responsible for poverty in the world. Therefore environmental concerns can be overlooked to so the oppressed people of Brazil can attain wealth and jobs... not so for Americans or American workers.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top