Looks like Obama Administration is already making good on some of the some backroom deals that had to have gone on to get his health care bill passed...
...same old, same old...
Full Version: Obama allows off-shore drilling
wow. Nice way to lose the base before a midterm.
Won't affect the base at all, which is why he's doing it now. No one from Congress has to go home to face an angry mob of environmentalists and justify the President's offshore drilling policy. By the time we get to '12, when it also won't matter b/c the environmentalist vote really doesn't make a difference in presidential elections, he'll be able to silence the "Drill Baby Drill!" crowd by saying, "I did."
It's win-win.
It's win-win.
This is the energy policy he ran on. Virginia wants offshore drilling. California does not. And thus.
It's not the best news, but hardly the worst.
QUOTE (Wayne Schlagel @ Mar 31 2010, 12:48 PM) 
It's not the best news, but hardly the worst.
yes. as much as i'd rather he didn't sign on this, democracy necessitates some compromises. which is why the republican party is such a farce at this point. obama pandering to the repubs is disappointing. on an issue like this, which isn't strictly divided by party lines, i'm willing, happy even, to see pragmatism at work.
What's the general enviro-line on this? Are they opposed to any and all new drilling?
We don't build refineries?
What have "we" got to do with it? The oil companies stopped building refineries when the amount of EPA and OSHA guidelines raised the cost of building a new refinery higher than what they wanted to pay.
Obama isn't afraid of coal - he just understands that burning coal produces filth and that "clean coal" is a term invented by the coal lobby for a process which is scientifically about the same as turning lead into gold. Impossible, in other words.
That was all the shilling for big polluters I could read today, so that's all I bothered to debunk.
What have "we" got to do with it? The oil companies stopped building refineries when the amount of EPA and OSHA guidelines raised the cost of building a new refinery higher than what they wanted to pay.
Obama isn't afraid of coal - he just understands that burning coal produces filth and that "clean coal" is a term invented by the coal lobby for a process which is scientifically about the same as turning lead into gold. Impossible, in other words.
That was all the shilling for big polluters I could read today, so that's all I bothered to debunk.
QUOTE (kiss_the_floor @ Mar 31 2010, 10:57 AM)
Won't affect the base at all, which is why he's doing it now. No one from Congress has to go home to face an angry mob of environmentalists and justify the President's offshore drilling policy. By the time we get to '12, when it also won't matter b/c the environmentalist vote really doesn't make a difference in presidential elections, he'll be able to silence the "Drill Baby Drill!" crowd by saying, "I did."
It's win-win.
It's win-win.
Midterms are about the base. Trust me when I say that this will piss them off in very big way.
QUOTE (Montana @ Mar 31 2010, 12:54 PM)
QUOTE (kiss_the_floor @ Mar 31 2010, 10:57 AM)
Won't affect the base at all, which is why he's doing it now. No one from Congress has to go home to face an angry mob of environmentalists and justify the President's offshore drilling policy. By the time we get to '12, when it also won't matter b/c the environmentalist vote really doesn't make a difference in presidential elections, he'll be able to silence the "Drill Baby Drill!" crowd by saying, "I did."
It's win-win.
It's win-win.
Midterms are about the base. Trust me when I say that this will piss them off in very big way.
I'll believe it when I see it, which I won't, because as usual you have no idea what you're talking about.
No, he's right. I'm voting straight ticket Republican over this.
QUOTE (Sid Hartha @ Mar 31 2010, 01:09 PM)
No, he's right. I'm voting straight ticket Republican over this.
That's not what happpens. Enforcing progressive issues excites the base and brings them out to vote. The base was way behind in voter enthusiasm before health care reform. Obama managed to raise it considerably with that, but I can defintely see that effect receding with this new announcement.
So wait, is Obama an anti-capitalist socialist Marxist who hates America and wants to destroy it or not?
Until I get my answer, I'm going to assume this is more of the Democrat Party negotiating tactic of giving the other side everything they want and then hoping they'll meet them half way out of gratitude.
I just hope the food is decent when the Chinese take over this country.
Until I get my answer, I'm going to assume this is more of the Democrat Party negotiating tactic of giving the other side everything they want and then hoping they'll meet them half way out of gratitude.
I just hope the food is decent when the Chinese take over this country.
yeah, while i'll defend quite a few obama admin policies & politics, i don't quite get this one. puzzling.
QUOTE (Ted Falconi @ Mar 31 2010, 02:08 PM)
So wait, is Obama an anti-capitalist socialist Marxist who hates America and wants to destroy it or not?
Until I get my answer, I'm going to assume this is more of the Democrat Party negotiating tactic of giving the other side everything they want and then hoping they'll meet them half way out of gratitude.
I just hope the food is decent when the Chinese take over this country.
Until I get my answer, I'm going to assume this is more of the Democrat Party negotiating tactic of giving the other side everything they want and then hoping they'll meet them half way out of gratitude.
I just hope the food is decent when the Chinese take over this country.
well said
QUOTE (Arnie's Plymouth @ Mar 31 2010, 01:18 PM)
QUOTE (kiss_the_floor @ Mar 31 2010, 10:52 AM)
We don't build refineries?
The oil companies stopped building refineries when the amount of EPA and OSHA guidelines raised the cost of building a new refinery higher than what they wanted to pay.
That was all the shilling for big polluters I could read today, so that's all I bothered to debunk.
The oil companies stopped building refineries when the amount of EPA and OSHA guidelines raised the cost of building a new refinery higher than what they wanted to pay.
That was all the shilling for big polluters I could read today, so that's all I bothered to debunk.
Great job "debunking!"
ktf... In all of your whopping 42 years of geniusness & living with your mom, can you explain what our country's energy policy actually is? So far, you really haven't added anything that I didn't already provide.
What is your opinion with domestic drilling? I know you're not an environmentalist or a trained scientist. How about in your own words, what up?
My point again, this country has not had a comprehensive energy policy. ever. Whether Bush, Clinton, Obama, Carter etc... I recently returned from Europe again last week and I am simply flabbergasted at how backwards & fanatically fearful of our own shadow this country is when it comes to energy creation, usage and distribution. But anyways... Please keep "debunking" whatever it is you're doing because it's paying huge dividends.
oh... his story to the San Francisco Chronicle was pretty telling wouldn't you agree? Curious why the Chronical the omitted certain segments?!?!? Hillarious. Anyway, you're right, Obama has blatantly said he will bankrupt them with fee's and intentionally damning regulations. Bravo! Teach those American bastards a lesson, i tell ya!
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/hidde...t-coal-industry
Whereas you provided apologia for polluters, I offered the truth but if you want to see that as the same, have at it.
I get pretty ill with you, so I don't really have a leg to stand on here, but when people say thins such as "42 years of geniusness & living with your mom" I don't see much point continuing the conversation.
EDIT. For the sake of whatever, though, I don't have many thoughts about offshore drilling - I don't know enough to comment. I do know it provides the increasingly elusive "good jobs" people want/need, but I have no reason to believe the same roughnecks who make $25/hr. on an oil derrick couldn't make similar money erecting windfarms.
And, while safe waste disposal remains an issue, I tend to find the anti-nuke crowd a little too unreconstructed-hippie/let's-power-the-world-on-a-smile to take seriously.
QUOTE (Arnie's Plymouth @ Mar 31 2010, 04:02 PM)
QUOTE (kiss_the_floor @ Mar 31 2010, 01:48 PM)
QUOTE (Arnie's Plymouth @ Mar 31 2010, 01:18 PM)
QUOTE (kiss_the_floor @ Mar 31 2010, 10:52 AM)
We don't build refineries?
The oil companies stopped building refineries when the amount of EPA and OSHA guidelines raised the cost of building a new refinery higher than what they wanted to pay.
That was all the shilling for big polluters I could read today, so that's all I bothered to debunk.
The oil companies stopped building refineries when the amount of EPA and OSHA guidelines raised the cost of building a new refinery higher than what they wanted to pay.
That was all the shilling for big polluters I could read today, so that's all I bothered to debunk.
Great job "debunking!"
ktf... In all of your whopping 42 years of geniusness & living with your mom, can you explain what our country's energy policy actually is? So far, you really haven't added anything that I didn't already provide.
What is your opinion with domestic drilling? I know you're not an environmentalist or a trained scientist. How about in your own words, what up?
My point again, this country has not had a comprehensive energy policy. ever. Whether Bush, Clinton, Obama, Carter etc... I recently returned from Europe again last week and I am simply flabbergasted at how backwards & fanatically fearful of our own shadow this country is when it comes to energy creation, usage and distribution. But anyways... Please keep "debunking" whatever it is you're doing because it's paying huge dividends.
oh... his story to the San Francisco Chronicle was pretty telling wouldn't you agree? Curious why the Chronical the omitted certain segments?!?!? Hillarious. Anyway, you're right, Obama has blatantly said he will bankrupt them with fee's and intentionally damning regulations. Bravo! Teach those American bastards a lesson, i tell ya!
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/hidde...t-coal-industry
Whereas you provided apologia for polluters, I offered the truth but if you want to see that as the same, have at it.
I get pretty ill with you, so I don't really have a leg to stand on here, but when people say thins such as "42 years of geniusness & living with your mom" I don't see much point continuing the conversation.
okay okay okay. You got me. That was a personal jab & I apologize.
You know, You don't have to be such a sensitive butthole all the time. I did take you off of my ignore list. so, that accounts for something, right?
I edited my response to actually address your points, sir. I may not have to be a sensitive butthole all the time, but if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again, always expecting a different result, and if I've been one for 42 years, at what point does it become insane for me to continually try to change?
Clearly this is fishing for GOP votes in the senate when he attempts to pass new restrictive carbon emission targets.
QUOTE (Mitchell @ Mar 31 2010, 04:28 PM)
Clearly this is fishing for GOP votes in the senate when he attempts to pass new restrictive carbon emission targets.
Then he hasn't leanred anything. Why would you start negotiating at a point where you've given away most of the the side's demands? He did the same thing for health care. A recent article said it best:
"By starting from a liberal position, he makes himself a better moderate".
The GOP isn't going to vote for climate change regulation, period. They are batshit insane and don't believe the science.
This move is being shredded by all democratic sites today as well it should.
QUOTE (Montana @ Mar 31 2010, 04:43 PM)
QUOTE (Mitchell @ Mar 31 2010, 04:28 PM)
Clearly this is fishing for GOP votes in the senate when he attempts to pass new restrictive carbon emission targets.
Then he hasn't leanred anything. Why would you start negotiating at a point where you've given away most of the the side's demands? He did the same thing for health care. A recent article said it best:
"By starting from a liberal position, he makes himself a better moderate".
The GOP isn't going to vote for climate change regulation, period. They are batshit insane and don't believe the science.
This move is being shredded by all democratic sites today as well it should.
I think you pay too much attention to the illusory. Today and for the rest of the week, Some Dems will be screaming about this. But your position is that, despite 40 years of electoral politics showing us that the environmental vote is paid lip service and then ignored; that there has never been a get-out-the-incumbent change in November where the pundits all say "It's the environment, stupid!"; that the races where it does end up mattering tend to be restricted to specific areas of and issues within Energy States, such as W. Va., Texas and Alaska where people are pissed off b/c the coal-burning plant released 8 million tons of slurry into a golf course pond; the base is going to look at Obama and say," Screw health care; screw student loans; screw your work on the economy; screw the fact that the Tea Baggers have a drooling sociopath on the ballot, we're staying home b/c of drilling off the Virginia coast."
If you turn out to be right, I'll give you all the credit in the world, but your theory is madness.
QUOTE (Ted Falconi @ Mar 31 2010, 02:08 PM)
So wait, is Obama an anti-capitalist socialist Marxist who hates America and wants to destroy it or not?
Until I get my answer, I'm going to assume this is more of the Democrat Party negotiating tactic of giving the other side everything they want and then hoping they'll meet them half way out of gratitude.
I just hope the food is decent when the Chinese take over this country.
Until I get my answer, I'm going to assume this is more of the Democrat Party negotiating tactic of giving the other side everything they want and then hoping they'll meet them half way out of gratitude.
I just hope the food is decent when the Chinese take over this country.
yeah. The health bill was his "liberal" legislation; expect tons of boilerplate about deficits and tax cuts from the Obama administration. He'll give the base a small slab of red meat in September of '12, but we're in for a hard right turn for the time being. I don't think Obama's pandering to anyone; I think this is who he is.
QUOTE (Mitchell @ Mar 31 2010, 04:28 PM)
Clearly this is fishing for GOP votes in the senate when he attempts to pass new restrictive carbon emission targets.
Clearly this is him searching for cover when he fails to peel off a few Republican votes for cap and trade: "Hey, I tried."
QUOTE (kiss_the_floor @ Mar 31 2010, 05:02 PM)
QUOTE (Montana @ Mar 31 2010, 04:43 PM)
QUOTE (Mitchell @ Mar 31 2010, 04:28 PM)
Clearly this is fishing for GOP votes in the senate when he attempts to pass new restrictive carbon emission targets.
Then he hasn't leanred anything. Why would you start negotiating at a point where you've given away most of the the side's demands? He did the same thing for health care. A recent article said it best:
"By starting from a liberal position, he makes himself a better moderate".
The GOP isn't going to vote for climate change regulation, period. They are batshit insane and don't believe the science.
This move is being shredded by all democratic sites today as well it should.
I think you pay too much attention to the illusory. Today and for the rest of the week, Some Dems will be screaming about this. But your position is that, despite 40 years of electoral politics showing us that the environmental vote is paid lip service and then ignored; that there has never been a get-out-the-incumbent change in November where the pundits all say "It's the environment, stupid!"; that the races where it does end up mattering tend to be restricted to specific areas of and issues within Energy States, such as W. Va., Texas and Alaska where people are pissed off b/c the coal-burning plant released 8 million tons of slurry into a golf course pond; the base is going to look at Obama and say," Screw health care; screw student loans; screw your work on the economy; screw the fact that the Tea Baggers have a drooling sociopath on the ballot, we're staying home b/c of drilling off the Virginia coast."
If you turn out to be right, I'll give you all the credit in the world, but your theory is madness.
I think you're kind of tone-deaf on politics. This is simple: Obama's not getting any momentum post-health care bill. He realizes that for the Democrats not to get slaughtered in November, his approval ratings have to inch up to around 50% and not fall. Enter Republican doctrine--the DLC way of rightwing appeasement/triangulation in a flailing attempt to create a narrative of centrism. Sure, the Dem. base won't get worked up by this alone, but for the most part who cares: the Dem base is inert, uninterested, and largely unimpressed. Why? Well, Obama's base are out of work, unlike the Republican base--and he's sure as hell not going to do what needs to be done for his base: a second, bigger stimulus. So yes, oil drilling doesn't matter a whit to a single woman working three jobs trying to raise three kids, but then, she doesn't largely give a shit what Obama's doing that doesn't help her bottom line. She ain't voting in November.
QUOTE (theminimumcircus @ Mar 31 2010, 05:52 PM)
QUOTE (kiss_the_floor @ Mar 31 2010, 05:02 PM)
QUOTE (Montana @ Mar 31 2010, 04:43 PM)
QUOTE (Mitchell @ Mar 31 2010, 04:28 PM)
Clearly this is fishing for GOP votes in the senate when he attempts to pass new restrictive carbon emission targets.
Then he hasn't leanred anything. Why would you start negotiating at a point where you've given away most of the the side's demands? He did the same thing for health care. A recent article said it best:
"By starting from a liberal position, he makes himself a better moderate".
The GOP isn't going to vote for climate change regulation, period. They are batshit insane and don't believe the science.
This move is being shredded by all democratic sites today as well it should.
I think you pay too much attention to the illusory. Today and for the rest of the week, Some Dems will be screaming about this. But your position is that, despite 40 years of electoral politics showing us that the environmental vote is paid lip service and then ignored; that there has never been a get-out-the-incumbent change in November where the pundits all say "It's the environment, stupid!"; that the races where it does end up mattering tend to be restricted to specific areas of and issues within Energy States, such as W. Va., Texas and Alaska where people are pissed off b/c the coal-burning plant released 8 million tons of slurry into a golf course pond; the base is going to look at Obama and say," Screw health care; screw student loans; screw your work on the economy; screw the fact that the Tea Baggers have a drooling sociopath on the ballot, we're staying home b/c of drilling off the Virginia coast."
If you turn out to be right, I'll give you all the credit in the world, but your theory is madness.
I think you're kind of tone-deaf on politics. This is simple: Obama's not getting any momentum post-health care bill. He realizes that for the Democrats not to get slaughtered in November, his approval ratings have to inch up to around 50% and not fall. Enter Republican doctrine--the DLC way of rightwing appeasement/triangulation in a flailing attempt to create a narrative of centrism. Sure, the Dem. base won't get worked up by this alone, but for the most part who cares: the Dem base is inert, uninterested, and largely unimpressed. Why? Well, Obama's base are out of work, unlike the Republican base--and he's sure as hell not going to do what needs to be done for his base: a second, bigger stimulus. So yes, oil drilling doesn't matter a whit to a single woman working three jobs trying to raise three kids, but then, she doesn't largely give a shit what Obama's doing that doesn't help her bottom line. She ain't voting in November.
We'll see who's right come November. All I'm saying is if voters stay home and the Dems get slaughtered, no one's going to blame off shore drilling.
QUOTE (kiss_the_floor @ Mar 31 2010, 06:19 PM)
QUOTE (theminimumcircus @ Mar 31 2010, 05:52 PM)
QUOTE (kiss_the_floor @ Mar 31 2010, 05:02 PM)
QUOTE (Montana @ Mar 31 2010, 04:43 PM)
QUOTE (Mitchell @ Mar 31 2010, 04:28 PM)
Clearly this is fishing for GOP votes in the senate when he attempts to pass new restrictive carbon emission targets.
Then he hasn't leanred anything. Why would you start negotiating at a point where you've given away most of the the side's demands? He did the same thing for health care. A recent article said it best:
"By starting from a liberal position, he makes himself a better moderate".
The GOP isn't going to vote for climate change regulation, period. They are batshit insane and don't believe the science.
This move is being shredded by all democratic sites today as well it should.
I think you pay too much attention to the illusory. Today and for the rest of the week, Some Dems will be screaming about this. But your position is that, despite 40 years of electoral politics showing us that the environmental vote is paid lip service and then ignored; that there has never been a get-out-the-incumbent change in November where the pundits all say "It's the environment, stupid!"; that the races where it does end up mattering tend to be restricted to specific areas of and issues within Energy States, such as W. Va., Texas and Alaska where people are pissed off b/c the coal-burning plant released 8 million tons of slurry into a golf course pond; the base is going to look at Obama and say," Screw health care; screw student loans; screw your work on the economy; screw the fact that the Tea Baggers have a drooling sociopath on the ballot, we're staying home b/c of drilling off the Virginia coast."
If you turn out to be right, I'll give you all the credit in the world, but your theory is madness.
I think you're kind of tone-deaf on politics. This is simple: Obama's not getting any momentum post-health care bill. He realizes that for the Democrats not to get slaughtered in November, his approval ratings have to inch up to around 50% and not fall. Enter Republican doctrine--the DLC way of rightwing appeasement/triangulation in a flailing attempt to create a narrative of centrism. Sure, the Dem. base won't get worked up by this alone, but for the most part who cares: the Dem base is inert, uninterested, and largely unimpressed. Why? Well, Obama's base are out of work, unlike the Republican base--and he's sure as hell not going to do what needs to be done for his base: a second, bigger stimulus. So yes, oil drilling doesn't matter a whit to a single woman working three jobs trying to raise three kids, but then, she doesn't largely give a shit what Obama's doing that doesn't help her bottom line. She ain't voting in November.
We'll see who's right come November. All I'm saying is if voters stay home and the Dems get slaughtered, no one's going to blame off shore drilling.
The prostituting for center-right voters between now and November will only be nauseating to those who've chosen to ignore the last two years.
Maybe it isn't purely tied into political positioning.
Gas prices. What - not cynical enough?
QUOTE
My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices.
Gas prices. What - not cynical enough?
QUOTE (Sid Hartha @ Mar 31 2010, 06:40 PM)
Maybe it isn't purely tied into political positioning.
Gas prices. What - not cynical enough?
QUOTE
My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices.
Gas prices. What - not cynical enough?
Right, because having the most artificially-inexpensive fuel prices in the western world isn't enough, eh?
I suppose that answers my question
as i said yesterday, i'm not a fan of this new policy & i don't support it, but a few quick points:
1) looking at the actual policy, this seems mostly like permission for studies, & that if they turn out fine & if oil companies think it's worth the $$$ (from my understanding, most of it isn't, well, until $5 a gallon gas at least), then there might be a few new refineries in red states sometime in the next five years. which would be bad. but
2) today brings the news of upgraded EPA standards on cars & trucks. much more important in the grand scheme of things, no?
1) looking at the actual policy, this seems mostly like permission for studies, & that if they turn out fine & if oil companies think it's worth the $$$ (from my understanding, most of it isn't, well, until $5 a gallon gas at least), then there might be a few new refineries in red states sometime in the next five years. which would be bad. but
2) today brings the news of upgraded EPA standards on cars & trucks. much more important in the grand scheme of things, no?
QUOTE (Ted Falconi @ Mar 31 2010, 02:08 PM)
So wait, is Obama an anti-capitalist socialist Marxist who hates America and wants to destroy it or not?
Until I get my answer, I'm going to assume this is more of the Democrat Party negotiating tactic of giving the other side everything they want and then hoping they'll meet them half way out of gratitude.
I just hope the food is decent when the Chinese take over this country.
Until I get my answer, I'm going to assume this is more of the Democrat Party negotiating tactic of giving the other side everything they want and then hoping they'll meet them half way out of gratitude.
I just hope the food is decent when the Chinese take over this country.
This is Obama's way of conceding something to the GOP.
QUOTE (Moo & Oink @ Apr 1 2010, 08:34 PM)
This is Obama's way of conceding something to the GOP.
Why?
Because he can.
Yes, b/c the President has any influence over who's Speaker o/t House.
The move was pure politics, period.
QUOTE
This is the energy policy he ran on.
Another blunder yesterday:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...dGEnggD9ER5EEO1
Environmentalists blast Obama mining rule reversal
By JUDITH KOHLER (AP) – 22 hours ago
DENVER — The same week President Barack Obama riled environmentalists with plans for offshore oil drilling, he faces criticism for signaling he will support a Bush-era policy criticized as giving mining companies unlimited access to public lands to dump toxic waste.
What the hell is going on here?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...dGEnggD9ER5EEO1
Environmentalists blast Obama mining rule reversal
By JUDITH KOHLER (AP) – 22 hours ago
DENVER — The same week President Barack Obama riled environmentalists with plans for offshore oil drilling, he faces criticism for signaling he will support a Bush-era policy criticized as giving mining companies unlimited access to public lands to dump toxic waste.
What the hell is going on here?
QUOTE (Montana @ Apr 3 2010, 02:32 PM)
Another blunder yesterday:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...dGEnggD9ER5EEO1
Environmentalists blast Obama mining rule reversal
By JUDITH KOHLER (AP) – 22 hours ago
DENVER — The same week President Barack Obama riled environmentalists with plans for offshore oil drilling, he faces criticism for signaling he will support a Bush-era policy criticized as giving mining companies unlimited access to public lands to dump toxic waste.
What the hell is going on here?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...dGEnggD9ER5EEO1
Environmentalists blast Obama mining rule reversal
By JUDITH KOHLER (AP) – 22 hours ago
DENVER — The same week President Barack Obama riled environmentalists with plans for offshore oil drilling, he faces criticism for signaling he will support a Bush-era policy criticized as giving mining companies unlimited access to public lands to dump toxic waste.
What the hell is going on here?
Not unlike either LOST or most of pop music, Obama's not doing what you think he ought. That's what's going on.
Perhaps you should get used to it: I hear it's how life goes.
QUOTE (kiss_the_floor @ Apr 3 2010, 02:50 PM)
QUOTE (Montana @ Apr 3 2010, 02:32 PM)
Another blunder yesterday:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...dGEnggD9ER5EEO1
Environmentalists blast Obama mining rule reversal
By JUDITH KOHLER (AP) – 22 hours ago
DENVER — The same week President Barack Obama riled environmentalists with plans for offshore oil drilling, he faces criticism for signaling he will support a Bush-era policy criticized as giving mining companies unlimited access to public lands to dump toxic waste.
What the hell is going on here?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...dGEnggD9ER5EEO1
Environmentalists blast Obama mining rule reversal
By JUDITH KOHLER (AP) – 22 hours ago
DENVER — The same week President Barack Obama riled environmentalists with plans for offshore oil drilling, he faces criticism for signaling he will support a Bush-era policy criticized as giving mining companies unlimited access to public lands to dump toxic waste.
What the hell is going on here?
Not unlike either LOST or most of pop music, Obama's not doing what you think he ought. That's what's going on.
Perhaps you should get used to it: I hear it's how life goes.
Equating toxic waste dumping on pristine lands with disagreements over TV and music might connote insanity.
Oh wait...that's right, you are insane.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.