Libyan No-Fly ZoneFollow

Why does he need to be a strong military leader? Why do you even need a strong military leader at this exact moment? Or ever outside of a major war? You need a leader more focussed on the problems INSIDE The United States of America, not outside. You need to be getting your military out of other countries(however, so long as what's going on in Libya stays as it is and there is no major land based military Operation, it is fine to be there in the capacity of enforcing a no-fly zone and supporting the rebels). How can you possibly justify any real need for priority to be placed on the military?



Your point?

I'm sure he has one, I'm just doubting that it will make even the slightest bit of sense.

You're still not getting it. I was right about what the subsidies weren't for. They were not for increasing domestic oil production, so arguing "but look at the subsidy money!" when someone's making a point about how the US government is blocking domestic drilling is a complete nonsense argument.

You keep jumping up and down and yelling "subsidies!!!", but they aren't for what we actually need to do. How many times and in how many different ways do I need to point this out to you?



Reading comprehension still a bit low, huh? The bulk of oil subsidies are for those two things Joph. Not just one of them. We subsidize oil companies to explore for oil (a small amount), and to reward them for doing research into alternative fuel technology (a large amount). The key point, which you seem to utterly fail to grasp, is that we aren't spending subsidy money in ways which helps to increase total domestic production of oil.

Which is the point.


It's like you're arguing something that exists only in your own mind. No one else cares that the government spends subsidies on things unrelated to the topic at hand. Just you.

Well, looking at it another way, instead of spending money to increase production of oil, it's being spent trying to decrease the useage.

Not very successfully though. And while I'm sure that's correct, it still doesn't make "But look at all the money the oil companies get in subsidies from the government!" a valid response to a statement about the US government handing Brazil 2 Billion dollars to help them drill for oil in the Gulf.

I haven't been wrong about anything Joph. You were the one arguing that oil subsidies were sufficient to somehow increase domestic oil production. My argument has been that what little oil subsidies might possibly create some kind of incentive to increase domestic oil production are far more than offset by numerous government policies, regulations, and red tape which create a disincentive.

I'm frankly not sure at all how pointing out just how little of the subsidy money goes towards oil exploration helps your point at all. If anything, the fact that only an incredibly tiny portion of oil company subsidies goes towards exploration, which is the *only* thing subsidized which could remotely be argued to help actual oil production, makes your position weaker and mine stronger.

Yet you keep crowing about this fact as though you somehow "win" something by it. The irony of this is that you are so caught up on winning an irrelevant point about the distribution of subsidies in a vain attempt to argue I'm wrong about something, so I must be wrong about everything, that you failed to see that you're arguing against your own position.



Ever notice how, in almost every argument you engage in, you lose sight of the actual positions being argued and veer off onto some irrelevant tangent. Tell me Joph: What do you think you "win" by arguing how small the portion of subsidy money the oil companies get goes into exploration?

You've somehow argued yourself into a circle. As you usually do. Maybe you care about that distribution of subsidies, but I don't. My argument has never depended on that. It certainly wasn't based on a need for subsidies for exploration to make up a large portion of the total. It's funny to watch you jump on a perceived error on my part while effectively destroying your own position in the process.


So we're agreed that US subsidies to oil companies essentially do nothing to help increase domestic oil production, right? So bringing them up as some kind of counter to someone saying that the US isn't doing enough to increase domestic oil production is... meaningless, right?

Considering you stopped engaging your brain and ended out arguing against yourself several posts ago, that's probably for the best.

For the record though Joph: You got me. I was wrong about just how little of the subsidy money goes towards oil exploration. It's so terrible that you have proven my position to be correct by showing me this. I bow to your incredible debating skilzors!

Lol...

But he does need to lead. The sheer frequency with which senior members of his administration have given conflicting statements about a number of foreign policy issues suggests that he's not providing good solid leadership. There's nothing wrong with getting all the facts and expert opinions, but you then have to make a decision and set policy. It appears as though the Obama administration is suffering badly from lack of rudder. And that's pretty much always going to be because the guy at the top isn't making clear decisions and communicating that to his staff so that they are all on the same page.


As you say, it's not necessary for him to be a strong military leader. But he needs to start actually making decisions in some kind of timely manner. We've seen way too much of him sitting around for weeks while his staff flail around trying to cover for the fact that they don't have a firm policy in place yet. There's deliberative and there's indecisive. Obama is very much appearing to be the latter more than the former.

Lol! To which you responded by proving just how little subsidy money goes towards oil exploration. Wow! Way to prove me wrong there Joph!



I'll give you a hint: I don't care about how the government hands out subsidies, or how they are distributed, or what anyone has to do to get them. My point from the beginning has been that government subsidies do not on net result in increased domestic oil production. If it takes me walking you through the process so that you end out arguing my own point for me without realizing it, that works just fine.


I'll just call you Daffy Duck from now on. :)

This. He does need to be decisive. But what some people(like Varus) seem to think is that one cannot be a decisive leader without being a strong military leader. Unfortunately, so long as his administration remains the way it is, Varus and other extremists will have more than enough ammo for their ******** guns.

That also ignores the increase in onshore production through oil shales and exploiting previously depleted fields with new technology. I take it that you were completely unaware that domestic oil production has increased year over year for every month that Obama has been in office? Don't feel bad, Gbaji's little puppet-masters didn't tell him either.

Elinda,



Clearly bad.

Quick what's our mission in Lybia? Where's our national interest?

Edited, Mar 29th 2011 11:15am by varusword75