Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Libyan No-Fly ZoneFollow

#252 Mar 24 2011 at 2:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Quote:
another meaningless phrase in a long history of meaningless phrases by Obama
Finally you see the light.

Irony since the administration nicked the phrase from the Bush administration lexicon.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#253 Mar 24 2011 at 2:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
As opposed to you actually linking "friends of the earth" as though it were a credible source.

It's a credible source for an upper floor. I doubt that Friends of the Earth is understating the subsidies since that would go counter to their efforts to stop subsidizing oil companies. They might be overstating it but that would only strengthen my point that Gbaji is an idiot who has no idea where this money is going and therefore claims that "Oil subsidies are really money given for exploration since we won't let them dig!"


I think you took your eyes off the ball though. You were the one arguing that the government can't be acting to oppose domestic oil production because it provides subsidies to oil companies. My argument is that the subsidies don't matter since the government has put so many regulations in place that it makes new oil production nearly impossible. The subsidies are a red herring to the whole issue.

It's kinda equivalent to the government placing strict standards on cars which result in pricing them out of the reach of many people, and increased taxes on the gasoline used to run them, but then insisting that since the government subsidizes the registration of a car, this means that it's helping people to own cars! Not on net though, is it?


I'll point out (again) that the proof is in the result. Domestic oil production has decreased steadily over the last 40 years. Not "relative production", but raw production. We actually produce about half as much oil today compared to the early 70s. Obviously, our consumption of oil has increased over that time. If the government were really encouraging domestic production of oil, this would not be the case. You can jump up and down screaming "Subsidies!" over and over, but it doesn't change that basic fact. Our government has chosen a course of action over that time period which has resulted in a reduced production of oil domestically. You're arguing about this tree or that tree, while ignoring the forest.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#254 Mar 24 2011 at 2:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Ahh, okay. I see. You were actually admitting "kinetic military action" has no meaning.


He wasn't "admitting" this. He was saying this from the start. I personally think it's a silly line of argument, but it shouldn't have been that hard to follow either.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#255 Mar 24 2011 at 3:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I think you took your eyes off the ball though. You were the one arguing that the government can't be acting to oppose domestic oil production because it provides subsidies to oil companies. My argument is that the subsidies don't matter since the government has put so many regulations in place that it makes new oil production nearly impossible.

No, you lamely attempted to lecture us on what the subsidies REALLY were and, in doing so, demonstrated complete ignorance. Hysterical ignorance given the depth of how wrong you were. Now you're doing your usual sputtering about "Well, me being 100% wrong doesn't matter because you have to look at this BIG PICTURE!"

Which kind of makes your other comments on the topic not really worth reading. Remember what I said about credibility?
Quote:
We actually produce about half as much oil today compared to the early 70s.

Due in overwhelming part to the low-hanging fruit of easily tapped fields going dry starting in the early 1980s. This is like arguing that scary liberal environmentalism is the primary reason why I can't hunt passenger pigeons any longer. Again... credibility.

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 4:26pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#256varusword75, Posted: Mar 24 2011 at 3:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#257 Mar 24 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Are you going to sit there and actually try and convince us that Obama and the democrats are all for increasing domestic oil production? Really?

No, actually you started out saying that he was against any production so this is your thing to prove. I'm just pointing out the giant gaping flaws in the arguments you and Gbaji try to throw up.

Gbaji is trying to make it my argument instead of noting that my remarks were merely in response to yours. Either because he's intentionally trying to shift the burden of evidence or because he's an illiterate 'tard -- I'd give it 50/50 either way.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#258varusword75, Posted: Mar 24 2011 at 3:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This just in Obama's a p*ssy.
#259varusword75, Posted: Mar 24 2011 at 3:32 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#260 Mar 24 2011 at 4:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
That's it. That's all you need to know.

Must be blissful being a conservative. I admit I'm a little jealous :)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#261 Mar 24 2011 at 4:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Quote:
Only 17 percent of Americans see President Barack Obama as a strong and decisive military leader

Quote:
Nearly half of those polled view Obama as a cautious and consultative commander-in-chief
[...]
The survey suggested Americans may see Obama in a very different light from his predecessor, George W. Bush, who launched the Afghanistan and Iraq wars with some allies but was widely seen as a go-it-alone leader.
[...]
"The data suggest he is perceived to be more consultative in his approach, which may distinguish him in the minds of the American public from his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was not perceived to be," said Ipsos Public Affairs Director Julia Clark, adding that the responses broke along political lines.

Damn, if only we had The Decider running things. He was a real military success!

You also forgot to mention the 60% support for the US kinetic military action in Libya.

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 5:09pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#262 Mar 24 2011 at 4:20 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji is trying to make it my argument instead of noting that my remarks were merely in response to yours.


But your remarks were to claim that since the government provides subsidies to oil companies that it isn't doing anything to prevent oil companies from increasing domestic production. All I've been doing is showing just how incredibly flawed your argument is.

One doesn't say anything about the other, does it? Yet this is far from the first time you've tossed this "But the government gives subsidies to oil companies!!!" bit. It's not only an incredibly dumb response, but it's getting kinda old too.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#263 Mar 24 2011 at 4:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But your remarks were to claim that since the government provides subsidies to oil companies that it isn't doing anything to prevent oil companies from increasing domestic production.

So you decided to go with "illiterate retard"? Damn, I had you down for intentional deception.

Here's my bringing up of subsidies...
Varus wrote:
And he just gave brazil 2 BILLION to further their capacity to increase their oil production.
I wrote:
Which is... what? 1/25th of what we give in US oil & gas subsidies? Well, maybe if I TYPE REAL BIG, it'll seem scarier without meaning anything.

...nothing about proving anything about domestic production. I said that the fact that the administration was issuing permits sort of discredited Varus's "argument" (heh) that Obama had blocked domestic drilling. My statement about subsidies was pointing out that we already waste over 40 billion a year on US oil subsidies so two billion to Brazil isn't going to be what makes me wet my pants.

Quote:
It's not only an incredibly dumb response, but it's getting kinda old too.

Yeah, maybe you should learn how to read (and learn how to be at least a teeny-tiny bit correct in your lectures) before letting us know what's "dumb".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#264 Mar 24 2011 at 5:09 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Here's my bringing up of subsidies...
Varus wrote:
And he just gave brazil 2 BILLION to further their capacity to increase their oil production.
I wrote:
Which is... what? 1/25th of what we give in US oil & gas subsidies? Well, maybe if I TYPE REAL BIG, it'll seem scarier without meaning anything.

...nothing about proving anything about domestic production. I said that the fact that the administration was issuing permits sort of discredited Varus's "argument" (heh) that Obama had blocked domestic drilling. My statement about subsidies was pointing out that we already waste over 40 billion a year on US oil subsidies so two billion to Brazil isn't going to be what makes me wet my pants.


You kinda skipped right past the question Varus asked though: "Has Obama given american oil companies 2 billion to drill offshore?"

Given that we've established that the bulk of the US subsidies to oil and gas companies are for "exploring" and "alternative fuel research", your response about how the US spends so much on subsidies to oil companies is completely irrelevant, isn't it? It does not actually counter the statement Varus made (that Obama is supporting Brazilian efforts to drill in the gulf while blocking US efforts to do the same).

See it yet?


I mean, you love to respond with irrelevant statements and then argue the factual truth of those irrelevant statements, but that doesn't make them relevant. The amount spent on subsidies is not a valid response to the statement you were responding to.

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 4:10pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#265 Mar 24 2011 at 5:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
You kinda skipped right past the question Varus asked though: "Has Obama given american oil companies 2 billion to drill offshore?"

As in I didn't directly address it with a comment about subsidies? You're right! I mean, you're right in that I didn't hence making you wrong about your broader claim but you should grasp these tiny fleeting victories when you can.

You were wrong about my posting and you were wrong about what the subsidies are for. I know you won't ever admit to it but you should probably at least get past it. You're not going to word-vomit your way into anyone thinking you were anything other than wrong.
Quote:
Given that we've established that the bulk of the US subsidies to oil and gas companies are for "exploring" and "alternative fuel research"

Wow... it's like you just make up your own reality in your head to keep you safe or something. Yes, after I just showed that one half of one percent of US gas & oil subsidies are for exploration, you still think they're part of the "bulk" of subsidies. Of course, this is after you just lectured us all that subsidies are really ALL about exploration.

Damn man, how do you brush your hair without having to look at yourself in the mirror?

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 6:56pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#266 Mar 25 2011 at 3:45 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Wow... it's like you just make up your own reality in your head to keep you safe or something.


What amazes me is how consistently he manages to amaze. I admit I don't think I would enjoy my time here if not for the constant novelty of gbaji's mental retardation.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#267varusword75, Posted: Mar 25 2011 at 7:27 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) gbaji,
#268 Mar 25 2011 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
This is the crux of the matter.

Except you've failed to support this, rather the two of you saying I need to disprove it.

Quote:
Jophed reminds me of a farside comic strip where the kid genius is pushing on the door to the school only the door has a sign hanging on it that says pull.

1988 called...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#269 Mar 25 2011 at 8:12 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,524 posts
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
This is the crux of the matter.

Except you've failed to support this, rather the two of you saying I need to disprove it.

Quote:
Jophed reminds me of a farside comic strip where the kid genius is pushing on the door to the school only the door has a sign hanging on it that says pull.

1988 called...
Lol, my new morning coffee shop has a 'pull' door. There is a teenyweeny 'pull' sign, but it still took awhile to train my reflexes to automatically pull that door open. I have pondered if they get stuck inside when it snows too much.

But the coffee is rich and fresh and hot and dark and the buttermilk scones are out-of-this-world yummy. The shop also sells wedding dresses which is kind of weird and made me a little nervous at first. I'm pretty confident now though that I'm not going to trip on my way out, splattering some $6k white gown with unrestrained coffee.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#270 Mar 25 2011 at 8:12 AM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Jophed reminds me of a farside comic strip where the kid genius is pushing on the door to the school only the door has a sign hanging on it that says pull.

1988 called...


I think this comic was on The Daily Show recently.... I know it was on some "news" program. If not The Daily Show then the Colbert Report.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#271 Mar 25 2011 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
#272 Mar 25 2011 at 1:04 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts


If that was to me, I know what it is. It was still on some show I saw recently. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#273 Mar 25 2011 at 1:27 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:


If that was to me, I know what it is. It was still on some show I saw recently. Smiley: tongue


Ah, that's what I get for skimming. Just realized that varus actually said the name, too.


Woops.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#274 Mar 25 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:


If that was to me, I know what it is. It was still on some show I saw recently. Smiley: tongue


Ah, that's what I get for skimming. Just realized that varus actually said the name, too.


Woops.


Smiley: grin
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#275 Mar 25 2011 at 2:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,921 posts
Some of my friends were throwing this around facebook, and it made me laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Pretty much agree with most of it, beside the condescension toward Europe and the UN, and glossing over the facts that there are no US ground troops in Libya and we're supporting an existing rebellion instead of just invading. Libya is a fight I don't believe we should be involved with.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#276 Mar 26 2011 at 5:55 AM Rating: Good
******
43,157 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Libya is a fight I don't believe we should be involved with.
Throw it on the pile with the rest of the fights we shouldn't be involved with. Really, at this point I think some politician saw that Team America movie and took it too damn serious.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#277 Mar 26 2011 at 6:30 AM Rating: Good
****
9,258 posts
varusword75 wrote:
This just in Obama's a p*ssy.

Quote:
Only 17 percent of Americans see President Barack Obama as a strong and decisive military leader


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/24/us-libya-usa-poll-idUSTRE72N1JN20110324




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?

Varus wrote:
What's to argue? Has oil production in the US increased since Obama's been in office? That's it. That's all you need to know.


Your point?


____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#278 Mar 26 2011 at 10:08 AM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Varus wrote:
What's to argue? Has oil production in the US increased since Obama's been in office? That's it. That's all you need to know.


Your point?


It's funny that you think he has one.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#279 Mar 26 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,258 posts
Quote:
It's funny that you think he has one.


I'm sure he has one, I'm just doubting that it will make even the slightest bit of sense.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#280 Mar 28 2011 at 9:52 AM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
Drift,

Quote:
Why does he need to be a strong military leader?


He needs to be a strong leader. Argue with someone else as to why countries need strong decisive leaders.


Quote:
You need a leader more focussed on the problems INSIDE The United States of America


We need stability in regions of the world that directly affect our national interests. And until we can shove the radical left out of the way and focus on developing our own oil, coal, and nuclear engery we'll continue to have relationships with countries that are willing to sell us what our own lefty govn officials won't allow us to produce.

#281 Mar 28 2011 at 3:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
You kinda skipped right past the question Varus asked though: "Has Obama given american oil companies 2 billion to drill offshore?"

As in I didn't directly address it with a comment about subsidies? You're right! I mean, you're right in that I didn't hence making you wrong about your broader claim but you should grasp these tiny fleeting victories when you can.

You were wrong about my posting and you were wrong about what the subsidies are for.


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?

Quote:
Quote:
Given that we've established that the bulk of the US subsidies to oil and gas companies are for "exploring" and "alternative fuel research"

Wow... it's like you just make up your own reality in your head to keep you safe or something. Yes, after I just showed that one half of one percent of US gas & oil subsidies are for exploration, you still think they're part of the "bulk" of subsidies.


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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#282 Mar 28 2011 at 4:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You're still not getting it. I was right about what the subsidies weren't for.

This is your pathetic way of trying to score some sort of moral victory or something? Any port in a storm, I guess.

Quote:
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?

Given that you have provably demonstrated that you have no idea what the subsidies are going towards, you don't have anything to point out to anyone.

Quote:
Reading comprehension still a bit low, huh? The bulk of oil subsidies are for those two things Joph. Not just one of them.

No, exploration doesn't make up the bulk of anything. You can't just take your precious little 0.5% item and say "It's part of the bulk!" and expect to be taken seriously. That's like saying "Asking for vampire fangs" is part of the bulk of dentistry just because you want to include it with cavity fillings and tooth cleanings and root canals.

Quote:
It's like you're arguing something that exists only in your own mind.

Hehehe... cute. Nice attempt at the ole turn-around but, once again, you're not nearly good enough to pull it off. Try learning a little something about a topic and try again.

Edited, Mar 28th 2011 5:37pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#283 Mar 28 2011 at 4:36 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
gbaji wrote:
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.

Well, looking at it another way, instead of spending money to increase production of oil, it's being spent trying to decrease the useage.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#284 Mar 28 2011 at 6:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Given that you have provably demonstrated that you have no idea what the subsidies are going towards, you don't have anything to point out to anyone.


I know what they are *not* going towards though. Which is the point. I really don't care about the exact distribution of subsidies to oil companies Joph. It's irrelevant to the point at question (whether the government is helping or hindering the domestic production of oil).

Quote:
No, exploration doesn't make up the bulk of anything. You can't just take your precious little 0.5% item and say "It's part of the bulk!" and expect to be taken seriously.


It is one of the two major areas in which money is allocated to oil companies via subsidy Joph. How you want to label that in your own head doesn't really matter to me. At the end of the day, the only point I'm making here is that those subsidies do not do anything at all to increase domestic production of oil in this country. Thus, countering Varus' statement with one about how much the country spends on subsidies is meaningless.


Way to argue the irrelevant parts while ignoring everything else.


So. What's the US government doing to help increase domestic oil production? It's not subsidies, which was your first answer. Want to try something else?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#285 Mar 28 2011 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
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.

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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#286 Mar 28 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I know what they are *not* going towards though...

Right, right. I mean, you've been wrong about everything else so you're obviously an expert.

Ever notice how, in every debate about oil, you fuck up the most basic facts? Do you think, perhaps, you're just not qualified to talk about the subject? Much less to whine about people not responding the way you demand?
gbaji wrote:
So. What's the US government doing to help increase domestic oil production?
Jophiel previously wrote:
No, actually you started out saying that he was against any production so this is your thing to prove. I'm just pointing out the giant gaping flaws in the arguments you and Gbaji try to throw up.

Gbaji is trying to make it my argument instead of noting that my remarks were merely in response to yours. Either because he's intentionally trying to shift the burden of evidence or because he's an illiterate 'tard -- I'd give it 50/50 either way.


Edited, Mar 28th 2011 7:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#287 Mar 28 2011 at 7:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I know what they are *not* going towards though...

Right, right. I mean, you've been wrong about everything else so you're obviously an expert.


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.

Quote:
Ever notice how, in every debate about oil, you fuck up the most basic facts? Do you think, perhaps, you're just not qualified to talk about the subject? Much less to whine about people not responding the way you demand?


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?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#288 Mar 28 2011 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I haven't been wrong about anything Joph.

Stopped reading here.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#289 Mar 28 2011 at 7:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
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...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#290 Mar 28 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,258 posts
Quote:
He needs to be a strong leader. Argue with someone else as to why countries need strong decisive leaders


Varus, one doesn't need to be a strong military leader to be a strong leader.

Quote:
We need stability in regions of the world that directly affect our national interests. And until we can shove the radical left out of the way and focus on developing our own oil, coal, and nuclear engery we'll continue to have relationships with countries that are willing to sell us what our own lefty govn officials won't allow us to produce.


Diplomacy>Military Intervention


I'm with you on Nuclear Power 100%, but I really think that we need to be looking at finding ways of moving away from coal and oil, even if only to lower pollution so that the air is a bit cleaner.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#291 Mar 28 2011 at 7:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
He needs to be a strong leader. Argue with someone else as to why countries need strong decisive leaders


Varus, one doesn't need to be a strong military leader to be a strong leader.


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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#292 Mar 28 2011 at 7:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You got me. I was wrong about just how little of the subsidy money goes towards oil exploration.

No, you were wrong about your entire little lecture about subsidies. It's incredibly obvious that you know nothing about the topic. If you think that gives you a victory or something... umm... yay?

You were also wrong about how I mentioned subsidies and have spent however many posts in a horribly ham-handed attempt to shift the burden of evidence upon me after proving yourself ignorant and trying to save face. Given that it took you this long to give a sadly qualified admission of your ignorance, I'm not holding my breath waiting on you to admit to this -- the posts have already been quoted and you've already shown yourself incapable of understanding what was said. I never said that subsidies proved an expansion of domestic drilling, I said that $2bil to Brazil didn't bother me given how much money we waste on domestic subsidies that no one cares about. I also challenged Varus (and later you) to back up YOUR claims about drilling being blocked.

Having failed to do so, you instead persist in trying to corner me in some strawman argument I laughed off many posts ago.

But, yeah, you TOTALLY "won" there by admitting how ignorant you are.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#293 Mar 28 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You got me. I was wrong about just how little of the subsidy money goes towards oil exploration.

No, you were wrong about your entire little lecture about subsidies.


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. :)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#294 Mar 28 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Incidentally, domestic production was up every month in 2010 over 2009. And up in every month in 2009 over 2008. That's WITH the April-August 2010 Deepwater Horizon fiasco.

Several months in 2008 were down from 2007 and several months in 2007 were down from 2006.

I know... none of that counts because... well, because you'd have to admit that you had no actual case and just wanted to cry and whine and try to "educate" us by making shit up as you go along. But nice job totally winning that debate.

Edit: Jan 2011 was up over Jan 2010 as well.
Additional edit: Feb & March data are up but in different formats. Both represent an increase from the previous year. Summer off shore production will drop this year as a delayed result of the moratorium however, increased onshore production will largely counter the shortfall.
EIA wrote:
Production increases are expected from onshore enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects, shale oil plays, and deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Cumulatively, oil production in the lower 48 States in the AEO2011 Reference case is approximately the same as in the AEO2010 Reference case, but the pattern differs in that more onshore and less off shore oil is produced in AEO2011.


Edited, Mar 28th 2011 11:57pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#295 Mar 29 2011 at 5:49 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,258 posts
Quote:
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.


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 bullsh*t guns.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#296varusword75, Posted: Mar 29 2011 at 7:59 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#297 Mar 29 2011 at 8:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
[Salazar] dismissed concerns that the decision will seriously damage efforts to further develop domestic energy resources, noting that roughly 29 million acres already under leases in the Gulf have not yet been developed.


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.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#298 Mar 29 2011 at 8:30 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,524 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
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.


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 bullsh*t guns.
This. This is gjabi complaining about Obama's decision-making because he's having a hard time coming up with an argument against the decision itself. The truth is, in the history of our government, decisions to go kill other people are never made quickly or hastily. Personally, while I don't necessarily agree with his actions I think the president has been very clear in his leadership. I'm impressed he held to his word about passing off leadership in enforcing the no-fly zone.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#299 Mar 29 2011 at 9:13 AM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
Elinda,

Quote:
I think the president has been very clear in his leadership


Clearly bad.

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

Edited, Mar 29th 2011 11:15am by varusword75
#300 Mar 29 2011 at 9:21 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Quick what's our mission in Lybia? Where's our national interest?


Clearly it's not in spelling...
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#301varusword75, Posted: Mar 29 2011 at 9:26 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Eske,
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 48 All times are in CDT
Rukkuss, Anonymous Guests (47)