Did you vote today?

[BARNEYII]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't have a problem with oil production being up as a whole. I have a problem with Obama taking credit for private land owners doing what we have federal land set aside to do. Why don't they both drill and lets get 100% off of foreign oil and sell the excess we produce to other countries?

Wht makes you think they don't


The U.S. exported more gasoline, diesel and other fuels than it imported in 2011 for the first time since 1949, the Energy Department said.

(Source: Bloomberg)

Shipments abroad of petroleum products exceeded imports by 439,000 barrels a day, the department said today in the Petroleum Supply Monthly report. In 2010, daily net imports averaged 269,000 barrels. U.S. refiners exported record amounts of gasoline, heating oil and diesel to meet higher global fuel demand while U.S. fuel consumption sank

(Source: Bloomberg)

[BARNEYII]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't have a problem with oil production being up as a whole. I have a problem with Obama taking credit for private land owners doing what we have federal land set aside to do. Why don't they both drill and lets get 100% off of foreign oil and sell the excess we produce to other countries?

You should do a little research before you start throwing ou these Republican talking points.

Despite the one-year drop in production, oil production on federal and Indian lands from 2009 through 2011 totaled 2.027 million barrels. That's an average of 675,000 barrels per year during Obama's term, compared to an average annual production of 609,000 barrels annually during Bush's last term.

But it is an overstatement to say that "all of the increase" has been on private lands -- since, by definition, new permits and licenses have been granted for federal lands (bringing in more gas and oil).
Romney's claim that Obama's administration has "cut the number of permits and licenses in half" for federal lands is also not on the mark
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-c...

[BARNEYII]

WARRIOR wrote:

<quoted text>Indian lands are not federal lands bozo they should not be counted in your weak statistics. Obama has denied more permits on federal land over the past 4 years then any other president in history. That is a FACT!

"on federal and Indian lands"

Why would you think that said, Indian and federal lands are the same?

[Observer]

WARRIOR wrote:

<quoted text>Indian lands are not federal lands bozo they should not be counted in your weak statistics. Obama has denied more permits on federal land over the past 4 years then any other president in history. That is a FACT!

It is not a fact unless Barney makes it up

[BARNEYII]

WARRIOR wrote:

<quoted text>Indian lands are not federal lands bozo they should not be counted in your weak statistics. Obama has denied more permits on federal land over the past 4 years then any other president in history. That is a FACT!

If that is a fact you should have no problems posting proof that it is, what you say it is.

[BARNEYII]

WARRIOR wrote:

<quoted text>Here is something you love so much! ENJOY!
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/pr...
Fact Check that! LOL!

From your post;

Romney exaggerated, however, when he claimed the number of new permits and new leases for drilling on federal lands declined by half. The decline isn’t that steep,

[BARNEYII]

WARRIOR wrote:

<quoted text>You ever heard of the Mescalero Apache Reservation in New Mexico? Reservations are their own little countries bozo. Feds have little control or jurisdiction over them! There are over 500 recognized Native American tribes in the United States. You should really get out of the backwoods more often! Hope that helped.

You said federal lands, WTF has that got to with indian nations?

Your Quote:

"Obama has denied more permits on( federal )land over the past 4 years then any other president in history. That is a FACT"!

[jim]

Yes

[BARNEYII]

production on federal lands fell by 14 percent in fiscal year 2011 (after a 15 percent increase the year before). But overall, oil production on federal lands saw an increase of 1 percent during the last five fiscal years.

https://www.google.com/url...

[Reality Check]

dont know nothin wrote:

<quoted text>The United States will overtake Saudi Arabia to become the world's biggest oil producer before 2020, and will be energy independent 10 years later, according to a new forecast by the International Energy Agency.

The first part I believe could come true if Obama wasn't trying to push the green energy agenda so hard. He only wants us energy independent if, and only if, we do it without oil. I would suspect that all his cronies, like Al Gore, have a monopoly on green energy. That way they all get filthy rich and claim they are saving the planet. We all know the oil industry is the sole reason for all of our greenhouse gasses and global warming because Obama said so. I'm sure he doesn't have an alterior motive.

[Reality Check]

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
Wht makes you think they don't

Plain and simple. Look at how much of our tax dollars Obama is pouring into green energy. If he didn't have a problem with oil he would simply allow these companies to do the research slowly to perfect the technology. instead he pours billions of our tax dollars into green energy companies that everyone knew was going to fail. Some even warned the White House against such investments. He's pushing too hard, too fast to be totally accepting of the oil industry. He wants them out and he wants them out now but he knows he can't because so much of what we have depends on oil. Such a transition will take decades and Obama simply doesn't want to wait that long.

[Reality Check]

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
You should do a little research before you start throwing ou these Republican talking points.
Despite the one-year drop in production, oil production on federal and Indian lands from 2009 through 2011 totaled 2.027 million barrels. That's an average of 675,000 barrels per year during Obama's term, compared to an average annual production of 609,000 barrels annually during Bush's last term.
But it is an overstatement to say that "all of the increase" has been on private lands -- since, by definition, new permits and licenses have been granted for federal lands (bringing in more gas and oil).
Romney's claim that Obama's administration has "cut the number of permits and licenses in half" for federal lands is also not on the mark
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-c...

What Republican said what I just said? Did I say "all of the increases" or did you add that yourself? For someone who prides themselves on citing sources, you sure don't mind inserting things you need to change the meanings to fit your "counterpoints". The question is, do you believe the "new and improved" post after you have edited it? I think you do.

[Post Turtle]

If you can somehow force a liberal into a point- counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you've said -- unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.

[Old Army]

Post Turtle wrote:

If you can somehow force a liberal into a point- counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you've said -- unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.

Perfect description of Barney.

[Observer]

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
From your post;
Romney exaggerated, however, when he claimed the number of new permits and new leases for drilling on federal lands declined by half. The decline isn’t that steep,

And you exaggerate a little when you insinuate that Obama is doing a good job, but the big difference is that Romney's exaggeration didn't hurt anyone and your's is killing us.

[The cabbit]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
Plain and simple. Look at how much of our tax dollars Obama is pouring into green energy. If he didn't have a problem with oil he would simply allow these companies to do the research slowly to perfect the technology. instead he pours billions of our tax dollars into green energy companies that everyone knew was going to fail. Some even warned the White House against such investments. He's pushing too hard, too fast to be totally accepting of the oil industry. He wants them out and he wants them out now but he knows he can't because so much of what we have depends on oil. Such a transition will take decades and Obama simply doesn't want to wait that long.

Once again people failed to post there source. If you just rant on with out one people might not think you have all your facts. I was curious about your statement. So i started digging here is what i found. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/...

[BARNEYII]

The cabbit wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again people failed to post there source. If you just rant on with out one people might not think you have all your facts. I was curious about your statement. So i started digging here is what i found. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/...

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Dr. Martin L. King


OA, I do believe this is the fight Redd was speaking of.

I also believe you already new that.

[BARNEYII]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
What Republican said what I just said? Did I say "all of the increases" or did you add that yourself? For someone who prides themselves on citing sources, you sure don't mind inserting things you need to change the meanings to fit your "counterpoints". The question is, do you believe the "new and improved" post after you have edited it? I think you do.

I said "Republican talking points"

A simple definition of talking points is a short list of statements that summarize the organization's stand on a particular issue, or an explanation.

Most people would not relate the term, "talking points", to one individual.


I did not edit anything, if you will look those two post had the two different sources, both drawing the same conclusion.

[Old Army]

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Dr. Martin L. King
OA, I do believe this is the fight Redd was speaking of.
I also believe you already new that.

I'm not "The cabbit", and you sir, are no Martin Luther King, Jr.

[BARNEYII]

Post Turtle wrote:

If you can somehow force a liberal into a point- counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you've said -- unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.

Tell you what, I do believe I fit your description of a Liberal.

I will happily volunteer to engage you in a QUOTE,

"point- counterpoint" debate any time of your choosing, and then

let us determine how much of your theory is correct, and see if

you can match wits with this "ADD" type of person .