Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,215 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#21013 Jan 21, 2013
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...

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#21016 Jan 21, 2013
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

Jonesboro, AR

#21017 Jan 21, 2013
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

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#21019 Jan 21, 2013
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.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#21022 Jan 21, 2013
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 isnít that steep,

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#21023 Jan 21, 2013
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

Oklahoma City, OK

#21024 Jan 21, 2013
Yes

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#21025 Jan 21, 2013
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

Mountain Pine, AR

#21028 Jan 21, 2013
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

Mountain Pine, AR

#21029 Jan 21, 2013
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

Mountain Pine, AR

#21030 Jan 21, 2013
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

Salem, AR

#21031 Jan 22, 2013
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

Greenbrier, AR

#21032 Jan 22, 2013
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

Jonesboro, AR

#21033 Jan 22, 2013
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 isnít 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

Bono, AR

#21035 Jan 22, 2013
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/...

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#21036 Jan 22, 2013
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.


Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#21037 Jan 22, 2013
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

Greenbrier, AR

#21038 Jan 22, 2013
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.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#21039 Jan 22, 2013
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 .


Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#21042 Jan 22, 2013
Old Army wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not "The cabbit", and you sir, are no Martin Luther King, Jr.
Then again you are acting like you did not know that.

You make it hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, when you keep taking it away.

BTW- I know you are not "The cabbit", that was why I addressed you in the latter part of that post.

Because you use a quote from someone what the hell makes you think the person who used it thinks they are that person, or claiming to be like him?

THE ANSWER- its the pretentious personality of the author.


Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pocahontas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
smallest wiener in town 3 hr Michael 30
black folk 5 hr I know 32
Randolph County Exposed!!! 8 hr guest 10
birdell Cafe 11 hr trying to behlpful 7
Nicole Zitzelberger- Johnson 12 hr old friend 1
Local corruption 12 hr Intelligent 1
who is up?? 17 hr Guest 1
More from around the web

Pocahontas People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]