• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

After Florida Gets Offshore Drilling Exemption, Other States Ask For The Same

ReverendHellh0und said:
Energy independence is a good thing. Lets' stop buying arab oil. Spills are rare and rigs are safe. I would suggest we be careful where we put them, but to be afraid of them outright is not a scientific position to hold.
Click to expand...

They have to be put where the oil is.
 
Not an expert on the Constitution, but I suspect Zinke violated the Equal Protection clause. What oil spills do to shorelines and how likely they are is irrelevant. Once Zinke created an exemption for Florida he almost certainly shot himself in the foot.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Another poster did, I responded to them, you responded to me, I then responded to you.


Ignorant means "uninformed" you should learn how to use words correctly.
Click to expand...

As usual, you lied, and got caught.
You're constantly in the wrong and can't buy your way out.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Do you realize that the Obama Administration gave BP a waiver against standard safety testing, which allowed BP to get the Deepwater Horizon up and running quickly?
Click to expand...

Prove that statement.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Do you realize that the Obama Administration gave BP a waiver against standard safety testing, which allowed BP to get the Deepwater Horizon up and running quickly?
Click to expand...

How were you able to control yourself for the previous 24 posts before Obama/Clinton popped up?
 
SMTA said:
I don't like liars.
You lied, you got caught.
Click to expand...



The only lie here is yours. you can't debate intellectually so you are reduced to nothing but insults. I find it sad that you can't maintain composure and maturity enough to debate like an adult and reduce yourself to 1-2 sentences of mouth foaming insults.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Energy independence is a good thing. Lets' stop buying arab oil..
Click to expand...

Oil markets are global. If there's a shortage in Western Europe because there's an issue in the arab states....it raises prices here in the states. There's a benefit to refining the oil and not shipping it overseas cost wise but this idea that we are going to not be impacted by things internationally is false.
 
iliveonramen said:
Oil markets are global. If there's a shortage in Western Europe because there's an issue in the arab states....it raises prices here in the states. There's a benefit to refining the oil and not shipping it overseas cost wise but this idea that we are going to not be impacted by things internationally is false.
Click to expand...



I never made that argument so theres that......
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I never made that argument so theres that......
Click to expand...

Your original quote:

Energy independence is a good thing. Lets' stop buying arab oil..
Click to expand...

What is the benefit of stopping buying arab oil and what exactly is energy independence? Oil is drilled and controlled by international corporations to sell at global market prices.
 
iliveonramen said:
Your original quote:



What is the benefit of stopping buying arab oil and what exactly is energy independence? Oil is drilled and controlled by international corporations to sell at global market prices.
Click to expand...




That's completely different than the argument you tried to attach to me.
 
Rogue Valley said:
That is an environmental impact waiver, not a safety waiver as Howie stated....
Click to expand...

Yes and because of that waiver

The exemption came less than one month after BP had requested it in a March 10 "exploration plan" submitted to the MMS. The plan said that
because a spill was "unlikely," no additional "mitigation measures other than those required by regulation and BP policy will be employed to avoid, diminish or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources."
Click to expand...

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/05/gulf-m06.html
 
Rexedgar said:
How were you able to control yourself for the previous 24 posts before Obama/Clinton popped up?
Click to expand...

Just being honest. When someone posts something like the OP, with the intent of making it sound a if the current administration is doing something completely different, it behooves all of us to understand what others have done.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Just being honest. When someone posts something like the OP, with the intent of making it sound a if the current administration is doing something completely different, it behooves all of us to understand what others have done.
Click to expand...

The exemptions given to BP for Deepwater Horizon in 2009 have literally nothing at all, zero, zilch, nada to do with Zinke allowing Florida, and only Florida, to opt out of changes about offshore drilling announced by Zinke.

It's a classic diversion now on roughly 100% of threads involving Trump - BUT CLINTON!!! or BUT OBAMA!!!
 
HowardBThiname said:
The environmental impact study was to determine the SAFETY risk to the the environment.

And, you see how well that turned out.
Click to expand...

LOL, twisting words that hard to fit into this new box might hurt you. Be careful and don't strain anything. :roll:

And yes, we all know how well that turned out. It's one big reason why some states announced moratoriums or bans on new offshore rigs going up. It's unclear what your point is. The natural reaction if we consider Deepwater Horizon is to oppose Zinke's new proposal to sell leases offshore despite in many cases overwhelming public opposition to any new offshore wells. Is that your point - you oppose Zinke's new rule and believe states ought to be able to prevent new offshore wells if they want, that's what the public of those states demands?

If not that, your example is mystifying and completely non-sensical.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom