• 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!

Crist wants drilling ban on the ballot

marduc said:
You are trying to set up a straw man here and you are wrong.

to continue with analogies

I would rather no one got dirty, but if someone else decides to let pigs wallow in their yard to make a few bucks selling ham, that does not mean that I have to as well. They have their product to sell and their, means of income for their household, if they decide to not want to be in that business so be it the cost of bacon would go up, and It would likely pressure people to have more pancakes and less bacon. Our household has other ways of making money and we do not need the pigs.
Click to expand...

I'm not setting up a straw man. I'm LEGITIMATELY asking. If I was trying to set up a straw man I wouldn't come right out and ask you. The thing is it WOULD be nice if we didn't have to deal with oil, but right now we are kind of dependent on the stuff. And someone will drill offshore, and you will reap the benefit once we buy it. And that just seems blatantly hypocritical to me. You still want the product but YOU aren't willing to take the risk of something going wrong, but you are willing to let others take the risk for the same outcome (albeit at a higher price for you). Your still demanding the supply so suppliers will go get it. I can understand wanting to keep Florida and other tourist intensive areas clean, but if you want the product then take the risk that comes with it.
 
Guy Incognito said:
From the Miami Herald



I for one am thrilled about this. One thing Florida definitely does not need is a repeat of this oil spill. Of course, Florida already bans offshore drilling, but a constitutional amendment is probably the best way to preserve the lesson from this tragedy and protect Florida's beaches from a future of short sighted oil-drilling.

Of course, this is being turned into a Republican talking point, to be used as a bludgeon against Crist in his upcoming Senate race against tea party hack Marco Rubio. What else is new. But I don't think it will work, the people of Florida know what is in their best interest and Crist really is looking out for the state here.
Click to expand...

Ah...the joy of politics...from 2006 to 2009 democrats tried to destroy Crist, going so far as to out him as being a closeted homosexual. Liberal filmmakers included him in a documentary. Then when he loses and decided to run as an independent the dems embrace him as the only real hope of defeating the republican running...because no democrat they can put forward is worth a dman...and now he is the darling.

Crist is using the drilling issue (umm...isnt offshore drilling already capped and banned in Florida?) as a ploy to turn people out to vote. Its political posturing...nothing more.
 
Frozengale said:
I'm not setting up a straw man. I'm LEGITIMATELY asking. If I was trying to set up a straw man I wouldn't come right out and ask you. The thing is it WOULD be nice if we didn't have to deal with oil, but right now we are kind of dependent on the stuff. And someone will drill offshore, and you will reap the benefit once we buy it. And that just seems blatantly hypocritical to me. You still want the product but YOU aren't willing to take the risk of something going wrong, but you are willing to let others take the risk for the same outcome (albeit at a higher price for you). Your still demanding the supply so suppliers will go get it. I can understand wanting to keep Florida and other tourist intensive areas clean, but if you want the product then take the risk that comes with it.
Click to expand...

And here is that straw man you were not trying to set up
 
VanceMack said:
Crist is using the drilling issue (umm...isnt offshore drilling already capped and banned in Florida?) as a ploy to turn people out to vote. Its political posturing...nothing more.
Click to expand...

I never had an issue with Crist before he went independent, apart from that awful tan. I don't even care if he's secretly gay, that's his business. But it takes real guts for a Republican to go against the Tea Party madness, and Crist showed true integrity. Imagine that, a politician representing the real interests of Floridians to get Floridians to vote for him. What an opportunist. :roll:
 
marduc said:
And here is that straw man you were not trying to set up
Click to expand...

Well is it true or not? You keep avoiding the question and saying it is a straw man! Either you DO want the product and are willing to take the risk. You want the product and don't want to take the risk, but don't mind if others do. You want the product but don't want anyone to take the risk. Or you don't want the product. By what you've said all I can assume is the second and you haven't said against that. That isn't a straw man if it is what you ACTUALLY believe, and you haven't given anything to go against it.
 
Frozengale said:
Well is it true or not? You keep avoiding the question and saying it is a straw man! Either you DO want the product and are willing to take the risk. You want the product and don't want to take the risk, but don't mind if others do. You want the product but don't want anyone to take the risk. Or you don't want the product. By what you've said all I can assume is the second and you haven't said against that. That isn't a straw man if it is what you ACTUALLY believe, and you haven't given anything to go against it.
Click to expand...

did you miss this:

I would rather no one got dirty
Click to expand...

anyhow it is a straw man because it is something I have not argued, nor did Catz when you used it on her, this entire argument is one of your own making, and actually what we believe is irrelevant to whether or not it is a straw man, it is not an argument either of us made yet you keep trying to pin it on us.
 
marduc said:
did you miss this:



anyhow it is a straw man because it is something I have not argued, nor did Catz when you used it on her, this entire argument is one of your own making, and actually what we believe is irrelevant to whether or not it is a straw man, it is not an argument either of us made yet you keep trying to pin it on us.
Click to expand...

I'm asking a question! I'm stating facts. And all you do is blah blah blah strawman!

Fact: We NEED Oil! (This is not debatable unless you know of a way that we can be off of Oil this very second)
Fact: We get oil from several different countries including our own drilling locations.
Fact: If we stop our offshore drilling efforts there will still be offshore drilling efforts.
Fact: If we stop our offshore drilling efforts we will have less oil
Therefore: It makes sense to conclude that we will still be participating in offshore drilling indirectly by buying from these sources, therefore WE HAVEN'T SOLVED THE PROBLEM OF OFFSHORE DRILLING!

Catz made the suggestion that yes we can have people pay the price themselves and this will help alleviate how much money we spend on oil, allowing us to spend more time and money on alternative energy sources. But that doesn't change the problem that we will still be participating in offshore drilling, we just run the risk of getting others dirty! (And I wish you would pay attention to that RISK thing, you act as if it is cold hard fact that a drilling rig means huge disaster, just because we have a rig outside Florida doesn't mean Florida is suddenly all oil-y) And if we are willing to run the risk of getting others dirty while still participating (albeit indirectly) in offshore drilling then it is hypocritical.
 
Frozengale said:
I'm asking a question! I'm stating facts. And all you do is blah blah blah strawman!

Fact: We NEED Oil! (This is not debatable unless you know of a way that we can be off of Oil this very second)
Fact: We get oil from several different countries including our own drilling locations.
Fact: If we stop our offshore drilling efforts there will still be offshore drilling efforts.
Fact: If we stop our offshore drilling efforts we will have less oil
Therefore: It makes sense to conclude that we will still be participating in offshore drilling indirectly by buying from these sources, therefore WE HAVEN'T SOLVED THE PROBLEM OF OFFSHORE DRILLING!

Catz made the suggestion that yes we can have people pay the price themselves and this will help alleviate how much money we spend on oil, allowing us to spend more time and money on alternative energy sources. But that doesn't change the problem that we will still be participating in offshore drilling, we just run the risk of getting others dirty! (And I wish you would pay attention to that RISK thing, you act as if it is cold hard fact that a drilling rig means huge disaster, just because we have a rig outside Florida doesn't mean Florida is suddenly all oil-y) And if we are willing to run the risk of getting others dirty while still participating (albeit indirectly) in offshore drilling then it is hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Just because there is demand does not mean that we have to supply. and I never made any claims on the probabilities of a disaster occurring whatsoever, again with the straw men.

The only arguments either of us are making revolve around a question that she asked you a couple of times, yet you still have not answered:

Catz Part Deux said:
why, as a libertarian, you are so opposed to letting Floridians decide, for ourselves, whether we want drilling off our coasts.
Click to expand...

Just because it is there and others will do it if we do not does not mean that we need to do it as well. I have a couple of huge oak trees in my yard, and their is demand for oak wood, it is still my choice whether or not I want to chop them down and sell them, and just because I choose to not chop down my trees because I deem the shade they provide to be more beneficial, does not mean that my neighbor is not entitled to chop down their trees and sell them if they so decide -even if I may not like it and I happen to have an oak table.
 
Last edited:
I did answer it.

Because I think it's a stupid idea.

(Just because I'm Libertarian means I don't get to try to convince people something is a bad idea? It's nothing new to try to convince other people of your way of thinking despite your political lean)

We'll be supporting offshore drilling either way. So why not make it so we don't have to spend so much money to get it. Less money we spend to get it more money we can invest in other sources of cleaner energy, and the more self-reliant we are. Also it means we can regulate it ourselves and have less chance of something like the BP Oil Spill happening again.
 
Last edited:
Frozengale said:
I did answer it.

Because I think it's a stupid idea.

(Just because I'm Libertarian means I don't get to try to convince people something is a bad idea? It's nothing new to try to convince other people of your way of thinking despite your political lean)

We'll be supporting offshore drilling either way. So why not make it so we don't have to spend so much money to get it. Less money we spend to get it more money we can invest in other sources of cleaner energy.
Click to expand...

the less mony we spend to get it, the less we think and/or care about exploring other sources or conserving it.
 
marduc said:
the less mony we spend to get it, the less we think and/or care about exploring other sources or conserving it.
Click to expand...

Only if the people stay silent about it. We already know that Oil is unsustainable, but that doesn't mean that we have to make the transition to better energies a grueling endeavor. It can go smoothly with as little pain as possible. But just because we need to become reliant on sustainable energy doesn't mean we have to demonize the energy we have now and make it so we lose more money in the process.
 
Frozengale said:
Only if the people stay silent about it. We already know that Oil is unsustainable, but that doesn't mean that we have to make the transition to better energies a grueling endeavor. It can go smoothly with as little pain as possible. But just because we need to become reliant on sustainable energy doesn't mean we have to demonize the energy we have now and make it so we lose more money in the process.
Click to expand...

Are you feeling a lot of pain due to lack of supply right now? I'm not, but I think a little pain will do us a lot of good, otherwise most will be oblivious to how we are hurting until the next jump in gas prices spurs everyone to cut back again.
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
Are you feeling a lot of pain due to lack of supply right now? I'm not, but I think a little pain will do us a lot of good, otherwise most will be oblivious to how we are hurting until the next jump in gas prices spurs everyone to cut back again.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you live but gas prices have been on a steady uprise for a long time here. The point is we don't have to have another huge jump in prices, and we can still go into other energy resources. We don't have to force everyone to pay huge amounts of money for gas just so we can switch over to other energy sources.
 
Frozengale said:
I don't know where you live but gas prices have been on a steady uprise for a long time here. The point is we don't have to have another huge jump in prices, and we can still go into other energy resources. We don't have to force everyone to pay huge amounts of money for gas just so we can switch over to other energy sources.
Click to expand...

Gas prices are currently roughly what they were 5 years ago, and if you were to average out the fluctuations over the last 5 years we would be just that...average.. ohh the pain of that steady uprise... or are you considering a long time to be more like a 20 year time frame?

ch.gaschart
 
Gabriel said:
There are only ~30 rigs affected by the moratorium. The rest are still in operation.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to the moratorium... I was referring to the fact that so many of the new contracts put out by the government in deep and ultra deep water are due to the work envirofreaks have done to prevent more contracts in the safer, but closer to shore, shallow water areas...
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
I'm guessing you don't realize that a hefty percentage of our economy in Florida is reliant upon tourism. Deepwater Horizon is having a major impact on the panhandle already, and could affect the rest of Florida, as well, particularly the west coast. You want to drill? Do it in your own damn state, NOT MINE.
Click to expand...

If this had happened in shallow waters (the actual areas under state control rather than federal control) the leak would have been plugged long ago...
 
Tedminator said:
oooh boohooo poor victimized oil companies.

anyhoo if they want to drill near the shore let them do it texas, ms, la, and al. they already look like thirdworld nations anyway.
Click to expand...

Then you stop driving your car and other things that require the use of the oil that you don't want to drill...

As for the oil companies, oil exploration and exploitation is expensive business. Much of the easy to get desposits are controlled by state-owned oil companies in OPEC Member States as well as in Russia. In several Western countries, including the United States, envirofreaks have caused relatively easily accessible deposits to be off limits.

If you are so concerned about Florida, how do you feel about the Chinese drilling less than 50 miles off your coastline?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I'm guessing that you're not living in an area that's being poisoned by offshore drilling, so it's easy for you to propose doing it. But for us, offshore drilling is having a drastic impact on our entire state. We're watching the oil from deepwater slowly creep closer to the places that we love, and watching people's livelihoods being destroyed moment by moment, not to mention the destruction of the beautiful place and the local wildlife. It is a daily horror show being played out right in front of us..
Click to expand...

This wouldn't be happening if shallow-water sources were made MORE accessible, not less.

The logic of the left never ceases to disappoint me...
 
VanceMack said:
Ah...the joy of politics...from 2006 to 2009 democrats tried to destroy Crist, going so far as to out him as being a closeted homosexual. Liberal filmmakers included him in a documentary. Then when he loses and decided to run as an independent the dems embrace him as the only real hope of defeating the republican running...because no democrat they can put forward is worth a dman...and now he is the darling.

Crist is using the drilling issue (umm...isnt offshore drilling already capped and banned in Florida?) as a ploy to turn people out to vote. Its political posturing...nothing more.
Click to expand...

The thing is...Crist is actually pretty well-liked in Florida. We like moderate politicians here: blue dog democrats and moderate republicans. Crist is just another version of another well-liked governor, Lawton Chiles. The good thing about putting this issue on the ballot is that it will both draw out Crist voters and make the differences between Crist, and corporate shill Marco Rubio, abundantly clear.

Beyond that, I know the man is gay. Most of us in Florida just don't care. I think he only got married because he thought he had a shot at the VP slot on the McCain ticket.
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
This wouldn't be happening if shallow-water sources were made MORE accessible, not less.

The logic of the left never ceases to disappoint me...
Click to expand...

Actually, we shouldn't be drilling in the gulf AT ALL. This has been coming a long time. All it would have taken was a good whack by a hurricane, and this could have happened anytime in the last 20 years. But thanks for your false dichotomy. Nice try.
 
Frozengale said:
Only if the people stay silent about it. We already know that Oil is unsustainable, but that doesn't mean that we have to make the transition to better energies a grueling endeavor.
Click to expand...

People are resistant to change. They will only change their way of life when it becomes too painful to maintain the status quo. Allowing consumers to pay the actual cost of oil gives them a strong incentive to change their behaviors.
 
Ziggae_6 said:
Let's not talk theories or trends, let's talk reality. How much economic impact on jobs will the oil spill have and what will it do for jobs and industries such as industrial fishing, tourism, etc. By dealing in half truths and generalities, your concern for workers job opportunities seems insincere at best. You are concerned about jobs, right?
Click to expand...

You can jack up taxes on the rest of the country to pay for more liberal welfare. Problem solved.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Actually, we shouldn't be drilling in the gulf AT ALL. This has been coming a long time. All it would have taken was a good whack by a hurricane, and this could have happened anytime in the last 20 years. But thanks for your false dichotomy. Nice try.
Click to expand...

Then you shouldn't be using any petroleum-based products. Get out of your car, get off the roads, stop using ink pens, stop using the electrical grid, etc...
 
ludahai said:
Then you shouldn't be using any petroleum-based products. Get out of your car, get off the roads, stop using ink pens, stop using the electrical grid, etc...
Click to expand...

What, no more using Vaseline? :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom