It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush had the answer to California's money woes...

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
Originally posted by kinda kurious

So why are you against the offshore drilling and such?



A. Our state's economy depends on tourism.
B. Tourist's dollars means no state income tax for residents.
C. Pristine beaches, turquoise waters and a fragile ecosystem.
(The Keys, Everglades etc.)
D. It is short-term fix to our addiction, not a solid, long term cure.
E. Not worth risk of oil spill or potential environmental disaster.

Honestly, I'm not one of those "not in my backyard" types.

But Florida is like a crown jewel, the American Riviera.

Just my opinion since you asked, hope that helps.

Regards...KK

[edit on 3-7-2009 by kinda kurious]




posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

So why are you against the offshore drilling and such?





A. Our state's economy depends on tourism.
FACT-tourism would not be affected.



B. Tourists dollars means no state income tax for residents.
FACT-more likely to stay that way if drilling revenue began flowing in.



C. Pristine beaches, turquoise waters and a fragile ecosystem.
The Keys, Everglades etc.
FACT-they would not be affected. they are more likely to be affected by freighters BRINGING oil in and the ship running aground than by drilling, drilling does not create spills.



D. It is short-term fix to our addiction, not a solid, long term cure.

FACT-revenue can begin flowing in 4 years after your people allowed drilling, and the state could use the revenues towards finding an alternative fuel



E. Not worth risk of oil spill or potential environmental disaster.
Please tell me what disaster has happened to Texas or Louisana with all the drilling happening. This is a scare tactic used buy those that are against it.



Honestly, I'm not one of those "not in my backyard" types.
really?



But Florida is like a crown jewel, the American Riviera.
and it would remain that way, chances are you probably wouldn't even know drilling was going on if you weren't told it was.

please do some research into offshore drilling, how it works and what is involved. I have a feeling you are picturing those old black and white movies where oil is shooting out of the top of the rig and workers running around full of oil...it doesn't work like that anymore babe.
what happened in the movie Armaggeddon is fantasy, that could not happen anymore.

please get educated, your ignorance on this subject is staggering. no offense intended.




[edit on 2-7-2009 by JulieMills]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


MYTH: Drilling offshore will lead to ocean spillage, damaging wildlife and beaches.

FACT: In fact, virtually all of the pollution and “spillage” comes from large tankers transporting oil from other countries and natural seepages. Thus, drilling for our American oil would actually reduce the risk of oil pollution by reducing the number of international oil tankers entering our ports.

Offshore spills have occurred, but offshore drilling companies have an exceptional record of preventing spills and minimizing environmental damage, due primarily to technological innovation. Norway, which is a major exporter of oil and acquires all of it from offshore, also has an outstanding record of drilling in the sea, and there’s no reason why we would take fewer precautions than the Norwegians. Everyone promoting offshore drilling wants to do it in compliance with environmental safeguards, which in the United States are some of the most stringent in the world.

This is unlike other nations, such as China, which announced a partnership with Cuba in 2006 to start drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. That nation’s dismal environmental record should force Congress to make a decision: Do we let another nation drill for oil near us and risk major environmental catastrophe, or do we do it ourselves with better environmental protection?
newt.org...



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


I guess common knowledge isn't that common anymore. Here you go.....

www.universityofcalifornia.edu...


Twenty years ago, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez was exiting Alaska's Prince William Sound when it struck a reef in the middle of the night. What happened next is considered one of the nation's worst environmental disasters: 10.8 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the pristine Alaskan waters, eventually covering 11,000 square miles of ocean.
Now, imagine 8 to 80 times the amount of oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez accident.

Illustration of what happens
to oil, from seep to plume
According to new research by scientists from UC Santa Barbara and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution , that's how much oil has made its way into sediments offshore from petroleum seeps near Coal Oil Point in the Santa Barbara Channel.


Just how is that common knowledge? Btw, you should probably read this:


petroleum seeps near Coal Oil Point off Goleta, Calif., in the Santa Barbara Channel, release some 20 to 25 tons of oil daily
www.eurekalert.org...

That's 9,125 tonnes a year, compared to the USA's 2007 oil consumption of 943,100,000 tonnes. These natural, harmless oil seeps amount to .000967% of the United States Annual oil consumption. And I hate to be redundant, but I don't think these seeps have any ill effects on ocean life, although I guess we'll have to give scientists more time to figure all that out.

So I'm still curious -- did you hear this load of BS from Rush Limbaugh? I can't imagine you hearing about this without it having an agenda attached -- because you're very misinformed about the "significance" of losing .000967% of our yearly oil intake to harmless natural oil seeps.

***


Ok, Please tell us who tricked you. My guess is Rush Limbaugh.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 
so what are you saying? it seeps out naturally so therefore don't drill for it?
meanwhile California is handing out IOU's and coming to Washington with hat in hand begging for a bailout.....

do you know the definition of insanity?



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   




Fact: Republicans lie like heck.

Myth: Rush Limbaugh is a credible source.

Fact: No politician is ever to be trusted. Especially Newt Gingrich.

Myth: I enjoy posting this stuff.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JulieMills
reply to post by Kaytagg
 
so what are you saying? it seeps out naturally so therefore don't drill for it?
meanwhile California is handing out IOU's and coming to Washington with hat in hand begging for a bailout.....

do you know the definition of insanity?



I'm saying it's a BS argument to say we should drill it because some of it is leaking out.

It's equally BS to say that the leakage is hurting the environment, or that it's anything like the Valdez spill.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JulieMills
 


Oil spills are not a thing of the past.

www.mms.gov...

home.versatel.nl...

Sure, it's a lot safer than back then:

www.geog.ucsb.edu...

but even so, the same dangers exist.


The Coast Guard documented more than 239,000 oil spills across the gulf between 1973 and 2001. In one study of the area where Chevron wanted to drill, the Minerals Management Service predicted that over the next 40 years there could be up to 870 spills of 2,000 gallons or less, which "is expected to result in small pollution events that could temporarily affect the enjoyment or use of some beach segments."


And it's not just about the possible oil spills:


When the rigs first drill into the ocean floor, the crews use fluids called "drilling muds" which include toxic substances including barium, chromium and arsenic. The EPA found that such discharges into the eastern gulf would "introduce significant quantities of contaminants to these relatively pristine waters."

In 2002, the Mobile Press-Register tested grouper and other fish caught around Alabama's offshore rigs. They contained so much mercury that they would not be acceptable for sale to the public under federal guidelines. The source: the drilling muds, which left mercury in the sea-bottom in concentrations as high as that found at Superfund sites.



www.tampabay.com...

www.chron.com...

All this said, I'm not opposed to drilling offshore, I just recognize that it would come at a price.

However, I don't believe that this would 'solve' California's problem. They're going to just have to cut back across the board, to keep in line with revenue. Is it going to hurt? Yes. But there isn't really a choice.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by Kaytagg
Originally posted by kinda kurious

So why are you against the offshore drilling and such?



A. Our state's economy depends on tourism.
B. Tourists dollars means no state income tax for residents.
C. Pristine beaches, turquoise waters and a fragile ecosystem.
(The Keys, Everglades etc.)
D. It is short-term fix to our addiction, not a solid, long term cure.
E. Not worth risk of oil spill or potential environmental disaster.

Honestly, I'm not one of those "not in my backyard" types.

But Florida is like a crown jewel, the American Riviera.

Just my opinion since you asked, hope that helps.

Regards...KK

[edit on 2-7-2009 by kinda kurious]


Ah, I see what you mean. Maybe the chances of pollution are relatively low? That's actually something I don't know about drilling (although I wouldn't trust Newt Gingrich's website to tell you the truth either).

It would be kind of nice if we used more of our Coal reserves. We have the single largest coal reserves in the world, afaik. That's a lot of energy waiting to be used. But then you have to worry about global warming and blah blah blah (can't we just plant more trees?).

Seems like everything is a double edged sword now a days.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Jadette
 

the benefits far outweigh the negatives. and California could definetely use the money. I don't want to get taxed to bail them out. they ned to raise taxes on all those uber rich movie stars and producers and directors and bail themselves out.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by JulieMills
 


Drill for OIL?

Are you kidding me?

Where will all the animals go? Oil spills? Environmental destruction?

So what if there are people without money? Boo-hoo. Animals > Humans ANYDAY.

I never agree with Republicans on such stands regarding oil and energy.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by JulieMills
 


I encourage you to be nice and mind your manners. Perhaps you are still miffed that your last thread was shut down for Political baiting.


I stated in my post that it was MY OPINION and was responding to another poster.

Please review it. CAUTION Reading AND comprehension skills required.

But if you want to tussle be forewarned:
I never back down when provoked and I service what I sell. Bring it.

Regards...KK


[edit on 3-7-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
To paraphrase an old expression....a few days late and a few dollars short.

I suppose the Bush Administration was too busy screwing up the country for the previous 8 years.

BTW, I live in Florida and am opposed to offshore drilling.


I'll bet you are really furious with China then since they are drilling 50 miles off the southern cost of Florida. Liberals don't seen to be bothered by that.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Just to note...

Snide comments, opinions and remarks about other members are NOT On Topic and will be removed..

Also of note: The Poster could be warned..

Thank you

Semper



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Leave the oil in the ground.

It's relatively safe there.

When things really get tough and all these green promises prove to be insufficient to meet our energy needs and the "liberal elite" (that's really an oxymoron) have to take public transit with the hoi polloi, then they'll be screaming bloody murder for off-shore drilling. They'll be after ANWR and they'll pay your blood for oil.

Liberals are liberals because life is too easy and liberals hate rubbing shoulders with us ordinary folk.

That's why they hate WalMart so much.

[edit on 2009/7/4 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Why is ok for countries with lesser envionmental protection oversight to drill and transport oil for America? I would think with all of the watchdogs in the U.S. it would be cleaner than some other countries. Just my two cents i'm no expert



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join