Today's Outrage By Bush

frank m · February-14th-2006, 01:12 PM

FROM TODAYS front page of the times. The administration has put forth a new advantage for the oil companies. They want to suspend their required royalties to the US for drilling on government land. THIS at a time of record profits for them. Is this a nation of sheep or what?

Darryl G. Thomas · February-14th-2006, 02:12 PM

I heard about this on the news this morning. Apparently this policy was put in placee roughly ten years ago when the oil bidness was hurting (hard to believe that the oil bidness could ever hurt).

Well, they're not hurting now.

My question is: Why would anybody be surprised about this? The one big purpose of this administration is to create a "friendlier" environment for business and the investor class. Also, Cheney and Bush are oil men.

hornplayer · February-14th-2006, 04:33 PM

Quote:

when the oil bidness was hurting

All things are relative, I guess. Just another depressing decision in the current history of our country... nothing this administration does surprises me any more, tho it often disappoints me.

patricia · February-14th-2006, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hornplayer

All things are relative, I guess. Just another depressing decision in the current history of our country... nothing this administration does surprises me any more, tho it often disappoints me.

There are just so many "I can't believe this" moments in this Administration that I think that the general populance has been made numb. They can't decide which huge screwup to deal with first. There are so many, many of them. Everything this administration touches turns to crap.
AND there are three more years to go.

bluenoter · February-14th-2006, 05:01 PM

frank m--

This might make a good ongoing thread--in which to post the Bush outrage of the day in the future, too--if you wouldn't mind.

Darryl G. Thomas · February-14th-2006, 05:08 PM

Damn Blue, we're talking 3 years before Bush is back in Crawford.

bluenoter · February-14th-2006, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Damn Blue, we're talking 3 years before Bush is back in Crawford.

Don't remind me! Maybe the Impeach movement will become reality-based somehow.

We don't have to post a Bush outrage every day. I just meant that this thread might make a good place to post them when we want to.

patricia · February-14th-2006, 09:23 PM

Just out of curiosity, is there a list available of impeachable offences with which the present President could conceivably be charged?

Monte Smith · February-15th-2006, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

I heard about this on the news this morning. Apparently this policy was put in placee roughly ten years ago when the oil bidness was hurting (hard to believe that the oil bidness could ever hurt).

Ah good, so I am not the only one who heard this. NPR this morning reported that this is the result of a 1996 law. Some Congresspeople are making noises about it and apparently the White House isn't in favor of it, either.

Scott Dolan · February-15th-2006, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Ah good, so I am not the only one who heard this. NPR this morning reported that this is the result of a 1996 law. Some Congresspeople are making noises about it and apparently the White House isn't in favor of it, either.

Oh my.

What an outrage.

frank m · February-15th-2006, 10:39 AM

Sorry about that. So it does predate the Bushies. Finally something they're not responsible for. Damn.

Scott Dolan · February-15th-2006, 10:55 AM

Thank you for flying Jump To Baseless Conclusions Airways, we hope you had a comfortable trip.

rollhead · February-15th-2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Thank you for flying Jump To Baseless Conclusions Airways, we hope you had a comfortable trip.

Oh, yes it is is "baseless" to think that Bush might do anything that might benefit the oil industry at the expense of the rest of the country.

Scott Dolan · February-15th-2006, 11:52 AM

Was the initial post a baseless assumption, or not?

He had no facts. Just another headline jumper, not unlike most Americans, sadly.

Darryl G. Thomas · February-15th-2006, 12:05 PM

OK, here's the deal. The policy was put in place to encourage the oil companies to look for oil in difficult places offshores. At the time, the cost of a barrel of oil was really low, even in today's dollars.

The question now is should the policy be continued seeing as how the oil companies are now raking in profits? I think that's a good question because we may never see low oil prices again even if they drill the hell out of Alaska.

I'm not exactly sure what the White House's thinking about this policy. I'm too lazy to research it. My knee-jerk reaction would be to think they are for the continuation of the policy.

But then I'm biased.

A sidenote, I heard somewhere that the state of Louisiana gets an extremely low percentage of the profits from oil drilling in the Gulf. However, out West it's a 50-50 deal with the federal government when it comes to the mining of natural resources. Seems like a 50-50 deal with the Gulf coast would go a long way towards helping them recover from Katrina.

That's just one man's opinion of course.

bluenoter · February-15th-2006, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patricia

Just out of curiosity, is there a list available of impeachable offences with which the present President could conceivably be charged?

Patricia, I'll look around a little when I have a chance, but such a list would almost of necessity have to be incomplete and at least slightly out of date.

Darryl G. Thomas · February-15th-2006, 12:21 PM

Patricia,

I don't know about a list. I think it depends upon how you interpret the Constitution. I mean, lets say Bush busts a cap into some guy, or if he robbed a bank, he could get arrested just like an ordinary citizen. Breaking the laws of the land would get him impeached.

Lying about blow jobs works too.

From what I've read, probably the most impeacheable offense he's committed was the wire-tap thingy. But as it's been stated ad nauseum, that's up for debate.

Now as for lying during the lead up to the war in Iraq, that would be a tough nut. You'd have to prove he lied. I think he did, but would my standards coincide with Congress's?

The bottom line is this: Congress would have to swing really big towards the Democrats for this impeachment to get a start. And even then, I don't think it would happen.

patricia · February-15th-2006, 04:07 PM

Thanks bn and Darryl. It just seems to me that every day I hear or read about some new outrage..................and there they all still sit, unworried and doing something else even worse.

The only hope, it seems to me, is that the mid-term elections change the balance of power. But, according to friends who know more than I do about this stuff, the states which have people representing them who are Republicans are reluctant to loosen their representation on the power side. This, despite what would be better for the country. I'm flummoxed.

Scott Dolan · February-15th-2006, 04:13 PM

Oh the drama...................

patricia · February-15th-2006, 04:42 PM

No, Scott. It's more like a slapstick musical comedy, without the music.

Monte Smith · February-15th-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patricia

It just seems to me that every day I hear or read about some new outrage...

Or some ten year old outrage that I hadn't heard about before and that really has nothing to do with the President.

patricia · February-15th-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Or some ten year old outrage that I hadn't heard about before and that really has nothing to do with the President.

Yes, that's right Monte. How long was it before the Bush Administration admitted that they may have been mistaken about the WMD in Iraq?
Aren't they now expressing outrage that the Australians have the nerve to make the treatment of the prisoners by Americans in Iraq look even worse by actually showing pictures that weren't approved to be shown, from the reportedly HUNDREDS that are out there??

Etc. Etc. Etc.