Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

McCain or Obama more sympathetic to big oil?


__Kratos__

Recommended Posts

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

Barack Obama has a new ad out that tries to tap into Americans’ anger over rising gasoline prices. Obama’s target is John McCain.

The ad says:

“Every time you fill your tank, the oil companies fill their pockets. Now big oil’s filling John McCain’s campaign with $2 million in contributions because instead of taxing their windfall profits to help drivers, McCain wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks. After one president in the pocket of big oil, we can’t afford another.”

Factcheck.org says the actual number is $1.3 million, not $2 million, and the claims about tax breaks for big oil are a little fuzzy.

The fact is both Obama and McCain have flip-flopped on the issue of offshore drilling. And both men have been quarreling rather childishly about which one wants to solve America’s energy problems more. Obama points out that for 26 of the 30 years it took for America to develop its addiction to foreign oil, John McCain was a part of the Washington establishment that looked the other way and allowed it to happen.

McCain’s camp says Obama’s ad is misleading, that it doesn’t mention the $400,000 Obama got from employees of oil companies. And they say McCain voted against a 2005 bill that provided billions in tax breaks for energy producers. Obama voted for it.

Voters have to remember that politicians will say anything in order to be elected. Whether this latest blustering amounts to any more than a big political wind remains to be seen.

More of the article here: Link

------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Incorrigible1

    5

  • Teej

    4

  • Mr  Honeybadger

    2

  • Aztec Warrior

    1

Top Posters In This Topic

Obama has not flip-flopped on offshore drilling. He recognizes (correctly) that it doesn't offer a meaningful solution to any problem but he's said it's not going to torpedo a real energy package. In other words, it's a poison pill he's willing to swallow. Compromise and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCain’s camp says Obama’s ad is misleading, that it doesn’t mention the $400,000 Obama got from employees of oil companies. And they say McCain voted against a 2005 bill that provided billions in tax breaks for energy producers. Obama voted for it.

I'm not sure what this means. Are these employees just rank and file workers? That would not really be indicative of "big oil" contributing to the Obama campaign. What I mean is, if a voter who works in the toy department at Wal-Mart donates money to a campaign, does that mean Wal-Mart as a whole is backing that candidate?

And what type of "energy producers" were being funded by this bill in 2005? Oil? Solar? Wind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama has not flip-flopped on offshore drilling. He recognizes (correctly) that it doesn't offer a meaningful solution to any problem but he's said it's not going to torpedo a real energy package. In other words, it's a poison pill he's willing to swallow. Compromise and such.

If it's compromise you value, Obama is the lesser of the two candidates.

BHO's moving toward the middle, which is natural in any campaign. Still, the left fringe are gonna have a coronary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The oil companies definitely do not deserve tax breaks. But they also don't deserve to be singled out and have a portion of their profits given to the masses.

Redistribution of wealth like that is totally wrong IMO. Obama has no right to tell them how much is too much profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The oil companies definitely do not deserve tax breaks. But they also don't deserve to be singled out and have a portion of their profits given to the masses.

Redistribution of wealth like that is totally wrong IMO. Obama has no right to tell them how much is too much profit.

Anyone that believes BHO could seriously perform this illegal, unconstitutional act (rebate) is a nutter. I'm not referring to you, Ohio. It's a shameless ploy for votes from the ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Jack Cafferety on CNN Wolf's Blizter show last night....every other word out of his mouth was a Bush bash. I can't believe that idiot is allowed on what should be a non-partisan TV show. Maybe CNN needs the fairness doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Jack Cafferety on CNN Wolf's Blizter show last night....every other word out of his mouth was a Bush bash. I can't believe that idiot is allowed on what should be a non-partisan TV show. Maybe CNN needs the fairness doctrine.

For all the bashing certain folks apply to Fox, at least their news reporting is fairly balanced, and clearly delineated from their commentators. No, they're not perfect, but then Fox is at least as balanced as any other popular media agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voters have to remember that politicians will say anything in order to be elected.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree, and 'supposedly' Pelosi is privately giving permission to House Democrats with iffy re-election prospects to support drilling for more domestic oil and gas. knowing that the Dems will not really allow any drilling... they're a bunch of liars. IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think Fox news does a fairly good job at being un-biased in their programming.

If you want biased, turn on MSNBC and watch Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews. Their love and passion for BHO is staggering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all the bashing certain folks apply to Fox, at least their news reporting is fairly balanced, and clearly delineated from their commentators. No, they're not perfect, but then Fox is at least as balanced as any other popular media agency.

I actually think Fox news does a fairly good job at being un-biased in their programming.

If you want biased, turn on MSNBC and watch Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews. Their love and passion for BHO is staggering.

You guys are joking, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama has not flip-flopped on offshore drilling. He recognizes (correctly) that it doesn't offer a meaningful solution to any problem but he's said it's not going to torpedo a real energy package. In other words, it's a poison pill he's willing to swallow. Compromise and such.

Drilling anywhere doesn't offer a "meaningful solution to any problem."

I say it's immoral for the West to require other nations to pollute themselves so we can deliver goods and services around the clock while we sit back and pat ourselves on the back for being so "'environmentally conscious."

What the heck's wrong with drilling our own freakin oil? It was good enough for us until the 1970's. I was born in a refinery town in Oklahoma.

At least it will reduce (by an admittedly small amount) the amount of money flowing into the pockets of totalitarian tyrants.

The argument about how it would take up to ten years to see any benefit is completely beside the point.

Of course, both candidates are pandering - Obama because he can read the polls, and McCain because, well, he too can read the polls. What else is new, especially in a presidential election campaign?

We need to follow France's example and generate a much larger portion of our energy with nuclear power as well.

Don't hold your breath for either the offshore drilling or the nuclear power options to be executed - especially if the left takes and maintains power here.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
You guys are joking, right?

What's your source of unbiased news? Enlighten me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your source of unbiased news? Enlighten me.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "unbiased news". But to say Fox is the least biased is laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "unbiased news". But to say Fox is the least biased is laughable.

I'm laughing. So what's your news source of choice? C'mon, let's hear it.

You dish it, now declare your source.

Edited by Incorrigible1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm laughing. So what's your news source of choice? C'mon, let's hear it.

You dish it, now declare your source.

What does it matter which news source I go to? Regardless of which news source I like you're going to claim that Fox is less biased. As of now, it happens to be BBC news and lemonde.fr, because I try to practice French. Both are arguably liberal. But then again, I never claimed any of my sources were unbiased. I'm confused what my preference in news has to do with Fox's bias; does it make Fox less biased if other stations are biased too? (which I've already admitted they all pretty much are). It's the degree of partisanship that matters. My point is not to criticize conservative news, I was just surprised you found arguably the most biased major news source in America as the least. Heck, even two or three of my solidly Republican friends refuse to watch it.

If you like Fox news, then whatever. Just don't fool yourself if you actually want a news station that's even mostly unbiased. It probably doesn't exist, and it certainly isn't Fox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.