"Point taken -- but at least it would be a step AWAY from dependency on oil."

I agree. And you're correct, we DO need to invest time and money on alternate energy and technology development. But since oil dependency isn't going away anytime soon, I think we need to do that AND open up offshore drilling and and drill in Alaska. But make it a package deal.

Geoff, I'm with you re: W's nincompoopery.

(That...and I just wanted the opportunity to type: nincompoopery).

Scott that is a good answer. I can completely understand why you are thinking McCain.  Now I am on the flip side because drilling for oil in the areas they are purposing is like putting a bandaid on a severed arm. Oil is not endless and Obama wants to pursue finding alternatives and become self suffcient with our energy needs without messing up the environment.

Both the Republicans and Democrats want to fund alternative energy research.  That's really not a talking point. 

It's not really a band-aid on a severed arm.  It's more of a tourniquet.  If you ignore the immediate problem it solves the long-term problem because we won't be here to worry about the long-term.  We need to solve the short term oil problem or there won't be a long term solution to worry about.  

One thing most people don't know is that in the gigantic state of Alaska, the area that they want to drill is only 2,000 acres.  That's the size of a little village.  In the entire state they want to confine it to an area the size of a little village.  People seem to be under the impression that they want to drill half the state.  That isn't going to have a noticeable environmental impact.  In the 20 years since the Exxon-Valdez, how many big oil spills have occurred that have done major environmental damage?  None.  Technology has changed a lot of things and made them safer.

People also say that the oil companies have permits in lots of areas where they aren't drilling.  What they neglect to mention is that those areas either don't have oil or have such small amounts as to make drilling unfeasible.

Want us to stop interferring in the Middle East?  The first step is providing our own oil.  A lot of people think the only reason we are in the Middle East is because of oil.  If we started drilling off shore and in Alaska and became self-sufficient, the oil incentive would be gone.  Do you think Bush would have invaded if we weren't getting any of our oil from the Middle East?  Being self-sufficient also allows us to concentrate on alternatives to fossil fuels for the future rather than worrying about the energy needs of the present.

If I had my way they would start drilling in offshore and in Alaska and become completely self-sufficient.  Then, instead of lowering gas prices as the costs dropped, they could replace those drops with short-term taxes.  Then, if they could sell gas for $2.00 a gallon again, there would be $2.00 in taxes, keeping the price $4.00.  Those taxes would go, 100% toward alternative energy research.  We must stop the price of oil from going higher and higher or there won't be money to fund alternative energy sources and that isn't going to happen if we don't control our own oil supply.

Even if an exploratory drilling measure were approved, how many years would go by before the consumer would reap whatever benefits there might be? 

Every 10 or so years this comes up and is turned down.  Clinton was the last one to shoot it down.  We wouldn't have to wait any years if it had happened in the past.  If we put it off another 10 years then it will take years from that point until we see a benefit.  Benefits can't start until the work starts.  Doing nothing means reaping nothing.  Ever.

Think of it this way.  Should Stonewall have never happened?  There was no immediate benefit.  It's taken nearly 40 years for there to be gay marriage in California.  Without that first step it wouldn't have happened.  The ball has to start rolling somewhere. 

When someone says I am anti abortion, no matter what, and not just for me for everyone. I can understand why they vote republican and respect their right to vote that way. I also am against abortion, I think it is killing a child, but I don't feel I should push my beliefs on someone else. I can't judge a woman who feels different, that is why I am a democrat. Democrats are not PRO abortion they are pro CHOICE.

Jodi:

If you think its wrong and killing a child I am surprised that you "don't want to push your beliefs on someone else."  I'm not trying to trap you here.  But if you believe its killing a child don't you feel you have a moral obligation to limit abortion rights?  You can still vote democratic and feel that way it just means that abortion is not as big an issue for you as some other issue.  Voting is often balancing what one position against the other and choosing which to give greater weight.

Edited to add: I want to be clear -- however you feel is fine with me -- I'm just trying to understand the mindset.  When I hear politicians say "I'm personally opposed to abortion but I think it should be legal" it just sounds like not taking a position.  So I'm trying to understand the mindset, not trying to change it.

Right, if you really think abortion is killing a child...then you're sitting back and allowing others to kill children bc you don't want to force your beliefs on them. Does that seem right to you? What if someone "believes" that they get to murder kids and adults. Do they also have freedom of choice to do that?

I hate the "choice" argument. That falls flat if indeed abortion is murder. If it is, then I'm sorry, you don't have the choice to do that.

Personally, I don't believe it's murder (unless it's done late-stage. And then, if it's done to save the mother then it's a necessary killing). I don't think it's a choice issue. You're either for abortion being legal or against abortion being legal. 

Should Stonewall have never happened?  There was no immediate benefit.

Scott, I understand the point you were making in your post, but you can't possibly believe that there was no immediate benefit to Stonewall! 

I think it's time for a little gay history... 

To me, that's like saying there was no immediate benefit to the storming of the Bastille.  I get what you're saying in your post, but your hyperbole is a bit much for me.  Stonewall had NOTHING to do with marriage rights.

To me, that's like saying there was no immediate benefit to the storming of the Bastille.

In my mind's eye I see Cloris Leechman.