Like in Cali with the gay marriage rights, Why are Liberals STILL siding with the MINORITY as it comes to oil?

House Republican Leader John A. Boehner is highlighting today’s CNN/Opinion Research poll finding that 73 percent of Americans in favor of expanded offshore drilling for oil and natural gas in protected U.S. waters. The survey of 1,000 Americans from June 26 to 29 is the latest to show rising support among beleaguered consumers for increasing access to America’s oil reserve

The Dems MUST be getting paid to keep it off limits. If the MAJORITY of American People want it, the American people should get it!!

13 Responses to “Like in Cali with the gay marriage rights, Why are Liberals STILL siding with the MINORITY as it comes to oil?”

  1. Rick O Says:

    If they can keep the economy in the trash untill the election they think it will get them more votes.That is if they can keep the rest of us blind and unable to see what they are doing……….

  2. turtlesoup15 Says:

    Liberals are liberal because they fight the people who have common sense.

  3. Captain F Says:

    Only fools would allow the greedy rich to steal our oil and sell it back to us at inflated prices.

  4. auplainsman2 Says:

    It is just like how the dems don’t want you to know the truth about oil.

  5. phuckucons Says:

    If the MAJORITY of American People want it, the American people should get it!!

    If that’s true why are we still in Iraq?

  6. Ghost of Eugene Debs Says:

    It’s up to them to vote for who they think will best represent them.

  7. kathleen O Says:

    The majority of intelligent Americans don’t want off shore drilling. Remember, Arnold and Jeb are Republicans, neither wanted off shore drilling. Bush Sr made it an executive order.

    Getting people worked up with no facts to back up the rhetoric is Dubya’s forte. If you’re still fooled by him ,then shame on you.

    Maggie: Bush Sr and Jeb Bush……still Republicans or do you want to disown them as well. A majority of Americans haven’t grasped that it will take years for any off shore drilling oil to hit the market, and that the amount would only sustain us for two and a half years. Only fools believe that there would be any impact on oil prices. If Dubya hadn’t deflated the dollar due to his war, if the war wasn’t being funded by the Chinese (currently almost a trillion dollars), oil would be much cheaper. Take the Dubya tinted glasses off.

  8. Says:

    As in all cases the minority pays more so they get what they want.
    Right or wrong money screams loudly in the ears of liberals.

  9. Maggie Says:

    The liberals can’t admit that Bush is right so they will fight. They don’t care that high oil prices are killing us. They don’t care what the people want. They also don’t want Bush to "win."

    Same for CALIFORNIA and gay marriage (please, it’s not "Cali" – if you have to abbreviate, use CA)! 60% voted for Prop 22. That’s a huge amount in a wacky state like CA. The liberals want to win. They don’t care what the people want.

    EDIT: Kathleen O – The majority of intelligent Americans want off shore drilling because it will help us. Arnold may be a "Republican" but it’s in name only. Everyone knows he’s a liberal wacko that lied to voters. BTW, there’s a movement to recall his lying butt!

  10. xuserx2000 Says:

    so who would pay money to not drill ?…that doesn’t make sense.

    If drilling off of our shores was any kind of a solution, we wouldn’t be talking about it because we’d already be doing it.

    This is just an election year stunt, and it’s sickening…

    There is no short or long term solution that involves running our economy on oil whether foreign or domestically pumped out of the ground… face the facts man…

    The only short term relief at the pump is going to be putting the TEETH back into the CFTC (commodities futures trading commission). The only long term solution is to find an alternative and hopefully renewable energy source. For example Nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, etc…

    Poking more holes in the ground is not an option if it’s not a solution. There’s thousands of acres of coastline already leased, and still unused. Even if they pumped.

    From the point of view of the likes of Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, etc…
    "Buy less, refine less, ship less, charge more !"

    supply and demand my a..s.s…look around.. do you see any empty gasoline stations ? I don’t.

    Also, don’t forget that this is a PUBLIC resource we’re talking about…and you just want to GIVE IT AWAY to big oil ?. Why so they can post another quarter of record profit ?….what do we get in return for this big giveaway ? …NOTHING !..

    no thanks,

  11. tribeca_belle Says:

    As usual, the Republicans have been stirring people up with lies and misinformation. People are suffering and they are looking for quick solutions so the Republicans use the emotional appeal of a drilling solution, knowing very well that it won’t help the people who need help now.

  12. Samwise Says:

    Well, a solid majority of lemmings are reported in favor of everybody swimming till they drown. Historically, large groups of American bison have been known to develop (with the help of indigenous human agents provocateurs) large majorities in favor of everybody running over a high cliff. There are things that should be decided by the majority, and things that shouldn’t.

    No system can always get it right, and in fact direct democracy has been known to boil down to mob rule at least since a majority voted in favor of Socrates drinking poison as a punishment for getting young people to think. Hence we use indirection: representatives are elected and constitute the governming body of a republic; courts are empowered to address incursions on civil rights (without which democracy could instantly vote itself into totalitarianism); executives are responsible directly to the voters at least as much as to the elected representatives.

    The two cases you cite, however, aren’t at all comparable: one is a matter of fair dealing among citizens and the other is a matter of choosing a course of action, with serious consequences, for the whole society.

    If the government offers people the right to select their next of kin for legal purposes, why set requirements on the gender of the person selected? In fact, the California court specifically pointed out that the government used to set requirements by race, and that this case is no different. If the government does not wish to sanction some selections, but cannot establish itself as a guardian of some party’s interests, then it ought to get out of the business altogether and leave marriage rules to churches. (You may claim that the selection of a legal next of kin is not the point, but if you do, I doubt you can find any other point except the reduction of marriage to a government-issued license to have sex, and I suspect a large majority do not want the government involved in any such licensing scheme.)

    As to offshore drilling, the early debates raised a point I haven’t seen answered: if this were really a good idea, wouldn’t the party that was deeply beholden to and led by oil-industry interests, and which had solid control of the activities of Congress for a considerable time, have done it? It certainly bears considerable scrutiny before action, especially as no action can produce any benefit for a considerable time in any case.

  13. Booker Says:

    Who can understand how a liberal thinks? They seem to be against anything that will make their country more self sufficient and seem to be trying to make the US more and more socialistic. Where is the money going to come from to pay for all these freebies that 4th and 5th generation welfare recipients are receiving now? Just think how it would be if this blessed land were to become a socialist state. Scares the hell out of me.