Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 5:27 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Crocs, Inc. Message Board

  • edwardblack59 edwardblack59 Jul 12, 2008 9:45 AM Flag

    Republicans Read This....


    Nancy Pelosi has completely shut the door on expanding our efforts to drill for oil. Just like that, Nancy has decided that companies can use the areas that have already been approved for exploration.

    The problem is they've found no oil there to extract. Two, if there is oil there the depths involved and other logistical problems make extraction either impossible or far too expensive. The point here is that there are other areas where oil can be extracted economically .. and those are the areas shut down by Democrats.

    Of course, according to Nancy Pelosi, the real problem is the Republicans. She says that efforts to expand drilling are "a decoy to punt your attention away from the fact that [Republican] policies have produced $4-a-gallon gasoline." Really? What policies are those Nancy? Tell me what policies the Republicans have supported that has caused our gas prices compared to Democrats.

    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • s.eranger Jul 14, 2008 8:11 AM Flag

      The first point about California is wrong. Most of California's offshore is off limits and comparing it to the Gulf (Louisiana) area where this is not the case is ignorant.

      Every point is either wrong or misleading. Even the Jeb Bush comment is incorrect. It doesn't take into consideration the time and reason Jeb stated the position of no offshore drilling in his state.

      The last sentence in this email "permitted a wide open offshore drilling" is extremely stupid. Whoever wrote this is lost when it comes to understanding economic policy and its effects. Once I read this sentence I realized I didn't have time to write a response

    • dimwitocrats are always the problem, driving their little toyota pussies around with their little obamanation stickers on back.

      they suck! the best thing about them is that they abort their young!

    • s.eranger Jul 13, 2008 4:34 PM Flag

      This is wrong. The royalties that were eliminated on federal land for oil drilling were done during the Clinton years because of the low crude oil price at that time. The oil reserves on the federal land that the liberals are talking about are very small and costly to extract. Extremely stupid arguments.

    • s.eranger Jul 13, 2008 9:03 AM Flag

      So everyone who made money on this board is Democrat, and those who lost money are Republicans?

      That's a good one. Maybe the best I've ever heard. Are finanial markets are a mess, but they will clean out and turnaround eventually.

      In the interim, I'll just work hard and keep paying my taxes so also-rans can lay around on the couch all day.

      You don't know what I know, nor have you seen what I have seen.

    • Personally.I am all for homosexuality.AS long as they wear Crox,Live in another state,and promise to breed themselves and there ideas right to a state of non-existance.

    • jrk, can you find ONE thing "progressive" about these people? I can't. They are anything BUT progressive.

      They want to slow the growth of the global economy. They want to leave Iraq in the hands of a despotic, Nazi-loving tyrant. They want to make sure that Americans' quality of life is brought down so that we aren't "hated" by other pinhead Marxists around the world. They want to maintain the FAILED STATUS QUO on education, social security and Medicare. They want to discriminate based on race and gender. And many of them are atheists...not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that point of view, ...but it certainly cannot be viewed as "progressive". Religious people believe that the soul progresses to a new, better state after life on Earth. Atheists (MANY LIBs) do not think the human soul lives die, that's it. That's "Progressive"? get real. None of this is progressive in the least. They co-opt terms that should have, or once had POSITIVE meaning...."liberal"...."progressive", etc... But they simply are Marxists to the core. That is REGRESSIVE.

      They think they're "progressive" because they support the "normalization" of homosexuality in society, killing babies in the womb and confiscating money and property for redistribution. None of this is "progressive". It is destructive and regressive.

    • Speaking of free markets, the Bush Administration gave Big Oil huge royalty waivers to encourage drilling in places where there already WERE proven reserves.

      So the typical G.O.P. stooge is now suggesting that with worldwide shortages of drilling and infastructure equipment, if we allowed unlimited offshore exploration the oil companies would go out into unproven new areas where they would also have to develop the onshore support systems from scratch and presumably pay pre-2002 royalty rates for whatever they eventually do find on top of all that?

      Yeah, right!

      Trying to reduce consumption is the only near term solution and that approach is anathema to the Republican mindset.

      In the early 1980s everyone thought that they would be driving VW Rabbits and Fiat Stradas for the rest of their lives. Instead we drove Ford Explorers......because Reagan had flat assured the auto companies that they would never have to deal with C.A.F.E standards for SUVs that never went off pavement.

    • Since the typical Rebublicon has the attention span of a three year old, it might be helpful to look at where we actually could drill offshore going forward.

      California has had offshore drilling since the 1960s, they had a huge spill off Santa Barbara in the early 1970s. Total production has never approached even 3 Percent of what Louisiana delivers. Working rig count was always even less than that.

      Florida does not want it, period.

      Even the Jebster says that.

      So are you "free market" bozos suggesting that we FORCE states to allow offshore drilling as well?

      Georgia and South Carolina have pretty abbreviated coastlines and pretty limited harbor facilities too but despite that they represent the most likely sites to develop any new offshore oil.

      North Carolina would be very difficult from a supply and infastructure point of view.

      From there up to Maine you are in the busiest shipping lanes this side of the straits of Malacca. And North Sea caliber conditions four to five months out of the year as well.

      The most vulnerable part of any undersea cable or oil pipeline is the part where it comes ashore and that gets a whole lot worse when the coastline is heavily populated.

      Oregon and Washington have almost no continental shelf to drill into.

      In other words this is the ultimate straw man election year argument, unless the Grand Oil Party is really thinking of drilling off Hawaii?

      If the country had permitted a wide open offshore drilling free-for-all twenty years ago we would still be in exactly the same place today that we are in right now.

    • The bootom line is that we are all to blame for this current crisis.Blaming and pointing the finger never accomplishes anything.This country needs to begin a progoam of non-partisan education on coservation,Exploration and deveolopment of other alternatives.Nuclear,Domestic drilling,Wind ,Solar,Geothermal,Hydrogen,and Ethanol(corn ehanol is not the answer-However cellulosic ethonal is an exciting possibility.)all will play a part.It is time to tell our politicians to start to listen to our scientists and provde them with the funding to provide viable solutions.P.S Blindly giving money to the N.E.A is not my idea of supporting education

    • I have to admit that it is gratifying to see all these clowns who still haven't figured the bought-and-paid-for crosseyed pinhead George Bush out yet, not even after eight years, and they all fell hook, line and sinker for the CROCK con job as well?

      Maybe it will take a run on their local bank to finally slap some sense into their heads?

    • View More Messages
10.60-0.17(-1.58%)Jan 30 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.