Debate discussion

Politics > Oil?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 70 (70 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments Hey guys! So ive seen a lot of stuff on here about iraq, and The candidates. But i want to hear your views about our relying on foriegn oil.

kk post thought here!!

message 2: by Eric▲ (new)

Eric▲ | 716 comments ....

message 3: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments Thank you Eric!

Yes i agree, we need to stop eing so dependent on oil. we need wind and solar energy. I dont agree with Neuclar enegy because it is unsafe and has killed tons of people before

message 4: by Court (new)

Court Yeah I agree w/ the different energy sources one.
Partly because if we want to stop depending on foreign oil but still using oil, it'd mean destroying Florida's coasts. And that'd be bad for our state.

message 5: by [deleted user] (new)

I think this might be one of the only things that me and Chandani agree on :). I think the fact that we rely so much on not just foreign oil, but fossil fuels in general is pretty pathetic. With the technology advances that this country has seen, we really should be driving entirely electric cars right now. It's ridiculous the way we have all of our stock in oil. Absolute craziness.

message 6: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments Yeah our dependance on oil and fossil fules is just stupid.

message 7: by Brigid ✩ (new)

Brigid ✩ totally. too bad we all can't fly. that would make life a lot easier. XD

message 8: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments lol

message 9: by Eric▲ (new)

Eric▲ | 716 comments lol

message 10: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments flying WOULD be fun....

message 11: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments lol.

Our dependence on oil is stupid. We need to concentrate on alternate sources. If we came up with a clean, easy to make fuel...
1. The environment would be better
2. Our economy would be better

message 12: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments Damn skippy!!!

But Mc CAin wants to start up Necualr energy, here in the US....does anyone here remember wat happaned in Trinobil?

I dont want that here....

message 13: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments Who's skippy?

Anyways, I agree with you. Partly. Although, if we maintained nuclear facilities well enough...

But, I think we should find a source that can't hurt anyone if it gets out of hand. No, strike that. I want to have a source that's:
1. Clean
2. Easy to make
3. SAFE!

message 14: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments yeah!

Lol Damn skipy's ust something i say...its kinda like 'Damn straight'
or 'DAmn right'


message 15: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments haha. Sort of like my aunt.
For shits and giggles.

Omigosh, I can't believe I just typed that...

message 16: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments lol!!!!

shitts and giggles.

message 17: by Eric▲ (new)

Eric▲ | 716 comments O.O
sort of like
"Ham strait"
"4 shirts and giggles"
or "what the fog"
exept you curse

message 18: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments lol

yeah srry


message 19: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments sorry everyone. That was PG-13.

message 20: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments lmao it was funny though!

message 21: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments XD

message 22: by [deleted user] (new)

relying on foreign oil is going to get us no where. we spend billions of dollars on it, and everyday people want more. we should be putting that money into finding a cheaper and renewable resource that we can rely on, and one that doesn't hurt the earth.

message 23: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments Hear hear.

message 24: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments Its true we need a new efficient energy source. Water, solar and wind energy seem to be the best ideas to me.

message 25: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments I think we just need a new idea. Each one has faults. Water takes too much time, and, alas, uses too much water. Solar is hard to store and transport. Wind is okay, except the materials for building windmills could be better used, like all of the above.
That's why I supported Obama. He's focusing on finding a new alternative energy source, which will create jobs, save our economy, and obliterate all dependence on foreign oil.

message 26: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments I second everyting she said.

message 27: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments :D

message 28: by Seth (new)

Seth (ninjaaaaaofwritingbooks) | 544 comments I hate everything about oil, and I think we should do without it forever.

message 29: by Emma the Dork (new)

Emma the Dork (cheesehead) GOOOO SETH!!!!


message 30: by Jayda (new)

Jayda I think that we need to stop depending on foreign oil and drill in our own back yard! We have plenty of oil off of teh coast of Florida and even in Alaska. We could be completely independant and still they want to buy it from other countries? We need to get out from under those foreign countries thumbs and take control of ourselves. I say screw the caribou and let's get our own oil.

message 31: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments I dont really think thats what would fix things. Killing animals to get oil? Yes we need to be dependent from other countries, but we also have to become dependent from fossil fuels!! We need alternative energy, we cant stay stuck in the past.

message 32: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Clean energy using air would be a good idea.

But we wouldn't be killing a lot of animals. A few would probably die, yes, but ultimately they'd be fine and, as I said, adapt, and then we'd have our oil independance.

message 33: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments But thats foreign oil independence, not oil independence which we really need.

message 34: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Oil independence means that we rely on ourselves for our oil. What honestly is the difference between getting rid of our dependance on foreign oil and using our own compared to having oil independence?

message 35: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments The difference is that we need to stop relying on oil so heavily! We need other means of creating clean and safe energy.

message 36: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Which is why I suggested using air for energy.
But even then, we can't stop using a lot of oil.
Why don't you try riding a bike all the way to the city (20 miles, or more) for a week and see how that works out for you xD It'd be good exercise, but I'd be sick of it by day one.

message 37: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments It's called giving up a luxury. Sure people would get sick of it but it's worth it. You can't expect everything to fall into place without you doing something to get to it. The world doesn't work that way. this is why fat people are fat, they are lazy asses.

message 38: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Haha xD You just made me laugh.

I agree that giving up luxury wouldn't be a bad thing. But forcing us to give us the luxuries that we rightfully earned is against what America's about. America's about opportunity and freedom, and if we want to buy a Hummer and spend loads of money on gas and we have the money to do so, than we should be allowed. It's the same thing with democrats wanting the rich to give to the poor so that everyone has the same amount of money - if you didn't work it I'm sure as heck not letting the government take it from me and hand it to you when you don't deserve it.

If you can get it yourself than have at it.

message 39: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments this is one luxury thats fucking killing the environment.

message 40: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments Democrats are not socialists. Jeesh, democrats simply want the rich to pay only like 10% higher than they were paying before so that the middle/low class can not go into so so much debt and cause the economy to fail. Why do you think Bush failed and caused us to go into economic meltdown? Because he raised taxes on people who could not afford it.

And don't you think people could reduce their use of luxuries to save other people's lives. Since when did we become a country or mass murderers?

message 41: by Jayda (new)

Jayda I think that they should reduce taxes on the middle class and, sure, maybe give the rich a raise, but the rich earned their own money. Just because we don't have as much it doesn't mean that we /need/ it, anyway. If they earned it, they deserved it. It's like a kid going trick-or-treating, getting all of this candy, and then someone coming in and taking some, half, or most of their candy and giving it all to kids who didn't go out trick-or-treating and work to earn it.

How is reducing their use of luxuries going to save other people's lives? o.0 If they can earn it and afford it, they should be allowed to get it. If it's not illegal, that is.

message 42: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments Well, about the trick-or0treat thing. I've done it all my life. So yeah, I'm for it. Bad analogy. If they earned it and the same person could have earned it just did not have the same connections then the person with more money should give the person with less money a better life. Just because their family wasn't rich by no means allows them to suffer.

If they can earn and afford it, then they should give up a small quantity so that their grandchildren will not die.

message 43: by Jayda (new)

Jayda In the analogy the kids who got the free candy were just as healthy and as rich as the kid that earned it all. They lived next door to each other. My point is that if you don't earn it and are just going to sit on your butt all day, you don't deserve my well earned cash. There are definitely cases where people are poor despite the fact that they're working hard. But a lot of that is because they've put themselves into crazy debt. As far as they go, they're the ones who deserve to use food stamps and government asistance. We need to have a system where if you're doing nothing to help yourself and still get government assistance, you don't get it anymore until you work harder. People could become so successful if they just weren't so darn lazy!

No. This is a free country, allowing us the freedom to choose what we do with our money. If we earn it, we should be allowed to keep it instead of forcing us to give it to someone who doesn't deserve it.

message 44: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments In that case, your analogy is totally different than the real thing. Both of them are not rich. No Jayda, in most of the cases they are immigrants or their parents caused them to go into debt. Or maybe their school was terrible. But people, like my grandparents are just above that mark. They actually have to pay for healthcare out of pocket but if they made a few dollars less it would be provided for them. Jayda, what class are you?

The whole point it that they do deserve it, they just weren't as lucky as the others. Teachers, for instance work harder than lawyers in some cases. Fair?

message 45: by Jayda (new)

Jayda I'm middle-class and we're provided healthcare through my dad's job. In that case, there are many people who are provided healthcare through work.

People can work their own way up. If they're struggling but working as hard as they can then yes, they deserve help or government assistance. But going out and applying to 2-4 jobs a month/going on interviews that many time a month just so that you can stay within government assistance is just sad. A great majority of the people that I know that live in trailer parks or on government assistance don't have enough money to buy a nice house or car, but they spend all of their money on expensive clothing and Ipods. If they're spending their money on that rather then things that are actually needed than they don't deserve government assistance.

No, I don't think it's fair what teachers are paid. However, I think that it's fair, as I said above, that if you're working as hard as you can and still can't make it, that you deserve government assistance. But teachers can make it, can't they? Luxuries are not a necessity when you can't afford them. For those who can't afford them - work hard and earn them, like how most parents help their kids in buying, say, a bike. But for those who can afford them - have at it. Don't force rich people to give to the poor. Ask them.

message 46: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments My mother is a teacher, she is struggling to make the bills. Same with my best friend etc... But we still pay charity for others. Even though we have nothing to give. Well, barely. I'm middle-class too. Though I live in a place with lower class and higher class. And why not have luxuries if you work for them but are paid unfairly. You know many people are teachers. So many. And the government can't bailout everybody, we have to get us out of this stock market dilemma first. So if the government had no money to help pay the lower class than who are we to get if from? Why, the 5% of America that can afford to help people below them. Also most of them don't mind. You have no idea of the luxuries they have. and you know how many rich people are idiots? Bush, for one. And many actors are dumber than me. Luxuries are sure as hell nice to have though. The rich would only have to pay 10% more, which is like nothing to them. Zip, nada, zero. How do you think we got into debt anyways? The middle class and all their credit. The rich must pay to have them prosper again.

message 47: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Right now, taxes on the rich is up to 39%, I do believe. That's almost half of their income. Forcing people to pay for lower class is unfair. Ask, don't force.

If the government would lower taxes than we'd solve the economy pretty darn quickly. Sadly, that won't happen D:

message 48: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments It's not going to be raised. I heard Obama say it wasn't going past 39% or something.

It can't happen. With the war we need to finance and education to shape America. Not to mention all of that oil.

message 49: by Jayda (new)

Jayda I've heard, however, that he wants to raise it. If not him, then people in the government. But 39% still is a lot. If you're just barely in the bracket (rich, to Obama, is $200,000+ a year) than 39% is a WHOLE lot of money.

Oil is only a small percent of our economy. We could solve that part by drilling in our own backyards rather than depending on foreign oil.

message 50: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments I agree that depending on foreign oil is a huge problem, but oil drilling in national parks in Alaska doesn't seem like the answer. It will probably come to it, sadly, but i like your idea about air energy.

the problem with drilling in Alaska are the inevitable oil spills that will kill our endangered species like polar bears, and even marine life like beluga whales.

« previous 1
back to top