Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Yoloswaggit420 t1_jedce4c wrote

Reply to comment by SlurpinAnalGravy in US puts Italy-sized chunk of Gulf of Mexico up for auction for oil drilling by capcaunul

Providing reports and reporting to your "boss" is not the same thing.... the bmv gives me a driving report does that mean they report to me? You can't be this dense can you?

8

SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jedcsob wrote

Hey buddy, it seems we're starting to get a little heated, I just want to let you know I'm not attacking your intellect or character here. For all intents and purposes, the President can try to make them do whatever he wants.

That said, Congress can literally cancel them.

This is akin to your boss being the chief of police so it's okay for you to ignore the city council and mayor telling you to quit selling Crack to kids or they'll cut your department's funding and have you fired.

Let me know if there's anything I missed in my analogy, or if I need to clarify anything alright? I'm all for clear communication.

2

Yoloswaggit420 t1_jederz5 wrote

They don't report directly to congress no matter how much you say they do. Now we Americans have something for our government called checks and balances. Congress doesn't give BLM orders. The president does and then afterwards congress can check them after the fact. Also your analogy was pretty out there and has no relevance to the discussion. The mayor can't fucking fire a policeman for selling Crack to kids, only their employer (the chief of police) can. You really are just stupid 😂 👋

5

SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jedf7il wrote

I tried to be cordial with you, I made sure you knew it wasn't a direct attack against you, I gave you the exact documents they use to report to Congress, and gave you an analogy as to why it's important they obey Congress or lose their funding entirely, and your response is:

>You really are just stupid 😂 👋

Classy. Nice chatting with you.

3

Yoloswaggit420 t1_jedfelv wrote

Who gave BLM the order to sell this piece of land? Please tell me since you know everything

3

SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jedg5ml wrote

That's a great question.

The decision to hold an auction of oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico by the Bureau of Land Management would have been made by the agency itself, based on its statutory authority and the policies and priorities of the current administration. The BLM is an agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior, and its decisions are subject to review by the Secretary of the Interior, who is appointed by the President of the United States. Point to you.

However, it is worth noting that the decision to offer leases for oil and gas drilling in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico is a longstanding practice that has been in place for decades, and is not specific to any one administration or political party. The BLM regularly conducts lease sales as part of its management of the Outer Continental Shelf, which includes the waters and submerged lands beyond state coastal waters. These lease sales are conducted in accordance with federal law and regulations, and are intended to promote the responsible development of the nation's energy resources. Congress is the deciding factor in allocations of funding within the BLM in regards to this matter.

It's not an either or, we can both be right you know.

5

Koda_20 t1_jee8pxj wrote

I'm not the guy who was being a dick to you, but could you explain me some more?

Is it possible the president did direct this action and we just don't know? Since it's in his authority?

And, also, why does it seem like the president is flipping back and forth on oil, like, allowing this to happen under his watch when he just interrupted pipelines a bit ago to fight big oil no? Shouldn't Biden veto or cancel or whatever this auction if he's anti oil?

4

SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jeeci36 wrote

The President can tell his cabinet to do whatever he wants. The BLM Director is not part of his cabinet, in not so many words they do in fact report to congress.

Regarding your other question about Biden's flippant nature, it's important to note that his stance on oil and gas development has not changed significantly since he took office. During his campaign and since becoming president, he has emphasized the need to transition away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy in order to address climate change and "create a more sustainable future". This has included a focus on promoting renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, as well as investments in electric vehicles and other low-emission technologies.

However, it is also true that the Biden administration has faced some criticism and scrutiny over its approach to oil and gas development. In particular, there has been some concern among industry groups and some politicians that the administration's policies could harm the economy and lead to job losses in regions that depend heavily on oil and gas production.

In response to these concerns, the administration has taken steps to reassure the industry and to emphasize that its policies are focused on promoting a gradual and responsible transition away from fossil fuels, rather than an abrupt or drastic shift. For example, the administration has emphasized the importance of reducing methane emissions from oil and gas operations, which can help to mitigate the environmental impacts of fossil fuel production while also supporting domestic production of natural gas.

But I guess we could just blame it on his age if you'd prefer to approach it without any nuance, it is funnier that way.

1

Jackal427 t1_jee9kmt wrote

> I’m all for clear communication

Says the guy intentionally taking quotes out of context to fit his political agenda

You’re either a bot or really slow

2

SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jeeag9e wrote

I'm a Texas business owner with family ties to oil across the southwest, I'm about as far alligned economically R as it gets. That you honed in on that specific detail as the entire crux for your argument really says a lot.

Do you have any valid points to make against my statements?

−2

Jackal427 t1_jeebc6u wrote

> I'm a Texas business owner with family ties to oil across the southwest, I'm about as far alligned economically R as it gets.

LOL, good joke

Not doing it for a political agenda is even worse, because it implies you’re actually just stupid enough to think what you’re saying is true.

Name checks out, you’re full of shit

2

Former-Lack-7117 t1_jeeciwq wrote

Nah...if there is an economic incentive to be ignorant, then that explains his reasoning pretty well.

1

SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jeebzhh wrote

I approached you civilly, I guess this is all I can expect in return. Take care.

0

Jackal427 t1_jeechhl wrote

> I approached you civilly

Your first reply to me:

> Hit me up when you understand anything kiddo.

Once again, full of shit.

1

SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jeecwbf wrote

That's quite a thin skin you've got there sport. I kid lol.

If you can't handle a little cajoling without flying off the handle then I'm sorry for provoking you my dude. I can see how without proper context and actively playing it out as a joke that would be rude and it won't happen again.

That said, have you anything to offer me in the form of factual critique over my statements?

0

Jackal427 t1_jeede49 wrote

> That said, have you anything to offer me in the form of factual critique over my statements?

This has already been done all over this comment section. If you still don’t understand how your claims are factually incorrect (apparently you don’t) then there’s probably no hope for your last 2 brain cells.

0

SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jeeevfl wrote

More insults...

The Director of the BLM reports to Congress. This is undebatable fact.

If that does not land, there's nothing I can do to help clarify things further. I'm sorry we came to an impasse, and I hope your day gets better. Thanks for the conversation, take care.

0

Jackal427 t1_jeefc9a wrote

I hope your life gets better. Take care of those last 2.

2

Jackal427 t1_jeegs5n wrote

> More insults…

That's quite a thin skin you've got there sport. I kid lol.

If you can't handle a little cajoling without flying off the handle then I'm sorry for provoking you my dude. I can see how without proper context and actively playing it out as a joke that would be rude and it won't happen again.

0