Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 36 of 36
  1. #26
    dld
    dld is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Dallas, Tx.
    Posts
    246

    Ok, hee goes again

    [Troy]You can't deny that big oil is making enormous profits.

    Can't deny that. This year. Check out 1998 and 1999 tho. Pee-uuuuu! But lets agree its becaue of higher, not lower prices, OK? Checked yer price at the pump lately? But I digress.

    I also agree that a stable Middle East leads to better operating conditions. I don't agree it has to be Westernized tho. Look at Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Canada (ha ha, our largest source of imports is pretty Westernized). I thought stability was a good thing.

    As far as the prez not taking the fall in economic boom and bust times. It always seems to be that the guy you voted for can't be blamed for the bust and the guy you did vote for is responsible for the boom.

    I think we agree here. That perception is totally wrong. The economy moves independent of political thought and actions. Thats a two edged sword politicians swing when they claim credit for the boom eh?.

    I see it that the president sets the tone for the country.

    Agreed

    He creates a specific climate for whichever lobby that owns him to do well.

    I disagree to an extent. The "owns" him still strikes me as sophomoric and conspiratorial.

    Moving on:
    In the long term, there is no way the US can win a war in the Middle East. The ideology is just too different.


    Hope yer wrong. Time will tell.

    The only way to "win" is to not buy oil from these barbarians.

    Nahh. . Sorry. If we don't buy from them, we buy more from, say, Russia, thus displacing former purchasers of Russian oil, like Japan and Korea, who then buy from someone who now has a surplus, guess who? IRAQ!! there's a finite amount of oil and consistent demand (although the Saudis could up their prod'n 2mm bpd, but, would they do that to an Arab neightbor? And then what about Iraq's economy? there's only so much of a market for rattlesnake hides and scorpions stingers, the resulting famine would make Somaliia look like Walnut Creek) .

    God forbid the Bush administration would create a climate where we could, as a country, move away from dependency on oil.

    Duhh. Clintin administration did exactly what in this regard? In 8 years? These things will get done when the technology is there and they're economically feasible. I see fuel cells in a dozen years. Hopefully sooner. that'll help. or some of that old time cold fusion (Whatta joke). Are you willing to judge the next Democratic president based on his success in moving us away from oil? And what large country has successfully done this?

    I notice that no one has an answer to my comments about how much this war is costing taxpayers and how the industry that pressured the US into the war in the fist place is the same industry that constantly looks for tax exemptions.

    Yea, the war is costing beaucoup dineros. What else is new?

    The oil industry pressured us into war? I must have missed that 60 Minutes segment. Any evidence would be nice That would be pretty shocking if your allegation is true. I went out to San Fran in October. One of drinking buddy # 1's first comments was, did ya know they're gonna try Bush on War Crimes charges? I think the Bay Area holds the record, per capita, of dumb things said by smart people.

    The oil induistry seeks tax breaks on a regular basis? Name one big industry that doesn't? Yea, I get sick of it too. But guess what, you can up their tax rate and they'll simply pass it along, to you and me.


    [
    Do I have to spell it out?

    C---H---E---E----S----E

    A--N--D

    O---N---I---O---N---S

    Oh No

  2. #27
    dld
    dld is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Dallas, Tx.
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody
    Don't vote. It only encourages them.
    Ha ha, good one DW. Didn't mean to drag you into the fray. That may be the best line of the day. You should leave that as your signature line.
    Do I have to spell it out?

    C---H---E---E----S----E

    A--N--D

    O---N---I---O---N---S

    Oh No

  3. #28
    Forum Regular nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,964
    I'm just too lazy right now to actually write something that would contribute to the discussion. Personally, I don't really trust either side. Historically, I tend to favor the Democrats, but considering how they've rolled over and let unions and the interests of the working class take a back seat to suburban soccer moms and their own special interests, I don't much care about either party these days. If minorities ever get sick of the Democrats taking their votes for granted, the whole party will really be screwed.

    I will say that if it was the people in power that were just expected to go get retrained and get a new job, at less real income for more productivity, and stop complaining the arguement about job loss due to globalization would take on a vastly different tone. Macro economic growth don't mean crap to most Americans. How many hours ya gotta work and what you're left with after you pay the rent does.

    No way I've got the energy to get too into the Iraq thing right now. Let's just say I'm not a fan of pre-emptive strike wars. The means don't always justify the ends, which are questionable at best right now and won't truly be seen for a few years at least.

  4. #29
    Close 'n Play® user Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Highway 6, between Tonopah and Ely
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by dld
    He creates a specific climate for whichever lobby that owns him to do well.

    I disagree to an extent. The "owns" him still strikes me as sophomoric and conspiratorial.
    OK, hows this: "He creates a specific climate for whichever lobby paid him the most money in campaign conbtributions". These payments come with the implicit understanding that he create this climate. The more the dough, the better the climate. If that's not being owned, then i don't know what is.

    Quote Originally Posted by dld
    [I]
    The only way to "win" is to not buy oil from these barbarians.

    Nahh. . Sorry. If we don't buy from them, we buy more from, say, Russia, thus displacing former purchasers of Russian oil, like Japan and Korea, who then buy from someone who now has a surplus, guess who? IRAQ!! there's a finite amount of oil and consistent demand (although the Saudis could up their prod'n 2mm bpd, but, would they do that to an Arab neightbor? And then what about Iraq's economy? there's only so much of a market for rattlesnake hides and scorpions stingers, the resulting famine would make Somaliia look like Walnut Creek).
    My quote is taken a bit out of context. I was implying that we should be hurrying up spending billions a week on developing alternative fuels instead of this war or a pointless excursion to Mars (and don't get me started on the space program and war being responsible for all technology's advances in the 20th century- the money could be spent on a focused R&D program). No, no real other/better place to get oil. Face it, the entire Middle East would be left with no income. They would be at our mercy in short order. Wars are won with economics too.

    Quote Originally Posted by dld
    God forbid the Bush administration would create a climate where we could, as a country, move away from dependency on oil.

    Duhh. Clintin administration did exactly what in this regard? In 8 years? These things will get done when the technology is there and they're economically feasible. I see fuel cells in a dozen years. Hopefully sooner. that'll help. or some of that old time cold fusion (Whatta joke). Are you willing to judge the next Democratic president based on his success in moving us away from oil? And what large country has successfully done this?
    Oh hey, I never said Clinton did! The point is though, a prez that's in the back pocket of the oil industry sure isn't likely to try and push for R&D in alt-fuels. But maybe a prez in teh back pocket of high-tech R&D is . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by dld
    I notice that no one has an answer to my comments about how much this war is costing taxpayers and how the industry that pressured the US into the war in the fist place is the same industry that constantly looks for tax exemptions.

    Yea, the war is costing beaucoup dineros. What else is new?

    The oil industry pressured us into war? I must have missed that 60 Minutes segment. Any evidence would be nice That would be pretty shocking if your allegation is true. I went out to San Fran in October. One of drinking buddy # 1's first comments was, did ya know they're gonna try Bush on War Crimes charges? I think the Bay Area holds the record, per capita, of dumb things said by smart people.
    Well, between O'Neil's book explaining how W and Co. already planned on invaiding Iraq before 9/11 and Cheney's obvious conflict of interest it sure seems obvious. I'm going to ignore your generalized Nor Cal comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by dld
    The oil induistry seeks tax breaks on a regular basis? Name one big industry that doesn't? Yea, I get sick of it too. But guess what, you can up their tax rate and they'll simply pass it along, to you and me.
    Ah, but see, if fuel prices trippled in this country because the oil companies would have to pay taxes comensurate with their earnings, the government would have an incredible surplus of money which would lower Joe Citizen's taxes to almost nothing. We'd have more money to spend on fuel.

    Until we can break the connection between corporate lobbying and the government we will continue to have a governmet run with corporate profits first on their minds rather than the good of the people.

    Now I'm the one being a Pollyanna. It'll never happen, but I like throwing the idea out there.

  5. #30
    Rocket Surgeon Swish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,918

    HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! Now that's what I call...

    Quote Originally Posted by nobody
    Don't vote. It only encourages them.
    "nice, civil, intelligent argument" that DLD wanted. Good one dude, especially after reading that load of crap from Dennis the Menace. He accused Jack of being emotional, but all he did was holler and curse, or at least as much as you can with words. Jack put a lot of thought into his response and seems to be one sharp cookie, and the same goes for DLD. He and I could talk beer for hours I'm sure. I guess Dennis took lessons from the original subject of this thread, Howard Dean. Anyway, this was a pretty good thread with lots of intelligent posts. I'm really not heavily into politics, but I know what I like and what affects my life and the lives of my family, so I vote with that perspective.

    How about we get back to music, eh guys?

    Swish Baby
    I call my bathroom Jim instead of John so I can tell people that I go to the Jim first thing every morning.

    If you say the word 'gullible' very slowly it sounds just like oranges.

  6. #31
    Rocket Surgeon Swish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,918

    Did you watch the State of the Union the other night, Troy?

    My quote is taken a bit out of context. I was implying that we should be hurrying up spending billions a week on developing alternative fuels instead of this war or a pointless excursion to Mars (and don't get me started on the space program and war being responsible for all technology's advances in the 20th century- the money could be spent on a focused R&D program). No, no real other/better place to get oil. Face it, the entire Middle East would be left with no income. They would be at our mercy in short order. Wars are won with economics too.

    "W'" talked about investing in research for alternative fuels so we aren't so dependent on foreign oil, but many presidents before him have said the same thing. We've faced all kinds of problems with OPEC and oil shortages, but we're still in the same predicament because of our own selfishness. Face it, we love our big, fast cars, and some of us love big, slow, gas-guzzling SUVs, so the problem starts with US. Most European countries, faced with much higher fuel costs, are driving the tiniest, most fuel-efficient cars they can find, while we come up with the Hummer 2? WTF is that all about? I agree that we could do a lot of things better, but Americans, at least most of us, are apathetic and don't worry about such things until the well has run dry. Then it's "OH MY GOD, WHAT HAPPENED??!! That's our society. We have it very good, but things could take a turn for the worse if we don't change our ways.

    Swish (how am I gonna sleep tonight with all this on my mind?)
    I call my bathroom Jim instead of John so I can tell people that I go to the Jim first thing every morning.

    If you say the word 'gullible' very slowly it sounds just like oranges.

  7. #32
    dld
    dld is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Dallas, Tx.
    Posts
    246
    Hey Troy, although we obviously disagree in a number of areas, when you "recontexted" some of your comments, I'm a lot more comfortable with them. One comment and then I'm dropping out of this thread. Your point about increasing taxes on oil companies is well taken. With the understanding that it will be passed on to the consumer with the taxes collected going to R & D for alternative fuels, Personally I got no problem with that, if the govt handles the money responsibly. But putting govt in charge of doloing out that money to legit reasearch efforts is scary at best. At the least, a three fold increase in gasoline taxes will force a consumer move to more fuel efficient vehicles.

    The little winky thing didn't work with the bay area "Dumb Comments" line I left. Surely you know it was said tongue planted somewhat firmly in cheek.

    OK, I'm done. British Sea Power is on in the background and the Mavericks are whipping the girly boy Lakers on TNT, life is good....
    Do I have to spell it out?

    C---H---E---E----S----E

    A--N--D

    O---N---I---O---N---S

    Oh No

  8. #33
    Forum Regular jack70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    202

    R&D, Oil, and even a little Dean

    Troy, I think you share some very common misunderstandings about economic forces. That impression seems wrapped up in a view that big business is evil, and the government is good. It's not that black & white though, and often just the opposite. This same thinking predicted that the first gulf war was a conspiracy by the oil companies to control the oil fields and increase prices. What happened? ...prices went down.

    Business doesn't like unpredictability or stress (9-11). They want stability. Government today interferes with business in so many ways (huge legal staffs of expensive lawyers for the incredibly complex tax-code(IRS), for the legal liability because of outta-control suing & legal actions, and for lobbying). You think any CEO likes paying for any of those expenses any more than you or I like paying car or house insurance? Those are all costs that go way beyond sensible regulation and it constipates the economy. Go to India if you wanna see governmental meddling at it's worst.... and the awful constipation that results.

    Quote Originally Posted by Troy
    God forbid the Bush administration would create a climate where we could, as a country, move away from dependency on oil.


    ...I was implying that we should be hurrying up spending billions a week on developing alternative fuels instead of this war or a pointless excursion to Mars


    ...The point is though, a prez that's in the back pocket of the oil industry sure isn't likely to try and push for R&D in alt-fuels. But maybe a prez in the back pocket of high-tech R&D is . . .
    You don't think Bush (or anyone in Washington) would LOVE to make oil an archaic technology? Trouble is, government can't do these things... it's a form of flawed thinking that many people seem to have... of what government is, (& what it isn't.) Government is there to keep domestic tranquilly so that commerce, trade, technological inovation, and human culture can thrive... that's it.

    The devolution from that basic model over the decades has made government grow to such a monstrous size and power that too many people think it's mommy & daddy... they think that government should not only referee competition, but that those referees should fix the games. I agree with you that business is often corrupt, but a free marketplace will fix itself. When government becomes too involved, it corrupts the system.

    The fact is the oil industries have spent billions researching alternative fuels... they've also invested billions in solar technologies. They started doing this in the early 70's when gas prices had a rise. (BTW, gas has increased in real prices LESS than inflation since the 1920's, even with the added cost of taxes in there, which is about half the real price today). But until economic forces (prices & costs) make oil too expensive, oil will continue to drive most industries. You simply can't pull a revolutionary new energy technology out of the hat, anymore than electricity could be pulled outta the hat in the mid 1700's.

    BTW, all the recent hoopla about hydrogen & fuel cells being the big energy technology of the future was recently thrown a wet towel with research findings that indicate a disturbing possibility that they could disrupt the chemical balance of the atmosphere much more severely than todays worries about greenhouse gasses and global warming.


    Quote Originally Posted by Troy
    (and don't get me started on the space program and war being responsible for all technology's advances in the 20th century- the money could be spent on a focused R&D program).
    Well, the truth is quite a lot of technological advances came out of those things. It's not a particularly good way to do it, but it's true. Work with radar, aircraft technologies, mathematical algorithms, engineering techniques, are just a few of the things that pushed the later half of the 1900's into the future faster than would have happened without WW2.

    But I hope you're not talking about putting the government in charge of R&D (instead of profit-motivated private business). Like the dept of education, dept of transportation, IRS, Medicare, etc... the government has little fiscal responsibility or oversight... is rampant with graft, waste, corruption and bureaucratic nightmares. When internal audits find billions of dollars illegally spent, stolen & wasted, no one is ever held responsible. You want another governmental rathole (R&D) to throw tax money down? Let the government protect us... let business and regular people do the thinking and researching part.


    Additional notes on Howard Dean (wasn't that the original topic? ...LOL)

    - I didn't see his outburst as that bad myself... off the wall a bit, sure, but not considering it's time & place. It just didn't translate on the TV screen when taken out of that dynamic.
    - Dean actually said some things later on in that speech that were more over the top... don't know why those were ignored.
    - Deans' wife, who was interviewed last night is a total sweetheart... smart, attractive, caring, sensible. Dean could do much worse than losing the white house, and getting to spend the rest of his life with her, out of that circus in DC.
    - Dean has run as someone who built a fiscal responsible budget in VT. Trouble is, he succeeded a republican governor who died... and it was the republican gov who passed that restrained budget that Dean now trumpets. It's true Dean didn't completely wreck it, but he did start raising taxes to ridiculous levels, which has been very destructive to the state.
    - I have a cousin in VT. The property taxes have doubled in the last 5 years alone. The education-funding allocation has been taken over by the state and it's a total mess because of that.
    You don't know... jack

  9. #34
    Forum Regular MindGoneHaywire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    1,125
    Jack:

    I think you share some very common misunderstandings about economic forces. That impression seems wrapped up in a view that big business is evil, and the government is good.

    I think Troy deserves a little more credit. Outside of Nasty, I don't think there's anyone on this board that could be considered an expert on oil (which is not a knock on you, and if this is yr field of expertise, then I apologize); and I don't think it unreasonable if Troy or anyone else puts forth a statement that may seem uninformed on the surface, but one that is bolstered by common perceptions. You can tell me the truth all day long about the economics of this or that, and in some cases I'm with that & will certainly cede points; but all the facts, graphs, & statistics, on occasion, are going to do nothing to dissuade a belief that seems grounded in common sense enough to inspire a perception of reality that isn't going to seem wrong no matter how many stats anyone produces to argue otherwise. As a minor example, it may well be true that the air is cleaner now than at any time in 100 years, or something like that. Or the Hudson river, for instance. Yet if you go by the industrial area south of Jersey City, one's eyes are certainly going to provide a different message. Likewise, whether or not the president is owned by Big Oil (an assertion I don't exactly believe, at least not to the extent that it's trumpeted), the fact is, no matter how much people hear about the damage that vehicles with poor fuel efficiency do damage to the environment OR the bad position that leaves us in with regard to foreign oil imports from unstable regions such as the Middle East...they keep buying up SUVs. To the point where there seem to be more of those things on the road than cars. I firmly believe it's not out of the realm of what the government's responsibility should be to do something about this. I believe it could be validly viewed as a matter of national security.

    I fail to see why a tax on vehicles that do not burn fuel efficiently would be a problem. I'd like to see taxes levied on non-commercial vehicles that get less than 20 mpg, and I don't see why tax credits couldn't be issued to people who purchase vehicles that get more than 40 mpg. The auto makers keep making the SUVs, because that's what the public wants? Sorry. Those who drove automobiles seemed to get along very nicely before it became possible to drive in an environment only marginally different from one's living room. You want that luxury? If you can afford the vehicle, and the ridiculous amount of money you have to spend to fill the damn tank up, then you can afford a tax. I think it's absolutely criminal that there isn't one on these f*cking things. Ask me about it & I'll tell ya what I really think.

    Government today interferes with business in so many ways

    Yes, but there's a distinction that can be drawn between sensible, rational regulation, and irrational overregulation. If we're at an extreme in terms of gov't interference, then I say the opposite extreme would be no better.

    You don't think Bush (or anyone in Washington) would LOVE to make oil an archaic technology?

    No. That's an awful big industry that supplies an awful lot of jobs. It's pretty vital to the economy. Big industries don't always find transitions to new business models all that smooth. I don't get with the scenario of Bush & the oilmen snickering behind closed doors about profits, but I do believe there is certainly a prevailing opinion that this industry needs to survive in its current state for as long as possible, because there is much uncertainty as to how the alternative fuel sources would fit into the way they like to run their businesses.

    Government is there to keep domestic tranquilly so that commerce, trade, technological inovation, and human culture can thrive... that's it.

    I don't see how that precludes regulation entirely.

    The devolution from that basic model over the decades has made government grow to such a monstrous size and power that too many people think it's mommy & daddy

    That sounds like rhetoric, and I don't buy it. I don't think too many people believe that at all; and I would find it difficult to take anyone seriously that does. I just don't think there are that many people that actually look at it this way. This is a characterization that I've heard, usually from the right, and it's one I can't get with.

    I agree with you that business is often corrupt, but a free marketplace will fix itself

    I don't believe that & never will. A truly free marketplace would bring conditions that I believe would be far worse than what we have now. With all the problems we have with overregulation, high taxation, & fraud, waste, & corruption, I honestly believe we're better off than we would be if the marketplace were completely free. I would never trust business to police itself. Never. Were you perhaps suggesting a freer marketplace than what we have now?

    Well, the truth is quite a lot of technological advances came out of those things.

    I have to agree. I'm not convinced it's always worth the price, but...I was looking on a chronic fatigue syndrome message board last week & someone put up a post complaining about all the money that's going to be spent on the manned space excursions. What the gov't spends their money on when it comes to medical research is a sore point to many with CFIDS, as there have been all kinds of bureaucratic boondoggles...but that's a long story. There's a book about it. Anyway, someone replied, someone who was a cancer survivor, talking about the technology that resulted from space flights that enables chemotherapy to be delivered via LEDs (light-emitting diodes) that attack cancer cells directly--as opposed to the commonly-used chemo that physically destroys most people. I'm no expert on this, and I'm paraphrasing very loosely, but I do think that simply dismissing space flights merely on the basis that they seem a colossal waste of money may be a hasty judgment.

    Let the government protect us... let business and regular people do the thinking and researching part.

    I agree, on the basis of the fraud & the waste & the corruption. But those are the ONLY reasons that I personally feel are valid for resenting a tax bill. I do believe that most people are inherently selfish & don't like the money being taken out of their paychecks for any reason, whether it benefits them directly or not. That's why 'tax cuts' resonates so much more effectively than it really should. The key should be making the tax dollars work better, not worry about reducing the tax revenues before fixing the problem. You hear so much about reducing taxes, but so little about actually doing anything about why the taxes are so high in the first place. If they were spent wisely, cuts would never be necessary. But I don't see it happening. There's too much in it for too many people. Sorry to sound so cynical, but I believe that implicitly. You want to complain about yr high taxes? Go right ahead. If the tax money were spent properly I would tell you flat-out I don't want to hear it.

    I didn't see his outburst as that bad myself... off the wall a bit, sure, but not considering it's time & place. It just didn't translate on the TV screen when taken out of that dynamic.

    I thought it was awful. Maybe not as bad as some made out on television, as they smirked about it, but I'll tell you what: I've heard this explained away over the past couple of days as a show of exuberance, a way of thanking those in the room that worked so hard on the campaign. And I heard people who were there who are not affiliated with the Dean campaign say that it wasn't so bad as it came off on television. But I say that it was, at the very least, mildly disturbing, and you know what? He just doesn't look to me like a guy who's handling stress very well. I was never interested in him as a candidate, so I'm not disappointed, but I see that as a loss of composure that I do find quite off-putting. Think about some of the presidents in the recent past & how they've handled stress: did Jimmy Carter have a public outburst like that during the Iran hostage scandal? Nixon never lost it in front of television cameras, did he? Did Ronald Reagan blow up during the Iran-Contra hearings? Didn't Bill Clinton manage to hold himself together while the Lewinsky scandal & the impeachment was in full flower? And didn't George Bush manage to maintain his composure during the brief appearances he made on 9/11, and the key appearances over the couple of weeks following that day's events? Hell, I saw Kerry give tv appearances a couple of times within the past month, and he was clearly exhausted & looked stressed-out 80 ways to Sunday. Thrown some tough questions, although he did repeat himself a couple of times, & didn't really get a strong message across, at a time when he had sunk in the polls, he managed to keep himself together quite nicely. Looks to me like that release on Dean's part was a display of anger, frustration, and even rage. I can't believe they're trying to float an excuse that he was just trying to bring some energy to his staffers. In fact, I find it insulting. Next time you see the clip, take a good look at his facial expressions. I already thought the guy was half a wack job to begin with (that horribly off-key rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner was pretty weird, too). As surprising as this was, I wasn't shocked. The guy's just not a good candidate so far as I'm concerned. And I'm committed to seeing Bush go down to the point where I recently decided I'd even vote for Hillary Clinton if she decided to run. And that's saying something, believe me. I'll vote for any Democrat besides Dean. If he gets the nomination I'm going to have to go 3rd party again. I'd never vote for a guy like this.

    Dean actually said some things later on in that speech that were more over the top... don't know why those were ignored.

    Yeah, and he was just as animated, too. Yet they only seized on those 20 or 30 seconds. I wonder why? When I finally saw some of the footage right after that shriek I was surprised I hadn't seen it at all for more than 48 hours since it was being replayed over & over & over again.

    Howard Stern took the speech & placed it into a bunch of songs that name-check some of the states that Dean mentioned--like Led Zeppelin's 'Going To California,' the Steve Miller song about keep on a-rockin' me baby, or whatever it's called, Frank Sinatra's New York, New York, etc. Very, very funny stuff.

    I don't like others.

  10. #35
    Forum Regular jack70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    202

    Re

    Quote Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    I think Troy deserves a little more credit. Outside of Nasty, I don't think there's anyone on this board that could be considered an expert on oil (which is not a knock on you, and if this is yr field of expertise, then I apologize); and I don't think it unreasonable if Troy or anyone else puts forth a statement that may seem uninformed on the surface, but one that is bolstered by common perceptions. You can tell me the truth all day long about the economics of this or that, and in some cases I'm with that & will certainly cede points; but all the facts, graphs, & statistics, on occasion, are going to do nothing to dissuade a belief that seems grounded in common sense enough to inspire a perception of reality that isn't going to seem wrong no matter how many stats anyone produces to argue otherwise. As a minor example, it may well be true that the air is cleaner now than at any time in 100 years, or something like that. Or the Hudson river, for instance. Yet if you go by the industrial area south of Jersey City, one's eyes are certainly going to provide a different message....



    I fail to see why a tax on vehicles that do not burn fuel efficiently would be a problem. I'd like to see taxes levied on non-commercial vehicles that get less than 20 mpg, and I don't see why tax credits couldn't be issued to people who purchase vehicles that get more than 40 mpg...
    I actually probably agree with Troy 90% of the time... it's funny how the web tends to amplify those things we disagree with... it's sorta like the news media covering BAD things while lots of positive & uplifting stories about successful policies get heard far less by the public -- both of those dynamics tend to make for negative feelings. I just think he (& you) are ignoring more important problems while demonizing big oil. It doesn't mean you don't have legitamate points, just that I think you miss the real root of the problems.

    I don't have a problem with taxing certain products more than others as a public policy thing. Personally I hate SUV's cause you can't see past the damn things, a really dangerous thing. But you gotta be careful about the government getting involved in so many matters of every damn thing we do, like this. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for certain regulations, but the problem I was getting at is a much more insidious thing. It's linked up in what I related about Hayek... that when public policy enacts laws to "fix" perceived problems, you always get unintended consequences. The far left is the biggest example of this. They claim they want to protect wildlife, and pass laws to "protect" wildlife" & prohibit clearing brush... the result is thousands of homes burned down in S Calif and the west, and untold horrible environmental consequences. They claim education can be "fixed" by federal involvement, then wonder why their schools are going to hell after the fed bureaucracy drains money & resources from the kids. Take MTB, which Al Gore and his tree-huggers required to "lower pollution". It was a Crock... new cars just didn't pollute like the 60's era cars did, and now we have much of the country's groundwater polluted with this chemical, which is highly toxic. We'll be reaping the medical & environmental consequences for generations.

    There are thousands of these examples, and I don't have time to go much deeper here, but it's more my own libertarian belief that the government does far more harm to our freedoms when we submit to IT instead of acting responsibly ourselves and submitting to the marketplace. I also disagree totally that government can give us happiness or "make life fair", something both parties exploit when they promise "things" for votes. That's probably beyond the scope of this post, and I'm sure most people didn't really see my point. I'll live with it...LOL.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    Jack:The devolution from that basic model over the decades has made government grow to such a monstrous size and power that too many people think it's mommy & daddy

    That sounds like rhetoric, and I don't buy it. I don't think too many people believe that at all; and I would find it difficult to take anyone seriously that does. I just don't think there are that many people that actually look at it this way. This is a characterization that I've heard, usually from the right, and it's one I can't get with.
    I disagree... I hear and see this all too much. Today we rely on the government to educate our kids, to provide medical care, to provide pensions (social security).. etc etc. Government has gone beyond it's intended role as arbitrator, to one of active participant, and that skews the capitalist system toward the socialist system. It's been a slow insidious change, so it's not usually seen as that bad a thing, but when I pay over 60% to the government (that includes all local & hidden taxes passed on in goods & services), and it keeps going up every year, WE ARE slowly becoming dependent on the government (mommy & daddy).

    I'm NOT saying the government shouldn't help those who truly can't help themselves. In fact Kerry's only good original idea is a health program where the fed gov picks up the tab for true catastrophic expenses after $50K... it represents a small % of medical expenses, yet would make the free- market competitive insurance system work better for everyone. Unfortunately, if something like that was passed (which it wouldn't have a chance in hell to... LOL), Washington would then slowly start taking even more control from the private (competitive) sector, which would make our medical system slip towards mediocrity.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    ...I was looking on a chronic fatigue syndrome message board last week & someone put up a post complaining about all the money that's going to be spent on the manned space excursions. What the gov't spends their money on when it comes to medical research is a sore point to many with CFIDS, as there have been all kinds of bureaucratic boondoggles...but that's a long story...
    There are many orphan diseases and medications that are simply unprofitable for companies to do research with. Part of the problem is the narrow profit margins for these risky business's (drugs & medical research) who know a "diet," blood-pressure, or diabetes drug has a huge market upside, while a deadly disease with only 500 people worldwide will not come close to making back the millions in research & testing that it takes to produce. It's also tough for these corporations because of how governmental regulations and lawsuits take away from the bottom line... it's almost Kafka-est in many ways.

    The government does need to step in here, and it actually does, with many colleges which get governmental grants and work in concert with medical companies. So, we actually have a pretty good (sensible) allocation from the gov to private R&D... but it's not like just throwing money at very complex scientific medical and tech problems will offer solutions overnight. If it was that simple we'd have cured cancer decades ago. Nixon pumped huge amounts into his "war on cancer."


    Quote Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    I'm no expert on this, and I'm paraphrasing very loosely, but I do think that simply dismissing space flights merely on the basis that they seem a colossal waste of money may be a hasty judgment.
    Anyone who studies the history of technology will find that pure science and basic research will always advance science, although sometimes discoveries don't find their use for hundreds of years. Certainly the new scientific knowledge discovered in WW2 and the Space Program was massive. There are many great books on this subject... fascinating stuff. We take so much for granted because there's been so much scientific data learned... it doubles every few years now... we're just not aware of it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    Jack:You don't think Bush (or anyone in Washington) would LOVE to make oil an archaic technology?

    No. That's an awful big industry that supplies an awful lot of jobs. It's pretty vital to the economy. Big industries don't always find transitions to new business models all that smooth....
    Maybe you're right... maybe not. I think you're too cynical... you need to talk to some people who actually work for those companies. They're less corrupt than your local politicians. But those companies put LOTS of money into researching a new energy paradigm with the hope they'd cut out all the political nonsense/problems with all the oil-rich countries. They would then hold the keys to the kingdom. (BTW, why are they all 2'nd rate, politically corrupt banana republics anyway... Nigeria, Mexico, Venezuela, the Mid-east, Indonesia ?)


    Quote Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    ...I'd even vote for Hillary Clinton if she decided to run
    Jeezeus... I THINK you're kidding? I only think she could win with a strong 3'rd party candidate to split the vote because of her huge negatives... but stranger things have happened...LOL. Give me Dean's wife any day... all the "smarts" that people think Hillary has, and 10 times the class and honesty. I'd vote for Bill Clinton any day before Hillary... at least he was a pragmatic centrist. It was his immature need to (falsely) "accept praise" that made him so unappealing.

    As for your negative Dean opinion... I hope you don't think Anthony Hopkins is the guy you see up on screen? I just think he was "acting up"... whooping it up, more than anything. I DO get more concerned about some of his borderline hateful rhetoric though... I think if he indeed IS an imbalanced hothead, it shows in that rhetoric, albeit more subtly.
    You don't know... jack

  11. #36
    Forum Regular BradH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Research Station No. 256
    Posts
    643

    Hey, is this working?

    Dean's campaign was a weird combination of Barry Goldwater anger and Eugene McCarthy youthful activism. Imagine that. "Clean For Dean". HaHa. I think he's quite phony, actually. One of the major papers reported on a letter he wrote to Clinton urging unilateral action in Bosnia because the U.N. couldn't handle it. Then there's Kerry who publicly stated in 1998 that Saddam should be removed by any means necessary. Then he votes against funding the soldiers after they're in country. Gephart and Leiberman were the only ones who didn't pandered to the anti-war sentiment by flip-flopping madly about. But there's some kind of mass mental disconnect among the populace when so many candidates can get away with saying they would've acted with international cooperation. What would they have done differently? To hear them tell it you'd think they would've gone to the U.N. and gotten a unanimous resolution for immediate disarmament! (Oh wait, we did that.) Haha, what a circus. I still like Lieberman, though. Edwards will probably be president one day depending on the Hillary Factor. Poor Dean, having to follow Edwards' magnificent speech in Iowa. I was afraid of where he was going when he ran out of states. "And then we're gonna go to Washington D.C.! Then the Sudetenland! And then Austria! HEEYAA!!" It struck me as amateurish. The thing about his wife is amateurish, too. I respect her decision and don't think there's anything wrong with maintaining her own career but it shows an odd lack of knowledge of the PR ****estorm that is Washington D.C. I suspect she probably doesn't want her husband to be nominated anyway. In other words, she's sane. Tipper Gore and Laura Bush didn't want their husbands to run either. (I've noticed Kerry's wife doesn't look all that enthused.) As for Clark, I think Edwards would have a better chance of beating Bush. Clark strikes me as the only Democratic candidate who is truly despicable. Does he even know who he is? I'd almost rather have Dean in the White House. "HEEYAA!!"

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Journey to the End of the Night
    By Davey. in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-08-2004, 03:33 PM
  2. Overview: Saturday Night Fever DVD
    By John Beresford in forum Favorite Films
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-22-2003, 11:19 AM
  3. Friday jokes
    By trollgirl in forum Off Topic/Non Audio
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-19-2003, 11:56 AM
  4. Night Club Owners, Band Manager Charged in Deadly Fire
    By ForeverAutumn in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-10-2003, 09:02 AM
  5. I saw Robin Williams last night
    By Troy in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-04-2003, 02:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •