Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
I saw the video as well a little eery. I dont have time to go through the whole thing to verify the items. One issue I had with it was the oil industry stuff. I believe we export more than we import still? I may be wrong Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Oh Jesus you're not serious are you? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
curious what you disagree with?
yesterday there was a "death of capitalism" march in boston, occupy riots in nyc, oakland and sf - all of their angst is fueled by what this video is targeting.
Let me put it this way for those of you who still can't (or refuse to) understand...
The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.
And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.
And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!
Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.
So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.
We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.
Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?
The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.
The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 231 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.
No, they are not my own words, I echo these thoughts though...it was sent to me and I thought it would fit in a couple threads here nicely so I posted it. sorry if I mislead anyone
Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.
.
That's liberalism in a nutshell.
There are 2 facts here, and only 2, that matter.
(1) when you consider Social Security and Medicare, we are in teh red to the tune of at least $50 trillion.
(2) No matter how you do the math, we can never generate anywhere near that much additional tax revenue in the timeframe needed. Taxes won't put a dent in that.
When you consider those 2 facts, you do one of 2 things. You either...
(1) start making deep, menaingful, necessary cuts to right the ship, or
(2) you do nothing, and leave a huge mess in the laps of your children.
Liberals not only choose path (2) here, they attack the character of those who support path (1).
I don't want to hear Obama tell me why Paul Ryan is mean. I want to hear Obama (or any liberal here tell me why Paul Ryan is wrong.
Zimmy, Spence, Pauls, Likwid, please...tell me how we raise $50 trillion in the next 75 years, without deep spending cuts.
Obama has been in office 3 years, and has done exactly nothing to curtail entitlement spending.
The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.
.
Politicians know human nature and the great human desire to get something for nothing.
Except for the air we breathe, there is little that is free.
They also play on the fact that people forget so quickly. In this information age, and
it's mega information, the average person can't keep up let alone remember what
happened 2 yrs ago.
Spence - what was the problem with it? Overly propagandist? Yeh probably. Or is your issue with it that it is inspired by what Paul Harvey said several times over his career (close but not actually what he said - there is embellishment)
I don't think there is some vast left wing conspiracy generating a fifth column led by the spirit of Che trying to bring down the US. But I do think some elements of it are true.
I do think the way our country is trending that we are getting worse and not for the better - that if we keep spending and borrowing the way we are we will loose our opportunity to fix it. We are giving this nightmare to our kids - your kids and mine. This is not acceptable.
Spence - what was the problem with it? Overly propagandist? Yeh probably.
Overly propagandist...ya think just a bit?
All the video does it take some generic frustrations and amplify them with hyperbole forming a toxic demagoguery cocktail. Yes, there's a little truth to it...but very little.
All the video does it take some generic frustrations and amplify them with hyperbole forming a toxic demagoguery cocktail. Yes, there's a little truth to it...but very little.
-spence
- So forgetting the whole Satan thing for a minute what did you have a problem with? Can you break down what was true and not true (forget about what was washed in hyperbole)
We haven't cut off the supply of cheap energy, nobody is trying to make people feel guilty about using energy to heat their homes, we don't "make cheap energy expensive" and bureaucrats haven't outlawed our most abundant sources of energy. It's all bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
Oil production is up despite diminished reserves. Exports of refined petroleum products like gasoline are at all time highs. Natural gas production domestically is through the roof and we pay a fraction of the EU.
The scientific position on global climate change is backed by a strong majority of the worlds scientists. Teaching this to kids isn't wrong...
The USA is the top lumber producing country in the world. Our total agricultural output has never been higher. Mining output continues to rise...
I'm sorry if people want the rich to pay more, but unfortunately that's where all the wealth is being consolidated.
The US has issued more patents in the past two years than ever before and the rate over the past decade is twice that of even the 1980's. Manufacturing innovation is moving faster than ever before (and yes this is my job).
I can't tell you how many times I've heard even MSNBC explain the cost of gas in simple market driven terms.
Carbon credits are are a market driven approach to controlling emissions. They're no more a "made up product" as the entire insurance and investment banking industries.
Spotted owls...are you #^&#^&#^&#^&ing serious?
Let's make another video where mining effluents poison entire ecosystems, banks destroy the family farmer, corporate interests shutter factories in favor of cheap overseas labor evaporating the middle class, where a military industrial complex sucks down tax dollars through a beer bong while cutting social services and a financial industry left to rig the system nearly destroys our economy while raking in billions of profit during the process.
Spence, oil production is up on PRIVATE LANDS, which Obama has no control over. Obama controls oil production of federal lands. And on federal lands, oil production is not up significantly on his watch.
You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.
"about 96 percent of the increase [in oil production] since 2007 took place on non-federal lands.".
So.. it increased 4% on federal lands then?
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
No. I'm saying that 4% of the increase came on federal lands. That's not the same thing as saying that it increased by 4% on federal lands.
The fact that oil production is up a bit on federal lands is not proof that Obama is pro-oil. If oil production is up 5%, but the oil companies say it could be up by 500% if Obama would let them drill, that doesn't paint a pro-oil picture to me.
Frame it however you want. The fact is, liberals are less apt to allow drilling on federal lands than conservatives. If Obama increases production, but that increase is a small fraction of what it could have been, that's worth mentioning.
Just because production is up a bit on federal lands, doesn't mean that pro-drilling folks have nothing to complain about. The relevent statistic isn't how much production increased. What matters is, how much un-tapped wealth are we sitting on for the sake of ideology?
Spence, oil production is up on PRIVATE LANDS, which Obama has no control over. Obama controls oil production of federal lands. And on federal lands, oil production is not up significantly on his watch.
You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.
"about 96 percent of the increase [in oil production] since 2007 took place on non-federal lands."
Liberals are trying to put forth a myth that Obama is a friend to big oil. It's a myth.
Obama claiming any credit for the increase in production, is a classic case of the rooster taking credit for the sunrise.
You're missing the point.
The video wants to claim energy exploration and production are being suppressed which clearly isn't the case. Quite the contrary in fact our manufacturing output is going to be driven by cheap natural gas for the next several decades.
The video wants to claim energy exploration and production are being suppressed which clearly isn't the case. Quite the contrary in fact our manufacturing output is going to be driven by cheap natural gas for the next several decades.
-spence
"The video wants to claim energy exploration and production are being suppressed which clearly isn't the case"
Spence, just because production is up a bit (or even a lot), doesn't mean it's not being suppressed. If Obama is preventing the oil companies from doing what they would like to do (which is irrefutably the case), he is suppressing production.
Spence, you said that clearly Obama isn't suppressing production? That necessarily means that Obama isn't stopping the oil companies from doing a single thing they'd like to do. That's what zero suppression means. You're saying that's the case? Obama has never said "no" to oil production? That's your claim?
If he has ever said no, then he is suppressing production.
Suppression isn't measured by how much oil production increased over last year. Suppression is measured by the barrels of oil that don't get produced because Obama rejected the permits. That's what suppression means.
Try making that wrong.
Last edited by Jim in CT; 05-10-2012 at 09:44 AM..
"The video wants to claim energy exploration and production are being suppressed which clearly isn't the case"
Spence, just because production is up a bit (or even a lot), doesn't mean it's not being suppressed. If Obama is preventing the oil companies from doing what they would like to do (which is irrefutably the case), he is suppressing production.
Spence, you said that clearly Obama isn't suppressing production? That necessarily means that Obama isn't stopping the oil companies from doing a single thing they'd like to do. That's what zero suppression means. You're saying that's the case? Obama has never said "no" to oil production? That's your claim?
If he has ever said no, then he is suppressing production.
Suppression isn't measured by how much oil production increased over last year. Suppression is measured by the barrels of oil that don't get produced because Obama rejected the permits. That's what suppression means.
Try making that wrong.
I don't have to make it wrong, it's inherently wrong for the same reason the video is bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
There has to be some regulation otherwise we'll see rampant corruption and environmental damage. This is proven by history and supported by a majority of the people.
The question is if the regulation is so burdensome that it slows the progress of the economy. The video doesn't prove that point at all, it simply throws out haunting circular arguments that are easily refuted.
The video omits his following statement "The problem is can you get the American people to say this is really important,".
So the context is there's a tradeoff. Higher prices and in return better quality of life.
The Brayton Point Power Plant by Fall River has been the largest single source of pollution in New England for years. Regulations have forced the owners to invest a billion dollars to mitigate mercury, CO2, NO, sulfur and hot water emissions. This will certainly put pressure on Dominion to ask state regulators to permit rate increases to compensate.
What people fail to recognize is that up until this point the surrounding communities have been subsidizing the plant with their health and quality of life.
Perhaps now that the cooling towers are up we'll see fluke return to Mount Hope Bay.
I don't have to make it wrong, it's inherently wrong for the same reason the video is bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
There has to be some regulation otherwise we'll see rampant corruption and environmental damage. This is proven by history and supported by a majority of the people.
The question is if the regulation is so burdensome that it slows the progress of the economy. The video doesn't prove that point at all, it simply throws out haunting circular arguments that are easily refuted.
-spence
I didn't say I want zero regulation.
What I'm saying is this...prooduction would be higher (at least in the future if not already) if McCain won in 2008, because he would not have rejected as many permits. And McCain didn't propose to eliminate regulation, he would just have less regulation than Obama. Same with Romney.
Spence, if you're claiming that oil production isn't lower under Obama than it will be if Romney wins, that's absurd. Is that what you're saying?
I'm not sure if the suppression is burdensome to the point that it's hurting the economy (although in my opinion, that's probably the case). But that's not what you said. You said that Obama is clearly not suppressing oil production. That's what you said, and it's false.
What I'm saying is this...prooduction would be higher (at least in the future if not already) if McCain won in 2008, because he would not have rejected as many permits. And McCain didn't propose to eliminate regulation, he would just have less regulation than Obama. Same with Romney.
Spence, if you're claiming that oil production isn't lower under Obama than it will be if Romney wins, that's absurd. Is that what you're saying?
I'm not sure if the suppression is burdensome to the point that it's hurting the economy (although in my opinion, that's probably the case). But that's not what you said. You said that Obama is clearly not suppressing oil production. That's what you said, and it's false.
This is exactly what's wrong with the argument, you're peseverating on issues or scenarios that are largely irrelevant.
Odds are that oil production under McCain/Obama/Romney scenarios aren't going to be all that different. Yes, Obama has slowed Gulf permitting but McCain would have had to deal with the Gulf spill just like Obama did.
The reality is that oil demand in the US is way down and as a result we're exporting refined fuels.
The reality is that domestic natural gas production is way up and it's attractive price is a boon for manufacturing.
Back to the video...ideologically driven regulation is supposed to be causing energy costs to skyrocket and killing our economy...
- So forgetting the whole Satan thing for a minute what did you have a problem with? Can you break down what was true and not true (forget about what was washed in hyperbole)
Linear Mode
