Let's Sabotage Candidates Who Take Oil Money :mad:

[Try2B Comprehensive]

I am not trained enough to retrieve data on candidates' campaign contributions sources. I am fairly confident it can be done though.

So! Let's gather this information of the candidates proposing we vote for them, and let's TRASH the ones who are taking oil company money. Those guys are not going to represent the obvious facts about the world today. They are paid huge sums not to. Face it. Now!

Let's sabotage candidates who take oil money. :mad:

[Bryan Ekers]

Oh, you're serious.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Oh, you're serious.

And...

[Bryan Ekers]

Just that it wasn't obvious on first read-through. I'll bow out now.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Are you suggesting I do the same..

[DanBlather]

Oil is evil, capitalism too, and my mother didn't breast feed me, and <whine>life isn't fair</whine>.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Oil is evil, capitalism too, and my mother didn't breast feed me, and <whine>life isn't fair</whine>.

I'm sorry to hear that, Dan.

I guess the threadshitting means I have to swallow my own bait.

"But Try2B, all the candidates are taking oil company money."
"Ah, so doesn't that make the election a sham? Wouldn't it be simpler to get everyone together in the town square and burn some incense to Zeus in a show of civic fealty? And just keep track of the ones who refuse as clearly not loyal to the State? It would save a lot of time and expense..."
"Oh come now, you're being ridiculous (again). People need to believe that this voting thing makes a difference. You know, like they have some say in their government. Democracy? America? Don't you believe?"
"So you plan to vote Huckabee in '12 then? He is the 'it feels good to believe things' candidate after all."

<crickets>

"Hey, come back!"

[Telemark]

Those guys are not going to represent the obvious facts about the world today. They are paid huge sums not to. Face it. Now!
This is an unsupported accusation. Woefully naive as well.

[E-Sabbath]

As they say around the Texas Legislature, if you can’t drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money, and vote against ‘em anyway, you don’t belong in office.


It doesn't matter where the money comes from. You have to watch the ones who act as if they're bought and paid for.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

This is an unsupported accusation. Woefully naive as well.

My assumption is that companies don't give out money without the expectation of something in return. Is that so wrong?

[Marley23]

Try2B Comprehensive, posters aren't allowed to use the SDMB to recruit others in campaigns. I'll leave this thread open provided the discussion remains centered on the pros and cons and feasibility of what you are suggesting. If it turns into "here's a list of candidate who take oil money, don't vote for them!" I will lock the thread.

[Fear Itself]

My assumption is that companies don't give out money without the expectation of something in return. Is that so wrong?If you can't drink their whisky, take their money, fuck their women, and still vote against them, you don't belong in Congress.

[IdahoMauleMan]

I am not trained enough to retrieve data on candidates' campaign contributions sources. I am fairly confident it can be done though.

So! Let's gather this information of the candidates proposing we vote for them, and let's TRASH the ones who are taking oil company money. Those guys are not going to represent the obvious facts about the world today. They are paid huge sums not to. Face it. Now!

Let's sabotage candidates who take oil money. :mad:

Sounds good to me. Should we start with this one?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

Or does that disrupt the narrative?

[Ravenman]

What does the OP mean, "trash" and "sabotage" these candidates?

Refuse to vote for them? Write screeds on the Internet? Shake one's fist angrily at the newspaper each morning? Commit vandalism and assault?

[Nametag]

As they say around the Texas Legislature, if you can’t drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money, and vote against ‘em anyway, you don’t belong in office.

:twitch: -- Molly Ivins? TEXAS?? I say, pistols at dawn, sir!

Jesse Unruh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_M._Unruh#Famous_quotes)

[gonzomax]

http://www.opensecrets.org/ Here is a list of donors for every senate and house candidate. Have at it.
While your at it get at the ones who watered down the financial bill while taking bank money.

[Frank]

Sounds good to me. Should we start with this one?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

Or does that disrupt the narrative?

I doubt that it disrupts the narrative for the OP; I do not believe he/she is partisan.

But I admit that I am mildly skeptical that Obama is, as a member of a political party generally anti-big power, and after only four years in the Senate and a year and a half as President, the greatest recipient of BP political money of the last twenty years.

Your link cited the Center for Responsive Politics as its source. Googling the source give me a site called opensecrets.org as the Center's online resource. That site indicated that the Energy & Natural Resources industry gave about 60% of their political money to Republicans during the 2008 presidential campaign (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorall.php?cycle=2008). That information indicates to me that I should be mildly skeptical.

[BigT]

If you can't drink their whisky, take their money, fuck their women, and still vote against them, you don't belong in Congress.

But, once you do, they no longer have any reason to try to bribe you again. So you cut off your supply. It is in your best interest to help those who help you. It's just not in the voters' best interest.

And, anyways, the companies now can give you enough campaign money that you can convince the less informed people (i.e. most of them) that doing what the companies want IS in their best interest. I even fell for it last election, because I hate getting involved in something so enraging as politics. (To stay informed, you have to learn about a lot of bad stuff people do.)

[E-Sabbath]

:twitch: -- Molly Ivins? TEXAS?? I say, pistols at dawn, sir!

Jesse Unruh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_M._Unruh#Famous_quotes)

He said it first, but that specific wording is Molly Ivins. And I could find three versions of Unruth and I wasn't sure which was right, so I went for Ivins.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

If you can't drink their whisky, take their money, fuck their women, and still vote against them, you don't belong in Congress.

I think this is a shitty way to treat the public, and I am frankly sick to death of it. It needs to stop.

Sabotage candidates who take oil money! :mad:

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Sounds good to me. Should we start with this one?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

Or does that disrupt the narrative?

Obama isn't a candidate. Come 2012, if he is still taking their money, I want to see that fact on the front page of every paper in the world.

[Telemark]

Sabotage candidates who take oil money! :mad:
We've established that you're mad. What in the world do you mean by "sabotage" in this context?

[Try2B Comprehensive]

What does the OP mean, "trash" and "sabotage" these candidates?

Refuse to vote for them? Write screeds on the Internet? Shake one's fist angrily at the newspaper each morning? Commit vandalism and assault?

I don't mean to imply anything criminal. I am simply not that way.

I suppose the comprehensive approach would to be to make campaign contributions, and especially oil company donations, THE issue. If a candidate is taking oil money, they aren't just lying through their fangs with every despicable word that hisses through their lips. They're.... well, help me out here :) How do we kill these campaigns? I mean, do you really want to be represented by someone in league with the Devil, whose prima facie intention is to sell the public up the river for the sake of oil interests?

[Chessic Sense]

You're a little long on assertion and a little short on support. Why should I vote against a candidate that takes oil money? Perhaps that's a reason I should vote for them. Please show otherwise.

Secondly, if they're not taking oil money, whose money are they taking? Is that better or worse than oil money?

[gonzomax]

Fight them by insisting on public support of election campaigns with a 4 month window. There is over saturation with 3 and 4 year campaigns for president and 2 years for house and senate. Lets get the equal time provision back too.

[Ravenman]

I suppose the comprehensive approach would to be to make campaign contributions, and especially oil company donations, THE issue. If a candidate is taking oil money, they aren't just lying through their fangs with every despicable word that hisses through their lips. They're.... well, help me out here :) How do we kill these campaigns? I mean, do you really want to be represented by someone in league with the Devil, whose prima facie intention is to sell the public up the river for the sake of oil interests?I support public financing of campaigns, but until that day, I see no problem with a candidate taking oil money. It is completely unimportant. How the politician votes while in office is another matter.

If Chevron wants to give money to a candidate who support a carbon offset program, opposes drilling in ANWR and the Gulf, and wants to raise the gas tax to build better public transportation, why should I oppose him for taking Big Oil's money to buy TV ad time to tout his record on those issues?

If Chevron wants to give money to a candidate who wants to drill everywhere, subsidize gasoline, and spill oil from sea to stinky sea, then I'm not going to vote for him anyway.

You have chosen an issue that is all optics and no substance. We should vote on substance, and there's plenty of bigger issues out there than who donated to who: war, jobs, abortion, civil rights, etc.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

If Chevron wants to give money to a candidate who support a carbon offset program, opposes drilling in ANWR and the Gulf, and wants to raise the gas tax to build better public transportation, why should I oppose him for taking Big Oil's money to buy TV ad time to tout his record on those issues?

If Chevron wants to give money to a candidate who wants to drill everywhere, subsidize gasoline, and spill oil from sea to stinky sea, then I'm not going to vote for him anyway.

But you can never know for sure which they are if they take oil money. They could show their true colors any day.
You have chosen an issue that is all optics and no substance. We should vote on substance, and there's plenty of bigger issues out there than who donated to who: war, jobs, abortion, civil rights, etc.


I don't think it is optics. Any company is now allowed to contribute any amount to any political candidate. If you don't think that gives these companies influence over the government, you might be a little nutty. If you haven't noticed any oil-company influence to our detriment from oil companies, well dammit Jim, I'm a blogger not a doctor!

And the other issues you mention, most of them owe something to the oil bonanza of the last 100 years, no?

[Marley23]

But you can never know for sure which they are if they take oil money. They could show their true colors any day.
You could say that about any candidate who takes money from anyone. And you probably should.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

You could say that about any candidate who takes money from anyone. And you probably should.

I'm not opposed. Which group of donors is as pertinent as oil donors? Pottery Barn?

[Marley23]

I'm not opposed. Which group of donors is as pertinent as oil donors? Pottery Barn?
You name it, there's a lobby for it. Every conceivable significant industry and every large corporation has lobbyists, and so do other large groups like unions. Why single out oil and not nuclear energy or banks or lawyers or technology companies or broadcasters or defense contractors or drug companies? I'm not trying to minimize the situation, but you should realize that highlighting just oil companies is myopic.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

You name it, there's a lobby for it. Every conceivable significant industry and every large corporation has lobbyists, and so do other large groups like unions. Why single out oil and not nuclear energy or banks or lawyers or technology companies or broadcasters or defense contractors or drug companies? I'm not trying to minimize the situation, but you should realize that highlighting just oil companies is myopic.

Except for the inexorable global fact of peak oil that is.

[Marley23]

Except for the inexorable global fact of peak oil that is.
Peak oil isn't a fact. And even if you think it is, this does apply to other industries and issues.

[Ravenman]

But you can never know for sure which they are if they take oil money. They could show their true colors any day.Why don't you cough up with the examples of politicians who said they would oppose ANWR when they were campaigning, and then voted for it. Or any other oil-related issue which a candidate did a flip-flop once they were in office. None of this "oh I'm sure there are lots of examples" kind of dodge, I want you to name names.

And the other issues you mention, most of them owe something to the oil bonanza of the last 100 years, no?What the heck are you talking about?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Sounds good to me. Should we start with this one?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

Or does that disrupt the narrative?
Your link cited the Center for Responsive Politics as its source. Googling the source give me a site called opensecrets.org as the Center's online resource. That site indicated that the Energy & Natural Resources industry gave about 60% of their political money to Republicans during the 2008 presidential campaign (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorall.php?cycle=2008). That information indicates to me that I should be mildly skeptical.
The CRP's claim that Obama received more money from BP than any other candidate is actually true, with a caveat: it's only true if you count the donations of individuals employed by BP as well as direct corporate donations.

Since Obama raised more money than any other election candidate in history, you're likely to find he received more donations from virtually any company than anyone else, if you include employees.

Of course, in the absence of any compelling (or even uncompelling) reason to believe BP encouraged its employees to donate to Obama, it's a pretty meaningless statistic.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Peak oil isn't a fact.

:confused:
Death. Taxes. Peak oil. It is a fact of that order. I don't think this is even debatable.

Maybe you mean we are not currently living in a post-peak world? Ok, that is a valid position. But if you mean that this whole peak oil business is 'just a theory' or some such, I hope we can have a polite conversation about why you think so.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

I'm not trying to minimize the situation, but you should realize that highlighting just oil companies is myopic.

:confused:
I don't see how you can say that. The oil companies achieved full success in their attempts to influence our government. Look at the state of the MMS- you can blame the government itself for negligence, but the active intention to subvert the MMS originated from oil interests.

The oil industry has systematically subverted our government with the result being a catastrophe of historic proportions, not to mention a persistent twisting of energy policy away from rational alternatives which leaves us vulnerable to a perhaps comparable (or even worse) catastrophe if this country gets hit unprepared by the worst effects of the peak oil phenomenon (or in the best case an extended addiction to oil). Whatever the intentions of the oil industry, their effect on our nation has been literally worse than that of our arch-enemy, Al Qaeda.

One can accurately say with a perfectly straight face that purging (yes, purging) our government of oil-industry influence is a matter of national security. As Einstein said, "Madness is doing the same thing yet expecting a different result." Why in the world would we stick with the status quo, Marley?

Am I unfairly singling out oil companies? What other industry can compare to the above?

[Really Not All That Bright]

The financial sector? Defense? Agriculture? Mining? Hell, any heavy industry.

[Telemark]

:confused:
I don't see how you can say that. The oil companies achieved full success in their attempts to influence our government.
You keep saying that, but how have they done more or worse than dozens of other industries. You seem willing to lay all the blame at their feet.

Am I unfairly singling out oil companies? What other industry can compare to the above?
Pharma, Auto, Banking, Mining, Health Care, the list goes on.

[Marley23]

:confused:
Death. Taxes. Peak oil. It is a fact of that order. I don't think this is even debatable.
I can see you don't think it's debatable. But I should probably be more specific: some people think civilization is going to collapse after oil demand exceeds supply. That's what I really think is crap. Whether oil production is in a permanent decline or not I don't know. But we've had threads about peak oil before and you've got one now, so if I'm interested in reading more I'll read it. I don't think you're supporting your point that we can't trust politicians who take oil money but we don't need to pay attention to the other industries that are funding them.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

The financial sector?
Paper pushers push a lot of paper. I suppose a mountain of paper falling over is a problem, but it just isn't the same thing.

Defense?
These guys have a real job. They break an awful lot of shit, but at least some of it is ostensibly the bad guys. And they did defeat the Nazis, let's not forget that. They influence the government if you ask me, but at least this can be defended on constitutional grounds. I don't think the founding fathers intended for a bunch of God-damned oil companies to be seizing the reins of national power.
Agriculture?
The damn agriculture lobby has helped mankind grow in population from 300 million to almost 7 billion. Those mother fucking motherfuckers! :mad:
Mining?
I must admit this is a real job. The trouble with mining is mass coal + global warming = everything costs more than coal.
Hell, any heavy industry.
Yah well those are likely also real jobs. Darn. Heavy industry has to figure out how to go green without losing its masculinity.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Pharma
Improving lives for profit. Dastards :mad:
Auto
You fuckers sure want a lot of cars.
Banking
See paper pushers
Health Care
Yup, Real Americans wish they had less of this pesky Health Care :mad:

the list goes on.

I bet.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

some people think civilization is going to collapse after oil demand exceeds supply. That's what I really think is crap.

Well all-righty then, that's a debate point :)

Whether oil production is in a permanent decline or not I don't know. But we've had threads about peak oil before and you've got one now, so if I'm interested in reading more I'll read it. I don't think you're supporting your point that we can't trust politicians who take oil money but we don't need to pay attention to the other industries that are funding them.

Boils down to an excluded middle, please don't force me to hash it out.

Purge Oil Interests From The US Government Now :mad:

[Marley23]

Boils down to an excluded middle, please don't force me to hash it out.
I'm not excluding the middle, I'm accurately describing what you've said. You're dismissing concerns about every other industry with nary a thought so you can focus on oil. For example given the economic crisis of the last couple of years it's shockingly naive to dismiss the financial sector as a bunch of paper pushers.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

Since the word sabotage derives from sabot - the French word for a wooden shoe - we should disrupt the upcoming election with displays of mass clog dancing.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

I'm not excluding the middle, I'm accurately describing what you've said. You're dismissing concerns about every other industry with nary a thought so you can focus on oil. For example given the economic crisis of the last couple of years it's shockingly naive to dismiss the financial sector as a bunch of paper pushers.

I feel like you're twisting my position into an all-or-nothing affair. Yes, the financial industry has behaved like a crowd of swindlers. It is tragic that there exists no white collar justice country. But bad as it is, I don't think the harm of any of the examples listed compares to what the oil industry is doing.

Consider this article on Nigerian oil spills (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell):

One report, compiled by WWF UK, the World Conservation Union and representatives from the Nigerian federal government and the Nigerian Conservation Foundation, calculated in 2006 that up to 1.5m tons of oil – 50 times the pollution unleashed in the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster in Alaska – has been spilled in the delta over the past half century. Last year Amnesty calculated that the equivalent of at least 9m barrels of oil was spilled and accused the oil companies of a human rights outrage.

According to Nigerian federal government figures, there were more than 7,000 spills between 1970 and 2000, and there are 2,000 official major spillages sites, many going back decades, with thousands of smaller ones still waiting to be cleared up.

"Major spills are likely to increase in the coming years as the industry strives to extract oil from increasingly remote and difficult terrains.

This kind of thing is going on all over the world. I'm not soothed by your pooh-poohing. I think it is dangerously naive to soft-pedal the harm being caused by the oil industry, both here and around the world. Societies are being set up for collapse even in the absence of peak oil effects.

[Telemark]

I feel like you're twisting my position into an all-or-nothing affair. Yes, the financial industry has behaved like a crowd of swindlers. It is tragic that there exists no white collar justice country. But bad as it is, I don't think the harm of any of the examples listed compares to what the oil industry is doing.
I'm guessing that the majority of the US would disagree with you. The financial crisis caused more immediate and long term pain. Oil spills are bad, but there are lots of environmental disasters going on in the world. Heck, the coal industry may be responsible for more pollutants than the oil industry, take a look at China.

You are focused on oil to the exclusion of everything else. It's not a proportional response to the problem, and you are dismissing anything anyone raises as trivial. "OMG!!! Look at the oil spill!" There are many problems in the world and the oil industry, while an important one, isn't the most important one nor is it unique in its impact.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Paper pushers push a lot of paper. I suppose a mountain of paper falling over is a problem, but it just isn't the same thing.
Yes, and they also quietly destroy people's retirements, charitable endowments, and, occasionally, the global economy.
These guys have a real job. They break an awful lot of shit, but at least some of it is ostensibly the bad guys. And they did defeat the Nazis, let's not forget that. They influence the government if you ask me, but at least this can be defended on constitutional grounds. I don't think the founding fathers intended for a bunch of God-damned oil companies to be seizing the reins of national power.
Do you think they intended for a bunch of defense contractors to do it? In any case, do you think fighter planes and tanks run on electricity?
The damn agriculture lobby has helped mankind grow in population from 300 million to almost 7 billion. Those mother fucking motherfuckers! :mad:
No, fucking did that. The agricultural lobby pollutes our groundwater, destroys animal habitats, and ensures that farmers receive more subsidies than any other industry. Now who runs the government?
I must admit this is a real job. The trouble with mining is mass coal + global warming = everything costs more than coal.

Yah well those are likely also real jobs. Darn. Heavy industry has to figure out how to go green without losing its masculinity.
What the fuck does "real job" mean?

Your OP and pretty much all your posts in this thread are moronic. There are lots of reasons to dislike the oil industry, but there's no more reason to do so than to dislike any other.

[Marley23]

I feel like you're twisting my position into an all-or-nothing affair.
I'm not twisting your position. I'm responding to your dismissal of the idea that we should even pay attention to the influence of other industries on the government. I get that you think the oil industry is the worst and I won't defend anything it does, but it's just ridiculous to pretend there is no downside to other industries having great influence over the government. That's what you were doing.

In any case all the data you want on company or industry lobbying and campaign donations is online and can be found in many places.

[DanBlather]

This kind of thing is going on all over the world. I'm not soothed by your pooh-poohing. I think it is dangerously naive to soft-pedal the harm being caused by the oil industry, both here and around the world. Societies are being set up for collapse even in the absence of peak oil effects.I am sure that the small villages using kerosene for cooking stoves would be glad to go back to burning dung to cook with. They have long ago cut down all the trees to use as fuel. They can also walk to the market with the food they are going to sell, no nasty trucks or mopeds since they are powered by petroleum. Can't fly medicine there 'cause planes burn jet fuel. I guess diesel powered ships are out too. Is coal OK with you? Or do we need to go back to sailing ships? And why the fuck are you using a computer that has its case made form petroleum and is powered by electricity generated by natural gas or oil?

Grow up.

[DanBlather]

I can see you don't think it's debatable. But I should probably be more specific: some people think civilization is going to collapse after oil demand exceeds supply.With that one sentence you display utter ignorance of economics. There is not a single supply nor a single demand figure, they are curves. Demand goes down as price goes up and supply rises as prices rise. The current demand for oil at cheap prices already "exceeds supply".

Here's an idea: go to school and learn something useful like math, logic, and engineering, and then go make the world a better place. Winging on a message board doesn't help society one bit.

[Marley23]

Grow up.

Here's an idea: go to school and learn something useful like math, logic, and engineering, and then go make the world a better place. Winging on a message board doesn't help society one bit.
Dan Blather, skip the personal comments. They don't belong in this forum.

[Dangerosa]

Yup, Real Americans wish they had less of this pesky Health Care :mad:




Yeah, and Real Americans wish they had less of that pesky gasoline they put in their cars, too.

I used to work for one of the big Health Insurance companies - and I worked really closely with both Government Affairs and the group that used to run statistics on what to pay for, what not to pay for, and who to drop. When supervillians decide to go legit, they choose investment banking or health insurance.

[Marley23]

With that one sentence you display utter ignorance of economics. There is not a single supply nor a single demand figure, they are curves. Demand goes down as price goes up and supply rises as prices rise. The current demand for oil at cheap prices already "exceeds supply".
It's a half-assed description of peak oil and I admit it's a little more half-assed than I intended. I'd rather discuss the issues the OP is raising than engage him on peak oil.

Winging on a message board doesn't help society one bit.
I'm not sure if you meant whining/whingeing (which is not what I was doing) or winging it. But I'm confident my posts are as useless as anybody else's here, neither more nor less. :p

[Try2B Comprehensive]

But we've had threads about peak oil before and you've got one now

No I don't.

Maybe it'll help communicate if I present this in a more artistic context. The point is not to be blown away, or experience a sense of transport (though it is kind of pretty). We're not being conneseiurs of aesthetic experiences; we haven't wandered out of Cafe Society. The point is not the narrative about Mama (the world) or even the notion that the song reacts to events in the Gulf. Petty is clever to portray this character in this way at this time, talking over a vamp that is nigh-autistically repetitive, and the sentiments are too after a while. Which is:

There's something good coming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qBAI0EKvVI)

But what are the reasons? Because 'reasons' are certainly an important part of the piece:

There's something lucky about this place
There has to be
I know it will

Bare assertions. I suppose repeating these things over and over might be comforting, but it really isn't the best way to deal with our state of affairs. Sure, there is something good coming, but the elephant in the room is that there is something Very Bad coming as well.


naive

Nah. I wonder how far you will deny that there are paper-pushers who really don't have real jobs? Here's a link (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5969#more) from an actual peak oil thread:

The amount of debt outstanding in the United States (and many other countries) has grown greatly in recent years. This growth in debt has had a beneficial impact on reported GDP, since GDP calculations reflect expenditures without subtracting out debt related to those expenditures. In fact, the loosening of housing credit in recent years may have been an attempt to cover up the lack of “real growth” after the growth in oil production started slowing about 2004 -2005. An increase in debt would give the illusion of growth, and have some of the same benefits—higher reported GDP, rising home prices, rising stock market prices, and increased ability of homeowners to draw down the rising equity or their homes, to use for yet more purchases.

The problem if debt availability starts decreasing is that we start getting to all kinds of unpleasant results. People are less able to buy houses and cars. Housing values drop and defaults rise. The value of commodities, including oil, drop, because they are less needed for producing houses and cars.

Investment for many kinds of things—not just oil--becomes more difficult, because debt financing is not available. Also, cash flow that might be used for investment is down, because of the price of commodities, and because of the inability of consumers to spend. If oil production and credit both decline, real GDP will tend to drop even more than it would have based on the relationship shown in Figure 10, because an increase in debt helps GDP; a decrease hurts it.


Would you prefer an illusion of growth or some actual growth? Do people who hand out NINJA loans, bundle them with false security ratings while betting against them all the while knowing they'll be bailed out have real jobs?
What is the name of the theory that claims the entire financial sector is composed essentially of superflous middlemen? I don't know if I would take that view to a complete extreme myself, but you gotta admit there is truth in it.

Why single out oil and not nuclear energy or banks or lawyers or technology companies or broadcasters or defense contractors or drug companies? I'm not trying to minimize the situation, but you should realize that highlighting just oil companies is myopic.
A more honest view is that mention of other corporate malfeasance is absent from the OP. Your argument takes the form of, "Why bother going after Jesse James, when Billy the Kidd is as bad or worse?"

And all these bare assertions after a mod warning to lock the thread.Don't pull me over, Mr. Policeman! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esuBPvOL-rc&feature=related) I'm not trying to dissuade you from continuing with your own pet issues.


If Chevron wants to give money to a candidate who support a carbon offset program, opposes drilling in ANWR and the Gulf, and wants to raise the gas tax to build better public transportation, why should I oppose him for taking Big Oil's money to buy TV ad time to tout his record on those issues?

Well, a candidate can talk about whatever they like. I think we need a Spirow Agnew kind of guy to point out the threat convince the American people that they really do want to make a big investment in alternative energy immediately, and that routing the oil industry from politics is a good way to do that. We need to increase our alternative energy capacity for a variety of reasons.

Oil money candidates don't talk about limits of production of oil, or much about our national peak production occurring 40 years ago. They speak stupidly when they talk about energy independence, and only that much every so often. Without clearly publicizing the reasons why ending dependence on 'foreign oil' or oil itself is a good idea, the public is never galvanized by the issue.

If Chevron wants to give money to a candidate who wants to drill everywhere, subsidize gasoline, and spill oil from sea to stinky sea, then I'm not going to vote for him anyway.

They will say they are against that. Then, with the growth of alternative energy effectively retarded, the oil supply will start to drop, prices will explode, and they'll get very rich. And they won't have any choice but to drill all over the place regardless of the consequences, gol' darn it.

Why don't you cough up with the examples of politicians who said they would oppose ANWR when they were campaigning, and then voted for it. Or any other oil-related issue which a candidate did a flip-flop once they were in office. None of this "oh I'm sure there are lots of examples" kind of dodge, I want you to name names.

How about the last 7 or 8 presidents (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future)? Interesting that some stress independence from foreign oil, the implication being that 'drill here, drill now' is the answer. It takes influence from oil money to frame it that way. Were politicians not dependent on oil money we would see more than lip-service leadership.

It is true, I don't mean this to be partisan, but check out this clip about Boehner's latest remarks (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/#38286214). The pubbies are now proposing a one year moratorium on federal regulations, to give private business more 'breathing room'. As for the rest of the agenda? Why, that is being kept under wraps, lest it be subjected to 'scrutiny' by 'the media'. Probably smart, as they realize the public is catching on to the fact that the pubbies represent oil money first, and the public second (if ever).

We don't need more representatives like this. They make the error of presenting oil as the answer (drill here, drill now) when it is declining in both supply and favor. Economic growth does not have to fall with it. A big push for alternative energy now will mean the economy can continue to increase its production and consuption of overall energy, and therefore grow. With other major industries therefore not undermined, we can go on to address issues of corruption.

But it won't actually happen unless we sabotage candidates who take oil money :mad:

[gonzomax]

With that one sentence you display utter ignorance of economics. There is not a single supply nor a single demand figure, they are curves. Demand goes down as price goes up and supply rises as prices rise. The current demand for oil at cheap prices already "exceeds supply".

Here's an idea: go to school and learn something useful like math, logic, and engineering, and then go make the world a better place. Winging on a message board doesn't help society one bit.

Supply rises as price rises? The whole argument is that supplies are lowering due to passing peak. It is not that someone can't buy it if he is willing to pay enough today , but eventually it will not be available to all. Then some people will not get it at any price.

[Marley23]

I wonder how far you will deny that there are paper-pushers who really don't have real jobs?
I won't deny it at all. But I'm not the one who compared them to paper pushers in order to minimize the harm they are capable of causing. You did that.

A more honest view is that mention of other corporate malfeasance is absent from the OP. Your argument takes the form of, "Why bother going after Jesse James, when Billy the Kidd is as bad or worse?"
That looks like a valid question to me. But what I was actually asking is this: if many people are committing the same "crime," why are you focusing on one and ignoring the others?

And all these bare assertions after a mod warning to lock the thread.
I told you I would lock the thread if you broke the rules of the forum by encouraging campaigns against specific politicians. You haven't done that, so I haven't taken any action. And the post you are just now complaining about is eight days old. I did not in any way discourage you from raising these issues. It would be dishonest to suggest that I did.

The quote about "sea to stinky sea" was from Ravenman, by the way, not me.

[Ravenman]

How about the last 7 or 8 presidents (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future)? Interesting that some stress independence from foreign oil, the implication being that 'drill here, drill now' is the answer. It takes influence from oil money to frame it that way. Were politicians not dependent on oil money we would see more than lip-service leadership.Could you provide a citation that isn't a video clip from a comedy show? I can't watch those at work.

But I take it that your argument is, "all presidents promise to end dependency on foreign oil, and we haven't, therefore they are in Big Oil's pocket." The problem with this facile argument is that it ignores the strategy by which various presidents (and presidential candidates) propose to implement that goal. Obama, for example, wants to increase the EPA fuel efficiency requirements, invest more in alternative energy, keep ANWR closed to drilling, etc. I agree with all of that. Whether he succeeds or not isn't a function of him being in Big Oil's pocket, he's advocating the right policies; and sometimes policies don't succeed for practical reasons (e.g., Congress doesn't agree, there isn't enough money in the budget, technology isn't adequate, things change in the world that aren't expected, etc.) Are you saying I'm in Big Oil's pocket because I agree with those policies?

Bush, OTOH, advocated the exact opposite of Obama's prescriptions. But Bush also favored ending dependency on foreign oil. If you can't tell the difference between Bush and Obama on energy policy, then that's nobody's fault but your own, because your political views are blinding you to substantive differences. Just because you want to hand-wave the differences away doesn't mean that you are right.

But it won't actually happen unless we sabotage candidates who take oil money :mad:Again, what do you mean "sabotage?" Why is your call to action based around words that mean violence and lawbreaking?

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Your points seem perfectly rational. Yet, I cannot believe that our political system can function rationally while at the same time remaining fueled by oil money. We need to make oil money a scandalous political blowout, to the end of purging oil money from our politics. The public's representatives must ultimately acknowledge the importance of things besides money (like long-term planning nudge nudge). The oil companies will still reap huge profits, relax, we aren't going to kill them.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Are you saying I'm in Big Oil's pocket because I agree with those policies?


No. Why? Is Big Oil paying you billions of dollars?

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Could you provide a citation that isn't a video clip from a comedy show? I can't watch those at work.


Maybe you can watch 15:30 ~ 17:00 of T Boone Pickens (http://fora.tv/2008/09/22/T_Boone_Pickens_-_Reducing_Oil_Dependence)? I don't end up with his conclusions, but it looks like I use some of the same data.

[Telemark]

Your points seem perfectly rational. Yet, I cannot believe that our political system can function rationally while at the same time remaining fueled by oil money.
There's lots of money in our political system. Are you even sure that oil money is bigger than other contributors?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/industrybucks.htm

They don't even appear to be in the top tier, at least in the presidential elections.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

You're a little long on assertion and a little short on support. Why should I vote against a candidate that takes oil money? Perhaps that's a reason I should vote for them. Please show otherwise.

Secondly, if they're not taking oil money, whose money are they taking? Is that better or worse than oil money?

Well, it's politics and we can't be entirely inflexible, no? For instance, let's say by some strange twist of fate the 2012 presidential election comes down to Rand Paul v Barack Obama. Let's further posit that Paul, strangely, does not take any oil money whatsoever, but only because the oil companies unanimously regard him as a retard and don't want to see him elected. Meanwhile, Obama is still taking a little oil money only because he wants to be nice and not offend anybody. In a case like this we would not want to act like Disney's lemmings and charge over the edge of a cliff because we are so monomaniacal about a particular issue.

If you can show that voting against oil-money candidates sacrifices some yet-higher priority, go for it. K?

But on to your question. Consider the intersection of oil and politics now. In the article The Morning-After Drill- How Obama Made an Oil Disaster More Likely (http://www.tnr.com/article/environment-energy/75945/morning-after-drill), the author discusses how Obama's compromises with oil interests helped set us up for the Deepwater Horizon disaster. You can't read the article without a subscription, but if I may digress for a second to the part you can read:

In the summer of 2008, Democrats had a serious oil problem. Just as the presidential primaries were winding down, gas prices were soaring toward $4 per gallon. Anxious voters were watching their budgets gobbled up by fuel costs, while truck drivers were protesting across the country—at one point circling the Capitol in hornhonking caravans. Republicans were dominating the message war: Newt Gingrich had just launched his “Drill Here, Drill Now” campaign, gathering more than 1.3 million signatures.

Remember that? In hindsight it seems likely that the $4 gas was a result of hitting global peak oil, see this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=570329). The country was starting to revisit some of the effects experienced during the 1973 Oil Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis). Remember that? Consider that crisis quadrupled the price of oil while only removing about 4% of America's supply. Under the effects of peak oil, it is predicted that supply will drop at a rate of 2-6% annually, with nothing anyone can do about it whatsoever on the oil side. What we're facing is a 1973 oil crisis every year, one that cannot be relieved, but rather is refreshed year after year after year, forever.

Candidates who take oil money would just as soon see America caught unprepared by this looming disaster, since there will be such huge personal profits to be made by anyone still successful in the oil business at that time.

Back to the article I was referring to. Consider:
If Democrats embraced drilling, they could take away the GOP's best talking point on energy and force a deal on climate politically.

Yeah, Obama looked at the right and, even realizing we can't drill our way out of our problem, also realized that these people had a huge hard-on for drilling and throwing them a bone might make him seem reasonable and set the stage for a higher goal: Obama's energy and climate legislation.

But look how that worked out:
As a final irony, the drilling push turned out to be of little help in the congressional climate debate. "That's the sad part of the story", says Grumet. "It got very little traction on the climate front." None of the pro-drilling Republican senators whom the administration had hoped to win over changed their minds about voting for a carbon cap. Lindey Graham eventually pulled out of talks, and it's uncertain whether any robust climate measure can pass the Senate this year."

So, Obama compromised for the sake of a higher priority. But these goddamn feckless oil companies can't be bothered to drill our national waters safely, nope, there is no higher priority for these filthy motherfuckers than trimming every cost possible, even to the point of risking- and destroying- entire regions of the fucking planet, Chessic Sense. Have you been paying attention or not?

The oil guys are not going to play by any kind of reasonable rules, no matter how reasonable a guy like Obama is about energy issues. The only recourse is to throw candidates who take oil money the fuck out of our government :mad: The alternative is to allow them to force us to do nothing, and sink into a permanent oil crisis for which we are not prepared in advance, and which has the potential to completely unravel the nation. Hey, that'd make Obama look bad, maybe it'd help pubbies get elected, no?

Sabotage candidates who take oil money :mad:

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Maybe you can watch 15:30 ~ 17:00 of T Boone Pickens (http://fora.tv/2008/09/22/T_Boone_Pickens_-_Reducing_Oil_Dependence)? I don't end up with his conclusions, but it looks like I use some of the same data.

Sorry, start at 14:30.

[Ravenman]

Sort of as an aside, I don't care to watch any videos used as citations, whether I'm at work or not. It is more often that not a huge waste of time, as I believe most people can skim an article and find the most useful points far, far faster than listening to someone talk.

No. Why? Is Big Oil paying you billions of dollars? What I'm asking is if the legitimacy of my opinions depends on whether or not I take money from Big Oil. I'm saying the wisdom of my opinions is not fundamentally altered by ad hominem attacks on where I get my walking-around money.

[gonzomax]

I'm not opposed. Which group of donors is as pertinent as oil donors? Pottery Barn?

The banks who wreaked havoc on the world economy come to mind. They spend billions on campaigns and lobbying. The Healthcare companies are another.

[LonghornDave]

No. Why? Is Big Oil paying you billions of dollars?

Please name one politician that oil companies are paying billions of dollars.

[LonghornDave]

Supply rises as price rises?

Yes.

[gonzomax]

Yes.

The thread is about peak oil . That would mean the overall supply is dropping. If we have less, of something ,price can not cause a greater supply. All economic equations would have to start with a continuing drop in supply.

[LonghornDave]

The thread is about peak oil . That would mean the overall supply is dropping. If we have less, of something ,price can not cause a greater supply. All economic equations would have to start with a continuing drop in supply.

Actually, no, peak oil does not mean that the overall supply is dropping; it means that the rate of production is dropping. When talking about the supply of something like oil, it only makes sense to talk about it in terms of supply that is economically and technologically available. Otherwise, common sense would tell you that every single barrel produced reduces the actual supply (known and unknown, economic and uneconomic, technilogically and nontechnilogically recoverable) by that exact one barrel since we essentially aren't creating any new oil. If we used your definition of peak oil, we would have been at peak oil the day before the first oil well was drilled.

Therefore, for a useful definition of supply (economically and technilogically available), the price of oil rising can create a greater supply.

[Frank]

The thread is about peak oil .
I thought this thread was about finding out how the OP defines "sabatoge", and just how the OP suggests that we commit such "sabotage". Maybe that's just me.

[Duke of Rat]

Well, it's politics and we can't be entirely inflexible, no? For instance, let's say by some strange twist of fate the 2012 presidential election comes down to Rand Paul v Barack Obama. Let's further posit that Paul, strangely, does not take any oil money whatsoever, but only because the oil companies unanimously regard him as a retard and don't want to see him elected. Meanwhile, Obama is still taking a little oil money only because he wants to be nice and not offend anybody. In a case like this we would not want to act like Disney's lemmings and charge over the edge of a cliff because we are so monomaniacal about a particular issue.

If you can show that voting against oil-money candidates sacrifices some yet-higher priority, go for it. K?



What are your thoughts on the recent worldwide financial meltdown?

Bad? Good? No opinion?

The financial sector paper pushers who almost crushed the world economy into the dirt?

Dirty, rotten, capitalist Republicans?

Goldman Sachs is emerging as the firm most responsible for precipitating this meltdown. It has recently been charged with fraud by the SEC in its role in the subprime mortgage free fall. Its officers continued to collect astronomical bonuses even while being bailed out by the government.

The CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, is a Democrat and former Obama supporter.

Goldman Sachs (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/goldman-sachs-obama-money_b_177611.html) was one of the biggest Obama campaign contributors.

Now quit being so naive that about where your favored politicians get their loot. Vote for what they stand for, if it agrees with what you stand for.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

A more honest view is that mention of other corporate malfeasance is absent from the OP. Your argument takes the form of, "Why bother going after Jesse James, when Billy the Kidd is as bad or worse?"


That looks like a valid question to me. But what I was actually asking is this: if many people are committing the same "crime," why are you focusing on one and ignoring the others?


Because it was there.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

What I'm asking is if the legitimacy of my opinions depends on whether or not I take money from Big Oil. I'm saying the wisdom of my opinions is not fundamentally altered by ad hominem attacks on where I get my walking-around money.

Yes, your opinions are rendered worse than moot if you take big money from Big Oil. If you are a rig worker and or etc., you get paid by oil but you work for a living, don't worry about it. But it isn't altered by ad hominem attacks.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

I thought this thread was about finding out how the OP defines "sabatoge", and just how the OP suggests that we commit such "sabotage". Maybe that's just me.

I could tell you what I wouldn't countenance. Don't get in the face of the person. Do not disturb the property, effects, relations or surroundings of the person. It's politics.

I'd rather avoid libel, but would at least look at those cases.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Please name one politician that oil companies are paying billions of dollars.

No, don't confuse individuals with institutions. On an institutional level oil is transferring billions of dollars to the US government. I suppose my actions could have consequences in this sphere; however I am not hostile to the U.S.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

What are your thoughts on the recent worldwide financial meltdown?

Bad? Good? No opinion?

The financial sector paper pushers who almost crushed the world economy into the dirt?

Dirty, rotten, capitalist Republicans?

Goldman Sachs is emerging as the firm most responsible for precipitating this meltdown. It has recently been charged with fraud by the SEC in its role in the subprime mortgage free fall. Its officers continued to collect astronomical bonuses even while being bailed out by the government.

The CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, is a Democrat and former Obama supporter.

Goldman Sachs (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/goldman-sachs-obama-money_b_177611.html) was one of the biggest Obama campaign contributors.

Now quit being so naive that about where your favored politicians get their loot. Vote for what they stand for, if it agrees with what you stand for.

Well, if your point is that we ought to vote Republican and this were a soccer match, to whom ought we kick the ball?

[Telemark]

Well, if your point is that we ought to vote Republican and this were a soccer match, to whom ought we kick the ball?
Except this isn't a soccer match, and you've completely ignored the question (as well as any other critique of your poor logic in this thread).

I posted evidence upthread that shows Oil and Gas interests contributed less campaign money by far than many other industries. The financial industry in particular is seen by most of the population as having done more damage to our society than the blown out well in the Gulf. And yet you continue to ignore that elephant destroying the house and are concentrating instead on the aardvark digging up the lawn.

[Marley23]

Because it was there.
So your answer is "no reason at all." Okay. Anyhow I was not really saying that we should go after Billy the Kid instead of Jesse James. I do think it's rational to focus on the one that is doing the most damage if you can only go after one of them. But we don't have to do that. If you can scrutinize everybody it doesn't make sense to focus on just one industry to the exclusion of all others, which is what you were suggesting for most of the thread.

[LonghornDave]

No, don't confuse individuals with institutions. On an institutional level oil is transferring billions of dollars to the US government. I suppose my actions could have consequences in this sphere; however I am not hostile to the U.S.

Sure, if you count taxes and royalties then the oil companies are transferring billions of dollars to the U.S. government. There is no other way that you will get to billions of dollars being transferred because they certainly aren't donating billions of dollars. Are you seriously saying that you want to stop the IRS and Department of Interior from collecting money from the oil companies?

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Sure, if you count taxes and royalties then the oil companies are transferring billions of dollars to the U.S. government. There is no other way that you will get to billions of dollars being transferred because they certainly aren't donating billions of dollars. Are you seriously saying that you want to stop the IRS and Department of Interior from collecting money from the oil companies?

I am talking about candidates and political campaigns. The government may want to consider increasing its taxes and fees on oil and gasoline. It will make fuel more expensive, but face it, that makes sense anyway.

[Telemark]

It will make fuel more expensive, but face it, that makes sense anyway.
You still haven't made your case that oil/gas is worse than other industries.

[LonghornDave]

I am talking about candidates and political campaigns. The government may want to consider increasing its taxes and fees on oil and gasoline. It will make fuel more expensive, but face it, that makes sense anyway.

Look, if you are talking about candidates and political campaigns then you are simply way off on your numbers. There is no where close to billions of dollars being donated by oil companies to candidates. That was the simple point I was making. Disregarding all of the other things I think you are off base on in this thread, I was simply trying to correct you on an easy one: the magnitude of dollars that we are talking about. I was making an indirect joke when I asked if you were proposing to stop collecting taxes and royalties because that is the only way we would get to the dollar amounts you were saying. Just dial it back and say millions instead of billions. I mean seriously, as shown in a prior post, Obama was the top beneficiary of BP donations over the past 20 years and it was only $77,051.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

I was simply trying to correct you on an easy one: the magnitude of dollars that we are talking about.

Let's correct each other on the magnitude of dollars. I am talking about a constriction to 10m bbl per day US consumption as an aggressive goal. Some paper pushers are going to be very upset about that, and that is just too bad. Sorry :(

[Try2B Comprehensive]

But I admit that I am mildly skeptical that Obama is, as a member of a political party generally anti-big power, and after only four years in the Senate and a year and a half as President, the greatest recipient of BP political money of the last twenty years.

From the latest Harper's Index:
Total campaign contributions Barack Obama received from BP between 2004 and 2009: $77,051
Number of politicians who accepted more in donations from BP during that period: 0

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Could you provide a citation that isn't a video clip from a comedy show? I can't watch those at work.




I can totally dig it. Here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html) is a partial response to your request, hopefully time will allow a more comprehensive answer in the coming days.

The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce.

The world has not prepared for the future. During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind's previous history.

World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.

cannot change the fact that we are running out of petroleum.

we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

[Ravenman]

Thanks for the text citation. What it shows me is that Jimmy Carter was really, really, really wrong about how much oil there is in the world. He basically declared peak oil in 1977, and that supplies would run out by 1990. Well, here we are.

Now, back to the larger point. Carter called for alternative energy projects. They didn't succeed. Are you saying Jimmy Carter was/is in the pocket of Big Oil?

Sorry, but that is just laughable.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Thanks for the text citation. What it shows me is that Jimmy Carter was really, really, really wrong about how much oil there is in the world. He basically declared peak oil in 1977, and that supplies would run out by 1990. Well, here we are.

Now, back to the larger point. Carter called for alternative energy projects. They didn't succeed. Are you saying Jimmy Carter was/is in the pocket of Big Oil?

Sorry, but that is just laughable.

Sure, Carter was very wrong about the amount of oil in the world. He seems not to have accounted for new discoveries (which have been in decline for decades) or something. Still, at current global consumption rates it appears inevitable that production will hit a ceiling, and that we may already be there.

The projects didn't succeed for lots of reasons. Some of the ideas were backwards or being newly developed. Congress certainly wasn't a big fan of the plan, and who are we talking about taking oil money? Congressional candidates among others.

We have a variety of viable technologies available now that were not 40 years ago. Making them work is the smartest mid-long range planning we can do. Oil isn't getting any cheaper or more plentiful. We very much want to avoid a 'fuel gap', where the supply simply can't meet the demand.

[Really Not All That Bright]

But I admit that I am mildly skeptical that Obama is, as a member of a political party generally anti-big power, and after only four years in the Senate and a year and a half as President, the greatest recipient of BP political money of the last twenty years.

From the latest Harper's Index:
Total campaign contributions Barack Obama received from BP between 2004 and 2009: $77,051
Number of politicians who accepted more in donations from BP during that period: 0
This has been debunked (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005240042) about a hundred times here already. Obama's "BP" campaign contributions came wholly from individual BP employees, not from BP or the various PACs it supports.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

But I admit that I am mildly skeptical that Obama is, as a member of a political party generally anti-big power, and after only four years in the Senate and a year and a half as President, the greatest recipient of BP political money of the last twenty years.

From the latest Harper's Index:
Total campaign contributions Barack Obama received from BP between 2004 and 2009: $77,051
Number of politicians who accepted more in donations from BP during that period: 0
This has been debunked (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005240042) about a hundred times here already. Obama's "BP" campaign contributions came wholly from individual BP employees, not from BP or the various PACs it supports.

We'll see if it slides off other candidates so easily :mad:

[Really Not All That Bright]

Um... I'm sorry that reality didn't fit your narrative?

[Captain Amazing]

This has been debunked (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005240042) about a hundred times here already. Obama's "BP" campaign contributions came wholly from individual BP employees, not from BP or the various PACs it supports.

They'd have to, though. Obama didn't take PAC money and it is illegal for companies to just give candidates money. So when you say "company X gave candidate y money", that means "company x's employees gave candidate y money."

[Marley23]

Obama didn't take PAC money and it is illegal for companies to just give candidates money. So when you say "company X gave candidate y money", that means "company x's employees gave candidate y money."
Corporations can give money to PACs, though. Saying the company gave money to a candidate and that its employees gave money to a candidate are not necessarily the same thing, and in this case, they're not the same.

[Really Not All That Bright]

This has been debunked (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005240042) about a hundred times here already. Obama's "BP" campaign contributions came wholly from individual BP employees, not from BP or the various PACs it supports.

They'd have to, though. Obama didn't take PAC money and it is illegal for companies to just give candidates money. So when you say "company X gave candidate y money", that means "company x's employees gave candidate y money."
Except that other candidates do accept PAC money, so unless you are claiming that BP quietly ordered its employees to give early and often to Obama, the idea that Obama was the beneficiary of BP's largesse and therefore beholden to BP is ludicrous.

Of course, if you are claiming that BP quietly ordered its employees to give to Obama, that is also ludicrous.

[Captain Amazing]

Of course, if you are claiming that BP quietly ordered its employees to give to Obama, that is also ludicrous.

I'm not claiming they did. I have no idea. It's not ludicrous, though. I'm sure you've heard of bundling.

[LonghornDave]

Let's correct each other on the magnitude of dollars. I am talking about a constriction to 10m bbl per day US consumption as an aggressive goal. Some paper pushers are going to be very upset about that, and that is just too bad. Sorry :(

Exactly what are you correcting me on? You specifically said you were talking about billions of dollars to candidates and political campaigns. I can correct you because you are saying something incorrect here. There are not billions of dollars going to candidates and political campaigns. If you want to correct me on something incorrect I have said, go for it. It would be nice if you actually pointed out what that was instead of making some sort of non-sequiter statement.

Further, it's not going to be random paper pushers who would be upset about reducing the oil consumption to 10 mmbbl/d. It's probably going to be the tens of millions of people who would no longer be able to afford to drive a car or fly in an airplane since the only way you are going to reduce consumption by that amount is to simply tax the shit out of it.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Of course, if you are claiming that BP quietly ordered its employees to give to Obama, that is also ludicrous.
I'm not claiming they did. I have no idea. It's not ludicrous, though. I'm sure you've heard of bundling.
Even Rush Limbaugh hasn't had the temerity to suggest BP illegally bundled contributions to Obama.

[gonzomax]

But I admit that I am mildly skeptical that Obama is, as a member of a political party generally anti-big power, and after only four years in the Senate and a year and a half as President, the greatest recipient of BP political money of the last twenty years.

From the latest Harper's Index:
Total campaign contributions Barack Obama received from BP between 2004 and 2009: $77,051
Number of politicians who accepted more in donations from BP during that period: 0

That is not enough to buy him. So it is a meaningless statistic.
It is not just through campaign contributions ,but huge lobbying power that big business get an advantage. They also have personal access to the politicians. I don't play at the same golf course as oil execs and politicians do. i don't get invited to the parties they all go to. We don't vacation together. Those that do have a far greater input than we .

[Captain Amazing]

Even Rush Limbaugh hasn't had the temerity to suggest BP illegally bundled contributions to Obama.

Bundling isn't illegal. It's not even disclosable under a lot of circumstances. And a lot of bundling went on in 2008, to all the major candidates. Here's a list of reportable Obama bundlers:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00009638

[Try2B Comprehensive]

I have done a terrible job staying on top of this thread. I still want to respond to comments from last week :rolleyes:

Um... I'm sorry that reality didn't fit your narrative?

I think I have been accused of this on both sides of the issue now. This isn't about Obama. Let's look at the facts on current candidates. Let's suggest that the ones taking a lot of oil money may have a conflict of constituencies. There is the public constituency, the citizens who get to vote for free no matter what, yada yada. And then there is the constituency of oil companies and their money. Sometimes a candidate gets themselves into a political situation, no? Sometimes they position themselves such that they are torn between which constituency to serve. I don't think we can let this kind of thing continue to influence energy policy.

:mad:

[Really Not All That Bright]

So, we should have publicly funded elections? I'm all for that.

[Sam Stone]

The biggest lobbyists and influencers in Washington are the financial industry and labor unions. if you are worried about corrupting influences in Washington, you should start there.

[elucidator]

I can certainly see how the finance industry has made its needs known, and seen those needs responded to by our Congressional swine herd. Having a bit of trouble seeing the iron fist of Big Labor bending Congress to its will. Perhaps you will point out these massive victories?

[Really Not All That Bright]

The biggest lobbyists and influencers in Washington are the financial industry and labor unions. if you are worried about corrupting influences in Washington, you should start there.
The biggest lobbyists and influencers in Washington are industry, period. The US Chamber of Commerce outspends the next three largest lobbying groups combined, none of which is a union.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

.

And the other issues you mention, most of them owe something to the oil bonanza of the last 100 years, no?What the heck are you talking about?

The Oil Bonanza of the Last 100 Years.

1910-2010.

Oil was forever obtainable in increasing supplies. Suddenly, the increase was cut off.

Oil was available only in constant supplies.

Then, later, as predicted, oil will be available only in decreasing supplies.

[Ravenman]

My point is that oil has little to nothing to do with abortion, civil rights, the current employment problem, and most other big issues out there.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

My point is that oil has little to nothing to do with abortion, civil rights, the current employment problem, and most other big issues out there.

Yah sure... except for the continuation of civilization as we know it. :rolleyes: Other than that, no prob.