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.

[Bryan Ekers]

Oh, you're serious.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

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]

Originally Posted by DanBlather

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]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

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]

Originally Posted by Molly Ivins

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]

Originally Posted by Telemark

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]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

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

Jesse Unruh

[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]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

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. That information indicates to me that I should be mildly skeptical.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

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]

Originally Posted by Nametag

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

Jesse Unruh

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]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

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!

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

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]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Sabotage candidates who take oil money!

We've established that you're mad. What in the world do you mean by "sabotage" in this context?

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

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]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

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]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

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]

Originally Posted by Marley23

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]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

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]

Originally Posted by Marley23

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]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

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]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

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]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

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?

Originally Posted by Frank

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Peak oil isn't a fact.

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]

Originally Posted by Marley23

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

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]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

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]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

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]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

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!

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]

Originally Posted by Telemark

Pharma

Improving lives for profit. Dastards

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

the list goes on.

I bet.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by Marley23

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

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

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]

Originally Posted by Marley23

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:

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]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

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]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

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!

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]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

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]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

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]

Originally Posted by Marley23

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.