Improving lives for profit. Dastards :mad:
You fuckers sure want a lot of cars.
See paper pushers
Yup, Real Americans wish they had less of this pesky Health Care :mad:
I bet.
Well all-righty then, that’s a debate point 
Boils down to an excluded middle, please don’t force me to hash it out.
Purge Oil Interests From The US Government Now :mad:
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.
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.
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:
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’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.
Yes, and they also quietly destroy people’s retirements, charitable endowments, and, occasionally, the global economy.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dan Blather, skip the personal comments. They don’t belong in this forum.
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.
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.
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. 
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:
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.
Nah. I wonder how far you will deny that there are paper-pushers who really don’t have real jobs? Here’s a link from an actual peak oil thread:
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.
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! I’m not trying to dissuade you from continuing with your own pet issues.
Well, a candidate can talk about whatever they like. I think we need a Spirow Agnew kind of guy to [del]point out the threat[/del] 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.
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.
How about the last 7 or 8 presidents? 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. 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:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Again, what do you mean “sabotage?” Why is your call to action based around words that mean violence and lawbreaking?
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.
No. Why? Is Big Oil paying you billions of dollars?
Maybe you can watch 15:30 ~ 17:00 of T Boone Pickens? I don’t end up with his conclusions, but it looks like I use some of the same data.