Thanks to the Left Wing for High Gas Prices in America!

[amicus]

Thanks to the Left Wing for High Gas Prices in America!

Left wing ideology, anti business, anti development, anti exploration has driven oil companies to look elsewhere to find resources to supply the demand for gasoline, diesel and natural gas.

Not just ANWAR, but offshore in the Atlantic and Pacific coastal waters of the United States, left minded ecologists have prevented exploration and drilling for petroleum products.

No new oil wells or refineries are economically possible within the United States, thanks to the Liberals.

No new nuclear power plants have been built in 30 plus years, thanks to the liberal left wing lobbies.

Not that it is relative, but no ‘manned’ space flights to the moon in 30 years, mainly because of liberal imperatives to spend money on social programs instead of the exploration of space, being the root cause.

Liberal dreamers ‘believe’ that solar power, a tiny percentage, will solve the increasing energy demands it won’t, it can’t. The same with hydro thermal or hydrogen cells, or wind power, it just ain’t gonna happen.

Nor will ethane or methane meet the demands in the near future.

And the Liberals will not permit any new hydro electric dams to be built for ‘ecological’ reasons of course, as bugs are always more important than humans.

The energy crisis that is about to befall the USA, lies squarely in the hands of the Democrats, the liberal left wing of politics that has suppressed industrial progress in the nation.

I hope others besides myself will make note of this.

There is a current drive to make major oil companies bear the criticism of high prices. They have been forced to participate in the world market for petroleum because we do not produce enough in the continental US to supply the demand, but bid openly on the world market, along with Europe, India, China and Japan. It is an intolerable situation, destined only to worsen as time goes by.

This is not just a polemic diatribe, but a true crisis approaching because of a generation long dominance by an enervating political philosophy.

Someone needs to say it.

Amicus….

 

[neonlyte]

What car do you drive, just out of interest.

 

[impressive]

Liberal dreamers ‘believe’ that solar power, a tiny percentage, will solve the increasing energy demands it won’t, it can’t. The same with hydro thermal or hydrogen cells, or wind power, it just ain’t gonna happen.

WILL solve? Perhaps not with the mega-companies going all out to ensure we continue to rely on petroleum- and other fossil-based fuels.

CAN solve? Absolutely -- if those praying to the corporate gods would get their collective heads out of their asses and make it a priority.

It's hard to make billions on sun and wind, after all.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=neonlyte]What car do you drive, just out of interest.[/QUOTE]

~~~~~~~

What a chickenshit backdoor way to offer a disagreement.

The last car I drove was a little Japanese made four cylinder sports car that got 33 mpg overall, 37 on the highway.

I suppose you ride a tricycle?


amicus...

 

[amicus]

impressive]WILL solve? Perhaps not with the mega-companies going all out to ensure we continue to rely on petroleum- and other fossil-based fuels.

CAN solve? Absolutely -- if those praying to the corporate gods would get their collective heads out of their asses and make it a priority.

It's hard to make billions on sun and wind, after all.

[/I]

~~~~~~~~

Christ, Impressive, you display an alarming lack of understanding about the market place or corporate imperatives.

If any of the alternative fuel resources were even the least bit financially viable, those 'corporate megacompanies' despise would be all over it.

Ah, but then, as a socialist, you want it all for free, yeah, sure.

 

[neonlyte]

What a chickenshit backdoor way to offer a disagreement.

The last car I drove was a little Japanese made four cylinder sports car that got 33 mpg overall, 37 on the highway.

I suppose you ride a tricycle?


amicus...

Just trying to establish credentials before replying Though I've commented on this topic substantially in the time I've been a member. Pleased to see the Right Wing has finally noticed there is an energy crisis looming.

Cars: 24 year old Volvo and 20 year old Honda Civic, in seperate countries hence the need for two, though the Honda has been stolen and is probably beyond repair. And a bike.

 

[oggbashan]

If US consumers paid the prices for gas that are paid in Europe, alternative fuels would be economically viable.

Off to my local Fish and Chip shop to buy used cooking oil to convert to biodiesel - just joking. All our Fish and Chip shops have contracts with our local farmers. The tractors smell like fried cod.

Og

 

[amicus]

"Establish credentials?"

Could I not in my wealth and luxury, drive a 12 mpg Humvee and still feel as I do?

I don't follow your logic.

amicus...

 

[neonlyte]

"Establish credentials?"

Could I not in my wealth and luxury, drive a 12 mpg Humvee and still feel as I do?

I don't follow your logic.

amicus...

Yes, though it might be environmentally sound to trade it in.

As for logic... well we are probably evenly matched on seperate sides of an ideological divide. I'll meet you half way.

I actually have no problem with rising gas prices, other than their impact on the economic underclass - and I'm familiar with all your arguements about how they need to get off their backsides, so lets not go there. The problem with gas prices is a world wide problem, there is no way even ecologically sensitive reserves can be brought on stream quickly enough to meet the demand of expanding nations. Hiking prices makes marginal reserves exploitable, buys a little bit of time to consider options and strategies, the UK is, for example, considering re-starting its nuclear programme - wrongly in my opinion - we should be investing in wind generation. It is the oil companies who need to shift their arses now they are reaping windfall profits and invest in alternatives.

 

[Liar]

A few points, both in favor of and against Ami's outburst.

1. You don't have high gas prices in America.

2. And this I've been arguing on the local Swedish politic arena too: Shutting down and/or preventing expansion of nuclear power in modern countries w modern technology is royally stupid. We're not Chernobyl, which was run to the ground, underfunded and lacking in security and surveillance. (Pretty much like Ignalina is now in Estonia, and that's some three times bigger than Chernobyl. What we need to do is help them with their security. Cause if that thing goes boom..I'm moving to Australia.) And Three Mile Island won't happen again on western soil. The only threat a nuclear power plant consist of is as a potentional terrorist target. And hey, there are so many potentional other terrorist targets that that doesn't really matter. Due to the politic climate, serious reseach into nuclear technology development, has stalled in Sweden due to cut funding. Which is royally stupid in itself, since we do have nuclear waste to find a way to deal with. And without continous basic research on the subject, we'll never find more than a temporary solution.

3. Not that I have followed the guy all that close, but from news reports from both left and right tilted media, I get the impression that Bush is one of those that time and again have indicated that he puts a whole lot of faith in them pesky alternative renewable energy sources. Liberal? Not much. Dreamer? You be the judge.

4. Just a general observation: Amicus seems eager to blame anything bad under the sun on the Evil Liberals. Considering the fact that the adminisrtration has been right wing for 18 (or 17, not sure I counted right) of the last 25 years... is it that hard to enforce anything than Liberal Dreamersä ideology in US politics? Or could it be that even the right wing are more Liberal left than amicus on this issue?

 

[amicus]

oggbashan]If US consumers paid the prices for gas that are paid in Europe, alternative fuels would be economically viable.

Off to my local Fish and Chip shop to buy used cooking oil to convert to biodiesel - just joking. All our Fish and Chip shops have contracts with our local farmers. The tractors smell like fried cod.

Og

[/I]

~~~~~

Thanks Ogg, but the high price of Brit Petrol is taxation and I think you know that.

I am not unaware that petroleum resources pollute and that they will one day become scarce, not at all.

Nor am I unappreciate of countries such as Brazil, that have converted to renewable sources of energy. Unfortunately, those are government financed and supported and are not viable in the market place without a totalitarian form of government.

The idiocy of the left wing, in America, may indeed bring about such an energy crisis as to hurry the development of alternative fuels, but with a great deal of unnecessary pain and suffering.

Had corporate America been permitted to develope the resources we do have, they would have seen the future as business functions on a long term basis and damn well intends to remain profitable.

But left wing, ecologically driven politics has driven research into 'politically correct', directions, which may or may not be economically viable.

To my socialist oriented friends everywhere, who think a 'public service' does not have to turn a 'profit' to continue to function, as you can always raise taxes, the concept of a 'viable' energy consortium in an alien thought.

Strangely enough, it is the spread of 'capitalism' free market enterprise, in China and India, that has brought about the current crisis and high demand for petroleum products.

'No growth' Europe, is rather in the backwaters of the economic growth of the rest of the world and is just fighting to hang on to oil imports from the middle east and sucking hind tit, in the bidding wars.

Although, (even though some think so) I was not around to see the demise of horse drawn buggies be replaced by the gasoline powered automobile, I will most likely not be around to witness whatever fuel replaces petroleum products either. But I do know that it will happen, sooner or later.

It is the transition, from one to the other, that has always been and most likely always will be, difficult and painful.

A lot of carriage makers and harness makers and horse breeders, went into bankruptcy when the automobile took center stage.

Just as typewriter manufacturers went tits up when the computer keyboard went online.

'Que sara, sara', I guess, what will be, will be. and when it is confused by politics, it becomes more difficult to see where the future lies.


I mourn that we have not replaced coal fired, polluting energy plants with non polluting, nuclear energy, that was a political decision, not an industry or economic one.

I mourn that we have not had the freedom to maintain energy indepence by utilizing our own resources, that too, was a 'political' decision.

I think those were wrong decisions, short sighted, myopic, decisions.

No amount of exploration, drilling or refinery construction can bail us out now, it is too late.

And government efforts, like the NASA and the European Space Agency who crashed a probe on Mars because they couldn't decipher metric kilometers from American miles is indicative of the efficacy of government efforts to alleviate energy sources.

I say again, it is the left wing philosophy that has brought about this crisis and someone needs to point the finger and that be me.


amicus...

 

[neonlyte]

Liar
I'd go along with the nuclear option if ways were found to deal with the post operational clean up. Recent (March 2006) estimates in the UK put the clean up cost of our existing facilities at 130bn$. Apart from the environmental legacy problem, factoring in the clean up cost onto the generation cost substantially changes the economics. Reliable fuel sure, but expensive. I'd favour a broad blend of options preferably with home power generated to some extent 'on site' - requires strong leadership to amend legislation and force builders to incorporate energy saving and energy capture devices - but none of like strong leadership.

Just as a footnote: Germany, a country not noted for its abundance of sunshine, has a solar collector programme for domestic property. They subsidise, through a power generation company, the installation of solar panels. The economic equation means they will not have to replace a generation power station when it reaches the end of its working life.

 

[amicus]

neonlyte]Yes, though it might be environmentally sound to trade it in.

As for logic... well we are probably evenly matched on seperate sides of an ideological divide. I'll meet you half way.

I actually have no problem with rising gas prices, other than their impact on the economic underclass - and I'm familiar with all your arguements about how they need to get off their backsides, so lets not go there. The problem with gas prices is a world wide problem, there is no way even ecologically sensitive reserves can be brought on stream quickly enough to meet the demand of expanding nations. Hiking prices makes marginal reserves exploitable, buys a little bit of time to consider options and strategies, the UK is, for example, considering re-starting its nuclear programme - wrongly in my opinion - we should be investing in wind generation. It is the oil companies who need to shift their arses now they are reaping windfall profits and invest in alternatives.

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once again, Neonlyte, you are letting politics and ideology drive your thinking.

And, I think you do not understand the financial realties of the oil business. They are businesses, not government entities that exist on the confiscated wealth of the population, they have to earn, every day, every dollar they get.

During lean years, when crude oil prices were in the ten to twenty dollar per barrel range, those oil companies you hate, still invested the same percentage in R&D, still returned the same percentage to stockholders and investors, still made a profit and still supplied product.

Now, you think, they are in a 'fat' period, with huge incomes, they still invest the same percentage in all areas, it is just that the 'numbers' are larger, their overall,'profit' still remains at the same percentage.

And it may surprise you to learn that the largest investors in 'alternative' sources of energy are...yep, you guessed what was coming, the oil companies you hate so much.

Why? Because they also know that the petroleum resources, world wide, are declining and they damn well intend to stay in business long after crude oil reserves are exhausted or too expensive to turn a profit.

And, 'environmentally sound' is a misnomer. Actually, an oxymoron, if you will. Property right, properly enforced will protect the environment of private property everywhere. It is only when rabid, left wing ecology fanatics wish to abrogate individual property rights to protect so called, 'endangered and threaten species', that probems arise.

These nut cases place animal and plant life at a higher value than human life and are willing and anxious to sacrifice the health and well being of 'people', to satisfy their ideology.

Not good.


amicus...

 

[neonlyte]

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once again, Neonlyte, you are letting politics and ideology drive your thinking.

amicus...

Ok - I give up.


Wanders off muttering....

 

[oggbashan]

I look out from my house at an offshore windfarm with 30 turbines.

They generate up to two-thirds of our local electricity needs, but none when the wind isn't blowing.

Another 270 turbines are to be installed 40 miles offshore. When operational they should produce about a quarter of Greater London's electricity needs but if the wind turbine technology improves as it has done between the planning and installation of the existing 30 turbines might produce half London's need.

The cost, over the lifespan of the windfarm, is slightly higher than gas generation but there are no carbon emissions from the generation.

I am considering installing my own wind turbine on my house. My neighbour has been using solar power to heat water for 25 years. I may do the same. With a wind turbine and solar power I could be a net producer of electricity...

Where did I put that bicycle?

Og

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Liar]A few points, both in favor of and against Ami's outburst.

1. You don't have high gas prices in America.

2. And this I've been arguing on the local Swedish politic arena too: Shutting down and/or preventing expansion of nuclear power in modern countries w modern technology is royally stupid. We're not Chernobyl, which was run to the ground, underfunded and lacking in security and surveillance. (Pretty much like Ignalina is now in Estonia, and that's some three times bigger than Chernobyl. What we need to do is help them with their security. Cause if that thing goes boom..I'm moving to Australia.) And Three Mile Island won't happen again on western soil. The only threat a nuclear power plant consist of is as a potentional terrorist target. And hey, there are so many potentional other terrorist targets that that doesn't really matter. Due to the politic climate, serious reseach into nuclear technology development, has stalled in Sweden due to cut funding. Which is royally stupid in itself, since we do have nuclear waste to find a way to deal with. And without continous basic research on the subject, we'll never find more than a temporary solution.

3. Not that I have followed the guy all that close, but from news reports from both left and right tilted media, I get the impression that Bush is one of those that time and again have indicated that he puts a whole lot of faith in them pesky alternative renewable energy sources. Liberal? Not much. Dreamer? You be the judge.

4. Just a general observation: Amicus seems eager to blame anything bad under the sun on the Evil Liberals. Considering the fact that the adminisrtration has been right wing for 18 (or 17, not sure I counted right) of the last 25 years... is it that hard to enforce anything than Liberal Dreamersä ideology in US politics? Or could it be that even the right wing are more Liberal left than amicus on this issue?[/QUOTE]

~~~~~~~~

We do have high gas prices in America, Liar. Unlike many European nations, such as Sweden, Holland, Denmark and Norway, most American families have not one but two automobilies in the garage. Further, we are a large country and all spread out, people drive many miles each day, to and from work and school and entertainment.

We are a nation built on the concept of efficient and inexpensive 'personal' transportation, hate us for that if you will, but it is a fact.

Secondly and for the last part of your post, you seem to gloss over that it was only in 1994, when the Republicans gained a majority in Congress, that they had a major impact on legislation. For a full 40 years preceding 1994, left wing democrats controlled Congress and therefore spending and legislation.

Because of the intervening Carter and Clinton years, that Congress was only able to restrain, not direct the actions of the legislative bodies.

What we really need is that same forty year period to reverse the direction the liberal have led us to.

I truly hope and if I believed, would pray, that we get it. We surely need to regain a positive, forward vision for America, as opposed to the introspective, myopic vision of the left.

amicus...

 

[Liar]

We do have high gas prices in America, Liar. Unlike many European nations, such as Sweden, Holland, Denmark and Norway, most American families have not one but two automobilies in the garage. Further, we are a large country and all spread out, people drive many miles each day, to and from work and school and entertainment.

We are a nation built on the concept of efficient and inexpensive 'personal' transportation, hate us for that if you will, but it is a fact.

Uuh.. who said anything aboiut hate? Anyway that little sillyness aside... what you are saying, and what I'm already fully aware of is that gas dependancy is high in the states. And prices are higher than before. For various reasons.

Secondly and for the last part of your post, you seem to gloss over that it was only in 1994, when the Republicans gained a majority in Congress, that they had a major impact on legislation. For a full 40 years preceding 1994, left wing democrats controlled Congress and therefore spending and legislation.

So the answer to my question if it's that hard to drive a hardlined right wing policy with the political system that you've got, would then be "yes".

The rub seems to be that being the goverment (head of state and cabinet of ministers) has very little to do with being in control of the parlament institutions, since those are chosen in an individual election. It's a bit simpler here, where the seats in the parlament and the government cabinet is chosen in the same election. So it's easier (not granted, since minority goverments are not uncommon, but easier) to have majority support in the parlament for bigger policy desicions.

...and although the white house have been populated mostly by Republicans the last two decades, the senate and congress (and supreme court, whatever they should have to do with politics, but that's another issue) have not? DIsregarding if that's a good or a bad thing, (personally, I think that balance seems like a good thing most of the time, left or right, radical policies are more often than not poorly thought through) have I understood you right there?

 

[Liar]

Liar
I'd go along with the nuclear option if ways were found to deal with the post operational clean up.

Like I said, this problem seems to have the same political undertones as the rest of the nuclear debate. I don't know the british situation, but research into both waste management and further development of nuclear energy is being catergorically denied funding here. Because atoms are declared politically incorrect, or something.

 

[Maria2394]

the truth about gas prices?

Cheney, Bush and Iraq. Simple, oh and some American's obsession with huge hideous gas guzzling SUV's..


BUsh needs to pay for his little war, that was FOR his Daddy because his daddy failed in removing Hussein from power. I still understand the technicalities how it supposedly began in Afghanistan and ended up in Iraq, but most people in the admin think we are all stupid and they do what they want.

GAs prices are political, and the lack of alternative fuels is also. What is the incentive to produce alternative fuels when money grubber war mongers are in power and only concerned with padding thier own, and their croneys, bank accounts?

Who in the admin owned a hefty share of Haliburton? Who comes from an "oil" family? I think it is disgusting...

mylittle car gets 38 miles a gallon...



ps, not all Democrats are left wing...some of us have families, work, we vote, we support our contry even IN the face of lies and hipocrisy. I thik it is a tragedy that we have yet another few years of that bumbling idiot in the white house.... IM embarrassed every time I see him on TV< that he is representing our country, he is about as articulate as a snail and about as smart

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Amicus,

To berate someone elses arguement as 'political' given the thread title is moronic at best. Of COURSE it's going to be a political arguement when you lead off blaming the Left Wing for societies ills.

That said, the higher cost of gasoline in the United States at the moment is driven by the greed of the oil companies who posted record profits last year when gasoline prices went up. Lack of alternative fuels is due to the greed of oil companies and the lawmakers putting huge taxes on alternative fuel (Brasilian Ethanol, ~$.45 per gallon just in tarrifs)

Brasil by the way is projected to be fuel self sufficient by 2008 or so due to thier use of Ethanol produced from sugar cane. Our best effort at Ethanol is from corn which results in about 30% more energy from the final product than what it takes to produce. Ethanol from sugar cane energy output is nearly 8 times the production requirement. Thank you Iowa caucus for siding with the oil companies to tax this renewable source to the point that it's not feasible to use here. If the the import tariffs were removed then oil would have to fall to $30 a barrel to be competitive with Ethanol prices.

 

[Pure]

Lots of emotion; no facts. Amicus PMS ing again.

Nice conspiracy rant, amicus. See how that cramping increases when you listen to Rush first thing in the morning! It's SAD that the Republicans, whom you do PR for, JUST DON’T LISTEN. That would upset me, too.

With Republican majority in both houses (US) for the last several years, the gas tax is now about $.18 gallon. Surely if they _only listened_ to Amicus, they would cut it in half.

Republican legislatures, for example Texas, Florida are also not aware of Amicus wisdom.

Ah the folly of these people.

Texas is collecting $.20 per gallon--36th highest per gallon tax--, and if you want to see why that isn't axed, see the Texas article from a Texas government website: Those taxes are 1/3 of Texas' income. This has a 'corrupting' effect, which is why _they_ won't listen to amicus.


This is the first reason why the taxes don't drop, the governments depend on that revenue. Texas is on the low side, compared to other states, but Republican Florida has a $.30 tax making it 8th highest per gallon. (If only Jeb would listen to amicus). Republicans control 30 of 50 of the state legislatures.

The recently elected Conservative Government in Canada, just announced today there will be only minor relief of gasoline taxes. They are already corrupted and won't listen to amicus. PM Harper explained a second element of the problem:

"Worldwide, in the long run, the demand for energy products is outstripping the supply, and I think we're going to see sustained upward pressure on prices for some time to come. "

Supply and demand are hard for Amicus, I realize. The supply, of course, is mainly the world supply, and--contrary to amicus--the "left" does not control that. The US domestic supply is about 3/7 of its consumption. Of course, Federal lands in the ANWR (arctic) are controlled by the Republican congress. I wonder why they don't just sell them to the oil companies?

Lastly, among progressive or forward looking legislators, a third reason for the high taxes is to exert pressure to economize on fuel and develop alternative sources.

Further facts:

[Wikipedia:]
The US federal gasoline tax as of 2005 was 18.4¢/gal (4.86¢/L), and the gasoline taxes in the various states range from 10 cents to 33 cents.

-------

http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/cw-gastax-states.htm

[[Some gasoline taxes by state (2004) with ranking among states; [1] means highest: ]]

Florida $.30; [8]; Texas $.20 [36]; Arizona $.19 [40]; Calif $.35 [3]; South Dakota $.24 [23]. Wyoming. $.14 [50]

P: Among that list [see ulr for full list], only Calif. is Democratic, the rest have Republican legislatures.

I see no high correlation between Republicans in power and lower gasoline taxes. Yes, Calif and NY are high, but then again so is Florida. Republican states appear to be generally in the middle, by rank. A few Republican states are *very* low, e.g. Wyoming.

http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/incidence/gaso.html
------

For Texas:

Gasoline Tax
The gasoline tax is the third largest source of tax revenue for Texas state government, bringing in just over 8.4 cents of every state tax dollar. The tax is a consumption tax on gasoline. In general, the tax is charged on each gallon of gasoline, sold in Texas, which is used to propel vehicles on Texas’ public roads.

Total gasoline tax collected in fiscal 2000 was just over $2.1 billion.
---------

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home


Get used to higher gas prices, [Canada] PM says

Rejects party's former gasoline tax positions
Harper wants to pass three crime bills this spring

Apr. 20, 2006. 05:24 AM


TONDA MACCHARLES
OTTAWA BUREAU

WINNIPEG—Canadians should get used to higher gasoline prices, and can expect only "marginal" relief from the federal government's planned GST cut at budget time, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Harper rejected two positions his party had previously taken on high gasoline prices — to eliminate the GST on the portion of gas prices that exceed 85 cents a litre and to eliminate the GST on excise taxes at the pump.

"That was a commitment — a policy we had some time ago," he said.
The Conservative party, now in government, will stick to the commitment made in the recent election campaign, to cut the GST from 7 to 6 per cent, Harper said.
It will "reduce prices on all consumer products and reduce the federal government's revenue from rising gasoline prices," he added.

Harper admitted it's not much. He said it "will make marginal difference at the pumps" but said it will "reduce the federal take from gasoline more than axing the GST on excise will."
[…]
"I think that the truth of the matter is higher gas prices are ... going to be something that we're going to have to get used to.

"Worldwide, in the long run, the demand for energy products is outstripping the supply, and I think we're going to see sustained upward pressure on prices for some time to come.

"This is something we're all going to have to adapt to. And it's one of the reasons why when we deal with climate change and other issues we're going to want to encourage the development of alternative energy sources."

Harper was pressed by reporters here in a city where self-serve gas prices are $1.10 a litre. That's not the country's highest. One report said gas in Labrador City is priced at $1.24 a litre.

When asked about his party's former promise to eliminate the GST on the portion of gas prices that exceed 85 cents a litre, Harper was reminded he once called it "gouging" taxpayers at a time when they are having trouble filling their tank.

"That was two elections ago," he responded. "The (1 percentage point) reduction we'll bring in on the GST this spring will lower the tax on gasoline more than that measure, so that's what we're proceeding with."

His comments appeared to fly in the face of hope offered by a member of his cabinet.

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, speaking in Nova Scotia yesterday, said: "There (are) discussions about (gas tax relief) right now and we have a budget coming and we're getting all kinds of submissions ... on what to cut and what not to cut."

The federal cabinet will discuss fuel prices during next week's meeting, he added.

Harper is on a five-city cross-country tour to promote his minority government's agenda. [end article]
--------
--------

With these symptoms, probably a cold pack for the head and a hot water bottle for the lower tummy would work wonders.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm not on the left, but I strongly oppose drilling in the ANWR. My brothers aren't on the left, and they oppose it too. My father, is most assuredly not on the left, but he too opposes it.

In fact, the only people I know who are for it, have stock in halliburton or are named Dick. Or the nickname dick fits.

You're way off base amicus. The opposition to drilling in the refuge is broad based, and it includes a lot of people who vote republican. For all the bad press we get in the left leaning media, hunters are, as a group, also conservationists. No hunter I know favors fucking up a pristine refuge for a few more dollars in the coffers of big oil companies. In fact, most people I know are so sick of being gouged by big oil, they would favor shooting the sons of botches crying we need to drill in ANWR, while gouging us at the pumps and recording record profits.

I personally, think we ought to leave a few places of pristine natural beauty just that, pristine. If you had your way, there would be logging and strip mining and clear cutting in Yosimite.

You're belief in big bussiness is just as blind as the belief of ignorant russian pesants in communism. Human factors, like greed, aravice, and indifference ruin a pure market econmy in just the same way greed, avavice and indifference ruin the theory of communism when it is put into practice.

As long as these companies are recording record profits and jacking up the average commuter at the pumps, you are unlikely to find much sympathy for them because one fucking place in the US is barrred to them to despoil. Opposition to them on this is broad based, not left wing or even liberal. And it's growing as people's anger mounts at them gouging the fuck out of us. Hopefully, enough Dem's with green credintials will get elected to congress and the remaining GOP corporate whores will realize they need to move to protect ANWR again or the risk being thrown out on their ears by an enraged population.

For the first time in my life, I'm hoping the Dems make some gains in an election. Not on this issue only, but it's defintely one of those where GOP elected officals rolling over on their backs has sickened me.

For a multitude of reasons, I'm no longer able to enjoy the outdoors as I once was. But I still remember trips with my family to national parks across this nation. I believe, strongly, that people should be able to see these wondrs for years to come. You belive in letting bussiness rape them for a few extra bucks. Don't try and cast that as a left vs. Right issue. It isn't. I can still be on the right without advocation fucking up the natural world for fun and profit. And there are a whole lot of us, hunters, sportsmen, families who vacation in the areas of natural wonder, who prefer your glorious revolution fails when it comes to destroying them.

 

[Guest]

.............

 

[Pure]

Colly,

you make many good points, and
you come close to hitting a key flaw in Amicus reasoning such as it is.

C: As long as these companies are recording record profits and jacking up the average commuter at the pumps, you are unlikely to find much sympathy for them because one fucking place in the US is barrred to them to despoil. Opposition to them on this is broad based, not left wing or even liberal. And it's growing as people's anger mounts at them gouging the fuck out of us. Hopefully, enough Dem's with green credintials will get elected to congress and the remaining GOP corporate whores will realize they need to move to protect ANWR again or the risk being thrown out on their ears by an enraged population.

P: Let us suppose, FTSOA, that nasty lefties and deluded rightwing environmentalists like you HAVE SUCCEEDED in blocking exploration of new lands, and that further absolute increases in the domestic oil supply are therefore not going to happen.

To the extent this is true, oil prices will rise, and so will profits. The free market system so adored by amicus is royally compensating the oil companies this year. So it is clearly in their interest, oddly enough, that the 'wacky lefty environmentalists' keep working. Further, the oil companies are apparently not hurting from the high taxes; IOW they can live with them, which is why the Texas legislators are not inclined to reduce them (esp. given the amt of Texas income that's so derived).

Scardity or limits to resources increase the lucrativeness of the oil business; from which it follows that that company lobbyist will NOT be pushing for any measures to significantly increase supply. Indeed, I see no benefit from lobbying to reduce the gas taxes. The free market is working to limit supply by making it extremely profitable, and has accommodated itself to the present taxation structure and rates.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

you make many good points, and
you come close to hitting a key flaw in Amicus reasoning such as it is.

C: As long as these companies are recording record profits and jacking up the average commuter at the pumps, you are unlikely to find much sympathy for them because one fucking place in the US is barrred to them to despoil. Opposition to them on this is broad based, not left wing or even liberal. And it's growing as people's anger mounts at them gouging the fuck out of us. Hopefully, enough Dem's with green credintials will get elected to congress and the remaining GOP corporate whores will realize they need to move to protect ANWR again or the risk being thrown out on their ears by an enraged population.

P: Let us suppose, FTSOA, that nasty lefties and deluded rightwing environmentalists like you HAVE SUCCEEDED in blocking exploration of new lands, and that further absolute increases in the domestic oil supply are therefore not going to happen.

To the extent this is true, oil prices will rise, and so will profits. The free market system so adored by amicus is royally compensating the oil companies this year. So it is clearly in their interest, oddly enough, that the 'wacky lefty environmentalists' keep working. Further, the oil companies are apparently not hurting from the high taxes; IOW they can live with them, which is why the Texas legislators are not inclined to reduce them (esp. given the amt of Texas income that's so derived).

Scardity or limits to resources increase the lucrativeness of the oil business; from which it follows that that company lobbyist will NOT be pushing for any measures to significantly increase supply. Indeed, I see no benefit from lobbying to reduce the gas taxes. The free market is working to limit supply by making it extremely profitable, and has accommodated itself to the present taxation structure and rates.

The main flaw I see in Amicus's arguments, besdies the fact he simply makes them, cant defend them and ignores facts that run counter to them of course, is that he argues a paradoxxical position.

On the one hand, he wraps himself in the flag and tells you how people must be free to make their own choices, allocate their own resources decide on what they want, etc. etc. In the next, he demands a completly free market, with no controls of any kind.

The paradoxx there, is that the people at the tops of these companies, will do whatever they can to maximize profit. So ratehr than collect, contain and store their pollutants, they'll dump em in th elocal river, it's tons cheaper. Theyll engage in whatever unethical buissiness practices it takes to create a monoply for themselves, as this is the most profitable buissiness modle. They'll screw their employees in every way possible, as each penny per hour per 100 employe's they don't pay is a dollar saved.

Amicus, like any good communist, is enamoured of the theory. He isn't interested in exploring what the system has produced when tried. So cwhere communists ignore the abuses and failures of past experiments in communism, he ignores the experience of past failures in an unregulated capitalist system. A devoted communist explains away the Stahze in the exact same terms Amicus explains away sweat shoops and child labor. Vicious propaganda from the other side.

No theoretical system stands up well when you apply human nature to it. That's across the boards, from left wing utopias to right wing utopias.

To buy into Amicus's vision, you have to assume a priori, that those who run bussinessess are good and generous people, with a remarkable degree of social conciousness and an overrriding sesne of fair play. If you don't buy that asumption, then what he advocates is abhorent. Miniscule wages, no insurance, no pension, rampant proifiteering, pollution and destruction of the envirnment, monopolies, the works. Self regulation brought us Kenny Boy Ley and general Electric dumping PBC's into the Hudson. Don't trell Amicus though, it's all a left wing plot.