Hoarding is exactly what the government is doing right now by filling the SPR, and frankly it's the best thing that could happen. It drives prices up. High prices encourage demand destruction. They also finance new well development. The hoarded oil gives us a buffer to fall back on once shortages become more prevalent. High prices are what we need in order to adapt to what's coming, and the sooner they happen, the better.
Joined: Apr 28, 2005 Posts: 3277 Location: West shore Lake Eire, MI, USA
Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:45 am Post subject: Re: Even Conservative Media Chorus Sings Obama's Praises
Well crap, our primary is Tuesday and the only dem on the ballot is Hillary, whom I wouldn't vote for if she were the last candidate on earth. The union is urging everyone to vote 'uncommitted' so that Michigans delegates can vote there conscionsce when they get seated, but that means my vote would just be a vote against hillary and not for anyone.
On the republican side Ron Paul is fading fast, I don't like McCain or Huckabee which just leaves me Romney, whose dad was governor of Michigan when I was a small child. _________________ Oxygen: - An intensely habit-forming accumulative toxic substance. As little
as one breath is known to produce a life-long addiction to the gas, which addiction invariably ends in death.--Isaac Asimov
Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: Re: Even Conservative Media Chorus Sings Obama's Praises
I watched Obama very closely the other night, his mannerisms, choice of words, etc... Pure sociopath. He's WAAAYYY too smooth. Anyone with that kind of flawless oratory, and laid back schmoozy style, who has obviously been pre-cleared by other sociopaths, makes me suspicious.
He is NOT the anti-war candidate. He's actually all over the map on it.
He says absolutely nothing. He's the blank beige slate that people can project their hopes and desires on.
He makes my skin crawl and if he's elected, God help America.
Joined: Dec 02, 2005 Posts: 6217 Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia
Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: Re: Even Conservative Media Chorus Sings Obama's Praises
threadbear wrote:
...He's the blank beige slate that people can project their hopes and desires on.
Well, okay, but isn't that a smart strategy to adopt when you're trying to win a general election in a nation with an almost infinitely-diverse population? _________________ "Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: Re: Even Conservative Media Chorus Sings Obama's Praises
Zardoz wrote:
threadbear wrote:
...He's the blank beige slate that people can project their hopes and desires on.
Well, okay, but isn't that a smart strategy to adopt when you're trying to win a general election in a nation with an almost infinitely-diverse population?
Oh yeah...it's a perfect strategy, but when the pol is completely comfortable in that role, assuming he ISN'T actually an empty slate, it kind of creeps me out.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:02 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
TommyJefferson wrote:
In real free markets the "regular people" have ultimate say in things.
that's because the real free market is a fairy tale. it's never actually there, there's always non-market influences corrupting its purity.
the problem for all you free marketeers is that you can always fall back on the fallacy that the current free market is not "really" free, but that there is some mythical pure free market out there to strive for.
In actuality, however, initiatives that use the free market as a cover are primarily just schemes to Fark poor people and make a buck.
the more this happens the more the marketeers just sit back and say... no, the problem is that it's STILL not truly free like the beautiful free market in heaven. but this is just blowing smoke up everyone's ass because they know what they are actually doing, they are demanding bargain basement selloffs of public property in times of duress. it's a scam.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
mekrob wrote:
So you're saying that if there is no government programs for those people and you have extra money, then YOU'RE going to let them die? Now why would you do that? Why wouldn't you help them? Seems like you're the selfish one if you won't help someone in need. Libertarians don't believe that we shouldn't help others, but just that the government shouldn't force us to.
My god, this is utterly idiotic and bullying besides.
The freaking government programs were created because there was a need. Clouseau2's stinginess notwithstanding, i see wealthy people every day letting the poor die. Why do they do that? They just do. They are bastards.
You so called libertarians just let history evaporate in favor of the pretty free market-land in your minds. It's frankly just as childish as your remark above.
I will be the first to admit that legislation is a clumsy tool fraught with compromise. But that's what adults do, they compromise.
A democratic government is a consolidation of power, but one with at least a shred of access for the citizen. We should be improving that access and improving the democratic process within government, not strangling and starving it to make it even more at the mercy of corporate power.
If you are serious about the States handling the social responsibilities of the Federal Government more efficiently, then why do I never hear anything about shifting the taxing power from Fed to State? i only hear about dismantling the Fed part. This simple reason is that it's a sham. they don't care what happens to the work those programs were doing. they just want them gone and then they hand you this quasi-religious faith in the free market pig crap that it will all naturally rebuild itself.
In exactly the same way, the Neocons crowed that Iraq would be a fertile bed for free market capitalism when they disassembled and destroyed the existing Baath party government, what they were actually doing is giving away property to their corporate friends.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
nemo wrote:
I also fail to see what's inherently bad about big government. I happen to think that my own keynesian state (Sweden) functions quite well, and that government can provide certain services better, cheaper, more fairly and more efficiently than the free market. A well run government of and for the people can be as big as it needs to be AFAIC.
Just because the status quo in U.S. politics is less than ideal, I don't understand why Paulistas automatically assume everyone recognizing this automatically ought to believe that laissez-faire economics and the dismantling of the state is the universal solution to all problems. Then again, having had the state run by neocons for a long time is sure to cause a huge mess - how can you expect a man to excel at a task he fundamentally believes ought not be carried out?
This is a good post and much more reasonable than i tend to get when discussing this stuff. Living in America it gets tiresome having to hear about the evils of government from the same Love It or Leave It crowd all the time.
The libertarian positions is full of myths, like the efficiency of the private sector. I've worked in a number of successful private companies and never thought much of their efficiency. But that said, I'm not a communist either. The advantage of the Keynsian solution is that it avoids fundamentalism at either extreme and is free to choose the best tool for any particular job. The free market is a useful tool for some things. However, the key is exactly what you point out. It is useless to debate thee merits of two approaches to a problem when your goals are not the same.
I believe that anyone in America in 2008 making the argument for free markets are either naive to the point of idiocy, or they do not actually want a more beneficial society for regular people and they are using the free market as a smokescreen for theft of public assets, i.e. the neocon cabal.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
nemo wrote:
I also fail to see what's inherently bad about big government.
I think big government only works when the people in the government are mostly benevolent and trustworthy. That tends to be the case in northern europe, but not so much in most other regions. Advocates of minimalist government tend to be the cynics who understand that power corrupts.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
mos6507 wrote:
nemo wrote:
I also fail to see what's inherently bad about big government.
I think big government only works when the people in the government are mostly benevolent and trustworthy. That tends to be the case in northern europe, but not so much in most other regions. Advocates of minimalist government tend to be the cynics who understand that power corrupts.
I disagree. Government works when the people in government are accountable, monitored, and beholden to the population. Nothing to do with benevolence or trustworthiness at all.
Recognizing that power does corrupt, also recognize that government is certainly not the only locus of power. And where there is a power vacuum, power of another sort will sure as crap come in to fill the void. Hope you like whatever that entity is better than that evil government.
There's nothing in the water in Northern Europe that should make it possible there but not here. We do have to drop the tear it all down attitude though, and actually engage in our government.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
There's a very strange thing happening in the US election campaign and that is that Ron Paul has more support than Thompson but Paul isn't even mentioned or talked about. What's going on and why do the American people put up with this show of bias by the media?
Could the reason be that most people know that the libertarian idea is a whackjob ideas which is supported by quite a considerable number of people but not ever to be taken seriously? Obviously Ron Paul's ugly selfish reforms could never be allowed to happen sowhat is happening is just an effort to not acknowledge a protest faction. Has it got something to do with the fact that Ron Paul promises to end their Iraq war and everyone understands that will not happen because it can't happen? Very strange politics indeed! Do the majority of people see it as nothing but the politics of greed of the supply-my-siders? Can any of the Americans explain?
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:17 am Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
Could the reason be that most people know that the libertarian idea is a whackjob ideas
I see you are not an American, but if you knew your history at all you would also know the entire country was founded on that 'idea'.
(This is coming from a redcoat) _________________ "One minute I held the key, next the walls were closed on me, and I discovered that my castle stands upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand."
ALTERNET: The title of your book is How to Rig an Election. Can elections be rigged?
RAYMOND:: Sure. We're not talking about what people often think about, like ballot box stuffing. Certainly, that stuff goes on here and there. What we are really talking about in the book is how messages are created and delivered to the voting public, in a way that orchestrates and manipulates response. It's all about feeling an emotion; it's not about raw issues and logic.
In the book I give a lot of examples of rigging elections by, put it this way, guys like me -- I used to be a campaign manager. Once you are all said and done and deliver a message, two plus two equals whatever I want it to equal. The facts and sometimes even contorting the facts to lead voters to conclusions that may not necessarily, if you step back, make any sense -- but, in context, make all the sense in the world.
There's that aspect of it. Then there's just the more raw aspect of it, which leads up to the culmination of the book, which is the 2002 New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal.
ALTERNET: Why is emotion more important than facts?
RAYMOND:: Well, because people are looking at the candidates. The candidates are on television, mostly. That's where they get their information, particularly on presidential campaigns. Less so in congressional campaigns and local elections, but in presidential campaigns, that's where voters get their information -- by watching the television news. The characters are there. They are defined for them. They know what they look like. They can read their facial expressions. They can hear their words if they're spoken. Largely, that's where people are getting their information, as opposed to information from print media, which is just not the case anymore.
The candidates can't help but speak and emote. It's that famous saying from the Roger Ailes book, "You are the message." You have to believe what you are saying. And so, in that way, it's the medium in which most voters are getting their information.
All though this article did not really surprise me. It still kind of makes me sad to hear about how blatantly toxic our precious "democratic" process has become. He also throws blame at both the Republican and Democratic sides. Neither have clean hands. _________________ Simon's Law: Everything put together falls apart sooner or later.
I don't think of all the misery, but of all the beauty that still remains.--Anne Frank
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:04 am Post subject: Re: How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Oper
Yeah, I just watched the interview on the Daily Show from last night. Not very surprising. Rigging phone lines is nothing to what's been done in the past and what's going on now or what will go on this November and the months prior. Could anyone imagine the shitballs that would be flinging if it's Clinton vs. Huckabee? _________________ I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
Battle_Scarred_Galactico wrote:
Could the reason be that most people know that the libertarian idea is a whackjob ideas
I see you are not an American, but if you knew your history at all you would also know the entire country was founded on that 'idea'.
(This is coming from a redcoat)
I know a little history and I know a little about how Americans think too. And I think that many want to interpret their constitution in the way you characterize the country. But I still think it is a minority view and is really not was ever intended because IMO to listen to Ron Paul and follow his lead would be taking things to the extreme. Shirley you can't accept his ideas as things he would likely follow through with, even if they were actually possible!
I just don't think it's quite 'that' bad in that country yet. Perhaps you don't either and are exaggerating the case to make a point. If so then point taken.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
