Media Idolatry, Dem "Dog and Pony Show," & Government's Inability to Urinate
Posted by Eric at 8:37 PMIt's getting harder and harder to believe Media ISN'T just another 527 in the tank and up the butts of Liberal Democrats. Congress' approval rating sits at 9% but all Media can do is give free time to Democrats who tout Bush's-- whose approval rating is 3 times Congresses at 28% --"failed" policies. Reid and Pelosi have done nothing they promised to do.
Nothing.
Pelosi promised a better energy policy and has yet to deliver. What she and Reid HAVE delivered is continued refusals to drill for our own reserves. She and other prominent democrats claim drilling on our own soil will not produce a single gallon of gasoline tomorrow, next month... maybe not even ten years from now. They want to push green technology. That's all fine and dandy, but there's no guarantee what they desire will provide any relief tomorrow, next month, let alone ten or even twenty years from now. Just to be clear, the day wind, clean electric, or solar power gets an Airbus filled to traveling capacity into the air, is the day I'm mouldering in a grave 50+ years from now... if then.
Al Gore's proposal is admirable: to replace ALL the energy currently produced by coal, oil, gas, etc. with wind, clean electric, and solar by 2018. Cost? 2-3 Trillion dollars. Admirable, yes. But not particularly practical. Who'll pay for it? We will. How? More taxes on top of what Obama already wants to levy on us? Admirable, but not gonna happen... the 2018 part.
Bail out Social Security first. Democrats want to privatize something? Allow Americans the option of privately owning their own Social Security deferred retirement accounts. Cost? 2-3 trillion. But that'll never happen. Why? Because it's a relinquishment of power, and Democrats aren't about giving power back to the people. The perception of power, yes. But only so long as government gets to hold the leash.
Actually, it is the Dept of Energy's Energy Information Administration that says that.
According to an EIA report:
production would not be expected to start before 2017...any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.
If we want to start living responsibly, then we'd do well to heed some of what Gore was saying the other day and, even more than ending our usage of fossil fuels (but replacing it with other forms of energy), we just need to decrease our usage. Period.
It is the only responsible thing to do.
Anyway, now you know the truth. It's not Pelosi's opinion that no oil or decreased prices are forthcoming anytime soon, it's the Dept of Energy.
In the meantime, alternatives aren't spoken of as being right around the corner. They will likely take at least as long to replace oil as it'll take to get the oil.
Remember the Victory Gardens and how people pulled together and rationed during WWII? We can do the same thing today if we were convinced of the morality and efficacy of doing so.
It's a matter of selfishness. "I don't want to adapt the way I live. It's MY gas. Mine! Mine! Mine!"
Which is to be expected in nine year olds, but is less seemly in adults.
source
So what if Saudi Arabia is running out? So what if Iran is running out? Even if they did, the idiots in Congress STILL wouldn't let us drill in our own country or off our own shores.
As much as Gore's proposal is bold, ambitious, and ultimately desirable, neither wind, solar, or electric will get a passenger jet off the ground let alone keep it in the air!
"This current price spike is caused less by speculators and more by scarcity. The growth of the Indian and Chinese economies exacerbates the fact that global production can no longer match consumption."
BRAVO! At last! But what good is your ability to see the truth in this if Congress can't? YES! Global production CAN'T keep up with consumption.......
....yet Congress still refuses to allow drilling in ANWR and off our own shores. If global production can't keep up with world consumption, it makes sense that while America works to develop alternatives fuels and energy [though none has any promise of getting a fully loaded airliner off the ground], America should also begin exploration and drilling everywhere it can. Our reserves can, in time, diminish our need for foreign sources of crude, IF... we're also developing alternative energy sources to diminish our need for gasoline.
Solar and wind for home heating and cooling. Hydrogen cells in our automobiles. And any number of other promising technologies. But we will Still. Need. Oil.
Why are we buying oil from terrorist sponsoring states when we have oil of our own? What we're doing, in effect, is giving our enemies the monies they need to continue fighting us on the battlefield; killing our troops in suicide bombings, IED's, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel... wherever and to whomever the sponsors of terror dole out the monies they extort from us. We're paying for the bullets and bombs that are killing our men and women, and those of the countries we call "friend."
This isn't a Democrat vs Republican issue at all. It's a commonsense issue that transcends party politics. It's a matter of national security.
THE WORLD RUNS ON OIL.
PERIOD.
Get used to that idea, because for the rest of all of our lifetimes, no matter how much we conserve, no matter what we invent, that is the case.
Yes, we can conserve today. That is an admirable goal, and I truly believe that most of us are doing so.
But make no mistake. America is not destroying the Planet by using oil, and if we are, we are doing it at a much slower rate than the rest of the industrialized world...
Global Warming is a Myth and a hoax, and Green technology sufficient to replace the Global (not just American) dependence on Complex Hydrocarbons is a pipe dream which, if it EVER comes to fruition, will come much too slowly to avert the misery, starvation and Global Economic Catastrophy that you Greenies keep clamoring for.
Oil is not an evil thing.
It is the fuel for the engine of Freedom and Economic success.
THAT is why the Lefty Greenies hate it so much.
THAT is why access to it is being restricted at every turn by Marxist Environmentalists.
And THAT is why they blame "speculators", "Big Oil", and Saudi Arabia for the problems that THEY themselves have created.
If the American People don't wake up and stand up against this nonsense, and I mean SOON, the whole world is doomed to suffer for decades, and we can kiss the standard of living and Freedom that we enjoy here goodbye forever.
PERIOD.
That is absolutely true beyond any doubt. And I'll go you one further: The world is dependent upon oil - and relatively cheap oil, at that. Dependent like the junkie is on drugs.
But wrap your minds around this very simple, very understandable concept:
OIL IS A FINITE RESOURCE.
PERIOD.
Now, let's be reasonable: How responsible is it to BASE A GLOBAL ECONOMY upon a finite resource? What happens when that finite resource goes away?
It doesn't matter if we're talking about ten years from now or 100 years from now, it is a scientific, factual certainty that oil is going to go away. That's what happens to finite resources when they get used up. They go away.
Now, we have been stupid, careless and irresponsible enough to base our whole global economy on oil, we are dependent on oil to grow our food and to move it across the globe. We can't continue to do so.
And it is questionable that we can continue to feed the nearly 7 billion of us (10 billion in a few years at the rate we're going) without that oil. Then what?
The one and only reasonable and responsible answer is to consume less.
The second fact is that only about 10% of our nation's oil consumption comes from the middle east. That 10% are special blends and formulations of oil that are not readily available in the american continents. The huge majority of our imported oil comes from Canada. I think we have pretty good relations with them. Most of the rest of our imported oil comes South America. Europe Asia and Africa get large portions of their oil from the middle east.
Domestically most of the United States oil supplies are locked up in oil shale in the western US. Unfortunately to extract it would require massive quantities of fresh water which aren't available in the western United States. Also we'd have to blast apart whole rocky mountains. But of course the oil industry is willing to do it. If the American people will lease them the federal lands and the rescind the laws stopping them. You can be proud to be an unpaid tool of large corporate interests.
Which is to be expected in nine year olds, but is less seemly in adults."
Selfishness can be at the core of many issues, but so are covetousness and judgmentalism.
I have been committed to the concepts of reduce/reuse/recycle since I was 9. However, I don't try to micro-manage the lives of everyone else. My non-hybrid Honda Civic gets 35 mpg (woo-hoo!), but if someone wants to buy a Hummer that is their business.
If raging hypocrites like Al Gore who profit mightily from the green industry want to preach, I just ignore them.
P.S. There is enough oil for over 100 years. Prices had been too low to justify extracting some finds, but no more.
YOU DON'T KNOW whether oil is a finite resourse or not.
YOU can't prove that the Earth is going to run out of it, or when, if ever.
You don't know for sure even what oil really is, or where it comes from, or how it was, or is being created in the first place.
Nobody does. Not really.
And nobody here, or anywhere else that I have heard of, is suggesting that conservation is a bad thing.
But to starve people in other parts of the world, and to inhibit the improvement of anyone's quality of life or their chances of economic success to pacify the political agenda of the Greeny Lefties is what is irresponsible and wrong, Dan.
But, if there is a viable alternative to oil, I'm all ears.
Tell me what exists in the world today that is renewable, green, as cheap as oil used to be, and will power my pickup truck, and heat, cool, and light my home with absolutely no environmental damage whatsoever, and diverts absolutely no food from anyone else on the planet, and I will switch right over.
Our side of this argument knows where drilling can begin immediately, and just the suggestion that we might drill our own brings the price down at the pump almost immediately.
What has your side got to offer?
In 2005 the U.S. imported 58% of the oil it consumed. And analysts projected, in 2005, that by 2025 the U.S. would be importing 68% of its demand.
Not 10%
And could someone please explain to us all how electricity can and will produce thrust enough to get a jumbo jet off the ground? Electric cars can get up to 100-120 miles per hour, but that's not "thrust". Solar cars can go, perhaps, 20 miles per hour? No one's getting off the ground at that speed.
It requires "Thrust" to get a vehicle off the ground. Can electricity turn a rotor prop fast enough to get a helicopter off the ground? It may very well could. But a passenger jet?
I suspect the reason Boeing is not developing "Electric" Jet engines is because it's a farce.
Would someone please explain to us the principle of Jet propulsion, and thrust? Someone other than Ben or Dan? I've got to go to work.
The world is running out of oil? Prove it. You and a few million people saying it's so, doesn't make it so.
Here's where our oil is coming from.
Mythological evidence seems to be enough for you when you try to prove your other points...
DON"T SIDESTEP MY QUESTION!
WHAT SUBSTANCE can I go TODAY and pump into my pickup truck that would satisfy all of your "Green" paranoia, and is affordable and renewable?
The world is waiting for your answer, Dan.
I'll tell you another little secret that will twirl your beanie, Dan...
When that question is finally answered, the people who answer it will be the same people who are producing oil right now.
But keep banging your drum, Brother.
You guys have almost put an end to that annoying habit of driving a few extra miles per day to higher paying jobs that the "working poor" had developed... You are helping Mexicans break their addiction to "Big Corn" (I guess THAT cuts down on Methane Emmissions, huh, Dan?), and China and India have announced to the World that they will be as dirty and use as much oil as they want. (And what are you gonna do about it?)
LOOK at the science, Dan. ACTUALLY look at ALL of it.
The Earth is not getting warmer - It's getting cooler. (So you were wrong about that for about a decade...)
You guys all scream that Oil is a "Finite Resource", but they find more of it every day. (Twenty Trillion Barrels in Montana and North Dakota just recently discovered...)You believe that Oil is the product of decomposing organic matter from go-zillions of years ago, but can't explain what the same stuff is doing on one of Saturn's moons.
The truth is that YOU DON'T KNOW whether it is a finite resource or not.
But you're willing to crash the World Economy and starve millions to death RIGHT NOW on the off chance that it might be?
What in the world is wrong with you?
The anti-intellectualism and anti-science view here is astounding.
WHAT SUBSTANCE can I go TODAY and pump into my pickup truck that would satisfy all of your "Green" paranoia, and is affordable and renewable?
Well, if we're talking transportation, we can use human power, we can wind- or solar-generated electricity, we can use fossil fuel oil, we can use vegetable oil. There are all manner of ways we can fuel vehicles. But that's a rather limited question.
The larger question is: How can we move ourselves around and generate the heat and energy we need to live and feed 7 billion people and do so responsibly and within our means.
We don't do that by basing our economy on a finite resource.
"Petroleum, or crude oil, is the fossilized organic remains of marine animals and plants that settled to the sea floor millions of years ago. It is a mixture of hydrocarbons and other compounds..."
More info on this can be found here, but do you all really not know this or do you just not believe it? I mean, this is basic science I learned in public schools a long long time ago.
And I know that there are some recent (scientific - if we're to believe that!) research that says that there may be other ways that petroleum MAY possibly be generated, but the last I've heard, that's still in the research phase.
Still, I don't know why you would accept that research but reject the current commonly accepted scientific opinion. It sounds like you're trying to find science that agrees with your human-based religions. If "science" can say that the world is 6000 years old, then it is good science and if it disagrees, it's bad science?
If so, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
The world is waiting for your answer, Dan.
The answer to the larger question is to live within our means. Us choosing not to live within our means can mean, as Gore suggests rightly, devastation.
NOBODY knows for sure.
Not even the people who wrote the studies that you quote.
And, by the way, you could teach a college course on how to find research that agrees with your own pre-concieved notions, my friend.
Everything you cite has to be taken with a grain of salt.
"Do you all really not know this?..."
You Elitist Snob.
You don't know it either. You think you do, but you don't. Theories are not facts, Dan.
Studies that are agenda driven prove nothing.
And Since you seem to worship Al gore, let me point out that that hypocrite uses more energy in a year than my whole extended family. (And then some.)
George W. Bush's Crawford Ranch is more environmentally friendly than Al Gore's house in Tennessee.
The fact that the whole "Global Warming" Movement is being led by a flim-flam artist doesn't bother you, Dan?
Don't you see that this makes you look simple and gullible?
And, no thank you. The American People are not going to ride bicycles to work.
We need realistic solutions to real problems.
Global Warming is a hoax, IF oil is finite, there is still enough to last until the technology exists to replace it, and when that happens, it will be over the rotting corpses of the people who have seized this issue to use as a political tool.
People like you are just a nuissance.
IF oil is finite, there is still enough to last until the technology exists to replace it
Let's turn this around: Where is your proof that there is an endless supply of oil?
What? You don't have any such proof? Okay.
Then should we really base our economy on the unsupported HOPE that MAYBE possibly someday we'll perhaps find more and it might maybe be enough to last ten more years OR MAYBE one hundred years (we don't really know...) or PERHAPS if it isn't enough, that maybe we'll find something else with which to replace it? Maybe?
Do you see the lack of intellectual consistency or moral, ethical and just plain commonsense reasoning in your argument?
My commonsense, logical and moral thesis:
IF we can't live with the energy that we have at our disposal
IF we can't continue to do so indefinitely, sustainably and withiin moral and ethical guidelines
IF we can't do so without destroying the environment,
THEN we need to live with the amount of energy that we CAN produce and produce indefinitely and sustainably and morally.
To do otherwise is like the person who keeps buying more and more, placing it on a credit card (one that belongs to his children) racking up a tremendous debt, all because he believes that MAYBE ONE DAY he'll win the lottery and based on that "logical" reasoning (ie, "If I win the lottery, I will be able to pay off the massive debt that I've accumulated for my children and other people to pay off...").
It's an unethical fool's plan.
I'll appreciate it.
So will Algore and your idol, Michael Moore.
IF, on the other hand, you are wrong and we continue to live beyond our means and suddenly oil becomes even more short and prices increase exponentially, taking food prices right along with it (as is already happening), what's the worst that might happen? Mass starvation? Riots? Violence? Oil wars? Water wars? Food wars?
So, tell me, if you have somehow managed to be wrong and oil IS actually a finite resource (as nearly all scientists will tell you it is - since everything on earth is finite, logic tells us this, too) and we CAN'T find some magic potion solution to replace it and our children and grandchildren suffer through an economically and environmentally depressed world of war and starvation, will you feel bad at all about your foolishness?
Why is asking people to live within their means - even if that means reducing - such a troubling concept?
Good idea. Lotteries are illegal unless the government runs them, and so are pyramid schemes like Social security.
For most people, the government extracts over 15% of their pay for FICA. Technically, half comes from the employee and half from the employer, but of course the employer could give it to the employee since it is already part of their total employee costs.
So if Social Security were privatized you could invest a full 10% of your pay in a personal account and the government would still have over 5% of your pay for general welfare. But that isn't enough for them! Most people pay more in FICA than they do in Federal Taxes (again, when including the employer portion).
Why is it that liberals are pro-choice when the "choice" is to crush and dismember an innocent human being, but anti-choice when it is (allegedly) your retirement money?
It's a fiscal responsibility thing. Sure, if we privatize, perhaps it would work out well for some folk. For others, it would not. Then we'd have elderly folk living on the streets unable to tend to themselves, costing tax dollars in one way or another.
This is the problem that your calculation fails to consider: What of those for whom the new system does NOT work? And set aside compassion for the moment, I'm not asking you to feel sorry for these homeless elders (although the Bible might). I'm talking pure fiscal responsibility: HOW will we pay for this cost to the system? And will it cost more than the current system does? I'd suggest, Yes. Your approach would end up costing MORE tax payer dollars AND have the added benefit of homeless widows living on the streets.
Whatever happened to fiscal conservatives?
Shouldn't live within our means?
Shouldn't look for alternatives?
I haven't.
What I said was that we SHOULD do ALL of those things.
But we have supply problems NOW.
And, like it or not, those are problems that we CAN drill our way out of.
So, until there is a viable alternative to oil, it is in the best interests of the Human Race to pump every drop of oil we can locate, and bring it to market. (Granted, it should be done as cleanly as possible. If we make a mess, we should clean it up. I totally agree with that point.)
This isn't an either/or proposition, Dan.
To do otherwise is like quitting your job without finding another one first, in hopes that soon, you will find a better one than the one you had.
And I don't have to prove anything. YOU are the one making the claim that oil is going to run out, and that we all have to drastically change our lifestyle RIGHT NOW because of it.
It is not anti-science to claim that the science is not conclusive.
It is not anti-science to demand more proof before I sacrifice my lifestyle based on an unprovable (or at least, as yet unproven) theory.
I'm not a denier, I'm a sceptic.
The burden of proof is on your head, not mine, and claiming that the science is settled and we should all go back to riding horses around is the anti-science point of view.
I have not said that it is an either/or proposition, either.
Where you're wrong, though, is...
But we have supply problems NOW.
And, like it or not, those are problems that we CAN drill our way out of.
No. We can not.
ACCORDING TO THE DEPT OF ENERGY (do you suspect they're making it up?), by drilling for oil, we would NOT see any result from that for another 10-20 years.
And the results of that when they DO get here are meaningless at the gas pump or in terms of how much we import.
The one and only way that we can not import oil TODAY is to reduce the amount we consume.
And I don't have to prove anything. YOU are the one making the claim that oil is going to run out...
No, not me. The oil companies. The scientists who study these issues. The US gov't. THEY are the ones who acknowledge the reality that oil is a finite resource and we are reaching the peak of its cheap availability.
If you don't think we should listen to the oil companies, the scientists and Bush's own scientists, then tell me on what basis we SHOULD continue to live beyond our means? Your hunch?
What some have said MIGHT happen?
Again, I'm just appealing to common sense and responsibility: IF we can only generate X amount of energy locally and sustainably, then we ought not consume more than X (and I'd suggest responsible behavior endorses consuming LESS than X, since X is not an exact figure in this case, but rather an estimate).
Where is the illogic in living within our current means?
WHERE ARE THE CONSERVATIVES WHO ARE ACTUALLY CONSERVATIVE???
Your approach to the oil situation is about as workable as "Give Peace A Chance" is to war. It doesn't account for those who don't care. It doesn't account for those who don't believe as you do. If half the world's population conserve, the other half is still using at the rate they already were and, like a true socialist, you've just made half the world support the other half's indiscretions.
To be sure, I conserve. My job requires an average of around 300 business miles per week. That's low compared to others in my company and the average salesman can do that in a couple of days. I've never driven when driving was unnecessary, but I won't apologize for doing so. I don't feel in the least bit guilty, either.
As Bush suggested in a recent press conference, Americans and American businesses are already engaged in the act of conservation and finding new ways to fuel our lifestyles. Your bleating about conservation is preaching to the choir. But you're Mr. Nature Boy and endorse a turning away from civilization. Fine. Do so. Others prefer the conveniences of modern day life and wish to partake as their incomes allow. Feel free to deny yourself, however.
Regarding SS privatization, what YOUR calculations don't account for are those who choose to live a simpler lifestyle and how by doing so they contribute less into the general pool. Rather than complaining how the new system might have its drawbacks for the widows, try developing greater personal income and wealth so that YOU can provide for them if their plight affects you so. Your arguments are just another, "I'm doing my part by forcing others to take care of business through wealth re-distribution". It starts with the individual. If each of us strives to improve our situation, fewer will be in need and there will be more to contribute to those fewer. Perhaps oil IS finite. Wealth is not. Living simply increases the burden of others.
Great point, Tug!
Check out this report from NASA
Now, how did Titan get so polluted with oil?
There is no conclusive evidence for Peak-Oil. There is as much evidence to conclude oil is a renewable source.
Likewise, there is no conclusive evidence for man-made global warming. There is as much if not more evidence to conclude the contrary.
Now... I fully understand and share Dan's concern for the environment and the ideal of "living within one's means." We should all live so. But one incontrovertible fact still remains: Oil is, and will remain for decades to come, a vital necessity. Without it, America and Americans will suffer greatly.
America is quite capable of drilling in an environmentally-friendly manner. Gasoline powered cars are not going away anytime soon, and the poor will be the most adversely affected by a dwindling supply of crude oil.
India is an emerging market, but this is only possible because of technology AND crude oil.
America cannot survive as a nation of consumers. We need to become again a nation of producers. Without producing our own oil from our own natural resources, the poor will be wholly dependent upon government. Think about it... if they can't afford gasoline, how can they afford to go to work? Especially since jobs today are typically further from home than, say, sixty years ago. Everyone who can't afford gas will be reduced to walking miles, or spending what little cash they have left on taxi and bus fare. Sure, the poor can buy bicycles and scooters, but then you only highlight more starkly the difference between the have's and have not's. Then all we'll hear about is how the poor are not living fully the American dream, and a renewed call for making the rich pay their "fair share" will sound.
No technology currently being researched is poised-- let alone capable --of replacing crude oil. Ten years to the first barrel of oil in ANWR you say? And your point is? I ask this because no technology you're advocating will be able to do in ten years what oil is presently doing today, let alone meet the demands of ten years from now. Reducing our consumption will not do enough to ease that burden, but it's a start.
We can't even get everyone to separate and recycle their trash! And you think you'll get everyone to conserve energy? You're not thinking realistically. Idealistically, yes; and I won't fault you for desiring that ideal, but I can and do fault you for insisting that the ideal will solve any problem we're currently facing or will face ten years from now, considering it's in our nature to be wasteful.
Let's be realistic. Drill here, drill now, and when the new technologies come fully online, in a manner that allows even the poor to take full equal advantage, then begin phasing out our use of carbon fuels for our energy needs. The day an electric engine gets a jumbo jet off the ground and keeps it in the air, AND the price is such that even the poorest of us can cheaply buy a seat, that's the day you can relegate oil to secondary usages like plastics and other such beneficial products. That jumbo jet, somewhere in the future, that's your benchmark. But until that day comes, the responsible thing to do is soundly slap both Nancy and Harry and demand they lift the bans on drilling. They work for US after all.
For the record. Jet propulsion relies upon, primarily, combustion and thrust. There are other types of Jet engines, but they are experimental and have many disadvantages [in other words, they're not presently feasible]-- it will be decades before such engines can supersede and replace what currently exists.
Thrust is what gets and keeps jet airliners in the air. For a quick refresher course on Jet Engines, their various types, and their individual advantages and disadvantages check out this Wiki-article
Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
Europe's Warming Attributed to Cleaner Air, Not Climate Change
Some Chicken Little has gotten you all to believe a hoax, and Gore is still running around screaming about the sky falling.
How much anguish did Galileo have to suffer before the scientific and religious communities accepted the Heliocentric view? How long will it take before Man-Made Global Warming is likewise given a long-deserved burial?
Huh? You'd have 5% or more from every worker to cover those people, and you are assuming that those people never worked a day in their lives. Of course you need a transition plan, but your model ignores that the gov't uses lots of SS $$ for everything but SS.
Privatizing it would expose that the gov't is mishandling the SS receipts. They would be forced to raise taxes or spend less and they couldn't lie about it so easily. It is an accountability thing.
And spare me your bit about compassion. I have real compassion for people, not your fake indulgent kind. I give my own money.
And besides, forcing people to pay for your programs at the barrel of a gun is not charity, it is theft. So quit patting yourself on the back for being so compassionate with other people's money.
Or do you think that if they don't pay the taxes you want them to that the gov't will just peacefully reason with them until they see the light? Do you oppose the gov't using the threat of physical force to obtain compliance?
Liberalism at its finest.
A Liberal does things his own way, then notices that not everyone does things the way he does, and being a typical Liberal, and thinking that his way is the best way, he enacts laws that will force everyone else to do things his way. And, if anybody complains about having to significantly alter his lifestyle to comply to these selfishly enacted laws, he is branded selfish and greedy by the Liberals.
I, as a Conservative, am selfish, too. But, unlike Dan the Liberal, I don't think it's any of my business to make everyone else do things the way I do them. I am perfectly willing to let him do things his way unless his way negatively affects the way I do things.
If I work a full week, I will drive 5-600 miles a week, and once I get to where my job is, will spend about 20-25 hours actually working. Does Dan think I would have any time to get any work done if I had to ride a bicycle to work?
Of course he doesn't, but, being the selfish Liberal he is, he doesn't care, as long as he can bicycle to work and still have time to do the job, it doesn't matter that bicycling to work isn't feasible for others.
If Dan wants to bicycle to work, I say, "go for it!" But don't try to tell me I have to do things his way. It isn't economically feasible for me. And, I don't want to have to change jobs just so Dan can have his way.
The solution, for me, is for the US to start drilling for new oil anywhere it can be found, uncapping and pumping oil from those wells already drilled, building as many new refineries as it will take to process that oil, and lowering the price of oil enough so I can afford to do my job and still be able to eat.
Selfishly, I don't give a damn if some insignificant wildlife gets inconvienienced by America drilling for oil in ANWR, or anywhere else. I'd much rather the Alaskan Titwillow or whatever, to have to make a minor change to it's lifestyle than make a major change to mine, but I guess that makes me selfish.
By the way, has anyone here ever considered what would happen if the OPEC countries one day just decided to stop selling America oil?
If we can't drill in our own country, for our own oil, and distribute it to our own people, and the majority of our oil suppliers suddenly quit providing us with oil, even Dan would start begging for adequate domestic oil production.
But only because it would seriously affect his own lifestyle. Of course, then he would blame his problems on America.
Liberals are selfish for asking people to live responsibly but those who advocate massive hyperconsumption are not selfish.
Up is down. Black is white. Science is faith-based. Good is bad.
Orwell wrote How-To manuals.
It's similar to Bill Clinton's old formulation that taxes were "contributions." Since you make perfectly clear that you don't believe in personal economic liberty, you're not just "asking" others to follow your lead; instead, you support a "regulated capitalism" -- a truly Orwellian oxymoron.
And, you will notice, Mark didn't say his lifestyle wasn't selfish; he just noted that he's not interested in coercing you and others to live the same way he does.
"I, as a Conservative, am selfish, too. But, unlike Dan the Liberal, I don't think it's any of my business to make everyone else do things the way I do them."
What he wrote is right there for all to see, so you can't succeed in misrepresenting what he said. I believe it is at moments like this where, were the shoe on the other foot, you would be accusing others of twisting your words and bearing false witness.
This would be the moment where you would be demanding an apology.
Instead, there was a joke at the inability of some to recognize irony.
I will say again, as I often do, that if you can point to my actual words and find where I twisted words, I will gladly apologize.
I will also note again, as I often do, that there are never apologies forthcoming from your side regardless of mistakes or misrepresentations, whereas I frequently do apologize anytime I've legitimately misspoke or erred.
But let me guess, you accusation to the contrary -- "there are never apologies forthcoming from your side regardless of mistakes or misrepresentations" -- is another attempt at humor, satire, and/or irony.
If I were take your statement seriously and take offense at your false charge, I suppose you would accuse me of twisting what you wrote.
I am relatively sure that no one else who frequents here has rarely if ever offered an apology for misspeaking about my or my comrades' positions.
One problem with that statement is Liberals don't ask. They demand and back up their demands by trotting up to the Supreme Court where Liberal activist Justices will create new laws and find things in the Constitution that aren't, and never have been there.
Another problem with that statement is I never said I advocate massive hyperconsumption. I only consume what resources are necessary for me to maintain the quality of life to which I am accustomed. And I don't ride bikes. I am too old and not physically fit enough. So sue me.
I did say I am selfish, though.
Perhaps you should apologize for twisting my words and bearing false witness against me.
Wanting to drill oil on land owned and controlled by the United States of America is evidence of "hyperconsumption?"
Something else you said, Dan...
"I am relatively sure that no one else who frequents here has rarely if ever offered an apology for misspeaking about my or my comrades' positions."
1. You are quite wrong. The reverse in fact is true. You rarely apologize for anything, including for your own ventures into "bearing false witness" territory, habitually erecting strawmen, and resorting to tiresome circular "Danian" rhetoric.
2. Your "comrades"? Letting your "red" show? Getting your Marx on? A little Che on the side? As I see it, the only difference between the modern Liberal Democrat and the USSR's Communist Party is the Liberal Democrat hasn't yet resorted to jackboots & gunfire. That day however is looming large.
For the record, I looked back a few and did find one place where you (no one else on your side, though) apologized for harsh language. And 2-3 places where I apologized.
I suspect my numbers would increase if I kept investigating and your numbers would stay roughly the same, but I must correct myself and say that Eric DOES sometimes apologize. My apologies for thinking you never did.
Just re-read the threads and you'll see the same thing over and over - deliberately saying offensive things to provoke people, boo-hoo-ing when they respond, demanding apologies, etc. Sheesh. Just make your points and be a man about it.
Maybe he can start a Liberal support group for people like him, and then ask for government funding.
Is that straightforward enough? No apologies necessary and none offered because I would not want to offend your fragile sense of manhood.
Thanks, my friend.
A fool will laugh at sin, but among the just grace shall abide.
Proverbs 14: 9
Uh, you realize that I was laughing at you and your comments, right? Did you pull the wrong verse or was that a confession on your part?
Proverbs 26:2 Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow, an undeserved curse does not come to rest.
You really don't want to get into a Bible verse contest with me. Remember, I think all 31,173 are inspired and you don't, so you'll run out long before me.
"...whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"
--Matthew 18:6-7
Granted, a fetus is not "saved" but then God is not willing that ANY perish. Furthermore...
"Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven."
--Matthew 18:10
These "little ones" have angels in the presence of God. I genuinely pity the man or woman who destroys the unborn for filthy lucre's sake. Better that they had never been born than to face God for such an offense, including those who protect and defend these murderers. This is not the kind of man I want representing my country... A man whom God is mightily wrathful against.
OK. That should settle the apology question. Let's carry on.