• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why does the right seem to hate conservationists so much?

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,304
Reaction score
13,540
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
First things first:

Industries like the Oil and Extraction Industries = The Bad Guys
Groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council and Ducks Unlimited = The Good Guys

Are the bad guys always on the wrong side of an issue and are the good guys always on the right side of an issue? No.

But, usually, the bad guys are on the wrong side of an environmental issue and the good guys are on the right side of it. So what the bad guys have to do is smear the good guys to make them look bad.

Published on Friday, September 16, 2005 by The Clarion-Ledger (MIssissippi)

E-mail Suggests Government Seeking to Blame Groups

by Jerry Mitchell


Federal officials appear to be seeking proof to blame the flood of New Orleans on environmental groups, documents show.

The Clarion-Ledger has obtained a copy of an internal e-mail the U.S. Department of Justice sent out this week to various U.S. attorneys' offices: "Has your district defended any cases on behalf of the (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers against claims brought by environmental groups seeking to block or otherwise impede the Corps work on the levees protecting New Orleans? If so, please describe the case and the outcome of the litigation."
Cynthia Magnuson, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said Thursday she couldn't comment "because it's an internal e-mail."

Shown a copy of the e-mail, David Bookbinder, senior attorney for Sierra Club, remarked, "Why are they (Bush administration officials) trying to smear us like this?"

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups had nothing to do with the flooding that resulted from Hurricane Katrina that killed hundreds, he said. "It's unfortunate that the Bush administration is trying to shift the blame to environmental groups. It doesn't surprise me at all."

Federal officials say the e-mail was prompted by a congressional inquiry but wouldn't comment further.

Whoever is behind the e-mail may have spotted the Sept. 8 issue of National Review Online that chastised the Sierra Club and other environmental groups for suing to halt the corps' 1996 plan to raise and fortify 303 miles of Mississippi River levees in Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas.

The corps settled the litigation in 1997, agreeing to hold off on some work until an environmental impact could be completed. The National Review article concluded: "Whether this delay directly affected the levees that broke in New Orleans is difficult to ascertain."

The problem with that conclusion?

The levees that broke causing New Orleans to flood weren't Mississippi River levees. They were levees that protected the city from Lake Pontchartrain levees on the other side of the city.
Notice the last couple of sentences there, see its that "whole story" that screws the bad guys and those politicians they have bought.

Moreover, the problem was that they were going to take the dirt to build the levees out of wetlands. Conservationist groups did not object to levees being built, they just did not want unnecessary wetland destruction in the process. Moreover, more wetlands mean less floods and less storm surge.
 
Last edited:

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
First things first:

Industries like the Oil and Extraction Industries = The Bad Guys
Groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council and Ducks Unlimited = The Good Guys

Are the bad guys always on the wrong side of an issue and are the good guys always on the right side of an issue? No.

But, usually, the bad guys are on the wrong side of an environmental issue and the good guys are on the right side of it. So what the bad guys have to do is smear the good guys to make them look bad.

Notice the last couple of sentences there, see its that "whole story" that screws the bad guys and those politicians they have bought.

Moreover, the problem was that they were going to take the dirt to build the levees out of wetlands. Conservationist groups did not object to levees being built, they just did not want unnecessary wetland destruction in the process. Moreover, more wetlands mean less floods and less storm surge.
Conservationists is evidently a euphanism for "environmentalism." Can you say tree spikers? As much as I might be in favor of sensible environomental policy I view most of the so-called conservations and environmentalists as a bunch of left-wing wacks.

If the oil extraction industery is a "bad buy" then you should have no objection when you are bicycling to work. And we can all just bundle up tighter in the winter when our fuel runs out and in the summer we can just do without air conditioning.

When I see "environmentalists" or "conservationists" or whatever one wishes to call them them I see trouble.

If you want to pin the N.O. problem on the right, you are barking up the wrong tree.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,304
Reaction score
13,540
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Missouri Mule said:
Conservationists is evidently a euphanism for "environmentalism." Can you say tree spikers? As much as I might be in favor of sensible environomental policy I view most of the so-called conservations and environmentalists as a bunch of left-wing wacks.

If the oil extraction industery is a "bad buy" then you should have no objection when you are bicycling to work. And we can all just bundle up tighter in the winter when our fuel runs out and in the summer we can just do without air conditioning.

When I see "environmentalists" or "conservationists" or whatever one wishes to call them them I see trouble.

If you want to pin the N.O. problem on the right, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Here is the problem that pro-industry conservatives have. The conservationists have the majority of the public on their side. So, the pro-exploitation conservatives have to marginalize the conservationists. So they say things you did and try to equate the actions of the most fringe environmental groups, who have been completely denounced by mainstream groups, with the mainstream environmental movement.

Saying Oil Companies were bad guys was a bad joke on my part. They are not, but conservationists, by and large are the good guys. I don't know if you live in Missouri or not, going by your name, you might. If you do, then you know that because of those conservationists, Missouri has one of the best DNRs and Department of Conservation, and State Park systems in the nation.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
Here is the problem that pro-industry conservatives have. The conservationists have the majority of the public on their side. So, the pro-exploitation conservatives have to marginalize the conservationists. So they say things you did and try to equate the actions of the most fringe environmental groups, who have been completely denounced by mainstream groups, with the mainstream environmental movement.

Saying Oil Companies were bad guys was a bad joke on my part. They are not, but conservationists, by and large are the good guys. I don't know if you live in Missouri or not, going by your name, you might. If you do, then you know that because of those conservationists, Missouri has one of the best DNRs and Department of Conservation, and State Park systems in the nation.
Actually, I don't live in Missouri any longer. I live in Texas. But Missouri is a conservative state. Remove the metropolitan areas of St. Louis and Kansas City it would probably the the most conservative state in the union. The difference is that Missourians are from the "show-me" state where words are cheap and they disinclined to accept the goody two-shoes of the "environmentalists" who parade as being the saviors of our environment. You should see the junk left behind when these people hold their meetings. It is not what people say. It is what they do.

I'm a conservative who believes very strongly in a clean environment; that we should reduce consumption of fuel if we possibly can; pick up our trash and be otherwise good citizens. But I take strong exception to those who spike the trees; who let wild animals free to be killed by predators and do all the other things they do. They are the hypocrites; the true scum of the earth.

If an oil company or oil executive despoils the environment, throw the book at him. Throw him under the jail. Draw and quarter him, if necessary, but let us not be deceived that all the environmentalists and conservationists are the "good guys." They aren't. And neither are all the people on the other othert side are the "bad guys." They aren't.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,304
Reaction score
13,540
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Missouri Mule said:
Actually, I don't live in Missouri any longer. I live in Texas. But Missouri is a conservative state. Remove the metropolitan areas of St. Louis and Kansas City it would probably the the most conservative state in the union. The difference is that Missourians are from the "show-me" state where words are cheap and they disinclined to accept the goody two-shoes of the "environmentalists" who parade as being the saviors of our environment. You should see the junk left behind when these people hold their meetings. It is not what people say. It is what they do.

I'm a conservative who believes very strongly in a clean environment; that we should reduce consumption of fuel if we possibly can; pick up our trash and be otherwise good citizens. But I take strong exception to those who spike the trees; who let wild animals free to be killed by predators and do all the other things they do. They are the hypocrites; the true scum of the earth.

If an oil company or oil executive despoils the environment, throw the book at him. Throw him under the jail. Draw and quarter him, if necessary, but let us not be deceived that all the environmentalists and conservationists are the "good guys." They aren't. And neither are all the people on the other othert side are the "bad guys." They aren't.
The population of the Metro areas of KC and Saint Louis are about 75% or so of the people who live in the state of Missouri. All in all, I think Missouri is a fairly middle of the road state.

You are talking about a small extremist minority in the environmentalist community. No one in any of the major environmental organizations does things like that. Mainstream conservationist organizations are organizations like The Environmental Defense Fund, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, The Rock Mountain Elk Foundation, The Sierra Club (prob the most left wing of the bunch), The Nature Conservancy, The League Of Conservation Voters, and The Natural Resources Defense Council. None of those organizations torch SUVS, Spike Trees, or free wild animals and it is those mainstream organizations like that and all the lobbying they did that are the reasons why you have clean water, clean air, and wilderness areas hike, hunt, fish and otherwise enjoy.

You have to understand, there are pro-exploitation politicians, both Republican and Democrat, who have suggested that we privatize national parks, revoke the clean air act, revoke the endangered species act, and these are guys who would drill for oil in Yellowstone National Park if they could.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
The population of the Metro areas of KC and Saint Louis are about 75% or so of the people who live in the state of Missouri. All in all, I think Missouri is a fairly middle of the road state.

You are talking about a small extremist minority in the environmentalist community. No one in any of the major environmental organizations does things like that. Mainstream conservationist organizations are organizations like The Environmental Defense Fund, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, The Rock Mountain Elk Foundation, The Sierra Club (prob the most left wing of the bunch), The Nature Conservancy, The League Of Conservation Voters, and The Natural Resources Defense Council. None of those organizations torch SUVS, Spike Trees, or free wild animals and it is those mainstream organizations like that and all the lobbying they did that are the reasons why you have clean water, clean air, and wilderness areas hike, hunt, fish and otherwise enjoy.

You have to understand, there are pro-exploitation politicians, both Republican and Democrat, who have suggested that we privatize national parks, revoke the clean air act, revoke the endangered species act, and these are guys who would drill for oil in Yellowstone National Park if they could.
The central cities of St. Louis and Kansas City are predominently Democratic and liberal (and corrupt) but most of the suburbs (which make up most of the population) is predominently Republican. The reason is fairly simple. They are the ones paying the taxes to support the liberal schemes. That's what makes a Republican out of a Democrat. Republicans at their heart do not believe in big government because they understand it is necessairly corrupt and inefficient. Democrats at their heart believe in bigger government and believe government is the solution to most poroblems. It really comes down to how much one wants to pay in taxes and whether or not they believe in government handouts.

But I digress. The point is the environment. The environmentalists have historically been one of the main driving forces of behind the Democratic party. And yes, if it could be accomplished sensibly, I WOULD drill in Yellowstone Park.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,304
Reaction score
13,540
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Missouri Mule said:
The central cities of St. Louis and Kansas City are predominently Democratic and liberal (and corrupt) but most of the suburbs (which make up most of the population) is predominently Republican. The reason is fairly simple. They are the ones paying the taxes to support the liberal schemes. That's what makes a Republican out of a Democrat. Republicans at their heart do not believe in big government because they understand it is necessairly corrupt and inefficient. Democrats at their heart believe in bigger government and believe government is the solution to most poroblems. It really comes down to how much one wants to pay in taxes and whether or not they believe in government handouts.

But I digress. The point is the environment. The environmentalists have historically been one of the main driving forces of behind the Democratic party. And yes, if it could be accomplished sensibly, I WOULD drill in Yellowstone Park.
I think it’s a difference of philosophy then. I think that some areas should just be left untouched as much as possible by man for the enjoyment of future generations. For example, ANWR represents the last 5% of the North Slope of Alaska not open to drilling already. Yellowstone in my opinion is a place that ought to be left unexploited regardless of whether or not anything of value existed there.

Actually, in your other assertion you are wrong. North Eastern states and West Coast states that consistently vote Democrat actually pay into the federal government more in taxes than they get in return in programs, Red southern and Midwestern states actually pay in less taxes to the federal government than they get in return.

States receiving the most in Federal Spending per dollar paid:

  • D.C. ($6.17)
    2. North Dakota ($2.03)
    3. New Mexico ($1.89)
    4. Mississippi ($1.84)
    5. Alaska ($1.82)
    6. West Virginia ($1.74)
    7. Montana ($1.64)
    8. Alabama ($1.61)
    9. South Dakota ($1.59)
    10. Arkansas ($1.53)
States receiving the least in Federal Spending per dollar paid:

  • New Jersey ($0.62)
    2. Connecticut ($0.64)
    3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
    4. Nevada ($0.73)
    5. Illinois ($0.77)
    6. Minnesota ($0.77)
    7. Colorado ($0.79)
    8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
    9. California ($0.81)
    10. New York ($0.81)
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
I think it’s a difference of philosophy then. I think that some areas should just be left untouched as much as possible by man for the enjoyment of future generations. For example, ANWR represents the last 5% of the North Slope of Alaska not open to drilling already. Yellowstone in my opinion is a place that ought to be left unexploited regardless of whether or not anything of value existed there.

Actually, in your other assertion you are wrong. North Eastern states and West Coast states that consistently vote Democrat actually pay into the federal government more in taxes than they get in return in programs, Red southern and Midwestern states actually pay in less taxes to the federal government than they get in return.

States receiving the most in Federal Spending per dollar paid:

  • D.C. ($6.17)
    2. North Dakota ($2.03)
    3. New Mexico ($1.89)
    4. Mississippi ($1.84)
    5. Alaska ($1.82)
    6. West Virginia ($1.74)
    7. Montana ($1.64)
    8. Alabama ($1.61)
    9. South Dakota ($1.59)
    10. Arkansas ($1.53)
States receiving the least in Federal Spending per dollar paid:

  • New Jersey ($0.62)
    2. Connecticut ($0.64)
    3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
    4. Nevada ($0.73)
    5. Illinois ($0.77)
    6. Minnesota ($0.77)
    7. Colorado ($0.79)
    8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
    9. California ($0.81)
    10. New York ($0.81)
I'm completely in favor of soaking the blue states. The more the better. Serves them right.

And we ought to be drilling everywhere, including your back yard until we figure out how to tame the sun's power and get rid of our dependence on oil. The alternative is to return to the horse and buggy.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Theodore Roosevelt would be spinning in his grave.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
scottyz said:
Theodore Roosevelt would be spinning in his grave.
Teddy Roosevelt may have been a conservationist in the truest sense of the word but he was no fool and he wasn't spiking trees either.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,334
Reaction score
16,228
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Industries like the Oil and Extraction Industries = The Bad Guys
Groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council and Ducks Unlimited = The Good Guys

Are the bad guys always on the wrong side of an issue and are the good guys always on the right side of an issue? No.

But, usually, the bad guys are on the wrong side of an environmental issue and the good guys are on the right side of it. So what the bad guys have to do is smear the good guys to make them look bad.
Why is it that every leftist moron views industries like oil and extraction as the bad guys?
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jamesrage said:
Why is it that every leftist moron views industries like oil and extraction as the bad guys?
Because they are morons? I think you have likely answered your own question. Most leftists are morons, uninformed and a general pain in the rear end. And those are their good qualities.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,334
Reaction score
16,228
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Because they are morons? I think you have likely answered your own question. Most leftists are morons, uninformed and a general pain in the rear end. And those are their good qualities.
Perhaps there is another reason why they think this way other than they are just morons.Bad parenting,perhaps they were dropped on their head as a baby, brainwashing by idiot teachers,or their brain has been altered in a negative way by severe drug use.Perhaps PETA or ELF has got a hold of him.
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I hate conservationists because, for the most part, they have no idea of the realities of what they're talking about.

Take for example, the NYT editorial board flipping out about drilling for oil in Alaska, arguing that it's going to ruin the wilderness.

Alaska is the size of the western half of the US. That's like saying that drilling for oil in Texas is going to ruin the wilderness in Montana.

And I also hate environmentalists because of the hippies who stand out on the street in NYC soliciting money for the environment, because they've never seen trees. I used to live in the mountains of Upstate NY, and let me tell you, there ain't no damn shortage of trees.

Exchange:

Hippie asshole on street: "Do you have a moment for the environment?"
Me: "No, I hate the environment."
Hippie: "How can you say that. Our air is becoming polluted and we're running out of trees-"
Me: "I live in the woods. There are millions of trees. I hope they chop down every one they can get to."
Hippie: "I knew you looked like a fascist."
Me: "And I knew you looked like an Upper East Side idiot."
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Missouri Mule said:
Because they are morons? I think you have likely answered your own question. Most leftists are morons, uninformed and a general pain in the rear end. And those are their good qualities.
I guess this makes me a leftist and not a moron.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
RightatNYU said:
I hate conservationists because, for the most part, they have no idea of the realities of what they're talking about.

Take for example, the NYT editorial board flipping out about drilling for oil in Alaska, arguing that it's going to ruin the wilderness.

Alaska is the size of the western half of the US. That's like saying that drilling for oil in Texas is going to ruin the wilderness in Montana.

And I also hate environmentalists because of the hippies who stand out on the street in NYC soliciting money for the environment, because they've never seen trees. I used to live in the mountains of Upstate NY, and let me tell you, there ain't no damn shortage of trees.

Exchange:

Hippie asshole on street: "Do you have a moment for the environment?"
Me: "No, I hate the environment."
Hippie: "How can you say that. Our air is becoming polluted and we're running out of trees-"
Me: "I live in the woods. There are millions of trees. I hope they chop down every one they can get to."
Hippie: "I knew you looked like a fascist."
Me: "And I knew you looked like an Upper East Side idiot."
That's a funny story, so true and so true of the silly mindset of most liberals. We don't have any shortage of trees, that's for sure. I just cut down a passel of them before the hurricane and damn glad I did. Trees are our enemies (when they come crashing through your house in the middle of the night.)
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Missouri Mule said:
That's a funny story, so true and so true of the silly mindset of most liberals. We don't have any shortage of trees, that's for sure. I just cut down a passel of them before the hurricane and damn glad I did. Trees are our enemies (when they come crashing through your house in the middle of the night.)
I don't agree with that hippie either.
Trees can be replanted, granted they take a while to grow.
Some companies that chop down forests to use for lumber and paper actually make an effort to replant trees, again, they take a while to grow, but if more companies make an effort to do this than we won't "run out of trees"
There are plenty of trees and forests out there.
Making a statement like that is like saying, "Dude! You need to stop smoking because the world is running out of Tobacco!"

Thats ignorant.
I guess that is what makes me "slightly liberal"
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Caine said:
I don't agree with that hippie either.
Trees can be replanted, granted they take a while to grow.
Some companies that chop down forests to use for lumber and paper actually make an effort to replant trees, again, they take a while to grow, but if more companies make an effort to do this than we won't "run out of trees"
There are plenty of trees and forests out there.
Making a statement like that is like saying, "Dude! You need to stop smoking because the world is running out of Tobacco!"

Thats ignorant.
I guess that is what makes me "slightly liberal"
I believe companies have to replant, ever since the National Forrest Management Act of 1976. Even without the law they'd still replant, IMO. Businesses, for the most part, are not stupid. Ever hear of any successful industry that never took into account for where their future supplies were going to come from?

Several years ago I lived in Tillamook, Oregon. They make a lot of cheese there. It's on the coast, about 75 mile west of Portland. I drove to Portland about three times a week for work. One rainy day on my way home I saw an older couple on the side of the road, in an obvious rental car, with a flat tire. The guy looked to be about 80 and the tire probably out weighed him so I stopped and changed the tire for them. As I finished putting the hub cap back on the guy told me they were from Chicago and they'd come out west to see the forest before they cut down the last of the trees. He said "hell, you got lots of trees, the way the news tells it you'd think they're going to cut the last one down any day now."

Trees we got. Sensible people? Not so much some times. Every year or so some Enviro group, usually based in California, get a ballot measure on the ticket to stop most major logging. Every year it goes down in flames. People here depend on the forest and the jobs it creates.
 

galenrox

ROCK AND ROLL MASTER
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,571
Reaction score
38
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jamesrage said:
Why is it that every leftist moron views industries like oil and extraction as the bad guys?
Missouri Mule said:
Because they are morons? I think you have likely answered your own question. Most leftists are morons, uninformed and a general pain in the rear end. And those are their good qualities.
It's a good thing you guys are around together, or else you'd have no one else to convince each other that you're right.
I think you guys should consider the quote "I never learned anything from someone I agreed with."
The fact is there are several ways someone informed about the oil industry could identify them as the bad guys. The same cannot be said about someone who identifies them as the good guys.
The vast majority of our oil comes from OPEC, an organization that is technically illegal, but that is ignored since they control the oil, which we need. As far as our energy policy goes, it might as well be written by the oil companies, considering the billions of dollars in tax breaks that they get completely ignoring that they posted record profits this year.

Now if the oil companies acted purely capitalistic, you'd have a point, but they actually take a number of anti-competitive stances, including OPEC cutting supply to raise prices, and them essentially buying and selling governments. Also, the fact that in Saudi Arabia the oil supplies are actually controlled by the government, which is just about as anti-capitalist as things can get.

So yes, the oil companies are the bad guys, and you don't know **** about what you're talking about, neither of you.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
galenrox said:
It's a good thing you guys are around together, or else you'd have no one else to convince each other that you're right.

I think you guys should consider the quote "I never learned anything from someone I agreed with."

The fact is there are several ways someone informed about the oil industry could identify them as the bad guys. The same cannot be said about someone who identifies them as the good guys.

The vast majority of our oil comes from OPEC, an organization that is technically illegal, but that is ignored since they control the oil, which we need. As far as our energy policy goes, it might as well be written by the oil companies, considering the billions of dollars in tax breaks that they get completely ignoring that they posted record profits this year.

Now if the oil companies acted purely capitalistic, you'd have a point, but they actually take a number of anti-competitive stances, including OPEC cutting supply to raise prices, and them essentially buying and selling governments. Also, the fact that in Saudi Arabia the oil supplies are actually controlled by the government, which is just about as anti-capitalist as things can get.

So yes, the oil companies are the bad guys, and you don't know **** about what you're talking about, neither of you.

Well, why don't you brainey liberals just outlaw the oil companies? It would make our lives simpler when we get around in our horse and buggies.

And your comment about OPEC is wildly off the mark. As anyone knows the problem is not one of oil supply it is tha lack of oil refinining capacity since the tree huggers have prevented the building of new oil refineries.

Sometimes I wish you liberals would just get your way so everyone could see how silly your ideas truly are. You had better be careful of what you wish for because you just might get it.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Missouri Mule said:
Well, why don't you brainey liberals just outlaw the oil companies? It would make our lives simpler when we get around in our horse and buggies.

And your comment about OPEC is wildly off the mark. As anyone knows the problem is not one of oil supply it is tha lack of oil refinining capacity since the tree huggers have prevented the building of new oil refineries.

Sometimes I wish you liberals would just get your way so everyone could see how silly your ideas truly are. You had better be careful of what you wish for because you just might get it.
you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals.

Im so hurt...
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Caine said:
you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals you liberals.

Im so hurt...
You're getting it.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Wow...where to begin:

Really quick point on taxes - I find it ironic that northeastern states, who love the idea of soaking people with taxes, want to complain about how their tax dollars are spent. If you want to put so much faith in government via handing over your hard-earned money, then don't complain how politicians spend it...because they will spend it like drunken sailors!!

On environmentalism / conservation:
I've grown tired of the assertion by the left that if you are conservative or a Republican the way you are defined automatically defaults to being a destroyer of the environment. That's pure insipid rhetoric. Our children will have to drink the same water and breathe the same air as everyone else. Nobody wants to live in a polluted world.

The environmental movement has become so entrenched with every social reject loser including anti-capitalists, communists, and anti-American zealots. We're told constantly about how we are doing this to the environment, or that to the environment without any verifiable proof. We're told that global warming has lead to the thawing of icebergs and the cause is oil and gasoline. Yet, just last week we learned that Mars is warming due to the sun heating up. Could it be that maybe the earth is too? Wow, who would have ever guessed that? If the sun gets hotter so does the earth. Interesting...

As for places to drill for oil - I say drill anywhere we believe it may be. Let's get off of this dependence of Mid-East oil. Let's move toward alternative energy sources so that we can reduce our oil usage altogether. But until we develop those alternative sources I say we DRILL...DRILL...DRILL!!!

As for ANWAR, I get frustrated with these wacko enviro-nutcases who talk of this frozen sheet of ice being some pristine sacred paradise. It's a frozen sheet of ice, not inhabitable by man under normal circumstances. I would like to know how many of these greenies have ever been to ANWAR or plan to ever go!!! I bet none. Besides, ANWAR is approximately the size of South Carolina. The footprint that would be created in order to drill would the size of an airport. Based on this, does the environmentalist cause sound like a movement to stop a grave injustice in ANWAR, or a movement to impede capitalism?
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Red State Sage said:
Wow...where to begin:

Really quick point on taxes - I find it ironic that northeastern states, who love the idea of soaking people with taxes, want to complain about how their tax dollars are spent. If you want to put so much faith in government via handing over your hard-earned money, then don't complain how politicians spend it...because they will spend it like drunken sailors!!

On environmentalism / conservation:
I've grown tired of the assertion by the left that if you are conservative or a Republican the way you are defined automatically defaults to being a destroyer of the environment. That's pure insipid rhetoric. Our children will have to drink the same water and breathe the same air as everyone else. Nobody wants to live in a polluted world.


The environmental movement has become so entrenched with every social reject loser including anti-capitalists, communists, and anti-American zealots. We're told constantly about how we are doing this to the environment, or that to the environment without any verifiable proof. We're told that global warming has lead to the thawing of icebergs and the cause is oil and gasoline. Yet, just last week we learned that Mars is warming due to the sun heating up. Could it be that maybe the earth is too? Wow, who would have ever guessed that? If the sun gets hotter so does the earth. Interesting...

As for places to drill for oil - I say drill anywhere we believe it may be. Let's get off of this dependence of Mid-East oil. Let's move toward alternative energy sources so that we can reduce our oil usage altogether. But until we develop those alternative sources I say we DRILL...DRILL...DRILL!!!

As for ANWAR, I get frustrated with these wacko enviro-nutcases who talk of this frozen sheet of ice being some pristine sacred paradise. It's a frozen sheet of ice, not inhabitable by man under normal circumstances. I would like to know how many of these greenies have ever been to ANWAR or plan to ever go!!! I bet none. Besides, ANWAR is approximately the size of South Carolina. The footprint that would be created in order to drill would the size of an airport. Based on this, does the environmentalist cause sound like a movement to stop a grave injustice in ANWAR, or a movement to impede capitalism?
Re-Read the Highlighted portions above.....
You just argued yourself stupid.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Caine said:
Re-Read the Highlighted portions above.....
You just argued yourself stupid.
Typical leftist ploy...don't argue the points, just insult and smear. Please feel free to try again...this time with a little more thought than your post above.
 
Top Bottom