• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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?

Red State Sage said:
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.

That's the left/liberal way of argument for you. They call people they disagree names but seldom have an argument worthy of the name. Your point about ANWR was right on. None of these people have been there. But they are instant experts because they are inculcated with the left-wing propaganda that passes for education in this country. The left-wing media echoes it and the young "minds of mush" (Rush's words -- but oh so true) just can't separate out fact from fiction. Therefore they revert to name calling because they have no facts.
 
Red State Sage said:
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.

Im not going to argue to support the Environmentalists.... I don't share any views with them on the subject.
I just think its funny you just said typical leftist ploy and stated insult and smear.... lets look at this again....

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...

So, what were you saying about insults and smear? Your the one who started the insults...

Im not even going to argue to support Environmentalists cause I don't share thier opinions. Nor do I share your opinions, especially when you use insults and smear to talk about thier movement.
 
Missouri Mule said:
That's the left/liberal way of argument for you. They call people they disagree names but seldom have an argument worthy of the name. Your point about ANWR was right on. None of these people have been there. But they are instant experts because they are inculcated with the left-wing propaganda that passes for education in this country. The left-wing media echoes it and the young "minds of mush" (Rush's words -- but oh so true) just can't separate out fact from fiction. Therefore they revert to name calling because they have no facts.

Read above and previous post(s)... you both sound ignorant.

Especially you since if you read any of the previous posts you'll see Im not supporting environmentalists.... Just pointing out contradictions in your own posts.
 
Caine said:
Read above and previous post(s)... you both sound ignorant.

Especially you since if you read any of the previous posts you'll see Im not supporting environmentalists.... Just pointing out contradictions in your own posts.

If a person makes a statement that is devoid of facts they are either an idiot or they are lying. You can equate that with what I have said if you wish but it is a silly argument. Some things are demonstrably true. Other things are obviously untrue. The far left/liberals are predominently made up of people who haven't or refuse to to apply common sense and logic. ANWR is a perfect example.
 
Missouri Mule said:
If a person makes a statement that is devoid of facts they are either an idiot or they are lying. You can equate that with what I have said if you wish but it is a silly argument. Some things are demonstrably true. Other things are obviously untrue. The far left/liberals are predominently made up of people who haven't or refuse to to apply common sense and logic. ANWR is a perfect example.

Now, read the following quote from the guy you were defending....

Red State Sage said:
The environmental movement has become so entrenched with every social reject loser including anti-capitalists, communists, and anti-American zealots.

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.

The statements made here were.....devoid of facts.
Then he has the ignorance to say I was insulting him and smearing him instead of arguing the points, which isn't even why I came to this forum in the first place. But I had to point out this hypocritical contradiction.

I rest my case
 
Caine said:
Now, read the following quote from the guy you were defending....

The statements made here were.....devoid of facts.
Then he has the ignorance to say I was insulting him and smearing him instead of arguing the points, which isn't even why I came to this forum in the first place. But I had to point out this hypocritical contradiction.

I rest my case

Looked pretty factual to me. These retread hippies still don't know how to find their butt cheeks with both hands. Has anyone here or anyone you know actually been to ANWR? Anyone?
 
Missouri Mule said:
Looked pretty factual to me. These retread hippies still don't know how to find their butt cheeks with both hands. Has anyone here or anyone you know actually been to ANWR? Anyone?

Again, insults and smear.
 
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.
right, and that logic would make sense if you were a three year old with down syndrome, but unfortunately, we're adults, and thus have to actually know what we're talking about to be taken seriously.
For one, the reason the refining capacity is low is due to the fact that refining oil at one point became unprofitable, and so no one wanted to enter the market. And considering we're discussing an oligopoly, it is nearly impossible to enter the market as a new comer.
So yeah, you don't know what you're talking about there...
Then about my comment about OPEC being off the mark, maybe it's off the three year old with down syndrome mark, but when it comes to actual FACTS it's right on. Cartels are illegal, it's as simple as that, but of course we need the oil, so whatever. And recently they cut supply, because considering the inelasticity of the oil demand curve, it is actually profitable to cut supply, because although they're selling less, their making more money while selling fewer barrels, due to the increased price.
So yeah, once again, next time you have a thought, just let it go....
If you knew who you were talking to, you would know that I am not a liberal stereotype, and I would prefer if these ridiculous jumbles of words you throw out would acknowledge that. I am actually fiscally conservative. The reasons the oil companies are the bad guys is because they aren't just trying to sell oil, they are trying to buy our government. They are given billions of dollars in tax cuts when they are posting record profits, there are American troops around nearly every major source of oil, and if you notice, most of our conflicts end up being around oil producing countries, you can call that a coincidence if you please, but it'd be a hell of a coincidence.
So yeah, please try to know what you're talking about before you try to rebut what I say.
 
galenrox said:
right, and that logic would make sense if you were a three year old with down syndrome, but unfortunately, we're adults, and thus have to actually know what we're talking about to be taken seriously.
For one, the reason the refining capacity is low is due to the fact that refining oil at one point became unprofitable, and so no one wanted to enter the market. And considering we're discussing an oligopoly, it is nearly impossible to enter the market as a new comer.
So yeah, you don't know what you're talking about there...
Then about my comment about OPEC being off the mark, maybe it's off the three year old with down syndrome mark, but when it comes to actual FACTS it's right on. Cartels are illegal, it's as simple as that, but of course we need the oil, so whatever. And recently they cut supply, because considering the inelasticity of the oil demand curve, it is actually profitable to cut supply, because although they're selling less, their making more money while selling fewer barrels, due to the increased price.
So yeah, once again, next time you have a thought, just let it go....
If you knew who you were talking to, you would know that I am not a liberal stereotype, and I would prefer if these ridiculous jumbles of words you throw out would acknowledge that. I am actually fiscally conservative. The reasons the oil companies are the bad guys is because they aren't just trying to sell oil, they are trying to buy our government. They are given billions of dollars in tax cuts when they are posting record profits, there are American troops around nearly every major source of oil, and if you notice, most of our conflicts end up being around oil producing countries, you can call that a coincidence if you please, but it'd be a hell of a coincidence.
So yeah, please try to know what you're talking about before you try to rebut what I say.

Really? Other then the current assault on Iraq what involvements have been in oil producing areas? Bosnia? Somalia? Vietnam? Korea? Maybe Grenada?
 
Pacridge said:
Really? Other then the current assault on Iraq what involvements have been in oil producing areas? Bosnia? Somalia? Vietnam? Korea? Maybe Grenada?
Kuwait, Venezuela, Bosnia has 2 major oil deposits (http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=353), but I guess you got me with Somalia, Panama's oil pipeline, you get the point.


I was talking post Vietnam, which was pretty clearly associated with the cold war.
 
galenrox said:
Kuwait, Venezuela, Bosnia has 2 major oil deposits (http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=353), but I guess you got me with Somalia, Panama's oil pipeline, you get the point.


I was talking post Vietnam, which was pretty clearly associated with the cold war.

I forgot Panama, though I think they may have had more to do with international shipping then merely oil. Why do I hear "he forgot Poland, he forgot Poland" in my head?

When did we have a military conflict with Venezuela?
 
galenrox said:
right, and that logic would make sense if you were a three year old with down syndrome, but unfortunately, we're adults, and thus have to actually know what we're talking about to be taken seriously.
For one, the reason the refining capacity is low is due to the fact that refining oil at one point became unprofitable, and so no one wanted to enter the market. And considering we're discussing an oligopoly, it is nearly impossible to enter the market as a new comer.
So yeah, you don't know what you're talking about there...
Then about my comment about OPEC being off the mark, maybe it's off the three year old with down syndrome mark, but when it comes to actual FACTS it's right on. Cartels are illegal, it's as simple as that, but of course we need the oil, so whatever. And recently they cut supply, because considering the inelasticity of the oil demand curve, it is actually profitable to cut supply, because although they're selling less, their making more money while selling fewer barrels, due to the increased price.
So yeah, once again, next time you have a thought, just let it go....
If you knew who you were talking to, you would know that I am not a liberal stereotype, and I would prefer if these ridiculous jumbles of words you throw out would acknowledge that. I am actually fiscally conservative. The reasons the oil companies are the bad guys is because they aren't just trying to sell oil, they are trying to buy our government. They are given billions of dollars in tax cuts when they are posting record profits, there are American troops around nearly every major source of oil, and if you notice, most of our conflicts end up being around oil producing countries, you can call that a coincidence if you please, but it'd be a hell of a coincidence.
So yeah, please try to know what you're talking about before you try to rebut what I say.

The title of this thread is "Why does the right seem to hate conservationists so much?" Why don't we stick to the subject without these gratutious ad hominem attacks? I'll ask you directly. Have you been to ANWR?


BTW, I'm perfectly aware of what OPEC is and that they would be an illegal monopoly if in the U.S. For you to bring this up as some kind of relevant fact here shows the dearth of your understanding of the problem. There is not now a current shortage of crude oil. At some point in time it may be relevant but at the current time it is irrelevant.
 
Missouri Mule said:
The title of this thread is "Why does the right seem to hate conservationists so much?" Why don't we stick to the subject without these gratutious ad hominem attacks? I'll ask you directly. Have you been to ANWR?


BTW, I'm perfectly aware of what OPEC is and that they would be an illegal monopoly if in the U.S. For you to bring this up as some kind of relevant fact here shows the dearth of your understanding of the problem. There is not now a current shortage of crude oil. At some point in time it may be relevant but at the current time it is irrelevant.
Coming from someone who seems to think economics is a TV show about a gay man and a dog that can talk on NBC
Do you understand the concept of supply and demand, or did you just ignore that whole section because you didn't understand it.
untitled.gif

alright?
And this is a continuation from something you said to me, so don't try to cop out of this.
 
Pacridge said:
I forgot Panama, though I think they may have had more to do with international shipping then merely oil. Why do I hear "he forgot Poland, he forgot Poland" in my head?

When did we have a military conflict with Venezuela?
my bad, I thought I remembered us having a conflict with Venezuela. That's my fault.
lol, wait a couple weeks, and then I'll be right though.
Thanks for catching that one though!
 
galenrox said:
Coming from someone who seems to think economics is a TV show about a gay man and a dog that can talk on NBC
Do you understand the concept of supply and demand, or did you just ignore that whole section because you didn't understand it.
untitled.gif

alright?
And this is a continuation from something you said to me, so don't try to cop out of this.

I'm perfectly aware of the law of supply and demand. We currently do not have enough refinining capacity for gasoline as many of our refineries have been put out of commission by the hurricanes.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about with the gay man and a dog. Are you on meds today to deal with your psychotic episodes? If not, you might want to investigate that as they have meds to deal with individuals such as yourself.
 
Caine said:
Now, read the following quote from the guy you were defending....



The statements made here were.....devoid of facts.
Then he has the ignorance to say I was insulting him and smearing him instead of arguing the points, which isn't even why I came to this forum in the first place. But I had to point out this hypocritical contradiction.

I rest my case
Slick...you haven't made a point since I started posting. You're talking in circles. You state that Missouri and I are factually off-base, yet you don't wish to take the side of the environmentalists.

As for this:

Red State Sage said:
The environmental movement has become so entrenched with every social reject loser including anti-capitalists, communists, and anti-American zealots.
Why don't you enlighten us as to who exactly is making up the environmental movement today, if not these people.
 
galenrox said:
and if you notice, most of our conflicts end up being around oil producing countries, you can call that a coincidence if you please, but it'd be a hell of a coincidence.
Or maybe...possibly...it could have a little something to with the fact that these oil producing countries are the same nations who spawn modern-day Islamic terrorism. Just a thought...it might play a small role in the overall scheme of things.
 
Red State Sage said:
Slick...you haven't made a point since I started posting. You're talking in circles. You state that Missouri and I are factually off-base, yet you don't wish to take the side of the environmentalists.

As for this:

Why don't you enlighten us as to who exactly is making up the environmental movement today, if not these people.

I was only pointing out the hypocricy of you stating that I was using smear tactics and insults.
I wasn't arguing on the point of the environmentalists, if you go back to page 3 I believe you will see my opinion on it, and I made that post before you showed up.
I was only stating that you contradicted yourself like many conservatives do, whine about the "liberals" calling names and not arguing, then go off calling environmentalists Anti-American......Communists....Zealots.....Anti-Capitalists..... and Social Reject Losers (thats the real mature one, you remind me of one of those kids way back in high school).

Until you can debate an issue without making an ass out of yourself. shut it.
 
You guys on rabid right just don’t get it.

Why do you think that we have relatively clean and safe oil exploration and extraction?

Because of environmentalists and the regulations, mandates, and oversights that they have lobbied for. There is absolutely no financial incentive for almost any industry to be environmentally friendly. If you are a stockholder in Exxon, you want Exxon to make money. That’s it. You don’t want Exxon to spend a lot of money on cleaner technologies. You just want them to make money. That is why we have environmental regulations and mandates. For every dollar that mainstream environmentalist groups spend lobbying the government, the oil and coal industry spends a 100 dollars. That is why said that in terms of environmental protection, they are the bad guys. If it were not for environmentalists, those industries would be no cleaner today than they were 100 years ago. Oil is a necessity, but so are the environmental rules and regulations that environmentalists have fought for.

I consider myself a conservationist. I am no tree hugging hippy though, and neither are the vast majority of conservationists and environmentalists. We hate the EDF and the guys who blow up SUVs and spike Trees as much as anyone does. It is the people who fish, hunt, canoe, backpack, and otherwise enjoy our wildlands that are the reason that we have National Parks, National Forests, clean water, and clean air. The radical right tries to marginalize mainstream conservation groups because they know that those groups represent the beliefs of the vast majority of Americans.

The difference between the majority of Americans, and the radical right is that the majority of Americans see a value in wildlands that is beyond just commercial exploitation. We see a value in having some land set aside to be relatively untouched by industry. That is why that when polled for the last 20 years the majority of Americans have been against drilling in ANWR. Do you guys realize that ANWR is the last 5% of the North Slope of Alaska not open to oil exploration? The oil companies already have access to 95% of the North Slope of Alaska. Now they want the last 5%. The total area affect by oil exploration in ANWR will be approximately 200,000 acres for all of the roads and infrastructure required to support that level of oil exploration. Moreover, when they leave, they leave all that there. So it would never be the same, never be untouched again. And for what? It would be years before that oil would ever come to market and domestic oil companies would have no financial incentive at all to introduce anymore supply to the market than there is now. So in the end, what is the point other than for American oil companies to make that much more money. By small increases in CAFÉ standards, we could conserve far more oil than we will ever get up there. You guys do realize, that America has less than 5% of the world’s oil reserves. OPEC has over 70% of the world’s oil reserves. With numbers like that, there is no drilling our way to oil independence.
 
Caine said:
I was only pointing out the hypocricy of you stating that I was using smear tactics and insults.
I wasn't arguing on the point of the environmentalists, if you go back to page 3 I believe you will see my opinion on it, and I made that post before you showed up.
I was only stating that you contradicted yourself like many conservatives do, whine about the "liberals" calling names and not arguing, then go off calling environmentalists Anti-American......Communists....Zealots.....Anti-Capitalists..... and Social Reject Losers (thats the real mature one, you remind me of one of those kids way back in high school).

Until you can debate an issue without making an ass out of yourself. shut it.
Once again, tell us who these people are if not the above references I used. Many are socially rejected, having never fit into society. There are also communists and anti-capitalists in their ranks. Finally, there is no doubt they are zealous in their pursuit of environmental utopia. So, if I'm wrong, you tell us who they are. I wasn't name-calling in the sense you elude to. The names I used are accurate. All you seem to be able to do is insinuate that I'm wrong while offering no evidence to the contrary.
 
Red State Sage said:
Once again, tell us who these people are if not the above references I used. Many are socially rejected, having never fit into society. There are also communists and anti-capitalists in their ranks. Finally, there is no doubt they are zealous in their pursuit of environmental utopia. So, if I'm wrong, you tell us who they are. I wasn't name-calling in the sense you elude to. The names I used are accurate. All you seem to be able to do is insinuate that I'm wrong while offering no evidence to the contrary.

I think SouthernDemocrat's post right above yours sums it up pretty good.
 
Caine said:
I think SouthernDemocrat's post right above yours sums it up pretty good.
It's a good thing you have Southern Democrat here to hold your hand, and make posts for you.

As for what SD has to say, it's the typical liberal approach to state that conservatives don't want a clean environment. It's hogwash (to use some Southern vernacular) to believe that we want our children breathing the same dirty air and drinking the same polluted water as you insinuate that we want for the world. There is a happy medium where responsible technology meets with a clean environment.

Nobody has yet to answer the question Missouri and I have been asking - are any of you environmentalist / conservationists reserving your plane tickets to Alaska in order to go hang out in ANWAR??
 
Red State Sage said:
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.

and.... hrmm.. i wonder.....

Red State Sage said:
As for what SD has to say, it's the typical liberal approach to state that conservatives don't want a clean environment. It's hogwash (to use some Southern vernacular) to believe that we want our children breathing the same dirty air and drinking the same polluted water as you insinuate that we want for the world. There is a happy medium where responsible technology meets with a clean environment.

Nobody has yet to answer the question Missouri and I have been asking - are any of you environmentalist / conservationists reserving your plane tickets to Alaska in order to go hang out in ANWAR??

hypocrisy!
 
Red State Sage said:
It's a good thing you have Southern Democrat here to hold your hand, and make posts for you.

As for what SD has to say, it's the typical liberal approach to state that conservatives don't want a clean environment. It's hogwash (to use some Southern vernacular) to believe that we want our children breathing the same dirty air and drinking the same polluted water as you insinuate that we want for the world. There is a happy medium where responsible technology meets with a clean environment.

Nobody has yet to answer the question Missouri and I have been asking - are any of you environmentalist / conservationists reserving your plane tickets to Alaska in order to go hang out in ANWAR??

This is just the left-wing mantra that I've been hearing forever. It is tiresome, disingenous, and all around bullshite. I'm unsubscribing to this thread as it is complete waste of my time and any other thinking adult.
 
Back
Top Bottom