How Conservatives Are Viewed By The Left

[DC Tom]

while i don't accept being caught out and i certainly don't accept that my beliefs in anyway resemble fascists, even if you are convinced that i was or that they do, you have a single example to point to. examples of insults for arguments by you are almost innumerable.

 

So while you stick your metaphorical fingers in your metaphorical ears and shout "Neener! Neener! Neener! I can't hear you!", the rest of us are supposed to engage in rational discussion with you?

 

 

Any wonder why we resort to insults?

[birdog1960]

Way to switch the topic. Explain how Bush and Cheney planned to colonize and exploit Iraq?

one of the administration's stated goals in the war was democratization of the middle east. (funny to read this article through the retrospectascope- bit like the victory celebration on the aircraft carrier). but what was the goal of this? to free the oppressed peoples in the region from their horrible overlords? or to gain more influence/control in the largest oil producing region in the world? btw, "colonize" is your word not mine.

[3rdnlng]

one of the administration's stated goals in the war was democratization of the middle east. (funny to read this article through the retrospectascope- bit like the victory celebration on the aircraft carrier). but what was the goal of this? to free the oppressed peoples in the region from their horrible overlords? or to gain more influence/control in the largest oil producing region in the world? btw, "colonize" is your word not mine.

 

It's pretty funny and sad too that we are so f'd up that we would go to war in Iraq for oil and finance Brazilian exploration, but ignore the vast majority of deposits we have under our control. I would think that you progressives would be all for us drilling here in the U.S. so we wouldn't have to protect our sources in the middle east. We would also be advancing the middle class with all the well paying jobs in the energy business.

[birdog1960]

It's pretty funny and sad too that we are so f'd up that we would go to war in Iraq for oil and finance Brazilian exploration, but ignore the vast majority of deposits we have under our control. I would think that you progressives would be all for us drilling here in the U.S. so we wouldn't have to protect our sources in the middle east. We would also be advancing the middle class with all the well paying jobs in the energy business.

we went to war while a very pro oil and domestic exploration man was in power. could it be that he didn't feel estimted domestic reserves were large enough for future domestic needs?

[3rdnlng]

we went to war while a very pro oil and domestic exploration man was in power. could it be that he didn't feel estimted domestic reserves were large enough for future domestic needs?

 

Are you saying that Bush II kept us from drilling? There's an old adage used in courtrooms as it pertains to attorneys questioning witnesses. Don't ever ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

 

 

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/05/01/technically-recoverable-oil/

 

 

"The technically recoverable oil shale numbers total 982 billion barrels and are obtained from 2 sources: a study by the RAND Corporation that estimated that the technically recoverable oil shale resources to be 800 billion barrels[iv] and a U.S. Geological Survey study that estimated that there were an additional 500 billion barrels of in-place oil shale resources beyond what was included in the RAND study. Assuming the same rate of recovery for these additional 500 billion barrels of oil shale[v] brings the total recoverable resources to 982 billion barrels of oil resources. The United States uses roughly 7 billion barrels of oil per year."

[birdog1960]

Are you saying that Bush II kept us from drilling? There's an old adage used in courtrooms as it pertains to attorneys questioning witnesses. Don't ever ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

 

 

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/05/01/technically-recoverable-oil/

 

 

"The technically recoverable oil shale numbers total 982 billion barrels and are obtained from 2 sources: a study by the RAND Corporation that estimated that the technically recoverable oil shale resources to be 800 billion barrels[iv] and a U.S. Geological Survey study that estimated that there were an additional 500 billion barrels of in-place oil shale resources beyond what was included in the RAND study. Assuming the same rate of recovery for these additional 500 billion barrels of oil shale[v] brings the total recoverable resources to 982 billion barrels of oil resources. The United States uses roughly 7 billion barrels of oil per year."

that's fracking incredible.

 

no i don't think bush kept us from drilling. i'll bet he was aware of these estimates and still didn't feel oil independence was happening in the forseeable future.

[GG]

one of the administration's stated goals in the war was democratization of the middle east. (funny to read this article through the retrospectascope- bit like the victory celebration on the aircraft carrier). but what was the goal of this? to free the oppressed peoples in the region from their horrible overlords? or to gain more influence/control in the largest oil producing region in the world? btw, "colonize" is your word not mine.

 

I used the word colonize, because that's what usually happens when empires expand. Maybe you can offer an example of an empire that didn't colonize or annex property?

 

So if the goal of neocons was to instill true democracy in the region, how would neocons influence/control the largest oil producing region in the world?

[birdog1960]

I used the word colonize, because that's what usually happens when empires expand. Maybe you can offer an example of an empire that didn't colonize or annex property?

 

So if the goal of neocons was to instill true democracy in the region, how would neocons influence/control the largest oil producing region in the world?

empire is your word, too.

 

they've proven their ability to lead/mislead the populace on several occasions. remember when a majority of americans believed that iraq was involved in 9/11? i'd think they'd have a better chance with proletarian arabs than their ruthless, calculating dictators.

Edited May 2, 2012 by birdog1960

[GG]

empire is your word, too.

 

they've proven their ability to lead/mislead the populous on several occasions. remember when a majority of americans believed that iraq was involved in 9/11? i'd think they'd have a better chance with proletarian arabs than their ruthless, calculating dictators.

 

Empire wasn't my word either. It was a simple extrapolation to your answer to the question about imperialism. Unless you will argue that imperialism has nothing to do with empires.

 

I'm sorry but how is neocons' stated and written desire to foster democracy in Mid East misleading?

[Chef Jim]

did i insult him? did you? is he undeserving of debate? does he post to be ignored?

 

No he insulted you.

[3rdnlng]

that's fracking incredible.

 

no i don't think bush kept us from drilling. i'll bet he was aware of these estimates and still didn't feel oil independence was happening in the forseeable future.

 

No, we've been discovering more and more. If you clicked on the first link you'd have seen that Bush had asked congress to repeal a law preventing exploration and drilling.

 

In order to push his agenda, Obama has been saying that we use 20% of the world's oil while "producing" only 2% of it. In actuality we use 20% but have, according to the formal oil reserve estimate only 20 billion of reserves, which is 2% of the world's proven oil reserves. That 20 billion figure has remained the same since 1946. Newer estimates are 982 billion. So, depending on how you look at the figures, we could have as many reserves as all the rest of the world put together. If we continue to use oil at our present rate we have a reserve of 140 years. Note though that there are many other areas in the world that might have tremendous reserves too.

 

Now that you are armed with some facts, has your opinion changed?

 

Note to all you capitalists out there. I'm aware of the world market and that the oil producers won't limit oil from the U.S for sale only to the U.S. I over simplified things so a doctor could understand.

Edited May 2, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[birdog1960]

No, we've been discovering more and more. If you clicked on the first link you'd have seen that Bush had asked congress to repeal a law preventing exploration and drilling.

 

In order to push his agenda, Obama has been saying that we use 20% of the world's oil while "producing" only 2% of it. In actuality we use 20% but have, according to the formal oil reserve estimate only 20 billion of reserves, which is 2% of the world's proven oil reserves. That 20 billion figure has remained the same since 1946. Newer estimates are 982 billion. So, depending on how you look at the figures, we could have as many reserves as all the rest of the world put together. If we continue to use oil at our present rate we have a reserve of 140 years. Note though that there are many other areas in the world that might have tremendous reserves too.

 

Now that you are armed with some facts, has your opinion changed?

 

Note to all you capitalists out there. I'm aware of the world market and that the oil producers won't limit oil from the U.S for sale only to the U.S. I over simplified things so a doctor could understand.

yes, and the devil is in the details. there's nothing simple about it. so we're in unfathomable debt (partly due to 2 continuing wars), in a very slowly recovering recession that many claimed was nearly a depression, lost our triple a credit rating and you're saying there's a simple solution in turning on a spigot. geez, you're the messiah we've all been waiting for. why didn't anyone think of this before? not even the most ardent oilman or conservative oil crony has made such a claim.

Edited May 2, 2012 by birdog1960

[3rdnlng]

yes, and the devil is in the details. there's nothing simple about it. so we're in unfathomable debt (partly due to 2 continuing wars), in a very slowly recovering recession that many claimed was nearly a depression, lost our triple a credit rating and you're saying there's a simple solution in turning on a spigot. geez, you're the messiah we've all been waiting for. why didn't anyone think of this before?

 

Doc, why are you changing the discussion? Because I refuted your contentions that Bush II didn't think it was worth drilling, and that we don't have all kinds of oil reserves so that we don't need to protect our oil trade with the middle east? All I said is that it wouldn't have much importance if we could drill for our own oil. There are no simple solutions to our deficit, but we weren't talking about that were we? All I said was that we could be energy independent if we choose to be. Now if you want to talk about the government entering into contracts with oil companies to drill like crazy on federally owned lands with that money going for deficit reduction, I'll listen. Why is it that you liberals always choose the option of sharing the wealth for fairness sake rather than choosing the option of expanding the wealth in order to raise everybody up?

[birdog1960]

All I said was that we could be energy independent if we choose to be.

by when? if this were true, then we could pump our way out of the hole with little difficulty and very quickly. how much would 800+ billion barrels of oil bring even in the face of an oil glut? if this was plausible and the case was made to the american public convincingly, no pol opposing it would stand a chance of being elected. i haven't heard the argument made in any of the elections (other than drill baby drill). when has romney conjectured anything remotely similar? no experts i've heard concluded that failed legislation on drilling or pipelines would have resulted in anything nearing energy independence. the wealth that this would bring and the expense saved would be enormous (and i suppose in some ways a disincentive as the price of oil would plummet). cite some credible experts who give a time frame for energy independence using the estimates your argument relies on. even bush' "addiction to oil" speech only estimated a decrease of 75% imported oil by 2025 (through "new technologies" and almost nobody believed him.

Edited May 2, 2012 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

Fascism is well defined?? You mean Hitler's fascism was the same as Mussolinis? What, are you a bathroom professor or something?

 

That's like saying "stupid" isn't well-defined because your stupidity isn't the same as Dave in Elma's.

[birdog1960]

That's like saying "stupid" isn't well-defined because your stupidity isn't the same as Dave in Elma's.

there seems to be at least some disagreement on the application of the labels...seems not everyone agrees what label goes where.

[DC Tom]

there seems to be at least some disagreement on the application of the labels...seems not everyone agrees what label goes where.

 

Based on the random musings of an anonymous left-wing nutjob like yourself, sure...

[3rdnlng]

by when? if this were true, then we could pump our way out of the hole with little difficulty and very quickly. how much would 800+ billion barrels of oil bring even in the face of an oil glut? if this was plausible and the case was made to the american public convincingly, no pol opposing it would stand a chance of being elected. i haven't heard the argument made in any of the elections (other than drill baby drill). when has romney conjectured anything remotely similar? no experts i've heard concluded that failed legislation on drilling or pipelines would have resulted in anything nearing energy independence. the wealth that this would bring and the expense saved would be enormous (and i suppose in some ways a disincentive as the price of oil would plummet). cite some credible experts who give a time frame for energy independence using the estimates your argument relies on. even bush' "addiction to oil" speech only estimated a decrease of 75% imported oil by 2025 (through "new technologies" and almost nobody believed him.

 

Why do you keep bringing up Strawman arguments? I gave you every opportunity to discuss this on a rational basis and all you've done is throw up multiple canards. All I've said is we could be energy independent if we choose to be. You make up schit that has nothing to do with what I have stated. Can you at least be honest for once in your life? Doc, I hope you are really specialized and are insulated from the rest of the real world. Obviously, logic is not your forte.

[dayman]

I can't read through this topic so I apologize if this is off base as far as what is actually being discussed at this point.

 

One of the things I dislike about the conservative politics most is their use of socially conservatives issues in a way that I view as a bait-and-switch (and that puts it kindly). I'm not socially conservative but I feel bad for them, I feel they are the most abused voters in America.

 

Abortion is never outlawed, school prayer never returns, the "culture industry" is never forced to clean up its act. The Republicans rely on social issues to keep a large portion of their base, then when they're in office they turn to economically conservative issues benefiting the wealthy (whom are NOT the same as most social conservatives). Now, I don't have a problem with economically conservative policy and people advocating it...but why does it have to be mixed with social conservatism?

 

Then the very capitalist system the economic conservatives strive to strengthen and deregulate often promotes and commercially markets the perceived assault on traditional values.

 

Basically I see people voting against their own interest in order to vote jesus, to vote anti-gay, etc. Not a big fan of that. Not a big fan of pandering to those issues.

 

As someone who considers himself in "the middle" and *gasp* votes each election for the PERSON I decide I want...this is the biggest thing the conservative movement could STOP DOING that would sway me their way. But then again, they would risk losing the strangle hold on "the heartland" so it won't happen anytime soon.

Edited May 2, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

I can't read through this topic so I apologize if this is off base as far as what is actually being discussed at this point.

 

One of the things I dislike about the conservative politics most is their use of socially conservatives issues in a way that I view as a bait-and-switch (and that puts it kindly). I'm not socially conservative but I feel bad for them, I feel they are the most abused voters in America.

 

Abortion is never outlawed, school prayer never returns, the "culture industry" is never forced to clean up its act. The Republicans rely on social issues to keep a large portion of their base, then when they're in office they turn to economically conservative issues benefiting the wealthy (whom are NOT the same as most social conservatives). Now, I don't have a problem with economically conservative policy and people advocating it...but why does it have to be mixed with social conservatism?

 

Then the very capitalist system the economic conservatives strive to strengthen and deregulate often promotes and commercially markets the perceived assault on traditional values.

 

Basically I see people voting against their own interest in order to vote jesus, to vote anti-gay, etc. Not a big fan of that. Not a big fan of pandering to those issues.

 

As someone who considers himself in "the middle" and *gasp* votes each election for the PERSON I decide I want...this is the biggest thing the conservative movement could STOP DOING that would sway me their way. But then again, they would risk losing the strangle hold on "the heartland" so it won't happen anytime soon.

 

Wow, you are one f'd up person. There's this whole bunch of us that are fiscally conservative people that aren't bible thumpers clinging to our guns and whatever. Well, it's close by for those of you that care. Regardless, it is a false premise to lump in the fiscally conservative with the social nuts. Just to make that clear, the social nuts from both ends of the spectrum.