Subject:
|
Re: Who does W. Love? BIG OIL!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:44:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
222 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > in article GA9wp9.C3K@lugnet.com, Bill Farkas wrote:
> >
> > > I read the story and didn't see anything about oil. Also, you can't discount
> > > his (W's) stated concern about energy prices, especially living on the west
> > > coast.
> >
> > I can't believe you think his concerns are noble.
>
> I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He hasn't demonstrated, here
> or in Texas, that he's one of those kinds of politicians yet.
He's been pretty much a straight corporate shill. Nor does he care the
slightest about California voters, just corporate profit. I'm not surprised
at any of this, but I am surprised at the people in denial about it both
before the election and especially after it.
>
> > His concern is for all those big factories that are going to line his
> > pockets (or donate to his next campaign, or whatever) when he allows them to
> > spew carbon dioxide in copious amounts.
>
> That would be better than selling "nucular" technology to foreign enemies
> for campaign contributions, wouldn't it? And how 'bout Big Unions, etc.
What does any of this have to do with Mark's point? Best defense is a good
offense? Big Unions? Is there a point there beyond reinforcing that Dubya
is a corporate shill - he blocks Big Unions' only real weapon, the strike.
>
> All he said was that he wasn't going to do it right now because of high
> energy prices, that doesn't preclude him from doing it in the future.
I'd rather pay higher prices and have cleaner air. So would most people in
California.
>
> >
> > Washington State power companies are currently charging us out the yahoos
> > and telling us to conserve so they can sell our power to California. But
> > wait! Big businesses are getting power rate cuts when they conserve! But not
> > us little people, sorry.
Supply and demand, I'm afraid. The product of stupidity and short-term
profit margins, unfortunately ("We can't afford to build more power plants,
but boy, do we have great dividends").
>
> And this is all because of environmentalists and the nonexistent energy
> policy of the last eight years. Big business makes the world go 'round -
> they deserve a break. Democrat tax policy puts small business out of
> business thereby ensuring the longevity and growth of Big business anyhow.
Pete Wilson wasn't a Democrat, and he was the guy on watch here in
California when the power plants should have been built.
>
> > > And as far as Big Oil is concerned...ever here of a guy named Mark Rich -
> > > the Big Oil tycoon who purchased a pardon?! Democrats are such
> > > "hippie-cricks". (Anyone remember where that's from?) They complain about
> > > and try to sue tobacco companies and then offer homeless people cigarettes
> > > if they vote - so much for being against smoking and for the homeless!
> >
> > Bill, all politicians are hypocrites.
>
> I agree about 90% of them are, but not all.
The really successful ones are ALWAYS in that 90% faction. I don't trust
Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, or Clinton any more than I do Reagan, Bush, Dubya,
or Ford (okay, Nixon is in a class by himself).
>
> > > I also disagree with Miss Whitman's statement that global warming is a "real
> > > phenomena." There are many studies that say it is not. IMO, it's a tool of
> > > environmental extremists to punish prosperity and capitalism in this
> > > country.
> >
> > Really? Which studies? Please be specific.
>
> I drive alot and listen to alot of 24-hour news stations, I heard about it
> many times there. I'll look when I get a chance - I'm currently in St. Louis
> heading for Baltimore.
The scientific community leans heavily towards global warming being real.
The uncertainly lies within the mechanics and causes of that warming. The
last thing I'd trust is some political source (left or right) with an axe to
grind on the subject. Or a corporation with a profit margin to protect.
>
> >
> > > Third-world countries produce far more pollution than the entire
> > > U.S. does and no one targets them.
> >
> > How do you suggest we control their emissions? Invade?
>
>
> I can rally the troops at your command, Grand Admiral Sir!
>
>
> My point was that only the U.S. is the target and concern for all of the
> controls and restrictions by international interests. Environmentalists feel
> guilty about our prosperity. Homeless activists (same ilk) will sleep on
> sewer grates so they can "identify" with them, but won't accept them into
> their own homes to shelter them. What does that achieve? CFC's were the
> boogey-man of the past and were also shown to little to no effect on the
> environment.
Go out under that hole in the ozone layer and get a tan. :-)
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Who does W. Love? BIG OIL!!!
|
| (...) I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He hasn't demonstrated, here or in Texas, that he's one of those kinds of politicians yet. (...) That would be better than selling "nucular" technology to foreign enemies for campaign (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
