The things liberals have been saying about our current oil price woes are so stupid that even stupid people should be embarrassed for them. But in case you aren't, I'm here to help you revel in the fact that you're now officially smarter than somebody – than an entire group. Yes, it's been speculation and innuendo up to now, but it's finally official – Liberals are morons!
They want to investigate the oil speculators, they want to tax "excess profits," they want to nationalize refineries, and above all, they don't want to drill in areas with proven reserves, and to compound that, they want oil companies to drill in areas where there are no proven reserves – "use it (oil leases) or lose it," one no-name idiot Dem Congressman says. "Thanks, we'll pass," the companies say back en masse.
Now look at the above paragraph and ask yourself how any of that will help lower oil prices?
And here's what the the Democrat Presidential nominee-in-serious-mental-decline had to say recently: “We can’t drill our way out of the problem because there's just a finite amount of oil out there and you have got increasing demand from countries like China and India."
Are you suddenly feeling better about yourself? I bet a serious number of special-ed students can see what's wrong with Obama's statement, but let's not leave it to chance. First, define "finite," because we know that he's right if he means "contained within the Earth." But apart from that, we have no idea what's there, and we're finding more all the time. So it could be a thousand years before the supply runs out, and by then, we should have that "cheaper and greener" energy solution the Enviro Don Quixotes think exists at the end of the rainbow, but more on that and them shortly.
Even more incredibly stupid than the first part of Obama's comment is the second part. He says that we shouldn't bother drilling because China and India will just use it all anyway. Did I just hear you smack yourself in the forehead? What does Obo think they'll use if we don't drill? Even worse, we can't stop THEM from drilling, and they may soon be drilling in waters near you. Oh the irony!
So lets set the record straight. ANY new oil will affect price. Depending on the amount found, it will either restrain future increases or, if the find is a bonanza, prices will stabilize and even decline. In fact, the mere mention that we're going to turn America into Swiss Cheese in an all-out effort to increase our domestic supply could very well drive short-term prices down and keep them down – because then speculators will have a harder time speculating.
I'm sure you get that, so why doesn't Obama? And his advisors? And Democrats in Congress? And liberals in general?
Well, the simple answer is, we don't know that they don't. In other words, such an idiotic comment may just be a diversion, because what liberals really want is higher energy prices and more misery. Without misery, liberals perish, and without high prices, they can't bring about Shangri-La in their lifetimes. No matter that even trying to do that will require they make a lot of people expendable.
But for liberals, there's a downside to those high prices: they make real people want real solutions – NOW! I don't know how high prices will need to go, but I'm actually with the enviro-wackos and warmalarmists… I want prices to march steadily upward. Because I'll bet the farm that if that happens, I'll win.
And what exactly will I win? Well, as people realize that you can't ride a polar bear to work, but you can get oil from a whale, with any luck, "environmentalism" will become a dirty word, and if I'm really fortunate, enviro-warmists will be afraid to leave home, and not because they don't have American Express cards – it'll be because their predictions were right – the climate will be too hot outside – but only for them.
Why am I so hostile to enviro-warmists, you ask? Is it simply because they are the dumbest people on the planet? Of course not. If that were the case, I'd actually have no compassion for the lowest among us, and as you know, I'm nothing if not compassionate when it comes to the less fortunate. Unfortunately though, the wackos are not less fortunate. Many are actually 'educated,' but I put that in quotes because if they were truly educated, they wouldn't think as they do. So either their educators failed them or they failed themselves, but in any case, we have to deal with the result.
And the result of their thinking is immoral. They would sacrifice real lives for their fantasy, and that's not mere speculation, they already have, and they are perfectly willing to continue doing so. In fact, they won't even notice the carnage.
The worst of it is that their fantasy isn't even attainable/ The idiot who thinks that we'll be finding "cheaper and greener" energy sources first has to manipulate the market so that oil prices go so high as to make their alternatives attractive by comparison. In other words, if Mohammad (you) won't go to the mountain, they'll bring the mountain to you. Sound good? Because if it does, let me make it still worse.
There are two important components to our energy supply – price and availability. enviro-warmists have succeeded in restricting availability. it took three decades or so, and many people saw the current situation coming long ago, but I confess that I hoped to escape this life before it affected me. Still, I didn't turn a blind eye. I took measures that would help insult me from the pain others are feeling.
But no one can escape the consequences completely, and here's an ugly fact – we saw the price of corn affecting the poor in Mexico a year and a half ago. And when the price of corn goes up, it affects the price of other food, from wheat to meat. But that's nothing compared to what happens when the price of oil goes up – it affects the price of… EVERYTHING! Just watch the daily news and see for yourself what went up in price today. I hope you'll think of me when you do, because with each new increase, I'm getting closer to getting my wish – a hunting season on enviro-warmists.
Right now, the Midwest is reeling, and the nation will be along with it since the flooding there is far more consequential than the New Orleans rain-out. The timing couldn't be worse, the corn crop is devastated – good news for those who are still able to grow it, but awful news for everyone else. And Congress has mandated that a huge portion of the corn crop go toward ethanol production – immoral.
And another thing about availability:"cheaper and greener," on top of everything else, requires a non-disruptable supply. So much for corn in your tank, huh? Not only must energy supplies be relatively unaffected by the whims of Mother Nature, but the enviro-warmists and the general liberal population which promotes alternative energy has stymied virtually every effort to establish new and sustainable sources in the real world, thus making sustainable energy unsustainable.
So not only can't we drill our way out of this energy crisis solely because they won't allow it, we also can't blow and grow our way out, nor can we build nuclear plants or refineries, and solar energy remains an inefficient niche. Well, here's another fine mess they've gotten us into.
But the day of reckoning may finally be at hand for these dangerous idiots. Average Americans (and even a liberal plurality) finally want to drill like there's no tomorrow. But nobody's frantic yet, so liberals can still hold press conferences and spout their stupidity without fear of being shot. But the longer they do, the worse it will be for them.
When China's first oil rig goes up off the Florida coast, everyone will take notice, and surprisingly, that will be good news. Not only will it be the wake-up call for which there is no snooze alarm, but it almost doesn't matter who gets the oil as long as someone does. The general supply goes up America just misses out on the profits and taxes.
And wouldn't it be the supreme irony if an eco-disaster happened because the Chinese aren't as skilled and careful as American companies would be, so greased manatees started washing up on Florida beaches, and there was no one we could hold accountable?
That's what I'd call Shangri-La, but I'm not normal. You can look at it another way of you'd like: do you think the imagined results of global warming will be worse than what we're about to experience in the here and now? If you do, cap and trade THIS, you moron.
The Naked Conservative 
This is your best post, ever. Great job outlining what is really going on.
Liberals look for villains, not for solutions. And when they point the finger, they have a zero percent success rate in actually pointing it in the right direction – back at themselves.
Investigating oil speculators isn't going to solve the supply problem. What are you going to do convince them that there is more oil than there actually is?
Taking more money from the oil companies isn't going to solve the problem. They already make less than 10% profit. How is that a windfall? Do you know how many other companies there are in the world that make more than 10%? I bet you could find all kinds of "green" product producers who are making more than 10%. What would you do with the extra tax money anyway?
Nationalizing the refineries… sure, that will work just as great at nationalized healthcare. Don't get me wrong on the healthcare. I understand the idea is to get coverage for everyone, and that certainly would be nice, but it doesn't make it cheaper. They actually think they can run refineries better?
Drill in the land you already leased, they say. Don't you think the oil companies would be doing that, if they found oil there? Alaskans are begging for us to drill in ANWR. Lets do it. Even saying that we are going to do it will probably lower oil prices. Try explaining that one to liberals… they don't understand how the market works.
Maybe higher gas prices will bring that one thing I've been searching for – a cure to this sickness called liberalism.
By the way, how long do you think it will take for us to hear a liberal suggest a bracketed system for gas prices – where the so-called rich pay more for gas than a low income person? Think about it… isn't that always their argument? The rich can afford it, so why not have them pay more?
This is brilliant; the left-liberals always over look the fact that oil extracted in the USA means that our balance of payments results in our favor. You would think that pumping oil from ANWAR or anywhere else in America would be the highest priority, but they are left-liberals DUH! Nationalizing the oil business, isn’t that what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela?
I've been in the U.K. for 6 weeks. Just thought I'd drop in to see if you'd had an epiphany and become a liberal while I was away. O.K. lame, I know… So, what's the answer to high gas prices? Dunno. I doubt the oil cartels would be listening to any of us. I guess we'll just have to put our faith in good old free enterprise. Uh, that's right, they are the cause of the problem. Never mind, McCain will sort it all out. Well, won't he? Anyway, good to see you still holding forth, even if I disagree with most of it. Go well.
Ted, don't know if you've mentioned this but a past Democratic president tried the windfall tax thing against oil companies and it pretty much led to exactly the situation we have now. It immediately stopped any domestic oil exploration and had the exact opposite of the desired effect, as any person blessed with the ability to reason could have figured out in advance. It would almost be worth Obama winning in November, because he'd likely butcher things so badly that he'd be one and done.
This is classic: "Liberals look for villains, not for solutions." – especially while congratulating another villainizing diatribe from the Naked Conservative.In anycase, how about holding out on tapping domestic oil until we have the largest proven reserves? Or how about Nationalizing oil in order to remove it from the global market? Yeah from an economic standpoint these ideas are about as simplistic as the blog post above.We shall see, Ted. But I won't be holding my breath until your predictions come true.
Scho,
Thanks for the kinds words. I was going to answer everyone in one post, but then I came to Hen's, and since it deserved special attention, I didn't want those even more deserving to feel slighted So…
You know, it appears that liberals think the oil companies are content to sit on what they have and jack up prices as supply dwindles. You and I can see the folly in their belief, but since they believe things that are even greater folly , why should we expect them to be rational about this?
I don't know about you, but I was shocked to actually see those fools go public with their nationalization desires, but if they can feel comfortable doing that, your idea of having the rich pay more makes perfect sense. But then these people are so stupid and so dangerous that nothing they advocate should be a surprise anymore.
One last thing – Michael Savage regards them as diseased as you may know. I have avoided that because a disease requires sympathy, treatment, and the pursuit of a cure. But I can't have sympathy for anyone who seeks to damage America irreparably. I prefer to regard them as criminally insane. Lock 'em up in padded rooms. Give 'em all the drugs they want.
Zak,
YOU would think drilling makes sense, but you're at a disadvantage – you can't think like a liberal – or McCain. There's simply no rational argument for not drilling everywhere and anywhere now – as Hen has recently demonstrated.
Jeff,
Someone mentioned recently that a whole lot of Americans have no knowledge of, much less experience with, the Carter Administration. It was so bad that as a young adult, I was scared that we were in danger if imminent collapse, and I must say that despite what we've been through since, I have never again experienced the fear I felt under Carter. He literally did nothing right.
And wasn't Carter an engineer?
Re; Obama winning, I agree with you. If I felt I could insulate myself from the effects of his Presidency and just sit back and watch, it would be the greatest show on Earth!
Carter's innate intelligence can't be questioned. He's a very smart guy. He was nuke in the Navy I believe. His utter lack of common sense, however….The ticket price to the Obama show would be pretty steep though 🙂
Snowy,
Free enterprise is the cause of the problem? I'd actually love to hear you tell that story. As for you disagreeing with most of what i say, I believe that's only because we haven't debated our differences, so if you ever feel like trying to close the gap, you know where to find me.
McCain's not going to solve anything with a Dem controlled Congress, but the difference between him and Obama is – he'll try. I mean he's already demonstrated that he's willing to reconsider his positions as facts change.
Of course, Obama has too – he's decided to ignore his pledge about public financing now that he can raise more money on his own. That's change you can believe in!
<Grin>. So, you're already making excuses for your hero's presumed failure to perform. Strange that a willingness to reconsider a position is a virtue for McCain but not for Obama. But not really, I suppose, in a universe where all liberals are bad and all conservatives are good. Which is why you can make the outlandish statement that McCain will try but Obama won't. Really, Ted, you're going to have to do better than that if you're to have any credibility at all. Much, much better. Go well.
Hen,
I admit I'd have been quite unhappy that you were critical without offering anything whatsoever as an alternative we're it not for the fact that you achieved a personal best for incoherence and you were kind enough to do it right here!
But I'm sure that when you think about it, you'll realize that Obama's comment was every bit as stupid as I thought it was, and I didn't even mention that even if I concede that his idea of "finite" is closer to reality than mine is, what exactly was he saying – that because supplies are limited, we shouldn't find them too quickly?
But here's something else that tempered my response to your thoughtlessness – Ralph Peters wrote a column today that is all about you and yours. I felt kinda bad for you after reading it…
And if nothing else, please reassure me that "anycase" was a typo?!?
Jeff,
I thin that lots of brilliant people self-destruct, so I don't believe we should put too much stock in "brilliance" by itself It's the common sense part that I consider brilliant. So many "average" people have excelled because of it. I don't know how one measures brilliance anyway? How someone performs on tests? But you can measure common sense by results
Snowy,
I'd appreciate it if when you make suppositions, they at least follow logically from either facts or from something I've said, since the two may not be one and the same.
Nevertheless, I'll deign to entertain your ramblings, since the alternative is to scream at Bob Melvin, and I've already done plenty of that today.
"you're already making excuses for your hero's presumed failure"
I neither made an excuse, not did I ever proclaim McCain my hero. My comment was rooted in fact… you must have some recollection of those, no?
And his failure is not presumed since future circumstances could easily force even a Dem Congress to capitulate. But then what with your recently being somewhere in the UK, you may have missed the fact that the Liberals idiots have not changed their tune one note, and have if anything, hardened their stance in the face of overwhelming public opinion to the contrary… so of course, something has to give there.
"Strange that a willingness to reconsider a position is a virtue for McCain but not for Obama."
Here again, I'm going to, for your sake, assume you're unfamiliar with the facts – that we have known reserves we aren't tapping because of idiotic restrictions imposed long ago by your favorite party. McCain DID subscribe to those idiotic positions. Now he's reconsidered a bit? So if one holds an idiotic position and subsequently sees the light, it may not be a virtue to change, but at least he ceases to be an idiot.
Obo's position changes, on the other hand, are far more frequent and personal, as in – do they benefit him personally? If so, that becomes his position du jour, and most often, he tries to blame attacks by McCain and Republicans for necessitating said changes. Nothing he's done, failed to do, or decided on his own is the problem, it's always about how he's been misunderstood.
"in a universe where all liberals are bad and all conservatives are good. Which is why you can make the outlandish statement that McCain will try but Obama won't."
Wow, have you decided to try to outdo Hen here tonight? Because all liberals ARE bad, and yes, that includes you as long as you identify with their insane ideas, but anyone who knows me even a little bit would never say that I think all conservatives are good. in fact, I detest most of them. The difference is that i don't detest them because of their horribly dangerous ideas.
As for McCain trying and Obo not, you've appeared to generalize as your sort is wont to do. I was referring specifically to the price of oil, and if it's my fault for not being clear, please accept my apology and consider this clarification:
McCain is already trying – Obo isn't. So who is likely to try harder, assuming Obo tries at all? but I concede that he may be forced to "try" as conditions deteriorate. However (and again you may not know this, but then one has to at some point, start to question what, in fact, you do know?), Barackie is firmly on record as favoring high prices and forcing Americans into alternative and far more expensive and inconvenient choices, so knowing what we know, one would suspect that he wouldn't be all that gung-ho to set out on a mad drilling spree.
"Really, Ted, you're going to have to do better than that if you're to have any credibility at all. Much, much better."
Well, hopefully I have just done so, God willing,and it's now up to you to demonstrate that you know anything at all and that you can subsequently string those facts together to form a logical conclusion. Take all the time you need, but please, don't attempt anything further until you've got something concrete and it's not between your ears.
Heh, heh, heh. Oh really, Ted, you shouldn't take yourself so seriously. No-one else does.
Speaking of taking people seriously, you don't see me dropping in on your blog, do you?
But again, if ever you have something to debate… well, forget that, I know you won't bring it here because you can't risk me taking it seriously…
G'night, Ted. Sleep well.
If Snowy could provide an example of one thing government has done better and cheaper than the private sector I might actually listen. But that would be impossible, since it's never happened.
The US should go back on the Gold Standard even if we devalue the paper dollars100/ 1. That would solve the high cost of most anything.
Try the health care system in Australia which was introduced by a liberal government, has a mix of private and public health care, and is run by the government. Every Australian is entitled to free hospital accommodation and medical care in a public hospital; can choose any doctor they please; and does not have to worry about being bankrupted by medical bills. There's more, but I doubt you're listening, so I won't bother continuing.
I'll have to take your word for that. I'm no economist.
I'm sure Australians get free accomodation and care, but do they get good free accomodation and care? That's the question.Is it as much a smashing success as the British and Canadian systems? You know, the British one where anyone who needs an operation that isn't "life threatening" has upwards of a two year wait? And where several people I know flew themselves or loved ones elsewhere and paid for it themselves. Or like Canada, where one in four people in the country can't get a doctor because the nationalized system has removed almost all the incentives anyone would have to become a doctor in the first place?
To answer your question, "Yes". If you had asked me if the system was perfect, I would have had to answer "No". I'm not aware of any system that is perfect. The system offers a choice between a bare bones free public system and a private system that costs me AUD$220 a month that does not have some of the disadvantages of the public system. Between the two, Australians do enjoy good, affordable health care, and so far as I am concerned that is a basic right of every citizen.You can nitpick all you like about other Universal Health Care systems, but the fact remains that the US health system is a disgrace, and Americans deserve much better. The only way that is going to happen is if you remove your ideological blinkers regarding so-called "socialised medicine". Time to forget the liberal/conservative divide. We're people first and foremost, no matter what label we care to hang on ourselves.That's why I wish Ted would get over this continual diatribe against liberals. I know it makes him feel better, but does it really achieve anything? Far better to be sticking it up all politicians and trying to get them to do something about what really matters, such a decent health care system. I'm really quite fond of him for some perverse reason, and it bugs me seeing him waste so much time on negative liberal bashing, when he could be doing something far more productive with his time. I know he won't appreciate that gratuitous advice, but I'm older than he is, so he'll just have to wear it. Ok, settle down, Ted. Settle down! Oh well….
Jeff, when I saw your Snowy query, I knew exactly where we'd be headed, and frankly, I'm not capable of assessing the Aussie healthcare system. Unfortunately, neither is he, but I'm willing to concede that it's better than the British or Canadian system in that it incorporates -private- care which, NB, he's opted for. Unfortunately, I didn't note his concern, which I'm sure exists, for those who, for whatever reason, aren't able to avail themselves of the private option. May I presume their care is as "disgraceful" as the American system where everyone gets virtually any level of care needed and on a timely basis? I don't know.
Snowy,
In regard to my comment to Jeff just above, now it's your turn to settle down because I've long been a leading critic of our system, with the solution to it all being more, not less, private options. In fact, it's criminal that we restrict options based on where you work and that plans themselves vary based on what individual companies can afford.
But I don't want to debate healthcare here, which is why I so wish Jeff had stated his question thusly:
"Apart from healthcare, if Snowy could provide an example of one thing government has done better and cheaper than the private sector I might actually listen."
Then we could both, he and I, sit back and… well.. wait and wait and wait for your answer, and even more amazing, the waiting wouldn't be the hardest part. The hardest part would be you coming up with something that wouldn't get heaped in ridicule, immediately and unremittingly.
But let me say this… I mean everything I say about liberals. In fact there's a lot I can't say, and even more I would do given the opportunity, but note that I didn't get cheeky with you until you did with me. That's because unlike with Hen, I know you mean well, and more importantly, you're operating at the limit of your ability.
Which is why you like me, btw, – I'm the brain you never had.
Now I don't believe that made you angry because I think you see that I'm just funnin', but that's why we get along as well as we do. I think we could have heated discussions, live and in person, without blows being thrown, and there's even the possibility that, on my part, I wouldn't even want to.
But this comment wouldn't be complete without adding a few more points, the main one being that I am quite troubled that you (and not just you) hurl charges and fabricate my positions and then refuse to debate anything. I mean, I know why you do, and Billy found out the hard way, but my goal is to show YOU why you do – it's imply because no good can come of it with regard to your own belief system. And if you'd just admit that, I'd stop pestering you.
Finally, I must say that I was offended that you feel I can't bash liberals and stick it to all politicians at the same time because well, that's about all i do here.I submit that you're so overly sensitive that you've completely missed the unbridled hatred I feel for the right side of the aisle, but again, for different, thought no less significant, reasons.
And it is, in fact, you from what little I know of you, who only criticizes one side – and not very well, I might add. You should really just plagiarize my criticism of the right. You'll look even better to your liberal friends because then they;'ll say, "Hey, this guy is not just all froth, he actually knowns something!?!
Now got along little dingo…
Zak,
Coulda, shoulda, woulda? I'm sitting here trying to think of something I want that's as equally unlikely to happen… and it involves liberals having a rational thought – even a shared one.
Yes, I think I could enjoy a beer with you, Ted. That said, I see no point in long debates with you. We are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, and nothing is going to change that. We could debate for years without achieving anything. And anyway, it's big business that runs the world, no matter which government is in power. And there's not a single thing that you and I can do about that. Oh, we can rant and rave here, which may make us feel a bit better, but that's about all. Far better to tend the roses, and give the finger to the rest of the world, I think. My turn to go to bed. G'night.
The Republicans and Democrats are too dishonest to ever honor long term contracts or to return to real money like gold.
Zak,
I agree.
Snowy,
I see.
Snowy,
No sooner had I posted my reply to Zak and you than your comment started to eat at me. So if I understand you (and thank God there's no accent involved), not only are your seasons backward, but your days are too?
Now about debating, we shouldn't do it because it wouldn't solve anything? That's your position? Reminds me of Chandler in Friends: "What if Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream… I… I don't wanna talk about it?'"
So OK, can we at least agree that the Obama quote I cited above is the stupidest utterance by a presidential candidate since presidential candidates started uttering stuff? (And feel free to reread the actual quote and even utter it yourself as necessary)
Jeff,
When you mentioned Carter's failed windfall profits tax, I momentarily thought about and then forgot to mention Clinton's veto of drilling in Alaska. It was important enough even then that Bush ran on drilling there – it was one of his main points as I recall. Then he got in and did nothing, aparently because of the lame excuse that Congress wouldn't go for it anyway.
So I blame Clinton and Bush more or less equally, but truth be told, Bush is more to blame since he wasn't hamstrung by ideology – which of course is another reason why I hate him so much.
I actually never knew Clinton vetoed that drilling until recently. And you never need to remind us of your utter hatred of W 🙂
No.
Snowy,
You imply that Big Business is a negative force in the world? Businesses have a limited ability to negatively affect my life; they cannot tax me or compel me to take any course of action in my life. They cannot use coercion to force me to do or not do one single thing. Businesses exist to serve a need, without customers they will go bankrupt just look at GM – it is going bankrupt.
Governments use coercion to force me to do things and can cause me pain driving me into ruin if I do not comply. Governments can kill people either their subjects or by going to war the citizens of another country.
No, I did not say that big business is a negative force in the world. I said they run it, including the governments you so despise. Whether their interests coincide with your interests is always debatable.
I consider that governments use the power to coerce others, that politicians extort money from corporations in the form of campaign contributions. Lobbying by businesses and special interest groups is just as much self-defense against government as it is for an advantage over their competition or to support a cause. There is no perfect system. Politicians look backwards, innovators in the private sector look forward. There is a justifiable purpose for Law but I advocate a much more limited form of government then we currently have. Pity.
You neglected to mention the people who elect governments, and who politicians need to answer to. It is true that we get the governments we deserve, so maybe your criticism should be directed at voters as the cause of all the problems in the world. You don't mention the role of the media and their power to coerce others, even to the point of distorting the news that the masses depend upon for their information. That they just happen to be controlled by big business would seem to give them a marked advantage in controlling public discourse, bringing governments to heel, and giving weight to my assertion that big business runs the world.
We are going around in a circle. Media can't coerce others just attempt to misinform them. Politics is a subset of a "market" and like any market only reflect the behavior of its participants.
I would say that propagating a certain point of view is a powerful form of coercion, and a weapon that the rich and powerful do use to their advantage, whether it be by misinformation or selective use of the news. It is true that governments may also use the same form of coercion by selective use of intelligence to propagate reasons for invasion. eg Iraq.
Coercion requires force or threat of punishment. coerce 1. to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard to individual choice or volition. 2. to bring about through force or the threat of force or to compel. 3. to dominate or control, esp., by exploiting fear, anxiety.
To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
Right, I'm peein in my pants 'cause of global warming will end the world by 2012.
Snowy,
Unfortunately, your "No" evidences all the worst aspects of liberalism – reasonless, reflexive, dismissive of anything that doesn't fit your mindset, and the biggest problem from my perspective is that there's no point in even telling you that because it won't cause you to do any reflection, if indeed you were capable of doing so. You are, in fact, everything you accuse the right of being, and in your own small way, every bit as bad a Obama, who just (again) unilaterally played the race card over the weekend. And even if you know what I'm talking about, I have every confidence it wouldn't bother you in the least and that you'd do what CNN did and take Obama's comment and turn it against Republicans.
So while I haven't abandoned hope that there's some liberal out there who can be rational and reasonable, that certainly doesn't describe you, and while you're free to be as blindly ideological as you want to be, you're not free to do that here, where again with all you've said, you've said nothing at all – you refuse to debate, you ignore that which is addressed specifically to you, doubtless because you have no answer, you make vague charges, you ascribe motives and positions to me without any basis whatsoever, and then when I criticize you, you pull an Obama and whine or change the subject or act as if any criticism is unfair or unfounded.
So frankly, you have nothing to offer, and I'm not inclined to entertain your nonsense any further. You may be unable to understand why you're a bad guy, but that doesn't mean I have to accept you as you are. If the light ever comes on and you realize all that your "No" encompasses, and you wish to revise your answer, you can have the floor again. But as you said, you're older than I, and if you haven't realized by now, I'm afraid you're done.
I guess I'm just a lost cause then, Ted. I'd still like to have that beer. Go well.
Ted, You can talk at a left-liberal, but it is rare to find one which will actually engage in a conversation due to their blind ideology.
Snowy,
Thank you for you consideration
Zak,
I again agree, and we're I desirous of having a casual conversation with a liberal, I can't think of a better choice than Snowy. Unfortunately, I've just discovered Freeze Off, and so I'll be quite busy for the forseeable future, Say, why don't you have a go at it and let me know how it went?
Ted, I thought I did a good job filling in for you here. 😉 Until left-liberals accept human nature as it is, they are hopeless. BTW I always use the term "left-liberal" becaues they are not liberal – 180 degrees from a true liberal.
Thanks for the laughs, guys. No disrespect, but I think the late George Carlin was better.
Now George is a ghost like Justin Case. LOL "I can't smoke or drink, I might as well be dead." Keynes is dead also.
Snowy,
On balance, I liked Carlin very much. Life is absurd, Humans make it more so by their actions, and God is a grotesque entity or concept, depending on one's belief.
Zak,
I actually did sense that you were filling in, and it was most welcome, although you were entirely too nice for my tastes 😉
Regarding liberals as they currently exist, I thought Limbaugh had a great comment today. He began talking about a hypothetical kid asking him to describe liberalism, and he said, "How do you rationally describe insanity?"
It's not exactly like insanity but more like a religion with out God. They think that they are wiser than most and can "liberate" man from himself by creating government insitutions to protect us from ourselves. But someone did say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Life is absurd, Humans make it more so by their actions, and God is a grotesque entity or concept, depending on one's belief.Can't argue with that. Speaking of insanity, you're telling me that the incumbent President is sane? You know, the one elected by all those sane conservatives, like the evangelicals who support the war in Iraq because it's the prelude to Armageddon when the Rapture will take place? Yes, the same mob who are supporting McCain. You're telling me they are sane? Really?
Snowy, As incongruious as politics is I never stated that McCain spoke for me. And I coined the phrase: "George W. Bush is LBJ with a human face."
So, conservatives aren't so hot either, Zac. Doesn't really leave you with anywhere to go, then, does it. Maybe Ralph Nader, perhaps?
Neither Bush or McCain is a conservative in my opinion.
Zak,
Not only did you cite a great test for insanity, but your description of liberalism as a "religion" spotlights their delusions of grandeur and megalomania. Then Snowy's "pretzel" accusation provided the final piece of the liberal insanity puzzle. You know what I mean – it's where liberals attempt to twist the kitchen sink into the shape of a pretzel in a futile attempt to make a point?!?
Attila the Hun, perhaps?
I'd like to believe your last two comments are the result of a few too many pints before breakfast, and that once you've sobered up and had a chance to revisit what you did here, you'll take it as a clear sign that rehab is in order. I don't expect you'll be embarrassed though, since I know that's a foreign concept to liberals.
The pretzel is a great anology this is the first time I've seen it.
True. Liberals don't have anything to be embarrassed about, so it is a foreign concept. Now if I was a conservative, who depended on fellow Rapture Ready conservatives to elect the most powerful man in the world, well then, I do think I'd have something to be embarrassed about.
Didn't mean to distract with the healthcare reference, and as Ted has already mentioned he's often stated the need for conservatives to embrace some form of universal health care, because we all know it's coming so we might as well have a say in how it arrives. Regarding insanity, I remember seeing an interesting conversation on the subject though I can't recall where. The point of it was the insanity is culturally defined and so the definition is always in flux. The example give was that it was quite normal for Romans to masturbate in the Coliseum as they watched the gladiators fight or watched animals rip humans or each others to shreds. If most people do it and the ones not doing it don't care, is it still insane or is it normal?
Reminds me of the words of wisdom I saw written on a toilet door in a pub in Inverness, "There is no such thing as insane, just different degrees of normality".
And:When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.Mark Twain
"If most people do it and the ones not doing it don't care, is it still insane or is it normal?"
It depends on what "it" is, but yes, it could still be insane.
Jeff,
The one thing I feel most people agree on is the need for accessible healthcare. But liberals are wrong in thinking that government funded single-payer care is workable, and Snowy himself, with assess to the greatest socialized system in the world (apparently) saw the need to purchase private insurance, and seems to have no concern for those who can't.
Conservatives, on the other hand, merit as much contempt on this issue as I would accord any liberal, because like Snowy, as long as they have theirs, they could not care less if you have yours – that's your responsibility, and if you die in the gutter… well… you were irresponsible.
The problem is, healthcare is a right both morally and practically in the US because you don't have the "right to life" if someone or some entity would withhold care because you can't pay for it, but I couldn't even get conservatives to acknowledge that when it would be one of their prime tenets, and despite the irrefutable fact that employer funded healthcare is a gross injustice.
So we keep going 'round and 'round, although Bush did succeed in getting the first step, medical savings accounts, implemented. However, liberals have vowed to kill them, and I don't know about you, but I'm not even eligible for one – at least I don't think so, because actually, I can't even figure out what the qualifications are… but I think that if anyone should be eligible for one, I should!?!
Now Snowy,
I've allowed you to make gross and unsubstantiated charges without challenge, but even though I have infinite patience as you know, there comes a time when duty requires that I demand of posters that they provide at least rudimentary evidence in support of their point (such as it is), so you may no longer use the "column" approach here, and so we're clear, the column approach is where you have any number of columns, as I know you do, each containing a list of assorted words and phrases that you're fond of in making your "arguments" and from which you then proceed to draw from at random as you string together accusatory sentences.
The last thing I want to do is to start deleting you, but better than than to have to entertain such drivel, especially when you've overtly stated that you are not amenable to debate, apparently because you must have seen what happened to Billy the Goat when I succeeded in luring him into a step by step dissection of his comment that the Iraq war was unjustified – I haven't seen him since, have you?
Gutless.
I'm leaving your post this time because it not only shows how out of touch you are, but it allows me to make a point I haven't made in a while…
In my old forum, I used to tell people like you that if you can't be rational, and you can't, you at least have to contribute something to "the show." Your last post failed on both counts, as does this one, but here at least, you're a useful idiot. However, from this point to forever, standard rules apply for you, number one being, I don't seek, nor do I desire to be friendly with any liberal, so either contribute something of value, or go back to those who appreciate your nonsense. 'kay?
Hi All,
It seems unlikely that future Snowy posts will be sticking here for this reason: if you look over this thread, you will notice that he doesn't contribute anything useful, but he makes plenty of unsubstantiated charges.
I've warned him as nicely as I can, but like all liberals, he doesn't get the point, and when I finally deleted his latest worthless post which had nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, btw, he's apparently decided personalize his baseless charges.
I only tell you this because in my experience, when I read threads on, for example, American Thinker, invariable some idiotic liberal has something utterly incoherent to say, and I find myself irritated that the moderator let the post stand. I know that a lot of people like to answer liberal idiocy, but that only prolongs it for me, so what I'm saying is, if you want to answer the likes of Snowy, please go to Snowyville, and let me know if you need a map.
Jeez, most of my liberal friends can at least make a go of explaining why they think what they think. At least until I ask them "how are you going to pay for that?"
Well, it is rather difficult to respond if your comments are deleted when you are getting the best of your opponent. Enjoy that good old free enterprise health system now, won't you. No doubts about who pays for that. You do, at twice the cost of those in "socialised health systems". And you still run the risk of being bankrupted. Someone's being suckered. It isn't me.
You may be interested in this article on comparable health cost in the U.S.
The article fails in its first sentence:
"If people grasped the size of the health care bill they already pay (through taxes), opponents of a universal single-payer system would be in trouble."
Anyone who proposes a single-payer system should be killed, and then given all the healthcare he needs.
And he should be skinned alive for this:
"By now the high overall cost of health care in the United States is broadly recognized. And many Americans are acutely aware of how much they pay for their own care. Those without health insurance face sky-high doctor and hospital bills and ever more aggressive collection tactics — when they receive care at all."
I think that it should be mandatory that they become organ donors.
I notice that none of you have anything to say about the following, which sort of bursts the "single payer is more expensive" bubble. I really don't understand you guys. You'd prefer to believe the B.S. propaganda served up to you by the very vested interests who are screwing you bigtime, rather than believe the facts before your very eyes. Like these:To put U.S. spending into perspective: the United States spent 15.3
percent of GDP on health care in 2004, while Canada spent 9.9 percent,
France 10.7 percent, Germany 10.9 percent, Sweden 9.1 percent, and the
United Kingdom 8.7 percent. Or consider per capita spending: the United
States spent $6,037 per person in 2004, compared to Canada at $3,161,
France at $3,191, Germany at $3,169, and the U.K. at $2,560.And you say liberals are stupid, Ted? Well, then, how about you come up with something positive for a change, like what would be a satisfactory health system. And that goes for your anti liberal mates on here too, who seem to think that cheap shots are a substitute for intelligent discussion. Come to think of it, in the universe they live in, I suppose they are.So go ahead and hit the delete button again, Ted, because every time you do, I win. And you know it.
Actually I think the French system is about as good as you'd get. Payment is a percentage of income but all doctors and dentists set up private practice and compete for patients. It's not perfect, but it's better than a lot of the other systems out there. There might be a better way, but I haven't seen anyone talking about it.
It's top quality medical care that I need- not another government program or the promise of care. I have had both excellent and horrible care for the same $ on the same plan. I presently have a MSA. The tax laws in the USA are against an individual paying for their own care.
To put U.S. spending into perspective: the United States spent 15.3 percent of GDP on health care in 2004, while Canada spent 9.9 percent, France 10.7 percent, Germany 10.9 percent, Sweden 9.1 percent, and the United Kingdom 8.7 percent. Or consider per capita spending: the United States spent $6,037 per person in 2004, compared to Canada at $3,161, France at $3,191, Germany at $3,169, and the U.K. at $2,560.
And you say liberals are stupid, Ted?
Snory, I've just written a piece about you that'll I'll post after I deal with your usual nonsense here.
First, you seem to be saying that cost is the only consideration for healthcare, but I know you can't possibly think that, even as dumb as you are. So then you must be saying that you're getting the same or better care at less expense than Americans.
That may be, there's no way to know, but the question remains even under the best of circumstances – for how long? Because nothing beats private enterprise for all its faults, and nothing fails as badly as government, so while you may be lucky enough to have your needs met in their entirety, you neighbor may not… and there's probably a narrow avenue for appeal.
So it doesn't mater how cheap your care is and how good it is for the money, I wouldn't stand for it here unless I was free to make my own decisions – and that's the biggest problem with our current system – I'm not.
But now about what you've cited as evidence of your point… I read that when i read the article and just shook my head. not only was it utterly meaningless, the source was undocumented.
But will will take the time to explain what I mean just for you. The amount spent on healthcare as a percentage of GDP is a grossly inaccurate comparison if for no other reason than it doesn't account for who needs what care and where and how it's received. As one tiny example, we know that Canadians come here to get some care they can't get there. And the fact that – "the United States spent $6,037 per person in 2004, compared to Canada at $3,161" ought to be a matter of concern for Canadian citizens, not us. Oh I know that's supposed to indicate how we pay inflated prices for possibly less care, but if that is case, far more documentation, not mere assertion, is necessary
Now I'm not going to go any further because thinking people understand what you don't, and there's nothing I can do to help your thinking processes.Suffice it to say that you seem inordinately interested in promoting your system. Could it be that you feel uncertain as to it's long-term sustainability and would like come company for reassurance? .
Um, no, I didn't say that cost is the only consideration for healthcare, but like all bigoted conservatives you prefer to attack what you wished I'd said rather than address the issue at hand. I didn't bother reading any more. Suffice to say that Americans are the ones dissatisfied with their free enterprise, bankruptcy inducing, health system, while other more enlightened liberal minded countries with Universal Health Care aren't. I think that sums it all up nicely. Don't bother explaining anything further. I won't be bothering to read it. Oh, and don't forget to delete this comment. That's the only way conservatives can win an argument, isn't it.
I hope this serves as a lesson to anyone who feels the inclination to treat liberals as if they are human. Me, I've never felt more Jewish – never again!
LOL Ted. http://www.jpfo.org/