Guest mg Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 "Drooler" <perryneheum@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eb8a4c83-b5a0-4a2b-80f8-d5e3aedbf1df@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > "Keeping Iraq's Oil In the Ground?" > > > JUST UNTIL ... the world's biggest "oil companies" have > prepared their > bids to compete for drilling licenses to be awarded by > Iraq to explore > SIX BIG OIL FIELDS! Given the corruption in Iraq, and the country's occupation by Bush's oil Nazis, do you really think the Iraqi or American people can count on the government to select oil companies based on anything except who pays the best bribes and/or makes the most intimating threats? And then when they do get the contracts, how do we know they won't restrict production like they did before? Iraq is supposed to have an election coming up in the near future. If Bush and his puppet government in Iraq were honest, they would put the issue of whether Iraq should privatize its oil on the ballot. > > This development is the final part of the answer to the > question: > "WHEN WILL OUR TROOPS BE COMING HOME?" > > ANSWER: MOSTLY NEVER -- as long as the oil holds out. > > ------------------------------ > "Iraq to Open Oil-Field Bidding" > > "Big Companies to Compete for Exploration, Production > Rights" > > By Jonathan Stearns and Glen Carey > Bloomberg News > Thursday, April 17, 2008; D06 > > > > Iraq will open at least six major oil and natural-gas > fields for > exploration and production in the first bidding for > licenses since the > U.S.-led invasion in 2003. > > Iraq, which pre-qualified international oil companies this > week for > the bidding, will open the southern fields of Rumaila > North, Rumaila > South, West Qurna and Zubair for exploration, Oil Minister > Hussain al- > Shahristani said in an interview in Brussels yesterday. In > the north, > international oil companies will be invited to develop the > Kirkuk oil > field and the Akkaz gas field. > > "At least six giant fields will be included, including > some gas > fields," Shahristani said. "There will be other bid rounds > next year, > and more companies will be qualified as we go along." > > Iraq aims to nearly double oil production to 4 million > barrels a day > in the coming years with the help of international > companies, many of > which have refused to invest in the country because of a > lack of > security and the lack of a federal energy law. No > legislation has been > passed because of disagreements over revenue sharing and > oil-field > development. > > Iraq pre-qualified 35 of 120 U.S., European and Asian > companies that > submitted documents between Jan. 9 and Feb. 18 to > participate in the > licensing round, Oil Ministry spokesman Asim Jihad said > Monday. > > Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, and Europe's > two > biggest, Royal Dutch Shell and BP, were among the 35, as > were > ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Total. Others included > Russia's Gazprom, > the world's largest natural-gas producer, and Lukoil, the > Russian oil > producer with the most overseas assets. Mitsubishi and > Inpex Holding > of Japan and China's Sinochem were also accepted. > > The southern oil fields up for exploration have a > production capacity > of 1.71 million barrels a day and as much as 43 billion > barrels in > estimated reserves, according to the U.S. Energy > Information > Administration. Kirkuk has a production capacity of > 250,000 barrels a > day and reserves of 10 billion barrels. > > Iraq produced 2.38 million barrels of oil a day in March, > according to > data compiled by Bloomberg. The nation has an estimated > 115 billion > barrels of proven oil reserves, behind only Saudi Arabia > and Iran, > according to BP figures. > > Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who is visiting > Brussels, told > the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee that > the > government is close to completing an agreement on an oil > and gas law. > > This would help with the country's economic development, > Maliki said > without providing more information. He also called for > more > cooperation on energy with Europe. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041603115.html Quote
Guest Anonymous Infidel - the anti-polit Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 > and if the US would just leave them alone, they might Just decide to wipe themselves out Balkens style. <snip morally paralyzed relativist bs that fails to take reality into account> Quote
Guest Anonymous Infidel - the anti-polit Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 <snip al Qaeda wannabe Figaro> > > This is an appallingly stupid idea. So it would be better for if the Iraqi government just turned down Israeli money? [How are they going to buy food for their people?] > > Piping oil from Iraq to Israel > would inflame the Muslim world like nothing you've ever seen before. The Iraqi government doesn't seem that angry.... > > It would cement the view that the U.S. invaded Iraq for its oil and > that the U.S. is an occupier, diverting resources from Arab lands to > the hated Israelis over the objections of virtually all Arabs. No, because the American government isn't the one that made that deal. [iraqi government did] > > How could anyone propose something so dumb? Would you have had the American government nix this deal and tell the Iraqis that they can't deal with Israel? Good day to you, sir. Quote
Guest orionca@earthlink.net Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 04:08:30 -0700 (PDT), Jag_Pop@hotmail.com wrote: >On Apr 15, 8:07 Quote
Guest Neolibertarian Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 In article <7449d12f-bd26-4381-abc3-5000780ed54b@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 16, 9:12 Quote
Guest Neolibertarian Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 In article <MPG.22704d1f79c7ab9198a19e@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > In article <cognac756-BF10E1.19563916042008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > cognac756@gmail.com says... > > In article <MPG.226f97767f92a02b98a198@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > They are fruitcakes, but they're demanding the right to set profits and > > > > salaries. The only way you can do that is if you've nationalized > > > > (stolen) the company. > > > > > > > Why don't you give us a URL for that, Ace, or are you just pulling facts > > > out of your ass again? > > > > > > "But in Washington, the earnings were seen as outsized. Sen. Charles E. > > Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, issued a > > statement saying, "Congratulations to ExxonMobil and Chevron -- for > > reminding Americans why they cringe every time they pull into a gas > > station and for reminding Washington why it needs to act swiftly to > > break our dependence on foreign oil and roll back unnecessary tax > > incentives for oil companies." > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020 > > 100714.html > > > Hmmm, smellin a snow job here, let's take them one by one. So you think > rolling back unnecessary tax incentives equates to "demanding the right to > set profits and salaries." I don't think soooo! You yourself said the "only" > way to set profits and salaries is to nationalize the oil industry. You're > parroting hate-talk radio and you sound like an idiot. What tax incentives, dummy? Exxon paid over $30 billion in US taxes last year. That's about a 41% rate. If the "tax incentives" are removed, does that mean that your government can then take 75%? What Democrats and socialists abhor is when the horse wins the race, even though they've hitched a giant railroad car filled with 100 tons of concrete to his back. The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the federal government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 tank of gas. -- NeoLibertarian http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg Quote
Guest Hothead McCain Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 In article <cognac756-943B0F.15283218042008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, cognac756@gmail.com says... > In article <MPG.22704d1f79c7ab9198a19e@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > > > In article <cognac756-BF10E1.19563916042008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > > cognac756@gmail.com says... > > > In article <MPG.226f97767f92a02b98a198@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > > > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > They are fruitcakes, but they're demanding the right to set profits and > > > > > salaries. The only way you can do that is if you've nationalized > > > > > (stolen) the company. > > > > > > > > > Why don't you give us a URL for that, Ace, or are you just pulling facts > > > > out of your ass again? > > > > > > > > > "But in Washington, the earnings were seen as outsized. Sen. Charles E. > > > Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, issued a > > > statement saying, "Congratulations to ExxonMobil and Chevron -- for > > > reminding Americans why they cringe every time they pull into a gas > > > station and for reminding Washington why it needs to act swiftly to > > > break our dependence on foreign oil and roll back unnecessary tax > > > incentives for oil companies." > > > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020 > > > 100714.html > > > > > Hmmm, smellin a snow job here, let's take them one by one. So you think > > rolling back unnecessary tax incentives equates to "demanding the right to > > set profits and salaries." I don't think soooo! You yourself said the "only" > > way to set profits and salaries is to nationalize the oil industry. You're > > parroting hate-talk radio and you sound like an idiot. > > What tax incentives, dummy? Exxon paid over $30 billion in US taxes last > year. That's about a 41% rate. > > If the "tax incentives" are removed, does that mean that your government > can then take 75%? > > What Democrats and socialists abhor is when the horse wins the race, > even though they've hitched a giant railroad car filled with 100 tons of > concrete to his back. > > The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the federal > government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 tank > of gas. > > I don't have anything against capitalism. It's a crappy system, but it's the best one available. I don't approve of corporate fascists, like you, however. What we need to do is quit basing US foreign policy on what's good for the fucking oil companies. All we ever had to do was BUY the oil from the Middle East. It's only the oil companies and defense contractors that have benefited from the "war" in Iraq. Hey dip, wouldn't the oil executives deny getting tax incentives if they in fact didn't get any: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120706846931380699.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Quote
Guest Neolibertarian Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 In article <MPG.2272f4973fc7b0e798a1b1@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > > > > The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the federal > > government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 tank > > of gas. > > > > > I don't have anything against capitalism. It's a crappy system, but it's > the best one available. Capitalism isn't a "crappy" system. It's the only system that is what you make of it. If it's "crappy," you only have yourself to blame. > I don't approve of corporate fascists, like you, > however. Son, you don't have the foggiest notion of "fascism." I'm not Albert Speer. To you, fascism's just a word--a word full of magic. Like Stalin, you use the word "fascist" to describe all of your enemies. You should make sure that, like Stalin, you aren't the biggest fascist of them all... > > What we need to do is quit basing US foreign policy on what's good for > the fucking oil companies. Who cares if it's good for the fuken oil companies? Why do you care? What harm have they done you that you're so petulant about their successes? Oil is second only to food in your life--and you wouldn't have enough food if it weren't for oil. You wear it on your back, you even bathe in the stuff. It powers your computer, and the thousands of computers that comprise Usenet. It gets you to where you wanna be--it keeps you warm in the winter, cool in the summer. Ergo--anyone who makes a profit from it must be the worst kind of evil. Anything that valuable is a God-given right, not a commodity; is that it? Don't worry, most of the congregation agrees with you. > All we ever had to do was BUY the oil from > the Middle East. You haven't been following this thread very closely. The United States buys little of her oil from the Middle East. If the Persian Gulf were shut down tomorrow, you'd hardly notice it here at home--at least in availability and supplies. Yet, that well-known corporate fascist, James E. Carter, seemed to believe oil company profits were important enough to establish this doctrine for the United States: "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." ---James E. Carter (January 23, 1980) http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml What does he know that you don't? > It's only the oil companies and defense contractors > that have benefited from the "war" in Iraq. Sinopec and CNCP didn't benefit from OIF. China's still trying to rectify the mess it caused her. But you're right, some oil companies benefited. Big oil isn't American anymore, and hasn't been for some time now. The big winners were Lukoil (Russia), Tatneft (Russia), MRH (Germany), Vitol (Netherlands), AvrAsya Technology Engineering (Turkey), OGI Group (Canada), Elf Aquitane (France), Shell (UK), BP (UK), Billiton (UK), Tigris Petroleum (UK), Pertamina (Indonesia), Stroitrangas (Russia), Oil and Natural Gas Corp (India). Hydrocarbon Supply, Ltd. (Texas & Czech Republic) and, of course, Exxon (US). As for the other beneficiaries of OIF, you left out the majority winner: http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Peacefinger.jpg > Hey dip, wouldn't the oil executives deny getting tax incentives if they > in fact didn't get any: > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120706846931380699.html?mod=googlenews_wsj "Imposing punitive taxes on American energy companies, which already pay record taxes, will discourage the sustained investments needed to continue safeguarding U.S. energy security." ---J.S. Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp. From your posted article which you didn't read. They're not the only ones being threatened with punitive taxes: http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/index.cfm It seems you're already paying punitive taxes--and it's only gonna get worse. Just look who's running for office this year. Global Warming/Climate Change is gonna cost you every extra penny in your pocket, and then some. And now it seems, they have to race to make these new tax laws before you discover Carbon Dioxide was never causing Global Warming--and before you discover that melting ice caps never had anything to do with a slight increase in the Global Temperature Index. And, most of all, they have to hurry up to pass their laws because there is no such thing as "Global Warming, " and Global Cooling may already be here. -- NeoLibertarian http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg Quote
Guest Hothead McCain Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 In article <cognac756-684532.07404819042008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, cognac756@gmail.com says... > In article <MPG.2272f4973fc7b0e798a1b1@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > > > > > > The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the federal > > > government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 tank > > > of gas. > > > > > > > > I don't have anything against capitalism. It's a crappy system, but it's > > the best one available. > > Capitalism isn't a "crappy" system. > > It's the only system that is what you make of it. > > If it's "crappy," you only have yourself to blame. > > > I don't approve of corporate fascists, like you, > > however. > > Son, you don't have the foggiest notion of "fascism." I'm not Albert > Speer. Ah, you're a kinder, gentler Adolph Hitler, then. Good for you. > > To you, fascism's just a word--a word full of magic. Like Stalin, you > use the word "fascist" to describe all of your enemies. > > You should make sure that, like Stalin, you aren't the biggest fascist > of them all... > > > > What we need to do is quit basing US foreign policy on what's good for > > the fucking oil companies. > > Who cares if it's good for the fuken oil companies? Why do you care? > What harm have they done you that you're so petulant about their > successes? > I'm tired of the US wasting all my tax money to kill Iraqi's. The ONLY reason we're there is to help oil companies and defense contractors. No one else benefits. The Middle East would sell the oil anyway, it's their only export of any consequence. Then we have Exxon funding junk science to deny global warming just so it can make more money. What a worthless bunch of criminals. > > Oil is second only to food in your life--and you wouldn't have enough > food if it weren't for oil. > > You wear it on your back, you even bathe in the stuff. It powers your > computer, and the thousands of computers that comprise Usenet. It gets > you to where you wanna be--it keeps you warm in the winter, cool in the > summer. > > Ergo--anyone who makes a profit from it must be the worst kind of evil. > Nice straw man argument > Anything that valuable is a God-given right, not a commodity; is that > it? > > Don't worry, most of the congregation agrees with you. > > > All we ever had to do was BUY the oil from > > the Middle East. > > You haven't been following this thread very closely. The United States > buys little of her oil from the Middle East. If the Persian Gulf were > shut down tomorrow, you'd hardly notice it here at home--at least in > availability and supplies. Oil is a world market, dumbass. This just proves how ignorant you are. Don't you think someone would say, "Hey, we can get three times more for our oil in Europe. What are we selling it here for??" Good God you are a dumb fuck!! > > Yet, that well-known corporate fascist, James E. Carter, seemed to > believe oil company profits were important enough to establish this > doctrine for the United States: > > "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force > to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an > assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such > an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military > force." > ---James E. Carter (January 23, 1980) > > http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml > > What does he know that you don't? > Little did he know we would be the ones to attack the Middle East. His doctrine at least makes sense. What if Russia or China were dumb enough (like you and Bush) to attack the Middle East and steal their oil? That's not the same as condoning us doing it. You really are retarded. > > > It's only the oil companies and defense contractors > > that have benefited from the "war" in Iraq. > > Sinopec and CNCP didn't benefit from OIF. China's still trying to > rectify the mess it caused her. > > But you're right, some oil companies benefited. Big oil isn't American > anymore, and hasn't been for some time now. > > The big winners were Lukoil (Russia), Tatneft (Russia), MRH (Germany), > Vitol (Netherlands), AvrAsya Technology Engineering (Turkey), OGI Group > (Canada), Elf Aquitane (France), Shell (UK), BP (UK), Billiton (UK), > Tigris Petroleum (UK), Pertamina (Indonesia), Stroitrangas (Russia), Oil > and Natural Gas Corp (India). Hydrocarbon Supply, Ltd. (Texas & Czech > Republic) and, of course, Exxon (US). > > As for the other beneficiaries of OIF, you left out the majority winner: > > http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Peacefinger.jpg > > > Hey dip, wouldn't the oil executives deny getting tax incentives if they > > in fact didn't get any: > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120706846931380699.html?mod=googlenews_wsj > > "Imposing punitive taxes on American energy companies, which already pay > record taxes, will discourage the sustained investments needed to > continue safeguarding U.S. energy security." > > ---J.S. Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp. > > From your posted article which you didn't read. > > They're not the only ones being threatened with punitive taxes: > > http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/index.cfm > > It seems you're already paying punitive taxes--and it's only gonna get > worse. Just look who's running for office this year. > > Global Warming/Climate Change is gonna cost you every extra penny in > your pocket, and then some. And now it seems, they have to race to make > these new tax laws before you discover Carbon Dioxide was never causing > Global Warming--and before you discover that melting ice caps never had > anything to do with a slight increase in the Global Temperature Index. > > And, most of all, they have to hurry up to pass their laws because there > is no such thing as "Global Warming, " and Global Cooling may already be > here. > > Congratulations on knowing more than working scientists in the field. How did you come to this conclusion? Quija board? Quote
Guest Neolibertarian Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 In article <MPG.227392f37f4f43f998a1b5@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > In article <cognac756-684532.07404819042008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > cognac756@gmail.com says... > > In article <MPG.2272f4973fc7b0e798a1b1@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the federal > > > > government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 tank > > > > of gas. > > > > > > > > > > > I don't have anything against capitalism. It's a crappy system, but it's > > > the best one available. > > > > Capitalism isn't a "crappy" system. > > > > It's the only system that is what you make of it. > > > > If it's "crappy," you only have yourself to blame. > > > > > I don't approve of corporate fascists, like you, > > > however. > > > > Son, you don't have the foggiest notion of "fascism." I'm not Albert > > Speer. > > Ah, you're a kinder, gentler Adolph Hitler, then. Good for you. Invoking Godwin's Law won't advance your argument, such as it is. It will only convince us that you, indeed, can't define fascism. Which, of course, you can't. > > > > To you, fascism's just a word--a word full of magic. Like Stalin, you > > use the word "fascist" to describe all of your enemies. > > > > You should make sure that, like Stalin, you aren't the biggest fascist > > of them all... > > > > > > What we need to do is quit basing US foreign policy on what's good for > > > the fucking oil companies. > > > > Who cares if it's good for the fuken oil companies? Why do you care? > > What harm have they done you that you're so petulant about their > > successes? > > > I'm tired of the US wasting all my tax money to kill Iraqi's. The US only wastes a small fraction of your money on OIF, silly. It's only a small part of the federal budget. Maybe you should look into some of these things before you blindly flail away at them and get so "tired." In fact, the actual amount wasted on Iraq has never been identified, since any meaningful figure would subtract the pre-war status quo. It turns out that before OIF, there were already 30,000 troops stationed in the Gulf region--they were there "containing" the harmless little Saddam Hussein, who, after all, only wanted to sell his oil to the world. US and UK fighter planes flew hundreds of sorties over Iraq every month--yes not much has changed. So the actual costs are still unknown. > The ONLY > reason we're there is to help oil companies and defense contractors. > No one else benefits. The Middle East would sell the oil anyway, it's > their only export of any consequence. > > Then we have Exxon funding junk science to deny global warming just so > it can make more money. What a worthless bunch of criminals. It doesn't surprise us that you can't identify the criminals, either. Nor, apparently, can you discern science from "junk" science, whatever that is. No wonder you're so angry. Unable to identify friend from foe, ignorant of even basic terms and historical context, you wildly attack anything and everything. > > Oil is second only to food in your life--and you wouldn't have enough > > food if it weren't for oil. > > > > You wear it on your back, you even bathe in the stuff. It powers your > > computer, and the thousands of computers that comprise Usenet. It gets > > you to where you wanna be--it keeps you warm in the winter, cool in the > > summer. > > > > Ergo--anyone who makes a profit from it must be the worst kind of evil. > > > Nice straw man argument Thanks. > > Anything that valuable is a God-given right, not a commodity; is that > > it? > > > > Don't worry, most of the congregation agrees with you. > > > > > All we ever had to do was BUY the oil from > > > the Middle East. > > > > You haven't been following this thread very closely. The United States > > buys little of her oil from the Middle East. If the Persian Gulf were > > shut down tomorrow, you'd hardly notice it here at home--at least in > > availability and supplies. > > Oil is a world market, dumbass. This just proves how ignorant you are. > Don't you think someone would say, "Hey, we can get three times more > for our oil in Europe. What are we selling it here for??" Good God you > are a dumb fuck!! That's not a good Straw Man Argument, but it does qualify. > > > > Yet, that well-known corporate fascist, James E. Carter, seemed to > > believe oil company profits were important enough to establish this > > doctrine for the United States: > > > > "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force > > to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an > > assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such > > an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military > > force." > > ---James E. Carter (January 23, 1980) > > > > http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml > > > > What does he know that you don't? > > > Little did he know we would be the ones to attack the Middle East. > His doctrine at least makes sense. In what way?--please elaborate. > What if Russia or China were dumb > enough (like you and Bush) to attack the Middle East and steal their > oil? Same thing that happened to Saddam Hussein, of course. But then, neither Russia nor China have the means to "attack the Middle East." Nor does the United States, which is why we only assisted in the consolidation of Afghanistan and invaded only Iraq. Any more than that, and you might have a point about having to sacrifice for the war effort. At that point you actually would be sacrificing something for it. You haven't until now, though. What if, rather than an actual attack, a loose confederation of governments and non-governmental organizations were attempting to bring the entire Middle East under a single totalitarian system? Would that constitute a serious threat? Would that trigger the Carter Doctrine? Would you want to wait to do something definitive about it--would you wait, for instance, until you DID have to literally invade the Middle East? > That's not the same as condoning us doing it. You really are > retarded. Retarded or not, it's you who doesn't seem to have a grasp of any of the facts of the matter. > > > It's only the oil companies and defense contractors > > > that have benefited from the "war" in Iraq. > > > > Sinopec and CNCP didn't benefit from OIF. China's still trying to > > rectify the mess it caused her. > > > > But you're right, some oil companies benefited. Big oil isn't American > > anymore, and hasn't been for some time now. > > > > The big winners were Lukoil (Russia), Tatneft (Russia), MRH (Germany), > > Vitol (Netherlands), AvrAsya Technology Engineering (Turkey), OGI Group > > (Canada), Elf Aquitane (France), Shell (UK), BP (UK), Billiton (UK), > > Tigris Petroleum (UK), Pertamina (Indonesia), Stroitrangas (Russia), Oil > > and Natural Gas Corp (India). Hydrocarbon Supply, Ltd. (Texas & Czech > > Republic) and, of course, Exxon (US). > > > > As for the other beneficiaries of OIF, you left out the majority winner: > > > > http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Peacefinger.jpg > > > > > Hey dip, wouldn't the oil executives deny getting tax incentives if they > > > in fact didn't get any: > > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120706846931380699.html?mod=googlenews_wsj > > > > "Imposing punitive taxes on American energy companies, which already pay > > record taxes, will discourage the sustained investments needed to > > continue safeguarding U.S. energy security." > > > > ---J.S. Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp. > > > > From your posted article which you didn't read. > > > > They're not the only ones being threatened with punitive taxes: > > > > http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/index.cfm > > > > It seems you're already paying punitive taxes--and it's only gonna get > > worse. Just look who's running for office this year. > > > > Global Warming/Climate Change is gonna cost you every extra penny in > > your pocket, and then some. And now it seems, they have to race to make > > these new tax laws before you discover Carbon Dioxide was never causing > > Global Warming--and before you discover that melting ice caps never had > > anything to do with a slight increase in the Global Temperature Index. > > > > And, most of all, they have to hurry up to pass their laws because there > > is no such thing as "Global Warming, " and Global Cooling may already be > > here. > > > > > Congratulations on knowing more than working scientists in the field. How > did you come to this conclusion? Quija board? There aren't any scientists still claiming that there's a "global warming" trend. There isn't one. The global temperature index has been completely flat for a decade now. As for Carbon Dioxide, Amen--this trace gas in our atmosphere was /never/ shown to be a primary cause for the slight rise in the global temperature index over the last century. Of course, forcing was a partial cause of the slight increase, but man's contribution to this trace gas was never thought to be more than background noise to natural temperature fluctuation, anyway. Besides, only half of the Carbon Dioxide, Amen, that man releases into the troposphere actually ends up there. "Science" can't even determine for certain what happens to the other half. In any event, you're only talking about an increase from 0.03% by volume to 0.04%, over a 250 year period, for crying out loud. IPCC isn't composed of scientists, and what they do at IPCC isn't science, anyway. A cursory reading of the protocol for the UNCCC is quite enough to determine THAT. -- NeoLibertarian http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg Quote
Guest John B. Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 On Apr 19, 8:42 am, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <MPG.2272f4973fc7b0e798a...@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote: > > > > > > The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the federal > > > government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 tank > > > of gas. > > > I don't have anything against capitalism. It's a crappy system, but it's > > the best one available. > > Capitalism isn't a "crappy" system. > > It's the only system that is what you make of it. > > If it's "crappy," you only have yourself to blame. > > > I don't approve of corporate fascists, like you, > > however. > > Son, you don't have the foggiest notion of "fascism." I'm not Albert > Speer. > > To you, fascism's just a word--a word full of magic. Like Stalin, you > use the word "fascist" to describe all of your enemies. > > You should make sure that, like Stalin, you aren't the biggest fascist > of them all... > > > > > What we need to do is quit basing US foreign policy on what's good for > > the fucking oil companies. > > Who cares if it's good for the fuken oil companies? Why do you care? > What harm have they done you that you're so petulant about their > successes? > > Oil is second only to food in your life--and you wouldn't have enough > food if it weren't for oil. > > You wear it on your back, you even bathe in the stuff. It powers your > computer, and the thousands of computers that comprise Usenet. It gets > you to where you wanna be--it keeps you warm in the winter, cool in the > summer. > > Ergo--anyone who makes a profit from it must be the worst kind of evil. > > Anything that valuable is a God-given right, not a commodity; is that > it? > > Don't worry, most of the congregation agrees with you. > > > All we ever had to do was BUY the oil from > > the Middle East. > > You haven't been following this thread very closely. The United States > buys little of her oil from the Middle East. If the Persian Gulf were > shut down tomorrow, you'd hardly notice it here at home--at least in > availability and supplies. > > Yet, that well-known corporate fascist, James E. Carter, seemed to > believe oil company profits were important enough to establish this > doctrine for the United States: > > "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force > to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an > assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such > an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military > force." > ---James E. Carter (January 23, 1980) > > http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml > > What does he know that you don't? > > > It's only the oil companies and defense contractors > > that have benefited from the "war" in Iraq. > > Sinopec and CNCP didn't benefit from OIF. China's still trying to > rectify the mess it caused her. > > But you're right, some oil companies benefited. Big oil isn't American > anymore, and hasn't been for some time now. > > The big winners were Lukoil (Russia), Tatneft (Russia), MRH (Germany), > Vitol (Netherlands), AvrAsya Technology Engineering (Turkey), OGI Group > (Canada), Elf Aquitane (France), Shell (UK), BP (UK), Billiton (UK), > Tigris Petroleum (UK), Pertamina (Indonesia), Stroitrangas (Russia), Oil > and Natural Gas Corp (India). Hydrocarbon Supply, Ltd. (Texas & Czech > Republic) and, of course, Exxon (US). > > As for the other beneficiaries of OIF, you left out the majority winner: > > http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Peacefinger.jpg > > > Hey dip, wouldn't the oil executives deny getting tax incentives if they > > in fact didn't get any: > >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120706846931380699.html?mod=googlenew... > > "Imposing punitive taxes on American energy companies, which already pay > record taxes, will discourage the sustained investments needed to > continue safeguarding U.S. energy security." > > ---J.S. Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp. > > From your posted article which you didn't read. > > They're not the only ones being threatened with punitive taxes: > > http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/index.cfm > > It seems you're already paying punitive taxes--and it's only gonna get > worse. Just look who's running for office this year. > > Global Warming/Climate Change is gonna cost you every extra penny in > your pocket, and then some. And now it seems, they have to race to make > these new tax laws before you discover Carbon Dioxide was never causing > Global Warming--and before you discover that melting ice caps never had > anything to do with a slight increase in the Global Temperature Index. > > And, most of all, they have to hurry up to pass their laws because there > is no such thing as "Global Warming, " and Global Cooling may already be > here. > > -- > NeoLibertarian > > http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg You libertarians and your sanguine views of everything from the economy to the environment really crack me up. Whether or not capitalism is a "crappy" system, it has been guilty of a litany of sins that were rectified only through government intervention, e.g., child labor, workers rights, workplace safety, air pollution, water pollution, motor vehicle safety, wildlife protection, to name a very few. Were corporations allowed to continue disdaining anything that threatened their profit margins, we might all be dead now. No such thing as global warming? That is truly idiotic. Even scientists who doubt that it's anthropogenic (and there are very few of those) acknowledge that it's happening. Quote
Guest Hothead McCain Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 In article <cognac756-18AAE6.13494819042008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, cognac756@gmail.com says... > In article <MPG.227392f37f4f43f998a1b5@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > > > In article <cognac756-684532.07404819042008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > > cognac756@gmail.com says... > > > In article <MPG.2272f4973fc7b0e798a1b1@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > > > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the federal > > > > > government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 tank > > > > > of gas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't have anything against capitalism. It's a crappy system, but it's > > > > the best one available. > > > > > > Capitalism isn't a "crappy" system. > > > > > > It's the only system that is what you make of it. > > > > > > If it's "crappy," you only have yourself to blame. > > > > > > > I don't approve of corporate fascists, like you, > > > > however. > > > > > > Son, you don't have the foggiest notion of "fascism." I'm not Albert > > > Speer. > > > > Ah, you're a kinder, gentler Adolph Hitler, then. Good for you. > > Invoking Godwin's Law won't advance your argument, such as it is. It > will only convince us that you, indeed, can't define fascism. > > Which, of course, you can't. Ten Signs of Fascism: 1. Create and/or wildly exaggerate an enemy of the people. 2. Set up a secret extra judicial justice system. 3. Set up a paramilitary force, armed thugs if you will. 4. A surveillance apparatus set up to watch the people. 5. Harass citizens groups. 6. Arbitrary detention and release. 7. Target key individuals. 8. Control the press. 9. Dissent = Treason. 10. Martial law. All looking like part of the Bush game plan. Quote
Guest Neolibertarian Posted April 21, 2008 Posted April 21, 2008 In article <MPG.227505684ee81b5898a1c2@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > In article <cognac756-18AAE6.13494819042008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > cognac756@gmail.com says... > > In article <MPG.227392f37f4f43f998a1b5@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > <cognac756-684532.07404819042008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > > > cognac756@gmail.com says... > > > > In article <MPG.2272f4973fc7b0e798a1b1@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > > > > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the > > > > > > federal > > > > > > government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 > > > > > > tank > > > > > > of gas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't have anything against capitalism. It's a crappy system, but > > > > > it's > > > > > the best one available. > > > > > > > > Capitalism isn't a "crappy" system. > > > > > > > > It's the only system that is what you make of it. > > > > > > > > If it's "crappy," you only have yourself to blame. > > > > > > > > > I don't approve of corporate fascists, like you, > > > > > however. > > > > > > > > Son, you don't have the foggiest notion of "fascism." I'm not Albert > > > > Speer. > > > > > > Ah, you're a kinder, gentler Adolph Hitler, then. Good for you. > > > > Invoking Godwin's Law won't advance your argument, such as it is. It > > will only convince us that you, indeed, can't define fascism. > > > > Which, of course, you can't. > > Ten Signs of Fascism: > > 1. Create and/or wildly exaggerate an enemy of the people. > 2. Set up a secret extra judicial justice system. > 3. Set up a paramilitary force, armed thugs if you will. > 4. A surveillance apparatus set up to watch the people. > 5. Harass citizens groups. > 6. Arbitrary detention and release. > 7. Target key individuals. > 8. Control the press. > 9. Dissent = Treason. > 10. Martial law. You're just walking father out on the plank of your own making. Nothing in your "list" is particular to fascism, dummy. This is the internet age. Your excuses don't exist anymore. -- NeoLibertarian http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg Quote
Guest Neolibertarian Posted April 21, 2008 Posted April 21, 2008 In article <30912d72-f0cb-419b-9dff-c0f29fea67dc@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 8:42 am, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <MPG.2272f4973fc7b0e798a...@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > > Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the federal > > > > government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 tank > > > > of gas. > > > > > I don't have anything against capitalism. It's a crappy system, but it's > > > the best one available. > > > > Capitalism isn't a "crappy" system. > > > > It's the only system that is what you make of it. > > > > If it's "crappy," you only have yourself to blame. > > > > > I don't approve of corporate fascists, like you, > > > however. > > > > Son, you don't have the foggiest notion of "fascism." I'm not Albert > > Speer. > > > > To you, fascism's just a word--a word full of magic. Like Stalin, you > > use the word "fascist" to describe all of your enemies. > > > > You should make sure that, like Stalin, you aren't the biggest fascist > > of them all... > > > > > > > > > What we need to do is quit basing US foreign policy on what's good for > > > the fucking oil companies. > > > > Who cares if it's good for the fuken oil companies? Why do you care? > > What harm have they done you that you're so petulant about their > > successes? > > > > Oil is second only to food in your life--and you wouldn't have enough > > food if it weren't for oil. > > > > You wear it on your back, you even bathe in the stuff. It powers your > > computer, and the thousands of computers that comprise Usenet. It gets > > you to where you wanna be--it keeps you warm in the winter, cool in the > > summer. > > > > Ergo--anyone who makes a profit from it must be the worst kind of evil. > > > > Anything that valuable is a God-given right, not a commodity; is that > > it? > > > > Don't worry, most of the congregation agrees with you. > > > > > All we ever had to do was BUY the oil from > > > the Middle East. > > > > You haven't been following this thread very closely. The United States > > buys little of her oil from the Middle East. If the Persian Gulf were > > shut down tomorrow, you'd hardly notice it here at home--at least in > > availability and supplies. > > > > Yet, that well-known corporate fascist, James E. Carter, seemed to > > believe oil company profits were important enough to establish this > > doctrine for the United States: > > > > "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force > > to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an > > assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such > > an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military > > force." > > ---James E. Carter (January 23, 1980) > > > > http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml > > > > What does he know that you don't? > > > > > It's only the oil companies and defense contractors > > > that have benefited from the "war" in Iraq. > > > > Sinopec and CNCP didn't benefit from OIF. China's still trying to > > rectify the mess it caused her. > > > > But you're right, some oil companies benefited. Big oil isn't American > > anymore, and hasn't been for some time now. > > > > The big winners were Lukoil (Russia), Tatneft (Russia), MRH (Germany), > > Vitol (Netherlands), AvrAsya Technology Engineering (Turkey), OGI Group > > (Canada), Elf Aquitane (France), Shell (UK), BP (UK), Billiton (UK), > > Tigris Petroleum (UK), Pertamina (Indonesia), Stroitrangas (Russia), Oil > > and Natural Gas Corp (India). Hydrocarbon Supply, Ltd. (Texas & Czech > > Republic) and, of course, Exxon (US). > > > > As for the other beneficiaries of OIF, you left out the majority winner: > > > > http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Peacefinger.jpg > > > > > Hey dip, wouldn't the oil executives deny getting tax incentives if they > > > in fact didn't get any: > > >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120706846931380699.html?mod=googlenew... > > > > "Imposing punitive taxes on American energy companies, which already pay > > record taxes, will discourage the sustained investments needed to > > continue safeguarding U.S. energy security." > > > > ---J.S. Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp. > > > > From your posted article which you didn't read. > > > > They're not the only ones being threatened with punitive taxes: > > > > http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/index.cfm > > > > It seems you're already paying punitive taxes--and it's only gonna get > > worse. Just look who's running for office this year. > > > > Global Warming/Climate Change is gonna cost you every extra penny in > > your pocket, and then some. And now it seems, they have to race to make > > these new tax laws before you discover Carbon Dioxide was never causing > > Global Warming--and before you discover that melting ice caps never had > > anything to do with a slight increase in the Global Temperature Index. > > > > And, most of all, they have to hurry up to pass their laws because there > > is no such thing as "Global Warming, " and Global Cooling may already be > > here. > > > > -- > > NeoLibertarian > > > > http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg > > > You libertarians and your sanguine views of everything from the > economy to the environment really crack me up. Me too. Those Libertarians are all loonies, aren't they? > Whether or not > capitalism is a "crappy" system, it has been guilty of a litany of > sins that were rectified only through government intervention, e.g., > child labor, workers rights, workplace safety, air pollution, water > pollution, motor vehicle safety, wildlife protection, to name a very > few. Most of your listed "sins" weren't/aren't sins of capitalism, per se. As to whether they were rectified or not, there's some debate still raging today over many of those issues--but you've listed too many different issues to discuss here. That they could ONLY be rectified by "government intervention" is also highly debatable. Besides, my well informed friend, capitalism isn't anarchism. Capitalism is ordered liberty. > Were corporations allowed to continue disdaining anything that > threatened their profit margins, we might all be dead now. Your hypothetical case needs elaboration. As you've written the above sentence, it makes no sense whatsoever. > > No such thing as global warming? That is truly idiotic. Yet the index of global temperatures has been flat for over a decade now. Ergo, no warming. In other words, a wave is different than a trend. > Even > scientists who doubt that it's anthropogenic (and there are very few > of those) If you can't assign a number or actual percentage, you're just guessing. An important point in discussions such as these is to differentiate between scientists, scholars and science spokesmen. You'ill find a huge disconnect between these three in regards to the "global warming debate." > acknowledge that it's happening. Happened; not "happening." It happened many, many, many, many, many times in the geologic record, as well. A wave is different than a trend. -- NeoLibertarian http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg Quote
Guest Hothead McCain Posted April 21, 2008 Posted April 21, 2008 In article <cognac756-FB5126.22221020042008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, cognac756@gmail.com says... > In article <MPG.227505684ee81b5898a1c2@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > > > In article <cognac756-18AAE6.13494819042008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > > cognac756@gmail.com says... > > > In article <MPG.227392f37f4f43f998a1b5@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > > > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In article > > > > <cognac756-684532.07404819042008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > > > > cognac756@gmail.com says... > > > > > In article <MPG.2272f4973fc7b0e798a1b1@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > > > > > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only one making "obscene" profits in this scenario is the > > > > > > > federal > > > > > > > government. But, of course, we don't count their share in our $50 > > > > > > > tank > > > > > > > of gas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't have anything against capitalism. It's a crappy system, but > > > > > > it's > > > > > > the best one available. > > > > > > > > > > Capitalism isn't a "crappy" system. > > > > > > > > > > It's the only system that is what you make of it. > > > > > > > > > > If it's "crappy," you only have yourself to blame. > > > > > > > > > > > I don't approve of corporate fascists, like you, > > > > > > however. > > > > > > > > > > Son, you don't have the foggiest notion of "fascism." I'm not Albert > > > > > Speer. > > > > > > > > Ah, you're a kinder, gentler Adolph Hitler, then. Good for you. > > > > > > Invoking Godwin's Law won't advance your argument, such as it is. It > > > will only convince us that you, indeed, can't define fascism. > > > > > > Which, of course, you can't. > > > > Ten Signs of Fascism: > > > > 1. Create and/or wildly exaggerate an enemy of the people. > > 2. Set up a secret extra judicial justice system. > > 3. Set up a paramilitary force, armed thugs if you will. > > 4. A surveillance apparatus set up to watch the people. > > 5. Harass citizens groups. > > 6. Arbitrary detention and release. > > 7. Target key individuals. > > 8. Control the press. > > 9. Dissent = Treason. > > 10. Martial law. > > You're just walking father out on the plank of your own making. > > Nothing in your "list" is particular to fascism, dummy. > > This is the internet age. Your excuses don't exist anymore. > > Earth to dork, just because you say it doesn't make it so. Keep defending the Bushies, maybe someday Dick Cheney will let you lick his boots. Quote
Guest Neolibertarian Posted April 21, 2008 Posted April 21, 2008 In article <MPG.2275b763793b0e2598a1c6@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > > > > > > Ten Signs of Fascism: > > > > > > 1. Create and/or wildly exaggerate an enemy of the people. > > > 2. Set up a secret extra judicial justice system. > > > 3. Set up a paramilitary force, armed thugs if you will. > > > 4. A surveillance apparatus set up to watch the people. > > > 5. Harass citizens groups. > > > 6. Arbitrary detention and release. > > > 7. Target key individuals. > > > 8. Control the press. > > > 9. Dissent = Treason. > > > 10. Martial law. > > > > You're just walking father out on the plank of your own making. > > > > Nothing in your "list" is particular to fascism, dummy. > > > > This is the internet age. Your excuses don't exist anymore. > > > > > Earth to dork, just because you say it doesn't make it so. 1) Leadership principle, 2) Statism; idolatry of the state, 3) Imperialism, 4) Corporatism, 5) Anti-capitalism, 6) Anti-communism. Or, from Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia: "First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state's benefit. This "total state" is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens. "A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma. "Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Carlyle, and Richard Wagner, is closely linked with fascism's rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and 'the will.'" http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/fascism Your list merely represents policies of totalitarian systems; not specifically fascist systems. -- NeoLibertarian http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg Quote
Guest Hothead McCain Posted April 21, 2008 Posted April 21, 2008 In article <cognac756-319A6F.02421721042008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, cognac756@gmail.com says... > In article <MPG.2275b763793b0e2598a1c6@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ten Signs of Fascism: > > > > > > > > 1. Create and/or wildly exaggerate an enemy of the people. > > > > 2. Set up a secret extra judicial justice system. > > > > 3. Set up a paramilitary force, armed thugs if you will. > > > > 4. A surveillance apparatus set up to watch the people. > > > > 5. Harass citizens groups. > > > > 6. Arbitrary detention and release. > > > > 7. Target key individuals. > > > > 8. Control the press. > > > > 9. Dissent = Treason. > > > > 10. Martial law. > > > > > > You're just walking father out on the plank of your own making. > > > > > > Nothing in your "list" is particular to fascism, dummy. > > > > > > This is the internet age. Your excuses don't exist anymore. > > > > > > > > Earth to dork, just because you say it doesn't make it so. > > 1) Leadership principle, 2) Statism; idolatry of the state, 3) > Imperialism, 4) Corporatism, 5) Anti-capitalism, 6) Anti-communism. > > Or, from Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia: > > "First and most important is the glorification of the state and the > total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an > organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and > the state's benefit. This "total state" is absolute in its methods and > unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens. > > "A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social > Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of > struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. > Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more > dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading > characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome > of this dogma. > > "Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the > mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected > only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the > nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part > from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Carlyle, and Richard > Wagner, is closely linked with fascism's rejection of reason and > intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and 'the will.'" > > http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/fascism > > Your list merely represents policies of totalitarian systems; not > specifically fascist systems. > > Nice addition. Thank you. Modern Republican "anti-terrorism" and phony patriotism embodies those principles so well. If there ever was a poster child for the "rejection of reason" it would be George W. Bush. Quote
Guest Neolibertarian Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 In article <MPG.22765037dbafa80998a1c8@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > In article <cognac756-319A6F.02421721042008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > cognac756@gmail.com says... > > In article <MPG.2275b763793b0e2598a1c6@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > > Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ten Signs of Fascism: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Create and/or wildly exaggerate an enemy of the people. > > > > > 2. Set up a secret extra judicial justice system. > > > > > 3. Set up a paramilitary force, armed thugs if you will. > > > > > 4. A surveillance apparatus set up to watch the people. > > > > > 5. Harass citizens groups. > > > > > 6. Arbitrary detention and release. > > > > > 7. Target key individuals. > > > > > 8. Control the press. > > > > > 9. Dissent = Treason. > > > > > 10. Martial law. > > > > > > > > You're just walking father out on the plank of your own making. > > > > > > > > Nothing in your "list" is particular to fascism, dummy. > > > > > > > > This is the internet age. Your excuses don't exist anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > Earth to dork, just because you say it doesn't make it so. > > > > 1) Leadership principle, 2) Statism; idolatry of the state, 3) > > Imperialism, 4) Corporatism, 5) Anti-capitalism, 6) Anti-communism. > > > > Or, from Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia: > > > > "First and most important is the glorification of the state and the > > total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an > > organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and > > the state's benefit. This "total state" is absolute in its methods and > > unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens. > > > > "A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social > > Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of > > struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. > > Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more > > dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading > > characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome > > of this dogma. > > > > "Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the > > mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected > > only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the > > nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part > > from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Carlyle, and Richard > > Wagner, is closely linked with fascism's rejection of reason and > > intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and 'the will.'" > > > > http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/fascism > > > > Your list merely represents policies of totalitarian systems; not > > specifically fascist systems. > > > > > Nice addition. Thank you. Np. -- NeoLibertarian http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg Quote
Guest Neolibertarian Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 In article <d61aa50d-6444-4235-b661-7f2d6312a0d3@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > As to whether they were rectified or not, there's some debate still > > raging today over many of those issues--but you've listed too many > > different issues to discuss here. > > Of course there is. But in each of these areas, we as a society are > much better off than we were 50 years ago, primarily through statutory > and regulatory intervention over the objections of business, industry > and republicans. We, as a society, are better off in measurable ways than we, as a society, were 50 years ago. This is generally true. The cause and effect haven't been established. You've listed too many cases, and you've over simplified all the issues in order to "prove" the case that bureaucracy tames capitalism; tames it so that capitalism works for society, rather than against it. This is a key issue of our time--it deserves more thought than you've given. Try one case at a time. Let's examine the issue to determine how the "problem" was or was not solved--and let's consider the alternatives. > > > > > That they could ONLY be rectified by "government intervention" is also > > highly debatable. > > I didn't say theyCOULD only be recitified by govt. I said theY WERE > only rectified by govt. There are issues appropriate to state and local governments, and some that are only appropriate for the federal government. If one doesn't attempt to distinguish between these, one might end up with a central government that is far too powerful to do any good at all. > The IPCC, the Natl. Academy of Science, the American Assn. for the > Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union and other > groups of SCIENTISTS are convinced that GHG emmisions cause GW. None > of them believe that any "global cooling" is underway. Other potential > causes, e.g., solar activity, have been discredited. IPCC is key. IPCC isn't a scientific body; it's a public policy advisory board composed of scholars who survey peer reviewed papers. Their methodology is completely and hopeless flawed. Their excuse is, of course, they aren't a scientific body, they are merely a public policy advisory board. Is it their fault that the public and other advisory boards unwisely assign weight to their ludicrous assertions? No, it most definitely is not. -- NeoLibertarian http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.