doctorow — 2014-08-26T10:00:29-04:00 — #1
monkeybars — 2014-08-26T10:08:00-04:00 — #2
Are we approaching peak dishonestly? It feels like there's no line anymore, doesn't it? People just say anything they want to everyone else if it can make them a few dollars. For all their money, the Koch brothers aren't worth shit.
sckinjctn — 2014-08-26T10:23:34-04:00 — #3
ROFLMAO... it's gone beyond embarrassing when people call things "Marxist" (without obviously ever having read a word of Marx) to just funny. Until, of course, I remember these asshats are serious.
Looking forward to the revolution, when they find out what Marxism really is.
kevin_harrelson — 2014-08-26T10:34:14-04:00 — #4
Anybody against Net Neutrality is obviously an ass, but what is wrong with the Keystone pipeline and coal? Sorry, but I would rather tap our natural resources than send our money buying fossil fuels from countries that hate us.
I am also greatly in favor of renewable energy, but until that day comes, domestic is better than foreign.
hmsgoose — 2014-08-26T10:40:19-04:00 — #5
Lots of links in that chain letter, but not a single one to a source. I guess if you don't have [citations] us bold and italics instead! Also, interesting use of the postscript, but I think they meant tl;dr...
andy_hilmer — 2014-08-26T11:02:14-04:00 — #6
Frankly, it's because the people in the affected communities have the democratic-republican right to say no. They also have the right to say that their democratic-republican rights should be fought for against the "million-dollars-million-votes" crowd. The "countries that hate us" generally suffer under un-/anti-democratic regimes. Should we give up our way of life to compete with captive populations in how much freedom and democracy we're willing to give up?
As far as the revenue from coal, fracking, and tar sands goes, that's not revenue for the demand-side depression we're suffering right now. It's a relative handful of jobs, at most, and the oil industry is notorious at not allowing any consumer surplus to ever slip through its fingers. An increase in production is not a gain for the rest of us.
From a strictly geopolitical point of view, the price of oil will continue trending up, so the longer we wait to tap our local resources (and also take on the cost of the toxic and climatic results compared to more traditional petroleum reserves), the better for us. We develop alternatives faster and the captive populations of despots have even more reason to demand an end to low-tax regimes and corrupt skimming. They don't have to like us, but they do deserve the motivations and rewards of a move toward democracy.
boundegar — 2014-08-26T11:05:10-04:00 — #7
Your love for the fossil fuel industry is not really germane, unless perhaps you are an employee of the Koch Brothers, which is certainly a possibility.
The thing to remember here is that the word "Marxist," like "Nazi" and "Communist," has become a mere synonym for "bad." William F. Buckley is dead, and conservatives no longer argue from philosophical principles, no matter how warped. Conservatism has devolved to a simple matter of trolling Democrats. One example among many is that they call President Obama Marxist, while the New York Stock Exchange breaks new records every month.
kevin_harrelson — 2014-08-26T11:22:12-04:00 — #8
I do not love the fossil fuel industry. I do, however, love having a job, and my car needs gasoline to get me to that job. I love sending my kids to school, and my car requires fossil fuel to get that done too. I am also typing this on a computer that runs on electricity, a large portion of which comes from fossil fuels. I also would enjoy my money staying on this continent, rather than go to countries that celebrate every time an American is killed.
If you are so against fossil fuels, please tell me that you are completely off the grid and are currently typing on a computer that is running off of solar power right now.
I do believe that we should invest a LOT more in renewable energy research (personally, I think that we should dump a lot more into the Polywell reactor, but that is another subject). However, until that happens, we are stuck with fossil fuels.
kevin_harrelson — 2014-08-26T11:28:58-04:00 — #9
The classic "not in my back yard" argument. Everybody needs to send their trash to a dump, but nobody wants to live next to one. There has to be a balance (needs of the many vs. needs of the few).
Huh? I am not suggesting giving up a way of life, just buying a resource from people more friendly to us.
More supply usually means lower prices.
You do have a point here. But this is like saving your fine china for special occasions, then 50 years later you still have never used your fine china plates. When do we decide that it is really time to tap our reserves?
And yet in most countries, the general public does not benefit the people. Usually, the profits just get taxed and the money goes to the government. Oil money just props up the local dictator. Some countries do spend oil money on helping the local population, but those countries are in the minority.
strangefriendbb — 2014-08-26T11:50:05-04:00 — #10
You know of course that the whole point of the Keystone pipeline is to bring tar sands oil from Canada to the US? Canada by definition is foreign.
andy_hilmer — 2014-08-26T11:51:02-04:00 — #11
So, yeah. Public debate and democracy are irrelevant, check. A yearlong discussion to be had on elasticities and other microeconomic issues. Check. The possibility that dirty resources might be better left in the ground... sigh. I'm just going to put forward a future vision that we aren't going to have a productive discussion and back away slowly.
Edit: Also, this is about net neutrality, so instead of hijacking the thread for a discussion that will probably be dragonned, you might want to bend back toward that as well as the issues of astroturfing and democracy.
Editoo: How exactly are we supposed to undercut the cost of production under despotism (thus driving them from the market) when we only have tar sands and fracking and ultra-deep sea resources to tap? Shouldn't the people in oil rich countries have the opportunity to see the local wealth being extracted and revolt in order to share the wealth? I mean seriously, how is our competing with the oligarchs really going to benefit democracy?
chellberty — 2014-08-26T11:56:42-04:00 — #12
alright i am out don't need to read anymore. Nothing makes me want to look into the otherside of an argument more than when someone mentions patriot.
andy_hilmer — 2014-08-26T11:58:29-04:00 — #13
They are our hat, so by definition they is "us". Though the petro-despots do seem to be invading the place.
kevin_harrelson — 2014-08-26T12:16:56-04:00 — #14
I am all for public debate on the subject. And, once again, I bet that the computer that you are typing on gets a large parts of its electricity from fossil fuels, including coal. Did you drive to work? Oil.
Yes, they ARE better left in the ground -- once we get clean energy. We need WAY more investment in research. But until that happens, we are stuck with fossil fuels -- for now.
Hey, Doctrow brought up fossil fuels -- check the article!
kevin_harrelson — 2014-08-26T12:18:56-04:00 — #15
Yes, but they are our neighbors and our allies. By and large, their citizens have not stated that they want to destroy America. Big difference.
andy_hilmer — 2014-08-26T12:19:54-04:00 — #16
Hydro, actually, and no, I don't need a car. The dream of the '90s, my friend. It's alive.
kevin_harrelson — 2014-08-26T12:23:40-04:00 — #17
Lucky you. No major dams near were I live, and thanks to the economy, I got laid off a year ago, and had to take a new job in a completely different part of town. No choice for me. My kid's school is about 30 miles away from my job -- no matter what, a drive is involved.
david_witt — 2014-08-26T12:34:04-04:00 — #18
There is no difference. The oil from both Canada and the OPEC states alike are sold on the international market. Your local gas station pays roughly the same price for each. There is no 'Friends and Neighbors' discount for Canadian oil.
Also, the only reason they are trying to build the Keystone pipeline is because western Canada has refused to let a pipeline through their lands, because they have been paying attention to the environmental damage that has been wreaked by the Canadian oil companies on the lands around Calgary, etc., and don't want their natural resources permanently wrecked for short-term private gains. With such a ringing endorsement, why would 'we' ever agree to it?
retchdog — 2014-08-26T12:34:23-04:00 — #19
The "balance" is achieved by voluntary exchange, not corruption and strong-arming. If offered enough money to offset the externalities, etc., I'm sure these towns would sell. Oh, yeah, they have a natural monopoly on their side, but it's not like anyone cares when it's the companies that benefit from those.
Why don't you stop using these moronic "common-sense" arguments about keeping the china in the cabinet (wtf?) and use either economics or principles instead? You're both capitalist or socialist (probably without realizing it) when it suits you for the moment.
andy_hilmer — 2014-08-26T12:35:35-04:00 — #20
Most Americans are in the same position as you. Personally, I think that should change. A five dollar round-trip public transit ride to work (or school), a population that's a bit more mobile and flexible in work due to a safety net, health care decoupled from employers, less reliance on housing as long-term investment opportunities, all these things are improvements that work in other, richer countries than ours.
Squeezing people and persuading them that because it's done privately, it's better? That isn't a good way to run a free society. All it's given us is stagnation and regression.
next page →