Nationalizing Oil

[poopdeckpappy]

Well, after decades of the left refusing to allow drilling and exploration for oil, they have decided to take another stand, as the one they have now is not real popular in light of the energy crisis.

It appears that just one day after Bush's Union address slamming congress for obstructionism, the left has come out with a platform of Nationalizing the oil business.

Now I thought this was interesting that this idea has come up, since I eluded to such comings in a post ( or two ) I made in the " Climate Warming Debate " thread which was quickly labeled " Conservative Hyperbole "


This also drove me to find something that was written by a good buddy of mine, after I had made similar ( as the ones in the GW debate thread )comments to him,

It's a good read.

After you read it, if it doesn't become obvious to you, I will post what the " New " ( as of the late 70's ) environmental movement is based on, though it may not be necessary

BTW; it also ruffled the feathers of a few environmental - activist/extremist we were dealing with on some public access issues a couple years ago.


Continued below

[poopdeckpappy]

True-to-the-core environmentalists are convinced that capitalism destroys nature. They are told daily that without capitalism, there would be no pollution, no alteration of the earth's surface for buildings, factories, transportation, and that humans would be living in harmony with nature. So, they do whatever they can to hamper capitalism. A self-professed environmentalist who doesn't believe this is not sticking to the ******They believe that humans in societies with a political system that is democratic and an economic system that is capitalist are unregulated. They believe that unregulated human behavior naturally results in destruction of the earth and all species (this is why they so often have such disdain for other humans). They believe that freedom and liberty are essentially the absence of necessary regulations. They believe that what humans need is a strong central command-style government that will keep their behavior in check according to a master plan, thereby providing environmentalists the authority they need to preserve those species and alter regulations at will to enact any sort of behavior modification on the public they deem necessary. They want it to be THEIR master plan. >>


In a democracy, they don't have the right to do this. In a tyrannical society, they do, but only when large numbers of their believers are in positions within the government to take control of such decisions. The movement is based on the assumption that humans have to be forced to live without destroying their environment. There are large numbers of environmental extremists in positions of power within government agencies and our three main branches of government. >>


Environmentalists can't do fascism. Fascist dictators (and there's always a dictator in a fascist society) surround themselves with like-minded individuals. They don't give a rat's pitoot about what anyone else has to say. It's a heirarchical society, where the strong man wins power, and all others are either carrying out his decisions, or are subject to his decisions. Protestors are killed, maimed, captured and exiled, or tortured to death. Even environmentalists don't much like this stuff. >>


The only other prominent tyrannical forms of government, where environmentalists can gain enough power to force their master plans on the great unwashed masses, are communism or socialism. The big lie of communism and socialism are that it's the people who get all the power, and that everything the government does is designed to give power to the erstwhile powerless. Where the lie comes in is, the individual must first surrender his/her power to the government, so the government can make decisions on behalf of the individual, and that the individual can trust the government to make decisions in his/her best interest, because a socialist or communist government is benevolent and has no intrinsic self-interest. This is where the environmental movement needs socialism or communism, and where the political left in our society is naive enough to believe the big lie. >>


The first Cold War ended with the collapse of socialism and a large part of the communist world. The big lie had manifested itself for too long, and the end was inevitable at some point (assuming the entire world did not eventually end up communist). It just so happened that the policies of the Reagan Administration, coupled with world events of the time, formed a perfect environment for the collapse (this was not simply by accident, I might add). The only political system we know, that truly gives the people the power to operate their society the way they see fit, is democracy in some form. Therefore, it's the job of communists and socialists to destroy democracies wherever they can be found. It's why the ffice:smarttags" />US is such a target for such nations as China and the former lace w:st="on">Soviet Unionlace>. When communism and socialism have to compete with other forms of government, they fail. The only way they flourish is if there is no other choice. >>


If you were a communist, or among the elites formerly in power when your model of socialism collapsed, how would you find a way to gain the money and political following you needed? You'd likely look toward what is the wealthiest cash cow organized movement that contains like-minded individuals who would embrace a communistic/socialistic form of political structure if given a chance to do so, and who would further the agenda of such a political structure. You'd also want their money. This is why the true believers in socialism and communism from the former lace w:st="on">Soviet Unionlace> and Eastern Bloc nations have embraced environmentalism. They want followers in free countries, and they want their money. >>


Elites from former socialist/communist nations are already convinced that the environmental movement is their vehicle of choice for their Trojan horse project to gain back political power, and at the same time undermine the lace w:st="on">United Stateslace> (the greatest democracy on earth). The only missing ingredient is to convince the rest of the environmental movement to take the final step from living in a democracy where they cannot get enough traction to force their desired policies on society, toward a new form of government that has the endorsement of enough of the population to institute the forcible changes needed by both the environmental movement AND the socialists who want control over the US laws. >>


What's the first order of business? Put liberal Democrats in charge. They will happily hand away sovereignty and long-term political power in exchange for temporary personal political power they can use today. The liberal Democrats already look to the UN, as well as other non-democratic nations, for validation and permission for everything from wars to gun rights, to foreign aid, to regulation and taxation of multi-national corporations. It's a very small step toward support for people like Mikhail Gorbachev to become Secretary-General of the UN, and for US laws to become subservient to UN laws under programs such as the Kyoto Protocol and the UN's International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), among others. Both of these programs would result in laws that trump US law and the Constitution of the lace w:st="on">United Stateslace>, and would have our agreement in doing so...... >>


So, who needs a nation behind them to support their political view that the lace w:st="on">United Stateslace> and its Constitution need to go the way of the buggy whip, when they've got our own environmental movement to help them?>>
>>

[Cruisingdad]

Poopy,

We do NOT need to nationalize it. What we need to do is to open up all the land to drilling for the oil companies so they can make hundreds of billions of dollars here and we get the added benefit of $.03-.04 off a gallon of gas in 15+ years.

Come on, use your good common sense. If it is good for the oil comapnies, it is good for the oil companies. They are hurting right now after all.
And who are we to keep them from making a buck?

I am surpsied you would even want to nationalize oil. Our energy plan is working great right now.

- CD

[chucklesR]

Sarcasm directed at an individual could be construed as a personal attack rather than a trying to make a salient counterpoint.
Glad I didn't do that, it's sort of unbecoming.

[poopdeckpappy]

Sorry CD, I think you're missing the point of the topic by a greater span than I'm missing the point of your sarcasm, which made no sence

[Cruisingdad]

Originally Posted by poopdeckpappy

Sorry CD, I think you're missing the point of the topic by a greater span than I'm missing the point of your sarcasm, which made no sence

It was total sarcasm and in NO way directed at Poopdeck. I hope he knows me well enough by now to know that.

This is a carry-on from another thread.

Nationalizing oil is not the answer, of course. Sorry if it was misread in any other way. I do NOT in any way EVER make personal attacks. Not my style.

- CD

[JiffyLube]

I think at the very least our government should have its own fuel processing plant, to make sure that our military and government are not held hostage by any oil company...call it national security.

[poopdeckpappy]

Originally Posted by Cruisingdad

It was total sarcasm and in NO way directed at Poopdeck. I hope he knows me well enough by now to know that.

This is a carry-on from another thread.

Nationalizing oil is not the answer, of course. Sorry if it was misread in any other way. I do NOT in any way EVER make personal attacks. Not my style.

- CD

Cool deal, I thought at first it to be sarcasm, but then I wasn't sure, however, either way I DID NOT that it as a PA as it is not your style; that I am sure of

[poopdeckpappy]

This isn't about rather not it should be nationalized or rather or not we should drill here and drill now.

This is about the relationship between Socalism, Environmentalism and the recent reaction and comments from our current Congress.

Like I said in the other thread, it isn't a political pendulum swinging, it a well place hammer & sickle that you're starting to see

[sck5]

I think you have the relationship between environmentalist and lefties all wrong.

The most knowledgable environmentalists I know are the guys I go hunting with. They know more about the habitats and animals around here and care more about protecting them than anybody else. Many are members of the NRA and could never be described as lefties in any sense of the word.