Are you scientifically literate?

[GenSeneca]

1) What is an SDC?

Self Described Conservative

2) Since I'm new to the forum, I can't verify the statement that no "SDC (whatever that is) supports subsidizing oil but not alternatives", so how do I know that that statement is not a lie?

Now that you know, feel free to quote any SDC from this forum who has said they support oil subsidies but not subsidies for alternatives and I will happily apologize for suggesting that you were lying.

But the fact is that conservatives IN CONGRESS have and do support subsidies for the oil industry while simultaneously trying to prevent subsidies for alternative energy.

So go to congress and argue with them, I'm only responsible for the things I say.

Shall I respond to you by ignoring your comments and instead respond to things other progressives have said and attribute them to you as a generalization?

It would be rude and fallacious of me to do so.

And since the conservatives on this forum are not the only conservatives around (I doubt that very many here who call themselves conservtives are actually conservatives in the first place), you can hardly say that my statement was a lie.

If it was based on SDC's here at the forum, it's either a lie or just inaccurate. If it's based on SDC's outside the forum, it has no bearing on our discussion. Those people aren't here to defend or explain themselves and I'm certainly under no obligation to defend or explain their statements.

I know you have trouble understanding that a Capitalist is not the same thing as a Conservative but they are different ideologies. There is some overlap but for the most part I agree that Conservatives in general do and say a lot of things that are contradictory and even hypocritical... Of course the same holds true for Liberal/Progressives... Libertarians, not so much, they tend to have very few examples of contradiction or hypocrisy.

Either way... You should stop thinking that anyone who opposes your Progressive agenda must be a Conservative.

 

[orogenicman]

Your claim was that some companies pay NO taxes... Exxon paid more than $78.6 BILLION in taxes in 2009. - Pg. 9 of Exxon's Earnings Report FY'09

Once again you use the word "NO", "NO regulation", "NO Taxes", do you just forget to include words like "Banking" and "Federal"? You really need to be specific when making such allegation because otherwise it's too easy to prove you wrong and I'd prefer more of a challenge.

I'll concede that I was wrong. I should have checked my sources more closely. That said, their total revenues and income for 2009 was $310,586,000,000, which is more than the revenue of most third world countries, even many second world countries, and three times larger than California's state budget was in 2009 (at 88.1 billion).

 

[orogenicman]

Corporations can vote? SWEET! Can they also run for office?

Exxon Mobil 2012!!


Would you prefer that Corporations have no Constitutional rights?

What constitutional rights do you suppose they have?

 

[GenSeneca]

Gen, most of our oil reserves do not belong to the oil companies. They belong to the American people.

Oil companies pay for the lease and they pay a per barrel fee on all oil that's extracted, that is the deal the "American People" have made with oil companies.

If you don't think the "American People" are being properly compensated, then take it up with the government you love so much, it is the one who makes the deals with oil companies.

 

[orogenicman]

Self Described Conservative


Now that you know, feel free to quote any SDC from this forum who has said they support oil subsidies but not subsidies for alternatives and I will happily apologize for suggesting that you were lying.


So go to congress and argue with them, I'm only responsible for the things I say.

Shall I respond to you by ignoring your comments and instead respond to things other progressives have said and attribute them to you as a generalization?

It would be rude and fallacious of me to do so.


If it was based on SDC's here at the forum, it's either a lie or just inaccurate. If it's based on SDC's outside the forum, it has no bearing on our discussion. Those people aren't here to defend or explain themselves and I'm certainly under no obligation to defend or explain their statements.

I know you have trouble understanding that a Capitalist is not the same thing as a Conservative but they are different ideologies. There is some overlap but for the most part I agree that Conservatives in general do and say a lot of things that are contradictory and even hypocritical... Of course the same holds true for Liberal/Progressives... Libertarians, not so much, they tend to have very few examples of contradiction or hypocrisy.

Either way... You should stop thinking that anyone who opposes your Progressive agenda must be a Conservative.

Why you took my statement personally, and somehow thought that I was referring to you or any of your SDC friends here is a big mystery. I've made it clear that I was referring to conservatives in Congress. But just so you know, I think the SDC thing is pretty lame.

 

[GenSeneca]

What constitutional rights do you suppose they have?

You tell me... You're the one who insists they have ALL the rights of an American citizen.

Either they do or they don't. If a Corporation cannot vote, then it doesn't have ALL the rights of an American citizen.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think the SDC thing is pretty lame.

Blame PLC1, he's the one that came up with it.

 

[orogenicman]

Correction, the Free Market is the only solution that does not involve using force to get things accomplished.

Through government you can use all kinds of force and get all kinds of things done... As Comrade Stalin will confirm.


In every case the government limited or excluded free market participation from those projects.

Prior to government intervention, all forms of travel originated in the free market. Prior to government intervention, all forms of power originated in the free market. Prior to government intervention, all power grids were built by the free market. Prior to government intervention, all transportation routes were built by the free market.

In every one of those cases, it was understood that government had no right to intervene and no obligation fund such projects.


Right... Government is filled with angels pure as the wind driven snow. The corporate raiders you fear can't survive in the private sector, they are all lining up to work with, and for, the government. The raiders know they can get rich quick on taxpayer money because it's poorly managed by politicians who are never be held accountable for waste, fraud, and abuse.

With end of TARP, investigations into fraud take center stage

We need a separation of economy and state for the same reason we need a separation of church and state.

The government consists of elected respresentatives of the people. If we don't like what they are doing, we kick them out. What recourse do we have with runamuk corporations? Can we elect someone to take their place? No. The government is of the people, for the people, and by the people. If you are against the government, then you are against the people. The only people who have any say in a corporation are the stockholders (and the government, which is as it should be).

 

[orogenicman]

"Your view on nationalizing oil fields and expecting oil companies to do all the work while government keeps all the profits is proof that you do not understand the law of causality."

I said nothing about nationalizing the oil fields (they are already the property of the American people), or the oil companies, for that matter. If you think I have, then by all means, quote me. Otherwise, stop misrepresenting what I have said.

 

[GenSeneca]

Gen, why is it illegal to dump toxic waste? Isn't that a government intrusion into commerce? You want government out of the free markets. You said it a number of times. If the valley of the drums can occur in a regulated market, what do you think corporations would do in an unregulated market?

From my thread about Capitalism and Free Markets:

Capitalism as a political and social doctrine is respect for individual rights. Unlike the typical perception of Capitalism as total Anarchy, Capitalism requires a strong government that is strictly limited to....Protecting individual rights.

Feel free to check out that thread if you have any other questions, comments, complaints, or concerns about Capitalism.

 

[orogenicman]

From my thread about Capitalism and Free Markets:



Feel free to check out that thread if you have any other questions, comments, complaints, or concerns about Capitalism.

The above does not answer my question:

"If the valley of the drums can occur in a regulated market, what do you think corporations would do in an unregulated market?"

 

[BigRob]

So, if the arms industry decided it was right to start a war, the government should give them that right?

No, because the Constitution clearly spells out where that power lies.

Look, our energy needs are a matter of national security. Not diversifying in this day and age, and not planning for the future is not only assinine, it jeapardizes the future of this country. Leaving our future in the hands of the free market alone is not in the best interest of this country. but I dont suppose that matters to you.

Energy access is a natural security issue, I don't dispute that, but you are not going to run a military on solar/wind power any time in the near future. You have already attacked nuclear power, but what else do you have in mind to power an aircraft carrier/nuclear submarine etc? Wind?

Am I to assume that without government, nothing would ever get done in this country? That seems to be an underlying point in your argument.

Why can't the free market develop alternative energy and make it viable? if they did, they could sell it to the military and make a killing... fact is, they are unable to do it and it is not yet practical... legislating change does not make it suddenly practical either.

 

[BigRob]

In this country in the 1950s and 1960s? No it would not have happened. Every utility in the country has received subsidies from the government.

So no utilities would not exist in the absence of government? In many cases, the largest investments in utilities are coming from the private sector, not the government.

 

[BigRob]

I'll concede that I was wrong. I should have checked my sources more closely. That said, their total revenues and income for 2009 was $310,586,000,000, which is more than the revenue of most third world countries, even many second world countries, and three times larger than California's state budget was in 2009 (at 88.1 billion).

The claim I heard, which I assume you meant to make was that Exxon paid no federal income tax in 2009... which came from a Forbes story which was later corrected.

That said, citing "revenue and income" when discussing an income tax bill would be irrelevant, since a company does not pay income tax on their "revenue", but rather their "profit." For things like sales tax that would change, but you get the idea.

 

[BigRob]

The government consists of elected respresentatives of the people. If we don't like what they are doing, we kick them out.

Much of the government is not actually elected, but rather appointed, or they are career bureaucrats.

What recourse do we have with runamuk corporations? Can we elect someone to take their place? No.

The stockholders can.

The government is of the people, for the people, and by the people. If you are against the government, then you are against the people. The only people who have any say in a corporation are the stockholders (and the government, which is as it should be).

Everyone to buys products from a corporation has a say in that corporation. If you dislike how they are conducting business, stop buying the product, and you bet there will be a change at the top when profits decline.